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
I should be more specific. I meant there is no evidence for the alleged business practice of fleecing faithful users by releasing high-end users first, which is the only point of contention remaining here, and is not really that important.
But then this isn’t really about “unsubstantiated” is it, so much as it is your feelings about me personally and my lack of fervent religious devotion to Apple.
Not so much about you personally personally, but about the fact that as you are so mighty in your declarations of people’s irrationality, I feel compelled when I think there is an irrational basis to your opinions, as above, to point it out because pedestals really piss me off.
Again, to be specific, I was defending Scott against this accusation:
But in Scott’s “proper argument” Apple simply is incapable of creating such a product.
This is not the same thing as saying “Apple couldn’t have brought out both at *this* macworld and maintained the standard”, which is Scott’s position, and he makes good points for it.
——-
I have just one more point to raise. Apple has announced the iphone now, in january, with a 6 month wait until it actually is for sale. It would certainly be daft to suggest that Apple is postponing the launch of the iphone that amount of time to benefit themselves. Clearly, the iphone is not being offered for sale today because it couldn’t be, what with the levels of obsession in the company’s leadership.
We can therefore take it as read that the iphone could not have been offered for sale at this macworld. Obviously, then, an iPhone *AND* an iPhone nano also could not have been offered for sale immediately.
Apple could arguably have increased resources and brought both out together. But equally arguably, because increasing engineers for example often doesn’t ease development but stymie it, Apple couldn’t.
Both from a business/revenue perspective and from an engineering perspective, there is simply no need or justification for an explanation like “apple is doing this to screw extra money from its loyal customers”, and to maintain so is therefore ludicrous from someone who claims to be a champion of reasoned opinion, untouched by the fluffy irrational tendrils of the RDF.
*by releasing high-end hardware first
Aside, since you have yet again sidelong accused me of being a mactard.
I am not a mactard. <a href=“http://www.scripting.com/2007/01/13.html”>Recently</a> Dave Winer wrote a blog entry that had some hefty discussion and criticism of apple’s platform, notably about openness. What he wrote did not make me angry. It didn’t upset me. In fact, I wrote to him urging him to write more about this subject, because I think it is massively important, as Apple becomes more powerful, that we should critically dissect apple’s actions in relation to DRM, openness etc. from the point of view of the wider good.
I really want to engage with the topic of apple’s ethics. It is, apart from anything, fascinating to me. I am not shy of letting my opinions be formed by critical analysis, and I hope to be well-informed enough to denounce actions by apple that I believe to be unethical, or bad for the consumer.
Beeblebrox, for some reason, you lump me in with a category of people who are certain to feel none of the above. For this reason, and others, I can only conclude that you have a great problem with engaging with people on a rational basis and in a rational way, if not with rational opinion-forming itself.
“They would buy it because it’s easy to use and inexpensive (relatively), stylish, and it works. They would buy it for the same reason they buy the Nano.”
“And if it weren’t a proven model before the iPod, it certainly is now.”
So let me see if I’ve got this straight….
The iPod has been out for how many years now - five? Yet you expect the cost and technology of an entirely new platform to magically scale down to the size of a Nano - from day one? Right?
Of course, unlike a iPod Nano, the iPhone Nano would need to retain a significant larger number of features from it’s big brother - even if it only made calls - and use the same architecture to drive a touch screen and render an animated UI. We’re talking about a mobile device that runs a scaled down version OSX, with a touch screen big enough to use with your fingers for $200, Right? Even though a unlocked Sony Ericsson W810i costs $150 more. Correct?
You’re also saying that Apple should have spread it’s efforts across both the full size and Nano versions of the iPhone before releasing either product - even though this could have delayed their release by at least 12-24 months and risk manufacturing, design and sales issues on not one, but two different models. Apple could have easily keep the iPhone a secret for another one or two years and competitors would have sat on their duff, twiddling their fingers. Right?
And you’re also suggesting that, instead of letting those who can afford the latest and greatest gadgets pay to recoup the R&D cost of the iPhone, low-end consumers should help pay as well. After all, you can be damn sure Apple will recoup R&D costs up front in case the first generation iPhone doesn’t sell as well as expected. Correct?
Just trying to clarify things here.
“Now you “agree” that you’ve been saying all along what I’ve claimed you said.”
You implied I thought Apple was incapable of making a solid, low-end phone. Period. You did not specifying the timeline, platform or relationship to other products being released at the same time. If none of these issues are a factor, then I still think that Apple could make a low-end phone, but couldn’t fathom why it would.
