iPhone Reaction: Slick but Unwanted?
Apple Computer Incorporated revealed the iPhone, an unoriginal name for a very original product, just minutes ago at Macworld ‘07. The reaction of the crowd was enthusiastic after all the entire auditorium was bathed in the invisible but nearly palpable Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field.
The iPhone not only exudes the slickness that Apple is so well known for, but surpasses any previous iteration of any Apple device. What appears to be a solitary button mated to a screen is in really a very large button (the screen) and a home key. The most immediately useful thing about the button that is also a screen is the near infinite configurability for the future. This is a product that takes a long-term view and does not limit the ability of the product to grow with time. An interesting departure for a company who many feel actively discourage upgrades to ensure sales of a never ending stream of new Macs.
Unbelievably cool design aside the iPhone is at its heart a smart phone, replicating the functions of the current crop of smart phones (an ever-changing-never-satisfying lineup). In the past phones have balanced bulk and usability against a desire for svelte size and easy portability and the result was a constant battle of tradeoff. Reading emails was easier on the bulkier models, talking more convenient on smaller models. They were trade offs users had to accept if they wanted to play in the smart phone game.
The iPhone is still a thing of compromises, but these are beautiful compromises. Seeing the iPhone and comparing it to a current smart phone is like comparing the first amphibian that crawled from the primordial muck to Aphrodite. The interesting thing is that it took evolution hundreds of millions of years to go from barely land capable creature to the Greek ideal of beauty while Apple pulled it off in just 2 and a half years.
That said the iPhone has some non-trivial problems, not with the software, not with the GUI (Steve calls one way of manipulating images “pinching.” Not as bad as “squirt” but not great) but with the concept. Apple wants the iPhone to go huge, Steve argued that cell phones sold almost a billion units last year which dwarfs the market for iPods or even computers. Thing is that the iPhone won’t, at a $499 price point, be competing in the cell phone market. The iPhone will be competing in the smart phone market, a much smaller market indeed.
The numbers that quick Google search turns up are a market at about 1.3 million units. Apple is hoping for 10 million iPhones out the door in 2008 which means the company is counting on grabbing over 5% of the smart phone market (assuming projections are correct and the smartphone market continues to increase). Not impossible, in fact likely, but one is forced to wonder if the iPhone, unless changed, will forever to be tied to smart phone market.
And it is a problem if the iPhone is always a smart phone. To get an iPhone you’ll be forced to make a two-year commitment to Cingular (which is how long Cingular’s CEO seemed to talk without ever saying anything). That means iPod fiends that want a better movie watching experience are left out in the cold, if you desire to show your pictures in a larger format it is back to the TV for you and finally if you want the functions without the connectivity, no way brother.
A problem, but not a big as the biggest problem: the iPhone does a whole bunch of stuff no one wants to do. If one lament surfaces time and time gain about the cell phone it is that people want just a frickin cell phone. They don’t want to do anything but make calls. The iPhone is an elegant solution for calling but the battery sapping baggage that comes with it might chill the appeal for people who aren’t already on the smart phone bandwagon.
All that said, the only viable outcome for the phone is to at least rule the smart phone market with more than likely bleed over to the cell phone market. As the price drops and the phone is bundled with service contracts for an ever decreasing amount of cash, iPod sales will start being impacted but they will take the sales of the Zune popular .mp3 players along for the ride. In short, Apple seems to have pulled off iPod 2.0. All hail the new gadget masters!
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
The idea that Apple MUST create a kitchen-sink device or nothing doesn’t give them much credit. -Bbx
What? Have you gone paranoid and hysterical over the course of the Macworld keynote and a grand vindication of many Mac afficionados, exluding yourself?
You know, I expected that comment for your selfish deeds can’t fathom greatness when sniffing it (get it?). You see things as-is and that-is-that. You can’t imagine the subtleties for you are not equipped with that side of your brain.
For short, I am much ashamed of your insults to the iPhone’s novel design. You have no utter respect for great engineering feats such as this. You are merely a clueless Mac parasite leaching on these very pages.
