iPhone Party-Poopers Redux
Same litany as Funny iPhone Party-Poopers, but this time with my glowing comments. Couldn’t resist!
Ed Colligan of Palm (November 2006):
“We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”
Hey Ed. Just because Apple doesn’t announce their new products way in advance, like most other tech companies, doesn’t mean they just started working on it a month or two before the announcement.
Michael Kanellos of CNET (December 2006):
“Apple is slated to come out with a new phone. Reports say that it will have a slide-out keyboard, 4GB or 8GB of storage, and work on CDMA or GSM cellular networks. It will start at $249 before subscription rebates.
And it will largely fail.”
“Sales for the phone will skyrocket initially. However, things will calm down, and the Apple phone will take its place on the shelves with the random video cameras, cell phones, wireless routers and other would-be hits.”
“[T]he iPod looks like it may turn out to be a non-repeatable experience. Look at the historical record. When the iPod emerged in late 2001, it solved some major problems with MP3 players. ... Unfortunately for Apple, problems like that don’t exist in the handset business. Cell phones aren’t clunky, inadequate devices. Instead, they are pretty good. Really good.”
“[W]hen consumers get to that counter at CompUSA, they will debate buying the Apple phone, and even hold it up for a look. But when they whip out the credit card, they’ll probably opt for a Motorola.”
I don’t know about yours, but in my city, CompUSA shut down completely (pre-recession), and the very next thing to go into that spot was the “Bodies” exhibit. The iPhone and Apple are still going strong.
Bill Ray of The Register (December 2006):
“[T]he Apple phone will fail, and fail badly”
“Mobile phones are not complex to use because of bad interface design, they are complex to use because they are complex devices with a myriad of features.”
“As customers start to realise that the competition offers better functionality at a lower price, by negotiating a better subsidy, sales [of the Apple phone] will stagnate. After a year a new version will be launched, but it will lack the innovation of the first and quickly vanish.
The only question remaining is if, when the iPod phone fails, it will take the iPod with it.”
And non-Apple companies are just magically able to create better features and negotiate better subsidies than Apple? (Apparently not.)
Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group (January 2007):
“I’m not convinced that Apple’s going to benefit from this particular trend, primarily because there are other vendors that are better positioned to address what the iPhone represents.”
“It’s clearly going to start a wave towards a new technology — as I say, I’m not convinced that Apple’s going to be able to ride this wave.”
Translation: I sure hope history repeats itself, and everything Apple creates is successfully knocked-off by uncreative companies, leaving Apple choking on their dust. I hate Apple.
Philip Solis in ABIresearch (January 2007):
“[T]he Apple iPhone is not a smartphone.”
Depending on exactly how you interpret Solis’s definition of smartphone, there may not have been any smartphones in existence when he wrote that article. And maybe still none today.
John C. Dvorak on CNBC (January 2007):
“To me, I’m looking at this thing [the iPhone], and I think it’s kinda trending against what people are really liking in phones nowadays, which are those little keypads — I mean, the Blackjack from Samsung, the BlackBerry obviously kinda pushes this thing, the Palm ... some of these stocks went down on the Apple announcement, thinking that Apple can do no wrong. But I think Apple can do wrong, and I think this is it.”
I hope you didn’t invest in those stocks, John.
Matthew Lynn of Bloomberg (January 2007):
“Apple iPhone Will Fail in a Late, Defensive Move”
“To its many fans, Apple is more of a religious cult than a company. An iToaster that downloads music while toasting bread would probably get the same kind of worldwide attention.
Don’t let that fool you into thinking that it matters. The big competitors in the mobile-phone industry such as Nokia Oyj and Motorola Inc. won’t be whispering nervously into their clamshells over a new threat to their business.
The iPhone is nothing more than a luxury bauble that will appeal to a few gadget freaks.”
Yes, if by “few” you mean “tens of millions” and by “gadget freaks” you mean “average consumers.”
Oh, and Matthew, here’s a question for you: Out of all tech companies today, which one is the most dedicated to the idea that computing devices should be targeted mainly towards people who aren’t gadget freaks?
Pssst. It’s Apple. Don’t tell.
Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group (January 2007):
“[T]he iPod came to market as a unique product line that remained largely differentiated through most of its life. Thanks to the Prada phone the iPhone isn’t even unique now and because of the power of the carriers, most of which aren’t Cingular, has a massive uphill battle that the iPod didn’t enjoy.”
Translation: I sure hope the iPod has reached the end of its life. And I sure hope that a few years from now, the Prada phone is all the rage. I hate Apple.
Richard Sprague of Microsoft (January 2007):
“I can’t believe the hype being given to iPhone.”
“I just have to wonder who will want one of these things (other than the religious faithful).”
“So please mark this post and come back in two years to see the results of my prediction: I predict they will not sell anywhere near the 10M Jobs predicts for 2008.”
“[E]ven the most diehard Mac fans who buy one of these will secretly carry two phones. One to prove how loyal and ‘cool’ they are, and the other to actually make and receive calls.”
It was 13 million in calendar ’08. Or 17 million if you count from when the iPhone was first available in mid-’07. (Or 30 million if you include the iPod Touch.) And did any significant number of those 17 million people keep using their old phone? No. No, they didn’t.
Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group (January 2007):
“This will be a difficult year for Apple, and the iPhone could be more of a drag on earnings than a help.”
“Apple is clearly not going away — but this year, compared to last, will be really nasty for the company.”
’07 was a great year for Apple, and the iPhone was a big part of that. But I should give him credit for being right about one thing: Apple’s clearly isn’t “going away.”
John C. Dvorak on MarketWatch (March 2007):
“Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone”
“It’s the loyalists who keep promoting this device as if it is going to be anything other than another phone in a crowded market.”
“These phones go in and out of style so fast that unless Apple has half a dozen variants in the pipeline, its phone, even if immediately successful, will be passé within 3 months.
There is no likelihood that Apple can be successful in a business this competitive.”
“Even Microsoft itself has troubles with its attempts to get into a small sub segment of the handset business with its operating system.
What Apple risks here is its reputation as a hot company that can do no wrong. If it’s smart it will call the iPhone a ‘reference design’ and pass it to some suckers to build with someone else’s marketing budget. Then it can wash its hands of any marketplace failures.
It should do that immediately before it’s too late. Samsung Electronics Ltd. might be a candidate. Otherwise I’d advise you to cover your eyes. You’re not going to like what you’ll see.”
A crowded room is hard to get into. A “crowded market” is just an expression that doesn’t mean anything, except that there are a lot of different models out there. And just because most of those models go out-of-style in three months, does that mean Apple’s had to? And what’s this BS about “even Microsoft?”
