On Thursday, I hoped that Apple CEO Steve Jobs would admit there’s a problem with the new iPhone’s antenna and apologize for pretending there wasn’t. I didn’t get that apology. Not even close. Instead, in a defensive press conference at Apple’s headquarters on Friday, Jobs argued that the new iPhone offers terrific, out-of-this-world reception. He blamed the media for whipping up a frenzy out of a “fact of life” that affects every phone on the market. As Jobs sees it, the only problems with the iPhone 4 are the pesky “laws of physics,” which pretty much ensure that anyone who holds a mobile phone in her hands is asking for trouble. The only reason people have been focusing on the iPhone is that blogs keep singling Apple out, perhaps because “when you’re doing well, people want to tear you down.”
Still, if you want to be a total jerk about it and keep insisting there’s a problem with your magical iPhone, Jobs has an offer for you. “OK, great, let’s give everybody a case,” he said. Happy now, whiners?
Farhad Manjoo, “Here’s Your Free Case, Jerk: Apple’s condescending iPhone 4 press conference”, Slate, 2010-07-16
July 19, 2010
QotD: “Happy now, whiners?”
July 18, 2010
Has the Reality-Distortion Field failed?
Eric S. Raymond does a happy dance over the discomfiture of Steve Jobs in the (ongoing) iPhone 4 antenna debacle:
The stench of desperation must be getting pretty thick on the Infinite Loop. Can it be that the generator for Steve Jobs’s notorious Reality Distortion Field has finally broken down?
Two days ago, we learned that Jobs knew of the iPhone 4’s antenna problem before launch. They had warnings both from an in-house antenna engineer and “carrier partner”, presumably AT&T. Yes, this means all the Apple fanboys who had hissy fits at me when I said fifteen days ago that Apple was lying about the problem now get to go sit in the stupid corner.
[. . .]
A day ago, we got to watch Jobs tap-dance his way around the problem. This was a first; I cannot recall any previous instance in which the Turtlenecked One, rather than effectively controlling the agenda, has had to operate in full damage-control mode. He could have manned up and said “OK, we messed up on the antenna design, we’re recalling,” but no. Instead it’s bumper cases for all and a truly smarmy attempt to claim that everyone else in the industry is just as bad.
Way to recover your damaged reputation, Stevie boy! Time was when the wunderkind’s reality-distortion field would have somehow soothed everyone into glaze-eyed insensibility, but that’s not the way it’s going down today. Instead, there’s public pushback from both RIM and Nokia, and neither company is being shy about specifying just how far his Jobness has rammed his head up his own ass.
And there is absolutely no one else to blame for this; it’s obviously Job’s fetishism about cool industrial design, the aesthetic of the minimalistically slick-looking surface above all else, that compromised the antenna design and led him to ignore the warnings. The exact quality that Apple fanboys have been telling us would ultimately win the game for Jobs turns out to be the tragic flaw instead. And now he’s reduced to telling everyone to wrap a big ugly rubber on, it, sparky! Hubris and nemesis; this epic fail could be right out of Aeschylus.
Apple will survive this, but they need to rally the damage control teams and be pro-active, or their reputation will take years to recover . . . and it’s the reputation that allows Apple to charge more than the competition for broadly comparable goods.
July 17, 2010
Does Apple have to kill the iPhone 4?
I discussed the PR nightmare Apple has been going through since the first problems with the iPhone 4 was introduced, but I didn’t think this extreme a solution was called for:
Image is everything. And that’s why Apple must terminate the iPhone 4 as quickly as possible.
In his Friday morning news conference, Apple CEO Steve Jobs admitted the iPhone 4 is flawed, no doubt a painful admission for a proud man known for his perfectionist ways. He even offered free cases to alleviate the signal and reception problems plaguing some iPhone 4 users.
[. . .]
But none of that matters. The iPhone 4 is now tainted in the consumer’s eyes. It’s no longer a triumph of form and function, but rather a crippled device that requires protective headgear to work properly.
We could debate the merits of the iPhone 4’s antenna design all day, but that’s beside the point. Perception is reality here, and the public now views Apple’s latest offering as The Phone That Drops Calls. And no one can blame AT&T this time either.
I don’t think it’s quite that bad for Apple, although they’ve been flying so high in public perception that any glitch will seem far more significant in comparison to their reputation. Maybe Jeff Bertolucci has it right: even if you don’t re-engineer the entire package, the PR hit will be less and the re-inforced public support will be that much greater if Apple bites the bullet sooner rather than later.
July 16, 2010
iPhone 4 – that’s the fourth one she’s had so far
Melissa J. Perenson may just be unlucky, or she may be more attentive than a lot of current Apple iPhone customers:
Apple’s unprecedented move to hold a press conference regarding the iPhone 4’s antenna issues underscores the power of the masses, and the fact that the phone has serious problems. I know about the iPhone 4’s flaws first hand. Here’s what went wrong with mine.
As I write this I’m on my third iPhone 4 replacement so far. Yes, that means I’ve had a total of four phones in the three weeks the phone has been out. As responsive and friendly as the Apple Store has been through this, I really didn’t need to get to know the store so well. At this point, I’ve spent as much on cab fares to and from the Apple Store as I would have on a couple of bumpers in different colors.
