Slashdot Mirror
Newton's Ghost Haunts Apple's iPhone
PetManimal writes "David Haskin has looked back at why the Newton failed in the early PDA market, and warns that Apple may be setting itself up for a similar failure with the iPhone. The iPhone shares with the Newton a hefty starting price, and Joe Public may not be so keen on the cost, as recent survey data suggests. Moreover, the iPhone will have to deal with two additional factors that were not issues for the Newton: Competition, and wireless service providers: 'Besides overcharging for iPhone, Apple faces significant competition, something it didn't face in 1993 when it launched Newton. And you can bet that competition from the likes of Samsung and LG will both be good (although probably not as good as iPhone) and most assuredly cheaper... I'm more convinced than ever that, after an initial frenzy of publicity and sales to early adopters, iPhone sales will be unspectacular. If Apple doesn't respond quickly by lowering the price and making nice to AT&T..., iPhone may well become Apple's next Newton.'"
They've got it completely wrong about competition. In this case, it's better that they have competition than not.
With the Newton, it was an entirely new device, so it was that much more difficult to spur adoption. Whereas now, everyone knows what a cellphone is, so they can look at the iPhone and just say, "That's like my phone, only better."
They did the exact same thing with the iPod. Digital music players weren't new when the iPod came out, it was just the first of it's kind in terms of design and functionality. Suddenly everyone said, "THAT'S the digital music player I wanted to buy." I suspect the same thing will happen with the iPhone.
I don't care about the price, if I wanted one price would not have been my determining factor. It probably kills its for some others. One thing I didn't consider earlier is the number of people I know who won't get one because its too big. Its the old idea of, its a phone, if I wanted a pc I would get one.
The killer problem with the iPhone in my book, and it seems to get knocks from others I know as well, is the fact it doesn't have a battery you can changeout on the fly. I travel, and I don't always have access to a power outlet. Worse, the iPhone is designed to do things other than just being a phone, hence I will need to use it more often. So, whats with this fixed battery?
boneheaded.
Then again Apple is about looks more than anything in their consumer side. There are a few bright ideas in their PC group that seriously need to come over to the iPod/iPhone side.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
why not offer a stripped down version?
The iMac/eMac of the iPhones!
The iPhone mini!
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
All of these were the 'next' newton at one point or another. I can't stress enough, that apple has a habit of picking markets where the higher price point is not well established and dominating that sector. Simply opining that because the iPhone will cost a significant amount more than a vanilla cell phone as an alternative, therefore it will be rejected by the populace is ahistorical and ridiculous. The iPhone is not going to cure cancer, it is not going to revolutionize the cell phone market, but I will be the farm that it will sell 10M units within a year, at least.
The armchair economists hard at work here seem to forget that apple (until recently) has made a business of selling branded, exclusive products at a hefty premium. To own a mac you had to be willing to part with more than a few hundred extra dollars, but for whatever reason, it was worth it. Whatever that reason may be: actual performance gains, better UI, susceptability to the RDF, who cares. It doesn't matter if 10M customers take leave of their senses and buy a 600 dollar phone with a cingular contract because of apple branding and market power or if they do so because it is a fundamentally better option. Either way, we are looking at a repeat of apple's succesful past history.
~2001 - An MP3 player for $300 when I can get one for $100? Apple is retarded.
FTA:
Umm, if Apple does have hubris, it's just giving back the same hubris that the wireless carriers have been throwing around for years.
Exactly. The Newton was the first kid on the block, so it took competition a couple of years to appear, identify the flaws in the Newton, and beat it. That's the opposite of Apple: the smart phone market has been around for a few years, and Apple has identified the flaws in the existing offerings, and will beat them. It's like the iPod: hardly the first MP3 player, and certainly not the cheapest, but undoubtably the most succesful.
Probably the same kind of people who already spend $700+ on a so-called "smart phone" that does less, is harder to use, and looks less fashionable than the iPhone. And it doesn't really matter: if it makes a profit for Apple, then it's a good thing.
It's simple personal economics: if you don't want it, don't buy it.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
More specifically which market. We've all read about the Asian markets and their love for new gadgets. That's where I'd start off. Then the EU, then US, Russia and whoever else wants it.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
But that's okay. If 99% of the people hate it and don't buy it then Apple will have reached its target goal.
