What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- Salgat, on 10/12/2007, -18/+14Just a matter of time...
- Xageroth, on 10/12/2007, -12/+59I know like a lot of people my reaction to the iPhone (and the iPod actually) was less like "Whoa! Genius!" and more like "About time!"
There's a lot of people who dream up devices like these and that's why they're killer. They work the way you think they would work just by looking at it. - Blandyman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@linkedList:
How would it be any different to define a music player with phone capabilities as opposed to a phone with music playing capabilities?
The phone part is the new thing for Apple, so they have to advertise it as such. Also, they're not replacing the iPod line, so I don't see why it'd be 'an iPod with phone capabilities', because the phone part is more expensive (for the end-user, what with payments and contracts).
But I think you're just unable to define the music player with phone capabilities. If my black iPod 30GB could also make phone calls, what makes it any different than a ROKR (in basic functionality, I mean).
As soon as you add the ability to make phone calls, it's a phone. - SuperSloth, on 10/12/2007, -29/+7"How would it be any different to define a music player with phone capabilities as opposed to a phone with music playing capabilities?"
It's like the difference between WebTV and a PC with a TV Tuner. You can take a TV and make it into a computer, or take a computer and make it into a TV. The difference is one makes a TV a bad computer, and the other makes a computer a bad TV (or rather, expensive).
The iPhone makes a phone into a limited iPod. I'd rather have an iPod that's a limited phone. I don't need a video/photo/music/web phone. I want an iPod that makes phone calls, and that's it. - sych0, on 10/12/2007, -5/+60"I don't need a video/photo/music/web phone"
You're not the target audience - gr8one, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22"The iPhone makes a phone into a limited iPod. I'd rather have an iPod that's a limited phone. I don't need a video/photo/music/web phone. I want an iPod that makes phone calls, and that's it."
-I'm trying to understand how the iPhone is a limited ipod. To my eyes it looked like it did everything a normal ipod did, but better, and with a bigger screen... - Grynn, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9a famous quote, though I cannot remember who originated it, 'the markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent'. Kind of applies to the marketing of apple products too. They make no sense.... and yet they become market leaders...
- noreturn, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Their target audience isn't their target audience. Sure, everyone who owns and frequently uses a phone and iPod wishes for a device that would combine the two, but how many are going to hop on to a 2-year contract and fork out the equivalent of the unsubsidized price for most other smart phones?
I don't doubt for a second that this will sell well, but it's not going to take the market like the iPod. - nogami, on 10/12/2007, -13/+25I was initially interested in buying one, but as more and more details came out, my enthusiasm decreased...
-None of your regular music as ringtones
-No (or extremely limited) outside applications can be installed
-Can't sync with MS Outlook (that's a deal breaker right there)
-Camera can't record video
-You will NEVER see Skype or any other VOIP software on it
-Locked to the provider
-No Flash in the browser
My current phone does all of this (with the exception of Flash). The user interface is far more clunky (read Windows Mobile), but I'm just not willing to give these up to run a nicer UI... - johnpaul191, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3as much as i wish the price was less, it's not less than the Treo is from Verizon (with 2 year contract). they do have some WinMobile (or whatever it's called) smartphones for more like $200, but they have something like 128 MB of flash memory. obviously they are not media players in any substantial way. they are a different beast. my housemate has one of those through Cingular. in general he likes it, but he also carries his (non-iPod) MP3 player with him and he is not somebody that needs 70 GB of music in tow. i get the feeling that the iPhone buyers will be people looking for a niche that other smartphones do not fill. even if that's that they are Mac users and want easy integration. it seems like some people have sync nightmares (mac/win/nix). if the iPhone makes that as easy as it looks... then that's a major score right there.
i guess the BlackBerry has finally gotten cheap, but i am not sure the iPhone is really a direct competition. a lot of people seem to have a BlackBerry because their whole office rolls them out. that makes sense to keep everyone in touch with the same abilities and software. the iPhone seems like something more of an individual purchase. i know a ton of people that have Treos and they are not through their job. of people that go out and buy a BlackBerry on their own with no direct need to sync with some office setup... i think i know one? i'm not even sure if i see as many sidekicks as i used to now that i am thinking about it. - johnpaul191, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@Ogden
i agree with other responses to you. i don't think Apple engineering is weak, i think quite the opposite. i think the engineering vs business people is where most companies fall apart. Apple hardware and software is as complicated as anything, but they manage to make it usable and straightforward. watch somebody pick up an iPod for the first time. they will generally make it play in about 10 seconds.
on the other hand i think Microsoft has a ton of engineers that build things like crazy, but people can't figure them out. on the last Diggnation podcast Alex was talking about some MS Office focus group where the people were asked what they would like to see in the next version of office and literally everything was already in there... just that these people had no idea.
i think other companies have a bunch of suits that take the engineers work and mash it up for what they perceive the market to be and the result is crap.
i think some techie people used to underestimate Apple because their products are not difficult. they assume the easy to use tool is therefore some Fisher-Price kids toy. it's obvious when you still read anti-Apple people complain and one of the most over-used arguments is "one-button mouse! bah!". it seems like building OS X on BSD was a major changing point for people actually looking at the platform. i know a few people that ignored Macs till then, and have since switched.
that attitude is why the iPod is such a huge seller, and people are slowly switching to OS X. it's darn hard to compete with that well engineered simplicity. just adding more features than the iPod is nothing new. the iPod has less features than the MP3 players that came before it. with some exceptions all Apple really has to do in the short term is keep shrinking the size, more storage and longer battery life. i think the basic iPod has a decent life ahead of it. i don't really want a touch screen thing since i listen to music 99.9% of the time. - GruntboyX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I think the iphone will carve a new market and not immediately sway any business user from his smart phone. There is just too much of a demand for MS Exchange support. Thats not saying the iphone wont be a sucess, it is just going to blaze its own trail.
- kelly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The iPhone supports MS Exchange
- Blandyman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ SuperSloth:
No, you cannot take a TV and make it into a computer, or take a computer and make it into a TV. Do you know what defines a television? The ability to view things, either over-the-air or from a connected peripheral such as a VCR. You know what a computer is? Of course you do, it's something that computes information and helps you perform tasks.
When you can take your TV, put some parts in it, and it'll become a calculator or even rudimentary word processor, do you know what you have? A computer that is also a TV. When you take a regular computer and add a TV Tuner, do you know what you have? A computer with is also a TV.
The way you make it sound, is like I can switch the snowtires on my truck with the radial racing tires on my mustang and it now my truck is a car and my mustang is a truck. No, they still look how they look, and perform their original tasks. When you add new functionality, you can't add the smaller ability over the larger one.
A car is missing its engine. All it has are the seats and the frame. That makes it something to sit in/sleep in (don't know why, but roll with me for a second.) So, if we add an engine, tires, whatever it needs, does it become something we sit in that transports us or something that transports us that we sit in?
