Originally Posted by steelbom;14529203
Yet those devices failed because they were too expensive
The Dell Axim X50 was released in 2005 and had similar specs to that of an iPhone that was released in 2007. It retailed for $499, which is the same price of an iPhone 2 years later. Given how flash memory advanced over time, there would have been no issues of having much larger flash if the device was released 2 years later.
This device received the red dot design award
offered low battery life
My HTC, which I can't remember the exact model, ran Windows 5. It was able to get a few day's worth of internet browsing, text messaging, and phone calls. That isn't poor battery life.
and poor screen quality
The Dell Axim X51v was released in 2005 and offered not only a larger screen then the iPhone that was released in 2007, but with a much higher DPI as well.
Furthermore, Windows Mobile 6 and 5 offered products with much higher resolutions then the iPhone. Windows Mobile 5 was also offered before the iPhone.
as well as being too heavy and clunky.
Many of these tablet PDAs, and phones, were maybe 1-5mm thicker then the iPhone that was released in 2007. They also offered PDAs that were thinner then the iPhone that was released in 2007.
A lot of them required pen input or only had resistive touch input
Arguing that most did not, as it was more efficient for their use at the time, does not neglect that there were ones developed. The technology dates back into the 70s.
it ran a slimmed down version of Windows that isn't suitable for a slate.
There were dell tablet PCs that offered a full version of windows released long before the iPad/iPhone. Dell is also a successful company.
Windows XP Tablet Edition was released in 2002. A full scaled operating system that outranked an iPhone/iPad's capabilities, even today.
Apple produced a well priced slate with a good form factor that's comfortable to hold that has long lasting battery life.
Before the introduction of the iPhone, I worked at a pet store. One of the employees at Nutrience walked around the store with a ~12 in tablet made by HP. It was comfortable to use and thin. It would also last him while he walked around the store for hours.
In the end, why continue a product for 5+ years if it was unsuccessful?
They paired it with a version of iOS designed for a larger screen size that is optimised to work very well with the hardware (helps with battery life).
The input method has very little reflection on battery life.
Also, this HP tablet was ~12in large. They also had 15+ inch tablet PCs before the iPad. They not only worked well with their hardware, but they also outperformed the iOS.
They used a good quality multi-touch IPS display
This quality mutli-touch display had as much input problems as all tablets had.
Considering the quality behind apples' IPS displays today, a sub 200 dollar TFT LCD are able to produce the adobe RGB colour spectrum just as well. Furthermore, this IPS produced very washed out blacks that were unrealistic (considering the iPhone4).
There were plenty of devices that offered flash storage at that time. Your arguments hold no weight.
And yes, it helps that they have the App Store, iTunes Store, and iBooks Store, etc.
Aside from the iTunes and iBooks, like what has been said numerous times already, the App Store was what held the iPhone in the game.
My second HTC was able to support expandable microSD cards that would put it on par, even outrank later on, the iPhone.
That's how they revolutionized the slate
You stated concepts and hardware that performed less then other devices before it's release.
they made one that everyone wanted.
Marketing of the iPhone app store, which is what Apple has done well, is why everyone wanted one.
Yes, they were the first to release a multi-touch slate. And if not, the first successful one.
Multi-touch has been around since the 80s.
Please refrain from going off-topic with wrong information please.Edited by Domino - 8/10/11 at 2:19am