Personally, I think opinions will change once people actually have the product to hold and look at. Then you will start seeing real opinions on whether people like it or dislike it. Until then, blah--it's all made up.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
This is hardly "revolutionary" technology - I don't understand the appeal.
> Namely, how will OS X for mobile effect the landscape.
If they keep it closed, it won't make any difference whatsoever.
I'm always puzzled by the oceans of ink wasted on speculations like this one. Obviously some people (presumably many at Apple) expect the iPhone to succeed and some expect it to fail. Some will be wrong and some will be right. I'm not sure what the point of articles like this is, unless it is an effort by those who would benefit by an iPhone failure to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, a negative buzz as it were.
"Apple doesn't have an unblemished record when it comes to introducing innovative new devices?" Well, big whoop. Neither does Microsoft (remember Microsoft Bob?), IBM (remember the four-inch floppy? No? Thought you didn't), whatever.
Innovation is always risky. And success or failure can turn on a hair. If a few breaks had gone Apple's way the Newton might have succeeded. Conversely, a few turns in the other direction and the Mac might have failed (anyone remember just how bleak things looked in late 1985?)
I still love Steve Jobs for saying that "the killer app for cell phones is making calls." Maybe that's just a slick Steve Jobs talking point... or maybe Apple's iPhone team believes it to the core, and they've made something that'sreally good for making calls. With all his blathering of whether it's innovative or not, and whether it's overpriced or not, David Haskins never addresses the question of how good it is for making calls.
People happily buy "overpriced" iPods because they're really good for listening to music. If it turns out that the average cell-phone user thinks iPhones are really good for making calls it will succeed. But we won't know that until a lot of iPhones are in the flesh-and-blood sweaty greasy hands of a lot of real customers.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Yes, because Cingular paring down their profit margins on the summer's hottest phone seems ever so likely. If that rumor is true, I'd be absolutely shocked. Cingular is going to milk this for all it's worth, not provide price breaks. Besides, what other expensive smartphone have they ever given a plan break on?
As for stealing tons of Blackberry users: not going to happen. The iPhone does not have a hardware keyboard, and this is a deal-breaker for the heavy email use set. And, no, the software keyboard, multi-touch or not, is not good enough - it doesn't provide tactile feedback fast typing.
The iPhone is clearly aimed at the "I want an iPod in my phone" crowd, and I think it'll be pleasing to them, if we ignore the vendor lock-in and high price. The question in my mind is whether the US market will overlook the pricing or not.
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
The iPhone is surely intriguing. Slap in a terminal, and get a bluetooth keyboard. It's been a while since I used Pine.
So far, all the indications are that the iPhone is a closed device. You are unlikely to be able to run a terminal.
In fact, I'm a bit baffled about all the comparisons between the iPhone and Newton and current smartphones. The iPhone isn't a PDA and it isn't a smartphone. It just a really slick fairly basic phone.
Apple is great at taking an existing product or set of technologies and figuring out how to make it "just work" in a way that's intuitive and easy. You'll pay for the convenience but for an increasing number of consumers it's worth it. I have full confidence that the iPhone will be more of the same.
I used to think Apple produced nothing but overpriced junk but that was primarily because my previous exposure to their products occurred in the 90's. Then several years ago when iTunes for Windows hit I was tired of managing my music collection in other programs and looking for an easier way so I gave it a shot after hearing rave reviews from Mac users and it was such an improvement over the other software I was using that I uninstalled the other programs immediately. iTunes worked so well that I decided to go for an iPod and it was (and still is) hands down the best MP3 player I've every owned. I gave the iTMS a try and the iPod / iTunes / iTMS combination worked so well together that when the Mac Mini was announced I decided to bite the bullet and try a Mac. I liked it so much I upgraded to an iMac within 6 months and have just convinced my boss to split the cost of a MacBook Pro for use at the office and when I'm on the road. I couldn't be happier after making the switch. I've got to deal with Windows based PC's all day at work and when I get home at night I want something that will just work.
