iPod = Apple 2.0?
When Apple first became a legal partnership just over thirty years ago, few would have suspected that the next thirty years would end up being little more than a prelude to being the next big thing. Most surprised would be the founders, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Mike Markkula, they thought they were just going to be making a really profitable personal computer.
The personal computer they had in mind was, of course, the Apple II. The trio’s instincts were correct, the Apple II was a monster hit. For a time, until the IBM PC was introduced, Apple was the player in the personal market. Once the PC got around to being the PC, well, Apple took a quick backseat.
This seems confusing, how could Apple go from dominant computer maker with scads of software, software that included Oregon Trail, go from dominance to irrelevance? The chain of events seemingly defies rationality. If the Apple II was markedly inferior to the PC, why hadn’t some other computer maker made a machine demonstrably better than the Apple II? The truth is that plenty of people made better machines than the Apple II, and plenty of companies made equivalent computers that cost substantially less. Unfortunately, for the competitors, they got their product to market after Apple.
Thus, Apple had the huge advantage of being first to market. How big of an advantage is being first to market? Take pharmaceuticals, every so often some key piece of research will be suddenly uncovered and a drug will be pulled from the market. Usually the drug pulled is the first one in some supposedly new class. The interesting thing is that before the drug is pulled from the market, generally, it is still the best selling product in that segment of the market. This despite the fact that when drugs are pulled from the market it isn’t because of concerns over efficacy, it is because they tend to cause the adverse reaction known as death. It is easy to conclude at this point that being the first to market is of the utmost importance. The idea makes sense, a void for a product exists and the first company to fulfill said void naturally has a huge advantage.
Of course, the first to market advantage doesn’t last forever, Penicillin isn’t the world’s go to antibiotic anymore not because it is dangerous but because it has been outclassed by other drugs. Apple wasn’t stupid, it knew that the reign of the Apple II couldn’t last forever so they tried to be first to the market again with the Lisa and the Mac. The company might have had the edge in tech and usability but Apple lacked the legitimizing force of three important letters: IBM.
In truth, there was little Apple could do to actually compete with IBM and later the clones, short of giving up on the hardware side of things and start licensing the software. The move was suggested but by the time it was taken as a serious option it was far too late. Apple shouldn’t be seen as shortsighted, no one expected the eventual winner to be a software company and there was nothing in Apple’s previous experience that would indicate that massive profits and world shaking power would be found in something as fleeting as software.
By 1983 the days of Apple dominance were fading quickly and the long slide to “beleaguered” and “dying” had begun. The Mac only broke into double digit market share for a single year and most people, including the board of directors, saw Apple as a company that needed to be bought out by a company that could actually get something right.
While pundits, CEOs and the stock market all saw Apple with one foot in the grave Apple employees went about doing their jobs and trying to make some great stuff. Year after year, the company did crank out enticing, if not always successful, products. The Newton spawned the PDA market, Apple had one of the first digital cameras, and came out with a very early videoconferencing camera. These products and others kept Apple in the public mind as a company capable of making cool and cutting edge stuff.
When Steve Jobs returned to Apple he quickly realized that Apple couldn’t beat Microsoft Windows on features alone. The power of Apple wasn’t in their gizmos, the power off Apple was in the company name. The public did have a positive image of Apple, the average person would say (incorrectly) that Apple invented the personal computer. They would also likely opine that Macs were in some intangible way better than PCs but that they were also very, very expensive.
Apple’s reputation for ease of use, the perception that Apple made an inherently higher quality than other manufacturers spurred the adoption of the iPod. What started life as a Mac only, FireWire portable hard drive with a headphone jack and a few extra chips took the .mp3 player market by storm. Actually, saying the iPod took the digital audio player market “by storm” actually understates the influence. The iPod created a huge chunk of the market.
The iPod yearns to be much more than an .mp3 player. In the ideal world of Steve Jobs all your media will come to you through Apple branded products. The concept makes sense, is there something inherently better about watching a cable TV show via the cable? Is there something that makes a physical CD superior to an iTunes purchase? Is there a legitimate reason why a DVD is preferable to a download? While the answer to the questions may be “yes” for the moment, in the long term the answer is a resounding “no”.
Apple wants to be the company that manages all of the previously mentioned information and, what the heck, the company wouldn’t mind being the one to sell all of the digital goodness to the consumer as well. The iPod is the perfect way to achieve that goal, a perfect way to take Apple to the market dominating company Mac fans are so desirous of seeing. Can Apple pull it off, will Zunes “squirt”* feature derail Apple’s plans? The next six months will tell and it will be a very interesting half-year.
*Sometimes it is better to let the market come up with a name for a feature. The Zune’s wireless transfer feature has been dubbed “squirt” by Microsoft. As in “I’ll squirt you a video of my vacation.” The name sounds forced and incredibly lame. Below I present 20 better terms for “squirting.”
Ooze, push, transfer, WiFile, zip, jump, slap, slam, spurt, side load, slide, barf, splooge, spill, drive, zing, breathe, blow, charm, infect your Zune with a virus
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
But there is one thing we haven’t mentioned: The Halo Affect.
