5 ms·

honest question: why then did no one copy the iPod, and no one has copied the iPhone with any success? as soon as the iPod came out way back in the day, the cr

honest question: why then did no one copy the iPod, and no one has copied the iPhone with any success? as soon as the iPod came out way back in the day, the criticism was that it would soon be copied. No one ever did, and I worked in the music business at the time and was familiar with everything on the market. nothing ever came close, apple made a ton of money. it's a common thing to say that it's not defensible/can be copied, but I don't see that happening always.

x0x0 9y ago
Because the magic in the iphone and ipod come primarily from software (and for the ipod, the music licensing relationships that apple alone had in the beginning.) Android hardware can be pretty good; the app ecosystem, the ecosystem in general, the clear love that Apple has for the iphone, and the control that is (generally) used in user-beneficial ways all make the iphone superior to android.
- pcsanwald 9y ago
  in the case of the iPod I'm not sure that was true. remember, these were the days of everyone having a bunch of mp3s on their hard drive. The actual iPod software was extremely rudimentary, and basically barely integrated with iTunes. this was still in the days of windows, keep in mind, and before apple actually launched iTunes for windows. and still, it was immediately a dominant player and not one company was able to launch a competitor _before_ apple built iTunes for windows.
  - throwaway91111 9y ago
    Rhe iPod had demand.
  - untog 9y ago
    The iPod wasn't that popular before Apple launched iTunes for Windows, though. So I imagine competitors were considerably less interested in it as a target. Also, one of the iPod's major interface innovations was the click wheel - IIRC they've patented the hell out of that, so no one was about to launch a competitor.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      Samsung cloned the clickwheel within 6 months.
  - dilemma 9y ago
    White earphones.
nikanj 9y ago
I'm under the impression Google/Android had pretty good success in copying the iPhone.
- imjk 9y ago
  Samsung too.
  - reiichiroh 9y ago
    Having good software stack is invaluable isn't it? Having Shenzhen clone and crank out a similar piece of hardware which has the worst minimally functional app isn't going to help anybody? It's also hard: see Samsung's crappy attempts at replacing the Google apps that no one uses and/or is poorly coded. Also see Bixby failing at English so far.
- harpiaharpyja 9y ago
  While factually true, I think that misses GP's point? If you take a look at the context of their question, they are asking why no one has killed the iPod by copying it. I suppose the answer is probably as said by rokhayakebe elsewhere in this thread, "Copying the hardware is easy. Copying the ecosystem is a different challenge."
- pcsanwald 9y ago
  I am asking the question about hardware, not software. if it's so easy to copy hardware, how do you explain apple's dominance with the iPod for such a long period?
  - sbarre 9y ago
    Billions of dollars to put into branding.
notatoad 9y ago
I think the simplest answer is that apple simply kept innovating at a pace that shenzen couldn't match. Back in the iPod's hey-day, every new release was a groundbreaking improvement in miniaturization. The other OEMs were racing to copy the iPod mini while Apple was developing the iPod nano, or the iPod Colour while apple was working on the iPod video. and, of course, as another reply says the software has always been a big part of the iPod.
- QML 9y ago
  Though it seems counterintuitive, I think it's the lack of a patent system in China that prevents its people from being innovative. Without a guaranteed monopoly, people are less likely to take risks and just turn to methods that are known to turn a profit (replicating foreign products and/or focusing on lowering manufacturing costs). But now, the economy of Shenzhen has matured to the point where squeezing every ounce of production is no longer sustainable, and thus is forced to innovate. Perhaps that explains the number of hardware startups there: it's an advantage to be closely located to the manufacturer of your parts. That was also once true for Silicon Valley. Maybe the failure of many hardware startups now can be attributed to manufacturing jobs being outsourced.
  - DigitalJack 9y ago
    I don't think it's counter-intuitive at all. I think the patent durations of hardware should be shorter, just like many here think that they should be shorter (if existant at all) for software. Part of the issue with durations in hardware is development time. It would be nice if the duration could take into account the date of first sale rather than just the inception of the idea.
- dilemma 9y ago
  In 2006, China was not at the stage of development where it could innovate and create brands. Today, it is Apple that can't keep up.
QML 9y ago
Superior hardware is not why people buy Apple products. The reason why it's hard to copy the iPod and iPhone is because it's hard to replicate the Apple brand. That's why there exists a lot of products that have the same functionality but not the same market revenue.
rokhayakebe 9y ago
Copying the hardware is easy. Copying the ecosystem is a different challenge.
dboreham 9y ago
Wasn't the iPod successful because you could get music online legally and easily for it? Memory is hazy, but I seem to recall that without the iTunes store/application you had to either mess around ripping CDs, or use illegal downloads. The one hardware innovation the iPod had was to use the teeny hard drives just coming on to the market at the time, when everyone else was using flash. Flash was the right solution ultimately, but for a while the HD worked around the problem that Flash was too small for a decent set of songs. Reputedly Jobs decided to take most of the volume supply of the small drives initially, preventing copycats from executing.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  I think the interface was way more important. Archos beat Apple to market with little harddrives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archos_Jukebox_series#Jukebox_5000_and_6000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archos_Jukebox_series#Jukebox_... ) but the player is pretty something or other looking and has a bunch of chincy buttons. Even the mechanical clickwheel was vastly better than pressing a little button a couple dozen times.
- Nursie 9y ago
  I had an archos with a 20gb hard drive in way back when. Loved that little machine, and it worked great as an external drive too.
dec0dedab0de 9y ago
why then did no one copy the iPod Apple had complete control of the small form factor harddrives. Noone else could get their hands on them. There were other MP3 players before iPod, but they were either too big, or couldn't hold enough music. By the time flash storage caught up, it was more about fashion.
- awad 9y ago
  In broad strokes, you're pretty spot on, besides not mentioning the simplicity + usability of the software. Apple absolutely made portable music sexy (again) and reaped the benefits all the way to the iPhone juggernaut of today. Not sure why you got down voted, but here's an up vote.
TheCondor 9y ago
Well it was copied by zune and probably others. The part of the equation that is glossed over is iPod provided a soup to nuts media product. You didn't have to mess around MP3 or aac encoding stuff, they have a portal with a staggering amount of content that you could just click and download to your iPod.
628C6l0 9y ago
Honest question: why is "honest question" used here to ask what is a blatantly rhetorical question? Isn't the whole point of "honest question" to cancel the implication that one is asking a rhetorical question?
crispyambulance 9y ago
Well in a way the iPhone was "copied" in that it obviously influenced the design of competitive smart phones. Apple, however, hasn't rested on their laurels. They have kept innovating. If they had slowed down at all, the others would have eaten their lunch. The ipod was really a story about iTunes, I think, rather than the hardware.
- Agathos 9y ago
  I hate iTunes and I'm glad to be rid of it, but I really miss the iPod hardware. Driving that clickwheel by feel was so much more convenient than looking down at a touchscreen.
valuearb 9y ago
Samsung had a clickwheel clones within 6 months.