Anyone else want to toss a bucket of eggs to Bbx, sound off!
I tend to disagree with Chris on the target market for the iPhone. It’s not the smart phone market, but the iPod+mobile consumer - especially the ones that want the “must have, next thing” consumer. For that market, Apple as hit the nail on the head in a very powerful way. If you don’t think so look at how many cars costing over $30,000 are sold each year.
Simply put, if you want to give an iPhone to someone for Christmas 2007 (or to yourself) you had better order it in September.
“The idea that Apple MUST create a kitchen-sink device or nothing doesn’t give them much credit.”
Again, in the cast of the iPhone it’s not the features, it’s the platform that makes up the bulk of the cost. If you used this platform to provide only the functionality of the weather widget, it would still be expensive. However, If you created this functionally in a dedicated hardware-based device, it would be significantly cheaper.
“I want to know how something CAN be done to appeal to the 99% of the market currently left out by the iPhone.”
Then you’re posting on the wrong website. Try a Nokia, Sony Ericsson or Motorola site instead. Apple’s strength is creating a better experience thought the fusion of hardware and software. Current “low-end” phones just don’t have enough horsepower and screen real-estate to support the kind solutions that Apple excels at.
The iPhone UI is made possible by Apple’s experience creating graphics apps such as Motion, iPhoto and hardware, such as the MacBook Pro, iPod and Newton. The only other company who could have come remotely close is Microsoft. The rest of the cell phone industry doesn’t have enough OS and graphics experience to pull this sort of thing off.
Several years from now, the cost of the hardware will drop, R&D costs will have been recouped and the iPhone will be affordable for 99% of the market. Devices based on this type of platform will become common place, just as “low-end” cell phones are now.
Until then, the current crop of phones that come “free” or at a nominal charge from service providers will continue to use the current form factor, which will limit it’s capabilities.
ummm, on the price point: are we forgetting how many RAZR’s with the worlds worst cellphone UI were sold at $400+ Millions were!
In fact, black RAZRs were sold by Cingular themselves at $299 w/ contract.
My goodness, and we hear things from the peanut gallery about the $500 price point.
Great response Scott. You describe the reason Apple products are the way they are, and for some reason Breeble just hasn’t been able to grasp this basic concept through the thousands of posts and article B writes and reads.
i invite you Breeble to print out Scott’s post, print it out, and tape it to your bathroom mirror so that you can read it day ater day and maybe, just maybe you will begin to understand why so many of your comments and questions carry no relation to Apple and its products.
excuse the typos, lack o’ sleep
Apple’s strength is creating a better experience thought the fusion of hardware and software. Current “low-end” phones just don’t have enough horsepower and screen real-estate to support the kind solutions that Apple excels at.
OMG, the kool-aid. And yet ironically, a slam against Apple. That they can’t make an affordable low-end device that’s easy to use and just makes calls could be construed as a harsh critique. Frankly, I think it’s just a lack of imagination on your part - if Apple hasn’t done it, then it must not be possible.
You describe the reason Apple products are the way they are
He’s not describing the reason for anything. He’s excusing Apple by arguing that anything they choose not to do must be inherently impossible - like creating an easy-to-use phone that just makes calls.
That’s the reality distortion field talking, and I don’t have to print it out to be reminded of it. I can just log in here and read your posts or his or any number of posts by Apple fans anywhere on the web.
That’s the reality distortion field talking..blah..blah…(usual crap by Bbx)
It sounds more like Distorted Reality Field in your own empty box, Bbx, and not one of the rest of AM readers and posters.
The point of the iPhone design concept is to satisfy the appetite of iPod owners, and let it be known now and herein, there are about 70-80 million of them worldwide as I speak.
What you’re trying to argue in this thread is Apple’s lack of support for the 99% of the worldwide cellular phone market (which in your words consists of the “low-end” bottom-feeders). Where did you get your numbers from??? So, are you saying 99% of cellphone users are bare, stock, “low-end” users? Searching through Gartner and Bloomberg does not support your opinions, my friend.
