Will Apple repeat the same mistakes from is past?

[Almy]

As the smart phone market begins to expand Apple seems to be doing the same thing it did in the 80's, inclusive hardware tied to inclusive software. At the time that let them provide a better high end experience, but hardware nowadays is too easy to get. Software is the future.

I know I've made a couple big assumptions. Claiming their early path was a mistake, and claiming software will be king. But look at what the PC market became. *I built a great home recording rig for windows in '05 way cheaper than I could buy an Apple, a high end market they once cornered.

It seems to me they're setting up for another very niche approach to a market that is going to absolutely explode. Early success that doesn't have the pace for the long term? Their hardware patents, if they hold, will be a huge advantage. But limiting the software I think would be detrimental after 10 or so years. If iTunes had been mac only it wouldn't be the #1 music retailer in the world right now.

It will take other companies time to catch up. But they will in time. And I just wonder if Apple will stay where they are while business models like android cover multiple phones. You can bet google's app store won't be limited to one hardware model, especially since it already isn't.

I enjoy my iPhone, jailbroken. But I'm already eyeballing more open platforms for when I upgrade in a year or two. Just not sure if the current iPhone approach will have what it takes to interest me down the road.

 

[jmann]

The Mac OS is Apple only, and it is doing fine. I think only time will tell what Apple will do with the OS, I doubt open source though… that's not apple.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

90% of the millions of iPhone users don't give a crap about open platform, nor would they know what to do with it. It's all about the final product and user experience. Besides, Jailbreaking is as good as any open platform.

 

[alent1234]

big difference is that until recently Apple products were a lot more expensive than the competition. iphones are the same price or cheaper. an iphone is cheaper than a BB or Droid on Verizon, and more expensive than Sprint and T-Mo

 

[Almy]

Sorry I may have worded it poorly, open source was nothing I had considered. My simple point was just a comparison between the Windows versus Mac idea of the last few decades. And in the mobile market there are a lot more players. And thirty years later and apple still has a small percentage of the home PC market.

I just wonder if their sudden burst into the mobile market might hit a glass ceiling if they stick with older vision concepts. Which maybe they don't want to serve more than a niche market long term, as they do with home computers.

 

[Small White Car]

And thirty years later and apple still has a small percentage of the home PC market.

And Apple makes a lot of money from their Macs while all the PC makers are struggling to stay profitable. Because all Windows computers are so similar they basically have to compete on price and have fought each other down to bottom-of-the-barrel prices.

So your main example (computers) has worked out FAR better for Apple than it has for their competitors.

So I'm not sure your argument holds any water.

 

[thelatinist]

I really don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that Apple should license the iPhoneOS to other manufacturers? Why the hell would they do that? Apple has always been a hardware company; it uses its software innovations to drive consumers to purchase its hardware, and it makes a killing doing so. Right now Apple makes about $400 on every iPhone it sells. Do you really think it would make more money licensing its OS to Samsung or Motorola? All that would do is cut into sales of iPhones.

 

[Almy]

I think their current business model stands a good chance of maxing out. And I think they should aggressively put the app store into other platforms, like they did with iTunes. I could be completely wrong btw, just thinking out loud mainly.

 

[instaxgirl]

I think their current business model stands a good chance of maxing out. And I think they should aggressively put the app store into other platforms, like they did with iTunes. I could be completely wrong btw, just thinking out loud mainly.

Thing is though porting iTunes to Windows was really in order to push iPod sales. Maybe things have changed, but last time I read anything about iTunes profits they were barely there. The store makes enough money to run but that's about it.

iTunes existed to give people an extra reason to buy iPods. Obviously not so true now that there's no DRM and places like Amazon have similar online stores but back in 2004 when iPods really seemed to explode iTunes was an extra reason to buy one. Download a single track for less that £1 and then sync it straight to your device, all in a few minutes.

iTunes was all about making profits through hardware (the iPod) so it isn't really a good example for your argument.

 

[aristobrat]

I think their current business model stands a good chance of maxing out.

It definitely does stand that chance, much as how the iPod ("mp3 player") business model has already maxed out and is now declining (as people are migrating towards converged mp3 player + phone devices).

Apple's answer to that business model maxing out/declining was the iPhone.

I'm pretty sure that if there is a "max out" point for the app market, they'll likely see it in advance and have a decent reaction for it. Perhaps the mythical tablet is one of the first reactions to it? Another device, where maybe they control the app store (i.e. get 30% of every dollar spent on apps). Imagine the revenue for that if it's popular!

