Losing the iHype
Apple’s yearly WWDC is where they traditionally reveal new products that dazzle millions, no matter their actual value, and this year, yesterday, was no exception: Steve Jobs is now playing catch-up and has stopped innovating.
The list of announcements reads like a series of copycat behaviors: supporting PDF e-book files, opening a mobile ads platform, repackaging a watered down OSX as a new operating system, cloning Skype, and releasing the unsurprising iPhone 4. There are a few bits that some probably think revolutionary, like Netflix, iMovie, or FarmVille coming to the device, but those are not unique either, as this is simply porting existing programs to new platforms – once again, it’s already been done.
Saying that the iPad, which is essentially an enlargened iPhone, is revolutionary or innovative is a stretch at best, but even these announcements pale in comparison to such a lackluster device. Where’s the Apple that made MP3 players a viable product, forced the smartphone market to rethink itself, or tried to make computing innately sexy? This is not that Apple.
With the release of the very successful and user-friendly Android mobile OS, an impending tablet computer market, and the leak of the iPhone 4, it seems that Apple is losing steam. It’s arguable that the innovative portion of this company left a few years ago, when iHype became more important to Steve Jobs than iReality, but their attempted claims of revolution and innovation for such a pitiable plate of new products and services speaks to their current state of mind, especially those that buy into such nonsense.
If Apple had announced, for example, anything that wasn’t a direct derivative of other products, software, or services, there would be room for discussion – except that they didn’t.
Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
I’m curious Kyle: What would you consider revolutionary?
The thing for me with Apple and the iPod, iPhone, etc., has not been that it was unique – it was that it was better than pretty much everything else out there. I had several mp3 players prior to getting my first iPod in 2004. What all of them had in common was a clunky user interface that made it a real chore to sync the music on my computer with the player.
Apple came along with iTunes, and it just worked better, with no muss or fuss.
So personally, I’ve never counted on Apple to be ‘revolutionary’, although I know they say they are. I’ve counted on them to produce devices and software that were more efficient to use than their competitors offered up. That’s why I suspect will be the case with things like FaceTime – not unique, just better.
Hey Michael,
I would say that the iPod was revolutionary, because it merged an existing concept (MP3 player) with software that made it seamless and user-friendly. And I may reluctantly admit the same for the iPhone, because it changed how people thought of smartphones – think about how the BlackBerry concept was essentially the only model prior to Apple’s entrance.
Beyond that, I’m not sure they’ve done anything actually revolutionary. Like you say, they tend to overhype things they repackage and make minor changes to, like the iPhone -> iPad transition.
The sad truth is that if they don’t get beyond their current “we’re awesome, check out these apps” mentality, any chance they had at being taken seriously by outsiders is going to dwindle. I may not like the company, but I’ll admit that they’ve had their moments in the past, although not anytime recently.
–Kyle
In response to another comment. See in context »Hi Kyle, I’ve read this column so many times over the years that I’ve begun to recognize it as a genre. As far as revolutionary goes, I remain thankful that we’re no longer using MS-DOS. In big tan boxes with cathode ray tubes that store data on 5.25 inch floppies. But back to the 21st Century: I wonder if the iPad might actually be a terrific innovation for some people and not for others, and that we all tend to generalize our own experience by declaring it either revolutionary or mundane on that personal basis. For me, it replaces what felt like a ton of books and papers I had to lug around a city in a backpack. Replaces all that with 1.5 pounds of efficiency. Neither a laptop nor an iPhone can do that. Maybe we each have our own iReality and we each tend to iHype it. What do you think?
In response to another comment. See in context »Jeff,
First of all, I don’t buy the “I’m older than you, so I know better” argument, and you need to know that up front.
As to the rest of your argument, there’s a considerable difference between the technological innovation necessary to go from supercomputers using vacuum tubes to touchscreen smartphones. New types of media storage (disc, disk, flash, etc.), new GUIs (Windows vs. DOS, etc.), and other such similar leaps *are* innovation; however, making something “pretty” doesn’t count. The iPad is not a technological innovation, nor are any of the “features” announced for the newest iteration of the iPhone.
It may be useful, but that doesn’t make it revolutionary – by way of example, a netbook could just as easily replace, at the same weight, a reading device for papers and books. The only difference is the Apple name and a touchscreen, both of which are negligible benefits for the purposes you’ve outlined.
Finally, no, I don’t think that there’s an individual “iReality” in the tech world: it’s either innovation or it isn’t.
