I've never made a secret of the fact that I hate Apple for a wide variety of reasons. Most of it comes down to Apple's obsession with obscene levels of profits. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with making money. That is the incentive that drives almost all advancements. But when a company takes this too far, it interferes with the customer experience and can ultimately drive away many potential customers.
One way Apple attempts to squeeze extra profits out of its customers is by using proprietary technology that either prevents or creates disincentives to use third party products. One obvious example of this is the charging cable. When my Android needs a new charging cable, I can pick up a micro USB cable just about anywhere for about $1. I can also share cables between my phone and a half dozen other devices I regularly use. When my iPhone needs a new cable, I can expect to pay $10-$20 for a new charger that does pretty much the same thing and won't work with any of my other devices.
Now there are rumors that the next iPhone will do away with the 3.5 mm jack for headsets. This has been a standard for decades used by all sorts of devices. It lets me connect my phone to my car stereo, home stereo, any one of a dozen headphone or earplugs, etc. Apple simply hates such interactivity. It cuts down on the number of Apple branded accessories that customers must buy.
I saw this change coming the day Apple announced its acquisition of Beats Headphones. The only good reason for overpaying for that company, which makes a well hyped but technically inferior speakers and headphones, is to guarantee an acceptable headset that can only be used with Apple products (iPhone, iPad, Mac). This will limit the options that Apple users have in choices of speakers. It will also mean Beats will start creating "Apple exclusive" speakers and headsets that can only be used with Apple devices. In short, it cuts down on consumer choice. You must either go "all in" with Apple, or avoid the Apple ecosystem entirely. I will definitely choose the latter. I much prefer Bose to anything made by Beats.
There will likely be adapters or other work around options to bypass this Apple-created road block. But this just seems so unnecessary to me. Apple's hostility to standard cross-platform interfaces is just another nuisance for Apple customers to bear. Sadly, many of them will go along with this and pony up more of their accessory dollars into overpriced mediocre Apple accessories.
An Apple car is rumored in the works. I wonder whether it can only be driven on Apple roads.
Showing posts with label Apple. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apple. Show all posts
Saturday, January 9, 2016
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Apple has Peaked
Many speculators have gone broke predicting the downfall of Apple, now the largest company in the world. It seems to hit home run after home run and just keeps growing. I could be wrong, but I think Apple is finally hitting its peak. Of course it is not going away. It will continue to thrive as a successful company. Its years of amazing growth, however, may be over.
Apple has thrived by putting out new devices every year that amaze and astound. It has built a large fan base. But you are only as good as your latest device. The new iPhone 6s is nice, but not an amazing leap forward. In a few ways it is a step backwards: slightly thicker than its predecessor and a smaller battery. But that's not the real problem.
Apple phones have gained market share in recent years. Apple's decision to make larger screens on the iPhone 6 caused many consumers to turn back to Apple, abandoning the Samsung Galaxy, which as I have commented in an earlier post, seems focused on becoming a mere clone of the iPhone. But this trend is going to change soon, not because of any problems with the new 6S, which has received relatively good reviews.
Portable devices have been through several years of revolutionary change. Improvements going forward are likely to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. As a result, other companies are producing similar devices at lower cost. Price is going to be Apple's Achilles heal.
Major phone companies are doing away with subsidized phones. Customers are going to face sticker shock when they have to put out $750 for a new base model iPhone ($850 if you want enough drive space to save pictures on your phone) then start paying for monthly service. Apple has tried to soften the sticker shock by offering payment plans for new phone purchases. But will it be enough? Customers did not mind shelling out an extra $200 for a subsidized iPhone, especially when a top Android cost the same. But Android phones under competition are likely to fall greatly in price, while Apple will try to maintain its high prices.
Over the next few years, iPhones will become more of a premium device for high end users. It will likely settle into a 20-25% market share for people willing to pay a premium, compared to 43% of the smartphone market today. Worldwide today, Apple holds only about 13% of the smartphone market. That will likely drop below 10%. Android will continue to dominate the rest of the market. This gives Android a major benefit over Apple as App makers focus on the larger audience and begin to neglect Apple. This cycle of fewer users leading to fewer apps leading to still fewer users is hard to break once started. Eventually Apple will become a small niche player in mobile devices much like it did with its Macs once MS Windows took over the world.