 

[lsvtecjohn3]

90% of the millions of iPhone users don't give a crap about open platform, nor would they know what to do with it. It's all about the final product and user experience. Besides, Jailbreaking is as good as any open platform.

big difference is that until recently Apple products were a lot more expensive than the competition. iphones are the same price or cheaper. an iphone is cheaper than a BB or Droid on Verizon, and more expensive than Sprint and T-Mo

And Apple makes a lot of money from their Macs while all the PC makers are struggling to stay profitable. Because all Windows computers are so similar they basically have to compete on price and have fought each other down to bottom-of-the-barrel prices.

So your main example (computers) has worked out FAR better for Apple than it has for their competitors.

So I'm not sure your argument holds any water.

^ read these three post and you'll understand. Apple isn't close to topping out in the smartphone business any time soon, no one is it's still very young and growing very fast. Apple has a huge lead over Google but Android is a good os and will be a player but Apple will be fine

 

[emptyCup]

I enjoy my iPhone, jailbroken. But I'm already eyeballing more open platforms for when I upgrade in a year or two. Just not sure if the current iPhone approach will have what it takes to interest me down the road.

Which open platform? Open Moko? Android 1.6, Android 2? Android 2.1? With a keyboard or without. How fast and how much storage will your handset need to run the apps you want. Will you be using Google's closed, proprietary programs or are you a pure open source person?

Really, only you can decide which phone is the most interesting but I would not expect any of them to be very open. Best wishes.

 

[alent1234]

Sorry I may have worded it poorly, open source was nothing I had considered. My simple point was just a comparison between the Windows versus Mac idea of the last few decades. And in the mobile market there are a lot more players. And thirty years later and apple still has a small percentage of the home PC market.

I just wonder if their sudden burst into the mobile market might hit a glass ceiling if they stick with older vision concepts. Which maybe they don't want to serve more than a niche market long term, as they do with home computers.

supposedly on the original Mac's Steve Jobs wanted to control the software and Microsoft up DOS to developers. Ironically that the iphone is pretty open and you see Apple alumni like Joe Rubenstein and the Nexus 1 creator making all these closed systems like Apple 10 years ago.

i read that the N1 creator used to work at Apple, created WebTV and the Danger Sidekick which was sold to MS.

 

[Consultant]

As this article demonstrates,
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/843845/
Apple has been kicking arse in the most recent decade

 

[Michael CM1]

I think their current business model stands a good chance of maxing out. And I think they should aggressively put the app store into other platforms, like they did with iTunes. I could be completely wrong btw, just thinking out loud mainly.

Why -- no, how could you put the app store on other platforms? The apps are all made for iPhone OS. Why would apple sell apps for other devices? The other manufacturers would probably block anything like this just like Apple did for the Palm Pre sync.

Also, the vast majority of people don't care about open platforms or whatever. The baby boomer generation wants a phone that works like a toaster -- make a call, end a call. Apple has quite a huge business model with these apps, and changes will keep being made to keep up with competition. The 3.0 OS allowed external devices to be used, which has led to things like diabetic monitors and a universal remote.

With the success Apple has achieved over the past decade, I don't get why you think Apple is going to make "mistakes." You can't compare the 1980s/1990s to today. The Internet changes everything from the 1980s, and wireless networks change everything from the 1990s. The advances in technology, like allowing parts to make a usable tablet device, are why the old comparisons just don't hold much water. Base it on current trends, not the past.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

it will take other companies time to catch up. But they will in time. And I just wonder if Apple will stay where they are while business models like android cover multiple phones.

I dont get it, if all the people are running google os on there different phones, then the phones are all working basically the same. So whats the advantage of having a OS on multiple system when all those systems are the same?

 

[Almy]

As for me it's because I enjoy having choice when it comes to software and hardware. I like picking and choosing between things rather than having to have it one way. It's why I've never had a mac computer. And I'm an audiophile.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

Whats so great about choice? If you are using Android OS on the Nexus One or the G1 or the HTC then you are using the Android OS. You are going to make calls the same way, you are going to look at contacts the same way. Its the same thing. So the choice about which phone to buy is meaningless since you will be doing the same thing on all phones.

It's why I've never had a mac computer. And I'm an audiophile.

1st) Thats your lose. I have been using macs for the last 5 yrs straight and they have been the best decision i have made in terms of pcs.
2nd) Usually if you are an audiophile you will buy the best equipment so the sound gets reproduced with the most minimal amount of distortion. Well with computers mac are the best. Its pretty ironic how someone would want the best speakers or amps but wouldn't want the best computers.

