It was marketing, Apple actually market the iPod, you would think they would have learned to market the Mac as well, maybe they would increase sales that one.
Marketing is part of it, as it is already with iPhone. have you seen the mac sales numbers for the last....3 years?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
The issue is, v1 is just that, just another phone.
and an ipod and an internet communicator....and a new platform.
It was released into a worse situation, where there were dozens of competing products that offered a more rounded solution and 'better value'.
Yet the ability of the iPod to do what it does so well and Apple's redefinition of the product class changed the way people think about music players. Now you think music player, you think iPod.
Huh?
The mp3 player market was tiny and immature. The mobile phone market is massive and mature. There's literally thousands of competing products as opposed to the dozens of players at the iPods launch.
Secondly, the iPod was as good as if not better than the existing products. The iPhone on the other hand has glaring omissions and it's up against some very very good products.
This isn't a rerun of Apple v Archos. This is Apple v Microsoft, Nokia, Sony, Palm, RIM, Samsung, LG, HTC. Whole different kettle of fish.
Apple's advantage rests on it's style, user interface and software and that's not to be downplayed - mobile phone UIs are pretty terrible. But hardware wise the thing is two years out of date.
and an ipod and an internet communicator....and a new platform.
Already had that on an existing platform 2+ years ago though.
Really, it's nothing new. The feature item is their UI and ease of use, not the other features as most new phones have those already, and better versions too.
Secondly, the iPod was as good as if not better than the existing products. The iPhone on the other hand has glaring omissions and it's up against some very very good products.
This isn't a rerun of Apple v Archos.
Eh? Archos at the time had players with four times the capacity at a lower price. They were thicker, heavier, uglier, but many still argued that they were superior. Some definitely perceived low capacity as a "glaring omission" on the initial iPod.
Likewise, some perceive lack of 3G, lack of GPS (has it been confirmed?), lack of third-party apps, etc. as initial "glaring omissions" on the initial iPhone. That's irrelevant. A Rev A product is intended to wow early adopters, not to take over the market. The iPhone absolutely has the potential to do the latter, just not in its first two or three versions.
There's literally thousands of competing products as opposed to the dozens of players at the iPods launch.
Which were all cheaper and had backing by M$ with play for sure AND what Chucker said above...
How many companies have pulled out of the music player biz since iPod? lots! Just because there is lots of other devices doesnt mean they arent using the same tactic. As I said earlier - we all have seen how bad the plan worked out with iPod..
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Secondly, the iPod was as good as if not better than the existing products. The iPhone on the other hand has glaring omissions and it's up against some very very good products.
None of which can ever be in the same class, because they dont have the 'cool' Apple create AND they cant use any of the interface elements or 'multi-touch'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
This isn't a rerun of Apple v Archos. This is Apple v Microsoft, Nokia, Sony, Palm, RIM, Samsung, LG, HTC. Whole different kettle of fish.
I disagree - but that doesnt mean you're wrong
I believe this is very much a replay. Its not just the device, its the business maneuvers that wernt obvious with iPod until they have started to do it all again now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Apple's advantage rests on it's style, user interface and software and that's not to be downplayed - mobile phone UIs are pretty terrible. But hardware wise the thing is two years out of date.
People like you and I who actually care about the hardware might care - but that wont stop most people. The price wont be a problem if it just works, (just like iPod) which i'm sure it will
Already had that on an existing platform 2+ years ago though.
Really, it's nothing new. The feature item is their UI and ease of use, not the other features as most new phones have those already, and better versions too.
We are arguing the same things people argued about iPod
Saying that the iPhone's features are available on another platform is to ignore the delivery of the features. its inescapable! This isnt an existing platform - this is a new platform.
Just because it has a phone in it shouldn't confuse you into thinking that this is just a fancy phone.
Eh? Archos at the time had players with four times the capacity at a lower price. They were thicker, heavier, uglier, but many still argued that they were superior. Some definitely perceived low capacity as a "glaring omission" on the initial iPod.
