“On April 9, 2007, Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple Inc. announced the sale of the 100 millionth iPod. To say that iPod sales have been anything less than dramatic would be an understatement, and to call the revolutionary iPod anything less than an entire product ecosystem wouldn’t be doing it justice. Between the more than 4,000 accessories to date and the billions in revenue generated by selling proprietary downloads of songs 99 cents at a time on iTunes (and now TV shows, movies, audio books, etc.), Apple has built a nearly flawless business model around the iPod that is the envy of big tech and big media companies alike, and as sales built to record numbers it seemed that the only thing that could slow the iPod’s ascent off the sales forecast charts would be Apple itself,” Brad Kenney writes for IndustryWeek.
“As unlikely as that may seem, it may have happened. Apple co-founder, CEO and chief evangelist Steve Jobs is a charismatic public presence by any account, and his theatrical unveiling of a prototype of the company’s new iPhone at Apple’s Macworld Expo consumer conference this past January was met with near-rapturous outpourings of desire for this new ‘it’ device. However, once the glow of the sneak peek at this new Apple product-to-be wore off, a more sober assessment of the situation revealed that the premature announcement wasn’t as well timed a move as industry watchers are accustomed to expecting from Apple,” Kenney writes.
MacDailyNews Take: Let’s look past Kenney’s transparently sarcastic use of the term “near-rapturous” for a moment; surely Kenney has good reasons why Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ iPhone announcement wasn’t “well-timed,” right?
Kenney continues, “First of all, consider the name. At the time of the Macworld announcement, San Jose-based Cisco Systems owned the exclusive rights to the term iPhone, and although there was no doubt that Apple (the originator of the iMac and iMovie, iPhoto and the rest of the iLife line) would acquire the rights by any means necessary, such a high-profile announcement surely put a strain on negotiations…”
MacDailyNews Take: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Apple and Cisco have agreed to use the name jointly. The “controversy” generated created much free publicity and helped get the name “iPhone” into the general public’s consciousness. This is not proof that iPhone announcement wasn’t “well-timed,” it’s proof that the announcement was “well-timed.” Surely Kenney has better reasons coming, right?
Kenney continues, “Secondly, consider the fact that the iPhone was nowhere near ready to ship when the prototype was unveiled. Again, Apple usually has all its ducks in a row (and boxed up and loaded into trucks) before sweeping aside the veil of secrecy surrounding any new product. By giving such a long (it’s been almost six months and still no iPhone) time lag, Apple has not only allowed excitement to dim but has also negatively impacted iPod sales in the interim.”
MacDailyNews Take: We’ll need more proof than Brad’s words that excitement has “dimmed” over iPhone. If anything, excitement has grown, with AT&T signing up over a million people interested in iPhone via their website and – this is the real reason for the timing of the iPhone announcement and demo – allowing people to let their contracts lapse, freezing the so-called “smartphone” market in its tracks. As for iPod sales: there is simply no proof of negative impact: Apple’s 10.549 million iPod sales last quarter were 24% over the year-ago quarter. Kennney is 0 for 2, so far.
Kenney continues, “Also, by giving the world an uncharacteristic pre-launch peek at the iPhone, Jobs put every reverse-engineering department in the grey market into a frenzy to produce a competitive knockoff and steal some market share from the real thing.”
MacDailyNews Take: Apple spent years developing the iPhone. iPhone makes all other “smartphones” from even the reputable makers look stupid. Some Chinese knockoff outfit isn’t going to knockoff the iPhone in six months. And they’re certainly not going to steal any meaningful market share; just as cheap iPod knockoffs haven’t stolen any iPod market share. You’re 0-3, Brad.
Kenney continues, “To cap it all off, there was actually another very interesting, unique new product unveiled at Macworld — AppleTV — with a confirmed ship date and for which Apple was already taking pre-orders. The brightness of Jobs’ iPhone spotlight inevitably meant that quite a few consumers were left in the dark concerning this new media extension device…”
MacDailyNews Take: More meaningless blather from Brad. Any overshadowing of Apple TV by iPhone is not proof that the timing of the announcement will hurt the iPhone. The two are totally different products, targeted at different markets. 0-4.
Kenney continues, “Despite what was widely characterized as bad timing by Jobs, the iPhone’s unique intuitive interface, rich feature set and undeniable cool factor paired with Apple’s pre-loaded customer loyalty means that, so long as Apple’s product developers remain at the top of their game, no amount of marketing missteps can keep this new Apple product from getting eaten up by the market.”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Twilightmoon” for the heads up.]
MacDailyNews Take: The iPhone announcement has not been “widely characterized as bad timing by Jobs.” One Brad Kenny has called it as “bad timing by Jobs” and offered no valid proof to support his characterization. The iPhone announcement was very well-timed. It gave customers time to prepare; letting them allow their current contracts to lapse and freezing the market as they put their next phone purchase on hold. With regard to the timing of the iPhone announcement, we’ll have to side with Steve Jobs, a man with a record of radically changing multiple industries and proven marketing acumen, over some no-name IndustryWeek hack who offers no valid evidence to support his goofy theories.