I guess in Dvorak’s imaginary, link-bait world, Microsoft is just naturally the strongest, Apple is naturally the weakest, and everybody else is in the middle. Well, with a view like that, it’s pretty much guaranteed that you’ll think Apple should sell off the iPhone as a “reference design.” BTW, has Apple ever announced a new product, then sold it off as a reference design? Is that something Apple even does?
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft (April 2007):
“There’s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance.”
Before the end of iPhone’s first full calendar year on the market, it was outselling all Windows Mobile devices combined.
Geoff Long of CommsDay (June 2007):
“In a week or two the fuss will fade and people will start to realise an important point: it’s just a phone, and not a particularly ‘smart’ one at that.”
“Anyway, that’s my prediction and I felt like getting it in early — I don’t want to be seen jumping on bandwagons after everyone else suddenly realises that the iPhone is a flop.”
Not to worry, Geoff. No one will be accusing you of jumping on the bandwagon.
Dan Gillmor of Arizona State University (June 2007):
“The iPhone is a Beta Product”
“I’d advise anyone considering one of these devices in the U.S. to wait for the next version. The initial product doesn’t come close to living up to the hype.”
Translation: I sure hope most everybody follows my advice, because if they do, there won’t be a next version.
Al Ries of Ries & Ries (June 2007):
“When Apple introduces its iPhone this month, will it pass the acid test?
In my opinion, no.
Prediction No. 1: The iPhone will be a major disappointment.
The hype has been enormous. Apple says its iPhone is ‘literally five years ahead of any other mobile phone.’ A stock-market analyst says, ‘The iPhone has the potential to be even bigger than the iPod.’
I think not.”
Think again. Think different.
Laura Ries of Ries & Ries (June 2007):
“The hype and intense media, consumer and Wall Street excitement comes from the impression that the iPhone will become another iPod ... Nothing could be further from the truth. If the iPod is the biggest success of the 21st century then iPhone is likely to be the biggest flop of the 21st century.”
“[A]ll convergence devices are doomed by compromise.
In order to produce an all-in-one device, the device has to make compromises: battery life is short, the device is difficult to use, it is too large and it is too expensive.
The iPhone will likely have problems with all these things.”
Apple has had some duds over the years leading up to the iPhone, that’s for sure. But do any of them even come close to “biggest flop of the century?” Put it in that perspective, and you suddenly realize that these Ries people desperately want the iPhone to fail. Jobs announces what looks like a potentially big winner, scheduled to hit the market in six months, and all the Apple-haters can’t resist pulling out all the stops in their attempts to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. It’s a lot like the way an impending presidential election draws out unexpected, political, nakedly desperate diatribes from people you thought were above that.
Brett Arends of TheStreet.com (June 2007):
“But beyond all the iHype and iMania, let’s get one thing clear. The iPhone isn’t the future. It isn’t a revolutionary mobile device ushering in a new era.”
Let’s get one thing clear — iHate Apple.
Ken Dulaney of Gartner (June 2007):
“We’re telling IT executives to not support it because Apple has no intentions of supporting [iPhone use in] the enterprise.”
It’s not just that Dulaney was 180° wrong on this, but even more importantly: What reason, if any, did he have to think he was right?
Brett Arends of TheStreet.com (July 2007):
“Hey — did you hear about the $17,670 iPhone?
No, it’s not a gold-plated version designed for Paris Hilton.
It’s the one everybody’s buying. The one in your local Apple store.”
“... the $2,720 [for an iPhone plus a two-year service plan] could have been invested tax free [if not already maxing-out your 401K]. Earning a pretty reasonable 5.5% after inflation over the next 35 years [starting at age 30], it would have grown to ... $17,670.
You read that right.”
Translation: I’ve given up on trying to stop any even moderately smart people from getting an iPhone, and am now just trying to discourage the dumb ones from getting one too. And I don’t care what this tactic does to my reputation — trying to stop Apple is, by far, the most important thing I’ll ever do.
Scott Moritz of TheStreet.com (July 2007):
“Apple’s iPhone missed a 1 million unit sales target and rivals are rejoicing.”
Everything I’ve heard about this “target” indicates that it existed only in the mind of Moritz. Apple only made about 250,000 iPhones in preparation for that weekend.
But if “1 million unit” opening-weekend sales numbers are important, then good news: Apple’s newest iPhone, the 3GS, did sell over a million units on its opening weekend. That should make Moritz quite happy. Right?
Paul Thurrott, winsupersite.com (September 2007):
“And though this is a Windows-centric Web site, the iPhone is important to us all because it will impact the Windows-using world (i.e. ‘the world’) in two ways. Windows users are the mainstream and majority market for this device; we are the ones who use the iPhone. And as with the original Mac, it’s highly likely that the computing innovations seen first in the iPhone will popularize themselves further as Microsoft and other companies adapt them to their own products. Whatever happens, we’ll be able to trace a major form of computing in the future back to the iPhone just as we can now trace the modern PC back in time to the Mac.”
“I wrote this review for you, the fence sitter. The normal person. The guy who’s seen the constant iPhone ads on TV and in subway stations and has wondered if this thing, this expensive hunk of plastic, will actually solve some problems. The guy who, quite frankly, shouldn’t be wasting his hard earned cash on an expensive toy that, ultimately, doesn’t really solve any problems at all. The iPhone is awesome. There’s just one problem: You don’t need it.”
Translation: I really, really hope history repeats itself, and everything Apple creates is successfully knocked-off by uncreative companies, leaving Apple choking on their dust. I despise Apple.
Say — has Thurrott ever said of any of Microsoft’s myriad technology announcements, “There’s just one problem, you don’t need it?” I haven’t researched that question, so I guess I just don’t know the answer.
Mike Lazaridis of RIM (November 2007):
“Try typing a web key on a touch screen on an iPhone, that’s a real challenge. You cannot see what you type.”
“The iPhone has severe limitations when it comes to effortless typing. Of course you have more screen space, with more artistic interactions, but that’s not enough. We’ve seen this before when Palm tried virtual keyboards. When they launched the Treo they licensed our keyboard.”
“It is like building high end cars. The top manufacturers make their present models a little better every year, but when they change it too much, that’s when they have a problem.”
Yeah, I can see teeny plastic pushbutton keys when my finger is on top of them. Right. And FYI, there’s no such thing as “effortless typing” on anything you can currently carry in your pocket — RIM products well-included.
And about that car analogy: Apple didn’t make a phone prior to the iPhone. And now that they do, yeah, they’re changing it a little every six to twelve months. So maybe you’re right about that. (Not that it helps you at all.)
