Apple didn't invent the computer... they just made the 1st usable computer
Apple didn't invent the GUI... they just made the 1st usable GUI
Apple didn't invent the MP3 player... they just invented the 1st usable MP3
Apple didn't invent the Smart-Phone... they just invented the 1st usable smart phone
Apple didn't invent the tablet....
usable = best for the rest...
Yeah, Apple wasn't the first in raw technologies, but they have been the typically the first to create the best way to interface with the latest technologies. They (typically) do not introduce a new technology until they've figured out a way to make it work with minimal effort to the consumer.
This is what they do, and with Job's in control, they do it better than anyone.
Companies look like they are copying Apple because they are copying Apple. They aren't necessarily copying the basic technology that Apple is using (because that technology likely has been around for a bit...) They copy Apple's implementation of the technology, which turns out to be more important than the technology itself. Because without it, you have a crappy product.
Apple is an innovator in implementation... combining hardware and software for a final usable appliance.
I love Apple just as much as the rest guy (except for the app store censorship), but I'm not trying to argue they are great innovators. But what exactly is Google stealing from Apple here? All we know is they're making a freaking tablet.
And just because Google isn't retarded like Microsoft or a billion other companies that try and fail doesn't mean they are copying Apple. There are plenty of features in Android that iPhone doesn't have. Speech to text, google navigation, google voice integration. If I want a specific phone # to go right to voicemail between 9 and 10 pm tonight, I can have it do that. If I want them to hear a custom voicemail message, I can do that. I can have them ALWAYS go to voicemail. It even transcribes the voice mail for me. I can log online and redirect all my phone calls to my home phone or another number if i want. Can iPhone do that? Is that not innovative?
And what were a couple of the first great apps for iPhone again? Google Maps and YouTube. What would iPhone have been without those? You'd have a browser, calendar, address book, etc. Wow.
Google is a strong innovator and they offer real value to the customer. Soon they'll be integrating VoIP with Google Voice too, so Android users can almost certainly expect unlimited voice and texting via a data connection.
The only resemblance I see between Android and iPhone is that there is a central app store/market (which have been around before iPhone) and the alignment of app icons on the screen.
Could someone PLEASE tell me exactly what is copying about that?
That sounds like the strategy that the Japanese had starting in the 1960's.
They didn't innovate anything - they took other people's ideas and tweaked them.
They make products that feel very different from their competitors in both the way they're interacted with and the way they fit into one's life, and they do it very profitably, so Apple has to be innovating SOMETHING. Having a retention rate on a mass-market product of above 90% proves people find something unique in it that Apple has brought to the table. I understand that you have trouble understanding or imagining what form that innovation might take-- it's a lot harder to quantify these things once you leave the checklist-style, requirements-driven world.
Google shareholders are not going to be happy, either. Ever since the introduction of the Nexus One, GOOG shares have been down a lot. In terms of sales, the Nexus One has been a flop !! Google is not a hardware company. Why are they bothering with developing hardware products?
Google knows how to do desktop search. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that they know how to do anything else.
First off, HTC IS a hardware company. HTC made the Nexus One, not Google.
Second off, you are telling me that Google doesn't know how to do anything other than a desktop search. So you don't think Gmail is very successful, or that Google Calendar is either? What about Google Docs? Google Voice?
If open source meant success, the market share of Linux would have been more than Windows by now.
Linux is a purpose built operating system. It's not designed for consumer use. And I wouldn't call linux a complete failure because it runs over half of the web's servers.
Since the Newton, Apple has been the thought leaders in this field. It's true they had a dry spell for awhile in there between the death of the Newton and eMate and the birth of the iPhone, but Apple has a pretty long history in the space.
I think that the iPad is the birth of a whole new class of device which will eventually cover a huge range of uses both in the home and the workplace. The potential market for these devices is massive and Apple couldn't possibly cater for all the variations required, even if they wished to (which I doubt). Therefore there is plenty of scope for other device manufacturers to come to the party, and if they can come up with something half decent there is no reason why they couldn't happily flourish in such a diverse market, albeit a diverse market where Apple sets the standard.
Excellent post. There are a bunch of Tablet designs in the oven right now. Apple's first to market with a high volume model but Android will be right behind them.
Of course Androids will come out and eventually we'll see cheap iPad knockoffs with crappy screens and 10 USB ports for that EXXXXXTREME marketing touch. We should enjoy the quality while we can. The race to the bottom is coming.
Excellent post. There are a bunch of Tablet designs in the oven right now. Apple's first to market with a high volume model but Android will be right behind them.
Of course Androids will come out and eventually we'll see cheap iPad knockoffs with crappy screens and 10 USB ports for that EXXXXXTREME marketing touch. We should enjoy the quality while we can. The race to the bottom is coming.
