You can always hire good designers to come up with nifty prototypes. But execution? Supply chain management? Process innovation to mass produce those nifty prototypes? Google doesn't even come close.
You are right. Technology companies are generally known for exceptional product concept demonstrations as well as their inability to deliver products and services as conceived.
The challenge is not in making cool devices or software. The unique gift of Apple has been in Apple's DNA, I.e., in feature selection ("the intersection of tech & liberal arts", Apple's vision), and execution (fit within customer needs, and other Apple products).
No one needed Apple to make a music player, smartphone, or computer. Apple brought its unique vision and uncanny execution to these devices. There are other areas than products where this DNA-- vision and execution-- is evident. iTunes Store, Retail stores, Pixar (ok, technically Disney), Apps (concept and execution), etc.
Apple has failed-- Newton, iCloud, iCards, Ping, etc. etc. They are unabashed about failure, and unfazed by clones because they believe deeply in the uniqueness of their winning formula-- their DNA.
iWatch will not be a watch, not a slave device. It will be a wearable communication dashboard. It will answer the three questions: "how are you, where are you, what are you doing"-- 90% of info needed within personal and productive groups. It will not seek to organize, entertain, inform, or increase productivity. It will measure and monitor (how are you), locate and relay (where are you), and answer "what are you doing" (identify, acknowledge, approve).
This set of functions is unmatched and, minus Apple's ecosystem, unmatchable. Apple is the best firm to deliver this functionality because this is what their entire existence has lead up to. This may be their last huge success, or another "priced in" innovation, but will not be their first cataclysmic failure.
The loss of Steve will lead to many less spectacular wins, not one spectacular failure that blogs keep prophesying.
This war only seems to exist with bloggers. Page fodder perhaps.
Apple certainly isn't 'at war'. Which is why they haven't rushed to at least announce things. They have been very clear over the years this isn't a zero sum game to them and they aren't afraid of other companies plans, products or wins.
Oh and Android Wear has hardly had millions of sales so I'm not sure it qualifies as 'significant opposition' at this time. Same with the rest
Well said.
Apple have always had strong competition, even back in the days of Steve Jobs.
When the iPhone was announced, Steve Jobs was asked by a TV news reporter "Why are you entering such a competitive market with the likes of Nokia?"
Apple is all about bringing exceptional products that people love to market.
Those that love Apple products will continue to buy them. As Steve Jobs once said "If you don't like it, then don't buy it!"
Firstly, it sites a theory that Google is catching up with Apple in hardware quicker than Apple is Google on software/services. On the evidence of Google Glass or any other hardware from them, this is unfounded.
Secondly, it suggests that if Apple enters the smartwatch category, it will face more competition than it ever has done in hardware. Yet when it brought out the iPhone, people said that there was no market, it faced an uphill battle due to the entrenched players and that there was intense competition.
When I look at all the smartwatches on the market, I see nothing approaching Apple quality. So, the premise of the article is false.
Google's aggressive stance with Android Wear, putting industrial design -- rather than tech specs or bundled software -- at the forefront, reveals the makings of a strategy designed to take on Apple at their own game.
This concept might not seem that exciting to some but that's because it hasn't been marketed yet. Google and Motorola haven't begun marketing. And Apple's ads will make everyone desire an I watch, even if they don't need it.
If this formula -- take an existing product category, add more robust software and better-made hardware, profit -- sounds familiar, that's because it is. It's Apple's specialty; they did it with the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad to great success.
Presuming the iWatch project is real, and the preponderance of evidence suggests that it is, it will mark the first time Apple has entered a market with such significant opposition. Nokia and Motorola couldn't compete with Apple's design chops and vertical integration, but Google and their manufacturing partners can match Apple blow-for-blow.
Honest question here... What's the market's desire for an iWatch? I saw Google's announcement, but I have no desire to have one myself--be it Apple or Android.
Do you want a wearable? If so... why?
Time will tell if there is a 'real' and 'useful' purpose for a wearable or if it is just a 'need' that isn't really there. In my view the primary use will be health and fitness where most people seem to agree there could be a real usefulness. Depending on the health functionality of the wearables it could become something just about everyone over the age of 50 will want / need. That's a huge demographic. Obviously there will be plenty appeal for younger users, too.