The Archos Jukebox Recorder in 2001 had 6, 10 or 15GB to the iPod's 5 or 10GB. In 2002 they went to 20GB and Apple went to 10 or 20GB too some months after. Archos' capacity advantage was short lived. Where was this perception of low capacity?
Apart from that, I can't imagine a more ugly product than the original Jukebox.
That's not the case with Apple v Nokia today. Nokia's phones aren't anyway as ugly as Archos' products by comparison back then. You wouldn't be ashamed to whip out a Nokia phone like you would an Archos Jukebox.
The "It's the iPod all over again" argument for success is fundamentally flawed. Apple had NO competition back in 2001 to speak of. They've got plenty now. They aren't going to walk into a market selling a billion handsets a year without a fight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker
Likewise, some perceive lack of 3G, lack of GPS (has it been confirmed?), lack of third-party apps, etc. as initial "glaring omissions" on the initial iPhone. That's irrelevant. A Rev A product is intended to wow early adopters, not to take over the market. The iPhone absolutely has the potential to do the latter, just not in its first two or three versions.
It's got a slick interface and form factor. That will be enough to wow the easily wowed and it's easy to wow people when in the USA the competition is so dire. That's not the case in Europe versus the current Rev A phone. We'll see what we get I guess in 2008 but at the moment there's a whole bunch of really nice phones such as SE's W880i, K800i, P990 or Nokia's N series. The walkman player software in the W880i is dare I say it, easier to use than the iPod, and this in a 3G phone not much bigger than a Nano.
I'm as big an Apple fanboy as they come sometimes, and I'm screaming out for a better phone UI after years of suffering bad phone UIs, but IMHO they've missed the target with iPhone Rev A hardware wise. Software wise though, it looks spot on. Sadly, that's not enough for me, particularly if it's going to cost hundreds from Apple only when I can get an W880i, P990 for free or an N95 for £29 from any number of suppliers.
We are arguing the same things people argued about iPod
And arguing that the iPhone now is to the phone market what the iPod was to the nascent mp3 player market in 2001 is stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zillatron
Saying that the iPhone's features are available on another platform is to ignore the delivery of the features. its inescapable! This isnt an existing platform - this is a new platform.
Not really. It's a new platform in that it's another new phone OS but there's plenty of internet enabled phones already. There's nothing really new in the iPhone (multitouch and visual voicemail aside), it's just that what they've got in it appears to be well implemented. Yes, it's about how well the features are delivered but it's not just about the features and the competition isn't as bad as Jobs made out.
Another new platform isn't necessarily a selling point either. Here in Europe, Vodafone are saying they only want to ship phones on three platforms - Windows Mobile, Linux and Symbian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zillatron
Just because it has a phone in it shouldn't confuse you into thinking that this is just a fancy phone.
I get that. But it's also not a 3G phone, doesn't do VoIP, doesn't have GPS, doesn't have a good camera, doesn't let me read office docs, doesn't allow 3rd party apps etc. and it costs a fortune. Some of those they can fix in software later. Some they can't.
I'd hope that by launch they've added a whole bunch of software features that are missing, that the European launch sees 3G and a better camera and that they open up the SDK in 2008. That's all feasible but I wonder why they didn't see that as all important originally. It'll be a slow burner after the initial wow factor subsides.
That's not the case with Apple v Nokia today. Nokia's phones aren't anyway as ugly as Archos' products by comparison back then. You wouldn't be ashamed to whip out a Nokia phone like you would an Archos Jukebox.
You wouldnt whip out a Nomad now, but you've got 5 years of hindsight to give you 20/20 vision.
That said....
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
The "It's the iPod all over again" argument for success is fundamentally flawed. Apple had NO competition back in 2001 to speak of. They've got plenty now.