- Xageroth, on 10/12/2007, -12/+59I know like a lot of people my reaction to the iPhone (and the iPod actually) was less like "Whoa! Genius!" and more like "About time!"
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -5/+43I found myself asking the same question. I am no fanboy but when Apple does something, they do it very, very well from a design and usability standpoint. Do they just have all the smart guys tied up in a cave somewhere? Why are they the ones that routinely "define" whatever they compete in?
- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24I think part of it has to do with a CEO that didn't get indoctrinated in the typical way of doing things. Steve Jobs didn't even graduate from college. Meanwhile, all the other CEOs and corporate leadership running Apple's competitors were business school trained. Not having been sent through the same mill as everyone else gives you the chance to approach problems with "beginner's eyes", and not automatically gravitate to the same solutions everyone else has tried.
- rbanffy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33I would turn the question upside-down and say they only enter a market when they can redefine it to better match its competencies.
That's why products like the iMac, the iPod and now the iPhone surprise people - because they can't compete head-to-head with, say, Microsoft, on enemy ground.
When you can't win, you rewrite the rules. - ogden, on 10/12/2007, -17/+16Apple has traditionally had very strong ID (industrial design), good business savvy, average to poor engineering and is terribly stubborn and outstanding vision.
In contrast, MS has had retarded ID, fair market savvy, great engineering, and has actually been far less stubborn than Apple lately IMHO. MS also lacks vision and a god deal of common sense but has the money to simply do everything at once and see where the market goes, whereas Apple has had quite a bit of success creating their market.
Apple generally provides a better user experience, MS provides a better developer experience. I've also heard from people in the industry that MS's server platforms are a mess right now.
The one lesson I wish Apple would learn is something that almost everyone else knows -- make your systems more open and people will find applications for them. The iPhone is most disappointing in that respect. A full OSX you can't put software on? wtf? I'm sorry, my ugly treo has you beat there.
I swore I'd never buy an Apple or an iPod and I have them both... - NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13One thing that Apple has in their product development process, is a very strong filter for the features list. They still don't build an FM tuner into the iPod, because the argument for including it just isn't strong enough. If you want to listen to FM, they'll sell you a simple reciever attachment that is itself simple and elegant.
A big part of design at Apple is deciding what not to include. That's where the Sonys of the world are screwing up.
-jcr - AdrianRice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"I found myself asking the same question. I am no fanboy but when Apple does something, they do it very, very well from a design and usability standpoint. Do they just have all the smart guys tied up in a cave somewhere? Why are they the ones that routinely "define" whatever they compete in?"
Steve Jobs is the answer you're looking for. Every company has amazing people, but it takes a very, very focussed leader to drive it through. One who's preprared to reject excellence for perfection. His attitude is, if we can't innovate the current experience radically, then it's just not worth doing. Steve Jobs won't allow Apple to 'me too' on anything. He wants to be remembered as someone who changed the world, not just profited from the way the world is. Of course this attitude also helps attract the best people. - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22ogden: "average to poor engineering"
I disagree that Apple has poor Engineering. Their problem is poor quality control and manufacturing processes. Most recent quality issues I have seen with Apple hardware can be tracked to component problems or build issues. The overheating MacBooks for instance are caused by manufacturing glopping on copious amounts of thermal grease which is counter-productive. I know this because my MacBook Pro was once hot and I took it apart and reapplied the paste and all is well now. I'm an Engineer. People always blame Engineers for problems even if they aren't the root source and that tends to bug me a bit. - Guydevice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"I think part of it has to do with a CEO that didn't get indoctrinated in the typical way of doing things. Steve Jobs didn't even graduate from college."
"It's a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." --Albert Einstein
- PeTeRZz, on 10/12/2007, -22/+2NO WAI!!!
- kettle, on 10/12/2007, -45/+5It's not that complicated. It's one part inspiration, two parts hard work, and 97.5 parts pure, unadulterated luck. After those various factors have played their parts it's essentially inertia baby.
- brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+51The luck argument is *****. According to most, Jobs is a perfectionist slave driver that reviews all their products PERSONALLY. Apparently, in the case of the iphone, it was designed over a year ago but he didn't like it so he made them do it again. Thats not luck. Thats a company with a vision AND people that can fulfill the vision.
I am not an apple fanboy. To date, I have never bought one apple product. I don't have an ipod - no way I am throwing the thing away or paying 100 EUR for a new battery in 2 years. When I was a kid, my parents bought me an apple IIe clone and I do intend to buy my wife a macbook next week. I do think that their stuff seems overpriced.
BUT
They have a company strategy and they execute it very well. It's not luck. Clear? - kettle, on 10/12/2007, -26/+5I'm not playing down the ipod, or the inspiration, or the hard work - you've read that into my post yourself. It's a good product, and I happen to own one. But there is no mathematical formula for success in business of any kind. It's mostly luck. I suggest several years of statistics, and a thorough reading of Nassim Taleb's well thought out essay on randomness (fooled by randomness http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Chance-Markets/dp/1587990717 ) and perhaps bernstein's concise history of probabilistic reasoning Against the Gods ( http://www.amazon.com/Against-Gods-Remarkable-Story-Risk/dp/0471295639/ref=pd_sim_b_1/105-2562936-5268445 )
Steve Jobs certainly has some excellent intuition, drive, and panache - but I am and will remain too skeptical to accept that he is an oracle. - maquiavelo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I must disagree with you point. I believe the success Apple has had with certain products is a result of the whole design and development process. I was lucky enough once to speak with the leader of the MacBook Pro development team, and he very simply described the philosophy: "we outline the objective (e.g.: a music player) and find a solution that works. But then, instead of just adopting that initial solution we reassess the whole thing from a multitude of other directions. The result of this, on top of a lot of inter department cooperation and Steve Jobs' very high standards; is generally a product which is highly innovative and a great solution to the initial problem/objective.". What more can you say.
- kettle, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3Apparently I am not expressing myself in such a way that everyone is able to easily understand. I apologize for that. I am not referring to standards, or effort, or any other subjective post-hoc measure of success. I'm talking about human history as a random walk across centuries, which has yet to produce any fixed answers to abstract social problems.
The ipod is great, but so long as you remain unable to distill that success into a formula, 'mostly luck' is the only phrase you are legitimately entitled to use as a label for the process. - Aggaman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18All Apple stuff is like this. Part of the problem with arguing about Apple products is that many people automatically assume that more features = better product value. It doesn't. I will never go back to using a Windows machine because it drives me nuts from a usability standpoint. My usual response to a new Apple product is "I can't believe someone didn't think of doing it that way before. It seems so obvious now". But most of Apple's good stuff is hard to argue about since it isn't reducible to numbers or propositions. You have to use Exposé, for example, in order to really appreciate it. I think that all great design is like this, and Apple wins hands down over any company I can think of because of it. The bad side is that I no longer have any patience with bad UIs. The average UI on a television or DVD player, or even a car dashboard is a disgrace.