Apple could focus on cutting costs and remaining competitive, but that is not the Apple way. In fact, it really is not was Apple consumers want. The Apple 5c was meant to be a lower cost, slightly lower quality Apple phone. It failed miserably because Apple consumers want the very best. They do not want compromise.
By contrast, Android comes on hundreds of different devices made by dozens of different companies. By sheer numbers, innovation and advancement is more likely to show up in these devices. At the same time, effective competition will be able to find the best way to cut costs while maintaining performance in this highly competitive market.
Perhaps if Steve Jobs was still churning out miracle devices, this might be avoided. But alas Tim Cook is no Steve Jobs. New Apple presentations, like Apple TV and the Apple Watch have received relatively tepid reviews. They are not the game-changers Apple might have once hoped. No, price will have a much larger impact on future sales, and that is not an area where Apple can compete.
Apple has thrived by putting out new devices every year that amaze and astound. It has built a large fan base. But you are only as good as your latest device. The new iPhone 6s is nice, but not an amazing leap forward. In a few ways it is a step backwards: slightly thicker than its predecessor and a smaller battery. But that's not the real problem.
Apple phones have gained market share in recent years. Apple's decision to make larger screens on the iPhone 6 caused many consumers to turn back to Apple, abandoning the Samsung Galaxy, which as I have commented in an earlier post, seems focused on becoming a mere clone of the iPhone. But this trend is going to change soon, not because of any problems with the new 6S, which has received relatively good reviews.
Portable devices have been through several years of revolutionary change. Improvements going forward are likely to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. As a result, other companies are producing similar devices at lower cost. Price is going to be Apple's Achilles heal.
Major phone companies are doing away with subsidized phones. Customers are going to face sticker shock when they have to put out $750 for a new base model iPhone ($850 if you want enough drive space to save pictures on your phone) then start paying for monthly service. Apple has tried to soften the sticker shock by offering payment plans for new phone purchases. But will it be enough? Customers did not mind shelling out an extra $200 for a subsidized iPhone, especially when a top Android cost the same. But Android phones under competition are likely to fall greatly in price, while Apple will try to maintain its high prices.
Over the next few years, iPhones will become more of a premium device for high end users. It will likely settle into a 20-25% market share for people willing to pay a premium, compared to 43% of the smartphone market today. Worldwide today, Apple holds only about 13% of the smartphone market. That will likely drop below 10%. Android will continue to dominate the rest of the market. This gives Android a major benefit over Apple as App makers focus on the larger audience and begin to neglect Apple. This cycle of fewer users leading to fewer apps leading to still fewer users is hard to break once started. Eventually Apple will become a small niche player in mobile devices much like it did with its Macs once MS Windows took over the world.
Apple could focus on cutting costs and remaining competitive, but that is not the Apple way. In fact, it really is not was Apple consumers want. The Apple 5c was meant to be a lower cost, slightly lower quality Apple phone. It failed miserably because Apple consumers want the very best. They do not want compromise.
By contrast, Android comes on hundreds of different devices made by dozens of different companies. By sheer numbers, innovation and advancement is more likely to show up in these devices. At the same time, effective competition will be able to find the best way to cut costs while maintaining performance in this highly competitive market.
Perhaps if Steve Jobs was still churning out miracle devices, this might be avoided. But alas Tim Cook is no Steve Jobs. New Apple presentations, like Apple TV and the Apple Watch have received relatively tepid reviews. They are not the game-changers Apple might have once hoped. No, price will have a much larger impact on future sales, and that is not an area where Apple can compete.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
iPad 3 - Disappointing
Apple announced its latest iPad yesterday. Many are singing its praises, but I continue to be disappointed.
The biggest new feature on the new device (Apple doesn't officially call it the iPad 3, but also does not give it any distinctive name to distinguish it from the last two) is the HD screen. Perhaps it sounds good, but was anyone really complaining about the graphics quality on the old iPads? Of course not. HD makes a difference when watching a movie or playing a video game on a 50" TV, but not on a less than 10" screen like the iPad. That extra detail is pretty much wasted. In exchange, we are stuck with a heavier device that demands more battery power.
The other big "improvement" is 4G support. This allows for faster download times for people who pay for 4G internet access from one of the big cell phone companies. Of course, such service is expensive. If you are really planning on making full use of streaming over a cell network, you will end up using many GB of data per month, leading to bills from your cell provider that could top $100 in charges on top of your normal cell phone charges. That is assuming you even travel in an area that has 4G. Most places don't. And many places that have 4G also have metro-wifi available anyway, which is faster and much cheaper, if not free. So what do most people get for 4G access? Well, your battery will drain about 10% faster.
