Slashdot Log In
Newton's Ghost Haunts Apple's iPhone
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Feb 27, 2007 08:04 AM
from the hubris-and-the-handheld dept.
from the hubris-and-the-handheld dept.
PetManimal writes "David Haskin has looked back at why the Newton failed in the early PDA market, and warns that Apple may be setting itself up for a similar failure with the iPhone. The iPhone shares with the Newton a hefty starting price, and Joe Public may not be so keen on the cost, as recent survey data suggests. Moreover, the iPhone will have to deal with two additional factors that were not issues for the Newton: Competition, and wireless service providers: 'Besides overcharging for iPhone, Apple faces significant competition, something it didn't face in 1993 when it launched Newton. And you can bet that competition from the likes of Samsung and LG will both be good (although probably not as good as iPhone) and most assuredly cheaper... I'm more convinced than ever that, after an initial frenzy of publicity and sales to early adopters, iPhone sales will be unspectacular. If Apple doesn't respond quickly by lowering the price and making nice to AT&T..., iPhone may well become Apple's next Newton.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Apple: Consumers Unlikely To Pay $500 for iPhone 412 comments
narramissic writes "A survey by online market research firm Compete Inc. finds that of the 26% of those who said they're likely to buy an iPhone, only 1% said they'd pay $500 for it, while 42% said they'd likely buy the phone for $200 to $299. Sixty percent of likely iPhone buyers would be willing to make the switch to AT&T wireless to get it."
[+]
Apple: What To Expect From Apple's Rumored MacPad 213 comments
Jeff writes "I decided to review the specifications of recent e-readers and mobile devices as well as the ongoing Apple rumor mill to chart out the most likely features, innovations and configuration we can expect from Apple's long awaited Newton successor/Mac Tablet which I'll call the MacPad. The MacPad will arrive in fall '09 or Jan '10, with a 10" diagonal color display, a $599 price point with a Verizon data plan, a stylus, note taking application and handwriting recognition and an e-bookstore for iTunes. Apple's biggest challenge will be convincing its huge installed base of iPhone owners that they need a MacPad too. Past failed Newtonian predictions by others are available on Slashdot and the likelihood that any of this is right can be gauged by earlier Confucian gems such as Haskin warns that Apple may be setting itself up for a failure with the iPhone."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Got it wrong about competition (Score:5, Insightful)
They've got it completely wrong about competition. In this case, it's better that they have competition than not.
With the Newton, it was an entirely new device, so it was that much more difficult to spur adoption. Whereas now, everyone knows what a cellphone is, so they can look at the iPhone and just say, "That's like my phone, only better."
They did the exact same thing with the iPod. Digital music players weren't new when the iPod came out, it was just the first of it's kind in terms of design and functionality. Suddenly everyone said, "THAT'S the digital music player I wanted to buy." I suspect the same thing will happen with the iPhone.
True, but I think it would depend on the market. (Score:3, Insightful)
Problems with the European market; iPhone's not 3G (Score:3, Insightful)
More specifically which market. We've all read about the Asian markets and their love for new gadgets. That's where I'd start off. Then the EU
Apple may face marketing problems within the EU [theregister.co.uk]. Basically, the operators here have invested a lot of money in 3G networks and in promoting multimedia facilities that can be used over them.
The iPhone is 2G, thus any company endorsing it would effectively be discouraging the use of 3G and those lucrative MMS facilities. Even if it were possible to fit similar facilities onto a modified 2G iPhone (via GPRS, or whatever), it wouldn't be worth the hassle as a one-off, and it's still going against the pro-3G
Re:Problems with the European market; iPhone's not (Score:3, Interesting)
You're assuming that Apple won't upgrade the phone for the market. The unit technically has all the right software facilities, it just needs a smidge of different hardware. There's little doubt in my mind that when Apple is ready to crack the European market, they will have the necessary CDMA/TDMA hardware ready. Especially if they try and support the Sprint Nextel CDMA network
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Please excuse the noob questions. I've only used Sprint phones (CMDA?)...and not familiar with the GSM stuff. Can you explain or give some links about these differences between 2G and 3G phones? What is better with which one...what exactly does one do better on 3G in Europe than 2G here in the US?
I'd heard that the GSM phones have slower data spee
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you explain or give some links about these differences between 2G and 3G phones?
I'm not overly familiar with the US situation and facilities, so I can't really compare the two. I do know that 3G in Europe supports (e.g.) much faster data rates (384 kbps when moving and 2Mbps when still under 3G.... compared with 10 to 15 kbps on 2G's GPRS data service), i.e. greater capacity/speed, and at lower cost. (If they charged the same exorbitant rates per megabyte as they did with 2G, no-one would be able to afford the much-hyped new data services anyway).