Apple's bad luck is having to compete against a monopolist in the personal computer market. Still, they do reasonably well and have a loyal fanbase, which some people love to mock without wondering why the company would have such loyal customers. - kettle, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2I'm not mocking anyone either... but I give up, I guess I can't win on this thread.
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Sorry but I think luck has little to do with it. I always remember what happened to Apple when Steve Jobs wasn't there. It slid downhill. When he came back he turned it around again. I don't see how luck factors into this.
- CatalystDM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Apparently I am not expressing myself in such a way that everyone is able to easily understand."
No, you're just making a stupid point that has no basis in this situation. Luck is minimal for Apple... their success is by design. - KrazyA1pha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@kettle
I finally see your point after your third post. Perhaps you are right in saying that you communication of that point is vague, though.
I agree that there is a measure of luck to success. Even if you create a revolutionary product 100% of the time, that doesn't equal a breakout success every time. Steve Jobs knows this, and that's why the iPod started out as Mac only. It wasn't until Apple saw the traction of the iPod that they scrambled to make it a multi-platform device. I also believe that's why Steve Jobs is only forecasting a 1% market share for the iPhone; not because the product isn't revolutionary, but because the odds are against it being another breakthrough product.
- brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+51The luck argument is *****. According to most, Jobs is a perfectionist slave driver that reviews all their products PERSONALLY. Apparently, in the case of the iphone, it was designed over a year ago but he didn't like it so he made them do it again. Thats not luck. Thats a company with a vision AND people that can fulfill the vision.
- systmcrash, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5It's simple really the one thing apple has always been about was doing what everyone else was doing but doing it with style.
- kelly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I wish people would stop saying that as it implies that Apple produces products with style to the detriment of substance. Something which certainly is not true.
- netdroid9, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17They have competed. There are some very good iPod alternatives out there, just go out to your local multimedia store. The problem is akin to that of Windows: There are great alternatives, but the iPod has such a huge market share that it's damn near impossible to squeeze your way in.
- aptmunich, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9That's the point though: for the longest time there weren't any real alternatives to Windows: Unless your computer was compatible with the de-facto standard, you couldn't function in the world of business.
I hardly think you can draw the same analogy with a music player.
Obviously the market leader is always viewed favorably, but there is more to the iPod's success than simple market-share success. - RoflcopterFUEL, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17Agree. Creative Zens and iAudio players are quite superior to ipods.
- ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -15/+10for us music buyers (yeah, not everyone is a thief!) iPod is almost the best option simply because of iTunes
- ArchonSG, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Have to agree on that about the Zen vs Ipods. I have both the Ipod video 30gb and the Nano 2gb, both pretty and sexy but when it comes to actual quality of the media the ipods play back both music and video in the ipod video's case, both ipods pretty much sucked vs my Zen Vision M. What made the ipod still such a strong market leader is its looks and ease of use.
Good marketing, good design with "good enough" media playback quality made the ipods the leaders they are today.
Basically, Apple knows exactly how "sex" sells. Anything they make doesn't have to be the "best", just good enough as long as it has a sexy shell, it'll sell well. - davidrools, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2(digg deleted my entry)
- rbanffy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@aptmunich,
On the Windows thing, I would add that Microsoft has the power to decide which computer architectures live and which die.
If, tomorrow, Microsoft decides to kill Itanium like they did with PowerPC (except for Macs), MIPS, Alpha, all they need to to is to announce Longhorn Server will not run on it. If you are not Windows-compatible, you are restricted to a niche. May be a high margin one, but it it still a fraction of the Windows-friendly market. We could be running 64 bit RISC SMP boxes since the early 90's if it weren't for MS.
For me, that is the single reason we are all running on x86 hardware now. - davidrools, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2...as i was saying
i (less than three) my iPod KILLER: the Archos gmini 402cc. It does almost everything an iPod does PLUS:
-plays ogg and wma audio
-plays mp4, divx, xvid, and wmv video files
-has a VGA (640 x 480) camcorder which looks excellent
-has a 1.3MP still camera
-built in mic for recording
-line-in recording
-video output with cables included
-no DRM
-USB HOST PORT to transfer files TO AND FROM other USB devices (flash drives, digital cameras, other mp3 players)
-only costs $160
-same size as an ipod
-2.2" color screen
-can play NES, GameBoy, and Sega Game Gear emulators (with a 3rd party plugin)
-lets you create, reorder, rename, save and manage playlists on the device
-doesnt look like everyone else's mp3 player
-has a 4-way d-pad + 7 buttons (makes going one item at a time through lists easier)
-bass/treble EQ (not presets) plus bass boost and balance adjustment
-fully customizable power options (hdd and lcd timeout, auto power off, separate for battery and DC operation)
-better experimentally tested sound quality than the 5g ipod
-fingerprint proof! (except the screen)
-no DRM (worth saying again)
-customizable wallpaper
What it doesnt do: notes/contacts/calendar, nike+, scroll through long lists quickly
http://reviews.cnet.com/Archos_Gmini_402_Camcorder_20GB/4505-6499_7-31595017.html - Aggaman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18This is the problem I was talking about above.
You can list any number of features that some other player has over the iPod and the fact will still remain that the competitors suck. None of them can match the iPod's awesome and simple design.
Sites like Digg attract technically sophisticated users who could master pretty much any gadget, no matter how complicated. Most people aren't like that. What's the point of all those features if most people will never be able to use them? If you spend about a minute with an iPod, you pretty much know how to work everything. Plus it looks great. That's why the iPod wins.
Moreover, sites like Digg tend to attract people who consider themselves superior to the masses, and this probably drives criticism of the iPod more than anything else. After all, if anyone can use it, it is no mark of distinction to be able to do so. So people slag off the iPod and post feature lists, when that is not the point. - KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@ davidrools
You mentioned DRM twice in there. I think it needs to be pointed out that the iPod doesn't contain DRM either. You can put ANY MP3 onto an iPod and it will play just fine.
iPod != DRM
iTunes != DRM
ITMS == DRM
It's not the player that has DRM, it is the content. - OnlyShawn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4David....it does all those things...AND...it looks like crap. And it's got a lot of buttons. I had a creative zen a while ago...problem was, it had *too* many features, was a pain in the ass, and just wasn't worth the trouble. IRiver HDD player was....eh...alright, a good compromise b/t features and usability, but nothing comes *close* to an ipod on the daily usability front. All of the other features on those other players, while cool, just ended up not being used.
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8David, you've listed a lot of features there but none of them I really need. ogg and wma? No thanks. I still like mp3. Line in recording? I don't need that on my mp3 player. I had it on my minidisc player because it didn't have a dock for quick digital transfers but I don't see the need on an mp3 player. Same for microphone or camera. I'm not going to go through all of the features you listed but I'll just say there was nothing compelling to me. I used to be obsessed with features. I wanted the products with the most features, even if I didn't use most of them. Now, I am more concerned with quality of features and user interface. The iPod does well in that department in my opinion. Also, I actually like iTunes very much (smart playlists FTW) and the iPod is the best device to tie into it.