Jim Balsillie of RIM (November 2007):
“Apple has come forward with a unique strategy — they have carriers propose to be their partner, they completely reversed the relationship to have full product management and full control over the pricing — but in the end we believe users want choice.”
Where by “choice” I don’t mean choosing Apple.
Mitchell Ashley of NetworkWorld.com (January 2008):
“iPhone will fail to dominate as so many other Apple products have failed to in the past. The iPhone is certain to fade into history as another cool Apple innovation, that others soon rushed competitive, like-products to market, blowing away any significant lead Apple might have.”
“Microsoft’s put a lot of thought into how to make the mobile phone interface more intuitive and easier to use, even more so than Apple’s iPhone.”
“Apple’s inability to gain any significant market share means the options for software products are much more limited and hardware is much more expensive.”
“Apple iPhone. Enjoy the limelight because it won’t last long.”
Translation: I pray to fucking God history repeats itself, and everything Apple creates is successfully knocked-off by uncreative companies, leaving Apple choking on their dust. If Apple succeeds it will be my worst nightmare.
Mike Lazaridis of RIM (April 2008):
“I couldn’t type on it and I still can’t type on it, and a lot of my friends can’t type on it. It’s hard to type on a piece of glass.”
The right way to replicate the quality text-entry experience of a desktop or laptop computer on a handheld device is to shrink the keyboard until it fits on the handheld. Just like the way to replicate the quality UI experience of a desktop or laptop computer on a handheld device is to shrink the desktop UI until it fits on the handheld.
Mike Lazaridis of RIM (May 2008):
“We have to be realistic about the history of [touch-screen] technology. We have to remember that this is not new — this has been done, this has been tried before.”
[reporter: The most exciting mobile trend is...]
“Full Qwerty keyboards. I’m sorry, it really is. I’m not making this up.”
Prior to the iPhone, I heard people rave about their BlackBerry. But they never, ever said they were excited about the “full Qwerty keyboard,” or anything even remotely like that.
Manjit Singh of Chiquita Brands International (June 2008):
“I have nothing against iPhone. It’s great. But we’re a BlackBerry shop, and I don’t think iPhone brings anything new to the table. It has a great user experience, but that’s all.”
Dismissing a great user experience is one of the best recipes for success. Something tells me that the best and brightest in IT won’t be found at Chiquita.
Gary Krakow of MSNBC (June 2008):
“Steve Jobs has to bite the bullet. He’s either gotta get BlackBerry on there, or Windows Mobile on there. It’s the entire answer.”
[reporter: Why isn’t he doing that?]
“Because I think he’d rather create a system that might be able to tap into these two different systems, but he’d rather do it himself, he’d rather find a way — or he’d rather get a lot of people going to an Apple system. I don’t think that’s gonna happen, I think BlackBerry is very entrenched. I think Microsoft also has a lot of people who are very, very happy with the Microsoft mobile e-mail system. Both have their plusses and minuses. Uh, not many minuses for either one. Apple doesn’t have it, and for Apple to tap into that they’re gonna have to bite the bullet and they’re going to have to make some sort of agreement. And you know what agreement means. They have to pay for the rights. And I don’t think they really wanna pay for the rights to either one or both of those systems.”
Apple has a long history of buying the rights to use their chief competitors’ software systems — don’t they? Apple’s just a hardware manufacturer, not unlike Dell — aren’t they?
Paul Thurrott, winsupersite.com (June 2008, just after the WWDC keynote):
“So. Did Apple introduce anything surprising today? No, unless you count the price drop, which I previously noted was a requirement if Apple was serious about selling 10 million units this year. Apparently, they are quite serious. Long story short: I rescheduled the gym for this today? Geesh.”
Say — has Thurrott ever come away from a Microsoft keynote full of vacuous vapor, and said, “I rescheduled the gym for this today? Geesh.” I haven’t researched that question, so I guess I just don’t know the answer.
Anita Hamilton of Time (July 2008):
“On July 11, Apple will launch its hotly anticipated iPhone App Store — and it’ll be anything but a bargain.”
Actually, the prices were so low that Apple tried to persuade many vendors to raise their prices. (Not very successfully, BTW.)
Free Software Foundation, article by “johns” (July 2008):
“A snake oil salesman not satisfied with his business of pushing proprietary software and Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) technology into your home, Jobs has set his sights on getting DRM and proprietary software into your pocket as well.”
“Apple, through its marketing and visual design techniques, is manufacturing an illusion that merely buying an Apple makes you part of an alternative community. But the technology they use is explicitly chosen to divide people into separate digital cells, and to position Apple as sole warden. When your business depends on people paying for the privilege of being locked up, the prison better look and feel luxurious, and the bars better not be too visible. Wait, locked up? Prison? It’s a phone. Aren’t we being a little extreme? Unfortunately, we are not.”
Not long after this Free Software Foundation vomit, Apple was finally successful at convincing the music labels to let them drop DRM from most songs.
FSF, I think, has learned the same lesson as Greenpeace: You get a lot more press by bashing the most exciting player on the field — even if they’re the farthest from the offense on which you’re bashing them.
Tom Yager of InfoWorld (July 2008):
“Apple’s iPhone contracts leave developers speechless
Apple’s free iPhone SDK may be the most hazardous download on the Internet”
“This isn’t Apple-bashing. This is serious business.”
“[T]he iPhone developer programs are the antithesis of the developer-friendly Apple Developer Connection”
I would like to think that Yager had such a high opinion of ADC before he used it here to slam the iPhone SDK. But it’s very hard to think that, when the same guy is calling the SDK “the most hazardous download on the Internet.” I downloaded it and used it myself, and nothing bad happened at all. I’m sure many thousands of iPhone app authors would say the same thing.
Rick Merritt of EE Times (July 2008):
“Scroll ahead to say 2012. Apple will be struggling to roll out a broad product portfolio that matches the wealth of Android and Windows Mobile systems on the market. Once again they will lack the breadth of the backing of the open alternative, in this case Google’s Android.
More importantly, this market too will mature. Eventually, Apple will be fighting the Google hoards by rolling out a cool new feature here and there, but they will have nothing as compelling as the lower prices and greater diversity of the Android platform.
In short, the iPhone will help Apple rocket from nowhere to the top ten in cellphone makers in a couple short years. But five years out, Apple could be sidelined to a top 20 spot supported only by the remaining faithful few.
Steve Jobs is known for many things, but being teachable is not one of them.”
I’m not sure what Jobs could have learned from Merritt on this subject, but Apple should be very, very thankful he didn’t.