We all claim the iPod has it. Well guess what, Windows does too.
Actually, someone did mention it. But when it’s Windows, it’s described as “leveraging their monopoly power” and is followed by a twisting of the moustache. When it’s Apple, it’s described as a “halo effect” conjuring up images of cherubs strumming harps. In reality, it’s all the same thing.
Yes because the ipod monopoly is sooo detrimental to users and the windows monopoly is sooo beneficial.
Ultimately, monopolies are detrimental to everyone except the monopolist.
I really don’t get the sarcasm either. I’m saying they’re the SAME. It’s the Mac-tards who argue that the iPod monopoly is just fine while the Windows monopoly is eeeeeeeevil. Why not be snarky at that (or is that a silly question).
I am not a mac-tard and I do think the ipod monopoly is “just fine”.
Why?
1. I reject the idea that the iTMS with its DRM lock-in, reprehensible though it is, contributes significantly to the continued success of the iPod.
2. Rather I believe that the iPod monopoly has come about by its being the best player and the best overall system. It is, in my view, excellent. Excellent brand marketing has helped greatly.
3. Am I in some way “opposed” to the development of high-quality competitors? No!
4. The iPod has succeeded through being far and away a better music player with far and away better systems for managing it (iTunes) than the competition.
5. I don’t think the iPod “monopoly” is immune from eroded marketshare by equally or more excellent rivals. I note that neither do you, since you state that you accept the notion that a well-implemented zune could become, as you say, “too much to resist”.
It adds up in my estimation to a monopoly with approximately zero negative consequences for the consumer, that can logically be blamed on apple and not on the failings of its competitors.
You’ve argued for why the iPod has become a monopoly (it’s “excellent”) but not for why the monopoly is a good thing or not detrimental.
The biggest problem with the iPod monopoly is the same as the Windows monopoly. Lack of incentive for innovation. Both systems have had incremental improvements, to be sure, but are nowhere near what they’d be if they had a true rivalry.
You’ve [not] argued… for why the monopoly is a good thing or not detrimental—Beeblebrox
It adds up in my estimation to a monopoly with approximately zero negative consequences for the consumer—Me.
Lack of incentive for innovation.
If as you apparently agree, it is possible for a well-implemented competitor to take marketshare from the ipod, there is massive incentive for innovation in the market, for those who aspire to that end.
This comes across to me as blaming apple for the shortcomings of its competitors… who have arguably failed precisely because they have fallen prey to the myth that “innovation” is necessarily better for the quality of the product, and better for the consumer. If innovation does benefit the consumer in DAPs, then even so, the fault for the lack of it lies not with the monopoly, which does produce the best product but with the problematic overall inability of the industry to raise their standards to an acceptible level.
I think there is a clear and vital distinction between the two cases where on the one hand the monopoly self-sustains itself and in doing so serves to limit innovation, and on the other hand the monopoly that produces the best products and given adequate competition would cease to be ubiquitous. The former is harmful; the latter is simply sub-optimal.
Blame lies with the monopolist in the former, but with the industry as a whole in the latter.
*acceptable
I should just clarify “the myth that “innovation” is necessarily better for the quality of the product”.
I don’t think producing a really good DAP is about innovation, ie Developing New Stuff, but just making sure that the quality is there in the product at every stage.
I don’t believe that Office document support and deep windows synching would draw users to the zune. I think that being beautiful and working like a charm for the simple purpose of playing yo media would.
Quite obviously, the music market and the PDA market are not, favourite word coming up, coterminous.
I don’t believe that Office document support and deep windows synching would draw users to the zune *from the iPod.
No, No guys. You’re both wrong.
Yeah sure the consumer suffers, being locked into pseudo standards that aren’t necessarily the best and development and innovation slows.
But it’s the third parties monopolies are bad for:
- Competitors get screwed. Look at Palm or Netscape or Apple. Or iRiver or Creative and so on.
- Partners get screwed down and manipulated. Sure they make lots of money, but they’re all but slaves to their master. At a whim, Apple can say “Hey guess what, we’re charging you an extra $10 per accessory” or MS says “If you sell PCs with Linux on them, you can forget about selling Windows.”
Partners get screwed down and manipulated. Sure they make lots of money,
...
Over on the blog theocacao.com, visitor “Eptisam” has just left a comment that coincidentally summarises very well what I have been trying to get across above.
I’m not sure if the end result (had the iPod not existed) would have been better than what we currently have, but I can imagine a dozen better outcomes than the current one!
Is it all only about money, Ben?
Well the success of a company usually is, Chris.
What I actually mean is the effect on the consumer is more important than the hurt feelings of the itty witty 3rd party accessory manufacturers who are raking in piles and piles of cash… So I don’t understand this “no no guys you’re both wrong” thing, when you agree that the consumers suffer. Are the manufacturers of ipod cases more important a consideration? Can I take a joke?
Vote now on your keypads.