What is Steve Jobs Really Up To?

iPhone Debut Rivals Harry Potter Mania, But Will It Last and Why?

Two days before the official launch of the iPhone, the pitch of media, pundit and public anxiety over perhaps the most anticipated new product since Windows 95 has reached a level only Steve Jobs could properly describe -- Insanely Great!  And here I am, contributing to the noise, raising it even a decibel louder if that's possible.

How loud is it?  As I finish writing this post, Technorati says that there are nearly 189,000 blog postings (in English -- there are nearly 305,000 in all languages) that talk about the iPhone.  Compare that with 39,170 that mention Motorola's RAZR, a phone that was the previous biggest smash hit and which literally put Motorola back in the cell phone business after years of decline.  Nearly 6 times the level of mention of a phone which has been exceedingly popular, a design hit, has been in the market since 2004 and which exceeded all other flip phone sales within one year of its release.  And, the number of postings that include mention of the iPhone has been rising by over 1,000 every 4 hours today, and you can count on it growing even faster until the pent up hysteria is released at 6pm on Friday.  And, the chatter certainly won't stop then.

Every major media outlet has weighed in.  The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, USA Today, every computer or telecom related industry trade journal has reviewed it.  Virtually everyone who's been privileged to receive one of the media samples for review has said it's cool -- so cool it almost lives up to its hype.  Like the mania for video game consoles or Harry Potter books, prospective customers started waiting in line outside flagship stores in New York Tuesday morning.  Unprecedented for a phone.

Think about it -- the entire country seems locked in a heat wave, with most major cities experiencing temperatures in the mid 90s or higher.  Yet, people are so lustful of being one of the first to own an iPhone, that they will camp outside a store for 4 days in the sweltering heat to lock in to a 2-year service commitment from AT&T, the worst service provider in the business (more on that later).

So, does all this mean runaway success -- the game is already won?  Or, will there be an equal and opposite reaction when possibility and excitement about the future gives way to reality, and inevitable issues with service, availability, bugs in functionality and unfulfilled expectations?

Apple fanatics say it will be successful because it is ultra-cool, easy-to-use, a breakthrough in design elegance and software sophistication. Naysayers say nothing could live up to this level of hype, and that when things die down, sales will appear lackluster no matter how good they are. Virtually everyone notes the stupidity of getting into an exclusive deal with AT&T and warns that this could be the albatross around the iPhone's neck. Almost all of the speculation and predictions are based on visceral and emotional reactions, and influenced heavily by the reality dispersion bubble that surrounds Steve Jobs, and by the majority belief that "better" wins. 

But if we run with that notion reductio ad absurdum, what exactly does 'winning' mean?  Assuming that the consensus is that the iPhone is a better phone, does it have to achieve market dominance as a late entrant the way the iPod has in the MP3 player space? Surely it doesn't have to match iPod's 80% market share within 5 years! There are over a billion mobile phones already in use around the world.  Is a 10 or 20% market share strong enough to be considered successful? (The RAZR's share is only around 5%.) Is this even the right yardstick to use?

The iPhone Will Be a Disruptive Winner

iPhone will be successful regardless of the metrics used.  It will be successful beyond the expectations of the most enthusiastic pundits.  It will be successful beyond what Steve Jobs thinks.  It will be successful in spite of the apparent deficiencies that have already been noted in the reviews. It will be successful despite partnering exclusively with a single carrier, and the one most despised in the industry -- although this will be the biggest road bump the iPhone faces.  It will be successful because it will change the game -- actually, it will change many games, and therein lies the secret of its success.  It will do all this because it will be disruptive. 

But, predictions are dangerous. And, mine disagree with those of many people whose opinions I respect and whose theories I borrow from. Even though I'm siding with the majority who believe the iPhone will be a big winner, how do I arrive at that conclusion and what exactly makes it disruptive?

Who Disagrees With Me

Before explaining what the highly respected experts are missing, let me first say who some of them are and try to summarize their positions.

Innosight

Innosight is the consulting company formed by Clayton Christensen to sell management services around disruptive innovation. Clay developed the original ideas and theoretical framework that underlies disruptive innovation in his series of books - The Innovator's Dilemma, The Innovator's Solution and Seeing What's Next. Saying he (or his minions) have it wrong is like saying that the pope isn't Catholic.