I dont agree that its a flawed argument. Apple have put themselves in a position of being able to dictate terms to the telcos. Just like they did with the music industry. The similar circumstances they are building for iPhone is uncanny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
They aren't going to walk into a market selling a billion handsets a year without a fight.
This I agree with. But they only need to sell 10 million to be able to say 'we are happy'. they sell 15 million and they can say its a 'runaway success'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
It's got a slick interface and form factor. That will be enough to wow the easily wowed and it's easy to wow people when in the USA the competition is so dire. That's not the case in Europe versus.....
pardon the pun, but your not comparing apples to apples
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
they've missed the target with iPhone Rev A hardware wise. Software wise though, it looks spot on. Sadly, that's not enough for me, particularly if it's going to cost hundreds from Apple only when I can get an W880i, P990 for free or an N95 for £29 from any number of suppliers.
What makes you think that the iPhone for USA is not going to be modified, changed and suited to the market its going into? Different software features even....
As I've been saying, this is a platform product. This story is FAR from over.
No need to split hairs...the point remains. The way Apple manage the iPod business works.
It wasnt just some random chain of events that lead to success - i'm not saying they predicted what has come about, but they revised quickly and adapted. Those lessons wont be forgotten...
Z
edit: there is of course what Chucker just said below
You wouldnt whip out a Nomad now, but you've got 5 years of hindsight to give you 20/20 vision.
That's not what I meant. An Archos Jukebox back then was fugly even then. Apple's competition now isn't fugly (Treos and HTCs aside).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zillatron
I dont agree that its a flawed argument. Apple have put themselves in a position of being able to dictate terms to the telcos. Just like they did with the music industry. The similar circumstances they are building for iPhone is uncanny.
Only true in America. We've no carrier lock in in Europe. It's illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zillatron
This I agree with. But they only need to sell 10 million to be able to say 'we are happy'. they sell 15 million and they can say its a 'runaway success'.
I'm sure we'll see Jobs claiming they've captured 25% of the US market or something completely meaningless like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zillatron
pardon the pun, but your not comparing apples to apples
Not sure what you mean by that. I'm comparing the iPhone to the phones available in the USA - it's initial market. And I'm comparing it to phones available now in Europe - it's future market. It's easy for them to beat the first group of phones and not so easy the latter. Seems very apple to apple to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zillatron
What makes you think that the iPhone for USA is not going to be modified, changed and suited to the market its going into? Different software features even....
I've never said it wouldn't. I said it NEEDS to change. I've even predicted it WILL change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zillatron
As I've been saying, this is a platform product. This story is FAR from over.
That's true for all current smartphone OSs though and even more so Symbian which scales all the way from a normal phone up to a full blown communicator.
"The first smartphone was called Simon designed by IBM in 1992 and shown as a concept product that year at COMDEX, the computer industry trade show held in Las Vegas, Nevada. It was released to the public in 1993 and sold by BellSouth. Besides a mobile phone, it also contained a calendar, address book, world clock, calculator, note pad, e-mail, and games. It had no physical buttons to dial with. Instead customers used a touch-screen to select phone numbers with a finger or create facsimiles and memos with an optional stylus. Text was entered with a unique on-screen "predictive" keyboard. By today's standards, the Simon would be a fairly low-end mobile phone."
You might think it will be harder, but 1% isnt a big chunk of the market. Its a conservative estimate. Thats the way Apple works - there is NO way they would say..we are aiming for 10 million units if they didnt KNOW they would beat it by a long way. So at the next keynote Steve Jobs can have a slide with a graph saying - this is the market, this was our target and BOOM this is what we did! arent we great? yes...yes we are.
Obviously you love your Nokia devices - i'm not saying you are wrong to like them, just that i dont agree with your assessment of iPhone. It isnt a smartphone.
Right, I'm not sure what part of Apple you work in, or for what Apple retailer but...
The number one application for a cellphone is voice, then SMS. This (non) SmartPhone iPhone is going to compete against all cellphones, ie out of the one billion sold last year, only 80 million were smartphones, the other 900 million are cheap phones, they don't cost much and they perform voice, and SMS very well.
