Are they right, /g/?
http://time.com/4309573/most-influential-gadgets/
http://www.macrumors.com/2016/05/03/time-iphone-most-influential-gadget/
>>54363583
what dicks
the most influential is the X86 processor.
>>54363583
Sure why not.
>>54363583
they're losing sales man and share value, gotta rev up those shill dollars
>>54363604
That's a platform, not something to be influenced by. it's directly used, and nothing noteworthy haso spawned as a result of its influence.
as much as I hate to say it, it probably is the iPhone as far as technology over the last 5-10 years goes
I think TIME kind of forgot about things that were actually influential like, you know, the printing press.
maybe of recent years
of all time might be the portable timepiece
>>54363583
I don't agree - their phone was evolutionary, not revolutionary.
>>54363655
Key word here being GADGET
>>54363677
Not sure I'd really consider the printing press a gadget. Then again I probably wouldn't consider an electric piano a gadget either.
>>54363583
I had a bunch of smartphones before iPhone
Apple only made them popular and common.
>>54363795
>only
>>54363583
The most influential were the wheel, the telescope or the steam engine. Not some overpriced shitty device.
>>54363583
Absolutely and influental does not mean good anyway (i.e. Quaran or Hitler) though I do think iPhone was legitimately good.
Some people get pissed at TIME's person of the year though it's not supposed to be the best person of that year (see 2006). Same thing here.
>>54363920
Nokia made them popular way before, Symbian S60 and better was really common before the iPhone
>>54364053
wasn't mot most influential person one time?
Phone was more influential than iPhone.
>>54363583
>10 is a vibrator
Top kek.
Y-Yeah... It sure was influential...
Of course that piece of shit is the most influential. Normies are fucking retarded.
>>54365710
>muh vidya
>>54363583
emphasis on 'gadget'.
If it said greatest technological achievement then this would be something to get angry about.
The iphone made touchscreens, all-in-ones, app downloading, multiprocessor devices cool, it made less than 24 hour battery life okay, it made sitting on the bus in silence when with friends okay, it made anal sex the norm. I mean, it did a lot of things for our society.
But seriously, as a gadget, gadgets have only existed for the last 25 or so years, they're small relatively useful items, we are not talking laptops or desktop technology.
So yes, probably is the most influential gadget out there
But gadgets serve little purpose.
They put a vibrator in the list. A vibrator.
TIME never can get anything right, why would they get this right?
>>54363583
It seems pretty right. They took the next step in smartphone development, and revolutionised how people used phones.
>inb4 "hurrr durr there other touchscreen phones around"
they were all shit and you know it.
>>54366283
>they were all shit and you know it.
The first iPhone was shit and you know it
Nokia was first to out truly powerful computers in MILLIONS of pockets.
HOW DO AMERICANS GET AWAY WITH THIS AMOUNT OF REVISIONISM?????
THE ORIGINAL IPHONE WAS SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!
THWE NOKIA N95NOUTSOLD IT 500000 TO 1
http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_n95-reviews-1716.php
>>54364517
yes, because 1 in 3 people had one, worldwide, right?
apple, despite it's many flaws, has always been excellent at marketing. they made non business people realize that there was a legitimate reason to carry a computer in their pocket. That doesn't mean that it is the best, just that it changed people's perspective entirely.
>>54366482
>yes, because 1 in 3 people had one, worldwide, right?
Symbian had 50%+ of the market until 2011
>>54366456
desu the N95 was a monster, way ahead of it's time and probably the finest phone of the decade
>>54365789
iPhone ?= butt stuff
>>54366398
>The first iPhone was shit and you know it
But a far better grade of shit compared to what was available.
Before the iPhone most "smart" phones mimicked the Blackberry. That didn't last past 2007. Samsung admitted as much.
>>54366456
>Nokia was first to out truly powerful computers in MILLIONS of pockets.
And today? In the long grass with Amiga and Atari.
>>54367005
>But a far better grade of shit compared to what was available.
It wasn't, Blackberry's, and any Nokia was much better
The first iPhone couldn't even do MMS, even the shittiest Nokia dumbphone could in 2005
>Before the iPhone most "smart" phones mimicked the Blackberry
Great way to ignore all the Nokia's and all the Sony's back then
>Samsung admitted as much
Samsung never did shit back then, it wasn't even a major phone manufacturer
>>54367019
Nokia's phone run lasted more than a decade, and it would still be fine if it wasn't due to Microsoft destroying the company to buy it
>In the long grass with Amiga and Atari.
It isn't, Nokia is the biggest telecom manufacturer, specially after they bought Alcatel-Lucent
Bullshit. The microwave, television, or radio. Maybe the camera. In a broader sense, even the potter's wheel or the loom is a gadget.
This myopic view of what a gadget is, and what's influential is ridiculous. The iPhone hasn't even been around long enough to be truly influential.
>>54363583
>http://time.com/4309573/most-influential-gadgets/
>Google glass
>influential
Literally a few hundred people on the planet actually saw that thing before it was declared a failed product.
>Oculus
>influential
Just came out, again only a small niche of individuals will get to see it. VR is basically pure hype at this point and nothing else. It has next to zero influence in the daily life of people.
Yeah, nah, the Time editors are total morons who have no idea about what they are doing.
They say, instead of rating technologies, they chose to rate how technological inventions have crept into consumers' houses, so basically they decided to call influential not the actual scientific and engineering discoveries and inventions which made those "gadgets" possible, but the commercial products which are made based on them. It's like the Edison light bulb being called an influential gadget. Or the 19th century monocle. Just trifling shit that was influential only because of that time's fads and fashion.
Completely ignoring truly impactful appliances, like: the fridge, the washing machine, the toilet, the printing press, home electricity and the lightbulb, the radio and the tv, the audio recorder, the photo camera (a huge history until it became the photo camera of today), the computer, etc etc.
Instead they rate weirdo gadgets like the Segway or the Google glass. Which are literal pieces of niche crap that very people ever bought and never influenced anything.
>>54367420
maybe they're going by how influential they were to the media, rather than the public