One bad phone can be written off as a fluke; but three is extreme and indicates something more may be in play. I’ve come to expect better from a company like Apple. I reached out to Apple for a comment, but no response at this writing.
This is definitely a case where Apple’s traditional hands-off approach is backfiring on them: if there are hardware problems with the iPhone 4, aside from the acknowledged signal strength display and antenna issues, Apple needs to become proactive in addressing them.
July 8, 2010
How Apple created and maintains a “shiny tech” reputation
Trevor Pott manages to deter a newly evangelized Apple fan:
The event sticks out for me because the user was not impressed by the iPhone because it was Apple, or the phone was hip. Rather it was because at a tradeshow they caught a colleague watching the Canucks getting beat on an iPhone. The concept of being able to stream video on a cellular network had never occurred to them before this. They saw it first on an Apple, it was evangelised by an ardent fan, and thus Apple “invented” it.
In this way Apple has “invented” everything of use in mainstream computing. From being the only computer for design, to inventing the MP3 player, smartphone, tablet computer, video conferencing and now, apparently, 3G streaming. When introduced to non-Apple alternatives, the people crying loudly for Apple gear seem shocked that it already existed in a previous form. The lesson I took from this is that users don’t care about the technology. With the exception of a few loudmouths on the internet, nobody cares that this was made by Apple, Sony, Microsoft or anyone else.
Users care about what a product can do. They care about how easily that product can do it. Users care about looks, but not as much as ease of use, good documentation, presentation of features and fantastic marketing. What’s more, good businessmen care about these things too; this is what makes their company tick, and what makes them money.
There’s a reason why a lot of successful technology folks try to sell “solutions” rather than products: it’s a much better way of addressing the users’ actual needs (even if it means you don’t recommend the glitzy, whizzy, shiny new Apple iThing). If you can de-mesmerize them long enough to actually address their needs instead of their wants, you’ll be doing them a much better service.
July 7, 2010
QotD: The essence of the iPhone experience
Using an iPhone is like taking a holiday to some corrupt country: It may be beautiful and offer simple pleasures, but you’re going to pay bribes to people who shamelessly charge you for what’s free elsewhere.
Mike Elgan, “5 Big iPhone Rip-Offs”, PC World, 2010-07-06
June 16, 2010
The irritating part of “mobile computing”
Cory Doctorow just got back from a book tour, but unlike all the other ones, he found this tour was both pleasant and productive, thanks to mobile computing:
I “rooted” my Nexus One, breaking into the OS so that I could easily “tether” it to my laptop, using it as a 3G modem between tour stops (we didn’t have to root my wife’s matching phone, as Google supplied us with an unlocked developer handset). My typical tour day started at 5am with breakfast and work on the novel, then a 6am interview with someone in Europe, then pickup, two to four school visits with a short lunch break, three or four interviews, then a bookstore signing or a plane (or both). As busy as that sounds, there’s actually a fair bit of dead time in it while sitting in the escort’s car, trying to find the next stop.
This time round, I plugged the laptop into the cigarette lighter and the phone into the laptop — this gave the phone a battery charge and the laptop internet access. And best of all, it meant that I could harvest those dead minutes to answer emails, keep on blogging, and generally stay abreast of things.
Which meant that I got lots more of the touring author’s most precious commodity: sleep. On previous tours, returning to the hotel meant sitting down for three to four hours’ worth of emails before bed, which cut my sleep time to less than four hours some nights.
So all is sweetness and light with modern mobile computing, yes? Not quite:
. . . the fundamental paradox of mobile — so long as the mobile carriers remain a part of mobile computing, it will only work for so long as you don’t go anywhere.
One of the more frustrating parts of travelling with my iPhone has been that I have to basically lobotomize it before crossing the border, reducing it from really powerful smart phone to a PDA with a phone line: the data and “roaming” charges are so high that it’s not economical to use them for anything other than an emergency. Just when being able to get driving directions or hotel or restaurant recommendations would be most useful — on the road or in an unfamiliar city — the cost is usually too high to justify turning on the damned feature.
Yes, you can hunt down wifi connections (and I did, on my last few trips to the US), but it hardly counts as convenient. The phone companies still assume anyone travelling with a smart phone is going to be spending their employers’ money and therefore won’t notice or care about the up-front costs.
June 11, 2010
It’s not really about market share: that’s just keeping score
Eric Raymond thinks a lot of people are missing the point on the ongoing iPhone-Android battle:
It’s not about whether or not Apple will be crushed. It’s not about who makes the “best” products, where “best” is measured by some interaction between the product and the speaker’s evaluation of the relative importance of various features and costs. It’s about what the next generation of personal computing platforms will be. Down one fork they’ll be open, hackable, and user-controlled. Down the other they’ll be closed, locked down, and vendor-controlled. Though there are others on each side of this struggle, in 2010 it comes down to whether Apple or Android wins the race to over 50% smartphone market share; after that point, network effects will become self-reinforcing until the next technology disruption.