Quote:
And? We arent talking about shavers
You brought up patents, patents don't always stack up as great as people make them out to be.
Quote:
1) It Just works, just like your iPod
It hasn't been released yet, how do we know?
Quote:
3) there is nothing like it on the market, because its a 'new' product.
No, there is a lot of products like this on the market
I donno about euro's so much, but in $ value i can understand - i bought a 1000$ pda/phone/smartphone. I'd pay that much again to get an iPhone. It has all the features i want, but the software sucks. Maybe it's just me. I know several people that wont buy iPhone because they dont like Steve Jobs, they hate iPods...whatever. But that wont stop 10 million other people buying them. At the end of the day, thats all that counts - people will buy it and pay top dollar just like they still do with iPods.
What $, US, Canada, Aussie, NZ? You see they all have a different value
Anyway, wikipedia aside, it's not really the same situation. Apple's competition is HUGE, not Archos, Rio and Creative.
Oh, I agree that it's a far more mature market. I'm just cautioning not to underestimate Apple. They've demo'd an impressive product that, user interface-wise, is leaps and bounds beyond all competitors. The specs aren't as great, but the initial iPod's specs weren't either.
Yep - just like its silly to say that iPod has missed the mark now. In 5 years you'll laugh at anyone that says iPhone missed the mark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
That's not what I meant. An Archos Jukebox back then was fugly even then. Apple's competition now isn't fugly (Treos and HTCs aside).
Your talking about physical design? Thats only a small bit of why iPhone will be a great product, but almost no part of why its a game changer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Only true in America. We've no carrier lock in in Europe. It's illegal.
Then as you said, they have a battle on their hands, but i didnt disagree with that.
Apple still has all the cards, carrier lock or none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
I'm sure we'll see Jobs claiming they've captured 25% of the US market or something completely meaningless like that.
Its only meaningless if its:
a) not true and b) made up like Steve Ballmer and Bill G like to do
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Not sure what you mean by that. I'm comparing the iPhone to the phones available in the USA - it's initial market. And I'm comparing it to phones available now in Europe - it's future market. It's easy for them to beat the first group of phones and not so easy the latter. Seems very apple to apple to me.
I mean that you cant compare it to what is available now in europe, asia or anywhere else. because as much as its called iPhone, its a mobile computing platform. Its NOT a smartphone.
Even if you insist that it is a smartphone, the product you are comparing only has the most common features to suit the broadest appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
I've never said it wouldn't. I said it NEEDS to change. I've even predicted it WILL change.
I'm glad we can agree on something then
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
That's true for all current smartphone OSs though and even more so Symbian which scales all the way from a normal phone up to a full blown communicator.
yep - execpt it doesnt have multi-touch and it cant have the nice interface and thats what the bulk of people will buy it for - because it just works, just like their iPod.
I'm not saying Symbian is bad, just not the same. Funny how nobody had done something on this scale before iPhone. Every new handset was just an improved version of the last handset with incremental software improvements. Sure, some might have had things in development, even demoed their great new ideas.
but Apple are making it happen this year, not in 5. And now everyone is saying that they can do it too and its nothing new. if it wasnt such a big shift, if it is just another handset - why hasnt it been done 50 times already and why is everyone still talking about it? Why has it polarized so many people?
Comments
It was marketing, Apple actually market the iPod, you would think they would have learned to market the Mac as well, maybe they would increase sales that one.
Marketing is part of it, as it is already with iPhone. have you seen the mac sales numbers for the last....3 years?
The issue is, v1 is just that, just another phone.
and an ipod and an internet communicator....and a new platform.
Z
It was released into a worse situation, where there were dozens of competing products that offered a more rounded solution and 'better value'.
Yet the ability of the iPod to do what it does so well and Apple's redefinition of the product class changed the way people think about music players. Now you think music player, you think iPod.