I'm starting to feel the same way about cell phones. I'm tired of all of the crap you have to put up with. I got an LG phone for Christmas and it's the best cell phone that I've ever owned but that's not saying much. My cell phone has an mp3 player, but of course you can't use the mp3s as ring tones and the user interface absolutely sucks. It's got the best built in web browser of any cell phone I've used, but it still can't display half of the web sites I try to visit properly. Admittedly it handles web sties designed for mobile browser well, but often times I need to visit a site that hasn't been designed for mobile browsers. It's supposed to work with any Micro SD trans flash stick so I purchased a 2 GB stick and, of course, it doesn't work. A little research on the Internet revealed that even though they claim any chip will work just about no one can get the 2 GB stick working. I've had enough. I want a cell phone / mp3 player combo that just works. I want to be able to easily manage my music on the phone, I want to be able to easily find the tracks I want to play, I want to be able to use any thing on the mp3 player as a ring tone. I don't want to worry about buying the wrong kind of flash memory. I want my contacts and calender to sync with my computer easily, I want a web browser that won't mangle most regular web pages. Visual voice mail will be a handy feature and the integration with Google maps looks pretty awesome as well. In short, I want something that just works. I realize that other phones will be cheaper and may have more features but I don't care. A phone can have all of the features in the world but if they are poorly implemented and/or the UI sucks what's the point? I don't have time to fiddle with crap all day long. Life's to short. I want something that will just work and I'm willing to pay for it.
I'll skip the first generation to give Apple a chance to work the kinks out and to further improve the product but as soon as the second generation of the iPhone ships I'm buying one. I'll be ready for a new phone by then and I'll be happy to shell out $500 dollars if I know that at the end of the day I'll have a cellphone that does what I need it to do and "just works". If the iPhone lasts half as long as my and holds up half as well as my 3G iPod has then it will have been well worth the money.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Well, this is a mercifully short rant at least. Too bad it's totally disconnected and the points are each (separately) developed poorly. If his main point is really what it seems to be (that is, that Apple is making the same mistakes with iPhone as it did with Newton) then here's what I see wrong with it:
1)He compares the pricing of the two devices...but seems only to go as far as saying they both cost "too much." He doesn't seem to put together the fact that the Newton's $700 1993 price tag was almost exactly twice as expensive as the iPhone: $999.48 inflation adjusted. And that's for a much less capable device, with an untested interface that didn't work well.
2)He notes the real reasons why the Newton failed (large size, bad handwriting recognition, completely new product category), but doesn't attempt to claim that these will be problems for the iPhone. They won't, so he simply ignores them.
3)Evidently he considers competition to be a problem that the iPhone has in common with the Newton. This after he notes that the Newton was the first device of its kind, and therefore had absolutely no competition. Strong competition may or may not be problematic for the iPhone, but it certainly won't be a parallel to the Newton.
4)He totally misrepresents the only evidence he cites. Specifically, the study on how many people would buy at what prices. His link says "miniscule number." Yet the survey itself says 26% of respondents said they would be likely to buy it, and 1% of those would buy it at the launch price. Insofar as Apple itself has set a goal of only 1% market share, being able to sell a quarter of that volume for the launch price sounds extremely encouraging to me...imagine if a quarter of Sony's target market had thrown down $600 for a PS3. Also, the study makes specific note of the fact that they don't expect the price to stay that high; business as usual in the cell-phone world, but totally ignored by this author.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
The iPhone is 2G, thus any company endorsing it would effectively be discouraging the use of 3G and those lucrative MMS facilities. Even if it were possible to fit similar facilities onto a modified 2G iPhone (via GPRS, or whatever), it wouldn't be worth the hassle as a one-off, and it's still going against the pro-3G politics and general flow of the European marketplace.
It's probable that the operators would allow the sale of network-tied iPhones with their name on, but far less likely that they'd offer subsidised contract prices. Thus, the iPhone would appear very expensive next to the ("free" or cheap) competition. Contract mobile users here are used to getting shiny new phones at highly-subsidised prices, so I can't see this flying. One exception is pay-as-you-go (not usually subsidised anyway). However, since most PAYGers are light/occasional users (or possibly kids), I doubt that many of them would consider paying even half of the iPhone's price.
In short, if Apple wants the iPhone to be a success in Europe, they're going to have to come up with a 3G version.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
"History does not repeat itself, except in the minds of those who do not know history" - Kahlil Gibran
I have my doubts too about the iPhone. The MP2000 cost $1000 in 1996. Not only was this a severe psychological threshold (adding an extra digit), but in current, 2007 dollars that is 2.5x as much as the iPhone. The base iPhone is under a psychological threshold (500), and in real terms much cheaper than the MP2000.
