News / Software
Analysts debated how to classify the first iPhone
In January 2007, ABI Research analysts argued that Apple’s newly announced iPhone did not fit their definition of a smartphone because third-party software was not openly supported.
What the report described
The debate turned on what “smartphone” meant: an open operating system and independent applications for some observers, versus a controlled platform with advanced capabilities for others. Apple’s stated concern about network and device protection was part of the account.
How to read the claim
This is a contemporary classification dispute, not a modern definition of smartphones.
The label depended on a gate
ABI Research’s objection was not that the announced iPhone lacked advanced functions. Their boundary was control over software: if independent developers could not openly add applications, the device did not meet their smartphone category. That makes the argument about governance rather than a checklist. A user might judge the same phone by what it could do on day one, while an analyst could judge it by who was allowed to extend it later.
Protection has a product cost
Apple’s stated concern for the network and the device gives the closed-platform position its own logic. Restricting additions can make support and behaviour easier to contain, but it also leaves less room for outside developers and for users with specialised needs. The announcement therefore presents a concrete trade-off: predictable control on one side, independent software choice on the other. Neither side is captured simply by counting functions in the launch presentation.
Why the disagreement was useful
The 2007 debate shows that a product category can encode expectations about power, not just technology. Calling a handset a smartphone implied a view about applications, responsibility and access to the platform. The disagreement helps a reader separate the launch device from the rules around it. It should not be retrofitted into a universal definition, because the point of the argument was precisely that capable devices could be evaluated by competing standards. The word carried a decision about platform openness, so it could not be resolved by the launch specifications alone. Independent software installation was central to ABI Research’s judgement. A buyer satisfied with the supplied applications could reasonably attach less weight to that same boundary.