Huh?
The mp3 player market was tiny and immature. The mobile phone market is massive and mature. There's literally thousands of competing products as opposed to the dozens of players at the iPods launch.
Secondly, the iPod was as good as if not better than the existing products. The iPhone on the other hand has glaring omissions and it's up against some very very good products.
This isn't a rerun of Apple v Archos. This is Apple v Microsoft, Nokia, Sony, Palm, RIM, Samsung, LG, HTC. Whole different kettle of fish.
Apple's advantage rests on it's style, user interface and software and that's not to be downplayed - mobile phone UIs are pretty terrible. But hardware wise the thing is two years out of date.
and an ipod and an internet communicator....and a new platform.
Already had that on an existing platform 2+ years ago though.
Really, it's nothing new. The feature item is their UI and ease of use, not the other features as most new phones have those already, and better versions too.
Secondly, the iPod was as good as if not better than the existing products. The iPhone on the other hand has glaring omissions and it's up against some very very good products.
This isn't a rerun of Apple v Archos.
Eh? Archos at the time had players with four times the capacity at a lower price. They were thicker, heavier, uglier, but many still argued that they were superior. Some definitely perceived low capacity as a "glaring omission" on the initial iPod.
Likewise, some perceive lack of 3G, lack of GPS (has it been confirmed?), lack of third-party apps, etc. as initial "glaring omissions" on the initial iPhone. That's irrelevant. A Rev A product is intended to wow early adopters, not to take over the market. The iPhone absolutely has the potential to do the latter, just not in its first two or three versions.
There's literally thousands of competing products as opposed to the dozens of players at the iPods launch.
Which were all cheaper and had backing by M$ with play for sure AND what Chucker said above...
How many companies have pulled out of the music player biz since iPod? lots! Just because there is lots of other devices doesnt mean they arent using the same tactic. As I said earlier - we all have seen how bad the plan worked out with iPod..
Secondly, the iPod was as good as if not better than the existing products. The iPhone on the other hand has glaring omissions and it's up against some very very good products.
None of which can ever be in the same class, because they dont have the 'cool' Apple create AND they cant use any of the interface elements or 'multi-touch'.
This isn't a rerun of Apple v Archos. This is Apple v Microsoft, Nokia, Sony, Palm, RIM, Samsung, LG, HTC. Whole different kettle of fish.
I disagree - but that doesnt mean you're wrong
I believe this is very much a replay. Its not just the device, its the business maneuvers that wernt obvious with iPod until they have started to do it all again now.
Apple's advantage rests on it's style, user interface and software and that's not to be downplayed - mobile phone UIs are pretty terrible. But hardware wise the thing is two years out of date.
People like you and I who actually care about the hardware might care - but that wont stop most people. The price wont be a problem if it just works, (just like iPod) which i'm sure it will
Z
Already had that on an existing platform 2+ years ago though.
Really, it's nothing new. The feature item is their UI and ease of use, not the other features as most new phones have those already, and better versions too.
We are arguing the same things people argued about iPod
Saying that the iPhone's features are available on another platform is to ignore the delivery of the features. its inescapable! This isnt an existing platform - this is a new platform.
Just because it has a phone in it shouldn't confuse you into thinking that this is just a fancy phone.
Z
Eh? Archos at the time had players with four times the capacity at a lower price. They were thicker, heavier, uglier, but many still argued that they were superior. Some definitely perceived low capacity as a "glaring omission" on the initial iPod.
The Archos Jukebox Recorder in 2001 had 6, 10 or 15GB to the iPod's 5 or 10GB. In 2002 they went to 20GB and Apple went to 10 or 20GB too some months after. Archos' capacity advantage was short lived. Where was this perception of low capacity?
Apart from that, I can't imagine a more ugly product than the original Jukebox.
That's not the case with Apple v Nokia today. Nokia's phones aren't anyway as ugly as Archos' products by comparison back then. You wouldn't be ashamed to whip out a Nokia phone like you would an Archos Jukebox.