–Kyle
In response to another comment. See in context »Kyle, I don’t buy the “I’m older than you, so I know better” argument either. I don’t think I was making that argument. Am I older than you? I was just responding to your comment that beyond the iPod and the iPhone Apple hasn’t done anything revolutionary.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ok, Jeff – your initial comment sounded alot like some of what I’ve heard before, going down the road of “I’ve seen [X] things in my [Y] time, and so your argument of [Z] is wrong”.
Anyway, I think we’re going to agree that Apple hasn’t doing anything revolutionary besides the iPod or the iPhone – but the fanboys are going to vehemently argue differently.
–Kyle
In response to another comment. See in context »Technologically, the iPad isn’t really that big of a deal, because it doesn’t push that far forward. However, the implications of what such a device could do are what is important. This is the first major step toward moving news and magazines to an online format. The fact that they didn’t knock it completely out of the park could hurt them, but I think it will continue to catch on.
Personally, I can’t wait until I can subscribe to numerous news periodicals and get them all delivered to my iPad. as soon as I get an ipad…
I’ve admitted previously that while the iPad is pretty boring from a technorevolution perspective, it’s made the concept of tablets sexy, and viable, again.
I don’t, however, think it’s going to have the huge marketshare that the iPod or iPhone has, simply because it’s too easy to replicate and already has major competitors coming out in the next few months.
–Kyle
In response to another comment. See in context »Kyle,
I’m just curious about your statement that the iPad will not have the same marketshare as the iPod or iPhone.
Apple currently – as of Q210 – have sold 51,232,000 iPhones. It took 12 quarters to do this, or exactly 3 years. The iPad looks like they’ll do 3 million this quarter. Obviously, and to your point, the iPad has a long way to go to match that performance.
My question is this: What would it take for you to be convinced that the iPad will be a market leader, and capture the market share?
If the Apple sold 15,000,000 iPads in it’s first full year, would that impress you? or would you still be a naysayer…
We have already established that you and I are at odds on this, and I do believe that you are right about the Android having a major impact on the tablet market.. But my point is this – Apple has already got the lead on the tablet market, and they will improve this product. Android will provide the competition and fuel Apple’s need to rapidly improve the iPad. That’s why I haven’t bought one yet. I’ll get one in the summer of 2011, after they’ve upgraded to their next iteration.
I believe that Apple will get 15 million in the first year, then 20 million the 2nd year, then another 20 (minimum) the 3rd year. 55 million for 1st 3 years. During all of this, the Android could have another 40 million tablets sold worldwide.
What factual evidence would it take for you to believe that Apple will be a major player in the tablet market?
Dennis – Portland Or
Dennis,
We continue to have the same conversation, and I’m growing weary of it – but I’ll answer you one final time.
The iPhone, in the last quarter, has been eclipsed in marketshare by smartphones that run Android software – hardly dominant. The point with the iPhone, however, is that they had no competitors for a long period, which allowed them to be *temporarily* dominant.
The iPad, in contrast, will have legitimate competitors by the end of the summer. Having a slight lead in releasing the product means virtually nothing when the difference is only a matter of months, with the competition being at least as viable, if not more dynamic and featured, than the original. If enough people are like you and wait until the iPad has a new iteration, some of those customers are going to buy competing products – that’s a simply fact of marketing.
What you fail to understand, and have continually throughout these comment sessions, is that when products are similar in design, functionality, and viability, brand name ends up meaning very little – unless there’s a hook (like iTunes for the iPod). I’ve never claimed, not once, that the iPod, iPhone, or iPad aren’t major players in their respective markets. What I have, instead, said continuously is that the iPad won’t even have the option of being dominant – the iPhone had years before Android came along, while Android already exists as the iPad launches.
This post, however, was not about any of that – it was about how Apple continues to make lackluster revelations, including both the iPad and the latest iPhone.
If, two years from now, the iPhone is the dominant smartphone and the iPad is the only major tablet offering, I’ll be more than happy to admit I was wrong – except that isn’t, even remotely, going to be the case.
–Kyle
In response to another comment. See in context »Apple’s ace in the hole is iTunes. Android tablets will have a hard time overcoming the dominance of this well established platform.
Android will compete, but will not dominate, ESPECIALLY when the front facing camera and face time comes to the iPad.
I will keep a close eye on the scoreboard, and keep you informed.
Dennis – Portland OR