In months past I have complained about ATT/Cingular. The idea and desire of the iPhone has been winning me over to at least give it a try… until I called ATT today.
Currently, my Sprint plan is 109.99 per month. This includes:
2500 minutes peak time
unlimited nights beginning at 6pm. That’s right…6 pm.
unlimited weekends beginning at 6pm on Friday until 8 a.m. Monday
Unlimited text and multimedia messaging.
I also have the Sprint EDVO high spead for an additional $10.
Makig my total 119.99 not including tax and misc fees.
I use a Treo 700p
I callled ATT. And equivalent plan not including high speed is 149.99.
High Speed another 49.99
The representative put me on hold and came back online and assured me the iPhone will be 3G enabled. Whether that is true or not will be seen upon launch.
Very expensive to have the iPhone.
mel Gross knows the history of patents. I don’t.
I think when all factors are included, Apple’s intro of the iPhone at MWSF was the best choice.
The fear of competitor’s copying is just one factor and in this case, it is so overblown because the real Apple advantage is its software – and you just can’t create an OS integrated with solid internet, media, sync, and UI services for embedded products overnight. Symbian, Linux, Windows Mobile are way behind and creating one from scratch is a major effort. I doubt Apple is 5 years ahead as Jobs said but they’re at least a year ahead.
Again there were many factors, but I think the decisive factors were trumping both CES and Vista. The iPhone buzz crushed both.
@ Crabapple
Again, very correct. You point out the ‘expiration period’ and this is a VERY important factor in getting people on board with AT&T. In the 6 months, how many more people would have singed up for 24 month contracts? Who can say, but I’ve talked to scores (literally, SCORES) of people who have said they put off new contacts to either get an iPhone or at least try one out. This factor can’t be overstated. Whatever Mel thinks, if it’s so easy to knock out a competing phone than someone would have built a better one by now, but Mel can’t seem to answer why every phone on the market currently blows ass chunks. I doubt another 6 months would change that. AND what Mel seems to forget is that NO OTHER COMPANY has iTunes, OS X, Bonjour, .Mac, and the rest of the Apple ecosystem that will make the iPhone just one small part of a larger system. Carp all day about how there are comparable phones out there, but if they were so great then we’d all be using them. As it is, most people DON’T use advance smartphone features, because they are just simple a pain in the ass to operate.
This market hasn’t even been touched yet. Call me again in two months if you still don’t buy that.
-c
Congratulations on the new member of the family. Just a reminder, dad, the rest of the clan is expressing a little sibling rivalry with your fawning of little iPhone. You had better show some love for the rest of the progeny before they kick little iPhone’s tail.
Silly article – must have been a slow news day. The fundamental precis of the article is flawed – it will only be possible to determine whether the launch of iPhone was well planned well after the product is on the market. Every argument he puts forward relies on speculation, and he presents no evidence that iPod sales have suffered, Apple TV has suffered, or that excitement has “dimmed” in iPhone.
This is a good example of the view that some people hold that they are entitled to express their opinion even if they don’t know what they are talking about. Freedom of speech allows it – but offeres no protection against being shot down in flames.
Bang bang, bang…
MDN: the don’t click-it mark would be appropriate on the article. Just trash!
Why don’t you just quit with the syruppy review and tell us what you really think..
Good Job()
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool smile” style=”border:0;” />
Here, let me sum this up nicely.
Brad Kenney, please blow me.
Did Steve Jobs unveil Apple’s iPhone too early?
Yes he did, and he had no choice. Why?
1. To silence the rumor mill, which would be running Warp 100 on an explosive mix of raw vapor and Apple’s FCC filing.
2. To prep users, who are usually locked into multi-year cell provider agreements. Would YOU like to unwittingly sign a two-year cell contract a week before the iPhone is available? Didn’t think so. Imagine the screaming there’d be over Apple’s secrecy…
3. To make a big splash in an otherwise quiet MWSF keynote, thus keeping investors’ blood lust down. And to avoid having an “over-splash”, with a flurry of new products drowning each-other out this summer/fall.
Listen. The journalist who wrote that article is a complete, utter dumbass.
Jobs said it. The competition is years behind. I worked for Nokia for 16 years, and I am telling you that it take 3 years from concept to store shelf delivery, minimum, of a new kind of phone. All the Chinese knock offs do not take any business whatsoever from Apple. To even mention them is stupid.
Nokia only now got its anwer to the Razr to the market … like 3-4 years lag, and now as Razr is history. You see?
Why can’t stupid ass journalists see crystal clear logic? The model of mobile phone contracts in the States dictates a buying decision months ahead of contract expiration. Why is that so difficult to get?
iPhone is going to shake Nokia, Moto, and the rest to the core. Its is simply pure genius.
Leaving aside the fact the iPhone design was nicked from the LG Prada phone, there are clones on their way already. See here: http://www.t3.co.uk/news/247/entertainment/mp3_player/meizus_iphone_clone_specced
@Grandtheft
There may be knockoffs but all of the competitiors (see ChissyOne’s last post) can’t come close to offering the total software/hardware user interface that Apple has developed over the years. This vertical intergration is a market advantage that no other competitor can ever hope to offer. Apple is light years ahead.