Of course, this doesn't necessarily
Re:Problems with the European market; iPhone's not (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
also, nobody would ever pay 200+ dollars for an mp3 players,
Said who, and when? It's a bogus argument anyway; the iPod was launched when the portable MP3 market was still young, and hadn't really taken off. Apple got in early enough and worked their magic.
By contrast, the mobile phone market is established, and Apple is getting in much later in the game. "High-end" phones have been around for years, and have never sold in massive numbers; and whether the iPhone is considered worthy of the price remains to be seen.
Sure, the lower middle clas does, but anybody who is smart with their money would not do this if they ahd a choice.
The people you describe *do* have a choice. Even
Re:Got it wrong about competition (Score:4, Insightful)
I know when I saw the presentation, I went "Now there's what I've been looking for in a phone. I personally hate cell phone interfaces. I'm sure I'm not alone. LG so far has the least painful interface, Motorolla should get an F for interface design (Whoever thought that having separate entries for each of 4 phone/fax numbers for a single person was a good idea should have to navigate phones using that system for the rest of their lives) Using a cellphone for anything other than a phone (with the occasional camera shot) is so painful as to be useless.
Enter the iPhone. At the very least, it will spark a much needed overhaul of interface design. At worst (for the competitors) it will dominate the market. After all, how many $300+ iPods were sold? Now you get a super duper cell phone to go along with it plus a host of other easy to use features (easy compared to current cell phones) in a relatively slick and sleek package that will interface seamlessly with your computer.
Parent
Re:Got it wrong about competition (Score:4, Informative)
Good software (well, not that bad at any rate), bad default setting on where to store your data.
Parent
Exactly! (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to think Apple produced nothing but overpriced junk but that was primarily because my previous exposure to their products occurred in the 90's. Then several years ago when iTunes for Windows hit I was tired of managing my music collection in other programs and looking for an easier way so I gave it a shot after hearing rave reviews from Mac users and it was such an improvement over the other software I was using that I uninstalled the other programs immediately. iTunes worked so well that I decided to go for an iPod and it was (and still is) hands down the best MP3 player I've every owned. I gave the iTMS a try and the iPod / iTunes / iTMS combination worked so well together that when the Mac Mini was announced I decided to bite the bullet and try a Mac. I liked it so much I upgraded to an iMac within 6 months and have just convinced my boss to split the cost of a MacBook Pro for use at the office and when I'm on the road. I couldn't be happier after making the switch. I've got to deal with Windows based PC's all day at work and when I get home at night I want something that will just work.
I'm starting to feel the same way about cell phones. I'm tired of all of the crap you have to put up with. I got an LG phone for Christmas and it's the best cell phone that I've ever owned but that's not saying much. My cell phone has an mp3 player, but of course you can't use the mp3s as ring tones and the user interface absolutely sucks. It's got the best built in web browser of any cell phone I've used, but it still can't display half of the web sites I try to visit properly. Admittedly it handles web sties designed for mobile browser well, but often times I need to visit a site that hasn't been designed for mobile browsers. It's supposed to work with any Micro SD trans flash stick so I purchased a 2 GB stick and, of course, it doesn't work. A little research on the Internet revealed that even though they claim any chip will work just about no one can get the 2 GB stick working. I've had enough. I want a cell phone / mp3 player combo that just works. I want to be able to easily manage my music on the phone, I want to be able to easily find the tracks I want to play, I want to be able to use any thing on the mp3 player as a ring tone. I don't want to worry about buying the wrong kind of flash memory. I want my contacts and calender to sync with my computer easily, I want a web browser that won't mangle most regular web pages. Visual voice mail will be a handy feature and the integration with Google maps looks pretty awesome as well. In short, I want something that just works. I realize that other phones will be cheaper and may have more features but I don't care. A phone can have all of the features in the world but if they are poorly implemented and/or the UI sucks what's the point? I don't have time to fiddle with crap all day long. Life's to short. I want something that will just work and I'm willing to pay for it.
I'll skip the first generation to give Apple a chance to work the kinks out and to further improve the product but as soon as the second generation of the iPhone ships I'm buying one. I'll be ready for a new phone by then and I'll be happy to shell out $500 dollars if I know that at the end of the day I'll have a cellphone that does what I need it to do and "just works". If the iPhone lasts half as long as my and holds up half as well as my 3G iPod has then it will have been well worth the money.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Got it wrong about competition (Score:4, Interesting)
As for other cell phones having more features, all I want is a phone that's easy to dial and easy to use. I'm willing to bet Apple will have this part covered pretty well.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comments like your's remind me of CmdrTaco's infamous "No wireless, less space than a Nomad, lame..." quote. This is also the reason why you're completely wrong.
