"iPhony" (Gruber post quoting NYTimes about a future "Apple Phone") [2002]

http://daringfireball.net/2002/08/iphony

by barredo • 17 years ago

10 20 17 years ago

fromedome• 17 years ago

A classic!

My favorite part: "unless the cell phone were actually running Mac OS X, which definitely is impossible"

Technically, the iPhone does not run Mac OS X, but still -- seems like John was ruling out any flavor of OS X, which, obviously, the iPhone runs.

kevingadd• 17 years ago

Given that he said that in 2002 and the first iPhone came out in 2007, one could argue that he was right at the time. The first-gen iPhone experience (especially with the release version of the OS) was sluggish enough that one could argue that it was still close to impossible.

"Impossible" was probably a bad wprd choice, though, since technology has ways of proving us wrong. :)

lurch_mojoff• 17 years ago

Hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to poke fun of Gruber now, but back in 2002 Macs, "beefy" two-processor desktop machines, were barely running OS X. I mean, the new Mac OS X mentioned in the post was Jaguar. Do you remember the awesome speed of that bad boy?

ZachPruckowski3• 17 years ago

Yes, but that's only because 2007's iPhones literally had the processing power of 2002's computers, and they were pretty slow at running a stripped down OS X. Not to mention that OS X got significantly faster between 2002 and 2007. On the same hardware, 10.5 (what the iPhone's OS is a branch of) would be a good bit faster than the version 10.1 that was available when Gruber wrote his article.

And let's not forget that the article was written back in the days before flash-based iPods, so the only way to get storage on it was via hard-drive. I mean, we're talking back in the day before iPods had USB connectors, and 2 years before the iPod Photo

ilamont• 17 years ago

2002: "Industry analysts know nothing about Apple, and given their record in the tech industry in the last few years, it’s a wonder anyone quotes them at all."

2009: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/11/10/apple-nokia-ipho...

roc• 17 years ago

I think it's fair to note the difference between quoting analyst predictions and quoting their analysis of past financial statements.

Not that they can't also cock-up a financial analysis, but they tend to do much better at that than understanding technology or predicting product success; particularly as relates to Apple.

awa• 17 years ago

Interesting to note that he quotes a 3 year old statement from Palm CEO that went wrong and has probably forgotten his own position on the iPhone a few years before that.

runjake• 17 years ago

Keep in mind this was written in 2002, when it pretty much WAS impossible to develop the iPhone as we know it, and as Gruber describes. Phones were basic bulky creations with antenna nubs. Smartphone OSes at the time were PalmOS and a version of PocketPC with phone capabilities retrofitted on.

I don't really get the point of this submission. Is it to poke fun at Gruber's observations?

Semiapies• 17 years ago

Not to mention that when the topic is "whacked-out product ideas some people speculate Apple is making", the most reasonable assumption has been vaporware.

And yes, the most reasonable assumption has not always been borne out - Apple has released items like some wild rumors now and again. On the other hand, Google announced Gmail on an April 1st, but I hope nobody is waiting for a call-back on eir application to work at the Google moon base.

ZachPruckowski3• 17 years ago

Yes. Analysts come up with crazy ideas for products Apple is "building" all the time. Ultimately, they get like 95% accuracy, simply because they've thrown so much against the wall that they're bound to hit.

Or they mention it, and say "it's gonna come this Tuesday" every Tuesday for half a decade. They were talking about the iPhone since 2002, and it came out in 2007. They're talking about this tablet like it's coming in Jan. 2010, but they've said "next month" two or three times a year since 2005.

jawngee• 17 years ago

Oh no! A blogger was wrong! Call the press!

frankus• 17 years ago

In defense of the OP, one of Gruber's favorite pastimes is his so-called "claim chowder". This involves excerpting and/or linking to a columnist's vehement -- and, as it turns out, spectacularly wrong -- past arguments about the existence/success/profitability of (usually) an Apple product.

dannyr• 17 years ago

Reminds me of this PC Magazine piece dissing Arrington's article about a Google Phone.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2356075,00.asp

eli3• 17 years ago

Jury is still out on that one.

There's a good chance the so-called "Google Phone" is just going to be another unlocked device Google sells to developers (the third such device), not some kind of game-changing phone retail strategy.

eli3• 17 years ago

Shrug

He said the article was based on speculation... and it was based on speculation. It was a weak article. It just happened to turn out to be correct.

megaduck2• 17 years ago

Gruber's a smart guy, but he's also a completely reliable Apple apologist. If the Apple position is that there's no iPhone, then Gruber shows why the idea is stupid. If Apple suddenly reveals an iPhone, Gruber shows why it was inevitable. Look to the recent kerfuffle regarding AT&T's network for another great example.

Daring Fireball can be a fun read, but it has the same relationship to Apple that Fox News has to the Republican party.

eli3• 17 years ago

Not sure I agree there. He's an unapologetic Apple fan, but he certainly gives them criticism when they need it. See, for example, the 30 or 40 posts about App Store approval problems.

mr_eel• 17 years ago

"but he's also a completely reliable Apple apologist"

You really should read him more regularly then, since that absolutely isn’t the case. He likes Apple’s stuff, that doesn’t make him an apologist.

This was written in _2002_! At that time all the speculation was obviously bullshit.

"Look to the recent kerfuffle regarding AT&T's network for another great example."

What did everyone say when the AT&T deal was first announced? "Oh no! Their network is awful!". Two years later… still awful, except now they’re trying to blame it on the iPhone. I have an iPhone, no AT&T where I live. Never had a problem and that seems to be a consistent experience for a lot of people. Purely anecdotal, so take it with a pinch of salt.

One final note: you really shouldn’t fall into the trap of thinking that everyone who likes Apple’s stuff is some kind of apologist/fan-boy. That is a fantasy invented by journalists and wannabe critics. It’s reductive and boooooring.

megaduck2• 17 years ago

Whoah, there. I'm not criticizing Gruber for being an Apple fan. Heck, I'm an Apple fan. They make some of the best hardware and software going, period.

All I'm saying is that Gruber tends to instinctively side with Apple in any dispute, and defend them passionately. Nokia and AT&T are recent examples, but he's been this way for about a decade now, as shown by this article. Daring Fireball tends to toe the party line, and it's got to get pretty bad before he breaks ranks.

ZachPruckowski3• 17 years ago

>Look to the recent kerfuffle regarding AT&T's network for another great example.

Does anyone who isn't being paid money by AT&T actually think their network problems are because iPhones are poorly made? It nearly defies logic. The service is bad because the iPhones use crappy parts, which is also why the service sucks for non-iPhone smartphones?

"iPhony" (Gruber post quoting NYTimes about a future "Apple Phone") [2002]

Related Stories