I listened to an interesting interview with a developer speaking about how if you measure all your physical activities (through movement), and other activities through geo location recording (by the water, in a McD, at the movies, work, you name it, including food, drink and sleep, and add a few key user inputs such as 'feeling good', 'happy', 'sad' etc., you can quickly extrapolate what kind of situations make you happiest or most productive, etc. Over time you will be able to het real time advice as to a good cause of action to help you stay 'on top', or to avoid 'negative' situations. It sounds fraught with problems but also very interesting. Statistically speaking, if you are happiest when you go to the seaside once a week, or go dancing, you could be promoted to go. Etc etc.
Another thought as to 'why'. If you asked how many of us would want to carry a powerful computer in our pockets with a 4" screen 15 years ago most of us might have asked the same question.
Motorola's Moto 360 Andoid Wear-powered smart watch | Source: Google
Do you know what I see when I see this product, fitted with an accelerometer, combined with the knowledge of how Google handles privacy and the collection of information?
What utter nonsense when the author says "Google knows how to build its own hardware thanks to years of designing and manufacturing custom networking gear and recent experiments with the admittedly ill-fated Q streamer and Google Glass."!!!!
Developing and building their own servers is far from actually developing well designed and manufactured consumer devices that are superior to anything else on the market. It isn't even in the same league! As to google glass, producing a few thousand beta products doesn't even come close, and all one has to do is look at these totally geek devices to see what a failure they are. With everyone jumping on this broken bandwagon, it is simply another profitless race to the bottom.
I think Apple could destroy both Google and Samsung by simply floating a long series of fake leaks and rumors designed to throw them off Apple's trail. Let them spend money and resources chasing unicorns while Apple continues to incrementally improve their existing lines and rake in the vast majority of profits.
Great response. I agree with you. Apple May come late but they tend to do it better. I wonder if no iPhone what the heck we would be using as smartphones as far aesthetics and the like. No one can stay on top forever but I'm not counting Apple out yet.
And I thought it was just me that read this and couldn't believe someone at AI let this story fly. All I can say is WOW! This is without doubt, the worst researched article I have ever read on AI. I don't have the time to detail everything that is wrong with this incredibly poorly written mass of words. This author needs to do some research on Apple and it's history before putting something like this out. Though I'm sure it was written just to see how many people would write in to point out how bad it actually is. So I admit, I fell for it.
Next time you decide to write an article comparing Apple and its ability to take on the competition, check with Mr. Dilger, he's on your staff, so he should be able to give you some pointers on how to do research and give you a history lesson. You definitely need it! By the way, and this is an easy prediction to make, when Apple is ready to come out with their next new product, it WILL absolutely blow the lid off of anything that has come before it. All you have to do is dig a little into the new technology and materials Apple has patents on and you may be able to actually see the future. Give it a try. Research can be fun.
Comments
You are right. Technology companies are generally known for exceptional product concept demonstrations as well as their inability to deliver products and services as conceived.
Apple's competitors keep trying to throw things on the wall like mud to see if anything sticks. But mud isn't something that consumers want to buy.
Apple does things right before even announcing a product. It sweats out all the details so that our lives are better for purchasing an Apple product.
No one needed Apple to make a music player, smartphone, or computer. Apple brought its unique vision and uncanny execution to these devices. There are other areas than products where this DNA-- vision and execution-- is evident. iTunes Store, Retail stores, Pixar (ok, technically Disney), Apps (concept and execution), etc.
Apple has failed-- Newton, iCloud, iCards, Ping, etc. etc. They are unabashed about failure, and unfazed by clones because they believe deeply in the uniqueness of their winning formula-- their DNA.
iWatch will not be a watch, not a slave device. It will be a wearable communication dashboard. It will answer the three questions: "how are you, where are you, what are you doing"-- 90% of info needed within personal and productive groups. It will not seek to organize, entertain, inform, or increase productivity. It will measure and monitor (how are you), locate and relay (where are you), and answer "what are you doing" (identify, acknowledge, approve).
This set of functions is unmatched and, minus Apple's ecosystem, unmatchable. Apple is the best firm to deliver this functionality because this is what their entire existence has lead up to. This may be their last huge success, or another "priced in" innovation, but will not be their first cataclysmic failure.
The loss of Steve will lead to many less spectacular wins, not one spectacular failure that blogs keep prophesying.
Laughable piece.
Re: "Presuming the iWatch project is real, and the preponderance of evidence suggests that it is..."
Evidence? Does repeating the same unsubstantiated rumor more than 100 times make it reality?
No.
The only thing missing from this comic piece is KAPOW!
KAPOW!
OK, now it's complete.
Well said.
Apple have always had strong competition, even back in the days of Steve Jobs.
When the iPhone was announced, Steve Jobs was asked by a TV news reporter "Why are you entering such a competitive market with the likes of Nokia?"
