By Tom Kirkham
As industry trade shows go, Macworld Expo must surely have the edge over the likes of Storage Expo and Aircraft Interiors Expo in the coolness stakes (though feel free to email if you wish to dispute this). This year, the event has made the national front pages, largely thanks to Apple's most anticipated launch since the iPod: the iPhone. But while it's slim and it's sexy, and I'm admittedly feeling a little seduced, this time I'm not sure if the world is going to fall in love.
Steve Jobs claims, "the iPod changed everything in 2001", and he's absolutely right - it completely revolutionised the music industry and has gone a long way towards killing the CD. However, the iPod was essentially a brand new device. Yes, there were a couple of MP3 players floating around, but the iPod’s design and capacity made the format mass-market and - through close integration with home computers and the internet - has transformed the way people purchase music.
Now the iPhone is certainly as visually appealing as the iPod, but for all of its touch-screen-based ergonomically advanced aesthetically pleasing lovely-rita-meter-maid-playing features, it's still a mobile phone - not a new class of device - and one with an established set of criteria. For instance, handset manufacturers continue to put number keys on their phones because the market has (so far) refused to accept anything more advanced.
Apple isn't creating the market this time around, it's entering an existing one in which handsets are heavily subsidised, churn is massive, and operator tariffs play a huge part in determining which handsets people choose. As The Register has pointed out, Apple's primary focus should be on bigging up the iPhone to operators rather than customers. Given the huge investment made in 3G in Europe, and the emergence of technologies like HSDPA, trying to sell in a GSM handset over here also represents a potential stumbling block.
It would be foolish to predict out-and-out failure for the iPhone given the colossal strength of the Apple brand, and the company's unerring ability to make grown men drool. But the mass-market will surely need a lot of convincing if it is to embrace such a radical new design, especially since some people have owned bog-standard mobiles for years and still haven't figured out how to send a text properly.
It's a tough one to call, and should it succeed or fail, Apple surely deserves credit for the scope of its ambition and sheer audacity. What's more, there are only a handful of companies that have ever managed to create such mass obsession with a single product - and this despite the fact that iPods usually break after about twelve months! It's a company with a blueprint for success, and who knows... if there are enough gadget freaks that get genuinely turned on by hi-tech toys (I'm thinking there are a fair few in the JK office), the iPhone could just push the Apple brand even further into the stratosphere.
The power of the brand will no doubt see it succeed to some extent, though it is unlikely to be anywhere near as successful as the iPod. It reminds me of the Playstation brand, where undoubtedly people will still buy it purely because of the name but it will never be as successful because there is stronger competition than before and they have not done enough to differentiate themselves sufficiently. However, I must disagree with your last point - I don't think Apple should be admired for their ambition, in fact if anything they've been too unambitious. Trying to sell the phone on the basis of its multimedia functions, but then not making the phone compatible with third generation networks is a bit daft.
Posted by: Stephen Waddington | 16 January 2007 at 15:34
Stephen, surely that has nothing to do with ambition? Attempting to do the same in the mobile space as Apple has done in the music industry is hugely ambitious. You're entitled to think that Apple has made a mistake (though no one seems to be making any money from 3G), but trying to achieve ambition using flawed means is totally different to lacking the ambition in the first place.
How do you think Apple could have better differentiated the iPhone from its competition?
Posted by: Tom | 16 January 2007 at 15:59