I am always amazed by people who claim Apple is ''breaking new ground''. Thats the exact opposite of what they do. They are never the first ones to introduce new devices or new services. They are rather followers than innovators. They did not invent mp3players, they did not invent smartphones and certainly did not invent tablet computers. All you can say is that they are good/fierce competitors, and good marketers, but ''breaking ground'' classes you either as an ignorant or a member of the mac cult.
I think it's pretty unfair to characterise the iphone as not breaking new ground. They didn't invent cellphones or touchscreens, but in 2006 you could not buy a phone that looked anything like an iphone, and yet by 2009 that was the dominant form factor for smartphones.
Even the ipod I would say is similar, albeit a little less so; prior to 2001 mp3 players were hardly entrenched, the ipod was the device that didn't just take them mainstream but finally made CD and minidisc players obsolete. To me, that was breaking new ground, even though it wasn't the first portable mp3 player.
Totally agreed. They might not be the original inventors of a computer technology, but their implementations are always groundbreaking. From the start, they took things other people did poorly and dominated on implementation, totally shaking up the market. Just look at the big 3:
- There were computers, they made personal computers
- There were mp3 players, they made the ipod
- There were phones, they made the iphone
In all 3 cases, the invention existed but was poorly designed and people did not like it or use it very often. And in all 3 cases, they created a version that was smaller, lighter, better designed, and that people loved to use and completely changed the entire industry.
" There were computers, they made personal computers"
Glad you forgot to mention the C64, the computer that sold much more units than Apple could hope to sell with their ridiculously priced Apple 2, thereby bringing actual computers into millions of homes while Apple II remained on a niche market.
The Apple II went on sale in 1977. The Comodore 64, in 1982. So, half a decade later another computer was introduced and you say that he's "rewriting history" to ignore this computer that came so much later?
For our purposes, it's about the perception of groundbreakingness, not the reality of it. They need to make things that look and feel different than what's available (and in this sense they are breaking new ground in consumer design) and get a controversy stirred. As long as the new stuff is philosophically compatible with the old stuff and a credible claim to the spirit of Jobs can be established, the cult of Mac will grow until they reach some level where these dynamics go out of balance. Apple relies on its underground status for its coolness, too; if everyone had it, the many Mac denziens that want to feel special will find another obscure thing to latch onto.
