gnomic says:

Macs have never been significantly advanced - just generally easier to use for the less technical savvy. They have had some good apps - photoshop, Avid, and others - that have from time to time cut out on the edge, but the PC and Amiga have had thier opportunities too.

But don’t underestimate ease-of-use and style. Target is winning share against Walmart. Cutting edge is noce, but most people will care more that it is useable. And you will quickly see web sites program to iphone limitations - which will increase use of quicktime and reduce the use of flash — exactly as Apple intends.

Besides, going with downlevel hardware gives Apple an easy upgrade cycle without having to do any significant innovation, allowing it time to focus on all the bugs that the macboys will deny it has.

As a strategy, its is effective and not unique to Apple. On the plus side, it also gives competitors opportunities to leapfrog past Apple (just like many mp4/3 players have done with iPod)

And that is a good thing.

Randy says:

I’m glad to see some non-fanboi, non-Apple hater commentary on the phone. Personally, I like all of my gadgets to be one-function devices, so I’m stymied by the iPhone. If next year I want to upgrade my MP3 player, but it’s also my phone and my wireless web device, I can’t upgrade it. I don’t understand people who *DO* want that limitation and call it functionality. I also don’t see the business case for the iPhone, which leaves me wondering how the device will do. Sure, it will be firecrackers for fanbois. But I can’t see why this 1st generation would do well outside of fanbois and gadget freaks. So seeing someone write about it who is capable of praising its strong points and honestly critiquing its weak points is good. I’m continuing my watch of how the iPhone does to see if it will hit Jobs’ target market share.

Patrick Beeson says:

The iPhone only offers a watered-down version of the Web. For example, it doesn’t allow Flash or Java applications to run on Web sites, and its JavaScript support is limited — those are all technologies in wide use on the Web, allowing sites such as Gmail, YouTube and roanoke.com to offer a variety of user-friendly features.

I think you’re being a little too critical of the iPhone’s Safari browser. Most of Apple’s recommendations make sense in terms of modern Web design.

Frames are atrocious for both accessibility and SEO. They should be avoided in the same manner as the “blink” element.

Also, any Web designer worth his/her salt should be building sites that degrade nicely. If the user doesn’t have JavaScript or Flash enabled, then it shouldn’t affect their experience.

If the site in question relies on either of those technologies to display their content then they (hopefully) understand the risk.

Lastly, why even care about the lack of Java support? I can’t recall the last time I used a Java app on the Web.

I actually browsed a few sites on the iPhone while checking it out in the local Apple store. Most came up fine, except for those that didn’t display correctly in Safari to begin with (ahem, Roanoke.com).

And just for the record: The iPhone’s browser is worlds beyond my BlackBerry’s Opera Mini browser.

Emily says:

I got a chance to play with my first iPhone yesterday. My first reaction was that it seemed a little thinner that I expected and that the screen was even nicer that it looked in the ads. Both were a pleasant surprise.

I agree that all the reported shortcomings are a disappointment, but wow!, what it does do is very impressive. I have pretty high expectations for a device like this because I have been using a Blackberry for a few years. I would miss having IM for instance. On the other hand, the browser is definitely an improvement.

I was an early adopter of the iPod and it has evolved into a pretty slick product. Of course if it had been created, it would be perfect. ;-) I’m thinking Apple will get it right eventually. I have until they open it up to other cell providers to make up my mind, but I could see replacing my aging iPod with one right now if they would lower the price a tad.

Andrew says:

What’s funny is that I had commented (offline) that I wouldn’t be surprised if the Mac fanboys said, “So what it doesn’t do Flash and Java and frames? You shouldn’t have those on your site anyway!” Patrick, I know, isn’t a fanboy, but I still had to chuckle.

And I still have to disagree. The fact is, there are a lot of sites out there that do use Flash and frames and that aren’t designed as smartly as you might like. Thus the other fact is, browsers support those technologies. Telling site designers that they should design for the iPhone instead of the other way around seems silly.

Kinda like building a car (there I go with the car analogies again) with a lousy suspension that can’t handle potholes, then saying “Well, good cities shouldn’t have potholes.” You design the browser for the Web you’ve got, not the Web you want.

Patrick Beeson says:

Thanks for giving me some street cred Andrew! I’m certainly no-fanboy, but I do love my iBook and iPod (both of them). :)

But since my expertise is Web standards, I feel I can add more to this discussion:

The fact is, there are a lot of sites out there that do use Flash and frames and that aren’t designed as smartly as you might like.

I think those sites you are referring to will just accept the loss of traffic they must already be experiencing.

The days of Web design in a vacuum — I’m taking about designing for one browser (IE) or platform (Windows) here — are done. This is now a fragmented industry that can only be tied together with adherence to Web standards, of which Apple’s Safari, iPhone or otherwise, is quite capable.

Thus the other fact is, browsers support those technologies.

Yes and no. Browser support for JavaScript is about as consistent as CSS even with the latest releases of the big three. Though I will admit not having good support for JavaScript leaves a lot of Web 2.0 startups DOA, including YouTube (oh the irony).

Telling site designers that they should design for the iPhone instead of the other way around seems silly.

How about telling designers they should design for Google instead? Because that’s pretty much what they’re doing if they’re avoiding frames and sites dependent on JavaScript or Flash that don’t degrade well.

Nobody is telling designers to design for the iPhone. They’re designing for Safari, which they should be doing anyway in addition to FireFox and IE (sadly).

And hey, it’s not like those people shelling out $500-plus for iPhones are the type of users anyone would want clicking their ads, right? :)

Patrick Beeson says:

I just did some JavaScript testing on a coworker’s iPhone. Any fears that sites won’t work because the iPhone won’t do JavaScript are null.

Every site we tried — even AJAX intensive sites — worked without a hitch. Heck, it even pulled up script.aculo.us!