Apple is all about bringing exceptional products that people love to market.
Those that love Apple products will continue to buy them. As Steve Jobs once said "If you don't like it, then don't buy it!"
Firstly, it sites a theory that Google is catching up with Apple in hardware quicker than Apple is Google on software/services. On the evidence of Google Glass or any other hardware from them, this is unfounded.
Secondly, it suggests that if Apple enters the smartwatch category, it will face more competition than it ever has done in hardware. Yet when it brought out the iPhone, people said that there was no market, it faced an uphill battle due to the entrenched players and that there was intense competition.
When I look at all the smartwatches on the market, I see nothing approaching Apple quality. So, the premise of the article is false.
Google's aggressive stance with Android Wear, putting industrial design -- rather than tech specs or bundled software -- at the forefront, reveals the makings of a strategy designed to take on Apple at their own game.
Industrial design will beat Apple?
Google is getting better at what Apple does faster than Apple is getting better at what Google does, and that's a problem for Apple.
Considering the spectacular amount of failures we have from Google-the-one-trick-pony, I find this interesting.
What's wrong with quoting in Latin?
If this formula -- take an existing product category, add more robust software and better-made hardware, profit -- sounds familiar, that's because it is. It's Apple's specialty; they did it with the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad to great success.
Presuming the iWatch project is real, and the preponderance of evidence suggests that it is, it will mark the first time Apple has entered a market with such significant opposition. Nokia and Motorola couldn't compete with Apple's design chops and vertical integration, but Google and their manufacturing partners can match Apple blow-for-blow.
Which one of these is correct?
Honest question here... What's the market's desire for an iWatch? I saw Google's announcement, but I have no desire to have one myself--be it Apple or Android.
Do you want a wearable? If so... why?
Time will tell if there is a 'real' and 'useful' purpose for a wearable or if it is just a 'need' that isn't really there. In my view the primary use will be health and fitness where most people seem to agree there could be a real usefulness. Depending on the health functionality of the wearables it could become something just about everyone over the age of 50 will want / need. That's a huge demographic. Obviously there will be plenty appeal for younger users, too.
I listened to an interesting interview with a developer speaking about how if you measure all your physical activities (through movement), and other activities through geo location recording (by the water, in a McD, at the movies, work, you name it, including food, drink and sleep, and add a few key user inputs such as 'feeling good', 'happy', 'sad' etc., you can quickly extrapolate what kind of situations make you happiest or most productive, etc. Over time you will be able to het real time advice as to a good cause of action to help you stay 'on top', or to avoid 'negative' situations. It sounds fraught with problems but also very interesting. Statistically speaking, if you are happiest when you go to the seaside once a week, or go dancing, you could be promoted to go. Etc etc.
Another thought as to 'why'. If you asked how many of us would want to carry a powerful computer in our pockets with a 4" screen 15 years ago most of us might have asked the same question.
Motorola's Moto 360 Andoid Wear-powered smart watch | Source: Google
Do you know what I see when I see this product, fitted with an accelerometer, combined with the knowledge of how Google handles privacy and the collection of information?
I see the end of masturbation by Google fans.
And that's a good thing.
Developing and building their own servers is far from actually developing well designed and manufactured consumer devices that are superior to anything else on the market. It isn't even in the same league! As to google glass, producing a few thousand beta products doesn't even come close, and all one has to do is look at these totally geek devices to see what a failure they are. With everyone jumping on this broken bandwagon, it is simply another profitless race to the bottom.
I see the end of masturbation by Google fans...
because the watch will get in the way.
And I thought it was just me that read this and couldn't believe someone at AI let this story fly. All I can say is WOW! This is without doubt, the worst researched article I have ever read on AI. I don't have the time to detail everything that is wrong with this incredibly poorly written mass of words. This author needs to do some research on Apple and it's history before putting something like this out. Though I'm sure it was written just to see how many people would write in to point out how bad it actually is. So I admit, I fell for it.
Next time you decide to write an article comparing Apple and its ability to take on the competition, check with Mr. Dilger, he's on your staff, so he should be able to give you some pointers on how to do research and give you a history lesson. You definitely need it! By the way, and this is an easy prediction to make, when Apple is ready to come out with their next new product, it WILL absolutely blow the lid off of anything that has come before it. All you have to do is dig a little into the new technology and materials Apple has patents on and you may be able to actually see the future. Give it a try. Research can be fun.
I'd rather just have my iPhone in my pocket; but I'd definitely strap that IBM onto my wrist as a watch.
That thing is awesome. I love it!