
Competing with a Mac - co_pl_te
http://www.asymco.com/2013/10/01/competing-with-a-mac/
======
Kronopath
Finally, someone else who agrees that the iPhone was a disruptive product. It
had all of the hallmarks of a disruptive product _except_ for the low price.
It appealed to a different set of values (i.e. usability and interface),
ignored features that were seen as critical in the existing market of
smartphone users (No third-party apps at launch? No copy/paste? No editing of
_Word documents_?!), and it blindsided the incumbents (who focused on business
users rather than the new market of everyday consumers). Nowadays you'd have
trouble convincing people that existing smartphone users mocked the iPhone
when it first came out.

It's worth noting that even Christensen didn't think the iPhone would be a
success.[0]

[0] [http://stratechery.com/2013/clayton-christensen-got-
wrong/](http://stratechery.com/2013/clayton-christensen-got-wrong/)

~~~
peterhunt
I wonder what differentiates a _disruptive_ product from a _better_ product?
It seems like the qualities you listed are hallmarks of all good products,
right?

~~~
josh2600
A better product is one the public can imagine.

A disruptive product is one that the public cannot conceive of, such that its
introduction alters the standards in an industry.

A better product is the HTC8525[0] over the HTC8500. A disruptive product is
the HTC8525 versus the iPhone.

[0][http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/at-t-8525/4505-6452_7-32...](http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/at-t-8525/4505-6452_7-32133413.html)
\- The leading WinMo smartphone in Q4 2006, pre-iPhone.

~~~
invalidOrTaken
This does not seem in line with the understanding of the word used in _The
Innovator 's Dilemma_, the book that popularized the word in a business sense.
Guyzero's response above matches much more closely to it.

~~~
josh2600
Normally, I'd agree, but in the case of the iPhone, the disruption was more
profound than simple off-the-shelf components.

I can go into detail, but the standard ideas for Disruption tend to be
technical in nature whereas the iPhone was a profound multi-faceted assault on
the world. There are so many elements of this attack, it's hard to know where
to begin, but it was certainly more than just a newfound set of components (a
lot of the iPhones physical technology was not new).

But, I hear and agree with your point. Guyzero makes a great post above and
it's certainly worth reading :).

~~~
invalidOrTaken
I had to laugh when I read this. How can I not upvote something so good-
natured, especially when it's a response to blunt HN criticism like I
delivered?

------
blinkingled
Blackberry's was the case of being too much in love with their own beliefs and
processes. Also known as inability to adapt to changing circumstances.
Microsoft also has those tendencies but they tend to get their act somewhat
together even if that's too late.

Lazaridis saw the iPhone and the Engineer in him went - the battery won't last
and it will bring down the AT&T network with its full fledged browser. Ballmer
saw the iPhone and laughed at the $500 price. Both did not see the potential
from a changing market's standpoint. Battery tech gets better, hardware,
networks and OSes get better every year, and the prices can and do fall.

But some of it was inevitable for Blackberry. There really wasn't any
differentiation potential left behind for them. iPhone got the smooth,
attractive, computer replacement part. Android got the customizable,
ubiquitous, many options, open and the "not iPhone" part. There just wasn't
any way for BB to differentiate and win. They could've had a perfectly smooth
touch optimized OS with great BB hardware, security suite and BBM etc. and
even then their target market would still be limited.

The only way they could've saved themselves was if they had innovated ahead of
time. After the iPhone and Android it was game over for them.

~~~
josh2600
How can you innovate when the standard for your product is Java 1.3?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959705](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959705)

~~~
blinkingled
If they had bought QNX early and switched to either a recent Java version or
another decent language - even something like webOS HTML5/JS/CSS would've
worked given a sane looking UI and frameworks.

~~~
josh2600
I wish I could find the quote but there's a long discussion by a former-RIM
employee about the inability of management to come to consensus.

To my mind, that's also incredibly ironic because RIM had the dual-CEOs for
specifically this reason, to avoid conflict over technical and operational
requirements.

Edit: Look what I found!!!
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6462453](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6462453)

------
QuantumGood
Disruptive products as initially defined are reliant on advances in technology
to become good enough to challenge established markets (while they advanced
via emerging/self-created markets).

Apple was always biding their time, waiting for the right moment for a giant
leap forward in consumer satisfaction to become possible; it's the opposite of
the incrementalism of the usual disruptive product.

Few companies would consider such an approach because it seems to be a much,
much bigger risk, leaping so far forward in consumer satisfaction that you are
practically creating a new market.

But there is an enormous leverage opportunity created when you take this
approach:

A visionary new product can generate a lot of marketing leverage from a strong
sales pitch. It really _is_ better. Using a strong sales pitch for an
established "me too" product doesn't generate a lot of marketing leverage. And
Apple had the head visionary as head salesperson.

The flip side of the potential sales pitch leverage is that the product can
likely _only_ be sold via strong sales pitch. It's too new.

