Serious competition with the iPhone took time to emerge, but it did. It's a temporary advantage, not a permanent one, as are all such advantages. Just as in the iPhone arena, Apple won't stand still but eventually it will not be able to singlehandedly defeat everybody on all fronts.
But while they lead, they will rake in the bucks, and more power to them. I don't want them to be the only viable company out there and I'm not personally a fan of their products per se (don't "hate" them but they do not sing to me) but I'm glad they're out there pushing the envelope in a way few other companies are. Smartphones and tablets would still have happened eventually but I'm sure they moved the timeline up a good two or three years. (I wouldn't go much further though; the major factor driving the iPad is that the tech is finally ready. You simply couldn't build an iPad as recently as 2007 and have anything like the same experience at any price.)
In some ways it doesn't even matter if they have competition or not, since Apple effectively defines the category and the expectations of the users. Even now, smart phones are generally playing catch-up to the iPhone. Yes, there is some innovation above and beyond Apple; Windows Phone 7 is surprisingly impressive, and the Web OS notification system is arguably superior. But, the comparison always comes back to the iPhone or iPad, just as it did to the iPod. By providing the first truly mainstream offering in each category, Apple establishes its products as the benchmark. This gives it the freedom to go where it thinks makes sense, instead of being stuck following the leader.
> defines the category and the expectations of the users
It's stunning how long that has been true. The modern desktop OS is patterned after the Macintosh, modern laptops all use the form factor introduced by the Powerbook 100s, and now all the best phones are made to look like an iPhone.
First of all, the modern desktop OS is patterned after the work of Xerox PARC.
Second of all, that form factor was used before Apple introduced the Powerbook.
Last but not least, best phone doesn't equal slab of touch-sensitive glass that drops calls when you hold it wrong. Touch screens in general aren't a great fit when it comes to phone use. If we're talking phones, models like the Nokia E52 beat the pants off of any touch model.
Can you find an example of a pre-PowerBook laptop that has a form factor with these traits?
* Clamshell with hinge at the back of the case, not in the middle.
* Keyboard at the back of the case.
* Blank area in front of the keyboard to rest your wrists.
* Pointing device centered in this blank area, with mouse buttons below pointer.
There were earlier laptops with some of those elements, but I'm pretty sure the PowerBook was the first to bring them all together.
In this case I believe that crediting Apple for setting the bar on what a graphical user interface for a personal computer should look like is accurate. While they did borrow heavily from Xerox PARC and certainly didn't invent the dekstop, Apple put a compelling product in front of the masses.
Exactly. The thing that gets me is people claiming they hate Apple and Apple products while eulogising competing products that are derived from a category that Apple defined in the first place.
It's perfectly reasonable - the only similarity between Android and iPhone is the form factor, they can still hate the differences, and there are important differences.
"the only similarity between Android and iPhone is the form factor"
Where form factor includes size, shape, interaction paradigm and user interface conventions, software delivery mechanism, full web browser, on screen keyboard, accelerometer as a key user input device, ... and probably many other things I am forgetting.
If you look at most "smart phones" today, they will be surprisingly similar to the original iPhone (or at least the iPhone version when the App Store appeared).
> the only similarity between Android and iPhone is the form factor
That's a huge similarity, though. Didn't the original Android plans have a keyboard and look like a Blackberry? And what about the talk about using a stylus with a touchscreen - that talk didn't die until after the iPhone came out.
Android is a copycat, I don't deny that, but it has important differences that make it better than the iPhone in certain cases and viceversa. You can hate iPhone because you can't install apps outside the AppStore for instance and that's not even related to the hardware.
That being said, I don't think that touchscreens should win against keyboard phones, both have certain advantages. A stylus is not necessarily a bad thing either. e.g: drawing, using the phone with gloves on, etc.
There's current Android phones still being announced with keyboards that look like a Blackberry (plus other's with various kinds of slide out keyboards). And the new HTC 7" Android tablet has a stylus.
Serious competition with the iPhone took time to emerge, but it did. It's a temporary advantage, not a permanent one
I'm not convinced that's true.
The more integrated the iOS platform gets, the more effort it takes another company to get from scratch to competitor.
The more effort it takes, the more money and people it needs, and the bigger the potential competitor has to be to try it.
And what are bigger companies worse at? Pivoting, innovating, making well integrated polished products that mass market consumers thrill over.
Is it possible that the further we get from "any company putting current off-the-shelf technology into a package", the less likely we are to ever see "serious competition"?
Maybe Apple is a freak one-off. Maybe Apple will put a retina screen in the iPad 3, enable wireless sync and full airplay so it doesn't need a storage space bump, and that's it. No revolutionary changes left in that niche, "Post PC" finished, no other companies in any position to do anything but copycat and Apple spends a few years polishing the software integration in their ecosystem, SJ leaves, Apple stagnates. The next decade of "computing" started, dead-ended and finished and it's iPad clones and Windows 8 notebooks until 2020.
The difference from smartphones is that carriers are pushing Android. It's a free OS they have total control over, unlike the Apple-controlled iOS. Tablets aren't phones and must stand on their own as legitimate appliance computers. Apple has proven before that it can win that kind of battle--the iPod has been the dominant MP3 player for almost a decade.
But while they lead, they will rake in the bucks, and more power to them. I don't want them to be the only viable company out there and I'm not personally a fan of their products per se (don't "hate" them but they do not sing to me) but I'm glad they're out there pushing the envelope in a way few other companies are. Smartphones and tablets would still have happened eventually but I'm sure they moved the timeline up a good two or three years. (I wouldn't go much further though; the major factor driving the iPad is that the tech is finally ready. You simply couldn't build an iPad as recently as 2007 and have anything like the same experience at any price.)