For one thing, the first iPhone model wasn't missing that many elementary functions. GPS and 3G were obvious ones, and both were remedied quickly in subsequent models.

For another, the competitors were also all missing at least one vital elementary function: Internet support that didn't suck.

So I don't think there are a lot of comparisons to be drawn between a yet-to-be-released VR platform that, ultimately, nobody is really asking for, and a phone that almost everybody who wasn't named Steve Ballmer, Mike Lazaridis, or Ned Ludd desperately wanted.

(Admittedly I said the same thing about the watch -- who in the world wants a watch? -- and that was way off-base given how much demand there turned out to be.)

The iPhone's a pretty crappy apples:apples example, because a huge part of its functionality was outside Apple's control -- a usable cellular data plan.

And, from memory, only came about because Apple was Apple and could say "We don't care that you're AT&T. Create this plan for us or your customers won't be able to get an iPhone."

And it probably worked because it wasn’t even AT&T at that point. It was Cingular before AT&T bought them.

It was missing 3rd party apps of any form, copy/paste, video recording, any sort of office suite, email IIRC had no push support at all. Palm/Windows Mobile/Blackberry devices of the time could do a lot more.

> Palm/Windows Mobile/Blackberry devices of the time could do a lot more.

Blackberry for email, Windows Mobile for doorstops, and Palm for 'jack-of-all-trades, master of none'. None of them got mobile web right, none of them had iTunes, and none of them had Steve Jobs hyping them.

> not sure what you mean by "people seem to forget this every time"

People seem to forget that this wasn't ever intended to be the mass market consumer version of the tech.

They've been iterating internally on a consumer version for years now, and they'll keep at it until they have something for the mass market that they think is worth shipping.