Sound quality. It's really pointless to discuss without talking about what headphones will be used. In other words, my iPod with Etymotics ER-4P earphones will destroy your Archos with supplied headphones in the sound quality department. In other words, my iPod with Etymotic ER-4P earphones leave little to be desired in the sound quality department.
- aptmunich, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9That's the point though: for the longest time there weren't any real alternatives to Windows: Unless your computer was compatible with the de-facto standard, you couldn't function in the world of business.
- delveccio, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2I don't know why so many people thought the iPod's success was a fluke. When it came out, it was stronger and prettier than anything else out there, that's what sold me on it. However, I honestly don't believe the iPhone will have anywhere near the same level of success.
- lorean, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Exactly. I recently helped a friend purchase an mp3 player. What was it she cared about most?
Number of gigabytes? Nope.
Sound quality? Didn't even check
Battery life? Nope.
DRM? Yeah right.
Fashionable? You got it!
Once she took a look at the ipod design she refused to consider buying any other player.
- lorean, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Exactly. I recently helped a friend purchase an mp3 player. What was it she cared about most?
- scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2If the competition to the ipod has been a failure on the basis of market share, you have to apply the same logic to Macs versus windows PCs.
- SeanClarity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Sure, but there's no such thing as "business" music player or a "professional editing" music player. There are high end and low end music players, but the application for them across the market is to do one thing.... listen to music. The same does not hold true when you look at computers. Apple has done very well in the markets it has targeted.
- scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm sure if you asked Apple circa 1984 and even today what their ambition is, it would be for a major share of the business, education, home/personal, creative, etc markets.
You're suggesting that they always aimed for and are happy with only the niches they carved out. - SeanClarity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Judging market share only by achieved ambition would surely leave Microsoft with everything it produced, except for windows and office, as a failure. Even the X box platform would show low numbers. Unless you cut up the market by region, price and generations, but we aren't allowed to do that are we.
And if achievement of ambition is the only important market share prerequisite, since the late 90's, Apple has done very well and Microsoft has not. Check the stocks.
- Niz1, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Ok, i dont think this will be a success, the v3 was because it was a very slim stylish phone, put that with a new interface it would be prefect, now the iPhone look at it the size it huge! if this takes off i will be surprised, i dont want that in mypocket! if anything they need to release an iPhone nano, mobile phones should be small oh wait but i think in the US its quite normal to have chunky stuff, well not in Europe!
- mackintosh, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I'm sitting here looking at my Nokia N93 lying next to my laptop. What was that about Europe and not chunky?
- AceTracer, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3This dude has serious spelling, grammar, and capitalization problems. It's distracting me from actually finishing the article.
And yes, shocking, someone on Digg actually reads the articles. - lkjashdflk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9i am shocked.
that these companies have not caught on yet. Apple is Toyota, while Sony & co are now Ford & GM?
have you guys seen the japanese sony ericsson phones? while they are no iphone, they do have some amazing stuff over there. That whole side of the ocean gets some really cool stuff that never sees daylight over here...
just look up the 42s or the 43s- Septimus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's a phone designed for the US and nowhere else. Old tech wrapped in a nice package.
Fair enough I guess, America does need a decent phone to come out once at least. - Aggaman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I live in Korea. The phones here are amazing. I have one of the latest super duper ones that you can watch TV on and that has Windows Mobile and loads of other features.
I'd drop it for an iPhone in a heartbeat. It is so much better than any other phone in existence solely because of the UI. Everything else is obsolete. All phones are going to be like this in a few years, so if you don't want Apple's phone you will soon be able to get one just like it.
- Septimus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's a phone designed for the US and nowhere else. Old tech wrapped in a nice package.
- belfastbiker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I've been telling friends something similar ever since I changed my highly featured iRiver for a iPod.
- Darph.Bobo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Electronics manufacuters just don't seem to get it. Look at the landline phone it's been around for over a hundred years but up until about 2 years ago EVERY landline/cordless phone made sucked ass in some way.
- zetsurin, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7It's pretty clear:
Apple: $100,000,000 advertising budget
Creative: $100,000 advertising budget
Guess which one will sell more? If you don't believe that then I suggest you start writing and trying to sell a shareware app. Then you will start to appreciate how pivotal the role of marketing is at a very fundamental level.- belfastbiker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10No.
This is not simply about who spends more on advertising. I was well aware of other brands from Sony, Creative, iRiver, Samsung and Sandisk and the like. In fact, I was fairly anti-iPod when I started.
When I changed from iRiver to iPod, I did my own research on what was available.
Seeing so many people raving about the relavtively feature-deficient iPod swung it for me. - skywake, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4In the last few years I have seen two adds for Creative products....
one on the side of a bus... and one in a computer magazine...
I think they advertise Apple products in my sleep now....
I brought my Creative "Digital Music Player" because it had better specs
and was cheaper then the i___ alternative....
despite the ranting and raving about how great Apple are
I also use Linux on my Laptop because its better for what I do on it (multimedia/internet/UNI)
people need to stop buying into what they are told to buy into
and start to really look at what they want and what they don't
you don't buy brand names... you buy products god damn it! - Bensch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Excuse me, but Apple just handed Creative $100,000,000 for advertising due to a patent settlement. Did you miss that little news item?
- belfastbiker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10No.
- sshack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27Most of the commenters do not understand the focus of the blog writers
argument.
Electronics companies are losing to the ipod because they compete on features.
The ipod doesn't compete on features, it competes on the complete package
and "feeling".
The iphone isn't competing on features - Name any feature on
the iphone, there'll be some whizzbang nerd toy that does the same, plus a little more. It competes on the full package and the cool factor. The cool factor
is there mostly because of the attention to the full package. - ffnn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1it is really ironic for other companies to be beaten by apple company in such a field
- madhaha, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Its really ironic how everything I say is cool because I use irony or sometimes just the word irony. Irooooooooooooony. I like the sound of that. I'm smart!
- dkm201, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4How is it ironic? Do you even know what irony is?
- zybch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3A bit like 'coppery' perhaps?
- gravityboard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1that's why it's called Apple Inc. now
- Twango, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Most of the products of most electronics manuf's have always been about function rather than style. You can point to beige-box computers, or to boxy VCRs with flashing clocks, or to early TVs (ugly!). Radio: after the initial rush, radios became furniture, until the first transistor radios came along ... plastic boxes but in *many colors*.
The iPod - and phone - is not just form over function: high-useability IS function. E.g. VCR on-screen programming. The iPhone is a marvellous invention (well...convergence), but will it overcome the price and Cingular barrier?
