5 ms·

Read the article before jumping into roasting. The author is NOT criticizing iPhone - he's skeptical simply because, at the time, network operators dictated whi

by esjeon 3y ago

Read the article before jumping into roasting. The author is NOT criticizing iPhone - he's skeptical simply because, at the time, network operators dictated which manufacturers enter the mobile phone market or not. It was a highly controlled market, and Apple not only had to build a great phone, but also had to punch through that stupid business barrier. In the end, Apple did make it.

bombcar 3y ago
Iirc Apple basically bribed Cingular I think to get a toe in the market, at the time Apple fans would go to great lengths to get things working (including installing FireWire to use iPods on windows) so it worked out. AT&T later bought Cingular.
- toastercat 3y ago
  Wow, Cingular... that's a name I haven't heard in a long time.
- twoodfin 3y ago
  Other way around: Cingular bought AT&T Wireless and adopted the stronger brand. It wasn’t so much Apple bribing Cingular as it was Apple/Jobs selling Cingular on the strategy of using iPhone exclusivity as an accelerant for their plans to become a top tier mobile provider. It worked.
zuhsetaqi 3y ago
That's only partly true. He said: > As customers start to realise that the competition offers better functionality at a lower price, by negotiating a better subsidy, sales will stagnate. After a year a new version will be launched, but it will lack the innovation of the first and quickly vanish.
- esjeon 3y ago
  He's still on the same line - network operators will kill the innovation what-so-ever.
- bonestamp2 3y ago
  I like the line after that where he wonders if the failure of the iPhone will take the iPod down with it. It's funny that the rampant success of the iPhone is actually what killed the iPod.
  - soneil 3y ago
    That I've always found interesting - a proper "skate to where the puck is going to be" moment. There was a good few years there where everyone was looking for the "iPod-killer". There's even a chance the Zune would have got there, except by time they got close .. that's not where the puck was. But I always found it interesting that after all that search for the "iPod-killer", none was ever crowned - instead the entire market just slipped silently into the night.
jakobson14 3y ago
Apple didn't have to care. The telcos bent over backwards to accommodate job's phone. Handspring built a modern smartphone and got roasted by the telcos. All jobs had to do was ask "do you want access to our millions of ipod and imusic subscribers?" and he got his way.
soneil 3y ago
Of course I'm writing this with the benefit of hindsight, but it's still an interesting position to read. They could make almost exactly the same claim for iTunes - that it's really not viable because you have no leverage over the incumbent publishers - that they're making for network operators. And I really don't think this is a bad comparison, given that in 2006, iTunes is still very much fresh in the mind.

by esjeon 3y ago

bombcar 3y ago

Iirc Apple basically bribed Cingular I think to get a toe in the market, at the time Apple fans would go to great lengths to get things working (including installing FireWire to use iPods on windows) so it worked out. AT&T later bought Cingular.

toastercat 3y ago
Wow, Cingular... that's a name I haven't heard in a long time.
twoodfin 3y ago
Other way around: Cingular bought AT&T Wireless and adopted the stronger brand. It wasn’t so much Apple bribing Cingular as it was Apple/Jobs selling Cingular on the strategy of using iPhone exclusivity as an accelerant for their plans to become a top tier mobile provider. It worked.

zuhsetaqi 3y ago

That's only partly true. He said: > As customers start to realise that the competition offers better functionality at a lower price, by negotiating a better subsidy, sales will stagnate. After a year a new version will be launched, but it will lack the innovation of the first and quickly vanish.

esjeon 3y ago
He's still on the same line - network operators will kill the innovation what-so-ever.
bonestamp2 3y ago
I like the line after that where he wonders if the failure of the iPhone will take the iPod down with it. It's funny that the rampant success of the iPhone is actually what killed the iPod.
- soneil 3y ago
  That I've always found interesting - a proper "skate to where the puck is going to be" moment. There was a good few years there where everyone was looking for the "iPod-killer". There's even a chance the Zune would have got there, except by time they got close .. that's not where the puck was. But I always found it interesting that after all that search for the "iPod-killer", none was ever crowned - instead the entire market just slipped silently into the night.

jakobson14 3y ago

Apple didn't have to care. The telcos bent over backwards to accommodate job's phone. Handspring built a modern smartphone and got roasted by the telcos. All jobs had to do was ask "do you want access to our millions of ipod and imusic subscribers?" and he got his way.

soneil 3y ago

Of course I'm writing this with the benefit of hindsight, but it's still an interesting position to read. They could make almost exactly the same claim for iTunes - that it's really not viable because you have no leverage over the incumbent publishers - that they're making for network operators. And I really don't think this is a bad comparison, given that in 2006, iTunes is still very much fresh in the mind.