Still missing from the iPad are any USB ports or ports for adding external memory. This makes it virtually impossible to add to the limited memory provided. It also makes it virtually impossible to add or remove photos, songs, or anything else unless you use the wireless connection. You also get no HDMI port so you cannot connect to your TV, where the HD might actually be useful. (Apparently, you can buy cables that convert the iPad's proprietary ports for use with other devices, but these are needlessly expensive - with the extra cost based on the fact that they are proprietary and not subject to competition).
Also still missing is flash support. Although I've never been a big fan of flash either, many web sites use it and rely on it. If you want to use any of those sites, your only choice is to dump your iPad and break out your laptop.
Why is Apple so hostile to interoperability? The main answer is that Apple wants you to use the device only they way they want. Apple has decided the best way to control media is to force you to stream it over the Internet. By limiting device memory and refusing to add input ports, it becomes very inconvenient for a user simply to store media on the device and view or listen to it even when not connected to the Web. That is the most cost effective way to use the device since you avoid paying expensive download fees to your cell phone provider. It is also usually the most convenient since wireless streaming viewers will tell you that they face regular interruptions caused by slow downs or interruptions in Internet access. The 4G technology attempts to address this but will prove inadequate as access is limited, and where available will likely be overwhelmed.
Having said all this, I am sure many people will enjoy the new iPad. Apple's reputation for making the user interface easy and bug free still gives it great appeal to many people who are willing to pay for that experience. But for me? I remain much happier with my year old Android Tablet from Toshiba.
The biggest new feature on the new device (Apple doesn't officially call it the iPad 3, but also does not give it any distinctive name to distinguish it from the last two) is the HD screen. Perhaps it sounds good, but was anyone really complaining about the graphics quality on the old iPads? Of course not. HD makes a difference when watching a movie or playing a video game on a 50" TV, but not on a less than 10" screen like the iPad. That extra detail is pretty much wasted. In exchange, we are stuck with a heavier device that demands more battery power.
The other big "improvement" is 4G support. This allows for faster download times for people who pay for 4G internet access from one of the big cell phone companies. Of course, such service is expensive. If you are really planning on making full use of streaming over a cell network, you will end up using many GB of data per month, leading to bills from your cell provider that could top $100 in charges on top of your normal cell phone charges. That is assuming you even travel in an area that has 4G. Most places don't. And many places that have 4G also have metro-wifi available anyway, which is faster and much cheaper, if not free. So what do most people get for 4G access? Well, your battery will drain about 10% faster.
Still missing from the iPad are any USB ports or ports for adding external memory. This makes it virtually impossible to add to the limited memory provided. It also makes it virtually impossible to add or remove photos, songs, or anything else unless you use the wireless connection. You also get no HDMI port so you cannot connect to your TV, where the HD might actually be useful. (Apparently, you can buy cables that convert the iPad's proprietary ports for use with other devices, but these are needlessly expensive - with the extra cost based on the fact that they are proprietary and not subject to competition).
Also still missing is flash support. Although I've never been a big fan of flash either, many web sites use it and rely on it. If you want to use any of those sites, your only choice is to dump your iPad and break out your laptop.
Why is Apple so hostile to interoperability? The main answer is that Apple wants you to use the device only they way they want. Apple has decided the best way to control media is to force you to stream it over the Internet. By limiting device memory and refusing to add input ports, it becomes very inconvenient for a user simply to store media on the device and view or listen to it even when not connected to the Web. That is the most cost effective way to use the device since you avoid paying expensive download fees to your cell phone provider. It is also usually the most convenient since wireless streaming viewers will tell you that they face regular interruptions caused by slow downs or interruptions in Internet access. The 4G technology attempts to address this but will prove inadequate as access is limited, and where available will likely be overwhelmed.
Having said all this, I am sure many people will enjoy the new iPad. Apple's reputation for making the user interface easy and bug free still gives it great appeal to many people who are willing to pay for that experience. But for me? I remain much happier with my year old Android Tablet from Toshiba.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Do Not Buy a Tablet Now
The iPad has remained the dominant tablet for almost a year now. There had been tablets in past years, but the iPad's user interface made it the cool product of 2010. Personally, I think the iPad holds little benefit over a netbook, and has the big negative of not having a keyboard. But I can certainly see why the large screen like a computer, combined with the highly nimble and responsive screen of a smart phone, has captured the imagination of the masses.