“Gadget Lab” of Wired (August 2008):
“Nokia E71 is a legit iPhone killer — we’re serious this time”
That was the first and last time I heard anything about the Nokia E71.
Dan Lyons of Newsweek (September 2008):
“I hate to say it but Apple may end up reliving its nightmare experience in the personal computer market — that is, arriving ahead of everyone else (in 1984) with a device that was really cool and really well built and really showed what the platform could do, but then keeping everything closed and thereby ending up a niche player.”
Translation: I either haven’t read, or chose to ignore, John Gruber’s “Why 2004 Won’t Be Like 1984.”
Paul Boutin of ValleyWag (September 2008):
“Paul Betlem from Adobe balked at saying the [Adobe Flash] app was sure to be built into Apple’s Safari browser that ships with the phone, but it seems a certainty.”
Coming up on a year later, and still no Adobe Flash for the iPhone in sight. No apparent need for it, either. My honest opinion of Flash on the desktop? Lots of annoying, unwanted, animated ads, and once in a very blue moon, something that’s mildly interesting to actually run. Oh wait, that was a Java applet.
And guess what, all you Flash ad creators: When Apple finally supports animation in HTML 5 standards (not Flash), you’re not going to load the iPhone websurfing experience with your crazy crap. Apple’s reinventing the whole thing, done right this time. Probably, they’ll display your animated ads as static images that don’t animate until the user taps them. That’s the way it should have been on the desktop all along.
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft (September 2008):
“[Apple and RIM] are probably restricted, in some sense, to a certain maximum. ... If you want to reach more people than that, you sort-of have to separate the hardware and the software issue.”
Because consumers won’t flock to great hardware running great software from the same company. It’s too creepy. Consumers would much rather shell out good money for the crap Microsoft has been serving up in the mobile arena for more than a decade.
Shane Wall of Intel (October 2008):
“Any sort of application that requires any horse power at all and the iPhone struggles.”
“If you want to run full internet, you’re going to have to run an Intel-based architecture.”
What, exactly, is “full internet?” Flash, perhaps? And hey, look at that iPhone 3GS struggling to keep up with Atom handhelds.
Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group (October 2008):
“I’m not sure, under the current economic conditions, that [carrying an iPhone]’s a great statement to make. You may not want to flash it.”
Translation: I don’t know if it’s possible at this point to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of iPhone failure, but I’ll be damned if I’m not going to keep trying!
Robbie Bach of Microsoft (October 2008):
“Does AT&T like having iPhone on its network? Sure. But they want to have balance in that ecosystem, where there’s three or four big partners. That’s why we’re so attractive to them — because we work with Samsung, Sony-Ericsson, LG, HTC, Motorola. Don’t get me wrong, the iPhone is a cool device. But it’s not about choice.”
Where by “choice” I really, really don’t mean choosing Apple.
Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group (October 2008):
“And the really cool thing [about Windows 7] is you actually get Multi-Touch, so it’s not just one finger, it is, presto-chango, two fingers — this one doesn’t seem to want to work. And you can expand — there we go.”
[reporter: And what does that remind you of?]
“It reminds me of a little phone by a company that’s named after a fruit.”
“It is very similar to what Apple does on phones but not PCs.”
Translation: Multi-touch trackpads don’t count. Because I say they don’t.
Lucas Conley of the Boston Globe (October 2008):
“No doubt this will incite the ire of the iCult, but once you’re done flooding the forums and flaming the messenger, let’s all just take a deep breath.”
“The [Apple] brand’s true appeal comes from the fact that consumers are hooked on the hype.”
“But in an age when no-name companies make phones of equal quality at a fraction of the price of an iPhone, how long can Apple keep sales and its cool factor up? Only as long as it can sustain the hype. And with the Google phone on the horizon, it’s going to take a lot of hype.”
Take a deep breath, Lucas.
Rick Rashid of Microsoft (October 2008):
“If you use a Macintosh or an iPhone, which honestly I would not recommend, you would be using code that I wrote more than 25 years ago.”
A Microserf wouldn’t recommend a Mac or an iPhone? Really? Hey, Rick, are you even allowed to use an iPhone? Bill Gates’s kids aren’t.
Don Reisinger on CNET (November 2008):
“Apple is scared. And it should be.”
“[L]et’s face it: the number of shortcomings in the iPhone 3G far outweigh those found in the [BlackBerry] Storm.
Although [Apple] will never admit it ... you can bet that company executives are running scared Friday. Even though Apple created this category and revolutionized the market, RIM just one-upped the founders, and Apple knows that.”
“The iPhone was cool, up until yesterday.”
The Storm was the all-that iPhone killer up until yesterday. Now it’s the Pre. Not sure what it will be tomorrow...
UPDATE: Now it’s the Storm 2. I mean, the myTouch. No, the Hero. No, it’s the Droid. Oops, it’s the Nexus One...
Dan Lyons of Newsweek (January 2009):
“[T]he Pre represents only a first shot. Rubinstein and his engineers are already preparing a family of devices that will run on the Palm Web OS. Could it be that Apple has staked out an early lead with a breakthrough product only to be passed by others? It’s happened before.”
Translation: I still haven’t read Gruber’s “Why 2004 Won’t Be Like 1984.”
Ed Colligan of Palm (January 2009):
“Why would we [sell the Pre for less than the iPhone] when we have a significantly better product?”
Why should you sell the Pre for less than the iPhone when you’d be losing money on every unit you sold?
Priya Ganapati in Wired (January 2009):
“The Palm Pre has it all, making the iPhone look almost like — dare we say it — a version 1.0 device.”
Translation: The Pre isn’t actually available yet, but when it becomes available in June, I’m sure Apple won’t have a new iPhone, right? Apple announces all their products in detail at least a year in advance, like most other tech companies — right?
John Cox in NetworkWorld (January 2009):
“From what I can see, [Pre’s cloud integration is] a step ahead of the iPhone, which has more narrowly focused this kind of integration around a proprietary, Apple-based service infrastructure.”
“Apple’s corporate ethos is ‘we’re cool and you’re not, use the product and bask in the coolness.’ Palm has the opportunity to crystallize a new corporate ethos more suited to the Web’s democratic openness ...”
Yeah, Apple screens app submissions to prove how “cool” they are. Because the only bad thing about the Windows malware situation is how “uncool” you look when dealing with it.
Bill Snyder in InfoWorld (January 2009):
“iPhone apps: Fool’s gold for developers?
Selling mobile apps on Apple’s iPhone App Store may seem like a surefire recipe for success. It isn’t.”
“You need a critical mass of users — but you can’t get there if the iPhone is your only platform.”
