[fireman15]

This story has a great narrative that fits perfectly in the good Professor’s book. The problem with great narratives is that the facts never fit perfectly into them. The first iPhone was an evolutionary product that borrowed a great deal from other devices that were previously conceived by others.

It had an improved touch screen that was a little better than other phones of its time period. But the only thing truly revolutionary about the first iPhone was Apple’s extraordinary marketing effort. This successful marketing effort led to previously unimaginable profits for electronic trinkets. The pursuit of profits altered the direction of cell phone development and research.

[Swordmaker]

It had an improved touch screen that was a little better than other phones of its time period. But the only thing truly revolutionary about the first iPhone was Apple’s extraordinary marketing effort. This successful marketing effort led to previously unimaginable profits for electronic trinkets. The pursuit of profits altered the direction of cell phone development and research.

The vast improvement in Capacitance touch over Resistance Touch allows far more accuracy on the touch screen enabling MULTITOUCH, fireman15. That was a HUGE increase in capability, not a "little better than other phones of its time period." Nice try. No banana.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

The first iPhone was an evolutionary product that borrowed a great deal from other devices that were previously conceived by others.

This is always

the story of history.

That which has been is that which will be,
And that which has been done is that which will be done.
So there is nothing new under the sun.

- Ecclesiastes

[itsahoot]

[dayglored]

> But the only thing truly revolutionary about the first iPhone was Apple’s extraordinary marketing effort. This successful marketing effort led to previously unimaginable profits for electronic trinkets. The pursuit of profits altered the direction of cell phone development and research.

You appear to have couched your comments in vaguely negative terms.

But I don't see any problem with profit motive spurring investment in R&D, and marketing driving public desires. That's Free Market Capitalism at its finest. Right?