7 ms·

> When has first (early) mover advantage been used successfully against Apple? Maps, streaming music, video, voice assistant, home speakers, browsers...

by dkrich 8y ago

swlkr 8y ago
Apple’s strength is hardware, but you’re right they are behind in these areas
- wlesieutre 8y ago
  Speaking of hardware, Apple's A-series processors have a significant lead over Qualcomm's Snapdragon, which Oculus is stuck with for their standalone Quest headset. If they do make a VR / AR headset, that's going to translate into better performance and/or longer battery life than their competitors.
- taeric 8y ago
  Watches and fitness trackers are doing well against them. That said, convergence is huge and I wouldn't bet against them.
  - npunt 8y ago
    Depends on how you interpret the data. IDC's latest report shows growth from Chinese brands (Xiaomi & Huawei) selling pretty basic wearables to Chinese audiences, but Fitbit & others have been dropping, and Garmin is only slightly up (4.1% to Apple's 38.4% YoY growth). The big split the report cites is as markets mature they want more sophisticated wearables, which plays to ecosystem strengths of Apple. Garmin et al (even Android smartwatches) aren't likely to create / purchase the tech that can compete since Apple seems to be pouring big $ into health tech, so I'm not sure the future looks good for other brands. https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS44247418 https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS44247418
    - taeric 8y ago
      Agreed. This is what I meant by convergence. If things do reduce to a single wearable, Apple is well positioned. I'm not fully convinced, though. Most wearable things from Apple, seem as fashion focused as anything else. That said, my understanding is that folks that like them, love them. So not sure how the others are standing out. And will it continue. I am also very new to this. Started using Strava and so far liking it. Bought a dedicated heart monitor. Curious if that will prove to bea complete waste someday.
    - brlewis 8y ago
      Disclaimer: I work for Fitbit, but don't speak for Fitbit. My personal opinion is that unsuccessful Apple Watches have done much more harm to Fitbit than any successful one will. I'm rooting for the Series 4 to be a market hit. The unsuccessful ones so far have ended up at fire sale prices during the holidays. The last thing Fitbit needs to compete with is a $200 smart watch with an elite brand name on it. Hopefully they'll retain full retail price for their newer models and the two companies can go back to addressing our respective market segments.
      - npunt 8y ago
        Thanks for your insights, really good point! My hunch is the discounts are mostly related to the early, not-that-great revisions of Watch, and that future discounts will be less. That said, with each yearly iteration there is a supply of super old Watches that may wind up in the bargain bin. Series 0-2 really seemed early adopter products in the mold of other 1st gen Apple products (MacBook Air, iPad, etc) and S3 is good but not great. Series 4 definitely seems like a breakout product where capabilities hit some critical use cases - Cellular, GPS, ECG, size reduction (42mm->40mm for same screen size). The platform is definitely hitting its stride. I wonder if/when Apple offers not only last year's model but 2 years ago model to hit a lower price point, as they do with iPhones. That's been part of Apple's strategy to avoid low-end disruption, by segmenting the market such that cheap products cannot moving up-market because of Apple's middle tier on-ramps (like iPhone SE and 6S or non-Pro iPad).
        8y ago
bunderbunder 8y ago
Interesting pattern there. One set contains only hardware, the other is, save one device, only software and services.
- npunt 8y ago
  Yea. I'd add another to the pile: Netbooks. Apple never went that path, even though there was pressure to do so when netbooks got popular in the mid-00s. I'm not entirely sure home speakers like Echos and Google Homes are equivalent to Netbooks, but they feel like Netbooks: quite popular cheap devices whose actual use and enjoyment by consumers remains a bit of a mystery (and likely low).
  - dkrich 8y ago
    I agree with this. I think voice is a curiosity that feels like it's futuristic and thus makes Echo Dots a great gift, but isn't actually all that useful when compared to a software interface which is why I believe Apple not going head over heels into voice and home speakers was the right strategy. I've never observed a single person actually use an Echo to make a purchase from Amazon or really do anything besides check the weather or set a timer. Would love to hear from someone who has but it just doesn't seem like something people actually do in real life in my experience.
    - npunt 8y ago
      Yep - cheap enough and cool-futuristic enough to be a gift, regardless of usage. I know several folks who are very tech oriented that have them, and they're used almost exclusively as voice command light switches, or infrequently timers and music. I also know regular folks who have them and they sit unused. That's just my anecdata but I have heard this echoed (heh) from many other people. I think there's three fundamental problems: 1. Voice is not as efficient an interface for a variety of problems that visuals are better suited for. 2. Use cases where voice on a smart speaker in a home may excel are dependent on other home-related smart appliances, which do not have broad market penetration. Basically a home speaker is like talking to your home, but if it's not connected to other parts of your home, it's purpose is mostly lost. 3. There's a minimum threshold of usage under which you don't remember exactly how to use the device or what it's capable of, or make a habit of integrating it into your daily activities. This is true of all devices, but for devices that are used infrequently like voice speakers it's a real issue. So even in cases where voice is efficient, the user will fall back to a less-efficient but better understood interface, usually the smartphone. On the last point, psychologically this is the forgetting curve, whereby things you learn that you do not reinforce through successive activities over time will fade away from memory exponentially. There are strong use cases for voice, most notably in a car, but that's outside the scope of smart speakers.

