We suggested the iPhone's critics were missing the point. You told us what you thought, and happily most of you agreed. Here's why:

Because of the interface

You are, of course, absolutely correct. I began using Macs way back when, simply because of the interface -- what kind of chip was at work or what sort of hard drive was always largely beside the point.

I fell for the Mac with OS 7.3 or 7.5 or .6.1, I forget, chiefly because it had a button on the help window that said "Huh?" And when it stepped you through the clicking needed to do something it would draw big red circles around the buttons. An OS with a sense of humor.

Macs were always better looking than most of the graphic art designed on them. It didn't matter that they crashed alot, in those days. So did Windows.

In any case, it is always a pleasure to read somebody who simply articulates something that is simply true, and which the rest of the technoworld seems oblivious of.

Alarik


The iPhone is logical and intuitive

Nick is right on the money with his article. The logic, layout, and function of the interface is where the action is. The quality of the interface is also directly proportional to the adoption rate. Example -- iPod interface is simple, intuitive, and fun -- 120 million sold. It's going to be ditto for the iPhone.

A friend and I had a chance to spend over an hour with the iPhone. Without reading the manual we easily figured out most of the functions. Most functions were logical, intuitive, and fun (echo of the iPod). Some of the interface functions were sheer brilliance. And yet other functions were a bit clumsy. Overall, we were stunned at the ease of use and the positive overall experience.

Clint Graden


Sharp's rival multi-touch system

It looks like smooth sailing for Apple's multi- touch interface, unless Sharp's new multi-touch interface is as good as Sharp says it is. We will soon find out if the Sharp's multi- touch LCD is the answer, because Nokia and the other makers of cellphones don't appear to have any other answer.

If Sharp's multi- touch can compete with or beat Apple's multi-touch, the Apple's competitors have to use it, even if Sharp charges a King's ransom. Orlando Smith

It's fun!

Nick got it right. I have an iPhone and the interface was one of the biggest reasons I bought it. Until the iPhone came out I had no desire to surf the web on my cell phone only to get a watered down version on a small screen. Plus, like Nick said, it's fun! The iPhone is the first product to combine all the features to make them really useable.

James Popham


Goddamn refreshing

So refreshing. So goddman refreshing. Nice, thoughtful, insightful article, for a change. Boy, I am sick of hearing about this feature or that feature missing, which is a deal killer. It's the interface exactly as you said. Apple will get to the Nano, better camera, more storage, 3G, HSPDA, video, etc. incrementally, in due time, and so not as to kill their iPhone by cramming it with everything, overserving 90% of the market, and destroying the user experience.

Michael Larkin


Complexity is the killer

Yes, at last somebody gets it! Apple is building a 'content management' environment for gadgets. Home networking is about making an easy-to-understand environment that your Gran can use (well, OK, your Dad then) without leafing through manuals. Complexity is the killer here and that's why content management is non-existent in most homes - as the blinking 00:00:00 on the video recorder proves.

The iPhone and the iPod and Apple's Apple TV set-top are all being migrated to share a single graphical interface that's simple to use and 'verbless'. The prize is to become the de facto standard for media management in the home and in the pocket... That's a huge prize and so far you'd have to put Apple in the lead.

Ian Scales


Different sets of users

Sometimes I just think that if phones had evolved the other way around then keypads (akin to keyboard shortcuts on a desktop) could be seen as the breakthrough. Apple came up with the mouse, the polished GUI and, as you say, the interface. But people who want to do things quickly still use keyboard shortcuts (take Opera for a spin and use the shortcuts for functions on that, perhaps you already do and I'm not giving a techie enough credit!).

Multi-touch is lots of great things but, for a perhaps small but never-the-less unmoving core of folk, shortcuts rather than graphical interaction will remain the priority. And I don't see (maybe Jobs thinks he does) how they could be dramatically improved upon for commanding applications and devices.

This is not to say that the iPhone and other Apple creations don't have their place. They do, and rightly so with the genius behind the interfaces they produce, which are both logical and satisfying. The point? We are talking about two different sets of users, or rather, users with two different modes of operation.

Ian Tompsett