So the best positioned company to take advantage of the strong selling
opportunities of the Apple approach is one with a strong brand as an
innovator. Upstarts or stodgy old companies won't know how to really pitch the
product compellingly, or will be at too large a disadvantage from their non-
existent/badly matched brand.

I worry that Apple with Jobs gone will forget to sell their next big
innovation strongly enough, and will just rely on their existing customer base
and strong brand. It will probably only work well the first time (existing
huge base/incredible brand).

I say "I worry" because I want Apple to continue creating products that are
great leaps forward, and I don't think they can do so perpetually without
acknowledging the huge role that a really strong sales pitch plays in the
success of such products.

~~~
pekk
Apple was trying and failing for many years. Now they have found a bigger
niche in little electronic devices. Good for them! But let's not pretend the
earlier failures were all intended as some kind of grand strategy. Apple is
not a perfect unicorn. It's just another company, selling products.

~~~
philwelch
I'm pretty sure there _was_ a plan at the very beginning of the Jobs era, to
get the Mac line profitable again just to keep the company going long enough
to go after new and different product lines. About a year before returning to
Apple, Steve Jobs even publicly outlined this strategy:

"If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it's worth -- and
get busy on the next great thing. The PC wars are over. Done. Microsoft won a
long time ago." \-- Fortune, Feb. 19, 1996

[http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/0...](http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/03/70512?currentPage=all)

------
clarky07
The interesting thing about this is that the original iPhone was barely
something that could be called a success. It sold 6.1 Million phones over 5
quarters. The recent launch was 9 Million in 3 days. They sold 50% more phones
in a weekend than they did in 450 days. Reports of Apple's death are
exaggerated I think.

~~~
DigitalJack
I think it would be better to compare it to a smartphone of the day, like
samsung's blackjack.

------
hosh
Ok, if we're using this framework, here are some interesting thought
experiments:

(1) What is Google Glass disrupting? What are the faulty assumptions about it?
("iPhone was a pocket Mac, not a better phone. Google Glasses is a ____, not a
?")

(2) What are the AI / Machine Learning disrupting? (Google, Apple, Facebook,
Amazon, IBM, MS) ("AI is a ____, not a ?")

(3) What are the Kiva Systems robots disrupting? ("Kiva System robots is a
____, not warehouse automation? Not ?")

(4) What are 3D Printers disrupting? Certainly not mass-production factories.

~~~
nl
_What is Google Glass disrupting?_

Everything. There's never been a portable computing platform as aggressive in
integrating with the physical (albeit visual) environment before. It will make
what mobile disruption did to desktop computing look like what electronic
typewriters did to their mechanical predecessors.

 _Anything_ that people currently use their eyes for can and probably will be
disrupted.

 _Shopping_ : price comparisons in physical shops will be automatic, and no
longer make you look like a dick.

 _Sports_ : Any team sports will be changed by the immediate knowledge of
where all your team is. Any endurance sport will change with the zero-effort
monitoring of your vital statistics[1].

 _Dating_ : All those "mobile dating apps" that work in theory but kind of
fail in the real world might actually have a chance (assuming people get used
to people wearing Glass and no longer laugh at them)

[1] No more
[http://chrisfroomelookingatstems.tumblr.com/](http://chrisfroomelookingatstems.tumblr.com/)

~~~
hosh
Ok, if you had to fill in the blank, what would fill in? "Google Glasses are
not better smartphones, they are ____ "?

~~~
nl
By its very nature that question constrains the possibilities of Glass by
attempting to label it. Falling into that trap leads to less insight, not
more.

By way of analogy, one could say a car was a faster horse-and-buggy, but an
airplane was something new & different. A telegram was a faster form of mail,
but a telephone was new & different.

A good example of the lack of insight that kind of question leads to is the
apocryphal quote[1] by IBM's CEO Thomas J. Watson: _I think there is a world
market for maybe five computers_. Even if he didn't say it, the point was that
those who shared that view had labelled computers as "massive calculating
machines". That was true, but missed the bigger picture.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Famous_misquot...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Famous_misquote)

~~~
hosh
"By its very nature that question constrains the possibilities of Glass by
attempting to label it. Falling into that trap leads to less insight, not
more."

Haha, that's a nice piece of rhetorical sophistry.

It is good to keep an open mind on the different possibilities. However, the
art of strategic thinking requires you to make decisions in the face of
uncertainty. Until you can fill in that blank, you can't make decisions right
now and place your bets.

That is the point of this exercise. There is a key insight in the article, and
it can be applied to something like the Google Glasses. If you cannot discern
it, you're more likely to be running off of unexamined emotions instead of a
vision of what's to come.

------
wiremine
As an aside: anytime I read anything from asymco, I feel much smarter, and
much dumber, all at the same time.

------
innino
Good article, good to see someone who appreciates how strong Apple's strategy
really is, rather than just hating.

A nice comment somewhere in this thread about CEOs of corps competing to get
the best app - Apple managed to turn the iPhone into arguably _the_ premier
ego-arena on the planet. A characteristic which gives iOS an allure which
should not be underestimated, unless you happen to enjoy being crushed like a
bug.

