6 ms·

There's a simple reason why Apple was often the first one to put something into a product: They could afford to sell high-end products for a high price and know

by gst 15y ago

There's a simple reason why Apple was often the first one to put something into a product: They could afford to sell high-end products for a high price and know that they still have lots of users who buy their stuff. Most of the other companies had prototypes using those technologies available, but they didn't build products out of them because (at this point) they would have been too expensive for their target audience. And even if those other companies built a product before Apple, Apple would still claim that it was first: Two examples: (1) LG Prada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada) was there before the iPhone, yet (AFAIK) Apple claims that basically all the touchscreen phones are a copy of the iPhone. And (2) Netbooks and Subnotebooks have been on the market for nearly a decade now - I've used Thinkpad X-series laptops for years now (which weight about as much as a Macbook Air). Still, as soon as a company announes a new Subnotebook now someone will claim that it is a copy of the Macbook Air.

gnaffle 15y ago
Sorry, but that's just wrong. Most other computer or consumer electronics companies have high-end lines with prices comparable to Apples products. Companies like RIM and Nokia had pretty nice margins on their high-end phones. The main problem was simply that they had no incentive to innovate in that direction until competition showed up in the form of the iPhone. (And I'm not saying Apple is special here, I think they would probably have been in the same position if they had continued selling the Newton and tried making an iNewtonPhone out of it). AFAIK, Apple claims various touch-related inventions through their patents (some of which are quite stupid, which is another story). I've never heard them saying "we invented touchscreen phones". Apple never claimed to have invented subnotebooks either. But you would be right if you looked at many of the new "ultrabooks" and claimed that they have borrowed many design details from the Air (as opposed to, say, copying the form factor of the X-series or netbooks).
greedo 15y ago
Your example of the Prada disproves your point. The Prada sold unlocked for roughly $775. Hardly a cheap phone. The Sony/Ericsson P990 also sold for $700. So the iPhone was not sold at a significantly higher price than its competition. So, Apple is doomed when faced by your criticism. Either they sell the stuff with new technology at a high price because of their cult following, or they're really not introducing something new. That's a pretty effective attack, since you can basically switch both tactics interchangeably regardless of any actual validity.

by gst 15y ago

gnaffle 15y ago

Sorry, but that's just wrong. Most other computer or consumer electronics companies have high-end lines with prices comparable to Apples products. Companies like RIM and Nokia had pretty nice margins on their high-end phones. The main problem was simply that they had no incentive to innovate in that direction until competition showed up in the form of the iPhone. (And I'm not saying Apple is special here, I think they would probably have been in the same position if they had continued selling the Newton and tried making an iNewtonPhone out of it). AFAIK, Apple claims various touch-related inventions through their patents (some of which are quite stupid, which is another story). I've never heard them saying "we invented touchscreen phones". Apple never claimed to have invented subnotebooks either. But you would be right if you looked at many of the new "ultrabooks" and claimed that they have borrowed many design details from the Air (as opposed to, say, copying the form factor of the X-series or netbooks).

greedo 15y ago

Your example of the Prada disproves your point. The Prada sold unlocked for roughly $775. Hardly a cheap phone. The Sony/Ericsson P990 also sold for $700. So the iPhone was not sold at a significantly higher price than its competition. So, Apple is doomed when faced by your criticism. Either they sell the stuff with new technology at a high price because of their cult following, or they're really not introducing something new. That's a pretty effective attack, since you can basically switch both tactics interchangeably regardless of any actual validity.