The iPod had less features than it's competitors when it came out as well. Unlike the asian markets, where people want millions of features that they will rarely, if ever use, the american consumer wants just a few features that are simple to use and work
Non-changeable battery (Score:5, Insightful)
The killer problem with the iPhone in my book, and it seems to get knocks from others I know as well, is the fact it doesn't have a battery you can changeout on the fly. I travel, and I don't always have access to a power outlet. Worse, the iPhone is designed to do things other than just being a phone, hence I will need to use it more often. So, whats with this fixed battery?
boneheaded.
Then again Apple is about looks more than anything in their consumer side. There are a few bright ideas in their PC group that seriously need to come over to the iPod/iPhone side.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a very good point about the battery... Power users need extra batteries, by definition...
--jeffk++
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
RTFPPIYOP
(That is - Read the Fine Previous Paragraph in Your Own Post)
It needs to be fairly wide and tall to make the touch screen work. Adding a removable battery (hatch, internal compartment, contacts, rigid case for the battery...) would make it wide, tall and thick. At least it is (presumably) charge-by-USB, so you won't need multiple power adaptors.
Re:Non-changeable battery (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, my wife and I both have Treos we use pretty heavily, and neither of us have ever had a need or desire to change the battery on-the-fly, nor have we gotten new batteries even after a couple of years. Our usage patterns mean that not changing the battery midday works perfectly fine for us. And by the time we'd even need to replace the battery for degradation reasons, we'll both have new phones.
Others will always carry spare batteries with them, and know in advance they need or want this capability on iPhone. For those, iPhone is obviously not appropriate. Thankfully, no one is forcing them to buy one!
There will also be a third group of people: those who think they need to be able to change the battery routinely, but actually don't, and never even have on any phone they've owned. Some people who currently have smartphone/PDA class devices who have never changed batteries will be in this group. We'll call this the "FUD" or "iPod's Dirty Secret" group.
Actually, I think the biggest problem with the battery isn't that it's not quickly user-accessible; it's going to ultimately be whether or not Apple requires the phone to be sent in to have its battery replaced. Personally, I would hope they would be replaceable on-demand while you wait at any Apple or AT&T/Cingular corporate store. Sending your phone in for a week if and when you need a new battery won't fly.
On the other hand, Apple is also operating under the presumption that many people will want to - and in fact do - replace their phones when the subsidy contract period is up. Therefore, the number of people who actually do need a battery replacement while the device is in service as a phone (as opposed to keeping it as an iPod) will be small. There will also no doubt be numerous third-party and do-it-yourself solutions, likely including higher capacity batteries as they become available, just as there are with iPod. However, I still admit I was very surprised that Apple went the way of the iPod with the iPhone, in terms of the battery setup.
In any case, all of the power accessories for iPod already work with iPhone, and there will be large groups of customers - indeed, the vast majority - who won't be affected by not being able to replace the battery on the fly. Now, I can see some people saying "what if I want to watch my hour of TV on the train ride to work, and then again on the way home, and listen to music all day, and make four hours of voice calls" and such, but I think the answer is that the battery life will work for some people, and for others it won't. Still others will realize that they have power outlets or USB ports or cigarette lighters around them all day long, and having to use them for iPhone is just, well, the tradeoff of wanting an iPhone (if they're in fact in the group who exhausts the battery every day).
I'm tracking iPhone battery issues here [iphonebatteryfaq.com] as they develop. Disclaimer: that is my site, and it does have Google AdSense. As was the case with iPod, I really don't think it will be a big deal for iPhone, save for a vocal minority. I wonder how long we'll have to wait for an iPhone's Dirty Secret movie that intentionally misrepresents the situation [ipodbatteryfaq.com]?
Parent
Biggest Difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Advantages (Score:2)
The iPhone is surely intriguing. Slap in a terminal, and get a blu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they keep it closed, it won't make any difference whatsoever.
iPhone should be closed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on, it just isn't important for the iPhone to be "open".
Think of the iPhone as being closed in the same sense that the Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, PSP and DS are all "closed". Because that's exactly the sense in which it's going to be closed. It doesn't mean there will be no third-party developers. It means that all third-party products will have to pass Apple's technical certification requirements. It's quality control. Video game platforms have done this for decades.