Funny: LG teaming with Prada. Anyone for a Ferrari Zune? - Darph.Bobo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8 zetsurin 8 minutes ago
- 1 digg
It's pretty clear:
Apple: $100,000,000 advertising budget
Creative: $100,000 advertising budget
===============================
Better wipe off them ' PRETTY CLEAR' goggles, cause you're saying nobody knows about Creative's outstanding products and that's why they aren't able to compete with the iPod. Oh and back away from the crack pipe too.- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You totally forgot: Creative blew millions in an ad blitz that did next to nothing but put them in the red. (100 million dollars, if I remember correctly. If not that, it was something extremely high.) Then they sued Apple for about as much as they blew on their ad campaign shortly after their financial losses were announced, and that pulled them back to where they were before.
- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Don't forget this:
http://digg.com/apple/Creative_Snubs_Steve_Jobs_Proposals_in_2001_...thus_the_iPod_was_Born
". . . and other Missteps by Creative such as: Apple, known for its marketing savvy, signed up rock stars U2 to sell its player...In contrast, Mr Sim is reported to have told the Journal in 2004: 'I don't want to waste money on marketing. I'm very results-oriented.'" - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6So, according to http://www.answers.com/topic/creative-technology, Creative launched a $100,000,000 campaign to unseat Apple that year: (the article doesn't specifically say, but I remember hearing in the news that it was specifically a $100 million ad campaign.)
"In July 2005, Creative Technology's shares plunged to a new all-time low of $6.25 per share as a result of poor sales in the 4th quarter of 2004 / 1st quarter of 2005 despite a US$100 million campaign to take on Apple Computer and the highly-successful iPod range. This represents a significant change from the $50 their shares commanded in 1998. In August 2005, it was announced that Creative's losses for that quarter amounted to US$31.9 million, going into the red for the first time in three years. Q3 FY2006 losses were US$114.3 million. In June 2006, their stock price was $5.22 per share (up from a low of $4.64)."
- Chicagorocks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5In the case of the ipod,the issue isn't the hardware. There are plenty of devices that beat the physical ipod itself. The problem is software. Not a dang one of these companies can figure out the software end of the user experience.
The ipod is missing plenty of features. No FM radio/FM radio record,no custom EQ,no ogg support,etc. Many other players have the ipod beat on features,extras and battery life. And even on looks/style the gap is closing.
I had a Zune and I loved the player itself and the UI was nice and it had just about every feature I myself want.
But,the software was horrible. As is the case with almost all DAP's. I tried out a Samsung T9,nice little player,terrible software options.
These companies need to understand that they are fighting itunes,not the ipod. Now is itunes perfect? No,but it works as it should 99% of the time.
The Zune software doesn't even display how many songs are in a playlist. The Samsung software doesn't even have a 'select all' option. Just stupid omissions. Half the time it said my marketplace downloads were not valid and I was constantly having to 'update' my license. With Samsung it said half my tracks weren't compatible with the player and when I ejected the device not only where these tracks on the player but on there twice. You get the point. They can make the most feature packed,sexy cool device but if putting content onto it and if managing that content forces you into a mental institution whats the point?
The iPod universe is not w/o it's problems or issues. It's not perfect. There is plenty about the ipod I don't like. But,I am forced back to it time after time because every time I try to give another product a chance something breaks the deal. There is always something wrong. 90% of the time it's on the software end. I am a little picky but not so much that I expect perfection. But,when you drop $300 on something and it's primary focus is to play music and getting it to do so drives you to insanity or at least lots of tears then I'm sorry but it's a no-go.
When folks ask me what's so great about the ipod,I say itunes because that's where it's at. When Sony,Samsung,Creative and all the rest figure this out then they can play ball. Til then,it's Apples game. - BattleBaconXXL, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3all these articles about Apple products are funny. either they praise the new device to no end or write about how its going to tank the company. everything Apple does is to sell Macs. All their products just "work" together providing an easy experience. But all these products require a computer.
- willi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You mean you are required to have a computer make a phone call on the iphone?
- KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Both the iPhone and the iPod work on a mac OR pc. Neither one requires a mac. If that were the case, the iPod most definitely would not have been a success. They require a computer, yes, but not necessarily a mac.
- adhocboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Apple has always goes up-market with their products. Part of their success has to attributed to the fact that they define their market and design and sell to it. Some companies attempt to be all things to all customers, but that is not the discipline Steve Jobs adopted when he came back. He thinned the product line, focused the company, and built solutions for people he understood.
Other companies like Bose, Dyson, etc use the same formula with similar success. The common denominator is that success is defined as customer loyalty and profitability, not market penetration. Oddly, I think Motorola did the same thing with the Razr.
For the ipod and razr and other 'super products', I have to disagree with the blogger. They may actually have been flukes. Sometimes a great idea for a segment of the market just happens to resonate with a larger public. That is great. But, I do not think it is inevitable.
Some electronics firms will compete on price and look for market penetration, others will provide niche solutions and look for profitability. Both are great for us a consumers. And if the iPhone is a hit, we will all benefit from the competition even if we purchase a competitor. Large touchscreens are just plain good for gadget market. (I hope it wakes Palm up to what they COULD be delivering.)- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6True. It was said that though Apple may only have 6% of the market share, it has the best six percent. Let Dell and HP and Acer and the others fight over the low margin budget market if they want (a market that will be killed by Vista, which won't run even satisfactorily on any budget PC out there without serious upgrading). Apple is like BMW, or Lexus. So what if these vehicles don't have 90% of the market? They don't need to. Apple doesn't have to overcome Microsoft's market share to succeed; they just have to be a comfortable though successful niche, and the iPod halo effect has definitely made Apple's niche large enough to be comfortable for the foreseeable future. The unleashing of Vista on the market and the iPhone will only do more of the same. I see Apple's slice of the pie swelling up to about 20%-25% before reaching equilibrium.
Sure, the iPhone as it is right now has some things it could improve on, but keep in mind it's still 6 months off. When the original colored iMac was announced, people hounded it for being USB only, and lacking a floppy drive. It sold so well it was one of the factors that saved Apple initially. It also single-handedly launched the USB peripherals market, which was devoid of support until there were suddenly 100,000 + iMacs out there with no peripherals, and an open market waiting to be dominated by the first comers. I'm sure the iPhone will improve before June, and may even see a price drop.
- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6True. It was said that though Apple may only have 6% of the market share, it has the best six percent. Let Dell and HP and Acer and the others fight over the low margin budget market if they want (a market that will be killed by Vista, which won't run even satisfactorily on any budget PC out there without serious upgrading). Apple is like BMW, or Lexus. So what if these vehicles don't have 90% of the market? They don't need to. Apple doesn't have to overcome Microsoft's market share to succeed; they just have to be a comfortable though successful niche, and the iPod halo effect has definitely made Apple's niche large enough to be comfortable for the foreseeable future. The unleashing of Vista on the market and the iPhone will only do more of the same. I see Apple's slice of the pie swelling up to about 20%-25% before reaching equilibrium.