That said, I still think the iPad is doomed to fall to a niche portion of the tablet market over the next few years, much like the Mac computer did in an earlier generation. The number one reason for this is Apple's greed. Apple has near total market share right now because it is the only game in town. The company is to be commended for bringing a great program to market that had no equal. But that cannot last. As dozens of competitors seek to take on Apple in the Tablet arena, there are plenty of weak spots for them to attack.
Number one is the price: at around $500-800 depending on the model, the iPad can cost twice what a decent low end netbook costs. This is probably justified given the cool OS and new features. But competitors will soon match those features and sell a similar product for half the price. Apple could engage in a price war, but if past practice is any guide, it will not. Apple will come out with cool new features and offer an iPad 2 at a similar cost. Competitors will offer better deals and pick up more market share, much like Microsoft did in the PC market of the 1980's.
Apple is going to keep its prices for the device high, meaning that many people will not want to go in that direction. In addition, Apple is proving equally greedy in its App Store. It's 30% commission is far higher than the market will bear for very long. It if it wants to make its money on Apps, it should sell the iPad for half the price as a loss leader. If it did that now, it would gut the competition and make itself the market leader for years to come. But trying to make so much money on both the front end and back end is simply not sustainable over the long term. Eventually, other App stores will take a majority of the market, offer better terms to developers, and win the sales war.
Similarly, Apple refuses to share the wealth with other companies. Its refusal to support Flash, or to provide ports on the iPad to let third parties add their own creativity and imagination to the product will stifle its uses. Many users will find the iPad limiting. Apple tries to control how its device is used, rather than leaving that up to the user. That is a major mistake.
So who will emerge the winner? Probably not other players like Blackberry or HP with its WebOS. They are late arriving to the market, unwilling to make serious price concessions, and unable to develop the large App selection needed to build critical mass. They may be very nice products, but that is not enough. Anyone remember the Amiga PC of the 1980's? It was an amazing computer for its time, with many very cool features far ahead of anything else available at the time. But its high price and the inability to build sufficient market share to encourage software developers to build a large stable of programs sealed its fate. Instead, the far less evolved but cheaper and more widely available MS-DOS took over the PC world.
So who will be in the position to be the next Microsoft? Certainly not Microsoft, which has not developed a truly ground breaking program since it introduced MS-Office a couple of decades ago. To me, the winnner appears to be Google. The Android OS, with the Honeycomb version being developed for tablets, looks to be the favorite. Just like MS-DOS in the PC world of the 1980's, Android is a widely available and cheap OS for developers of phones and tablets. It is a high quality OS with enough flexibility to let third parties develop and create new and innovative ways to use it. It is available to a wide number of hardware developers, meaning it will much more easily push its way into a large market share, thus encouraging more App developers, which only continues the cycle up to market domination. The fact that App developers are not shaken down for as much money as possible will also earn Android good will and devoted supporters in the developer community.
This leads me to the title of this piece. Do not by any tablet now. If you wanted to be an early adopter of the iPad, you should have bought six months ago. At this point, you should wait for the iPad 2 to be released in April. Even if the iPad original is all you need, the prices on that will drop considerably as soon as the iPad 2 hits the market.
If you are considering any other tablet, there is not much out there. Google's Honeycomb, Blackberry's Playbook and HP's WebOS are all still months away from release. When they are first released, you will likely see more bugs in first releases than we saw with the iPad. Apple is one of the best in beta testing and getting rid of glitches before going to market, despite its other faults. I would say Christmas 2011 is probably the earliest to consider such a purchase.
If you are concerned about getting value, you will probably have to wait until well into 2012 or even 2013 before the "bleeding edge" pricing goes away and competition forces tablets down into the sub $300 or even $200 level.
If you want something right now that is cheap, reliable and that is small and easy to carry around, buy a netbook. You can get a pretty good one for around $250. It will have a screen as big as the iPad, an OS as good as any PC, and it will even have a keyboard to make writing much easier.
Ten years from now, we will look at an $800 tablet the way we look at the $5000 PCs or $1000 CD players that were sold in the 1980's. A device made in 2021 will be much cheaper (probably under $150 in today's dollars) and will do much more. Sure, most of us won't wait until then since life is short and we want to enjoy the latest technologies now. But the next two years will see the largest decreases in price and the highest growth in improvements. Patience is well worth it.
