Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I honestly wish Apple's competitors would follow Apple more closely so that more products could be made with better care and quality. So far it seems their interest stops being just enough to add an item to a spec sheet without any consideration for making it a better UX. I'd like to see that aspect of Apple copied as 1) it's one thing Apple can't own, and 2) we'll get better products all around.
agreed. If not follow better, at least leapfrog innovate. So far, we got smaller 'phablets' (leading to the iPad Mini), and larger phones (purportedly leading to the iPhone 6H(uge) .
It does the market good to have competent competition from at least 2 sides, as that drives innovation and customer value. This is part of the reason Apple really doesn't care about selling the _MOST_ devices... Even though it thought the competition was going to be RIMM and MS, I think Apple is really happy selling 25-30% of the mobile devices out there, and letting the MS/Android world have 50% and someone else (RIMM/now MS... maybe soon Samsung) have 20-25% , because Apple knows how to integrate value in and get the upper 25% of the spenders. To survive in a market with less profit, you have to innovate, and Apple can then be the 'copier' (or better, 'improve). This also allows the others to 'market test' new features before Apple commits a year product run on them. A Samsung or a Motorola could build one device in it's flock of 20 to have Feature X... When Apple puts a feature in, it's on a device that will sell 100M (if a phone) a year. Best be sure the market is ready for it before introducing it.
OTOH... I truly think that the Apple _MODEL_ of delivering personal mobile devices is something only a few can deliver [Google, MS, and ???], and almost all have failed, due to the compromises it brings to the rest of their revenue model. ITMS/iTunes/FW iPod connections, deals with content providers, getting carriers to become 'dumb pipes' instead of 'customers for handsets', _owning_ security of the device, which now is starting to pave the way to being able to provide 'identity services' which can then lead to mobile payment solutions, e-signatures that are at least 2 factor (fingerprint and device, tied to a valid credit card [itself a reasonable factor, assuming credit card companies are doing some sort of due diligence]), application security, retail services, integration with an desktop OS, etc, etc, etc. This is not about 'creeping featureism' but a well written fugue that builds upon itself when at times you think, 'this is crazy, discordant stuff'.
That's the true innovation here... not designing stand alone features ('let's put a fingerprint scanner in... what's it tied to... err, well,... the phone... sort of)(Sapphire... yeah, jewelry, bling, that will sell)(64bit.... now we can build out a 8GB RAM phone... oh... you mean it will be a battery hog? And not much faster, because none of the apps are 64bit?), but designing to a plan less about hitting profit numbers, but hitting capability numbers.
Part of skating to where the puck will be is to have a play called that says where you want the puck to be in the first place [other than in the goal... that's SuperMite strategy... get puck, skate, shoot], and the discipline to stick to the play, and the wherewithal to do the talent drafting, drills and skills development BEFORE you step out on the ice (LiquidMetal, PA Semi, Authentech, GT Advanced...)