In January, after the original announcement of the iPhone, Innosight consultant Jonathan Barrett said:

• at $500 or $600, the price is too high
• Cingular (now merged into AT&T) is incapable of providing the same high quality, seamless user experience that Apple customers expect
• iPhone won't work on 3G high speed data networks -- only EDGE or Wi-Fi is supported -- so there won't be anything unique or distinctive about the wireless service
• the deficiencies plus high price point will prevent iPhone from finding a market sweet spot
• the approach of Apple is a "sustaining strategy" (i.e. incremental innovation of the cell phone), not a disruptive one, positioned against deep pocketed, long time industry incumbents who have a lot to lose if Apple wins and will fight fiercely for share

He reaches his "not disruptive" conclusion while still finding many things to like, such as lack of keyboard, design beauty, novel interface, thinness and coolness factor.

Mike Urlocker

My colleague, and the CEO of The Disruption Group, has a stronger technology, industry and investment background when it comes to the iPhone, having been the original analyst at UBS to identify the RIM Blackberry as a disruptive product and the first to recommend RIM as a strong buy. Mike has worked for and advised software companies on marketing strategy, and at UBS he was executive director and member of the global technology and telecom teams.

In his Disruption Scorecard evaluation of the iPhone, again shortly after the original announcement in January, Mike rates it a B-, and labels it likely a hit, but not very disruptive.  He reasons that the product appeals to people who want status and high design (the coolness factor) and are willing to pay for it, but that it doesn't have much potential to change the game like Blackberry did, or upset incumbent rivals such as Nokia, Motorola or Samsung.

Laura and Al Ries

Branding and positioning experts Laura and Al Ries (Al Ries and Jack Trout wrote the original book that defined the concept of positioning) take a different tack, identifying the iPhone as a "convergence" product, and the iPod as a "divergence" product. The concepts of divergence and convergence come from Evolution Theory -- basically, the idea is that there is a common origin to all species, but that over time the "tree of life" diverges as natural selection creates specializations to adapt to the environment.

Similarly, Al and Laura (and other pundits too) argue that the natural trend for all products is towards divergence and specialization to better suit consumer needs. They claim the iPod was successful because it was a divergence product. Moreover, they argue that most "convergence" products fail -- convergence being when multiple feature categories are combined in a single product (in iPhone's case, an iPod, cell phone and PDA).

Their position is that consumers prefer products that are optimized to do one task well, rather than a lot of tasks poorly, and they further claim that the iPhone has been over hyped and most over hyped products fail to live up to expectations, therefore the iPhone will be a failure.

Hmmmmm.

Most of the others who claim the iPhone will be a failure base it on their own personal biases rather than what the market as a whole is likely to do and why -- "I'm not going to get one because . . .".  Name your complaint here. Price, lack of keyboard, slow data network, AT&T as carrier, touch screen keys too small to hit accurately, it will have bugs in version 1.0, etc.

So, what are they all missing, and more to the point, what is Steve Jobs really up to?

The Label Problem

One of the problems with evaluating anything analytically is that we get hung up on labels rather than thinking about what the labels mean and why the rules of thumb associated with them usually work. In the case of the iPhone, there are many labels and definitions being applied that are throwing people off the scent of what's really happening and my belief is that this is deliberate. Yes, Steve is trying to fool the experts and fly below the analytical radar, ironically while mounting one of the most pervasive and successful hype build ups of all time.

To start with, the name iPhone is a mislabeling. While iPhone does indeed have phone capability in it, it is not a phone. Suspend disbelief for a second, walk with me a little, and it will all make sense soon.

Is your laptop PC a phone because you can make GoogleTalk or Skype calls using it? If not, why not? Does it matter that it isn't the only thing you do with it? What if that was the most important thing you did with your PC, because you make a lot of calls to India, and free long distance service is worth a lot to you? Still not a phone? Well, if your PC isn't a phone, is it a typewriter? I know that the primary purpose for my PC is typing documents, blog posts and html. I print a lot of those on paper. Mine is definitely an evolved typewriter. Or maybe your PC is really a gaming console, or a mobile email device because you use it at home, at work, at Starbucks and at hotels and other wi-fi hotspots around the world to send and receive emails. Or, maybe it's just another example of a highly unsuccessful convergence device? Or, do you still think your PC is something else?