Don't sound so gloom. There will always be a place in the market for premium products. And as long as Apple is still in the game, there will always be the iPad.
I was on the fence about waiting for v2 of the iPad - but if competition is ramping up sooner than expected, I will definitely wait a year or so to see what new hardware is being created for an Android-based device.
They make products that feel very different from their competitors in both the way they're interacted with and the way they fit into one's life, and they do it very profitably, so Apple has to be innovating SOMETHING. Having a retention rate on a mass-market product of above 90% proves people find something unique in it that Apple has brought to the table. I understand that you have trouble understanding or imagining what form that innovation might take-- it's a lot harder to quantify these things once you leave the checklist-style, requirements-driven world.
I was talking ab out the japanese. They took TVs, tweaked them and stole the market. Compact Cars. CE.
The OP is saying that this is all that Apple is doing, but I think I might disagree.
It seems to me a knock-off of any Apple product I have seen is thus far, ill-conceived. Moves like this by Google and even Microsoft's poo poo colored Zune serve only to delineate the scale of good, better and best. The GooglePad and the Zune's mere existence helps supplant any charge that Apple has monopolized any of its product categories. Therefore this can be construed as a compliment for Apple. Imitation is the best form of flattery.
I was on the fence about waiting for v2 of the iPad - but if competition is ramping up sooner than expected, I will definitely wait a year or so to see what new hardware is being created for an Android-based device.
You can wait two years and it still won't be in the same league as Apple App Store/software ecosystem.
But why focus on the hardware so much? All that hardware is bloody useless without great software behind it. It isn't just about the hardware. It's about what runs on the device and how good it is. Apple understands this better than anyone.
First off, HTC IS a hardware company. HTC made the Nexus One, not Google.
Second off, you are telling me that Google doesn't know how to do anything other than a desktop search. So you don't think Gmail is very successful, or that Google Calendar is either? What about Google Docs? Google Voice?
Google Navigation and Google Lattitude and Google Goggles and Google Voice are the real threat to the iPhone.
Comments
Apple didn't invent the computer... they just made the 1st usable computer
Apple didn't invent the GUI... they just made the 1st usable GUI
Apple didn't invent the MP3 player... they just invented the 1st usable MP3
Apple didn't invent the Smart-Phone... they just invented the 1st usable smart phone
Apple didn't invent the tablet....
usable = best for the rest...
Yeah, Apple wasn't the first in raw technologies, but they have been the typically the first to create the best way to interface with the latest technologies. They (typically) do not introduce a new technology until they've figured out a way to make it work with minimal effort to the consumer.
This is what they do, and with Job's in control, they do it better than anyone.
Companies look like they are copying Apple because they are copying Apple. They aren't necessarily copying the basic technology that Apple is using (because that technology likely has been around for a bit...) They copy Apple's implementation of the technology, which turns out to be more important than the technology itself. Because without it, you have a crappy product.
Apple is an innovator in implementation... combining hardware and software for a final usable appliance.
I love Apple just as much as the rest guy (except for the app store censorship), but I'm not trying to argue they are great innovators. But what exactly is Google stealing from Apple here? All we know is they're making a freaking tablet.
And just because Google isn't retarded like Microsoft or a billion other companies that try and fail doesn't mean they are copying Apple. There are plenty of features in Android that iPhone doesn't have. Speech to text, google navigation, google voice integration. If I want a specific phone # to go right to voicemail between 9 and 10 pm tonight, I can have it do that. If I want them to hear a custom voicemail message, I can do that. I can have them ALWAYS go to voicemail. It even transcribes the voice mail for me. I can log online and redirect all my phone calls to my home phone or another number if i want. Can iPhone do that? Is that not innovative?
And what were a couple of the first great apps for iPhone again? Google Maps and YouTube. What would iPhone have been without those? You'd have a browser, calendar, address book, etc. Wow.
Google is a strong innovator and they offer real value to the customer. Soon they'll be integrating VoIP with Google Voice too, so Android users can almost certainly expect unlimited voice and texting via a data connection.
The only resemblance I see between Android and iPhone is that there is a central app store/market (which have been around before iPhone) and the alignment of app icons on the screen.
Could someone PLEASE tell me exactly what is copying about that?
Jazz hands!
That sounds like the strategy that the Japanese had starting in the 1960's.
They didn't innovate anything - they took other people's ideas and tweaked them.
They make products that feel very different from their competitors in both the way they're interacted with and the way they fit into one's life, and they do it very profitably, so Apple has to be innovating SOMETHING. Having a retention rate on a mass-market product of above 90% proves people find something unique in it that Apple has brought to the table. I understand that you have trouble understanding or imagining what form that innovation might take-- it's a lot harder to quantify these things once you leave the checklist-style, requirements-driven world.