> When has first (early) mover advantage been used successfully against Apple? Maps, streaming music, video, voice assistant, home speakers, browsers...

by dkrich 8y ago

> When has first (early) mover advantage been used successfully against Apple? Maps, streaming music, video, voice assistant, home speakers, browsers...

swlkr 8y ago

Apple’s strength is hardware, but you’re right they are behind in these areas

wlesieutre 8y ago
Speaking of hardware, Apple's A-series processors have a significant lead over Qualcomm's Snapdragon, which Oculus is stuck with for their standalone Quest headset. If they do make a VR / AR headset, that's going to translate into better performance and/or longer battery life than their competitors.
taeric 8y ago
Watches and fitness trackers are doing well against them. That said, convergence is huge and I wouldn't bet against them.
- npunt 8y ago
  Depends on how you interpret the data. IDC's latest report shows growth from Chinese brands (Xiaomi & Huawei) selling pretty basic wearables to Chinese audiences, but Fitbit & others have been dropping, and Garmin is only slightly up (4.1% to Apple's 38.4% YoY growth). The big split the report cites is as markets mature they want more sophisticated wearables, which plays to ecosystem strengths of Apple. Garmin et al (even Android smartwatches) aren't likely to create / purchase the tech that can compete since Apple seems to be pouring big $ into health tech, so I'm not sure the future looks good for other brands. https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS44247418 https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS44247418
  - taeric 8y ago
    Agreed. This is what I meant by convergence. If things do reduce to a single wearable, Apple is well positioned. I'm not fully convinced, though. Most wearable things from Apple, seem as fashion focused as anything else. That said, my understanding is that folks that like them, love them. So not sure how the others are standing out. And will it continue. I am also very new to this. Started using Strava and so far liking it. Bought a dedicated heart monitor. Curious if that will prove to bea complete waste someday.
  - brlewis 8y ago
    Disclaimer: I work for Fitbit, but don't speak for Fitbit. My personal opinion is that unsuccessful Apple Watches have done much more harm to Fitbit than any successful one will. I'm rooting for the Series 4 to be a market hit. The unsuccessful ones so far have ended up at fire sale prices during the holidays. The last thing Fitbit needs to compete with is a $200 smart watch with an elite brand name on it. Hopefully they'll retain full retail price for their newer models and the two companies can go back to addressing our respective market segments.
    - npunt 8y ago
      Thanks for your insights, really good point! My hunch is the discounts are mostly related to the early, not-that-great revisions of Watch, and that future discounts will be less. That said, with each yearly iteration there is a supply of super old Watches that may wind up in the bargain bin. Series 0-2 really seemed early adopter products in the mold of other 1st gen Apple products (MacBook Air, iPad, etc) and S3 is good but not great. Series 4 definitely seems like a breakout product where capabilities hit some critical use cases - Cellular, GPS, ECG, size reduction (42mm->40mm for same screen size). The platform is definitely hitting its stride. I wonder if/when Apple offers not only last year's model but 2 years ago model to hit a lower price point, as they do with iPhones. That's been part of Apple's strategy to avoid low-end disruption, by segmenting the market such that cheap products cannot moving up-market because of Apple's middle tier on-ramps (like iPhone SE and 6S or non-Pro iPad).
      - 8y ago

bunderbunder 8y ago

Interesting pattern there. One set contains only hardware, the other is, save one device, only software and services.

npunt 8y ago
Yea. I'd add another to the pile: Netbooks. Apple never went that path, even though there was pressure to do so when netbooks got popular in the mid-00s. I'm not entirely sure home speakers like Echos and Google Homes are equivalent to Netbooks, but they feel like Netbooks: quite popular cheap devices whose actual use and enjoyment by consumers remains a bit of a mystery (and likely low).
- dkrich 8y ago
  I agree with this. I think voice is a curiosity that feels like it's futuristic and thus makes Echo Dots a great gift, but isn't actually all that useful when compared to a software interface which is why I believe Apple not going head over heels into voice and home speakers was the right strategy. I've never observed a single person actually use an Echo to make a purchase from Amazon or really do anything besides check the weather or set a timer. Would love to hear from someone who has but it just doesn't seem like something people actually do in real life in my experience.
  - npunt 8y ago
    Yep - cheap enough and cool-futuristic enough to be a gift, regardless of usage. I know several folks who are very tech oriented that have them, and they're used almost exclusively as voice command light switches, or infrequently timers and music. I also know regular folks who have them and they sit unused. That's just my anecdata but I have heard this echoed (heh) from many other people. I think there's three fundamental problems: 1. Voice is not as efficient an interface for a variety of problems that visuals are better suited for. 2. Use cases where voice on a smart speaker in a home may excel are dependent on other home-related smart appliances, which do not have broad market penetration. Basically a home speaker is like talking to your home, but if it's not connected to other parts of your home, it's purpose is mostly lost. 3. There's a minimum threshold of usage under which you don't remember exactly how to use the device or what it's capable of, or make a habit of integrating it into your daily activities. This is true of all devices, but for devices that are used infrequently like voice speakers it's a real issue. So even in cases where voice is efficient, the user will fall back to a less-efficient but better understood interface, usually the smartphone. On the last point, psychologically this is the forgetting curve, whereby things you learn that you do not reinforce through successive activities over time will fade away from memory exponentially. There are strong use cases for voice, most notably in a car, but that's outside the scope of smart speakers.