The "It's the iPod all over again" argument for success is fundamentally flawed. Apple had NO competition back in 2001 to speak of. They've got plenty now. They aren't going to walk into a market selling a billion handsets a year without a fight.
Likewise, some perceive lack of 3G, lack of GPS (has it been confirmed?), lack of third-party apps, etc. as initial "glaring omissions" on the initial iPhone. That's irrelevant. A Rev A product is intended to wow early adopters, not to take over the market. The iPhone absolutely has the potential to do the latter, just not in its first two or three versions.
It's got a slick interface and form factor. That will be enough to wow the easily wowed and it's easy to wow people when in the USA the competition is so dire. That's not the case in Europe versus the current Rev A phone. We'll see what we get I guess in 2008 but at the moment there's a whole bunch of really nice phones such as SE's W880i, K800i, P990 or Nokia's N series. The walkman player software in the W880i is dare I say it, easier to use than the iPod, and this in a 3G phone not much bigger than a Nano.
I'm as big an Apple fanboy as they come sometimes, and I'm screaming out for a better phone UI after years of suffering bad phone UIs, but IMHO they've missed the target with iPhone Rev A hardware wise. Software wise though, it looks spot on. Sadly, that's not enough for me, particularly if it's going to cost hundreds from Apple only when I can get an W880i, P990 for free or an N95 for £29 from any number of suppliers.
The Archos Jukebox Recorder in 2001 had 6, 10 or 15GB to the iPod's 5 or 10GB.
Archos had 20. The iPod had 5.
The iPod didn't have 10 until the following summer.
We are arguing the same things people argued about iPod
And arguing that the iPhone now is to the phone market what the iPod was to the nascent mp3 player market in 2001 is stupid.
Saying that the iPhone's features are available on another platform is to ignore the delivery of the features. its inescapable! This isnt an existing platform - this is a new platform.
Not really. It's a new platform in that it's another new phone OS but there's plenty of internet enabled phones already. There's nothing really new in the iPhone (multitouch and visual voicemail aside), it's just that what they've got in it appears to be well implemented. Yes, it's about how well the features are delivered but it's not just about the features and the competition isn't as bad as Jobs made out.
Another new platform isn't necessarily a selling point either. Here in Europe, Vodafone are saying they only want to ship phones on three platforms - Windows Mobile, Linux and Symbian.
Just because it has a phone in it shouldn't confuse you into thinking that this is just a fancy phone.
I get that. But it's also not a 3G phone, doesn't do VoIP, doesn't have GPS, doesn't have a good camera, doesn't let me read office docs, doesn't allow 3rd party apps etc. and it costs a fortune. Some of those they can fix in software later. Some they can't.
I'd hope that by launch they've added a whole bunch of software features that are missing, that the European launch sees 3G and a better camera and that they open up the SDK in 2008. That's all feasible but I wonder why they didn't see that as all important originally. It'll be a slow burner after the initial wow factor subsides.
Archos had 20. The iPod had 5.
The iPod didn't have 10 until the following summer.
Not according to Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archos#Jukebox_6000
Where was this perception of low capacity?
In the immortal words of CmdrTaco from SlashDot:
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
That's not the case with Apple v Nokia today. Nokia's phones aren't anyway as ugly as Archos' products by comparison back then. You wouldn't be ashamed to whip out a Nokia phone like you would an Archos Jukebox.
You wouldnt whip out a Nomad now, but you've got 5 years of hindsight to give you 20/20 vision.
That said....
The "It's the iPod all over again" argument for success is fundamentally flawed. Apple had NO competition back in 2001 to speak of. They've got plenty now.
I dont agree that its a flawed argument. Apple have put themselves in a position of being able to dictate terms to the telcos. Just like they did with the music industry. The similar circumstances they are building for iPhone is uncanny.
They aren't going to walk into a market selling a billion handsets a year without a fight.