x0x0 9y ago

Because the magic in the iphone and ipod come primarily from software (and for the ipod, the music licensing relationships that apple alone had in the beginning.) Android hardware can be pretty good; the app ecosystem, the ecosystem in general, the clear love that Apple has for the iphone, and the control that is (generally) used in user-beneficial ways all make the iphone superior to android.

pcsanwald 9y ago
in the case of the iPod I'm not sure that was true. remember, these were the days of everyone having a bunch of mp3s on their hard drive. The actual iPod software was extremely rudimentary, and basically barely integrated with iTunes. this was still in the days of windows, keep in mind, and before apple actually launched iTunes for windows. and still, it was immediately a dominant player and not one company was able to launch a competitor _before_ apple built iTunes for windows.
- throwaway91111 9y ago
  Rhe iPod had demand.
- untog 9y ago
  The iPod wasn't that popular before Apple launched iTunes for Windows, though. So I imagine competitors were considerably less interested in it as a target. Also, one of the iPod's major interface innovations was the click wheel - IIRC they've patented the hell out of that, so no one was about to launch a competitor.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Samsung cloned the clickwheel within 6 months.
- dilemma 9y ago
  White earphones.

nikanj 9y ago

I'm under the impression Google/Android had pretty good success in copying the iPhone.

imjk 9y ago
Samsung too.
- reiichiroh 9y ago
  Having good software stack is invaluable isn't it? Having Shenzhen clone and crank out a similar piece of hardware which has the worst minimally functional app isn't going to help anybody? It's also hard: see Samsung's crappy attempts at replacing the Google apps that no one uses and/or is poorly coded. Also see Bixby failing at English so far.
harpiaharpyja 9y ago
While factually true, I think that misses GP's point? If you take a look at the context of their question, they are asking why no one has killed the iPod by copying it. I suppose the answer is probably as said by rokhayakebe elsewhere in this thread, "Copying the hardware is easy. Copying the ecosystem is a different challenge."
pcsanwald 9y ago
I am asking the question about hardware, not software. if it's so easy to copy hardware, how do you explain apple's dominance with the iPod for such a long period?
- sbarre 9y ago
  Billions of dollars to put into branding.

notatoad 9y ago

I think the simplest answer is that apple simply kept innovating at a pace that shenzen couldn't match. Back in the iPod's hey-day, every new release was a groundbreaking improvement in miniaturization. The other OEMs were racing to copy the iPod mini while Apple was developing the iPod nano, or the iPod Colour while apple was working on the iPod video. and, of course, as another reply says the software has always been a big part of the iPod.