~~~
smackfu
If you weren't aware, Asymco is very pro-Apple. I would be shocked to see any
hating from him.

~~~
innino
Do you mean pro-Apple as in a fanboy who thinks everything Apple does is
great, or pro-Apple as in he appreciates and respects their design chops and
business acumen?

~~~
smackfu
Neither really. Pro-Apple in that he is willing to give Apple the benefit of
the doubt. If they make a decision he doesn't understand or agree with, he
will figure out some acceptable reason they would do that he can agree with.
Someone who is anti-Apple would look at the same facts and come up with a
reason they are incorrect, for doing the same thing.

Essentially, I would be shocked if Asymco had a post saying he disagreed with
Apple's strategy.

------
casca
Mr Lazaridis and the ridiculous dual-CEO structure are significant
contributors to the failure of Blackberry. I have friends there and not one
believed that he would be as prescient as saying "If that thing catches on,
we’re competing with a Mac, not a Nokia".

------
ghshephard
The first iPhone was the disruptive product. Everything after that has been
incrementalism. The 2013 iPhone 5 is a direct descendent of the 2007 iPhone 5,
and the 2007 iPhone 5 was almost a completely different product than my 2006
Treo 700w.

------
utopkara
This article is based on the false premise that somebody with deep knowledge
can predict disruptors.

I'll tell you why talking heads/pundits/experts couldn't predict, because they
are useless, and the whole business of market disruption prediction is built
on a ridiculous premise.

------
normloman
Who cares whether something is disruptive or not? Does it make any difference
at all? Are you trying to crack some formula to making disruptive products,
because it ain't gonna work.

------
canistr
I hesitate to agree with this article given that that hindsight is 20/20\. If
anything, you could mark the decline of the BlackBerry with the introduction
of the iPad.

------
cwoods
>The striking thing is how the two companies peaked are almost precisely the
same time and how that moment (end of 2010) was not related to the entry
timing of their nominal disruptor[iPhone].

Could it be that it was Android that hurt Blackberry and Nokia more than the
iPhone did? Low end Android phones definitely replaced a lot of Symbian phones
in the marketplace. It would certainly explain the timing of the change.

>The idea that Apple is vulnerable to the low end is a relic of an idea.

Not seeing how this follows from the data and analysis and seems to be a
rather bold claim. There is a real chance of smartphones getting commodotized
and it has already happened to a certain extent in China and India, where
local OEMs are calling the shots.

The reason it's not happening in the US to the same extent is that the
carriers hide the true cost of the flagship phones into two year data
contracts, unlike, say PCs. However, the contract free prepaid market is
growing at a record pace [1] and we may see a real change in the marketplace
if the trend continues. Is the upgrade to S4 or the 5s from the S3 or 4S worth
$500?

[1] [http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/npd-one-third-us-
smartph...](http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/npd-one-third-us-smartphone-
sales-were-prepaid-q1/2013-05-16)

~~~
ricw
Couldn't agree more with both points. Of course android ate Nokia's pie (cheap
phones for everyone). Rather unsure about blackberry, i think thats more a
thing that android and ios both now have excellent infrastructure integration
(MS exchange etc) for corporate support.

You're also right with how cheap OEM android phones are taking over the
market. iOS is losing marketshare pretty much everywhere where phones are not
heavily subsidised or the comparative income is low, namely everywhere but the
US and UK (and a couple of others). Unless apple drops its ios prices to more
reasonable levels (they are really taking the p*ss), it's going to be the same
story as the one that unfolded with mac/windows.

~~~
gibwell
Whilst I agree that Nokia and Blackberry were disrupted by Android, not the
iPhone, Apple is gaining customers everywhere. 'Marketshare' is a flawed
concept because it assumes a unified market of undifferentiated customers.
Apple is simply not in the market of commodity devices. It never had any of
that market to lose. Claiming that apple is losing those customers is clearly
incorrect.

If the story does unfold as it did with Mac/Windows, Apple will again be the
clear winner, just as they are in the PC market.

~~~
sien
Apple is not the 'clear winner' in the PC market, they are a small segment of
it.

Working in corporate and government environments is an Apple free zone.

Lower price competitors have repeatedly caught up and outperformed higher
priced vertical companies that make the entire stack. Android is well
positioned to do exactly this to Apple over the next decade. Phones and
cheaper devices also seem to see this happen repeatedly. Apple's phone
division should see a warning in Nokia and RIM, not a comfort.

SGI, Sun, Commodore, Atari, DEC and many others are all defunct. All full
stack companies.

Apple and IBM are left. IBM mainframes are extremely difficult to remove.
Apple are easier but may survive with enough iOS lock in.

But you'd be very brave to bet on it.

~~~
gibwell
Apple makes 45% of all profits in the PC market. Nobody else comes close. That
isn't a small segment - they are the clear winner.

~~~
sien
6% market share is small.

~~~
randomafrican
I'm sure you've heard the BMW analogy before...

