The Economist on Apple, the iPhone, and Innovation 171
portscan writes "This week's Economist has a special report on Apple, Inc. and innovation. 'The fourth lesson from Apple is to "fail wisely". The Macintosh was born from the wreckage of the Lisa, an earlier product that flopped; the iPhone is a response to the failure of Apple's original music phone, produced in conjunction with Motorola. Both times, Apple learned from its mistakes and tried again. Its recent computers have been based on technology developed at NeXT, a company Mr Jobs set up in the 1980s that appeared to have failed and was then acquired by Apple. The wider lesson is not to stigmatize failure but to tolerate it and learn from it: Europe's inability to create a rival to Silicon Valley owes much to its tougher bankruptcy laws.' There is also an article on the business of the iPhone and the future of the company. "
Tough bankruptcy laws? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps the author should look towards Central Europe ca. 1991-2001 to see what economic wonders occur when you have
Re:Bias (Score:2, Interesting)
When did Microsoft get it right?
* Windows 95
* Windows 2000
* Microsoft Office 97
* IE 5.0
The 9x series went down the toilet with the release of 98 and ME, while 2000 has slowly evolved into that pretty but useless abomination known as "Vista", MS Office has added gobs of features that really are NOT great (do I want another MS XML Office Format? No thanks, two is enough.), and IE stopped being a good browser when Microsoft stopped keeping up with technology. Instead, IE7 is possibly the worst looking piece of software Microsoft has ever produced while simultaneously dropping usability to nil.
Compare that to Apple who knows how to make a success even more successful. OS X has actually had compelling improvements in each version, the iPod has only gotten sleeker and smaller while the interface improved, their hardware has gotten nicer looking and more usable with each release, their iLife software has gone from just "pretty looking" to "pretty looking and GOOD", and Safari (sorry to single this out) has gone from basic-internet-experience to being the first browser to pass the ACID2 test.
Re:Apples the king at failing (Score:5, Interesting)
The difference between the two is that with Apple the exchange of money for product represents a transaction that benefits both parties. A happy company and a satisfied customer. With Microsoft all you get is a happy Microsoft and an angry/sad customer.
So Microsoft customers get the raw end of the deal. They pays their money and get nothing in return.
Speaking of failures... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Could the iPhone demos & Apple ads be simul (Score:3, Interesting)
And then have none? (Score:3, Interesting)
And then have zero [slashdot.org] to sell at launch?
They need to be able to get them here to sell them.
Re:Killer App (Score:3, Interesting)
Second, I hate telling things where they are when the technology exists for it to know. The "Calamari" iPhone ad was a great example--"Hmm, where's a good seafood restaurant close to where I am."
Third, there are times when I don't know where I am when I'm driving. While I hate people who stare at their GPS while driving, it is handy to at least have a device that says, "You missed the turn."
Fourth, I like the idea of a device that knows where I am and can configure itself appropriately. I don't have to go in and futz with time-zones. It can tell I'm somewhere around my house and set my network up appropriately. It can tell I'm somewhere around work and set my network up appropriately. It can even keep my clock accurate without an Internet connection. Heck, ideally it might keep track of all this stuff so once I year when I go through JFK airport, I don't have to spend half my layover trying to figure out how to get on the Internet because it remembers the configuration from last year and it's geo-tagged (to use a buzzword) to JFK Airport.
While a GPS isn't a killer app, per se, having a GPS in the phone and an API to get the data gives application developers some interesting ideas...
Re:Killer App (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a useful feature, but if it's easy enough to set a few default locations that you frequent not very much less useful.
Third, there are times when I don't know where I am when I'm driving. While I hate people who stare at their GPS while driving, it is handy to at least have a device that says, "You missed the turn."
I've been misled by GPS street systems before as well though. I'd much rather have a decent map of the turns I'm supposed to make, and know I've missed my turn by a series of street names I know mean I've gone too far.
Fourth, I like the idea of a device that knows where I am and can configure itself appropriately. I don't have to go in and futz with time-zones. It can tell I'm somewhere around my house and set my network up appropriately. It can tell I'm somewhere around work and set my network up appropriately. It can even keep my clock accurate without an Internet connection. Heck, ideally it might keep track of all this stuff so once I year when I go through JFK airport, I don't have to spend half my layover trying to figure out how to get on the Internet because it remembers the configuration from last year and it's geo-tagged (to use a buzzword) to JFK Airport.
But GPS is not needed from any of that. OS X recognizes networks you have been to before, and also allows you to have custom network profiles (though it's seemless enough that I have never used them) so it would remember that anyway. The timezone and time can come from the cell aspect of the phone, so they are just as accurate as they would be from GPS (moreso since cell towers know if a locality is in daylight savings or not, something a GPS is indifferent to).
And what if that network changed in the intervieing year? Having network setup behaviour rely on location triggers rather than recognizing known devices and networks, is I think more likley to have issues in the future.
Re:Buy Palm? (Score:3, Interesting)
Right now Verizon is the carrier to have for high speed wireless data with EVDO, but the thing about AT&T is that they're building out HSDPA which is several times faster than EVDO and the planned upgrade path for the majority of cell networks globally. AT&T might suck, but as far as I can tell they suck less than the competition. What carrier should they have picked instead? (I'm actually curious, that wasn't a rhetorical question) I've been using AT&T solely because they seem to be the most premissive about unlocked phones. It's all about the phone. The cell coverage seems to suck about equally no matter what carrier you go with.