Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Competing with a Mac

asymco.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 117 posts

Re: Competing with a Mac

#51

Post by sien »

gibwell wrote: post #27
ricw wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't agree more with both points. Of course android ate Nokia's pie (cheap phones for everyone). Rather unsure about blackberry, i think thats more a thing that android and ios both now have excellent infrastructure integration (MS exchange etc) for corporate support. You're also right with how cheap OEM android phones are taking over the market. iOS is losing marketshare pretty much everywhere where phones are n…

Whilst I agree that Nokia and Blackberry were disrupted by Android, not the iPhone, Apple is gaining customers everywhere. 'Marketshare' is a flawed concept because it assumes a unified market of undifferentiated customers. Apple is simply not in the market of commodity devices. It never had any of that market to lose. Claiming that apple is losing those customers is clearly incorrect. If the story does unfold as it…

Apple is not the 'clear winner' in the PC market, they are a small segment of it.

Working in corporate and government environments is an Apple free zone.

Lower price competitors have repeatedly caught up and outperformed higher priced vertical companies that make the entire stack. Android is well positioned to do exactly this to Apple over the next decade. Phones and cheaper devices also seem to see this happen repeatedly. Apple's phone division should see a warning in Nokia and RIM, not a comfort.

SGI, Sun, Commodore, Atari, DEC and many others are all defunct. All full stack companies.

Apple and IBM are left. IBM mainframes are extremely difficult to remove. Apple are easier but may survive with enough iOS lock in.

But you'd be very brave to bet on it.

Re: Competing with a Mac

#52

Post by innino »

Good article, good to see someone who appreciates how strong Apple's strategy really is, rather than just hating.

A nice comment somewhere in this thread about CEOs of corps competing to get the best app - Apple managed to turn the iPhone into arguably the premier ego-arena on the planet. A characteristic which gives iOS an allure which should not be underestimated, unless you happen to enjoy being crushed like a bug.

Re: Competing with a Mac

#53

Post by bane »

hosh wrote: post #48
bane wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) I'm not smart enough to guess on that one. 2) Education and reference resources. I now longer have to spend hours and hours looking up information and synthesizing it myself, I can get an AI to do it for me. (crossing fingers that it synthesizes it like I want it to) 3) Thieving, lazy, sloppy warehouse workers (no offense). The amount of stuff that gets stolen and "missing" out of fulfillment centers is astronomic…

(2) and (3) are interesting responses. But I don't think it is actually using the key insight described in this article. That key insight being that people compare it to what's come before, and that comparison becomes a blinder for it's actual advantages. (4) will happen, but I think the scope is far too small; again it also has the blinders that does not take advantage of the key insight from the article. With 3D pr…

4 - I...somewhat disagree. I spent a few weeks looking into current and future 3d printing tech, and outside of some very limited use-cases would I consider that the output quality and materials mix from any 3d printing tech to be a threat to traditional manufacturing.

It's a nice idea, but it's just very very far away from happening.

Even relatively simple items right now are not something that are even close to being duplicable in any current or emerging 3d printing tech.

For example, there is nothing on the horizon that will enable me to 3d print the equivalent of a working $5 104-key keyboard.

Now if I want to buy all the electronics and internals and spend a few hours printing and assembling a custom keyboard (because my time is free right?) then yeah, I might be able to 3d print something of use.

I'm actually looking around my office now and every thing I see fits into 1 of two categories

a) Not feasible to 3d print the item e.g. a keyboard

b) Cheaper to buy it and get it some other way e.g. the red Solo cup I'm drinking some water out of

Re: Competing with a Mac

#54

Post by jryle70 »

sien wrote: post #51
gibwell wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whilst I agree that Nokia and Blackberry were disrupted by Android, not the iPhone, Apple is gaining customers everywhere. 'Marketshare' is a flawed concept because it assumes a unified market of undifferentiated customers. Apple is simply not in the market of commodity devices. It never had any of that market to lose. Claiming that apple is losing those customers is clearly incorrect. If the story does unfold as it…

Apple is not the 'clear winner' in the PC market, they are a small segment of it. Working in corporate and government environments is an Apple free zone. Lower price competitors have repeatedly caught up and outperformed higher priced vertical companies that make the entire stack. Android is well positioned to do exactly this to Apple over the next decade. Phones and cheaper devices also seem to see this happen repea…

You're right that low price is a great competitive edge, but one can name many now defunct computer makers that were anything but full stack -- Compaq, Gateway, eMachine, Packard Bell, Siemens (the PC maker), Olivetti. As a matter of fact, one can argue that they went under because their products didn't stand out from the competition.

Full stack can be seen as a great advantage. Otherwise Microsoft wouldn't make Surface or acquire Nokia. It all depends on specific business cases.

Re: Competing with a Mac

#55

Post by ghshephard »

The first iPhone was the disruptive product. Everything after that has been incrementalism. The 2013 iPhone 5 is a direct descendent of the 2007 iPhone 5, and the 2007 iPhone 5 was almost a completely different product than my 2006 Treo 700w.