- Firehed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16I can only comment from the consumer's end of things, but without fanboyism, I can say that I've never really enjoyed using the vast majority of gadgets until I bought an Apple version. Yes, my old Minidisc player was the *****. It got great battery life, didn't skip, and put four CDs worth of music in a quarter of the space of a CD player. And that's where it ended. The software sucked. The UI sucked. The software sucked hardcore. If you've used NetMD before, you know why I've said it twice. I ended up with an iPod eventually. And I was having similar luck. Know why? I was avoiding iTunes, trying to stick with my archaic drag-and-drop approach with third party software. It was great once it was on the iPod, but getting it there was a pain. When I finally made the switch, it all simplified. Plug it in, wait while it does it's thing, and unplug. Done. How's that for user interface?
Well, it must be pretty good, because after having been stuck with Microsoft products since Win3.11 and MS-DOS before that (I wonder how many other six-year-olds were hacking at the command prompt...), I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro and I actually enjoy using my computer again. The only thing I miss is having a proper desktop system, since I had bad luck with the great hack that is OSx86. But not following hardware during the entirety of my waking hours and not having driver conflicts and unstable software is worth paying a bit more upfront for the hardware and not having as much choice of what I'm buying. Features that I've always wanted in Windows are in OS X. I'd assumed that Expose would be one of those gimmicky things that you don't use after a week, but I use it dozens of times a day. Beats the hell out of dozens of alt-tabbings or clicking through half-inch-wide snippets in the taskbar. Keyboard shortcuts are extremely consistent throughout programs. I have a VERY nice PC desktop system that I poured heart and soul into custom building with expensive imported watercooling that was installed with great planning and precision. And it's gotten maybe a day's actual use since I got my MBP last May, where I would have been in front of it for very possibly six to eight hours a day beforehand. I've tried Vista on it - meh. Some improvements, but not great. OSx86 just didn't work well enough (it's an AMD system, nForce4 to make it worse as it has known issues).
And you know what? I damn well expect the iPhone to do with phones what the iPod did to MP3 players. Charge a bit more up front, and give you a UI that makes it completely worth it. I have a pretty crappy phone right now, no smartphone features or anything of that nature, but even SMSing is a pain in the ass with it. My father has a BlackBerry, and I don't know how he puts up with the thing. It's level of unintuitiveness simply boggles my mind.
To consumers, Apple's success with the iPod is no big secret. The first customers loved the UI and general ease-of-use. From there, it spread quite a bit by word-of-mouth. I buy based off of reviews, both customer and professional. If most people like a product, it's a safe bet in my eyes. Ads don't do much for me, other than informing me that the product exists. Apple's recent gains in computer marketshare and sales increase can surely be attributed to similar principles. Why else were people saying that they would pay *anything* for the iPhone, months before the announcement? Apple can do a damn good UI, and that's what we hate about our current phones. The video iPod features that worked their way in are just gravy to me, although unless it turns out that the battery is swappable, I wouldn't expect many people to really use it (though I fully expect a hard-drive equivalent without the phone features to be released that will be the true 6G iPod, as do many others). New features mean nothing to me when they don't work, or are incredibly confusing. My iPod Just Works. OS X Just Works. Vista on my school-given Thinkpad has bluescreened about a dozen times since installing it, even though the hardware is otherwise pretty good (not far off from my MBP specs, and runs MUCH cooler - if it had a higher-res widescreen display and ran OS X, I'd much prefer it to my MBP to be honest). My PC desktop, with both XP and Vista installations, has some damn nice hardware, but has a poor and fairly unreliable interface, even if it is considerably more stable than the Thinkpad. Provided that the iPhone Just Works like Apple's other recent products, you can damn well expect Apple to sell every one of those supposed twelve million of them. - echosierratwo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I believe the "just a matter of time" and :its about time" remarks are warranted. It is just a matter of time before apple looks at all sides of a product and asks "whats wrong with this?", "whats missing?", "how can we make it easier and better?". These were answered when the first iPod debuted. Remember, the iPod was not the first MP3 player, in my opinion, it was the first one done right. Luck? I don't think luck has anything to do with it. If this incarnation of the iPod/phone does as well as I anticipate, its purely because they are listen to the needs of the people and thinking logically of how a product should work. The statement of "better alternatives", while true, there are others. Better? that debatable. I like the iPods because they do exactly what they are suppose to do, play my music. I don't need all the other stuff packed in just because I can now say "Look, look...The iPod cant do this, they iPod cant do that..." The comment about the advertising budget, I know that's a joke. What people seemed not to have mention or take into consideration is that the reason why the iPod has such great success is because, pure and simple, third party support. There is a cornucopia of products that you can get for your iPod. You cant say that with Creative, and at this point, whomever else is out there.
- stockjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1regular joe consumers will buy it, the cingular only thing may hurt sales a bit, but with cellphones a "huge" market of users that buy cellphones for over $150 are business users. The iphone is an inferior smartphone to many other options on the market. Business users will not be swayed by pretty cases and embedded osx alone.
- znicket, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well.. yes. I cannot disagree with you there. The iPhone is obviously designed for those who want a device for their private emails, photos, music and video, as opposed to Office 2007 documents and work email. Which is not a bad thing... just don´t confuse it with corporate phones. To each their own.
- DeepPan77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Its a simple point of starting focus for design and implementation, and always has been.
Most smartphones, mp3 players and such have been designed either as a computer component or computer accessory, which is fine for us geeks, people already in that mindset and used to "trying out all the features" and "discovering how to access them".
However, the rest of the human race aren't so keen spending money an a new product when they've then also gotta spend alot of time finding there way around a new system, figuring out what it can do and why it does it, all with the product manual in their hand.
This is where Apple, so far, has the lead.
For this class of device they seem to approach it not as a computer device, but more like a toaster.
How many of you have looked at the instructions when you've bought a new toaster? Exactly!!!
At the very least its got a leaver on the side, a dial with some numbers on and a button that says cancel and pretty much everyone can guess what they all do.
It's a consumer device and has been designed as such, just like the mp3 player and smartphone SHOULD BE.
So far the vast majority of smartphone owners are tech people who are used to having to invest time in a new product because the vast majority of these phone are designed first and foremost as a tech product.
Just based on the bits I know and have seen on the iPhone I can see this being a mainstream smartphone for all consumers, something they can just pick up, use and be at ease with. - oxigen, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I think the iPhone simply reveals how the electronics industry failed to provide good products, period. Steve jobs had a damn good point when he complained about stylus's and those goofy keyboards that take up half the device. All those phone sucked, no one liked using them, let's face it. Leave it to apple to reinvent the mobile phone.
- Zol74n, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Apple's success is due to having the right products at the right time.
Sure, one could be lucky by having the right stuff at the right time, but I believe that in Apple’s case it is no accident.
Apple has a keen eye for innovation. They take things like the mp3 player, find what doesn’t work about it, and then make something that is easy to use and aesthetically pleasing. They’re not introducing many NEW features; they’re simply making existing ones actually work to their fullest potential.