The only drawback is that guys like yo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So far, all the indications are that the iPhone is a closed device. You are unlikely to be able to run a terminal.
In fact, I'm a bit baffled about all the comparisons between the iPhone and Newton and current smartphones. The iPhone isn't a PDA and it isn't a smartphone. It just a really slick fairly basic phone.
Rather than just lowering the price (Score:3, Interesting)
The iMac/eMac of the iPhones!
The iPhone mini!
Introducing the iphone shuffle. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Yep, it had nothing to do with hand recognition.. (Score:2)
Kinda shameful that untrained hand writing recognition is still shit.
iMac, OSX, Intel Switch, iPod, iTunes, etc.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The armchair economists hard at work here seem to forget that apple (until recently) has made a business of selling branded, exclusive products at a hefty premium. To own a mac you had to be willing to part with more than a few hundred extra dollars, but for whatever reason, it was worth it. Whatever that reason may be: actual performance gains, better UI, susceptability to the RDF, who cares. It doesn't matter if 10M customers take leave of their senses and buy a 600 dollar phone with a cingular contract because of apple branding and market power or if they do so because it is a fundamentally better option. Either way, we are looking at a repeat of apple's succesful past history.
Duh? (Score:3, Funny)
The Price Issue (Score:2)
1) I seem to recall that there are rumours AT&T/Cingular will reduce the price on the service plan. So instead of $80/mo + free phone, we may see $30/mo + $500 phone.
2) How much is a blackberry? This seems like it can easily capture blackberry users with its integrated email functionality -- does it compete well at this pricepoint?
The one problem I see
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for stealing tons of Blackberry users: not going to happen. The iPhone does not have a hardware keyboard, and this is a deal-breaker for the heavy email use set. And, no, the software keyboard, mul
Could be true (Score:2)
Totally missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA:
Umm, if Apple does have hubris, it's just giving back the same hubris that the wireless carriers have been throwing around for years.
Exactly. The Newton was the first kid on the block, so it took competition a couple of years to appear, identify the flaws in the Newton, and beat it. That's the opposite of Apple: the smart phone market has been around for a few years, and Apple has identified the flaws in the existing offerings, and will beat them. It's like the iPod: hardly the first MP3 player, and certainly not the cheapest, but undoubtably the most succesful.
Probably the same kind of people who already spend $700+ on a so-called "smart phone" that does less, is harder to use, and looks less fashionable than the iPhone. And it doesn't really matter: if it makes a profit for Apple, then it's a good thing.
It's simple personal economics: if you don't want it, don't buy it.
would these be the people (Score:2)
Screw you Apple (Score:2, Funny)
Personally, it doesn't appeal... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is hardly "revolutionary" technology - I don't under
Give it a chance to be released (Score:2)
There's plenty of margin on this device, and Apple is pretty good at playing the demand/price curve. iPods are always released at some ridiculous high price, then slashed 20-25% before its EOL.
My guess is that the iPhone will be the flagship product, and you'll have a touch iPod in the $300 price range that will bring people in.
Why speculate when we'll know soon enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Apple doesn't have an unblemished record when it comes to introducing innovative new devices?" Well, big whoop. Neither does Microsoft (remember Microsoft Bob?), IBM (remember the four-inch floppy? No? Thought you didn't), whatever.
Innovation is always risky. And success or failure can turn on a hair. If a few breaks had gone Apple's way the Newton might have succeeded. Conversely, a few turns in the other direction and the Mac might have failed (anyone remember just how bleak things looked in late 1985?)
I still love Steve Jobs for saying that "the killer app for cell phones is making calls." Maybe that's just a slick Steve Jobs talking point... or maybe Apple's iPhone team believes it to the core, and they've made something that'sreally good for making calls. With all his blathering of whether it's innovative or not, and whether it's overpriced or not, David Haskins never addresses the question of how good it is for making calls.
People happily buy "overpriced" iPods because they're really good for listening to music. If it turns out that the average cell-phone user thinks iPhones are really good for making calls it will succeed. But we won't know that until a lot of iPhones are in the flesh-and-blood sweaty greasy hands of a lot of real customers.
Neutron died a quiet wok (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing to see here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, this is a mercifully short rant at least. Too bad it's totally disconnected and the points are each (separately) developed poorly. If his main point is really what it seems to be (that is, that Apple is making the same mistakes with iPhone as it did with Newton) then here's what I see wrong with it:
1)He compares the pricing of the two devices...but seems only to go as far as saying they both cost "too much." He doesn't seem to put together the fact that the Newton's $700 1993 price tag was almost exactly twice as expensive as the iPhone: $999.48 [westegg.com] inflation adjusted. And that's for a much less capable device, with an untested interface that didn't work well.
