What I love is the bit at the end: Isn't this what they are doing the exact opposite of? They made something wonderful the first time, but never seemed to move.One of Steve Jobs' quotes that has been displayed at Apple HQ sums up Apple's long-term plan with the iPhone really well: "If you do something and it turns out pretty good, then you should go do something else wonderful, not dwell on it for too long. Just figure out what's next."
I'm the last guy to write apple off. I think they've evolved an environment that allows them to be surprisingly agile for such a large organization. But I think for the next little while at least, the money in tech will be recurrents. Remember back when a stolen copy of Creative Suite was pretty much de rigeur? And it went along with your stolen copy of Office? Both of those are now on a recurrent monthly charge, and the people who used to steal them hand over fist are now paying a monthly rate. When freakin' Avid decides that recurrent is the way to structure you know there's gold in them thar hills. And Apple has nothing that interests people on a monthly basis. I got out of the iPhone ecosystem 'cuz I couldn't stomach a thousand dollar phone. My wife is still rockin' a 5S and will be until it won't power up any longer. The article talks about "gotchaware" basically, where Apple needs to figure out new ways to trick people into upgrading into later and later versions of iOS, not because there are compelling reasons but because otherwise Apple can't sell phones. And with Google, Yahoo and Amazon all sucking your photos up to the cloud for free, you don't need a 128GB iPhone anymore. Are people really going to pay for whatever they're calling Beats? When Google Music is free? Not to mention Spotify, Last.fm and all the rest? My phone shoots 4k video at 60 frames/second. It's got an HD display. It's got 64GB of storage. And it cost me $350. People are paying for Apple's margins but I mean, I've got a half-dozen Apple computers in this house and I had my last straw. How long can Apple keep banking on the App gravy train?
I would love Apple to find a niche in a high end personal privacy data solutions. Google already winning the personal information war through searches alone, which speak nothing of photos and emails and documents and whatever else they keep safe for you. Apple still has some ground on the "everything just works" aspect. If they could use that to make a personal cloud that never talked to apple servers and ran my personal needs, like home automation, personal storage and access to files from anywhere, they could continue to pump out hardware and create a much larger app ecosystem. Plus they could make personal privacy cool.
Don't worry, I'm not confusing what I want to happen with what will happen. I would still like it though.
Yea, my issue is that all the products that came after the iPhone were all simply extensions of the iPhone in design. The iPod's, iPad's, and apple watch were all centered around the iPhone. Apple hasn't really made any real strides technologically since the iPhone.
The technological strides are quite significant. Conceptually though you are absolutely correct, the iPhone concept is Apple's current hammer. I'm just surprised at how effective it's been. For example, they successfully bludgened the netbook market with the iPad even though people clearly prefer a keyboard in front of their 10" screen... even when it is an iPad. I suppose the concept is flexible enough for people to make it work even wjen it's not ideal for the job. It remains to be seen if they can keep up in wearable computing with that attitude.
That was my point. Jobs refused to make one though and up until the iPad Apple insisted that an iPod touch was a much better device for the niche. They found their hammer with the touch screen rectangle and so far things have been similar enough to nails for it to work.
I don't think so. I actually see them at the bleeding edge with the watch, attempting to take a technology that long-term will be ubiquitous in a world where the screen in your pocket is abstracted away in favor of a computer whose interface does not involve mashing your meat sticks against a slab of glass. Of course, we're nowhere near that yet. In particular voice recognition technology and the associated hardware (picking up a voice command in a loud public space has just as much to do with your mic as it does your noise cancellation and recognition software) is nowhere near where it needs to be, and by the time it is, the device might not be living on your wrist (although it could). There's so much more that has to happen before people move beyond hand held computers. Battery life is another huge one. I just think it's interesting that a product that so many see no good reason for is already a billion dollar business at least, not even a year in. I actually have to give them credit for building something this strong while it's true potential is just so far out still. A lot of that has goes beyond technical capabilities and has to do with design and psychology. Between the time our computers are in our pockets and inside our bodies, we're going to wear them, and wearing things introduces a whole host of touchy-feely problems that non-fashion computers don't have to deal with, or don't have to deal with as much. To me, Apple's watch is everything Google's joke of a wearable wasn't. Apple was smart enough to not even try to make it too technically capable. A subtle but profound difference. Right now, I think the company best suited to disrupting the iPhone with another consumer product is Apple with their watch. I'll insert one major caveat, which is that the next wave of wearable computing is going ditch the screen and be heavily reliant on voice and cloud computing, an area where Google is absolutely king, and Apple has been historically suckass and weak (but undeniably improving). Another thought is that it may be enough to be good enough here. See Apple maps. Good enough for nearly everybody on iOS, but simply nowhere near as good as Google Maps, nor will it probably ever be.Isn't this what they are doing the exact opposite of? They made something wonderful the first time, but never seemed to move.
It will be interesting to track how the watch sells long-term, but I still think that Apple has stumbled when it comes to innovation. Yes, the Apple watch is probably the BEST wearable technology out currently, but what does that mean in the more general scheme of wearable technology? As it is right now it is pretty unimpressive as a whole. From what I've experienced with the watches they are just another peripheral. As you said we are still very far off from having wearable technology that really innovates (full on-board processing, advanced voice recognition, cloud computing, etc.) I wouldn't consider what Apple did with the watch innovation, but rather perfecting what already existed.
I'm not an apple user, but I was really hoping the Apple Watch would really shake things up and provide some direction in the smart watch market. I actually would like a smart watch and can think of quite a few uses. But every review I read of smart watches are full of regret or pessimism. Since I think I've vaguely heard from somewhere that the Apple Watch has been a bit of a dud so far, I guess we'll have to wait for the first worthwhile smart watch to arrive.
Oh I was hopeful too don't get me wrong, but it was never taken with a full head on approach it just seemed like a peripheral that was kinda cool. I wish it had been more central, but honestly the technology is not there. The problem with the watches is they still need the phones at least that was the problem for me.
That is the issue though it seems like Apple is struggling to remain relevant in a quick moving environment. The smart watch hits the market, and it isn't until much later that Apple makes their own. Google is making the self-driving car and now the rumors of the Apple car arise. They aren't on the forefront of technology anymore they are simply riding out their brand until it is no longer a thing at least that's what I see.
Well, how do you explain companies like Google? I mean it is arguable that their business plan has always been expansive from the birth of the company, but they have managed to continuously push forward no matter the failure or success of the product/service. Even Microsoft with Windows 8 was looking to change their overall design, and it ultimately didn't fair to well, but Windows 10 (although its too early to tell) is being hailed as a great mix of old and new in terms of interface. I feel like Steve Jobs started something brilliant, and Apple just kind of rode his creation. Now they are in a position that if the magic of the iPhone branded products wears off they are pretty much done for.
I think for Google, they have always had a history of expansion and innovation in mind. Microsoft knows they need to change or risk becoming irrelevant. I think Apple is turning into the Microsoft of the early 2000s, slowly losing their edge but still too big to see it yet.