 

[Almy]

It's wondering off the point a bit but I would like to point out that I don't mention it lightly that I'm an audiophile. I'm a professional musician who does multitrack recording in various setitings, from soloists to bands. And the last Digital Audio Workstation I built was a windows machine with Reaper, from the creator of winamp, software. I use an analog mixer with digital converters and a FireWire interface for the comp. I'm glad I can use apple's FireWire on my windows PC .

 

[Michael CM1]

I dont get it, if all the people are running google os on there different phones, then the phones are all working basically the same. So whats the advantage of having a OS on multiple system when all those systems are the same?

Google wants to spew its stuff everywhere so people will in essence be forced to use Google to search for stuff. I haven't liked how the Goog has been doing such things over the past couple of years with Android, Chrome and next the OS. I'm trying to wean myself and use Yahoo, Bing and MapQuest a bit more. Google is becomng a bit too Microsofty for my liking.

 

[Winni]

Sorry I may have worded it poorly, open source was nothing I had considered. My simple point was just a comparison between the Windows versus Mac idea of the last few decades. And in the mobile market there are a lot more players. And thirty years later and apple still has a small percentage of the home PC market.

I just wonder if their sudden burst into the mobile market might hit a glass ceiling if they stick with older vision concepts. Which maybe they don't want to serve more than a niche market long term, as they do with home computers.

Eventually, open platforms have always won - and being "open" does mean being "open source", it just means playing well with others and allowing others to use the same software platform for their hardware.

And that is -exxactly- what made Windows such an incredible success: Microsoft consolidated an entire industry on ONE software platform, and that solved a major problem for everybody.

Apple repeatedly dismissed that chance. They never licenses Mac OS to anybody, they still don't open Mac OS X to other PCs although they use the very same hardware components and compatibility is a non-issue (as the Hackintosh community proves), and Apple will certainly not open iPhone OS to anybody else.

History will repeat itself here -- Android will occupy the same position in the phone market that Windows occupies in the PC sector, and iPhone OS will remain a niche product.

Apple had a huge initial success, but thanks to their ridiculous AppStore policies, developers will soon jump ship in hordes. And developers make or break a platform.

http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html

 

[ToroidalZeus]

use Bing. Google is becomng a bit too Microsofty for my liking.

Talk about irony.

Google wants to spew its stuff everywhere so people will in essence be forced to use Google to search for stuff.

Personally I think it's the other way around. They are trying to become Apple. Apple realized a while back now that simply staying in one market would stop growth. Well now Google is in the same position. There adds aren't going to give them the growth so they are expanding into other markets.

What I don't like about Google compared to Apple is that Apple seems to be the much more innovative company. While Google seems more like Microsoft, the copy cat company.

@Winni

You are missing that Microsoft is ALSO going the way of Apple. Hell they completely ripped of Apples Store. But back to my point hardware and software are becoming increasing harder to separate. Look at video-game consoles, they have always been this way and are about as closed source as it gets yet they still dominate the more open source PC. The problem for companies like Google and Microsoft is that they need to cooperate with others to make a product. Googled needed HTC to make there phone and MS needs HP to make there slate. Apple has a leg up on the competition because they have total control over the hardware AND software side of things. If you haven't noticed the way of the future isn't a 'one-size-fits-all' mentality but optimization based on software AND hardware compatibility.

 

[VulchR]

Some of the 'closed' aspects of the App Store probably arise from Apple's exclusive relationships with some mobile phone companies. I expect the App Store will open up a bit as Apple establishes links with other phone companies and frees the market a bit.

 

[aristobrat]

History will repeat itself here -- Android will occupy the same position in the phone market that Windows occupies in the PC sector, and iPhone OS will remain a niche product.

And as long as the niche generates sufficient profits for them, Apple seems to be quite content with not owning a market. Macs are a perfect example of this.

Apple had a huge initial success, but thanks to their ridiculous AppStore policies, developers will soon jump ship in hordes. And developers make or break a platform.

While I think Apple can do a lot more to make its developer relations better, the App Store is an established economy, and until other economies of near equal scale exists, I don't see "hordes" of developers walking away from money.

 

[thelatinist]

As for me it's because I enjoy having choice when it comes to software and hardware. I like picking and choosing between things rather than having to have it one way. It's why I've never had a mac computer. And I'm an audiophile.

Almy, I repeat, what exactly do you think Apple should be doing differently? Do you think they should be licensing their OS? Allowing third-party app stores? Or what other solution do you suggest? Just saying you think Apple needs to be more "open" or have more "choice" doesn't tell us anything about what you think Apple needs to do to save itself from its supposedly impending doom.