If Android is any indication, exponential growth is what happens.
If Google can match the processing power and 10 hour battery life, this device will take off.
Android is open source and the Android market is an open market. This all leads to higher competition, which leads to better products.
If open source meant success, the market share of Linux would have been more than Windows by now.
Google shareholders are not going to be happy, either. Ever since the introduction of the Nexus One, GOOG shares have been down a lot. In terms of sales, the Nexus One has been a flop !! Google is not a hardware company. Why are they bothering with developing hardware products?
Google knows how to do desktop search. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that they know how to do anything else.
First off, HTC IS a hardware company. HTC made the Nexus One, not Google.
Second off, you are telling me that Google doesn't know how to do anything other than a desktop search. So you don't think Gmail is very successful, or that Google Calendar is either? What about Google Docs? Google Voice?
If Android is any indication, exponential growth is what happens.
If Google can match the processing power and 10 hour battery life, this device will take off.
Android is open source and the Android market is an open market. This all leads to higher competition, which leads to better products.
It's probably best to wait until Android actually passes MS' dismal share first, if market share growth be your measure of success.
25% is a long way away, and June is just around the corner. The competition tends not to like June, for some reason.
If open source meant success, the market share of Linux would have been more than Windows by now.
Linux is a purpose built operating system. It's not designed for consumer use. And I wouldn't call linux a complete failure because it runs over half of the web's servers.
Since the Newton, Apple has been the thought leaders in this field. It's true they had a dry spell for awhile in there between the death of the Newton and eMate and the birth of the iPhone, but Apple has a pretty long history in the space.
the newton didn't die - it got steved!
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/German...73130.html?x=0
It's probably best to wait until Android actually passes MS' dismal share first, if market share growth be your measure of success.
25% is a long way away, and June is just around the corner. The competition tends not to like June, for some reason.
According to this report, there's only one smartphone OS over 25%
http://www.canalys.com/pr/2010/r2010021.html
I think that the iPad is the birth of a whole new class of device which will eventually cover a huge range of uses both in the home and the workplace. The potential market for these devices is massive and Apple couldn't possibly cater for all the variations required, even if they wished to (which I doubt). Therefore there is plenty of scope for other device manufacturers to come to the party, and if they can come up with something half decent there is no reason why they couldn't happily flourish in such a diverse market, albeit a diverse market where Apple sets the standard.
Excellent post. There are a bunch of Tablet designs in the oven right now. Apple's first to market with a high volume model but Android will be right behind them.
Of course Androids will come out and eventually we'll see cheap iPad knockoffs with crappy screens and 10 USB ports for that EXXXXXTREME marketing touch. We should enjoy the quality while we can. The race to the bottom is coming.
According to this report, there's only one smartphone OS over 25%
http://www.canalys.com/pr/2010/r2010021.html
I meant US share.
Though the touchscreen numbers are interesting . . .
Excellent post. There are a bunch of Tablet designs in the oven right now. Apple's first to market with a high volume model but Android will be right behind them.
Of course Androids will come out and eventually we'll see cheap iPad knockoffs with crappy screens and 10 USB ports for that EXXXXXTREME marketing touch. We should enjoy the quality while we can. The race to the bottom is coming.
Don't sound so gloom. There will always be a place in the market for premium products. And as long as Apple is still in the game, there will always be the iPad.
They make products that feel very different from their competitors in both the way they're interacted with and the way they fit into one's life, and they do it very profitably, so Apple has to be innovating SOMETHING. Having a retention rate on a mass-market product of above 90% proves people find something unique in it that Apple has brought to the table. I understand that you have trouble understanding or imagining what form that innovation might take-- it's a lot harder to quantify these things once you leave the checklist-style, requirements-driven world.
I was talking ab out the japanese. They took TVs, tweaked them and stole the market. Compact Cars. CE.
The OP is saying that this is all that Apple is doing, but I think I might disagree.
I was on the fence about waiting for v2 of the iPad - but if competition is ramping up sooner than expected, I will definitely wait a year or so to see what new hardware is being created for an Android-based device.
You can wait two years and it still won't be in the same league as Apple App Store/software ecosystem.
But why focus on the hardware so much? All that hardware is bloody useless without great software behind it. It isn't just about the hardware. It's about what runs on the device and how good it is. Apple understands this better than anyone.
First off, HTC IS a hardware company. HTC made the Nexus One, not Google.
Second off, you are telling me that Google doesn't know how to do anything other than a desktop search. So you don't think Gmail is very successful, or that Google Calendar is either? What about Google Docs? Google Voice?
Google Navigation and Google Lattitude and Google Goggles and Google Voice are the real threat to the iPhone.