The iPhone is Definitely Not a Phone

So, if you were willing to suspend disbelief and suppose that the iPhone might not be a phone, what is it then? Let's start with why it's called an iPhone. iPhone is both sales positioning and a ruse. iPhone is positioned as a phone because Apple knows that in that niche, the market is sorely lacking for a stylish, easy to use, fun, visual, well-designed and well integrated device. It is a first if only because of its elegance. Don't believe me? Then why isn't it really an evolved iPod?  One with a really big screen, beautiful graphics and music navigation, and by the way, it includes the ability to make phone calls?

The reason is because Apple believes this is the purpose that you will understand out of the starting gate, and for which it can convince people to shell out $500 or $600 to get the most stylish and coolest gadget on the block. Therefore it is positioned as a phone, and that's the basis on which everyone is analyzing it, and writing glowing reviews, but it isn't a phone. It's also a ruse, because Mr. Jobs has a much higher goal in mind than selling the world's coolest phone. But this is an effective way to divert attention from the real disruption that is happening until it's too late.

Why This Makes Perfect Sense

Let's get a historical perspective to make a little more sense of this. When Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone and tried to sell his patents to Western Union in the late 1870s, how do you think he described what it was? No one had a framework to describe how revolutionary the phone would be as a communications tool. If you wanted to talk to someone, you went across the street, knocked on their door, and if they were at home or in their office, you could talk. Initially, outside of the securities industry, people couldn't even understand why they would want a phone. Especially since the first version could only work over short distances due to signal loss on the wires. There was no network, there wasn't any need for communications to be sped up that much and nobody else had one, so how much use was it?

Bell considered the telephone to be a way to transmit voice over the telegraph, and that's why he thought Western Union would buy his patents. Bell viewed the telephone, perhaps one of the most disruptive technologies of all time, as an incremental ("sustaining") innovation over telegraphy. (Western Union viewed it as being worth less than $100,000 since they rejected the offer to buy the patents for that much, although they later tried to buy them for $25 million.) Do you consider your telephone today to be a highly evolved telegraph? If you can imagine that, what about your cell phone, or is it different because it's mobile? What then of the iPhone? Just a space age telegraphy device with no keys or dials?

The important thing to note here is that in the early days, it is difficult to imagine the application and importance of disruptive innovations if they really are, because no one has a framework to understand its value. That's why the car was positioned as a horseless carriage. That's why TV was radio with pictures. That's why the first computer was called ENIAC -- or the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Calculator.  That's right, it was a calculator that cost 200,000 man hours to build, $486,804 in 1946, and used $650/hr worth of electricity to sit idle. Some times the original naming belies the importance of an innovation. If not for the need to calculate missile trajectories more quickly and accurately during the war, the first computer might never have been built.

And what of convergence versus divergence? Most consultants and branding experts will tell you that convergence as a strategy almost always fails, because the more things you combine into one, the more compromises you have to make in design, and each individual function is sub optimized at the expense of the whole. In disruption theory, a parallel idea says that as companies continually add sustaining innovations to better meet the needs of mainstream consumers and/or differentiate their products, they eventually overshoot the needs of most of their customers. Convergent products usually exceed the needs of all but a small minority of any prospective customer base. After all, who needs every tool on a Swiss Army knife?

That's the theory, but the reality is that when you try to apply simplistic labels to categories or products and then assign attributes or success factors based on those labels, you can miss the forest for the trees. In the case of convergence versus divergence, this is especially true, since which bucket you assign a product to varies based on whether the combined elements are truly synthesized in such a way that they cannot be separated and provide the same benefit, or whether they are just bolted together and not really integrated to optimize overall performance. Ask yourself whether the combination of radio technology, speakers and a cathode ray tube to make a TV represents convergence or divergence? Is it the evolution of radio, or are the elements synthesized in such a way that they create something truly new? If I turn on the TV, but listen to it from another room, is it still a TV, or is it a radio? Did the TV fail because several technologies converged? What about personal computers?

So what is the iPhone, and what is Steve really up to?