“Limitations in the iPhone make great apps harder to deliver
What’s important to understand is that the iPhone application environment is very difficult ...”
Spend at least half your development time writing Android and Pre versions of your iPhone apps — now there’s a recipe for success! And I’m sure it won’t be difficult at all.
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft (February 2009):
“[A]ll the consumer market mojo is with Apple and to a lesser extent BlackBerry. And yet, the real market momentum with operators and the real market momentum with device manufacturers seems to primarily be with Windows Mobile and Android.”
Ballmer’s had many years to become accustomed to thinking that the “market” is Microsoft selling its products to operators and device manufacturers. And the consumers? Well they just have to take whatever the operators and device manufacturers give them, all preloaded with Microsoft stuff. They’re not part of the real market.
Roger McNamee of Elevation Partners, investors in Palm (March 2009):
“June 29, 2009, is the two-year anniversary of the first shipment of the iPhone. Not one of those people [whose 2-year service contracts expire] will still be using an iPhone a month later.”
“I’m on a 10-year plan, here. They are going to run out of gas way before we are.”
“The Pre going to be a million times — well, not a million times — several times faster than the iPhone.”
“The Pre is going to run rings around [Apple] on the Web.”
Hey, didn’t Palm have to issue an official disclaimer saying, in effect, “This guy doesn’t represent us?”
Update 2010.03.19 — Ten years, huh? It’s right about one year, and two market analysts just gave Palm a target price of $0.
Ray Maguire of Sony (March 2009):
“The iPhone has the advantage of being a single device and is growing a reasonable installed base, but it doesn’t have the production power that a PSP has. As a specific games machine, the PSP is always going to win out.”
“We’re in a great position to take on the interest in these snacking games and produce them at better quality, lower prices, with lower cost of development”
How much did Apple have to pay Steve Demeter to write Trism for the iPhone? Oh yeah, nothing. Good luck developing for less than nothing, Sony.
Scott Moritz of TheStreet.com (March 2009):
Apple Apps Show Lacks Shine
“Apple’s iPhone 3.0 software developers conference kicked off with a few ho-hum application introductions.
The show, at Apple’s campus in Cupertino, Calif., concluded without a flashy one-more-thing, giving Apple’s stock nothing solid to build on.”
“Observers wanting more information about a rumored tablet device went home disappointed.”
iPhone 3.0 has been very ho-hum and disappointing. Very.
Anssi Vankoji of Nokia (April 2009):
“We [at Nokia] don’t think the world is so simple that you just make one device for everybody. We know more about the consumers in the world than any other consumer goods company in the world because we have so many customers. We know they have different tastes and uses and so you have to offer a whole line.”
“I don’t think the world will unite on one platform. There are several that will succeed. Our platform, Symbian, is an open platform and will make a major impact in the industry.”
Here’s a question for you, Vankoji: How many consumers even know, much less care, what the true difference is between an “open” platform and a “closed” one? Consumers care whether a platform sucks or rocks. Good luck with that Symbian thing. Did you just think it was going to last forever? (It felt like forever; I know that.)
Trip Chowdhry of Global Equities Research (May, 2009):
“Investors should not think the upcoming version of iPhone 3 is going to be as successful as iPhone 2.0 because it will have solid competition from Palm Pre, developed by ex-Apple designer Jon Rubinstein.”
“Palm Pre has a superior operating system than iPhone. It runs on a better network — Sprint CDMA — versus iPhone which runs on GSM.”
(See sucks-vs-rocks comment immediately above.)
Rob Enderle of the Enderle Analyst Group (June, 2009):
“The question is whether they will use [WWDC ’09] for product launches. It appears the answer is no since they are signaling that not only will Jobs not be there, neither will the new phones.”
I don’t suppose Enderle has revealed his sources for the information that there would be no new phones at WWDC? I think this guy’s strategy is to keep predicting bad things for Apple, and if/when one of them actually comes true, say, “See! See, I told you Apple sucks!” Whatever plan Enderle had for being a respectable success in this life, he apparently gave up on it completely a long time ago.
Cory Bohon of The Unofficial Mac Weblog (June, 2009):
“3.0 FAIL”
“As a result, if you turn on the push notification service [on an original iPhone], you may be unable to receive voice calls.
Some iPhone owners might consider this a slap in the face from Apple ...
Push notifications could also end up being a flop for other iPhone users too. Due to the structure of the service, push notifications can get lost in transit, and pushes to the same app (possibly all pushes) kick older ones out of the push queue.”
Catching up to the present here, so I can’t slam these bozos with 20/20 hindsight. So let’s just say this: Stick around, check back in six or twelve or eighteen months, and see if these scary-sounding problems described by Bohon have derailed the iPhone success story.
UPDATE: It’s been six months, and not only is the iPhone doing better than ever, but I haven’t heard any stories at all about problems with the notification system.
Jon Stokes in Ars Technica (June, 2009):
“[I]f you’re like me and you felt that the iPhone, even in its post-MobileMe incarnation, never quite made sense as an Internet- and cloud-centric messaging device, then the Pre may be the answer to your prayers.”
If you’re praying to fucking God that Apple doesn’t win, then anything, even a hey-we-can-sort-of-do-that-too wannabe iPhone like the Pre seems like the answer to your prayers.
Independent analyst Joe Wilcox (June 2009):
“What has Apple done truly innovative in [Jobs’s 6-month] absence? Not much”
“iPhone 3GS: More of the same, only better. It looks the same as iPhone 3G, and features like video and MMS are catchup. There’s no flash (for camera).
iPhone 3.0 OS: More of the same, only better. Sure, developers can now charge customers from within apps, but they’ve still got no Flash (from Adobe).”
“I don’t mean this ‘more of the same, only better’ list to be a criticism of the management team struggling along without [Jobs].”
“‘More of the same, only better,’ while good enough for most other companies, isn’t Apple. ... [T]hat dazzling ‘one more thing’ is missing. Apple needs it.”
With struggling like that, who needs succeeding?
David Coursey of PCWorld (August 2009):
“As Apple Rots, iPhone Users Revolt”
“Users are turning against the iPhone.”
“[Y]ou might find a more attractive option in a few months, especially if the iPhone’s downhill slide continues.”
“Do I really need to keep making the case that having Apple as the only vendor of iPhone apps is bad for customers? ... Apple doesn’t care about its customers.”
“Developers would flee the App Store given a chance. They should have that option.”
“The Apple monopolies must go.”
“iPhone developers should, right now, start supporting other platforms because it is in their best interest to do so. It appears likely that Android and Palm’s WebOS will support better applications than iPhone...”
