“To many observers it is one of the great mysteries of the electronics world. Not how the iPod became such a huge success, but how other manufacturers have still failed to effectively compete against the white ear bud toting little player from the company formerly known as Apple computer. Yet with each passing year, the total dominance of Apple Inc.’s humble little player continues to baffle experts. As each new device from competitors is hailed as an ‘iPod Killer’ and promptly fails to live up to expectations analysts seem to have finally given up on the term altogether,” Thomas Fitzgerald blogs for thomas-fitzgerald.net. “But why hasn’t anyone been able to create or market a music player that can effectively take on Apple’s iPod?”
Fitzgerald writes, “It was the recent launch of the iPhone, and more important the reaction to it that made me realise what the key is. I think most manufacturers simply still cannot grasp that the iPod could have ever been a success, even though the reality is staring them in the face. I think that there is this feeling among many boardrooms is that the success of the iPod is a fluke; after all, this is the company that in the minds of many business people, failed so spectacularly with the mac. What makes me think that? Well, much of the reaction to the iPhone is the same as the reaction to the iPod when it was released. Manufacturers are assuming it will be a failure because they offer devices with similar functionality for less money.”
Fitzgerald writes, “Last week, Apple once again showed a better way of doing something… Electronics firms are not going to respond to the iPhone, because in their eyes, the iPhone couldn’t possibly be a success.”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “LinuxGuy and Mac Prodigal Son” for the heads up.]
Related articles:
Street Insight: Apple iPhone faces a number of potential obstacles – January 16, 2007
IDG News Service: ‘Reality might tarnish iPhone’s shine’ – January 16, 2007
The Times: Apple’s brand of corporate hubris is almost always damaging in the long run – January 16, 2007
Hackers ‘salivating’ over Apple’s iPhone – January 15, 2007
Bloomberg writer: Apple iPhone won’t make long-term mark; will only appeal to a few gadget freaks – January 15, 2007
Dvorak on Apple iPhone: ‘I think Apple can do wrong and I think this is it’ – January 13, 2007
USA Today writer: Apple iPhone is an ‘ordinary, average product’ at heart – January 12, 2007
FUD Alert: Analyst – I am pretty skeptical Apple’s iPhone can succeed – January 11, 2007
The massive FUD campaign against Apple’s iPhone ramps up – January 10, 2007
The Register’s Ray: Apple ‘iPhone’ will fail – December 26, 2006
Analyst: Apple iPhone economics aren’t that compelling – December 08, 2006
CNET editor Kanellos: ‘Apple iPhone will largely fail’ – December 07, 2006
Palm CEO laughs off Apple ‘iPhone’ threat – November 20, 2006
It’s the UI, period.
Indeed, and the fact is that Mac was a massive sucess. It was not a flop. Some people base their evaluation of Apple based on the false premise that Mac as not a sucess. If they accept that it was then the iPod and other Apple products can be viewed in the correct perspective. Just because M$ ended up with a monopoly on OS does not mean Mac was a failure.
Steve Ballmer was just on tv a few minutes ago being interviewed on one of these financial networks. At one point they asked him what he thought about the iPhone. He was condescending (shock!). He said that it would “certainly be the most expensive phone out there”. And then, believe it or not, he criticized it for not having a keypad.
*rolls eyes*
The Mac never failed! It only waned a bit and is now coming on strong.
the [negative]<i.reaction to the iPhone is the same as the reaction to the iPod when it was released.</i>
How do you make fonts bigger?
YES ! !</pre>
That’s a pretty good assessment. I think most people (who don’t already believe in Apple) fundamentally misunderstand what it is about Apple products that makes them appealing.
Ballmer spewing mindless FUD? No way.
This is a guy who spends his days fascinated by how the doughnut could be designed around a hole. His first reaction to Vista was a grunt followed by, “Ooooo, shiny pretty” with a steady flow of drool as he tried to poke at it through the monitor.
Hey, Apple has been going out of business since 1984, at least that’s what John Dvorak and those like him think
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue laugh” style=”border:0;” />
And this is precisely why the other manufactures will be unable to compete.
They will then blame it on the DRM instead of the real reason.
They won’t see it, they won’t compete, and Apple will succeed!
“To many observers it is one of the great mysteries of the electronics world. Not how the iPod became such a huge success, but how other manufacturers have still failed to effectively compete against the white ear bud toting little player from the company formerly known as Apple computer.”