It's a handheld one of these

The iPhone is disruptive because it isn't really a phone, or for that matter, an iPod. If it was either of these, then as cool and elegant and nicely designed as it is, it would still just be an incremental or "sustaining" innovation.

Remember that the iPhone has a complete version of the Mac's OSX operating system embedded, plus it lacks a keyboard and has a truly novel interface with seamless integration between different functions. With all that, it can be considered as the first truly personal handheld entertainment and communications computer. It can also be considered the first handheld business computer powerful enough to replace a notebook for road warriors tied of lugging all their paraphernalia through airport security. In other words, it competes in a different class of products -- not as a phone, not as a smart phone, and not as a computer.

It serves the un- or underserved need for lightness, simplicity, ease of use, true integration and is simple enough that my mother could use all the features without thinking about each being a different application or device. Competing against laptops, it doesn't yet have all the applications my PC has, but it is "good enough" that many will be ready to give it a try. And, there are already numerous applications you can download to enhance the functionality for your needs, and many more business applications (especially things like bluetooth connectivity to a real keyboard, document editing, spreadsheets and presentation capability) which will run in Safari are likely to come.  And, when compared to a laptop, it is disruptively inexpensive. Analogous statements are true if you evaluate it as a personal communications and entertainment computer.

This is, I think, what the huge excitement is about. People innately sense that this is much bigger than a phone, they just aren't yet able to articulate what is significant about it, and how we'll look back on Friday June 29, 2007 as one of those days when everything changed. 

And, it looks really cool and I desperately want one.

Steve's End Game

The iPhone is a trojan horse. Steve lost the first battle between the PC and the Mac because he was less sophisticated as a business person in those days, and didn't fully appreciate how difficult it would be to convince the masses that they needed an expensive personal computer before they had even used one at work. In 1984, the Mac exceeded the needs of most potential customers, and looked like a toy to business (unless your business was about graphics or publishing). The DOS-based PC was the "good enough" disruptive innovation of its time because it catered to mainframe users used to buying computing equipment from IBM and used to looking at green-screen character-oriented terminals.

This time it's different. Almost all of us use PCs daily. And, most of us are tired of the now clunky-seeming interface which isn't much different or easier to use than the initial Mac interface of more than 20 years ago. And, we desperately need a single, small pocket-sized device that can handle all our business needs while on the road and enable us to leave our 10 pound paperweights at home. Something that's easy to get through airport security, and makes my life less complicated.

Moreover, at the price point of $500 or $600, this is something that every road warrior can afford today, if only as a style accessory. So, the decision won't be made or inhibited by corporate IT departments. Sure, they'll try to block connectivity to their servers on security grounds -- they always do, because they think computers are about them, not about the users' needs. Of course, the iPhone includes VPN connectivity, and most have already got their heads around that. But so many executives will have these that just like the Blackberry before it, corporate acceptance will be very fast. And, once you've adopted the iPhone as your traveling computer, how much of a jump will it be to make your next notebook/desktop for office use be a Mac?

My Prediction

As a phone, the iPhone will be exceedingly popular. If production can keep up with the demand, I believe that Apple will sell more than 2 million before year end 2007 -- if they can scale fast enough and have a new version out in time for Christmas, maybe as many as 5 million. Steve Job's stated target is 10 million sold by end of 2008. Given that there will probably be at least 2 more versions of this product before that, I believe 10 million is a very low estimate, set so that expectations can be smashed -- again, it will depend how fast production can gear up to handle demand and support several different models, but 20 million should be easily reachable.

As additional business applications start coming online, probably early to mid-2008, expect sales to really take off. We will no longer be judging the iPhone as a phone when that happens, but as a true micro-mini sized PC which revolutionizes the entire tech industry and rejuvenates innovation throughout Silicon Valley. At that point, the iPhone will disrupt Blackberry, Nokia, Motorola, Microsoft, Samsung, and maybe even Nintendo (to name a few).

see Seth's Prediction Page

Postscript

And, what about AT&T? Well, that truly is the fly in the ointment and Steve's Achilles Heel. AT&T is brutish about customer service, slow to innovate and slow to reform. They will try to extort every possible advantage in pricing and contractual obligation that they can. AT&T knows nothing if not how to exercise a monopolistic advantage.

