3 ms·

>The market spoke decisively in rejecting it in favor of the iPhone and Android devices. Sure, but did the market reject it because it was a more open platform

>The market spoke decisively in rejecting it in favor of the iPhone and Android devices. Sure, but did the market reject it because it was a more open platform, or because of other considerations? Given that the general public is largely unaware of DRM and the like, it was likely for lack of other features. There's no inherent reason why a more open phone OS couldn't succeed in the market. After all, Android devices are generally more open than iOS devices and they've got the vast majority of the smartphone market.

finnthehuman 6y ago
>Sure, but did the market reject it because it was a more open platform, or because of other considerations? Obviously other considerations. Where there is only a small handful of options within a class of product, any statement about "what the market wants" should be limited to very broad strokes. The consumer doesn't select from the entire possibility space, they buy from the available options. Any "correlation is causation" statement about minor details when there are dozens of other larger distinguishing feature are the words of a lying huckster. Giving them the benefit of the doubt isn't that they're not-lying, the benefit of the doubt is that they're lying to themselves too. That's how wrong it is to make those inferences.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  > "a lying huckster" Rather rude, don't you think?
  - finnthehuman 6y ago
    I did make the context quite narrow and add the caveat for people who are simply deluding themselves, but yeah, it's rude. I've spent enough of my professional life listening to people try to tell me what sales numbers "mean" to have any higher of an opinion.
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
> "Sure, but did the market reject it because it was a more open platform, or because of other considerations?" My point was that openness didn't outweigh other considerations in the eyes of people purchasing them. Windows Mobile smartphones were actually dominant in the market until the iPhone was introduced. IIRC from the industry data I had access to, there were over 100 different models in a variety of form factors from a couple dozen OEMs concurrently being sold at its peak. So it was at least ahead of all the alternatives before that point, which weakens the argument that it was "other considerations" that were the main culprit.
- topkai22 6y ago
  They weren't as open as you remember for most people using pre-iPhone smart phones. Carriers did all sorts of things to cripple reduce functionality so they could sell it back to you. A major factor of the iPhone's early US success was forcing a major US carrier (AT&T) to stop doing consumer hostile things and just let the device connect to the network as intended. So, in part, it was improved openness that drove iPhone/Android's success. It just was network openness instead of device openness.

finnthehuman 6y ago

>Sure, but did the market reject it because it was a more open platform, or because of other considerations? Obviously other considerations. Where there is only a small handful of options within a class of product, any statement about "what the market wants" should be limited to very broad strokes. The consumer doesn't select from the entire possibility space, they buy from the available options. Any "correlation is causation" statement about minor details when there are dozens of other larger distinguishing feature are the words of a lying huckster. Giving them the benefit of the doubt isn't that they're not-lying, the benefit of the doubt is that they're lying to themselves too. That's how wrong it is to make those inferences.

ThrowawayR2 6y ago
> "a lying huckster" Rather rude, don't you think?
- finnthehuman 6y ago
  I did make the context quite narrow and add the caveat for people who are simply deluding themselves, but yeah, it's rude. I've spent enough of my professional life listening to people try to tell me what sales numbers "mean" to have any higher of an opinion.

ThrowawayR2 6y ago

> "Sure, but did the market reject it because it was a more open platform, or because of other considerations?" My point was that openness didn't outweigh other considerations in the eyes of people purchasing them. Windows Mobile smartphones were actually dominant in the market until the iPhone was introduced. IIRC from the industry data I had access to, there were over 100 different models in a variety of form factors from a couple dozen OEMs concurrently being sold at its peak. So it was at least ahead of all the alternatives before that point, which weakens the argument that it was "other considerations" that were the main culprit.

topkai22 6y ago
They weren't as open as you remember for most people using pre-iPhone smart phones. Carriers did all sorts of things to cripple reduce functionality so they could sell it back to you. A major factor of the iPhone's early US success was forcing a major US carrier (AT&T) to stop doing consumer hostile things and just let the device connect to the network as intended. So, in part, it was improved openness that drove iPhone/Android's success. It just was network openness instead of device openness.