I’ve been thinking for awhile about what it is that the iPhone clones are lacking that makes them look like sad, cheap knockoffs, and ultimately doom to failure. Design is not about how it looks; it’s about how it works. Mimicking the shell casing of the iPhone is a very small part of the design, and brings the device no closer to appealing to those on the fence over the iPhone, much less making it an “iPhone killer.”
You can group the iPhone knockoffs into a few categories, starting with the obvious Chinese ripoffs from companies like Meizu, who, despite their repeated claims that they finalized their M8 design a whole four days before WWDC 07, then subsequently had to change their designs to make it less similar, keeps re-revising their final design to bring it as close to the iPhone as possible. In some places they use the exact PNG images from the iPhone firmware. My gripe isn’t just that they are shamelessly ripping off the design (they are), or that they aren’t even doing a very clean and polished job of it (they aren’t), but that even if they 100% copied the look and feel, it still isn’t the same thing. These phones are not really taken seriously by anyone because of how loudly they scream “ripoff.”
The other group isn’t so much accurately described as knockoffs, as “poorly inspired.” These are the phones from Samsung, LG, and probably everyone else soon, that are advertised as “iPhone killers.” This is just not going to happen. While they don’t directly rip any actual images from iPhone OS X, they are very clearly based on them and poorly imitated. They try, as superficially as possible, to make their phone look like an iPhone on the outer surface, what looks good in ad copy without backing it up with user experience. The LG Voyager, for example, was boasted as having an iPhone-esque home screen, which turned out to actually be an application running on top of the real home screen. These companies are not trying to re-engineer their hardware because the iPhone has raised the bar. They are putting new curtains and lighting fixtures in a rotten old house and calling it a new house.
While they stay busy trying to produce a phone that, side by side with an iPhone in a print ad may look similar if you squint really hard, they are missing all the stuff below the surface. The multi-touch screen is a big one here. Simply having a stylus-free touch screen isn’t enough. When the first multi-touch interface was demoed at NYU even I could tell this was going to be huge. Multi-touch means a hell of a lot more than just being able to pinch zoom pictures. It allows a range of dragging, flicking, and motion that is impossible with conventional pressure or electrosensitive screens. This is what makes reading web sites and email on the iPhone such a pleasure: just grab the list, flick it up, and watch it scroll.
They also completely overlook the lack of buttons or other extraneous hardware. One commenter on a forum even said he wished the iPhone 3G had a hardware switch on the side to turn off the 3G chip. Really? If we allow every pet option to become a hardware button, we would end up with a Blackberry.
And of course the big one is that the iPhone runs OS X. Mac OS X is what made me interested in Apple. It saved the company. It’s an open platform that beats the shit out Windows Mobile or any other mobile platform today. It is so because OS X is fundamentally portable, versatile, and Cocoa was already the best app development framework.
Now that the iPhone 3G is going to be available for $199, this knocked the wind out of the sails of their very last argument. If you are alright with being an AT&T customer, there really is no reason to pay money for anything other than an iPhone.