If he’s right — and he very well might be — then Apple’s moderately disappointing upgrades in the newly announced iPhone 4 may have handed the long-term advantage to Google. This may be bad news for Apple shareholders, but it’ll be a long-term positive for mobile computing.
May 11, 2010
Android alert!
Apple fanboi faithful must be having mass cases of the vapours with the news that Android sales are eating everyone’s lunch:
I’ve written before that I think Google has been running a long game aimed against the telecomms carriers’ preferred strategy of customer lock-in, and executing on that game very well. Against the iPhone, its strategy has been a classic example of what the economist Clayton Christensen called “disruption from below” in his classic The Innovator’s Dilemma. With the G-1, Google initially competed on price, winning customers who didn’t want to pay Apple/AT&T’s premium and were willing to trade away Apple’s perceived superiority in “user experience” for a better price. Just as importantly, Android offered a near-irresistible deal to the carriers: months, even years slashed off time-to-market for a state-of-the-art cellphone; a huge advantage in licensing costs; and the illusion (now disintegrating) that said carriers would be able to retain enough control of Android-powered devices to practice their habitual screw-the-customer tactics.
In Christensen’s model, a market being disrupted from below features two products, sustaining and disrupter, both improving over time but with the disruptor at a lower price point and lesser capabilities. Typically, the sustaining company will be focused on control of its customers and business partners to extract maximum margins; on the other hand, the disruptor will be playing a ubiquity game, sacrificing margin to gain share. The sustaining company will gold-plate its product in order to chase high-end price-insenstive customers; the disruptor will seek out price-sensitive low-end customers.
I have to admit, I didn’t see this coming . . . I thought Google was mistaken to put so much development effort into the mobile phone market. I was clearly wrong about that.
In the smartphone market I have been expecting a disruptive break that would body-slam Apple’s market share, but I expected it to be several quarters in the future and with a really fast drop-off when it happened. Instead, it looks like Apple took a bruising in 4Q 2009 and has failed to regain share in 1Q 2010 while Android sales continued to rocket. Android hammered market-leader Blackberry just as badly, a fact which has gooten far less play than it probably should because the trade-press loves the drama of the Apple-vs.-Google catfight so much.
What actually seems to be going on here is that Android is successfully disrupting both Apple and Blackberry from below; together they’ve lost about 25% of market share, not enough to put Android on top but close enough that another quarter like the last will certainly do that.
I’ve heard several comments from folks that Apple’s iPhone sales are probably lower because of the widespread interest in the “next” iPhone model, which is likely to be announced in the next few weeks. Apple has followed this pattern since introducing the original iPhone, but there’s no rule saying they can’t break the pattern.
I’ll be interested in the announcement, as I’ll have a year left in my Rogers contract, so if the next iPhone isn’t a block-buster, I’ll be considering other options for when I’m out of contract.
April 20, 2010
Exactly
The ubiquitous mobile phone in adolescent hands has meant an enormous increase in adolescent freedom to communicate and to form groups to take action. But it’s also meant an unprecedented (and as yet, largely unfelt) increase in the amount of surveillance data available to parents and authority figures, from social graphs of who talks to whom to logs of movement to actual records of calls and texts.
Will we wake up in 20 years and say, “Christ, how could we have spent all that time talking about how kids were sending each other texts without taking note of the fact that we’d given every teen in America his own prisoner tracking cuff and always-on bug?”
My, what a pretty Panopticon we’ve built ourselves . . .
July 14, 2009
The iPhone: wrecker of the cell phone industry?
Rather a bold claim, but Aidan Malley makes some good points:
Analyst Craig Moffett of Bernstein Research likens the relationship between Apple and AT&T as that between the former and music labels dating as far back as 2001, when Apple first had to ingratiate itself with labels as it incorporated music CD ripping into iTunes. Apple at first won important concessions and praise from its partners, only for them to regret it later as the iPod maker’s popularity left these companies at the supposedly smaller company’s mercy.
[. . .]
The attack is such that Apple has all but taken control of the partnership, according to the analyst. Now, the Cupertino company has “radically tilted” the normal balance of power against AT&T and cellular networks as a whole. If Apple preferred another carrier, many iPhone owners would switch to preserve the experience they already have; an incentive that forces carriers to keep the handset maker happy. At times, though, it also has the caustic effect of suggesting an conspiracy at the carrier to limit useful services, such as voice over IP calls, when cost or technical reasons are the real motivators.
And while the US government may be close to investigating exclusivity deals as possibly anti-competitive, Moffett argues that Apple’s presence in the marketplace has actually helped competition by forcing companies to keep reasonable service rates and let apps dictate business rather than network services. Government intervention could paradoxically hurt the industry by telling providers how much they could discount a phone and hardware developers which networks they would have to support.
I’d have to say he’s absolutely correct with the point on user loyalty . . . if Rogers stopped supporting the iPhone, I’d be moving my business to whoever took it over from Rogers. I’m certain that this is true of the vast majority of iPhone users. I was Bell customer for a long time, but the iPhone was enough inducement for me to switch cell phone companies.
That’s a pretty big club for Apple to use to get its own way in any negotiations with cell phone companies.
(Cross-posted to the old blog, http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005580.html.)