That said, I still think the iPad is doomed to fall to a niche portion of the tablet market over the next few years, much like the Mac computer did in an earlier generation. The number one reason for this is Apple's greed. Apple has near total market share right now because it is the only game in town. The company is to be commended for bringing a great program to market that had no equal. But that cannot last. As dozens of competitors seek to take on Apple in the Tablet arena, there are plenty of weak spots for them to attack.
Number one is the price: at around $500-800 depending on the model, the iPad can cost twice what a decent low end netbook costs. This is probably justified given the cool OS and new features. But competitors will soon match those features and sell a similar product for half the price. Apple could engage in a price war, but if past practice is any guide, it will not. Apple will come out with cool new features and offer an iPad 2 at a similar cost. Competitors will offer better deals and pick up more market share, much like Microsoft did in the PC market of the 1980's.
Apple is going to keep its prices for the device high, meaning that many people will not want to go in that direction. In addition, Apple is proving equally greedy in its App Store. It's 30% commission is far higher than the market will bear for very long. It if it wants to make its money on Apps, it should sell the iPad for half the price as a loss leader. If it did that now, it would gut the competition and make itself the market leader for years to come. But trying to make so much money on both the front end and back end is simply not sustainable over the long term. Eventually, other App stores will take a majority of the market, offer better terms to developers, and win the sales war.
Similarly, Apple refuses to share the wealth with other companies. Its refusal to support Flash, or to provide ports on the iPad to let third parties add their own creativity and imagination to the product will stifle its uses. Many users will find the iPad limiting. Apple tries to control how its device is used, rather than leaving that up to the user. That is a major mistake.
So who will emerge the winner? Probably not other players like Blackberry or HP with its WebOS. They are late arriving to the market, unwilling to make serious price concessions, and unable to develop the large App selection needed to build critical mass. They may be very nice products, but that is not enough. Anyone remember the Amiga PC of the 1980's? It was an amazing computer for its time, with many very cool features far ahead of anything else available at the time. But its high price and the inability to build sufficient market share to encourage software developers to build a large stable of programs sealed its fate. Instead, the far less evolved but cheaper and more widely available MS-DOS took over the PC world.
So who will be in the position to be the next Microsoft? Certainly not Microsoft, which has not developed a truly ground breaking program since it introduced MS-Office a couple of decades ago. To me, the winnner appears to be Google. The Android OS, with the Honeycomb version being developed for tablets, looks to be the favorite. Just like MS-DOS in the PC world of the 1980's, Android is a widely available and cheap OS for developers of phones and tablets. It is a high quality OS with enough flexibility to let third parties develop and create new and innovative ways to use it. It is available to a wide number of hardware developers, meaning it will much more easily push its way into a large market share, thus encouraging more App developers, which only continues the cycle up to market domination. The fact that App developers are not shaken down for as much money as possible will also earn Android good will and devoted supporters in the developer community.
This leads me to the title of this piece. Do not by any tablet now. If you wanted to be an early adopter of the iPad, you should have bought six months ago. At this point, you should wait for the iPad 2 to be released in April. Even if the iPad original is all you need, the prices on that will drop considerably as soon as the iPad 2 hits the market.
If you are considering any other tablet, there is not much out there. Google's Honeycomb, Blackberry's Playbook and HP's WebOS are all still months away from release. When they are first released, you will likely see more bugs in first releases than we saw with the iPad. Apple is one of the best in beta testing and getting rid of glitches before going to market, despite its other faults. I would say Christmas 2011 is probably the earliest to consider such a purchase.
If you are concerned about getting value, you will probably have to wait until well into 2012 or even 2013 before the "bleeding edge" pricing goes away and competition forces tablets down into the sub $300 or even $200 level.
If you want something right now that is cheap, reliable and that is small and easy to carry around, buy a netbook. You can get a pretty good one for around $250. It will have a screen as big as the iPad, an OS as good as any PC, and it will even have a keyboard to make writing much easier.
Ten years from now, we will look at an $800 tablet the way we look at the $5000 PCs or $1000 CD players that were sold in the 1980's. A device made in 2021 will be much cheaper (probably under $150 in today's dollars) and will do much more. Sure, most of us won't wait until then since life is short and we want to enjoy the latest technologies now. But the next two years will see the largest decreases in price and the highest growth in improvements. Patience is well worth it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)