[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]This is like saying the first computer isn't a computer because it's a lot different from computers of today. A touchscreen is not necessary to turn a phone into a smartphone. In fact there are quite a few phones that look very much like what you call smartphones but aren't one.Please reread what I've written. I never once stated that Nokia had an application store. I said there were tons of application stores for symbian phones. In fact the boom of software for phones started with symbian and windows mobile/ce. Apple may have taken it to the next level but please give credit where credit is due.Have you also forgotten the success of the older windows mobile, where Qtec (now HTC) and others created smartphones that are very much like the ones today?Also the market for tablets was already there. Sure no tablet had the success of the iPad, but that doesn't mean they were failures profitabily and technologically.[/citation]
'This is like saying the first computer isn't a computer because it's a lot different from computers of today'
No it isn't. It's like saying that a SMARTPHONE isn't a computer because it's a lot different to how people have historically understood computers to be. Phones are, after all, simply computers.
What makes them labelled differently is their a) Functionality is slightly different as it their b) Form factor, exactly what makes the modern interpretation of a Smart Phone different to the old bricks.
'A touchscreen is not necessary to turn a phone into a smartphone'
Right now, every single smart phone is touch screen. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be regarded as a full smartphone. Sorry, but your statement is simply wrong.
' I never once stated that Nokia had an application store. I said there were tons of application stores for symbian phones. In fact the boom of software for phones started with symbian and windows mobile/ce'
It doesn't matter whether you did or did not claim that Nokia had an application store. The fact is they didn't, and it is the application store and accessibility of the apps which define the modern smartphone, being as it is so infinitely extensible with apps purchased off the app-store. Indeed it is the model that now even Nokia has realised it has to pursue, as have Android. If you want to talk about software in general why don't you go back to the software written for Nokia 3210, that's still software. It's also, very much like your comment, completely irrelevant. It isn't an App Store, and the App-Store is what was so brilliant.
'Apple may have taken it to the next level but please give credit where credit is due'
You should give credit where it is due. You're banging on about a brick form 'smart phone' from 2007 which is in no way comparable to the smartphone as we know it today. The original iPhone, on the other hand, is. If we're trying to give credit for making bricks, or phones which have features, then fine, go back further, but if we're trying to find the genesis which began the whole current market which is touch screen, slim form-factor, app-focused phones, there can be no other than the iPhone. And that IS what we're trying to do.
Line the phones up, visually, in line with their history. Notice how the Nokia line is abruptly interrupted with a radically different new form factor without buttons for numbers, slim profile, and how that trend continues right through to today. Even visually it's obvious to see where the big change occurred. And that's in addition to the app-store and the necessary touch-screen which happened with this model.
Regarding the QTEC phones, they weren't successful, they lacked the form factor (having, as they did, whole keyboards), they had rubbish touch screen technology which wasn't usable without a stylus (and suspect even then), they didn't have a web browser, they had no-app store, they were ridiculously slow to the point of being unusable, they were just not comparable. And that's why nobody remembers them. In other words, they had neither the form factor, app-store, or proper touch screen which set a new course for smartphones.
The market for tablets was nowhere near anything like what it was before the iPad. People who would never previously have wanted tablets now buy them, Apple created that market. If the market was already there, the iPad wouldn't have triggered a string of copy-cats who are, even today, trying desperately to get a piece of the new market. You need to learn the difference between a niche, tiny market which no suitable products, to a massive, global market which transforms what other manufacturers try to build. That is what Apple created.