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

81–90 of 117 posts

Re: Competing with a Mac

#81

Post by sien »

gibwell wrote: post #78
sien wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is evidence that full stack is hard to keep going. In general computing devices there are only 2 companies left doing it that matter. IBM & Apple. The non-full stack companies that are gone have been replaced. The full stack ones have been replaced by combinations of non full stack companies. New non-full stack companies come in and get big. What new full stack company that matters that has been started in the…

You are contradicting yourself. You say that fill stack companies are hard to keep going and yet you say that non-full stack companies come and go even more easily. By your logic, non-full stack companies are even harder to keep going.

It's not a contradiction. Both are hard to keep going. Full stack ones are even harder. Hence all but 2 are gone.

The ecosystems for more open systems are also really durable.

Personally, watching for decades the most surprising thing is that MS has kept the desktop rather than losing it to Linux.

Would you say that MS has 'won' the server market because they make more money than any Linux company even though Linux has a largest market share of internet servers?

Re: Competing with a Mac

#82

Post by artsrc »

josh2600 wrote: post #71
guyzero wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So while I will be the first to admit that I certainly didn't predict the iPhone, some of the iPhone's success was based on Apple leveraging their success with the iPod. The existence of iTunes and an ecosystem of third-party accessories based on the Apple 30-pin connector certainly helped the iPhone, not to mention Apple's brand cachet which was on an upswing at the time. it's an interesting thought experiment to co…

Some thoughts. 1) The ecosystem did not spring into life with the iPhone; a lot of vendors were unsure initially but there was obviously tremendous benefit to Apple due to the iPod industry. 2) Danger would not have been able to launch the iPhone for a multitude of reasons. Even as a part of Microsoft, they couldn't have done it. I could go really in-depth here, but Microsoft is really bad at Art and Politics, which…

Your Pre-iPhone world was different to mine.

* Everything was free phone at the low end and $199 at the top end

One of my friends bought a Palm Phone.

* Apps were pre-loaded onto phones

This may be true.

* Carriers drove handset manufacturers choice of OS

Maybe handset manufacturers, Palm, Blackberry, Nokia had their own OS.

* No one ever waited for a phone

This may be true.

* Manufacturers did not care about UI/UX

I read lots of reviews where people praised the Nokia UI over the alternatives.

* Phones sold on spec sheets

Spec Sheets?

I really don't think this was true for people I knew. People I knew bought phones as Jewelery. They wanted small size, and long battery life.

Re: Competing with a Mac

#83

Post by gmac »

neighsayer wrote: post #14
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…

The first iPhone was barely a success. Apple had to give a price drop merely two months after it went on sale. The second iPhone, the iPhone 3G, was the breakout hit. Then Apple changed the rollout process and used a 'cheap' price[1] to accelerate sales. [1]'cheap' initial payment with an expensive mobile contract.

Apple had to give a price drop merely two months after it went on sale.

I speak as someone whose first iPhone was a 3G, but I think it's possible that the price drop was part of the plan all along. It was be a smart price segmentation move: get everyone who's unbearably keen to pay a whole lot, then move on to people who are bit less unbearably keen at a slightly lower price.

Re: Competing with a Mac

#84

Post by ekianjo »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #74
pekk wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The functionality was really already there. While I think this is mostly true (Nokia fans love to point out that every possible smartphone feature appeared on at least one Nokia product which may have shipped in the 1800s), there is one way in which this simply is not true, and it's a way which really did change everything. The browser. The difference in 2007 between browsing on the iPhone and browsing on any other p…

Yeah, this is probably the only thing Apple really introduced with the iPhone - a capable browser making it possible to use the internet just like you would on a regular computer, more or less (no flash). But apart from that, all other functions already existed, and while on Windows Phone you had tons of free applications and most people didn't really pay for software, Apple made it a habit to ad-support or sell apps for a fee. I don't see this as a positive trend, but that's just me.

Re: Competing with a Mac

#85

Post by seanmcdirmid »

ekianjo wrote: post #84
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The functionality was really already there. While I think this is mostly true (Nokia fans love to point out that every possible smartphone feature appeared on at least one Nokia product which may have shipped in the 1800s), there is one way in which this simply is not true, and it's a way which really did change everything. The browser. The difference in 2007 between browsing on the iPhone and browsing on any other p…

Yeah, this is probably the only thing Apple really introduced with the iPhone - a capable browser making it possible to use the internet just like you would on a regular computer, more or less (no flash). But apart from that, all other functions already existed, and while on Windows Phone you had tons of free applications and most people didn't really pay for software, Apple made it a habit to ad-support or sell apps…

I think the iPhone being first with capacitive multitouch that didn't suck like resistive screens being used in all other phones at the time had something to do with its success also. But feel free to add that and another 10 or so "yeah, this is probably the only other thing introduced with the iPhone...."

Re: Competing with a Mac

#86

Post by crag »

pekk wrote: post #58
josh2600 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

And the fact that the old windows phones crashed daily. Was riddled with bugs (some never got fixed) and from an accessibility point of view was a terrible piece of hardware. Good riddance.

Apple made the smart phone easy to use, and gave it much needed elegance. Over night it turned the smart phone market into a consumer smart phone market.

Re: Competing with a Mac

#87

Post by maegget »

pekk wrote: post #58
josh2600 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The "disruption" was aesthetics, marketing and ease-of-use

The iPhone (and smartphones in general) have disrupted multiple markets: * Photography and video * Portable music players * Email and messaging devices * Phones ... and many others

The thought I ran into many times with many people during this "disruption" period basically went along the lines of:

"I could buy a new camera, a video camera, a new iPod, a netbook, GPS device, etc - or I could just get an iPhone."

Re: Competing with a Mac

#88

Post by [deleted] »

pekk wrote: post #58
josh2600 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Competing with a Mac

#89

Post by Synaesthesia »

ekianjo wrote: post #84
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The functionality was really already there. While I think this is mostly true (Nokia fans love to point out that every possible smartphone feature appeared on at least one Nokia product which may have shipped in the 1800s), there is one way in which this simply is not true, and it's a way which really did change everything. The browser. The difference in 2007 between browsing on the iPhone and browsing on any other p…

Yeah, this is probably the only thing Apple really introduced with the iPhone - a capable browser making it possible to use the internet just like you would on a regular computer, more or less (no flash). But apart from that, all other functions already existed, and while on Windows Phone you had tons of free applications and most people didn't really pay for software, Apple made it a habit to ad-support or sell apps…

The sheer performance of the iPhone blew away Windows Mobile. It was an order of magnitude more responsive than any mobile device before it. The scrolling, the swipe gestures, the pinch to zoom ... it was essentially the first time we had desktop grade performance in your pocket.

Re: Competing with a Mac

#90

Post by seanmcdirmid »

sien wrote: post #79
gibwell wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry - this has nothing to do with the profits being shared by a plethora of companies. Apple receives almost half of the profits in the PC market. The rest is divided between your plethora. Apple chose not to serve the unprofitable part of the market.

Apple have tried to get into corporate environments. They tried to sell Macs to everyone. Corporate computing is bigger than just buying PCs. Oracle, IBM, service companies, MS, Intel, CA, Cisco and all these companies make masses of money in corporate environments.

Yes, but how are he PC makers doing who serve the corps: say Dell, HP, Lenovo? Unless they make a dash for services, and even that is iffy (HP should have had some advantage here), they are all pretty much toast.
Post reply on HN