It’s very, very simple. It’s called iTunes and OS X. Every other device manufacturer has to rely on Windows and MS apps for DRM, and music file transfer and organization. The other factor is music ownership. People have demonstrated with their wallets that they don’t want to rent music. Everyone but Apple ignores the message.
Oops,
The iPhone is nowhere near the most expensive hone out there. I paid nearly $800 for the Sony Ericsson p900 when it first came out acouple years ago. Sold it on eBay a few months later because a) it wasn’t worth that much and b) the technology wasn’t quite THERE yet.
Only Apple can do it right. Sad, but true.
Maybe you do the big font like this:
<font size=”2″ face=”Verdana”>
Big Font!!
</font>
apple will always be apple and all the products that apple made are genuis products,in my point of view “ignorants“ are those who buy M$ products.
Its just amazing how stupid and stubborn people are. Its funny how many windows users are out there that still do not have a clue to why we use macs. The number of people that still say well I’m not a designer, or into editing movies. I mean yeah I am a designer, but thats not the sole reason for using my powerbook. I wonder when the rest of the world is going to step out of the dark and realize there is a better option.
On a better note I did have a friend call me from Vegas asking about the macbook so I guess one out of so many people just happen to get it.
Yes, I know the iPhone is not the most expensive out there. But Ballmer is already lying about it. Personally, I don’t think you should get away with lying about a competitor’s product. Then again, I don’t think MS should get by with most of what they do.
“Well, much of the reaction to the iPhone is the same as the reaction to the iPod when it was released. Manufacturers are assuming it will be a failure because they offer devices with similar functionality for less money.”
And this is EXCELLENT NEWS for Apple! Let them twiddle their thumbs and giggle at us while we dominate, the same way competitors regard the iPod. There is no greater gift you can give your enemy than that of underestimation.
I love the responses. Motorola thinks the RAZR will keep them safe. No wonder Steve Jobs said the iPhone is five years ahead of the pack, it will take them that long before they even begin to open their eyes.
iPod: “it has and FM tuner and it costs $10 less! And it can do subscription music services! And it’s not locked into a “proprietary” format!”
iPhone: “Ours has a keyboard! Ours has more buttons! Ours works with Outlook!”
What we’re seeing is what psychologists call “cognitive dissonance”. This, per wikipedia is “the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where “cognition” is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior; in other words, it is the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time.”
So we have two “cognitions” – one, that Apple won’t succeed because it’s “beleaguered”, it’s “expensive”, or “not Windows”, thus doomed to failure. The other cognition is the reality staring them in the face, that Apple is an increasingly successful company, a cultural phenomenon, a trend-setter up-ending one industry after another by its contrary vision. Many industry observers, therefore, are in a deep funk, unable to make sense of these two contrary positions.
It’s certainly not a phenomenon unique to technology. It applies in politics as well. Heck, one could do a whole dissertation about the role cognitive dissonance plays in the Middle-East. But that’s for another forum.
Brian Allen,
Drop Gregg Thurman a line.
Interesting blog post, but dear Lord, does he ever need a proofreader.
The iPod works because it’s beautiful and it’s easy to use, as is the rest of the Apple line. For inanimate objects, beauty will always overcome ugliness, and simplicity will always overcome complexity. All of this is not a hard concept to me to understand. To me it’s common sense. Why can’t the competitors get it?
Although the iPod has a commanding lead in marketshare in North America, how are it’s numbers otherwise? I recall reading somewhere that beyond a few countries, it’s nowhere near as dominant in the rest of the world.
> Many industry observers, therefore, are in a deep funk, unable to make sense of these two contrary positions.
Yep, and they need to remember that our glee is proportional to their angst. We’re loving it up in here! Hehe!
Suck it, Zune: Go Apple Inc.!
The modern corporate brain is deformed…it only works from the left side and the right side has totally atrophied (beauty, the poetic, art and creativity)…it only values things that can easily be listed on a spreadsheet..things that have definite quantifiable numbers associated with it. As a result, they will never understand how Apple does it.
According to NPD Group, the iPod had 60% marketshare worldwide in 2004 and 75% as of July, 2006. This did not include cell phones that can also play music files but only flash and HD based music devices.
It’s hot worldwide.