However, since the iPhone is essentially a mobile computer running a scaled down version of OS X, anything that Apple could release in the range of free to $20 with service (with FCC approval by June) would most certainly be limited to a dedicated device - the same platform used by Sony Ericsson, Motorola, etc. In other words, nothing close to the revolutionary device we saw at Macworld. If Sony Ericsson essentially has to give their walkman phone away in the US when buying service from Cingular, why would people buy a similar, yet marginally “better designed” phone from Apple?
Both from a business/revenue perspective and from an engineering perspective, there is simply no need or justification for an explanation like “apple is doing this to screw extra money from its loyal customers”
I have already addressed your assertion that what I’m suggesting is some kind of fleecing, ie. “screw” job. As I stated already, not only is this practice not “unsubstantiated” it is not unprecedented. How do you think “branding” works?
When Apple first released the iPod, they did so to Mac users first. Why? Every business guide in the world would tell you to maximize your market, go for the biggest group of potential buyers. So Apple’s move would seem counter-intuitive at first. PC users outnumber Mac users 20-1.
But left out of that equation is this: Jobs knew that if he sold it to Mac users, they WOULD BUY IT. They would try it out and make sure it worked before he expanded the market to everyone else.
Now I’m not going to argue that what I’m saying is absolutely 100% correct. No one but Jobs himself could say for sure. But neither is it unsubstantiated or unusual in the least.
I am not a mactard.
No. Of course not.
So let me see if I’ve got this straight….
Scott, why do you continue to deny that this is impossible while arguing up and down that you think it is?
And Ben, why do you continue to deny that he said it was impossible when he continues to argue up and down that it is?
Do I think Apple could have managed a simultaneous release of a low-end iPhone with fewer features at a lower cost that $500 with a 2-year Cingular contract? Yes.
Again, this isn’t some unproven market, as you claim it is. It’s a multi-billion business. EVERYONE has a cell phone (a friend of mine has three). And I think that a low-end iPhone not only would sell, but would easily outsell the high-end iPhone. And as with the Nano, the low-end iPhone sales would more than put Apple in the black in terms of R&D and manufacturing cost.
If Sony Ericsson essentially has to give their walkman phone away in the US when buying service from Cingular, why would people buy a similar, yet marginally “better designed” phone from Apple?
First, I think it would be more than marginally better designed. Your lack of imagination here is not surprising (Apple hasn’t created it yet so its mere existence is incomprehensible to you), but your unintentional slams at Apple are really amazing.
Second, your arguments so far rule out ANY possibility that Apple would EVER release a low-end iPhone. And I think even defenders of the costly initial permutation are arguing that such a device is virtually inevitable, as soon as costs go down and manufacturing numbers go up.
Beeb,
Apple is capable of doing whatever it wants. This includes expanding into the 30 billion roll a year toilet paper industry. However, there are certain things Apple can and can not do if it’s going to remain a successful company by developing innovative products.
You don’t seem to grasp the difference between the two.
“Do I think Apple could have managed a simultaneous release of a low-end iPhone with fewer features at a lower cost that $500 with a 2-year Cingular contract? Yes.”
And in post 53, I suggest that Apple could create a model of the iPhone with a 1GB of storage and a slightly smaller screen for $349. However, I don’t think it’s “possible” until 12-24 months after releasing the iPhone we saw at Macworld. This would be more like a Mini, not a Nano.
“First, I think it would be more than marginally better designed. Your lack of imagination here is not surprising (Apple hasn’t created it yet so its mere existence is incomprehensible to you), but your unintentional slams at Apple are really amazing.”
And I’m amazed at the lack of common sense you’re exhibiting in these posts.
Yes, a Nano version of the iPhone would be much better than anything on the market today. However Apple can’t release one in June since it needs to scale it’s new platform down first, as it did with the iPod.
The 1st generation iPod Nano was made possible by the same advances and experience that allowed Apple to create the 5th generation iPod. Core music functionality had scaled to the point that Apple could cram video and games into a device about the same size and cost as a 3rd or 4th generation iPod. This gave Apple enough breathing room to create a much smaller, cheaper iPod that only played music - the Nano. This has yet to happen with the iPhone.
Apple could release a low-end phone June, but it wouldn’t be an iPhone, would be limited by the same dedicated platform as everyone else in the market and would delay the release of a iPhone Mini 12-24 months later. Possible? Yes. Smart move? I don’t think so.
“And I think even defenders of the costly initial permutation are arguing that such a device is virtually inevitable, as soon as costs go down and manufacturing numbers go up. “
Really? You don’t say? From post 33…
“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.”
Scott 3, Beeblebrox 0
Why? Too many pejorative adjectives used, and provocative phrasing.