It's also simply not true that the Newton didn't have competition. In the same year that Apple introduced the 2000, the first MP that worked really well, Palm introduced the Pilot, which had a radically different view of a PDA. It didn't even recognize ordinary handwriting -- it didn't have the horsepower. But even though users had to learn graffitti, it got the most important thing right: form factor. A PDA must be something you don't mind carrying.
Finally -- and this is huge difference -- the MessagePad was a platform. You could buy it for its address list and notepad, but given the size of the box, you could just as practically use a paper planner. What it needed for success was developers and applications that would go beyond the paper planner, and which would integrate with the user's information infrastructure. As clunky as Palms HotSync architecture is, the Newton Connection manager was clunkier still. I worked with developers of Newton apps trying to convince them to work on streamlining the process of moving data back and forth to databases, but truth be told the Newton, without a built in network, wasn't a very attractive platform for this.
The iPhone is not a platform. It's a gadget. It could be a platform, but Apple has closed it. Personally, I think this is more draconian than necessary, but it makes Apple's intention clear: users will buy this thing for what's built in. It's a converged device for the uses which, after a decade of mobile technology, have been proven attractive to consumers.
There may be some wisdom here. I was in the computer store the other day to get a cable for my PDA, and I was shocked that the PDA display had shrunk from several counters of PDAs to a two shelves only eighteen inches wide, tucked under a counter. One shelf was for Palms and the other for Pocket PCs. All the space that used to be taken up by PDAs, and then some, was taken up by accessories for iPods. So why fight it? Why invite retailers to set it up next to a pocket PC phone, when you already have a category all to yourself?
Altogether, we're talking about a different scenario with the iPhone. The Newton was trying to create a new category of products, the iPhone is trying to muscle in on an existing category. It's risky, but if it fails, it won't be parallel to the Newton at all. Sure, you can always say if a device was cheaper, it would sell more. That doesn't explain anything at all. But if the Newton had been half the price, it probably would not have succeeded in the long run because it was too big for what it was immediately useful, too poorly connected for what it could have been useful for.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You're assuming that Apple won't upgrade the phone for the market. The unit technically has all the right software facilities, it just needs a smidge of different hardware. There's little doubt in my mind that when Apple is ready to crack the European market, they will have the necessary CDMA/TDMA hardware ready. Especially if they try and support the Sprint Nextel CDMA network before they make the move to Europe.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Maybe this applies to the iPhone, maybe not, but your inability to even see this issue leads me to suspect that you don't actually know what most people in the real world will or will not pay for.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
The iphone shuffle. It has no screen and only has one button, when pressed calls one of your contacts at random. If you really want to call some one specific, keep calling until they answer he phone, or conversely only store one contact.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Your post was good until the last line. I hate to mention it once again to somebody else but, Steve Jobs did say in the Keynote that they will make a 3G version. I'm speaking under the assumption that nearly everybody on Slashdot watched the keynote or heard this fact spew from SJ's mouth from somebody else. If you didn't watch the keynote, then now you know. A 3G version is coming, Steve said so.
Jonathanjk.com
Fair enough. I guess my issue then is that I don't understand what you're concerned about. The Apple phone in its current incarnation would be unlikely to sell, but I don't see any barriers to Apple designing a 3G version of the phone. Indeed, the only reason why the phone is as limited as it currently is, is due to Apple's contract with Cingular. They've already said that they will eventually branch out to other carriers, which means that the phone radio specs will change. (Not at all uncommon for mobile handsets.) So worrying about their phone being "only" 2G seems a bit pessimistic, doesn't it?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Come on, it just isn't important for the iPhone to be "open".
Think of the iPhone as being closed in the same sense that the Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, PSP and DS are all "closed". Because that's exactly the sense in which it's going to be closed. It doesn't mean there will be no third-party developers. It means that all third-party products will have to pass Apple's technical certification requirements. It's quality control. Video game platforms have done this for decades.
The only drawback is that guys like you and me won't be able to write crappy homebrew software for the iPhone and upload it to whatever website. But Apple never promised us the ability to do that. So who cares? If you want to tinker with hardware, there's plenty of other hardware out there to tinker with. And besides, it's a safe bet the iPhone will be hacked open just like every other closed platform anyway. It just won't be authorized.