“If Apple were wise it would offer an API that allows any smartphone to work with iTunes.”
“Maybe by the holidays ... Apple and AT&T will have been forced to change their customer-hostile ways.”
Thank goodness Coursey is here to inform 82% of iPhone users that they detest their phone and its maker — otherwise they wouldn’t even know.
UPDATE: The holidays are about over, and Apple’s wasn’t forced to change anything. iPhone’s doing better than ever!
Jason Calacanis of Mahalo.com (August 2009):
“Years and years after Microsoft’s antitrust headlines, Apple is now the anti-competitive monster that Jobs rallied us against in the infamous 1984 commercial.”
“Steve Jobs is on the cusp of devolving from the visionary radical we all love to a sad, old hypocrite and control freak — a sellout of epic proportions.”
“I know many folks in the industry are saddened to see our LSD-taking, radical free-thinking and fight the power hero, turning to the Dark Side.”
“Of all the companies in the United States that could possibly be considered for anti-trust action, Apple is the lead candidate.”
“[W]hat Apple is doing is 100x worse than what Microsoft did.”
“Apple will face a user revolt in the coming years based upon Microsoft, Google and other yet-to-be-formed companies, undercutting their core markets with cheap, stable and open devices.”
“Think for a moment about what your reaction would be if Microsoft made the Zune the only MP3 player compatible with Windows. There would be 4chan riots, denial of service attacks and Digg’s front page would be plastered with pundit editorials claiming Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer were Borg.
Why, then, does Steve Jobs get a pass?”
Um...because Apple never invited third-party developers to interact with the iTunes-to-iPod communications protocol, whereas Microsoft did invite third-party developers to interact with the Windows API and file system? Dude, just because you’d really like a company to do something doesn’t mean they’re violating the law if they don’t.
Jon Fortt, Senior Writer For CNNMoney.com (August 2009):
“Innovation and expression on Apple’s iPhone platform are beginning to suffer, even as Apple insists that its restrictions are for our own good.”
Did you say “innovation and expression” or “anything that massively fucks with Apple’s control of its own product and its end-users’ overall experience?” Sorry — I wasn’t listening.
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft (September 2009):
“PCs are not niche devices. Part of the reason I think they’re non-niche devices is: multiple people manufacture them, they all interoperate, they work together, etc. ... Phones are not niche.
The categories where I think a single player can control a large percentage of the volume are the smaller categories. ... But when you get to these categories that are 300 million, 500 million, a billion, a billion-five a year, the truth of the matter is you’re going to want multiple points of manufacture ... So I think you can have an Apple in the phone business, or a RIM, and they can do very well, but when 1.3 billion phones a year are all smart, the software that’s gonna be most popular in those phones is gonna be software that’s sold by somebody who doesn’t make their own phones.”
Because iPhones can’t be manufactured at a rate of hundreds of millions per year. They just can’t. Something about the OS being created by the same company, just, just — gums up the manufacturing process.
Ben Galbraith, formerly of Mozilla, now with Palm (September 2009):
“[M]y enthusiasm for this amazing new world [of pocket-sized computing devices] is tempered by some unfortunate decisions made by some of the players in this space. It seems that some view this revolution as a chance to seize power in downright Orwellian ways by constraining what we as developers can say, dictating what kinds of apps we can create, controlling how we distribute our apps, and placing all kinds of limits on what can do to our computing devices.
And so as my good friend and long-time collaborator Dion so eloquently explains over at his blog, he and I have taken an opportunity to work at Palm ...”
Nothing Orwellian going on at Palm. “Kafka-esque,” yes. But not Orwellian.
Marguerite Reardon of CNet (October 2009):
“Is the iPhone hurting AT&T’s brand?”
Yes, if by “hurting” you mean “exposing their inadequacy.”
Chris Foresman of ars technica (October 2009):
“Flash 10.1 coming to just about every platform but iPhone”
“With Apple appearing to be the sole remaining holdout in the mobile space, it seems that it may be more and more difficult for Apple to ignore Flash ...”
What’s difficult about ignoring Flash? Anyone who’s surfed the web over the last ten years has learned to ignore it every day. Oh, and Chris, try brushing up on the difference between companies and consumers.
Michael Arrington of TechCrunch (October 2009):
“Apple can’t win the fight [against Google’s Android] over the long term, but they sure are willing to say and do anything in the short term to stop the advance of Google.”
Anything? Even disallow Google from hijacking the whole iPhone UI? Say it isn’t so!
Ken Dulaney of Gartner (October 2009):
[Dulaney apparently predicts that Android will overtake iPhone in a few years — mainly because of the number of companies that are preparing to make Android phones — but is very careful not to provide a juicy quote that can be used in a page like this one.]
That’s right, you just keep desperately lobbing predictions of failure at Apple from behind two layers of reporting, and obtusely enough to prevent anyone from easily quoting what you said. And you stay there.
Robbie Bach of Microsoft (October 2009):
“The fascination with the absolute number [of apps in the iPhone App Store] is really nothing but a fascination.”
“Sure there are 85,000 apps in Apple App Store, how many of them are useful? If you do the math on which apps get used, there’s a relatively small number apps.”
Relative to what?
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft (October 2009):
“Let’s face it, the Internet was designed for the PC. The Internet is not designed for the iPhone. That’s why they’ve got 75,000 applications — they’re all trying to make the Internet look decent on the iPhone.”
Yeaah. That’s why.
Joe Wilcox on Betanews (October 2009):
“iPhone cannot win the smartphone wars”
“Apple’s iPhone will lose the mobile device wars.”
“iPhone is to Android — and somewhat Symbian OS — handsets as Macintosh was to the DOS/Windows PC in the 1980s and 1990s. ... [B]y the mid 1990s, Windows PCs pushed down Mac market share. The iPhone is poised to track similarly. Gartner predicts that Android OS shipments will exceed iPhone OS by 2012 (see chart). I’m a believer.”
“[T]he number of applications is no surefire measure of iPhone’s or any other platform’s success.”
“Apple’s App Store/iPhone/iPod touch platform is narrower and shallower [than Windows or Google], despite the depth of applications, because the ecosystem depends on a closed, end-to-end technology platform. Apple controls everything.”
“[I]n the 1980s and 1990s ... Chairman Bill Gates took the brilliant approach of licensing to third parties.”
“Parallels between the past and present foreshadow iPhone’s future.”
“To reiterate: In the 2000s, like the 1980s, Apple successfully launched industry-changing platforms ... Like Macintosh, iPhone’s end-to-end licensing model is poised to limit the supporting ecosystem’s growth. Meanwhile, Google, Microsoft and Nokia license their mobile operating systems to third parties.”
