And which among those things had not already been done at that point by the likes of Palm, Blackberry, Nokia, Motorola, et al?

Apple's major contribution is making consumer-grade technology look at once both cool and friendly, such as by putting an icon of a smiling, happy computer on the boot screen of a Macintosh. Their greatest strength is in making objects that might otherwise seem intimidating or ostentatious into something hip and approachable.

That isn't to say they don't innovate. They clearly do. But that is not where their profits come from. Those clearly derive from brand image and network effects.

What you are labeling as brand image is also dedication to usability that no mobile competitor at the time had. It's not that iPhones "seem hip" so much as they don't make you feel like a fumbling idiot when attempting complex tasks

What you call "dedication to usability" I am more apt to label "dedication to user interface". There is an important separation of meaning there.

The technology learning curve is less steep with an Apple product, but the capabilities of the device eventually hit a wall, unless you are willing to undertake the additional effort of learning to jailbreak. Competing devices have a steeper learning curve, but they go all the way up to the hardware ceiling without such a big discontinuity. Rooting or re-flashing an Android device is still a leap, but it is much less of a shock to someone who has gone to that point. In comparing Apple and Android devices, I'd say that stock Android is more capable, but Apple is more user-friendly. Carrier-crippled Android devices reduce the functionality to that of an Apple device or less, without the mitigating factor of the superior user experience.

It turns out that doing all your user hand-holding with soft, warm hands has significant market value.

>but the capabilities of the device eventually hit a wall.. >competing devices have a steeper learning curve, but they go all the way up to the hardware ceiling..

The problem with this line of thinking is it ignores the needs of the vast vast majority of current consumers. Most don't ever hit that wall you insist is inevitable. The ability to hit the hardware ceiling, via the investment of a steep learning curve is not attractive or necessary for most people. You are not a model consumer.

I disagree with the claim that you need to jailbreak an iPhone in order to break past some capability wall. This was true in 2007 before the app store, and maybe parts of 08 and 09 before the multi-tasking and notification API's were fully fleshed, but all jailbreaking gets you know is customization. Usually at the price of reliability. (I used to be a big fan of jailbreaking a few years back).

So if I wanted to install Chrome or Firefox, with uBlock Origin to block ads, how hard would it be for me to do that on iOS?

That seems like a relatively simple and common thing to do for an Internet-connected device. Is the hardware capable of doing that? Is the software capable of doing that? Does Apple corporate policy allow customers to do that on the devices they own?

Ok, granted, the average mobile user does not block ads. But how about moving photos off the device, or loading existing music files onto it. Can I plug in a standard USB cable and mount even a portion of the local storage of the phone as removable storage on the desktop computer?

Fair enough. And thanks to iphone all that functionality is now taken as a grant on a phone.

But none of that functionality is as important and effective as phone calls. And almost all of that is based on the foundation of The Internet.

> But none of that functionality is as important and effective as phone calls.

Wait, what? Making phone calls is almost always the least efficient last resort.

> And almost all of that is based on the foundation of The Internet.

Absolutely, but the Internet is dramatically more useful when it's always on, and always with you, and tied into sensors that help decide what you need.

BlackBerry gave us smart pagers. Microsoft gave us a microscopic desktop with all the charm and utility that implies. Neither were successful with the mass market because neither were particularly relevant to consumers.

The problem with saying iPhone was a few years ahead of its time is that iPhone defined the future. Without it we might still be divided between 10-20% of the user base with stylii and physical keyboards and WAP web browsers and the rest of us with feature phones.

"Wait, what? Making phone calls is almost always the least efficient last resort."

Right. The nuances of a voice conversation is less efficient than what? A text message with some emoji? A Facebook poke? Tagging someone? If you're going to tell me that all these apps are the communication method of choice...

"The problem with saying iPhone was a few years ahead of its time is that iPhone defined the future. Without it we might still be divided between 10-20% of the user base with stylii and physical keyboards and WAP web browsers and the rest of us with feature phones."

Eh, my phone had a HTML web browser before the iPhone was a twinkle in the eye.

>If you're going to tell me that all these apps are the communication method of choice...

I can't remember the last time I used my phone to actually make a call. In fact, in 2012 making a call was only the fifth most-used feature of the average smartphone, following after internet, social media, music, and games. I'm guessing that in 2016, with the plethora of messaging apps and the huge push by Facebook and others to drive adoption of those apps, making calls is even less of a priority for people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/9365085/...

>Eh, my phone had a HTML web browser before the iPhone was a twinkle in the eye.

I bet it was a total piece of shit though.

Stand at a platform at a train station and look at the crowd. Everyone who is not looking down is currently talking to a person, either on their phone, or there at the station. Everyone else is looking down, fiddling with their phones. Before the smartphone, the only people who did this was the rare book-reader.

The smartphone would have come to us eventually, but the iphone hastened it's arrival by more than a few years.

For me at least, the other functionality is more important than phone calls. After all, I'd never pay $1k or even close for a device that can just make phone calls, but I would pay that much for a device that can do everything else a modern smartphone can do.