Bloomberg's reaction to the iPhone

[Rogifan]

Some good clam chowder, as John Gruber would say.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aRelVKWbMAv0

Apple will sell a few to its fans, but the iPhone won't make a long-term mark on the industry.

Can't wait to hear what these clowns say about the next product category Apple announces.

 

[roadbloc]

This was back when the iPhone didn't have apps, was ridiculously expensive and only worked on one mobile network. And amazingly enough, the article is right. The iPhone didn't make much of a mark. It wasn't until the 3GS/4 the iPhone started really impressing.

 

[turtle777]

And amazingly enough, the article is right. The iPhone didn't make much of a mark. It wasn't until the 3GS/4 the iPhone started really impressing.

Uhm, really ?

Of course, if you interpret iPhone as strictly the ORIGINAL iPhone, you might be right (technically), and still wrong on the bigger picture.

But that's where the article is COMPLETELY wrong: it expected there wouldn't be another follow-up of the iPhone, because it would fail.

Just look at the claims. They could not have been possibly MORE wrong:

• Apple will sell a few to its fans
• The iPhone won't make a long-term mark on the industry.
• The iPhone is nothing more than a luxury bauble that will appeal to a few gadget freaks
• In terms of its impact on the industry, the iPhone is less relevant
• Yet Apple has never been good at working with other companies. If it knew how to do that, it would be Microsoft Corp.
• The price and the e-mail features make it look like a business product.

-t

 

[roadbloc]

Uhm, really ?

Of course, if you interpret iPhone as strictly the ORIGINAL iPhone, you might be right (technically), and still wrong on the bigger picture.

But that's where the article is COMPLETELY wrong: it expected there wouldn't be another follow-up of the iPhone, because it would fail.

Just look at the claims. They could not have been possibly MORE wrong:

• Apple will sell a few to its fans
• The iPhone won't make a long-term mark on the industry.
• The iPhone is nothing more than a luxury bauble that will appeal to a few gadget freaks
• In terms of its impact on the industry, the iPhone is less relevant
• Yet Apple has never been good at working with other companies. If it knew how to do that, it would be Microsoft Corp.
• The price and the e-mail features make it look like a business product.

-t

It is always fun to go back in time and laugh at them who were 'wrong' at the time. However, you go back to the actual time and you'll realize that the original iPhone had very little going for it. But things change and with that do opinions. We were not to know what Apple were going to do with the iPhone after the first generation.

Threads like this are just flame bait to get the eternal iPhone vs The World debates going.

 

[turtle777]

It is always fun to go back in time and laugh at them who were 'wrong' at the time. However, you go back to the actual time and you'll realize that the original iPhone had very little going for it. But things change and with that do opinions. We were not to know what Apple were going to do with the iPhone after the first generation.

I don't debate that hindsight is 20/20.
And I'm not saying it's EASY to predict the future success of a new product.

Still, this piece turned out as WRONG as you could possibly get it.
There's no sugarcoating it.

A lot of the iPhone criticism sounded like the early criticism of the iPod.
After the iPod success, many still underestimated Apple's vision and power to innovate.

-t

 

[numlock]

I don't debate that hindsight is 20/20.
And I'm not saying it's EASY to predict the future success of a new product.

Still, this piece turned out as WRONG as you could possibly get it.
There's no sugarcoating it.

A lot of the iPhone criticism sounded like the early criticism of the iPod.
After the iPod success, many still underestimated Apple's vision and power to innovate.

-t

wrong about what?

apple made serious changes to the iphone offering. this review and others can only review what is presented to them (price, capabilities and what networks it worked on). if anything this and other early reviews shows how wrong and outdated apple was with their original ideas in certain aspects.

but as noted this is something the always slanted gruber would jump upon but would be wrong as he is so often.

 

[Rogifan]

I don't debate that hindsight is 20/20.
And I'm not saying it's EASY to predict the future success of a new product.

Still, this piece turned out as WRONG as you could possibly get it.
There's no sugarcoating it.

A lot of the iPhone criticism sounded like the early criticism of the iPod.
After the iPod success, many still underestimated Apple's vision and power to innovate.

-t

And they'll be just as wrong about what Apple does next; because we know the version 1.0 product won't ship with the kitchen sink so it will be declared too limited and a failure.

 

[turtle777]

wrong about what?

apple made serious changes to the iphone offering. this review and others can only review what is presented to them (price, capabilities and what networks it worked on). if anything this and other early reviews shows how wrong and outdated apple was with their original ideas in certain aspects.

I disagree. Look at this concluding statement:

Apple will sell a few to its fans, but the iPhone won't make a long-term mark on the industry.

Would you really argue they ONLY meant that the ORIGINAL iPhone wouldn't make a long-term mark ?

No. They meant the iPhone as an Apple cell phone endeavor wouldn't make a long-term mark on the industry. They were predicting that Apple would fail.

And they were wrong.