... you have a very short memory. The original, 5 gigabyte iPod came out in 2001 with an introductory price of $399. That's $456.04 in 2007 dollars. The original iPod had miserable battery life, low storage, a B/W screen and it wasn't -in addition- a smart-phone with EDGE, WiFi, a 3.5-inch color screen and a friggin' camera!
Slashdot editors, here is a newsflash: "Industry analysts" are analysts because the are to frigging stupid to actually make it in the industry they are analyzing. Don't post crap like this.
It's better to be talked about than not talked about.
I drank what? -- Socrates
No, always best to keep 'Soviet Russia' jokes totalitarian. IMO the joke should be:
In Soviet Russia phone i's you!!
Please excuse the noob questions. I've only used Sprint phones (CMDA?)...and not familiar with the GSM stuff. Can you explain or give some links about these differences between 2G and 3G phones? What is better with which one...what exactly does one do better on 3G in Europe than 2G here in the US?
I'd heard that the GSM phones have slower data speeds than the Sprint type networks...is this true?
Thanks in advance..still trying to sort this all out as I try to decide on going with the iPhone and switching providers for the first time ever.....
I've been happy with SprintPCS....decent pricing, good voice reception and coverage, and I like being able to easily tether my phone to my laptop via bluetooth when I need an internet connection, and I don't have to pay extra for it (works with the Vision package). Can you do that with GSM and GSM providers' packages?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
By contrast, the mobile phone market is established, and Apple is getting in much later in the game. "High-end" phones have been around for years, and have never sold in massive numbers; and whether the iPhone is considered worthy of the price remains to be seen. Sure, the lower middle clas does, but anybody who is smart with their money would not do this if they ahd a choice. The people you describe *do* have a choice. Even if they need a mobile for whatever reason, most don't "need" a new phone that often.
It's not necessarily stupid either, so long as you realise that the subsidised phone isn't really "free" and the plan you're buying it on is a good fit for what you'd be doing anyway. Since Apples goes after high end electronic consumers it may not be an issue. Smacks of elitism to me. Wake up; the iPod (which many will have in mind when considering the iPhone) is definitely a mass-market phenomenon, and you don't get that by targeting exclusively high-end consumers.
The market will tell Much as I'd like to see if you're proved wrong, it's not going to happen since (as others have mentioned, and I've acknowledged) Apple *are* planning on launching a 3G iPhone. So in that context, it's more likely to be subsidised by the operators in Europe after all. It'll probably still be more expensive than the competition, just not incredibly so, and Joe Pleb may well decide it's worth the (little) extra for the Apple cred.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Of course, this doesn't necessarily tell you which is best in practice. There are also issues like 2G vs. 3G network coverage, services offered by different operators, how much they charge, etc etc.
Anyway, the new European 3G facilities include the likes of video messaging, TV on demand to your phone, blah blah.... I don't know how well-developed two-way videophones are yet, but the network should be able to handle that. Note that the public's uptake of some of these services (espec. TV on demand) hasn't been as high as the operators had hoped; they're having to recoup some of the money that they paid for the 3G frequencies during the dotcom boom
But unless you're planning on living in Europe, you should buy what's best in the context of *your* market/networks, not ours.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Do people forget these things this quickly?
When the RAZR launched (Cingular-only) in 2003, it was $500. WITH contract. And the sole reason for its price was style. At least Apple has SOME substance to go with their style.
I'm not defending the iPhone. When watching the keynote, I was, as most were, in Steve Jobs' "Reality Distortion Field". But upon seeing the actual specs, I know I won't be buying one. But it really isn't that outrageously priced, either.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
I project-managed a serious attempt at rolling out Newtons. They failed for one reason and one reason only: Unlike Palm, Apple couldn't be bothered to integrate the Newton into existing IT environments. It didn't synchronize. The result - it was worthless as a PDA. From what I can make out, the iPhone continues this tradition. The result: Those willing to spend the iPhone's purchase price will buy Treos, Blackberries, and Windows Mobile devices instead, for the simple reason that they fit into daily worklife. Steve Jobs has many fine qualities. He has never understood the importance of compatibility with the installed base. If you don't believe this, go back and look at the NeXT machine - a fine piece of equipment whose software was carefully crafted to be irrelevant to the corporate computing environments of its day.