


Apple Newton vs. Apple iPhone 203
An anonymous reader writes "CNET UK has written a head-to-head piece entitled Apple Newton vs Apple iPhone. Despite the Newton being released some 10 years ago, and despite the iPhone being a phone, not a tablet, the site's editors believe the Newton is the more innovative of the two Apple products. The two devices were tied over four rounds, but in the 'Special Powers' element, where the iPhone was praised for its iPod capability, the Newton countered with its ability to play MP3s, connect to iTunes and 'its ability to work as a phone' because 'Blam! Not even the iPhone can do that.'"
10 Years? Try 16 Years! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:ok (Score:3, Informative)
I'm going to Verizon Real Soon Now, for real phone service, and getting a real GPS, so my locator service will actually work when I need it, not just 1/3 of the time. Those are the two things I really wanted out of a phone, and I'm not getting either of them now.
Re:10 Years? Try 16 Years! (Score:3, Informative)
The original Newton - the MessagePad - was released in 1993. Heck, The Steve *cancelled* Newton more than 10 years ago. Really.
That's the submitter's error. Article says the Newton was 10 years old last time they did such a comparison, against an early windows mobile device.
Re:Have to agree, from experience... (Score:2, Informative)
>
Then, in 2000, I was still using it. But I accidentally left it on a conference room table after a meeting and it disappeared. It actually got STOLEN. In the 21st century.
It apparently had an off-by-one bug.
Re:ok (Score:5, Informative)
It does support multitasking, it just doesn't support multitasking with third party apps through the official app store. The apple apps can multitask, as can third party apps on jailbroken phones.
Re:ok (Score:5, Informative)
That's the point - there's nothing special about the Iphone, apart from being one in a long line of high end phones from various companies.
There are few other phones of this decade that have so revolutionized the marketplace. Ok, before the iPhone how many other captive touchscreen phones were there? How many phones with good browsers? With a large amount of apps? With a decent UI? The success of the iPhone kicked Android development into high gear, that in turn influenced major phones on every large network save for AT&T, the success of the iPhone also gave rise to millions of clone devices, or similar devices. About the only phone that I can think of with the same impact was the Motorola Razr (and perhaps that old monochrome Nokia phone with Snake on it and those exchangeable faceplates, but I think that came out before 2000)
But for some reason, even years later, all we hear is Iphone Iphone Iphone, and never about any of the interesting developments from major players like Nokia.
Um, perhaps because there hasn't been -any- interesting developments from Nokia? I mean, aside from the N900, most of Nokia's phones have been relatively uninspired. The other major players have been uninspiring, yeah, the BlackBerry is great if you want E-mail, but it relies on the aging BlackberryOS, still lacks polish, and their last major redesign (Storm) was a failure (yeah, Storm 2 is better, but the original Storm sucked), Windows Mobile is still crap. And Android is moving ahead but still lacks the polish/apps/support of some of the other phones.
If you want a browser, get the iPhone. If you want a phone that has promise, get Android. If you need something super-reliable get a BlackBerry. If you for some odd reason need an obscure Windows Mobile app get Windows Mobile.
Re:ok (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why did it fail? (Score:3, Informative)
Well there were a few reasons:
Re:ok (Score:3, Informative)
I'm no iPhone fan, but now you're claiming Linux isn't a multitasking OS. Linux also (optionally) kills apps just because of memory needs, the infamous OOM killer.
Android also kills background apps because of memory pressure, and does a miserable job of it sometimes but that's fixable. Its also Linux.