“iPhone Against the World”
“Another ‘everyone else against Apple battle’ is coming, with Android looking to be the better OS around which an ecosystem grows and thrives.”
Joe, if you keep beating that licensing-the-OS-always-wins horse, it just might come back to life. So don’t stop beating it.
Erick Shonfeld of TechCrunch (October 2009):
“Google Should Make Apple Beg For Maps Navigation”
“Google is putting Apple on notice that it is no longer reserving its best apps for the iPhone.”
“Apple is in a terrible position here because the future of mobile apps are Web apps, and Google excels at making those.”
“The sad thing is that Apple has been here before — with Microsoft.”
Notice how quickly the iPhone naysayers switched from championing Microsoft to championing Google? This was just an anti-Apple thing all along.
And notice how this litany has changed over the years since the iPhone was first announced? It started as light-hearted, condescending that’ll-never-work’s and I-don’t-think-so’s. Now that Apple’s product is handily winning, it’s turned into vicious anger and naked hopes that Apple will be stopped.
That’s what it was all along.
Flora Graham of CNET UK (November 2009):
“The iPhone is the worst phone in the world
That’s right, we said it — and we’re not taking it back. The iPhone may be the greatest handheld surfing device ever to rock the mobile Web ... But as an actual call-making phone, it’s rubbish ...”
“Call quality on the iPhone is pathetic ...”
“The microphone is similarly craptastic ...”
“[T]he iPhone was the first to really flaunt its slim body while you watched the [battery] bars drop almost in front of your eyes.”
“The iPhone sucks — so what?
If the iPhone is inaudible, unconnected, on fire and out of battery, why is the thing so popular?”
Let’s rephrase the question: If the iPhone wasn’t so popular, would you be spewing this bullshit all over it? Answer: No.
David Samberg of Verizon (November 2009):
“Long lines forming outside [for a smartphone launch] are flashy. But it’s not really the goal. What we really want to see is this: a steady stream of people coming today [for the Droid launch] and for the next few weeks buying new phones.”
The goal is to have really long lines at launch, then phenomenal, growing sales after launch! “Droid Does!” Yeah!!
Chris Messina of Citizen Agency (November 2009):
“[W]hat is the App Store except a cleaved out and sanitized portion of the web? In fact, people accustomed to the freedom and ‘flow’ of the web go into anaphylactic shock when they realize that they must submit to the slings and arrows of the outrageous fortune of Steve Jobs when they want their iPhone app to show up in the Apple app store.”
“Thanks a lot, Steve.”
Hey Chris. Don’t forget to thank Steve for giving us Mobile Safari, which totally blew away all pre-existing mobile browsers. And while you’re thanking him for that, take some time out to read this.
Ray Ozzie of Microsoft (November 2009):
“Yes, iPhone has a lot of momentum, unquestionably. But I think the phenomenon we’re in right now is the app phone. And if you look at the depth of apps that are on these phones, they’re not very deep. It’s not like Office or AutoCAD, where there are just thousands of man years that have gone into developing these apps. They’re relatively thin apps that are companions to some service.
All programs in the future will be written in a way that there is no single point of failure. There’s no one server that can die and take down the service.
And I think if you look at anyone who’s building an app phone — whether it’s Palm, Google with Android, RIM — ultimately, all the apps that people want will be on all the phones. They’re relatively straight porting efforts. I think people are imagining some kind of a barrier to entry, at least from an app perspective that I don’t believe is there.
The biggest barrier to entry is: is it a phone that people want to use? And is it a phone that carriers want to sell and people have to measure us based on what we produce. But I don’t believe that there’s an app barrier.”
WTF?
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft (November 2009):
“I think we’re on the right strategy, which is to focus on the software that goes into phones, as opposed to building phones.”
Translation: Our ventures into hardware are licensed branding (keyboards, joysticks), bombs (Zune), vapor (Surface), and loss-leader money pits (Xbox) that lead nowhere. We’re not a hardware company. Selling software to hardware companies is the only strong success we’ve ever had.
Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group (December 2009):
“Apple has recently done more with the tablet format with the iPod Touch and iPhone then any other vendor but the jury is still largely out on this format with challenging devices from RIM, Palm, and Google often showcasing that keyboards are necessary.”
Necessary to do what — flop?
Jay Sullivan of Mozilla (December 2009):
“You have to create an iPhone app, an Android app, a Windows Mobile app...”
“As developers get more frustrated with quality assurance, the amount of handsets they have to buy, whether their security updates will get past the iPhone approval process... I think they’ll move to the web.”
“In the interim period, apps will be very successful. Over time, the web will win because it always does.”
You want the world of web-apps? Take it, it’s yours! It always was.
Jonathan Rosenberg of Google (December 2009):
“At Google we believe that open systems win. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses.”
“Complacency is the hallmark of any closed system. If you don’t have to work that hard to keep your customers, you won’t.
Open systems are just the opposite. They are competitive and far more dynamic. In an open system, a competitive advantage doesn’t derive from locking in customers, but rather from understanding the fast-moving system better than anyone else and using that knowledge to generate better, more innovative products.”
“Open systems have the potential to spawn industries. They harness the intellect of the general population and spur businesses to compete, innovate, and win based on the merits of their products...”
“[O]pen systems allow innovation at all levels — from the operating system to the application layer — not just at the top. This means that one company doesn’t have to depend on another’s benevolence to ship a product.”
“[P]lacing your bets on open requires the optimism, will, and means to think long term. Fortunately, at Google we have all three of these.”
“[W]e can take on big challenges that require large investments and lack an obvious, near-term pay-off.”
“Open will win.”
Android’s not doing so well, huh?
John Strand of Strand Consult (December 2009):
“How will psychologists describe the iPhone syndrome in the future?”
“When we examine the iPhone users’ arguments defending the iPhone, it reminds us of the famous Stockholm Syndrome — a term that was invented by psychologists after a hostage drama in Stockholm. Here hostages reacted to the psychological pressure they were experiencing, by defending the people that had held them hostage for 6 days.”
FYI: Having Stockholm for Apple’s phone is a hell of lot easier, more enjoyable, and less embarrassing than having it for any of those non-Apple phones.
Henry Blodget of The Business Insider (January 2010):
“Hey, Apple, Wake Up — It’s Happening Again”
“A decade [after its 1980s successes] Apple was on its deathbed, a victim of a major strategic mistake that turned it into an also-ran.
What was that mistake?
The insistence on selling fully integrated hardware and software devices, instead of focusing on low-cost, widely distributed software.”