The iPhone is a prime example of this. Apple saw what didn’t work about existing smart phones and touch pads, then made something that does work. By next year all of the Motorola’s and Nokia’s of the world are going to have a similar product and design. But it will be too late. Apple has already won.
That’s not luck, that’s smart business.- kettle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Very nice. Now explain what smart business is, and how to achieve it, in concrete terms (hint, if you can you will have solved a very difficult problem that no one has yet found a general solution to, so you'd be better off not sharing it on digg).
- Splicernyc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The unfortunate reality of the corporate world is that the people running it have a very top-down view of not only their company but of the consumers of their products. The idea that Apple (or anyone) would create a product with not only a designed ease of use but esthetic beauty is a foreign concept to people who think, "You'll buy whatever we make now shut up". It's the same mentality that sees more worth in salespeople than creative people and tells even the most hard working and productive employee to "be happy they have a job".
The corporate world really needs to get its act together otherwise more of them will end up going the way of the American auto industry and Sony. - s14sh3r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Not everything Apple produces is sexy. Quicktime = eww
- martoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It appears that phone manufacturuers are taking the "add it as we go" approach to phone design, cramming in features as an afterthought because the marketing team thinks it would look good in a bullet list when presented to the consumer in a tech blog. But, Apple is not immune to feature creep. Look at the iPod today versus when it first came out. Everyone praises the current iteration for it's simplicity and ease of use, but the first ipods ONLY played music. No video, no pictures, no color, no ipodlinux... Take a modern iPod and give it to someone 6 years ago and they wouldn't know what to do with all of those extra features.
- Danathar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you want proof, look at Japan. That society IS obsessed with features over form and the MP3 market there is MUCH more fragmented.
- DocDEB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Another thing that Apple has going for it when it comes to bringing new products to market is size. Size? Apple is smaller than Microsoft, HP, etc. The difference is products designed by committee (Microsoft, HP, etc.) vs products designed by at most one or two small groups. Focus on what the product is to be and do is not lost.
BTW this is one of the first threads on digg that actually seems to have some thinking involved. Congratulations all. - DeFex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Iphone looks great, like the ipod did. it also looks fun to use. the only problem i can see for it is price(and apple has lots of room to maneuver), being locked in with the death star AT&T, and possible reliability problems (integrated battery etc)
if you look at companies like Texas instruments, Analog devices and National semiconductor. they make great chips and stuff but have no clue about making a nice way to control them. - pabster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's the software, stupid. No, really.
Sure there are a lot of iPod competitors out there. And some are really good. Feature-wise many dwarf the iPod comparatively. But have you seen the terrible software you are forced to use to sync it up?
The iPod is nothing without iTunes, and vice-versa. Together there is no easier way to purchase, manage, and organize your music. And that's why Apple has a lock on the market.- egrumling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh, I don't know... I have a Samsung Helix (XM radio that has some MP3 capability). All I have to do is plug it in to my PC. It shows up as a drive, and I just drag and drop what I want to hear. Since it doesn't have a 30GB hard drive, I don't want to sync all my music on it.
Also, the user interface is not too bad. And, it picks up a digital signal from outer space! - sire021, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1anapod > iTunes
- egrumling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh, I don't know... I have a Samsung Helix (XM radio that has some MP3 capability). All I have to do is plug it in to my PC. It shows up as a drive, and I just drag and drop what I want to hear. Since it doesn't have a 30GB hard drive, I don't want to sync all my music on it.
- verbose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Only the first half or so of the article appears to have been edited or reread before being published. It undermines the strength of the point, to stumble through the handful of grammatical errors in the second half.
- egrumling, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1People always seem to forget that until Dell came along, Apple was the number 1 computer maker in the world. Note that Microsoft doesn't make computers, just operating systems.
The cell phone industry is more interested in squeezing every last cent they can out of your contract. If they have to set up tech support for a phone, it had better look a lot the all the the other ones out there. For example, LG introduced the VX-9800 last year. Verizon Wireless thought it would be a great phone to introduce their vcast service, so they added it to their puny selection of phones. I imagine they introduced it to the different division VPs and managers, who then were allowed to offer their "input." (dream sequence noises, like Wayne and Garth)
They then began to make sure their perfectly valid points were voiced, some much louder than others. The engineering group most likely wanted to make sure the vcast features didn't overload the network. The marketing group wanted to make sure they had VZW branding all over it. The store sales group wanted to make sure it was easy to demo. The phone sales group wanted to make sure it was easy to add the codes to make it work with the billing system. The tech support group wanted to make it as much like other phones as possible to minimize training time. The financial group wanted to make sure you had to use airtime for just about any activity. Then they sent their feature requests to Qualcomm, who re-wrote the software. At no point in this process did they bother to check with what people wanted. That came just before they released the phone, too late to make major revisions.
It will be interesting to see who you call when you have a problem with your Apple phone.- NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No, It was IBM that knocked Apple out of the top spot, when the IBM PC overtook the Apple II.
-jcr
- NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No, It was IBM that knocked Apple out of the top spot, when the IBM PC overtook the Apple II.
- uberdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1right place at the right time + great advertising = success
The iphone will probably have a tougher time than expected though. - deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This article is right on about the consumer electronics industry. With all the CES coverage last week I was disappointed to see how many products were crippled by poor design and bad user interfaces. Who can be bothered to suffer with a bad UI these days? I expect a certain level of streamlined usability from the devices I use or I won't use it. I'll happily pay more for a better user experience.
- alex189a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Exactly. You, me, and 8 other people for every 1 person who is interested in a more rough around the edges but arguably more feature rich on paper product.
- alex189a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The author pretty much pegged it I think and did a good job explaining. A lot of responses here are missing the point though.
- 7952, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I have just bought an mp3 player. I spent hours scouring the net to decide what to buy. And after days of research I settled on an ipod. I found that the choice was so overwhelming that it became impossible to make an informed choice. And I got bored of shopping, so I went with the ipod. It is neither the best value, or has the most features. The reason that no company has overtaken the ipod is because of an excess of choice that means that the ipod has become the lowest common denominator.
- greenreefer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Do not underestimate the extent of our lightweight,materialistic,shallow
whore culture. It is everywhere, and not fading.
Desperate Housewives, Paris Hilton. Britney still number one on the Yokel search.
Sluts are Soooo Cooool, aren't they?
Boys, it gets easier all the time.
The new mark of Satan.
The new symbol of the High Maintenance Girlfriend,
for the rich bitch and her minions of wannabes and bagswingers everywhere.
I was certain the iPod would flop,
never thought about this insidious,lightweight,mindless,insecure,status conscious 13 year old mindset.
That is 30 million right there.
Sold out for months, selling at a premium on eBay.
Folks murdered on the street for one.
Guaranteed.
$150 month for the full service, $600 for the phone,
you know the rich chicks will be all over it.
The ones with the German cars.
No Ford trucks here, guys.
I am certain the edge of a fingernail easily enters info, right?
Pinkys in the air, no smudgies on the screen.
