We may something unfortunate with Apple?s software development in the future. Many years ago the 3rd-party apps weren?t robust and Apple trying to rebuild itself had to create and distribute apps that would attract users. These were/are great apps, but now we have a huge growth trend in Mac sales and Mac OS development. Does Apple need to continue making these great apps to attract users to the platform? Will it most cost effective for them to forego these cost centers and focus on generating sales in other ways? I hope they continue making great apps for their devices but the history of business is not in their favor.
Not sure if I follow this. Are you saying that Apple had to make great first party apps back when the Mac was in trouble, and now that Apple is thriving they'll have less incentive to do so?
I think the history of the business suggests that Apple values two things above all others: the quality of the user experience on their platforms, and having as much control as possible over that user experience.
Both of those trends would suggest that Apple will continue to make best-in-class applications for their platforms as a way of both driving demand and ensuring that the platform experience isn't dependent (or not entirely dependent) on third parties.
If Apple does have a problem, it's a tendency to squeeze the available opportunities for their devs by doing/controlling so much themselves, or, when they see successful third party functionality just incorporating it outright.
The thing most commentators are missing is that Apple did not invent the tablet. As with the smart phone, they entered an existing market. Unlike the smart phone, no one had made a success of it before. Creating a thing in the same form factor as the iPad will not create a viable competitor. It will create yet another flop along the lines of all the previous attempts at making a tablet that flopped.
The tablet is a mature but unsuccessful market. Failed tablets go back at least 10 years. For a serious competitor to iPod to arise, it has to address the reasons that no one wanted tablets before. Apple's model doesn't translate automatically to other vendors because their closed ecosystem approach doesn't suit the open development models others are used to. That's not to say there is no other model; a rival product to be successful needs to find a way to accomplish Apple's positives: clean user experience, high reliability – something you don't get on a warmed-over Windows or smart phone platform.
One of the key aspects of the iPod model, the notion of curated apps, can work just as well in a more open environment. A clean consistent user experience is a little harder than ensuring apps are well tested before they are certified as safe to use, but that can also be done in an open model.
I mostly agree but would like to niggle one point.
The smartphone market was not was not a mature market. Take a look back at the "smart" phones that existed prior to the iphone. They were mostly just phones with email support. All the rest of their smartness was really just marketing bullet points that went unused in real life.
That's why only geeks and critical professionals bought one of those early email-phones. Without the rest of what now constitutes a smartphone, it made no sense for the general public to spend that much money on a phone.
Anyhow, Japan didn't have it. They don't have the software chops or the creativity taught in schools to do it. What makes you think South Korea or China have it? BTW, why didn't you mention India?
I believe even my Japanese professor was deeply aware of the limitations of Japan more than you ever can.
Are you suggesting that the most powerful nation at different stages of history are always the most creative? Each nation its own time depending on the confluence of factors.
The current situation of Japan is more complex than what we can explore here. And, definitely cannot be simplified with a summary paragraph.
I touched briefly about India in another response. Do you ever hear of India being one of the new dominant economic powers affecting Western market?
But, as far as Apple is concerned, they do not have much involvement compared to the manufacture of Apple products relative to Apple's relation with Taiwan, Korea and China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenC
By the way, my family is one of those Chinese families that fled the Communists in 1939 for Taiwan. Actually, contrary to what you wrote, back then, quite a few Chinese were educated in the West, as were my parents.
Quite a number of Asians have been Western educated long before 1939. As Chinese, you should know better how much more entrenched now, the Chinese (Taiwanese, Mainland Chinese, Hongkong Chinese) are in Western research and education (especially in the US), exponentially much more significant than in the 1939 or even in the 1950s. Were there Chinese American CEOs, founders of corporartions, Secretaries or Heads of Key Government agencies, or having high positions in many universities before World War Ii? No. And, it is happening now because of the increasing presence of Asians (particularly Chinese) in all these areas at more significantly higher proportion rellative to the 1930s. I never stated that there were no Chinese or Asians before the present who were exposed to Western culture.
Plus, it is no longer just Western education, the globalization (via the internet, travel, commerce, and more) during the past few decades cannot be compare to the more isolated outlook even up to the 1960, maybe even later.
What will happen to China is anyone's guess. Predicting that China, as you seem to imply, will have the same fate as Japan is rather simplistic. Japan has been aging society I believe even during the height of its economic power. The same state that is happening in many Western (European) countries. In contrast, look at China's population dynamics. For a country with more than 1.3 billion, it will not be until the 2030s before its population start to taper. It was in a different post, but I noted the weakness of many Asian dragons to be so dependent on their econmic wealth from export to the US and other Western countries. However, unlike Japan, aside from its relative younger population and greater endogenous resources, 1.3 billion is a very large market, if properly managed by the Chinese.
There are so many things
It would be interesting to see how the one-child policy will have impact on China, and what would happen, if a cataclasmic shift will occur, just like the Westernization of Russian economy.
I am sure that you know more about China and Chinese than I do, considering your cultural background. However, I also been in contact on a daily basis with Chinese since I was quite young back home, and gained a different perspective further when I came to the US.