“Once again, Apple has seized the early lead, launching a revolutionary product that is taking the world by storm. ... In its short life, Google’s Android operating system has captivated developers and stolen mindshare from Apple...”
“The ‘Droid’ and Google Phone are getting rave reviews...”
“Apple, meanwhile, is coming under increasing scrutiny for being a domineering control freak hell-bent on secretly undermining its competitors...”
“[T]he movie is starting the same way. And so far, at least, Apple is showing no signs of doing anything differently.”
Blodget and Wilcox should get together and have a horse-beating party.
Jon Rubinstein of Palm (January 2010):
“I think we’ve done really well this past year”
“We don’t pay that much attention to Apple”
“I really don’t [worry about the iPhone]”
“I don’t have an iPhone. I’ve never even used one.”
“We don’t think what Apple did [making us stop having the Pre tell other USB devices that it’s an iPod from Apple] is good for their customers. But Apple’s going to do what Apple’s going to do.”
“I think we have a very large potential developer pool for the [Palm webOS].”
Pre’s not doing so well, huh?
IDC’s 2009-2013 Mobile OS Analysis (January 2010):
[predicts that Android will overtake iPhone in about three years]
Wanna see the details of this prediction? Just $4,500.00.
Dan Frommer of BusinessInsider.com (February 2010):
“Palm Disaster Shows That Apple Is Screwed Without Steve Jobs”
“Palm is basically Apple, Jr. And if a bunch of Apple geniuses can’t kick butt on their own at Palm, how are they going to kick butt without Steve at Apple?”
It’s really good news for Apple when its doomsayers have to reach this far to keep their story alive.
Dan, do you think that if Jobs had left Apple soon after the iPhone took off, he would have been able to kick Apple’s ass with something wildly better than the iPhone? Yeah, neither do I.
Don Tennant of ITBusinessEdge (February 2010):
“Why I Regret Buying an iPhone
I have an iPhone, but if I had it to do over again, I would never have bought one.”
[A]t the time I bought it, I wasn’t fully aware of Apple’s blatant, unapologetic contempt for its employees, its suppliers, the media and its customers. Now that I’ve been educated, I’m sorry I ever bought one of Steve Jobs’ products.”
Don, if I were you, I wouldn’t stay with a company as horrible as that for five minutes. I would swallow the early termination fee and buy a Palm Pre today.
Oh, wait. No. If I were you, I would continue to use an iPhone while stridently encouraging everyone else not to use one, in the vain hope that Apple will fall out of favor and go away to die, and then I will switch to whatever non-Apple phone everyone else is switching to. That’s what I would do. If I were you.
Peter Wayner of InfoWorld (March 2010):
“Android’s openness, flexibility, and Java foundation make it the best choice for many developers and the businesses that depend on them”
“Can Google Android phones compete with the Apple iPhone? ... The good news is that the platform is not only competitive but is often a better choice than the iPhone...”
“The differences become apparent if you want to do more than make a few phone calls and iFart around. ... While iPhone developers have found that one path to success is playing to our baser instincts (until Apple shuts them down), a number of Android applications are offering practical solutions that unlock the power of a phone that’s really a Unix machine you can slip into your pocket.
GScript, for instance, is an Android app that lets you write your own shell scripts and fire them off with a tap. Another useful app, Remote DB, lets you turn any SQL query into a button that searches the database remotely, then displays the results.”
So the next time I need to run shell scripts or SQL queries on my phone, I’ll be sure to trade in my iPhone for a Droid or Nexus One. I won’t search the iPhone App Store’s 140,000+ apps to see if there’s app for what I really want to do. Or search the web to see if there’s a free web app that does it. I won’t ask my employer’s IT department if it’s OK to run entered-on-the-fly SQL from the far, far front-end (answer: FUCK NO). And I won’t ask myself why any phone user should even have to know or care about “shell scripts.”
I’ll just meekly accept the fact that computing devices are mysterious, frustrating, programmer-guru-oriented things, and must always be so.
Sebastian Anthony of DownloadSquad (March 2010):
“Microsoft set to destroy Apple in every games market”
“Apple, with its locked-down, isolated sandbox is in trouble. Do game developers have any reason to continue working on games for the iPhone or iPad now that Microsoft is offering so much more?”
“Can Apple really see themselves competing, with a minuscule desktop market share and 25% of the smartphone sector? Steve Jobs has announced Apple’s intent to move into mobile gaming, but can you really see developers siding with the iPhone when Windows Phone 7 is just around the corner?”
“Interoperability and cross-platform applications are really cool. You hear that, Apple?”
“Finally, like the gouging rusty handle of a spoon that seals the deal, is the crusty monstrosity of Apple’s iTunes App Store; dog-slow approvals and draconian rules on what constitutes acceptable content.”
“I think the iPhone has just lost any chance of its continued existence as a gaming platform.”
Typical game programmer: I want to write games that rock, and have a large number of people each pay a little to play them.
Typical game player: I want to play games that rock, and pay only a little for the privilege.
Typical tech pundit: Cross-platform interoperability is a really cool technical concept that gives me a warm fuzzy. Computing devices are supposed to be about giving technie nerds warm fuzzies. I sure hope the company that undestands that fact will soon blow away the company that doesn’t. Oh, and by the way, I haven’t written a successful game, and never will.
Mitch Kapor as quoted in The New York Times (March 2010):
“[Mobile phone developers favor the iPhone for now, but] they are all racing ahead to develop for Android too. [Apple’s] tight control helps in the beginning, but tends to choke things in the long term.”
Let’s see: Apple’s tight control didn’t help the 1980s Mac to achieve big market-share success in its beginning or ever. And Microsoft’s wide-open, licensed-to-any-company plan didn’t help PlaysForSure (now dead) or Windows Mobile (now maybe a dozen years old and just about as dead). So you’re basing this “tends to” statement on what, exactly?
Fred von Lohmann of Electronic Frontier Foundation (March 2010):
“If Apple wants to be a real leader, it should be fostering innovation and competition, rather than acting as a jealous and arbitrary feudal lord.”
Where by “real leader” Fred doesn’t mean “market leader.” And by “innovation and competition” he doesn’t mean “continuing to create innovative and competitive products like the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad.” And by “jealous and arbitrary” he means “protective of its developers’ ability to sell their software without being ravaged by casual piracy, and of its customers’ confidence in the safety and stability of third-party app offerings.”
Tim Bray of Google (March 2010):
“The iPhone vision of the mobile Internet’s future omits controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits on who can know what and who can say what. It’s a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord’s pleasure and fear his anger.”
I read Bray’s raving on...my iPhone.
© 2010 Darel Rex Finley | design by