&gt;&gt; They didn&#x27;t have the animation or feedback systems that made iOS so pleasant to use.<p>&gt; <i>Yay, glitter is the only thing that matters!</i><p>That&#x27;s not what that statement says at all. Modes of interaction need refining. Apple have been doing it for a while. When it was released, it was leaps and bounds ahead of the competition.<p>&gt;&gt; None of them even pretended to offer a real web browser - it was WAP if anything.<p>&gt;<i>Worked fine from what I remember.</i><p>Confirmation bias in full right there. WAP was&#x2F;is terrible.<p>&gt;&gt; Everything before the iPhone was qualitatively and quantitatively inferior, even if it happened to have a janky plastic touch screen.<p>&gt;<i>At least it wasn&#x27;t the capacitive junk that all of them are now.</i><p>You are probably the only individual alive that is going to argue for resistive, probably because Apple...<p>&gt;&gt; They sure as hell weren&#x27;t running slimmed down desktop operating systems with fully-featured frameworks.<p>&gt;<i>iOS is definitely not a desktop OS. Where are the files? Multi-user support? Terminal?</i><p>So the early versions of Windows&#x2F;Mac OS&#x2F;Amiga etc weren&#x27;t desktop OS&#x27;s? Now you are being ridiculous.<p>&gt;&gt; They ran whatever software your carrier deigned to offer at vastly inflated prices.<p>&gt;<i>As opposed to whatever software Apple deigns to offer at vastly inflated prices?</i><p>Really? Arguably, Apple sell software at a low price to attract users to it&#x27;s hardware!