There are quite a few traits of Japanese and Chinese that I quite admire. But my Japanese professor was not too aversed also in discussing how the very strengths of Sino-Japanese people can be their own Achiless heel.
I wouldn't exactly use the term: "very aggressive". I would say 'aggressive'. If the iPad 2 came in at $399 for the 16GB Wi-Fi version, that would be "very aggressive".
Seeing as no one has matched Apple's $499 price, let alone beat it, I think it's fair to consider Apple's current pricing aggressive.
In that "impressive" list you left out the primary factor:
- designing a device to have a delightful user experience instead of merely containing a laundry list of features
His hypothesis is so absrud.
Let me clean with a dose of reality:
- Hype = Interest
- TV appearances = Mindshare
- Movie appearances = Mindshare
- Word of mouth = Mindshare
- Reviews = Interest or disinterest, depending on the review.
- Depend = (I have no idea what the hell he?s talking about here)
- Lack of supply = A shortage, which means lower sales than you could have had had you had supply for all those who wanted to buy one.
- Cool factor = Interest
- it's an Apple = Customer history of reliable HW and SW with great customer service compared to the competition and a knowledge that interested parties can play with the device.
Thank you for one of the most thought-provoking comments I've ever read on AI.
Not really. There are plenty of smart people. What most are (obviously) lacking are the capability and will to leave out as much as they leave in, and pay fanatical attention to detail in design, supply, manufacturing, shipping, retail distribution (both internal and through partners), sales, service, and support.
Duplicate all of that with the same excellence at all levels as Apple routinely does and you might have a chance in competing with them.
It's not going to happen with this generation of technology. Apple is too far ahead - as is abundantly obvious by the bumbling around by Apple's tablet "competitors".
The iPad is a device that will mostly eat into sales of other Apple mobile devices and some desktop sales.
Ha! People said that about the iPhone - Mac sales increased. People said that about iPad 1 - Mac sales increased even more!
Android isn't going to overtake the iPad in the tablet space for one simple reason - no free or buy-one-get-one-free since the majority of tablets are probably not going to be sold with a wireless contract.
When it comes down to a dollar for dollar competition on price, Android pales in comparison to iOS.
Don't take my word for it - let's meet back here this time next year. Android will have millions of phones, a rounding error of tablets. It's pretty obvious for those who are really objective. Without being able to compete on price, Android vendors don't stand a chance.
Comments
We may something unfortunate with Apple?s software development in the future. Many years ago the 3rd-party apps weren?t robust and Apple trying to rebuild itself had to create and distribute apps that would attract users. These were/are great apps, but now we have a huge growth trend in Mac sales and Mac OS development. Does Apple need to continue making these great apps to attract users to the platform? Will it most cost effective for them to forego these cost centers and focus on generating sales in other ways? I hope they continue making great apps for their devices but the history of business is not in their favor.
Not sure if I follow this. Are you saying that Apple had to make great first party apps back when the Mac was in trouble, and now that Apple is thriving they'll have less incentive to do so?
I think the history of the business suggests that Apple values two things above all others: the quality of the user experience on their platforms, and having as much control as possible over that user experience.
Both of those trends would suggest that Apple will continue to make best-in-class applications for their platforms as a way of both driving demand and ensuring that the platform experience isn't dependent (or not entirely dependent) on third parties.
If Apple does have a problem, it's a tendency to squeeze the available opportunities for their devs by doing/controlling so much themselves, or, when they see successful third party functionality just incorporating it outright.
The thing most commentators are missing is that Apple did not invent the tablet. As with the smart phone, they entered an existing market. Unlike the smart phone, no one had made a success of it before. Creating a thing in the same form factor as the iPad will not create a viable competitor. It will create yet another flop along the lines of all the previous attempts at making a tablet that flopped.
The tablet is a mature but unsuccessful market. Failed tablets go back at least 10 years. For a serious competitor to iPod to arise, it has to address the reasons that no one wanted tablets before. Apple's model doesn't translate automatically to other vendors because their closed ecosystem approach doesn't suit the open development models others are used to. That's not to say there is no other model; a rival product to be successful needs to find a way to accomplish Apple's positives: clean user experience, high reliability – something you don't get on a warmed-over Windows or smart phone platform.
One of the key aspects of the iPod model, the notion of curated apps, can work just as well in a more open environment. A clean consistent user experience is a little harder than ensuring apps are well tested before they are certified as safe to use, but that can also be done in an open model.
I mostly agree but would like to niggle one point.
The smartphone market was not was not a mature market. Take a look back at the "smart" phones that existed prior to the iphone. They were mostly just phones with email support. All the rest of their smartness was really just marketing bullet points that went unused in real life.
That's why only geeks and critical professionals bought one of those early email-phones. Without the rest of what now constitutes a smartphone, it made no sense for the general public to spend that much money on a phone.
Anyhow, Japan didn't have it. They don't have the software chops or the creativity taught in schools to do it. What makes you think South Korea or China have it? BTW, why didn't you mention India?
I believe even my Japanese professor was deeply aware of the limitations of Japan more than you ever can.
