Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Why do we always wait for apple's stuff before making a i[blank]-killer??
Stoic Joker:
e.g. Apple can polish a turd and their drove of fawning accolades will flock in mass (like lemming) to buy the silly POS. While the rest of the industry is stuck doing things the old fashioned way - Trying to come up with a useful product that people actually need.
Paul Keith:
I'm starting to lean less towards the hyperbole nowadays.
To me, lately, Apple products have been less like turds and it's the other companies who make turds but can't polish them.
I-Pad for example was a huge gamble. Even the Iphone was. Only the Ipod was the safe entry and even there it can be said at that point few had foreseen the power of music collection prior to that.
Iphone though was particularly gutsy since Nokia was a major player on par with Microsoft and the Palm was planning it's last hurrah at the market.
Still... a phone is a phone.
But I-Pad... no one really gave it a chance until Apple stuck to it's stubborness. I'm not saying it was pure genius or it doesn't have lots of flaws but let's refer to Google for another reference:
https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=22968.0
Bookmarks are managed in a humane and sane way now with a simple file manager/folder view.
--- End quote ---
Single sentence but for a brief moment this sentence made me search for the new version of Chrome without realizing I already had the latest version of Chrome.
Why?
Cause the bookmark manager didn't really feel like a humane and sane way of organizing bookmarks compared to what Opera offered and to some extent, people who are used to IE may also prefer Firefox's right click context menu bookmark options.
Yet Chrome even if it's software rather than hardware has the same criticism prior to it's entry and can we say the major players weren't trying to make a useful product?
They were but Chrome caused the major players to shift to their uglier minimal interface. In the same way, the Ipod, the Iphone, the I-pad succeeded so far because they always brought something "shiny" like scroll wheel, touch screen/power, screen size/touch screen when the pragmatic view of useful at the time didn't respect these features enough.
If these were turds, then every other offer at the time would be smellier turds from a consumer perspective.
Renegade:
I think that there is a fundamental difference between companies like Apple and Sony.
Sony is a consumer electronics company.
Apple is a religion cult.
Seriously.
Apple is very far from being the innovator that the fanboys tout it to be. Apple is good at 1 thing, and 1 thing only. It takes good ideas that failed, repackages them in a super-sexy outfit, then pimps them out to its followers.
The tablet isn't new. The iPad is just a tablet with better marketing to the Cult of Apple followers, and those that are wannabe cult members.
The iPod was very far from revolutionary. Apple merely packaged a half-assed piece of hardware (the iPod cannot even play WAV files properly without crashing -- I have test files THAT WERE PRODUCED ON A MAC if anyone wants to try...) with a sexy interface, hooked it up to a store that rapes its customers with some of the most obscene EULA terms in the industry, breaks all those sales with crippling DRM, and touts is all as something God would be proud of. The same obscene EULA terms have been around for a long time in spyware, adware, and other unseemly products. The store itself is one of the worst implementations of an ecommerce system that I've ever seen. The single click purchasing has been around for a long time. The poor format support has been seen in other players. Rich format support like you get in COWON players will never be seen in the iPod, because COWON is all about providing a superior product to consumers, while Apple is about seeing just how much money they can squeeze from their customers.
The big consumer electronics companies are too conservative to try major marketing offensives that could alter their brand image. They have reputations that they need to consider. Apple doesn't have that worry because their design skills are simply outstanding and their fanboys take up the slack in evangelizing how Apple can do no wrong.
Microsoft is unlikely to ever pull off anything remotely like Apple because they are a platform company. They are not a religion/cult.
Apple's modus operandi is to find an existing market that is highly profitable and create 1 product with 3 configurations that is simply a stunning piece of work to look at, and then market the hell out of it as the cure for cancer, or in Apple-speak, "revolutionary".
OS X is nothing more than a BSD with some sexy tweaks that fails to bring the user-friendliness of Windows to the UNIX world. It is not "revolutionary". It is easy to do SIMPLE things on, but that's it. If you're not capable of doing anything beyond surfing the net and emailing, then OS X is a great choice. If you want to do much more, then you need to learn UNIX. How is that "revolutionary"?
BACK TO THE OP:
Other companies are always in the market before Apple. Apple doesn't lead in any market. None. Not a single one.
COWON had MP3 players/PMPs that far outdo the iPod in every way long before the iPod came out.
The iTouch is far below the iPaq. No comparison. The iTouch is way outclassed in every way.
The iPhone has no advantage over any high-end smartphone. It has only disadvantages compared to Android phones.
The iPhone display technology is far from new. Microsoft has had better technology for years.
The iPad is an oversized mobile phone without the phone. For feature sets or possibilities, it is really very far behind other tablets. It's just "sexy" because that is what Apple does -- the make things sexy.
*IF* (and that is a BIG IF) Apple is innovating something truly new or pioneering a new market, it is in aesthetics, and not in functionality or feature-sets.
Sony can't pull off what Apple does because it's not a technology issue. It's a brand issue. Apple has the cult following for its brand that no other consumer electronics company has. It's unique. The closest thing to it is Google and how Google gets people oogling over it. No other company that I can think of has anything like that kind of loyalty. I suppose there are "Coke" and "Pepsi" loyalists (and the like), but to me that seems a bit different.
Sigh... I simply cannot resist ranting about Apple... :( Stop tempting me~! :P :)
superboyac:
Nice, Renegade. I have to agree with probably everything you say.
The only thing I will add and question is, if sexy sells and is so successful, why won't the other companies give that strategy a shot? is it because they don't have the cult following and they know without it they can't succeed? That's one answer. But I don't even see them trying until after Apple sucks in the market.
I mean, for example, take the ipod. Fine, the ipod came in a and surprised everyone. But then you'd think companies would catch on: "Oh, we have a great technology here. Why don't we concentrate on a nice, sexy, simple user interface." I remember for years hearing about people complain about how the early mp3 players were somewhat klunky to use. Then apple showed up with the wheel. people complained for years about all sorts of things about minidisc players...bigger screen, more info, why is it so difficult to use? Sony never seriously addressed those issues.
And with tablets, I heard the same thing. People didn't want to use it because it was klunky. And if you ask me, the designers were lazy. All they really did was package a laptop running regular Windows into a touchscreen monitor. To me it seems like they didn't think about how the experience of regular windows might be different on a touchscreen. but whatever...it was touch screen, it ran windows...what more could you possibly want? And for years, nothing happened, until the ipad. Now, a bunch of companies are planning on releasing comparable tablets and I'm sure we'll find one that is much better than the ipad and runs windows or linux, and we powerusers can configure just the way we want. but why wait until now? They could have done this easily in 2005.
nudone:
why don't other companies innovate? why waste time and money when you can let Apple create the market for you. if the Appleheads aren't going to buy that piece of techno-junk then who else is? better to see what the fanboys (and girls) will lap up and then let the media trickle it out to the rest of the population in easy to understand sound bites. after that, the market is now ready for every other company to come and play.
Apple is a cult. not to everyone, of course. but to the people that have influence. the media loves Apple; makes a great news story - which equates to fantastic advertising for Apple. if other companies could get that kind of unjustified attention then i'm sure they'd be a bit more daring in releasing new "revolutionary" gadgets - but they'd still need their disciples to prop up the risk involved. after all, the product may genuinely be not what the public wants.
p.s. i hate Apple. so much.
p.p.s. sorry, didn't add anything to what Renegade said. i guess i just wanted to say, "i hate Apple".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version