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.
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.
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.