Are you suggesting that the most powerful nation at different stages of history are always the most creative? Each nation its own time depending on the confluence of factors.
The current situation of Japan is more complex than what we can explore here. And, definitely cannot be simplified with a summary paragraph.
I touched briefly about India in another response. Do you ever hear of India being one of the new dominant economic powers affecting Western market?
But, as far as Apple is concerned, they do not have much involvement compared to the manufacture of Apple products relative to Apple's relation with Taiwan, Korea and China.
By the way, my family is one of those Chinese families that fled the Communists in 1939 for Taiwan. Actually, contrary to what you wrote, back then, quite a few Chinese were educated in the West, as were my parents.
Quite a number of Asians have been Western educated long before 1939. As Chinese, you should know better how much more entrenched now, the Chinese (Taiwanese, Mainland Chinese, Hongkong Chinese) are in Western research and education (especially in the US), exponentially much more significant than in the 1939 or even in the 1950s. Were there Chinese American CEOs, founders of corporartions, Secretaries or Heads of Key Government agencies, or having high positions in many universities before World War Ii? No. And, it is happening now because of the increasing presence of Asians (particularly Chinese) in all these areas at more significantly higher proportion rellative to the 1930s. I never stated that there were no Chinese or Asians before the present who were exposed to Western culture.
Plus, it is no longer just Western education, the globalization (via the internet, travel, commerce, and more) during the past few decades cannot be compare to the more isolated outlook even up to the 1960, maybe even later.
What will happen to China is anyone's guess. Predicting that China, as you seem to imply, will have the same fate as Japan is rather simplistic. Japan has been aging society I believe even during the height of its economic power. The same state that is happening in many Western (European) countries. In contrast, look at China's population dynamics. For a country with more than 1.3 billion, it will not be until the 2030s before its population start to taper. It was in a different post, but I noted the weakness of many Asian dragons to be so dependent on their econmic wealth from export to the US and other Western countries. However, unlike Japan, aside from its relative younger population and greater endogenous resources, 1.3 billion is a very large market, if properly managed by the Chinese.
There are so many things
It would be interesting to see how the one-child policy will have impact on China, and what would happen, if a cataclasmic shift will occur, just like the Westernization of Russian economy.
I am sure that you know more about China and Chinese than I do, considering your cultural background. However, I also been in contact on a daily basis with Chinese since I was quite young back home, and gained a different perspective further when I came to the US.
There are quite a few traits of Japanese and Chinese that I quite admire. But my Japanese professor was not too aversed also in discussing how the very strengths of Sino-Japanese people can be their own Achiless heel.
CGC
- Hype = Sales
- TV appearances = Sales
- Movie appearances = Sales
- Word of mouth = Sales
- Reviews = Sales
- Depend = Sales
- Lack of supply = Sales
- Cool factor = Sales
- it's an Apple = SALES!
In that "impressive"
- designing a device to have a delightful user experience instead of merely containing a laundry list of features
I wouldn't exactly use the term: "very aggressive". I would say 'aggressive'. If the iPad 2 came in at $399 for the 16GB Wi-Fi version, that would be "very aggressive".
Seeing as no one has matched Apple's $499 price, let alone beat it, I think it's fair to consider Apple's current pricing aggressive.
In that "impressive"
- designing a device to have a delightful user experience instead of merely containing a laundry list of features
His hypothesis is so absrud.
Let me clean with a dose of reality:
- Hype = Interest
- TV appearances = Mindshare
- Movie appearances = Mindshare
- Word of mouth = Mindshare
- Reviews = Interest or disinterest, depending on the review.
- Depend = (I have no idea what the hell he?s talking about here)
- Lack of supply = A shortage, which means lower sales than you could have had had you had supply for all those who wanted to buy one.
- Cool factor = Interest
- it's an Apple = Customer history of reliable HW and SW with great customer service compared to the competition and a knowledge that interested parties can play with the device.
Thank you for one of the most thought-provoking comments I've ever read on AI.
Not really. There are plenty of smart people. What most are (obviously) lacking are the capability and will to leave out as much as they leave in, and pay fanatical attention to detail in design, supply, manufacturing, shipping, retail distribution (both internal and through partners), sales, service, and support.
Duplicate all of that with the same excellence at all levels as Apple routinely does and you might have a chance in competing with them.
It's not going to happen with this generation of technology. Apple is too far ahead - as is abundantly obvious by the bumbling around by Apple's tablet "competitors".
The iPad is a device that will mostly eat into sales of other Apple mobile devices and some desktop sales.
Ha! People said that about the iPhone - Mac sales increased. People said that about iPad 1 - Mac sales increased even more!
Android isn't going to overtake the iPad in the tablet space for one simple reason - no free or buy-one-get-one-free since the majority of tablets are probably not going to be sold with a wireless contract.
When it comes down to a dollar for dollar competition on price, Android pales in comparison to iOS.
Don't take my word for it - let's meet back here this time next year. Android will have millions of phones, a rounding error of tablets. It's pretty obvious for those who are really objective. Without being able to compete on price, Android vendors don't stand a chance.