Moreover, AT&T lacks the broadest service coverage, and no single carrier (in the US, at least) is right for everyone. We all know that signal strength and dropped calls vary based on where you spend most of your time. So, if you live in an AT&T dead zone, tough luck. Their EDGE network is slow, and they don't have anywhere near complete enough coverage with their 3G services (which aren't built into this version of the iPhone anyway).

It's hard to understand why Job's wouldn't let the market decide if he wasn't going to lease his own service. With a single carrier that many will be unhappy with, Apple will take the brunt of service complaints -- if I could go anywhere, I'd blame the carrier, not Apple.  Verizon has the best coverage and fewest dropped calls. T-Mobile has the best customer service, best rates, and happiest customers.  Maybe AT&T (Cingular at the time) was the only one willing to play ball on the technology changes that Steve wanted.

Regardless, if service complaints and customer mistreatment stories start hitting the press, expect a negative backlash that could take a serious bite out of sales growth and long term success. On the other hand, wide scale Wi-Max is a technology whose time may well have come -- it would make perfect sense for independent Wi-Max providers to bathe cities in their signal, and then AT&T could become almost irrelevant in the equation (if Wi-Fi VOIP capability exists).

Other Links

• iPhone Q + A
• iPhone facts from Engadget
• Vote for the iPhone: Hit or Miss
• Microsoft Surface vs iPhone???
• Consumerization of IT: iPhone Skirmishing Begins
• Apple Innovation Blog
• Apple Introduces Safari for Windows
• Safari Beta for Windows Tops 1 Million Downloads in First 48 Hours
• RIM versus Apple, Integration versus Modularity
• iPhone Application List

Comments

[don Williams]

I think your right on. This thing will be huge, but the second version will be even bigger yet. Go Apple!

[mark]

Fully agree, especially the trojan horse aspect. I'm sure Apple studied the Origami/UMPC flop, and said there's a much better way to build, market, and sell a mobile, pocketable "computing" device.

So Apple put in the ipod to bring immediate familiarity. The phone brings familiarity but moves beyond in simplicity, AND (very key) brings in the paying-for-service aspect (not found in the iPod). The third aspect is the truly something new, the thin client, always networked computer that will be fleshed out over time. Yes, other phones/pdas have had web access but they didn't make it known or really easy to use. I don't know how quickly Apple will build but Apple already showed what looked like an RSS reader at reader.mac.com (but now changed it just shows the iPhone clock screen), mentioned Leopard's Back to the .Mac feature that allows web access to your home computer, and put forth the iPhone web app message at WWDC that was pooh-poohed or overlooked by most.

The iPhone does not yet have the "computer" capability that you envision; it doesn't have writing/editing capability other than email and its bluetooth doesn't yet support a physical keyboard (or anything other than a headset). But there's still lots to learn about what people want in a pocketable computer.

[mark]

Guess I should amend that last paragraph. To be accurate, the iPhone also has SMS and Notes in terms of general writing/editing capability.

[Paul]

Mark:

Thanks. Agree about the full computer capability, and lack of Office-type apps. Should have made that clearer. Once a few million people are toting these about though, and it isn't seen as a threat, and connectivity's already been established to corporate email, doesn't it make perfect sense?

Bluetooth keyboard seems like a really obvious add-on, although I know that's not there yet either. Have read elsewhere that it also lacks any kind of cut/paste ability.

Still, this is Apple's way to convince corporate America that the Mac is good enough for general business use, and I'm sure that some of features I'm looking for will be that much easier if you can upload presentations from your Mac. Look how much Mac sales have been enhanced by people using iPods -- this will drive billions more in add on revenue.

Thanks for the note.

[John]

Thank you for the nice post.

[Jeff at www.thenewsroom.com]

Ah, but about life after Steve?

http://thenewsroom.com/details/453236?c_id=wom-bc-js

[Paul]

Jeff:

There's no doubt that Steve is the company. Look how messed up it got when John Sculley and Gil Amelio tried to run it.

Steve is not only the visionary, he is the charisma and the brand. Many companies in tech are like this, Apple just happens to be the number 1 example.

My recommendation is neither to look inside nor to conduct a traditional search when the time comes, but to look for a small to mid-size, but rapidly growing company started and run by a similar leader who is 30-something, cares about technology, has a similar feel for design, is passionate and opinionated with a lot of backbone, and to acquire that company in order to acquire its CEO. A company like Google about 5-6 years ago.