Painted pretty little picture fingernails.
The wannabes will follow. You know the ones.
Phone permanently attached to the empty head, tilted slightly back
and to the side.
Bare midsection, the flab billowing out over the too tight pants,
the fat back memorialized with a tattoo.
Huge success.
- galore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The reason why we don't see those products from other companies also has to do with the conservative nature of business.
Witness all those fantastic looking concept prototypes. Not just phones but in general, for example cars. Putting radically different ideas into production is another matter. It is really EXPENSIVE and you have to have a company that dares.
Every new product development meeting that I have been to had the unwritten rule that we won't do something revolutionary because if we spend $x million dollars, we want to be reasonably sure that it'll sell.
IMO the risky details of the iPhone, which prevents companies like Nokia who have already found a successful business model from producing a phone like the iPhone are:
* Full touch screen. A touch screen is more expensive than a keypad, less reliable, needs to be calibrated and not proven as an ideal input method for a phone. All reasons, why it wouldn't make it through new product development.
* Only one physical button. Good luck convincing management from sinking millions into the development of a phone with ONE button.
* UI concept requires totally new software. Always a problem because the way a lot of SW is written (usually not in house but by contractors), it is extremely risky for a new product to throw away an established (and very expensive) code base and start new.
Apple in contrast dares to make products that are a little bit too different from the norm. - davecor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I got a first gen Nano for free last year, as a prize in a sales contest. At that time I had no intention of buying one.
Now I love the stupid thing more than I loved my BB gun when I was 10. I've become a podcast junkie and I use it several times a day.
I sold consumer electronics for many years (Best Buy & CompUSA) and saw soooo many people get caught up in fretting over which products had a longer bullet-list of features or bigger capacity numbers. I also saw them buy things and then never use them, after all that stress and fretting.
The important factor is that it's just plain PLEASANT to use and I never once looked at the documentation - I just USED IT. Figuring out the Nano and iTunes was fun and easy. So many of my customers buy products that they never use because they become frustrated by the learning curve.
Apple seems to have solved that important equation - A high-spec product that pisses you off won't get used or RECOMMENDED.
Ease of use beats more features. And being pretty doesn't hurt. (Isn't that true with humans as well as electronics?) - jimboogle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Apple? Windows? I like em both. Far as the IPod is concerned, even as a Wintel guy, got to admit, Mr. Jobs and crew did this right. Gotta know, I own two of the mohunkers (15GB, status, full and a new 60GB, needed to store and transport my music production filz). How did the Ipod come to rule the world? ITS THE CLICK WHEEL!!! Remember the days of rolling doobies running around backwards and lighting a coffin nail with a match in a windstorm? I have total control of my music with a thumb and a finger. Use cassette insert to play the smaller pod in the car. Don't worry about DRM, paid $24 for software which will go unnamed, to get around that. Running two pod profiles on the same windows pc and stopped my ITMS load from updating at version 6.0.2 to prevent surprise and need for Saturday night troubleshooting which I haven't had to do for quite some time with my pods.
If 21 million people bought "podz" in 2006 and they each by 23 songs from ITMS, thats still $400 million to Apple for the good. I reiterate, I'm basically a windows guy who uses 9 different linux distros in VMWare workstation. But I have owned an Apple cube (which I sold after I migrated my music business to a Wintel environment), but I'll probably buy a MacBook laptop after I get my first few paychecks from the local/national cable co I hope to start work with soon. Only problem with that is that hard drives are going digital (lookup SDD) so maybe I should wait on that purchase. Point is, even though Apple is only 5 percent of the market, they seem to be getting a lot of play from this Wintel guy, and that's success. I admire Apple immeasurably, but I still wouldn't want to be them. - Katana314, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0It's the way it looks....
The way it looks...
OH GOD. THE GRAPHICS HYPE HAS MANAGED TO ESCAPE JUST GAMES!
Just when we thought the problem was solved with people not caring about the PS3...it moves on to the tiny gadget market...
DAMN YOU APPLE AND KILL-ZONE 2! FUNCTIONALITY/FEATURES OVER GRAPHICS! - phmcd10, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0More iPhone news and reviews here.
http://www.i-phoneinc.com - jimboogle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That 5-6% of the market that Apple claims as it's niche is a FAITHFUL, solid, dependable and stable 5-6%. Early on when I had problems with my podz, I found out quick to avoid calling Apple phone support. The answers to all of my installation, configuration, support issues were in the threads. The user community was excellent in posting good fixes. I even sent a few back. We all had a shoulder to cry on. Same as where the open source movement likes to think they are going today, sans the geeky arrogance. The industry spinoff of Apple accessories has made a lot of folks both happy, wealthy and wise, ref www.ilounge.com. Now between the Car-pod (15GB) and the House-Pod (60GB) I'm a happy camper for life, which revolves around muzak.
MS can buy the volume traffic with it's deep pockets, but they can't buy the love. Give me 5-6% for perpetuity with love over the 95% which can be blown away at any unknown time in the future by a dictate of some nation's or other's supreme court, without the love. It's so easy, even a caveman like me can figure it out. And I know gadgets--from the two podz, to my 5 year old Dell Axim to my 1 year old LG6700 phone (which buy the way, plays my wma's but no ITMS cutz). The IPods I own are easier to use and maintain, mostly due to ITunes, than the rest. Yet, if I could make either of my podz make phone calls, I'd call Verizon today and tell them they could come get the LG, except I'd probably miss the WAP.
And yes, a very intelligent forum as most forums on Digg go [what is the "Error in entering captcha" silliness on submit???]. Must be, I've commented twice on the same day. - sire021, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2right by association!?
this article could not be more wrong... iPhone and iPod are utterly different in concept! - HonoredMule, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Every awesome gadget I've truly loved was not something that took me by surprise...it was that thing I'd been drumming my fingers waiting for someone to actually produce for a decade preceding its release. The shuffle is my perfect example, this phone not so much, but that's largely because I don't care much about phones at all. That list of things I'm drumming my fingers waiting for is still huge too, although it's mostly software and standardization related (standardization of interfaces already implemented in random locations).
- jimboogle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Apple could cut back on tv commercials, go slightly more underground in the mass media and depend more on web promos and thier sales would go up. Why. Exclusivity. Make them want it by having them hunt for it. Go more quintessential. They've already garnered icon status with the pod. Let person to person testimonials do the heavy lifting of marketing. Totally unrelated, I'm totally hooked on John Mayer playing guitar through a VW. The Apple v. MAC commercials don't get any traction with me, and they are a total waste of time and fully miss the point. Have been playing my ITMS through my home stereo system from day 1, hard wired though, I don't trust thier wireless and or streaming products enough just yet. At least not until I get my MacBook to run it all, when I get it. It'll be the Pod that sells the Phone, and the simple interface, less is better approach to usability is what will win out for Apple in the end. I still like to keep my phone and music player separate, even though my current phone does play wma's as well as internet streaming radio.
-
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is