QML 9y ago
Though it seems counterintuitive, I think it's the lack of a patent system in China that prevents its people from being innovative. Without a guaranteed monopoly, people are less likely to take risks and just turn to methods that are known to turn a profit (replicating foreign products and/or focusing on lowering manufacturing costs). But now, the economy of Shenzhen has matured to the point where squeezing every ounce of production is no longer sustainable, and thus is forced to innovate. Perhaps that explains the number of hardware startups there: it's an advantage to be closely located to the manufacturer of your parts. That was also once true for Silicon Valley. Maybe the failure of many hardware startups now can be attributed to manufacturing jobs being outsourced.
- DigitalJack 9y ago
  I don't think it's counter-intuitive at all. I think the patent durations of hardware should be shorter, just like many here think that they should be shorter (if existant at all) for software. Part of the issue with durations in hardware is development time. It would be nice if the duration could take into account the date of first sale rather than just the inception of the idea.
dilemma 9y ago
In 2006, China was not at the stage of development where it could innovate and create brands. Today, it is Apple that can't keep up.

QML 9y ago

Superior hardware is not why people buy Apple products. The reason why it's hard to copy the iPod and iPhone is because it's hard to replicate the Apple brand. That's why there exists a lot of products that have the same functionality but not the same market revenue.

rokhayakebe 9y ago

Copying the hardware is easy. Copying the ecosystem is a different challenge.

dboreham 9y ago

Wasn't the iPod successful because you could get music online legally and easily for it? Memory is hazy, but I seem to recall that without the iTunes store/application you had to either mess around ripping CDs, or use illegal downloads. The one hardware innovation the iPod had was to use the teeny hard drives just coming on to the market at the time, when everyone else was using flash. Flash was the right solution ultimately, but for a while the HD worked around the problem that Flash was too small for a decent set of songs. Reputedly Jobs decided to take most of the volume supply of the small drives initially, preventing copycats from executing.

maxerickson 9y ago
I think the interface was way more important. Archos beat Apple to market with little harddrives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archos_Jukebox_series#Jukebox_5000_and_6000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archos_Jukebox_series#Jukebox_... ) but the player is pretty something or other looking and has a bunch of chincy buttons. Even the mechanical clickwheel was vastly better than pressing a little button a couple dozen times.
Nursie 9y ago
I had an archos with a 20gb hard drive in way back when. Loved that little machine, and it worked great as an external drive too.

dec0dedab0de 9y ago

why then did no one copy the iPod Apple had complete control of the small form factor harddrives. Noone else could get their hands on them. There were other MP3 players before iPod, but they were either too big, or couldn't hold enough music. By the time flash storage caught up, it was more about fashion.

awad 9y ago
In broad strokes, you're pretty spot on, besides not mentioning the simplicity + usability of the software. Apple absolutely made portable music sexy (again) and reaped the benefits all the way to the iPhone juggernaut of today. Not sure why you got down voted, but here's an up vote.

TheCondor 9y ago

Well it was copied by zune and probably others. The part of the equation that is glossed over is iPod provided a soup to nuts media product. You didn't have to mess around MP3 or aac encoding stuff, they have a portal with a staggering amount of content that you could just click and download to your iPod.

628C6l0 9y ago

Honest question: why is "honest question" used here to ask what is a blatantly rhetorical question? Isn't the whole point of "honest question" to cancel the implication that one is asking a rhetorical question?

crispyambulance 9y ago

Well in a way the iPhone was "copied" in that it obviously influenced the design of competitive smart phones. Apple, however, hasn't rested on their laurels. They have kept innovating. If they had slowed down at all, the others would have eaten their lunch. The ipod was really a story about iTunes, I think, rather than the hardware.

Agathos 9y ago
I hate iTunes and I'm glad to be rid of it, but I really miss the iPod hardware. Driving that clickwheel by feel was so much more convenient than looking down at a touchscreen.

valuearb 9y ago

Samsung had a clickwheel clones within 6 months.