Why cna’t you people see that!
@Mel Gross Check this sites out.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/02/15/apple_may_turn_to_induction_for_ipod_docking_charging.html
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/02/15/briefly_apple_games_ballmer_on_vista_sales_and_apple_patents.html
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/05/16/apple_patent_clears_road_for_theft_proof_iphones_macs.html
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/05/10/apple_filing_reveals_multi_sided_ipod_with_touch_screen_interface.html
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/05/03/apple_filing_depicts_interactive_dashboard_cube_interface.html
As you can see from those examples, there are several stages at which patents have been filled. The concept is to protect a complete module within a larger module, because it would be easy for retro-engineers to pick out unpatented modules within a whole module, patent it & then file for that part of the module to be removed from the whole.
Case in point is M$ IE which had to be unbundled from Windows as it was seen to restrict fair competition from other browsers. IE was judged to be a complete program capable of operating without Windows.
Let us take “Multi-touch” that modul is capable of operation outside the iphone enclosure, so it has to patented to prevent competitors from patenting it in other products. The are other several examples within the iphone like that have been nailed down in order to protect the iphone.
I do not claim that Apple has invented them, they have bought them from the developers/researchers who have been credited with the invention. The patenting is to protect Apple and the creator so that they can benefit from their hard work.
You rightly point out that alot of the hardware already exixts and is therefor unpatentable, but the means by which this products can be exploited for financial gain is of the utmost importance hence the specific patenting of the actual usage or operation of the product. Please note that in all cases, the inventor benefits, particularly because the inventors do not always have the potential to see how their inventions will be used.
When IBM invented the Personal Computer, they never thought it would find its way into most homes round the World let alone business, so they thought “Ah well, this computer is so expensive no one apart from a few business will be able to buy one, what would they use it for?” & didn’t bother to patent it, the rest is history, hence the term IBM compatible.
I could go on & on & on, but what would be the point? You probably know all about this through your own experience as a partner in your firm.
Sorry everyone! I hadn’t realised that so many spaces had been entered!
No apologies Crabapple, keep it coming. Great posts.
@ Grandtheft
Great site.. The T3 girls are *hawt*!
“Leaving aside the fact the iPhone design was nicked from the LG Prada phone”
Honey, just saying something does not make it true. ;P
“Leaving aside the fact the iPhone design was nicked from the LG Prada phone”
Or from HTC’s many touchscreen phones, or Nokia’s Aeon phone, or Samsung’s phones. The list goes on and on.
“AND what Mel seems to forget is that NO OTHER COMPANY has iTunes, OS X, Bonjour, .Mac, and the rest of the Apple ecosystem that will make the iPhone just one small part of a larger system.”
What while part of what you say is true, it may not be a drawing point for most people.
By the way, Bonjour is just Apple’s implementation of Zero Config..
Crabapple, I’m on AI’s site every day, I have the largest number of posts. I’ve seen all of those articles.
All they prove is that Apple is looking into different areas.
If you read the posts there, you will also see that most people who have an opinion, also think that Apple is just covering their asses with these patents.
Many patents are not practical. But they take them when they can.
You never know.
But, it doesn’t mean that most of them will be used.
enjoyed reading this ,, thanks
————————————————
iPhone Converter
http://www.iphoneconverter.com/
@mel Gross,
That is my exact point!
You claimed in an earlier posting on this site that very few areas are patentable due to the usage of hardware that already exists, and yet what you agree with is that Apple are “covering their arses with these patents”. They would never recieve a patent for a product that is already patented would they?
whether they can use the patent now or later is immaterial, the objective is to stop the concept being used without a licence fee & or royalties.
The makers of the hardware probably never visualized how their hardware would be put to use, but at least they get royalties or licence fees for every product sold using their hardware. If the hardware is used in a way that the creator had not patented, then all the creator can do is request royalties and a licence fee.
Creative Technologies being a classic case, where they recieved a large payment from Apple & secured the right to sell “made for ipod” merchandise.
As for Bonjour, it is not just Apple’s way of implementing zero configuration.
It is Apple’s way of implementing zero configuration!
What other company does that?
Why do you think the statement “It just works” carries so much GRAVITAS?
If M$ had incorporated zero configuration into Vista & Zune (****!),they would have been laughing all the way to the bank! Vista & Zune would have visited a humongous onslaught upon Macs, ipods & itunes.
But they can’t!, they have tried my god did they try! but with every failure, delays upon delays were piled up on Vista, in the end DRM won and so every time you load Vista onto a pc, if the peripherals are not the latest branded “Made for Vista” then you have had your chips, because Vista will not recognise it/them.
When you talk of “Zero configuration”, please use hash somber tones because that is the engine behind “IT JUST WORKS”
Ps mel Gross, congratulations on having the most number of posts on that site! I will take your word for it.
When I have a moment, I will take time to go through them, not all of them of course.
I hope they are well constructed and nourishing to the brain!:-)
@ mel Gross, I have been to AI but could not see any of your postings. Are you using a different name?