2)He notes the real reasons why the Newton failed (large size, bad handwriting recognition, completely new product category), but doesn't attempt to claim that these will be problems for the iPhone. They won't, so he simply ignores them.
3)Evidently he considers competition to be a problem that the iPhone has in common with the Newton. This after he notes that the Newton was the first device of its kind, and therefore had absolutely no competition. Strong competition may or may not be problematic for the iPhone, but it certainly won't be a parallel to the Newton.
4)He totally misrepresents the only evidence he cites. Specifically, the study on how many people would buy at what prices. His link says "miniscule number." Yet the survey itself says 26% of respondents said they would be likely to buy it, and 1% of those would buy it at the launch price. Insofar as Apple itself has set a goal of only 1% market share, being able to sell a quarter of that volume for the launch price sounds extremely encouraging to me...imagine if a quarter of Sony's target market had thrown down $600 for a PS3. Also, the study makes specific note of the fact that they don't expect the price to stay that high; business as usual in the cell-phone world, but totally ignored by this author.
History (Score:5, Insightful)
I have my doubts too about the iPhone. The MP2000 cost $1000 in 1996. Not only was this a severe psychological threshold (adding an extra digit), but in current, 2007 dollars that is 2.5x as much as the iPhone. The base iPhone is under a psychological threshold (500), and in real terms much cheaper than the MP2000.
It's also simply not true that the Newton didn't have competition. In the same year that Apple introduced the 2000, the first MP that worked really well, Palm introduced the Pilot, which had a radically different view of a PDA. It didn't even recognize ordinary handwriting -- it didn't have the horsepower. But even though users had to learn graffitti, it got the most important thing right: form factor. A PDA must be something you don't mind carrying.
Finally -- and this is huge difference -- the MessagePad was a platform. You could buy it for its address list and notepad, but given the size of the box, you could just as practically use a paper planner. What it needed for success was developers and applications that would go beyond the paper planner, and which would integrate with the user's information infrastructure. As clunky as Palms HotSync architecture is, the Newton Connection manager was clunkier still. I worked with developers of Newton apps trying to convince them to work on streamlining the process of moving data back and forth to databases, but truth be told the Newton, without a built in network, wasn't a very attractive platform for this.
The iPhone is not a platform. It's a gadget. It could be a platform, but Apple has closed it. Personally, I think this is more draconian than necessary, but it makes Apple's intention clear: users will buy this thing for what's built in. It's a converged device for the uses which, after a decade of mobile technology, have been proven attractive to consumers.
There may be some wisdom here. I was in the computer store the other day to get a cable for my PDA, and I was shocked that the PDA display had shrunk from several counters of PDAs to a two shelves only eighteen inches wide, tucked under a counter. One shelf was for Palms and the other for Pocket PCs. All the space that used to be taken up by PDAs, and then some, was taken up by accessories for iPods. So why fight it? Why invite retailers to set it up next to a pocket PC phone, when you already have a category all to yourself?
Altogether, we're talking about a different scenario with the iPhone. The Newton was trying to create a new category of products, the iPhone is trying to muscle in on an existing category. It's risky, but if it fails, it won't be parallel to the Newton at all. Sure, you can always say if a device was cheaper, it would sell more. That doesn't explain anything at all. But if the Newton had been half the price, it probably would not have succeeded in the long run because it was too big for what it was immediately useful, too poorly connected for what it could have been useful for.
If you think the iPhone is too expensive... (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot editors, here is a newsflash: "Industry analysts" are analysts because the are to frigging stupid to actually make it in the industry they are analyzing. Don't post crap like this.
Hefty Price? RAZR was more on launch. (Score:3, Informative)
When the RAZR launched (Cingular-only) in 2003, it was $500. WITH contract. And the sole reason for its price was style. At least Apple has SOME substance to go with their style.
I'm not defending the iPhone. When watching the keynote, I was, as most were, in Steve Jobs' "Reality Distortion Field". But upon seeing the actual specs, I know I won't be buying one. But it really isn't that outrageously priced, either.
99% of the people hate it (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I think opinions will change once people actually have the product to hold and look at. Then you will start seeing real opinions on whether people like it or dislike it. Until then, blah--it's all made up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:$284.99 + $160 = $444.99 (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe this applies to the iPhone, maybe not, but your inability to even see this issue leads me to suspect that you don't actually know what most people in the real world will or will not pay for.
Parent