[clue-talk] iPhone Madness

[Nate Duehr]

On Jul 2, 2007, at 9:36 PM, Sean LeBlanc wrote:

> On 07-02 19:24, Cody Betschart wrote:
>> On 7/2/07, Sean LeBlanc <seanleblanc at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can anyone explain to me why I should care about this phone? I  
>>> have an
>>> ipod,
>>> but I just don't get why combining an ipod and a phone is a big  
>>> deal?
>>
>> First,  I must apologize for the fanboy attitude, but this is  
>> obviously not
>> an ipod + phone.  It is a revolutionary mobile computer that  
>> happens to be a
>> phone, again not an ipod  + phone.  On the other hand it does have  
>> numerous
>> flaws, it is locked down by Apple meaning no third party apps  
>> right now.
>> But, this device does have a very useable web browser for its size  
>> and
>> legitimately brings video to the ipod platform.  One of the big  
>> sidenotes is
>> nearly double the battery life compared to phones with similar,  
>> although not
>> nearly as fleshed out features.
>
> Sure, I was exaggerating a bit for effect...but I keep hearing  
> things like
> "revolutionary", etc., and it keeps getting free advertising on "news"
> channels, but I guess I still don't get it. As I saw someone  
> comment on
> Slashdot, if they had really shaken things up by breaking the  
> structure of
> control over the cell phone, I might agree. From everything I  
> understand, it
> has a slick interface, has no keyboard, a slow connection, one must  
> use
> itunes to get ringtones on it, and one provider. Seems like an  
> incremental
> step forward, but beyond that?

That's exactly what Apple does these days.  Take something slightly  
better than average and design a good goof-proof UI that doesn't  
crash around it.

> Revolutionary to me would be bringing unlocked phones into the  
> marketplace,
> not further control. I'm not an Apple hater, but I tend to agree  
> just a bit
> with Maddox on this one here: [warning, lots of profanity]
> http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant

Even Apple's not big enough to fight the idiots here in the U.S. who  
won't demand carrier neutrality, because they simply don't want to be  
bothered to learn how tech works.

> Okay, maybe not really, but that rant is humorous. :) I actually  
> remember
> the very first mac (my father bought one) and I had one in uni, so  
> I can
> relate. I also heard some people go on and on about OS X on  
> podcasts like
> Java Posse and at conferences...

Rants are great.  :-)

And most of the pro-Apple rants (even from folks like myself from  
time to time) are coming from the crowd that's happy to have an OS  
that just works, doesn't crash, and comes with all the software you  
typically need to fire it up and get things done.  Apple holds back  
on the stuff in iWork, is about all...

AND... It's got good old BSD under the hood.  To have a real Unix  
command line underneath and all the usual tools/toys -- is truly  
sublime.

The hard part to describe about Apple's products is... they make it  
feel like they paid attention to what your entire user experience is  
going to be.  From loading the OS, to running the built-in apps, to  
having open command line access under the hood, to just shutting the  
lid and Sleep mode works properly EVERY time, and recovers quickly  
when you open it back up... with no screwups including automatically  
and QUICKLY reconnecting to the WiFi network, or switching to any of  
the others you have told it about...

It "just works"... which makes folks feel good about the overall  
product.

Think about how many times you've heard someone you're introducing to  
Linux on the desktop say, "It's great, but I can't get [blah] to work  
right, and it's ruining it for me.  I still have to dual-boot to  
Windows for that."

For the iPhone, the similar experience would maybe be the Palm Treo  
650... "It's nice when it's working, but it reboots regularly during  
phone calls!"

Stuff like that just makes folks who've paid a premium price, very  
VERY angry, and willing to go somewhere else for their tech gadgets.


> Oh, well, maybe I'll just do what I did with ipods - wait until 4th  
> gen and
> see what it has then...it took a few revs for them to really have  
> the rubber
> hit the road on that. I was reminded of the first days, as it  
> sounds like it
> doesn't work on 64-bit Windows yet - just like originally, ipods  
> didn't work
> with Windows.

Good idea.  My first gen MacBook didn't work out so well until the  
first one died and was returned in the 15-day purchase grace period,  
and machine #2 has had 3 (2 avoidable) repairs.  They're not so bad now.

Apple's products don't do everything, and they don't even always beat  
the specs of competing products, but usually -- what they claim the  
product will do, it WILL do -- without major problems.  Hardware for  
them is sometimes a problem, however... and I can say that I've  
learned never to buy 1st generation Apple hardware of any sort.  Give  
'em a year to sort out the kinks.

By the way, on the 64-bit Windows thing -- that's probably on  
purpose.  Think people "upgrading" to Windows Vista will like it much  
when their iTunes/iPod suddenly stops working?  Think they'll blame  
it on Apple, or on Microsoft?  Time will tell.  I bet Apple will time  
the fixes to arrive right about the time the tide is switching and  
people start to get upset with them... meanwhile picking up a few new  
Mac owners along the way, who figure they'll give a Mac a try.

> I was talking with someone today at work who is a real "true  
> believer" and
> he started actually getting visibly agitated when I suggested that  
> IMHO,
> someone else, either Sony, Microsoft, or the like will eventually  
> come along
> and eat Apple's lunch in the portable mp3 market (and I think Apple  
> knows
> this, as portable mp3 players really are commodity already, and  
> thus the
> iphone). We'll see how it bears out, but getting mad about some MNC  
> and the
> suggestion that it might not be the top dog forever - now THAT's brand
> loyalty. :)

Nah, Apple's genius was in making the iPod connector proprietary, and  
then grabbing enough market share that even automotive manufacturers  
put them in vehicles.  The other manufacturers can only hook up  
through a dumb, no-data, "aux" jack for audio to things like cars.   
Keeping the iPod connector backward compatible throughout multiple  
versions of the product was a great idea.

Apple's also good at the 80/20 rule.  Design things that 80% of your  
target market want, and realize you can't ever make the other 20%  
happy.  Then follow up the design with solid engineering and plenty  
of marketing hype.  It worked for Microsoft for decades... Windows  
met the 80/20 rule.  They fell off the horse big-time with Vista and  
having all those "versions" of it...

I think I'd summarize it this way.   Most companies decide that the  
design and operation of the thing they're going to sell should be  
"pretty good" and the device should be loaded 100% with features.

Apple seems to think that the design and operation of the thing is  
100% of the consumer's experience, and the feature set can fall to  
80% or lower instead.  They also seem to charge "enough" for their  
products to properly support them long-term, versus bowing to pricing  
pressure to sell at the absolute lowest price.

--
Nate Duehr
nate at natetech.com