And just a preview of what the iPhone’s impact on the rest of the cellular/PDA/smartphone market leaders from MobileTracker (http://www.mobiletracker.net):
Financial impact of iPhone announcement
And that is only the first day’s impact. How much more comes June? Next Macworld? When a slew of more iPhone siblings are introduced? Naysayers, come forth…
I say again, Do Not Underestimate the power of the “iPod” brand and the iPhone is the penultimate iPod+Mac communicator device. Some Mac parasites in this forum and elsewhere will hypocritically swear they won’t get one BUT, in truth, they lust every bit of it. Now, prove to me that I’m wrong.
Anyone know the CPU being used in the iPhone? Intel said it’s not theres but parts of the phone are?
Only other option is Transmetta’s CPU’s. Via’s still require heatsinks but TM’s do not and can run x86 instruction sets 100%. Wondering how much or how little support we developers are going to get on putting apps on the phone, chances are we’ll get every bit of support possible.
But I’d like to know CPU specs or at least get a hint.
“He’s excusing Apple by arguing that anything they choose not to do must be inherently impossible - like creating an easy-to-use phone that just makes calls.”
No, I’m saying that the software / virtual UI solution that Apple has created requires a new platform, which has an inherent cost to it. This is Apple’s MO. Apple could make a phone-only device using this platform, but it wouldn’t be significantly cheaper.
If anyone needs an excuse, it’s the rest of the cellular phone industry. After over a decade of research, why haven’t they created a easy to use phone - in any form factor. You seem to be blaming Apple for the rest of the industry’s poor products.
While Apple has and will continue to make “dedicated” music products, I don’t see them doing this for a phone. Playing music is significantly less complex than making calls and can be distilled down to a few simple operations like the Shuffle and Nano. And you can’t dial with a click-wheel. I don’t see Apple creating a device with a bunch of discrete, physical buttons necessary for core phone functionality at the price point you’re talking about.
And, if Windows is “good enough” for most of the industry’s PCs, then why would people buy a low-end Apple phone that just makes calls? There’s simply not enough room for Apple to differentiate themselves in the billion unit “just a phone” market.
I’m not saying Apple can’t, I’m saying I don’t think they will. I could be wrong. Only time will tell.
Re #40, xwiredtva, the consensus is it’s an ARM cpu, but Apple won’t say which. The exact choice of ARM processor may also be subject to change between now and June, I don’t know. Without question, when the iPhone is released, it will be a matter of hours before we know the answer.
The most interesting take on this subject (tip of the beret to daringfireball.net), is that if some version of OS X is running on ARM, it has been either developed or ported to be runnable on ARM processors.
——————
Robotech, unfortunately, as you’ve probably heard by now, the iPhone is currently planned not to support third party applications. Certain blogs seem optimistic about changing this with a sufficient public outcry. Me, I’m not really trying but I can’t really see much use for third party applications on something as plucking awesome as this.
NB, evidence.
Well I was hoping for a bit more on the CPU side, but I guess the x86 sets aren’t quite there with power usage.
Guess we’ll see FM Mobile 9 soon with support for iPhone OS X.
“OMG, the kool-aid. And yet ironically, a slam against Apple. That they can’t make an affordable low-end device that’s easy to use and just makes calls could be construed as a harsh critique.”
How is pointing out a good business decision a slam against Apple?
As I mentioned earlier, only Apple has enough software *and* hardware engineering experience to pull off something like the iPhone. Instead of try to break into the existing billion unit, low-end segment of the phone market, Apple has effectively created a whole new segment where it can leverage it’s experience creating Motion, Final Cut, Core Image, Core Animation, etc. The rest of the cell phone industry can’t compete in this space and the Zune was designed and manufactured by Toshiba, not Microsoft.
The question isn’t “Can Apple make a low end phone?” - the question is “why would they?” Because you want them to?