Re: Competing with a Mac

#56

Post by sien »

jryle70 wrote: post #54
sien wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is not the 'clear winner' in the PC market, they are a small segment of it. Working in corporate and government environments is an Apple free zone. Lower price competitors have repeatedly caught up and outperformed higher priced vertical companies that make the entire stack. Android is well positioned to do exactly this to Apple over the next decade. Phones and cheaper devices also seem to see this happen repea…

You're right that low price is a great competitive edge, but one can name many now defunct computer makers that were anything but full stack -- Compaq, Gateway, eMachine, Packard Bell, Siemens (the PC maker), Olivetti. As a matter of fact, one can argue that they went under because their products didn't stand out from the competition. Full stack can be seen as a great advantage. Otherwise Microsoft wouldn't make Surf…

Non-full stack companies come and go. That's part of the strength. Most people are not fussed if they buy an HP, Sony, Compaq, ASUS, Acer, MSI or whatever for a PC. Android buyers can happily switch between a dozen manufacturers as well.

The point is for general purpose computing full stack was common but is now exceptional. If it was a great advantage surely there would be more full stack companies around.

Re: Competing with a Mac

#57

Post by pekk »

QuantumGood wrote: post #43

Disruptive products as initially defined are reliant on advances in technology to become good enough to challenge established markets (while they advanced via emerging/self-created markets). Apple was always biding their time, waiting for the right moment for a giant leap forward in consumer satisfaction to become possible; it's the opposite of the incrementalism of the usual disruptive product. Few companies would c…

Apple was trying and failing for many years. Now they have found a bigger niche in little electronic devices. Good for them! But let's not pretend the earlier failures were all intended as some kind of grand strategy. Apple is not a perfect unicorn. It's just another company, selling products.

Re: Competing with a Mac

#58

Post by pekk »

josh2600 wrote: post #16
silvestrov wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It HAD lower price: it disrupted the portable computers which were more expensive at that time. You already needed to pay for a phone, so the real price compared to a portable was just how much more expensive the iPhone was compared to a standard mobile phone. Due to the system with 2 year phone contracts in USA, that extra price was low.

This was state of the art around the time the iPhone hit: HTC8525 [0]. That is not a phone, that is a ridiculously small screen welded to a slow computer with terrible battery life; and it was $299 on contract at the time. The disruption in the iPhone was technical, social, political and economic. [0] http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/at-t-8525/4505-6452_7-32...

Nah, the old Windows phones were just fine. Did many of the things we now pretend that Apple invented. But they were for nerds. And huge phones sell reasonably well today.

The functionality was really already there. The "disruption" was aesthetics, marketing and ease-of-use.

And in the end, it's a phone, not a cultural revolution.

Re: Competing with a Mac

#59

Post by seanmcdirmid »

sien wrote: post #51
gibwell wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whilst I agree that Nokia and Blackberry were disrupted by Android, not the iPhone, Apple is gaining customers everywhere. 'Marketshare' is a flawed concept because it assumes a unified market of undifferentiated customers. Apple is simply not in the market of commodity devices. It never had any of that market to lose. Claiming that apple is losing those customers is clearly incorrect. If the story does unfold as it…

Apple is not the 'clear winner' in the PC market, they are a small segment of it. Working in corporate and government environments is an Apple free zone. Lower price competitors have repeatedly caught up and outperformed higher priced vertical companies that make the entire stack. Android is well positioned to do exactly this to Apple over the next decade. Phones and cheaper devices also seem to see this happen repea…

> Apple is not the 'clear winner' in the PC market, they are a small segment of it.

Yet Apple has the most profitable segment of the PC market, they make more profit on PCs than any if their competitors; it turns out Mac-free corp/gov zones are not very profitable.

Apple will keep dominating the high end of even developing markets, their profits will keep rising and they will continue not to be disrupted by Android, who seem to have trouble making money (sans Samsung). I would worry more about HTC going under than Apple.

Re: Competing with a Mac

#60

Post by pekk »

peterhunt wrote: post #13
Kronopath wrote: post #7

Finally, someone else who agrees that the iPhone was a disruptive product. It had all of the hallmarks of a disruptive product except for the low price. It appealed to a different set of values (i.e. usability and interface), ignored features that were seen as critical in the existing market of smartphone users (No third-party apps at launch? No copy/paste? No editing of Word documents ?!), and it blindsided the incu…

I wonder what differentiates a disruptive product from a better product? It seems like the qualities you listed are hallmarks of all good products, right?

I suspect that it often boils down to marketing. A company selling you something somewhat better wants you to be thrilled and think it is revolutionizing everything, not "hmm this is somewhat better, I might prefer this if it doesn't cost too much more." Which may be the reality of many things which get called "disruptive".
Post reply on HN