4 ms·

Did the HD video capability of mobile phones (e.g. iPhone 4) kill the Flip? If so, this has happened before; Pure Digital's first product was a cheap point-and-

Did the HD video capability of mobile phones (e.g. iPhone 4) kill the Flip? If so, this has happened before; Pure Digital's first product was a cheap point-and-shoot camera that you'd take in for processing, but it was also beaten by the rise of (equally poor quality) cellphone cameras. Interesting take-away from a user experience perspective. A dedicated device that is famously easy to use, still loses out to more complicated devices that do everything. History of Pure Digital and Flip: http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/19/flip-video-wrong-wrong-wrong-and-then-so-so-right/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/19/flip-video-wrong-wrong-wron...

roc 16y ago
> "A dedicated device that is famously easy to use, still loses out to more complicated devices that do everything." There's something of a gadget axiom in there. Casual users are, by definition, not interested in the fiddly bits. Thus they value the results over the process, the tools or the craft. Thus they are most-willing to abandon a dedicated device for a good-enough multifunction, if for no other reason than to cut down on extra gadgets for endeavors they don't have a deep interest in. I think you might be off on 'complicated' though. Note that Flip didn't have any real competition until the latest versions of modern pocket-OSes brought (comparative) simplicity to video. 'Feature-phones' were packing video capabilities for pretty much all of Flip's rise to prominence. It's the two-tap "upload to youtube/vimeo/facebook" that did them in.
- xinsight 16y ago
  > It's the two-tap "upload to youtube/vimeo/facebook" that did them in. Great point. For sharing, connecting to a computer via USB isn't nearly as nice as tapping a couple of buttons. (But Flip was easier to point and shoot. No hunting for the photo app, loading it, switching to video, etc.) re: gadget axiom - I've also heard about the "pocket exception": Devices with many functions lose out to specialized devices - except when the device can fit in your pocket. (Sorry, can't find the source.)

roc 16y ago

> "A dedicated device that is famously easy to use, still loses out to more complicated devices that do everything." There's something of a gadget axiom in there. Casual users are, by definition, not interested in the fiddly bits. Thus they value the results over the process, the tools or the craft. Thus they are most-willing to abandon a dedicated device for a good-enough multifunction, if for no other reason than to cut down on extra gadgets for endeavors they don't have a deep interest in. I think you might be off on 'complicated' though. Note that Flip didn't have any real competition until the latest versions of modern pocket-OSes brought (comparative) simplicity to video. 'Feature-phones' were packing video capabilities for pretty much all of Flip's rise to prominence. It's the two-tap "upload to youtube/vimeo/facebook" that did them in.

xinsight 16y ago
> It's the two-tap "upload to youtube/vimeo/facebook" that did them in. Great point. For sharing, connecting to a computer via USB isn't nearly as nice as tapping a couple of buttons. (But Flip was easier to point and shoot. No hunting for the photo app, loading it, switching to video, etc.) re: gadget axiom - I've also heard about the "pocket exception": Devices with many functions lose out to specialized devices - except when the device can fit in your pocket. (Sorry, can't find the source.)