3 ms·

What allowed Apple to compete pretty successfully with zillions of mp3 players?

SwellJoe 18y ago
If mobile devices are the same as MP3 players in the minds of consumers, then that's a great argument. I don't think they are, though. I think mobile devices are going to be a replay of PC history: Specific applications will drive adoption of specific products. The iPhone and the G1 are both vastly more powerful than the first six personal computers I owned, and have better network bandwidth than several subsequent PCs. I think they will continue to get more interesting, and the application selection will become more important. If Apple continues to treat developers as competitors to be occasionally shut out if they get too uppity or too close to competing with Apple in some space, they won't keep those developers. Without the developers, the apps won't exist...without the apps, users will choose an alternative. Others have mentioned that iPhone was "first" in this particular market (the market for "Buck Rogers magical computing devices that fit in your pocket"), and that has definite value (the PC was on the market for a couple of years before Macintosh), but I don't think it can beat openness in the long run.
- stcredzero 18y ago
  In the long run, Apple found that they could get away with "just enough" openness in favor of a highly polished end-user experience. They could just as easily do that with the iPhone and make it the "high-end" choice.
- gamble 18y ago
  I seriously doubt that the same pressure to consolidate will ever apply in the mobile phone market the way it did to early PCs. Prior to the Internet, the only thing you could do with a PC was run software written specifically for each platform. The average computer in the late 80s/early 90s cost between $3-5000. It made sense that people would settle on a single standard that let them get the most out of a very large investment. However, 90% of what people do with smartphones - calls, email, music, web browsing - is inevitably provided with the phone. 3rd-party apps are a nice addition, but hardly necessary. The iPhone and Blackberry got along just fine without them for years, whereas Palm and WiMo are floundering despite having allowed 3rd-party apps for the last decade.
  - SwellJoe 18y ago
    I won't argue with that logic. It's the same market change that has led to Mac making a comeback, and Linux making a (small) move into the consumer desktop space, in ways that simply couldn't have happened in the 90's. If apps continue to move to the web, the key will be who has the best browsing experience--and right now, it's roughly tied, IMHO (and they're based on the same rendering engine, so that makes sense). This also explains why Windows Mobile has had so little impact--in all fairness, it ought to simply rule the roost (and it does have good raw numbers, but I don't think it has much mindshare)--the browser in Windows Mobile sucks dramatically worse than even IE on the desktop. The same can be said for Palm and the Symbian devices that I've seen. A smart phone with a crap browser is just a big ugly phone with some extra fancy crap bolted on. It'll be interesting to see how cost, and other ancillary features (like GPS, to name just one) will effect buyers decisions. Fashion (as in, "who makes the prettiest accessory for my wardrobe?") may, in fact, rule the day...in which case, Apple still has the upper hand, and, if PC history is any indicator, they will hang on to the upper hand for years to come. Even today, it's pretty much impossible to buy a PC that looks as nice as an Apple (Dell has made a few effective moves in the area, and HP and Sony also seem interested in good design). Then again, PCs still outsell Macs many times over, both in lappies and desktops. So, maybe you're right, and the market will shake out dramatically differently than the PC market. But, I'd sure hate to bet against history repeating itself given the wide array of similarities (many of the players are even the same, and they do appear to have the same playbooks).

If mobile devices are the same as MP3 players in the minds of consumers, then that's a great argument. I don't think they are, though. I think mobile devices are going to be a replay of PC history: Specific applications will drive adoption of specific products. The iPhone and the G1 are both vastly more powerful than the first six personal computers I owned, and have better network bandwidth than several subsequent PCs. I think they will continue to get more interesting, and the application selection will become more important. If Apple continues to treat developers as competitors to be occasionally shut out if they get too uppity or too close to competing with Apple in some space, they won't keep those developers. Without the developers, the apps won't exist...without the apps, users will choose an alternative. Others have mentioned that iPhone was "first" in this particular market (the market for "Buck Rogers magical computing devices that fit in your pocket"), and that has definite value (the PC was on the market for a couple of years before Macintosh), but I don't think it can beat openness in the long run.

stcredzero 18y ago
In the long run, Apple found that they could get away with "just enough" openness in favor of a highly polished end-user experience. They could just as easily do that with the iPhone and make it the "high-end" choice.
gamble 18y ago
I seriously doubt that the same pressure to consolidate will ever apply in the mobile phone market the way it did to early PCs. Prior to the Internet, the only thing you could do with a PC was run software written specifically for each platform. The average computer in the late 80s/early 90s cost between $3-5000. It made sense that people would settle on a single standard that let them get the most out of a very large investment. However, 90% of what people do with smartphones - calls, email, music, web browsing - is inevitably provided with the phone. 3rd-party apps are a nice addition, but hardly necessary. The iPhone and Blackberry got along just fine without them for years, whereas Palm and WiMo are floundering despite having allowed 3rd-party apps for the last decade.
- SwellJoe 18y ago
  I won't argue with that logic. It's the same market change that has led to Mac making a comeback, and Linux making a (small) move into the consumer desktop space, in ways that simply couldn't have happened in the 90's. If apps continue to move to the web, the key will be who has the best browsing experience--and right now, it's roughly tied, IMHO (and they're based on the same rendering engine, so that makes sense). This also explains why Windows Mobile has had so little impact--in all fairness, it ought to simply rule the roost (and it does have good raw numbers, but I don't think it has much mindshare)--the browser in Windows Mobile sucks dramatically worse than even IE on the desktop. The same can be said for Palm and the Symbian devices that I've seen. A smart phone with a crap browser is just a big ugly phone with some extra fancy crap bolted on. It'll be interesting to see how cost, and other ancillary features (like GPS, to name just one) will effect buyers decisions. Fashion (as in, "who makes the prettiest accessory for my wardrobe?") may, in fact, rule the day...in which case, Apple still has the upper hand, and, if PC history is any indicator, they will hang on to the upper hand for years to come. Even today, it's pretty much impossible to buy a PC that looks as nice as an Apple (Dell has made a few effective moves in the area, and HP and Sony also seem interested in good design). Then again, PCs still outsell Macs many times over, both in lappies and desktops. So, maybe you're right, and the market will shake out dramatically differently than the PC market. But, I'd sure hate to bet against history repeating itself given the wide array of similarities (many of the players are even the same, and they do appear to have the same playbooks).