I think this argument is a moot point because the same thing can be said about that first touchscreen phone. If the company that made it didn't do so, then someone else would eventually. And I'd agree that it's true... but the fact is that that company made it, and we can only see how that side of history developed into today. If that event was to change, things would be different.
That's very much an alternate universe kind of thinking in my opinions. The fact is... irregardless if the iPhone was the first of its kind or not, it sparked the birth of the smartphone market as it is today. Many phones today come in a form factor similar to the iPhone. It can be argued that that's because the iPhone has such a generic shape and size, but when Intel's Ultrabook starts spawning designs similar to the Macbook Air, that's a harder argument to present. I think that some copying was still in place, just more subtle. A prime example is how Android looked like before and after the iPhone was announced. But that's a debate that I think would go around in circles... much like the egg and chicken debate.
However, it's my belief that Apple did impact the industry in some way, even if you don't think much of their phones, tablets, or devices. And I think it's also kind of a fact that the industry was quite different prior to the phones, tablets, and devices that Apple pushed into the channel. Were there touchscreen phones prior to the iPhone? Absolutely. Did they have a smooth interface? Multitouch as standard? A browser that loaded full websites and supported most of Javascript? Over a day battery life? Runs on dual-core CPU with powerful mobile GPU? Have more RAM than most laptops in 2000? I think we already know the answer.
And again, Apple didn't do it first. I actually don't think they did. It's just that they succeeded first. And success is more important here.
I simply replied to your statement that others use larger displays because they were forced to because Apple had all the 3.5" displays, which is not true. In fact, I have said multiple times in this thread that I don't disagree that Apple has executed well. The only thing I disgaree /w is 2 statements... 1: That Android phone makers are picking at the display scraps of Apple and 2: from Pliablemoose's comment of "many products you take for granted wouldn't even exist.".
Again, natural progression of technology. It was coming either way. Where there is a market, someone will create. But as I said before, I am not saying Apple didn't execute at a great level, but to say these items wouldn't exist is crazy. Maybe some of the items would be a little bit later, but they would be here either way.
Bullshit, they look just like MBA's...
Bullshit, they look just like MBA's...
I am not specifically talking about any one product nor it's looks. I am simply saying small thin laptops are a natural progression of the technology and were coming.
The industry went for thick, clunky, cheap, slow netbooks. To preserve laptop sales.
LOL, I give up...
I disagree with saying the touch screen phones similar to an iphone experience would have made it to the market irregardless of apple in due time.
The technology was always there. Apple refined it, sure.
But the biggest barrier to innovation was the carriers' lockdown and totaliarism like control of the experience. Remember, everybody before the iphone were the carriers' bitches. Apple is the only company that had enough clout to negotiate a deal in which they got full control over the phone. This was huge.
As the iphone became successful, it became clear that the carriers had to budge and allow things like the app market on android because otherwise the android phones wouldn't be competitive. Apple effectively breached into the carrier's walled garden and opened the floodgates to innovation in the mobile space.
Beyond the hardware/software innovations, it's Steve's negotiation tactics with the carriers we should all appreciate.
But the biggest barrier to innovation was the carriers' lockdown and totaliarism like control of the experience. Remember, everybody before the iphone were the carriers' bitches. Apple is the only company that had enough clout to negotiate a deal in which they got full control over the phone. This was huge.
As the iphone became successful, it became clear that the carriers had to budge and allow things like the app market on android because otherwise the android phones wouldn't be competitive. Apple effectively breached into the carrier's walled garden and opened the floodgates to innovation in the mobile space.
Beyond the hardware/software innovations, it's Steve's negotiation tactics with the carriers we should all appreciate.
Yeah, a little perspective is in order:i'm an apple fan, but sony has been doing ultrabooks since the 90's. back then they were called subnotebooks. favorite of PHB types
i'm an apple fan, but sony has been doing ultrabooks since the 90's. back then they were called subnotebooks. favorite of PHB types
i think that if the ipad came out before the iphone then it would have been a total dud due to lack of software.
years ago i was in charlie palmer's restaraunt in vegas and they had HP tablets with special software on them for the menu and wine pairing. pretty cool.
I've been to a couple of NYC restaurants with this. The software was slow, though, image-based to look fancy and not optimized for, uh, smoothness.Bone's in Atlanta offers iPad for the wine menu.
Business Week Link
I found this article interesting. When I read it, the first thing I thought of was that Apple is applying the same tactics as Wal-Mart to get lower prices due to the volume of business they do. The difference is Wal-Mart is sells lower priced items while Apple is on the luxury end. Pretty damn ruthless.
I also thought the article illustrates Apple's commitment to design. One of the reasons why Apple has garnered many industrial design awards over the years.
Interesting note is how Apple plans to increase money spent on the supply chain to double what it's currently spending. That doesn't bode well for competitors looking for parts.
2) Unashamedly cheesy mass-market advertising.
This is really the only part of your post I disagree with. What makes you call their advertising cheesy?
This article popped up on Slashdot a few days ago and in part of the article the author compared ads for Android devices against Apple's iPhone and iPad ads. The specific examples used in the article made it pretty clear that if anything is cheesy, it's the Android ads, something that I'm somewhat inclined to agree with. I don't know if it's true for all manufacturers, but I recall the original ads for the Motorola droid having some bit where the phone was launching missiles. What the hell that had to do with anything, I don't know.
I'd say Apple's advertising hasn't been cheesy since the canned the "I'm a Mac" series, which was just getting silly, never mind that it got old after the first five or six ads.
pretty par for Android devices as far as I can see
Android advertisements = lots of flash, lots of pretty graphics, hype, buzzwords, etc. Basically make all android devices look like media consuming monsters with 4G LTE, flash support, and multitasking (ex every single commercial for a device on VZW - a particularly cringe worthy example was the Xoom)
Apple advertisements = how you can actually use this cool new device (ex iPad/Siri commercials)
The decision to focus on a few product lines, and to do little in the way of customization, is a huge advantage.