This I agree with.
It's got a slick interface and form factor. That will be enough to wow the easily wowed and it's easy to wow people when in the USA the competition is so dire. That's not the case in Europe versus.....
pardon the pun, but your not comparing apples to apples
they've missed the target with iPhone Rev A hardware wise. Software wise though, it looks spot on. Sadly, that's not enough for me, particularly if it's going to cost hundreds from Apple only when I can get an W880i, P990 for free or an N95 for £29 from any number of suppliers.
What makes you think that the iPhone for USA is not going to be modified, changed and suited to the market its going into? Different software features even....
As I've been saying, this is a platform product. This story is FAR from over.
Z
Not according to Wikipedia...
No need to split hairs...the point remains. The way Apple manage the iPod business works.
It wasnt just some random chain of events that lead to success - i'm not saying they predicted what has come about, but they revised quickly and adapted. Those lessons wont be forgotten...
Z
edit: there is of course what Chucker just said below
Not according to Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archos#Jukebox_6000
Well, then Wikipedia is full of it. http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/mar/20ipod.html
In the immortal words of CmdrTaco from SlashDot:
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
And he was wrong then too.
You wouldnt whip out a Nomad now, but you've got 5 years of hindsight to give you 20/20 vision.
That's not what I meant. An Archos Jukebox back then was fugly even then. Apple's competition now isn't fugly (Treos and HTCs aside).
I dont agree that its a flawed argument. Apple have put themselves in a position of being able to dictate terms to the telcos. Just like they did with the music industry. The similar circumstances they are building for iPhone is uncanny.
Only true in America. We've no carrier lock in in Europe. It's illegal.
This I agree with.
I'm sure we'll see Jobs claiming they've captured 25% of the US market or something completely meaningless like that.
pardon the pun, but your not comparing apples to apples
Not sure what you mean by that. I'm comparing the iPhone to the phones available in the USA - it's initial market. And I'm comparing it to phones available now in Europe - it's future market. It's easy for them to beat the first group of phones and not so easy the latter. Seems very apple to apple to me.
What makes you think that the iPhone for USA is not going to be modified, changed and suited to the market its going into? Different software features even....
I've never said it wouldn't. I said it NEEDS to change. I've even predicted it WILL change.
As I've been saying, this is a platform product. This story is FAR from over.
That's true for all current smartphone OSs though and even more so Symbian which scales all the way from a normal phone up to a full blown communicator.
Well, then Wikipedia is full of it. http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/mar/20ipod.html
I knew I shouldn't trust wikipedia.
It was in the earliest versions for the page too..
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...t&oldid=393060
Anyway, wikipedia aside, it's not really the same situation. Apple's competition is HUGE, not Archos, Rio and Creative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#History
"The first smartphone was called Simon designed by IBM in 1992 and shown as a concept product that year at COMDEX, the computer industry trade show held in Las Vegas, Nevada. It was released to the public in 1993 and sold by BellSouth. Besides a mobile phone, it also contained a calendar, address book, world clock, calculator, note pad, e-mail, and games. It had no physical buttons to dial with. Instead customers used a touch-screen to select phone numbers with a finger or create facsimiles and memos with an optional stylus. Text was entered with a unique on-screen "predictive" keyboard. By today's standards, the Simon would be a fairly low-end mobile phone."
Sounds familiar....
You might think it will be harder, but 1% isnt a big chunk of the market. Its a conservative estimate. Thats the way Apple works - there is NO way they would say..we are aiming for 10 million units if they didnt KNOW they would beat it by a long way. So at the next keynote Steve Jobs can have a slide with a graph saying - this is the market, this was our target and BOOM this is what we did! arent we great? yes...yes we are.
Obviously you love your Nokia devices - i'm not saying you are wrong to like them, just that i dont agree with your assessment of iPhone. It isnt a smartphone.
Right, I'm not sure what part of Apple you work in, or for what Apple retailer but...