I really don't get why people keep defending and explaining away how some tech journalists in their typical knee-jerk reporting missed the boat.

-t

 

[roblin]

I remember those days. When I say the iPhone I was so sold, rewatched the keynote twice. It was a phone I could love. Bought one exported from the states to Hongkong on sale in a store i Bangkok for like $100 more than retail price and fell in love. It sure left a mark, when walking down a street in Australia I was stopped by people who wanted to try it, in a bar in Singapore I got a free beer by an Apple fan because of it and them ladies eyes where glittering when I showed some random pictures on it.

Man those were the days, before it went mainstream. If you are gonna say something about the iPhone, say that it left a mark.

 

[numlock]

I disagree. Look at this concluding statement:



Would you really argue they ONLY meant that the ORIGINAL iPhone wouldn't make a long-term mark ?

No. They meant the iPhone as an Apple cell phone endeavor wouldn't make a long-term mark on the industry. They were predicting that Apple would fail.

And they were wrong.

I really don't get why people keep defending and explaining away how some tech journalists in their typical knee-jerk reporting missed the boat.

-t

no i wouldnt (and couldnt say without a doubt they only meant the first version) but again they can only review what was in front of them.

apple and the iphone were at risk missing the boat and you are blaming a review for stating just that. a $200 price reduction, an app store, no 3g, copy paste etc these are all things apple had to do. a review should not be a market research and think about and extrapolate every possible variation. if apple had a lower price (nobody could foresee apple lowering the price right away) and an app store at the beginning this and other reviews would be very different.

this review probably would have made my blood boil back in the day but one has to take of his apple tinted glasses.

i am pretty sure though that this reviewer would have suspected the iphone would become this popular but then again who would have?

since gruber was mentioned why not look at him past few months and his reviews on chromebooks, google glass as an example?

 

[Tsuchiya]

iPhone was underwhelming at launch so I can kind of see why they didn't expect it to make such a big mark, especially without any 3rd party support.

I still find it funny though, because the business and finance worlds almost always have it wrong about Apple and the tech industry as a whole.

 

[Consultant]

wrong about what?

apple made serious changes to the iphone offering. this review and others can only review what is presented to them (price, capabilities and what networks it worked on). if anything this and other early reviews shows how wrong and outdated apple was with their original ideas in certain aspects.

but as noted this is something the always slanted gruber would jump upon but would be wrong as he is so often.

Do you think Apple creates a product without roadmap for improvement?

Please go take some basic business courses. And go learn about the product adoption curve.

iPhone was underwhelming at launch so I can kind of see why they didn't expect it to make such a big mark, especially without any 3rd party support.

I still find it funny though, because the business and finance worlds almost always have it wrong about Apple and the tech industry as a whole.

Some people got confused with feature and usability.

Many phones had more features, but they are impossible to use without studying a thick manual, and most people don't use those features.

At launch, iPhone was the only smartphone with a browser that can access the full web. It had great integration of Maps, phone, email, and address book. Those are important features that are underwhelming on other devices.

 

[numlock]

Do you think Apple creates a product without roadmap for improvement?

Please go take some basic business courses. And go learn about the product adoption curve.

yes lets both take courses. i take a basic business course (although successful businesses have been run in my family since i was born and currently by me) and you take up a course on the ever so more important skill that is reading.

you quote me but have absolutely nothing to add but a vague and silly insult and cant even counter or object to anything i say.

btw i can sum up what i said for you.

a) a reviewers job is only to judge what is in front of them and not possibilities on a future roadmap.

b) a 33% price reduction after 2 months is not on the roadmap for future improvement.

c) if web apps were only supposed to be a temporary solution then there is no reason the app store wouldnt have been announced right away.

i hope you dont charge for you consultation.

 

[kdarling]

At launch, iPhone was the only smartphone with a browser that can access the full web.

It's been said that no Flash = not "full web". Heck, I still rely on mobile Flash in my Nexus to see my favorite restaurant's website. Even Apple thought it was important enough at first, to use faked websites in their early demos, to cover up missing Flash sections.

--

However, let's restrict our requirements to just HTML & Javascript. Even in that case, the 2007 iPhone was not the only smartphone with a browser that could access the regular web.

Some people mistakenly think there were only WAP browsers, or crippled HTML browsers like Pocket IE (woof!). On the contrary...

We had Windows CE devices with IE 4.0 as far back as 2000, and IE 6 by 2005, although I admit that such devices were mostly used by enterprise developers like myself who needed mobile web app compatibility with laptops.

For mass consumer phones, between 2002-2005 there were several full browsers that became available -- browsers such as Netfront, Opera, Minimo (Mozilla) and the Picsel document viewer.

I'll post more about them later, because some clearly had an influence on Mobile Safari, including being cited in Apple patent references.

 

[Southern Dad]

Obviously, it has turned out that he was a bit wrong. I wonder what kind of phone is in his pocket these days.