The number one application for a cellphone is voice, then SMS. This (non) SmartPhone iPhone is going to compete against all cellphones, ie out of the one billion sold last year, only 80 million were smartphones, the other 900 million are cheap phones, they don't cost much and they perform voice, and SMS very well.
And? We arent talking about shavers
You brought up patents, patents don't always stack up as great as people make them out to be.
1) It Just works, just like your iPod
It hasn't been released yet, how do we know?
3) there is nothing like it on the market, because its a 'new' product.
No, there is a lot of products like this on the market
Look at these sites, you may see some of there
http://www.sonyericsson.com
http://www.nokia.com
http://www.expansys.ie/
I donno about euro's so much, but in $ value i can understand - i bought a 1000$ pda/phone/smartphone. I'd pay that much again to get an iPhone. It has all the features i want, but the software sucks. Maybe it's just me. I know several people that wont buy iPhone because they dont like Steve Jobs, they hate iPods...whatever. But that wont stop 10 million other people buying them. At the end of the day, thats all that counts - people will buy it and pay top dollar just like they still do with iPods.
What $, US, Canada, Aussie, NZ? You see they all have a different value
Anyway, wikipedia aside, it's not really the same situation. Apple's competition is HUGE, not Archos, Rio and Creative.
Oh, I agree that it's a far more mature market. I'm just cautioning not to underestimate Apple. They've demo'd an impressive product that, user interface-wise, is leaps and bounds beyond all competitors. The specs aren't as great, but the initial iPod's specs weren't either.
And he was wrong then too.
Yep - just like its silly to say that iPod has missed the mark now. In 5 years you'll laugh at anyone that says iPhone missed the mark.
That's not what I meant. An Archos Jukebox back then was fugly even then. Apple's competition now isn't fugly (Treos and HTCs aside).
Your talking about physical design? Thats only a small bit of why iPhone will be a great product, but almost no part of why its a game changer.
Only true in America. We've no carrier lock in in Europe. It's illegal.
Then as you said, they have a battle on their hands, but i didnt disagree with that.
Apple still has all the cards, carrier lock or none.
I'm sure we'll see Jobs claiming they've captured 25% of the US market or something completely meaningless like that.
Its only meaningless if its:
a) not true and b) made up like Steve Ballmer and Bill G like to do
Not sure what you mean by that. I'm comparing the iPhone to the phones available in the USA - it's initial market. And I'm comparing it to phones available now in Europe - it's future market. It's easy for them to beat the first group of phones and not so easy the latter. Seems very apple to apple to me.
I mean that you cant compare it to what is available now in europe, asia or anywhere else. because as much as its called iPhone, its a mobile computing platform. Its NOT a smartphone.
Even if you insist that it is a smartphone, the product you are comparing only has the most common features to suit the broadest appeal.
I've never said it wouldn't. I said it NEEDS to change. I've even predicted it WILL change.
I'm glad we can agree on something then
That's true for all current smartphone OSs though and even more so Symbian which scales all the way from a normal phone up to a full blown communicator.
yep - execpt it doesnt have multi-touch and it cant have the nice interface and thats what the bulk of people will buy it for - because it just works, just like their iPod.
I'm not saying Symbian is bad, just not the same. Funny how nobody had done something on this scale before iPhone. Every new handset was just an improved version of the last handset with incremental software improvements. Sure, some might have had things in development, even demoed their great new ideas.
but Apple are making it happen this year, not in 5. And now everyone is saying that they can do it too and its nothing new. if it wasnt such a big shift, if it is just another handset - why hasnt it been done 50 times already and why is everyone still talking about it? Why has it polarized so many people?
Clue: iPod
Z
Marketing is part of it, as it is already with iPhone. have you seen the mac sales numbers for the last....3 years?
No, but I haven't seen any TV adds for Macs either. And it you go into the resellers they are pushed aside, making more room for iPod stuff.
and an ipod and an internet communicator....and a new platform.
No it isn't