Regardless, the company will change dramatically, and not all transitions are successful, especially following someone of Steve's stature.

[Marcus]

Your article is dead on!

The iPhone will revolutionize the computer industry. It will be very disruptive and will mark the rise of the third computer Era, the "Computer Devices Era", a post Mainframe and post PC Era.

As you put it, the Cellphone and the iPod are divergent devices, and although both have a computer inside, they are basically focused in doing only one thing.

The iPhone is a convergence device, like the PC was.

iPhone's differential will be its advanced user interface and its ability to leverage the network services. Not the Cellphone or the iPod functions inside it.

The PC will be the computer device at the office, sort of the "digital hub", as the mainframe became the server for the PCs.

Initially there will be at least 3 new computer devices: the handheld, at the living-room and at the car.

The iPhone will be "The Handheld Computer Device".

It allows the user to interact seamlessly with other computer devices and network services. This will become clearer over time as Apple deploys software updates.

The Apple TV will be the computer device for the living-room. The iPhone will eventually interact with it directly.

You can also expect a computer device for the car, that will also interact with the iPhone.

For example, you will see audio and video streaming between these devices, among other features.

Remember Sun's vision that "the network is the computer". The iPhone will represent the successful implementation of this vision.

A next generation iPhone will include support for 3G, 802.11n, Wi-Max and a webcam.

iChat functionality will certainly be incorporated in future versions, but it needs more bandwidth and a webcam for this.

AT&T is a necessary evil for Apple to enter the cellphone market. Note that HP and Motorola were used by Apple in the past, for iPod distribution and the iTunes phone.

In the future, the iPhone will bypass cellphone networks all together. Wi-Fi and Wi-Max will be widespread, and other carriers will be willing to partner as well.

Steve Jobs is the greatest IT visionary of all times and has a master plan that has been very successful and is still unnoticed by analysts and competitors.

I only disagree with your statement that Steve Jobs lost the battle of the Mac versus the PC. Please note that Steve Jobs was fired from Apple in 1985, just one year after the Mac was launched.

He did not have the opportunity to develop the Mac as a real contender to the PC, which was developed in response to the very sucessful Apple II. The PC only knocked out Apple in the 90's.

Without Steve, Apple lost its innovation edge.

The iPod was initially considered by many analysts as too expensive and a likely failure.

It was only sometime later, when the iTunes for Windows and the iTunes Music Store were launched, that the iPod became an unquestionable success.

Of course, Steve is today much more mature and dangerous to competition.

But still, Apple lost that battle, not Steve.

[Abhishek Kumar]

Bravo!
One truly intelligent article....made it an interesting read, though the concept is quite logical to extent that we may dub it 'obvious' :)

Looking forward to the time when the revolution truly sets in.
Of course the road will not be easy; becoz it means that other mobile players will move out of business, and we all know how inductive the opposition to change is!

Of course dear Microsoft is not gonna sit idle. Although Zune has turned out to be a failure, there is a lot of buzz about Microsoft's Surface Computer technology. Im sure there's something coming from Redmond.

As for the Jobs strategy...Ill sit with a blank head for now and see how things turn out. Its too soon to make any sort of a prediction. The game's just begun!

Nice to discover you on the web...will keep a checkout.

[Sean Howard]

f'ing brilliant, Paul.

You are the ONLY person I will read posts of that are this long.

And at the end I'm always looking for more.

Going back to read it again.

[Paul]

@Marcus - I prefer the term "synthesized device" to differentiate the iPhone from "convergence devices", which usually means a bunch of separate things in a single box, but without much thought as to how they are integrated to work together or manage and simplify workflow. The reason convergent products usually fail is that there isn't significant benefit to having them glued together versus as separate products. They don't become a unique product on their own, but always appear as multiple things. If the sum of the parts is significantly greater than the individual pieces, and the parts interoperate so seamlessly that they don't seem like separate parts, then they have been "synthesized" rather than "converged".

re: losing PC vs Mac battle. In 1984, Apple did not run as tight a ship as today. While trying to sell the Mac, they still were gearing up production to sell more Apple IIe and portable Apple IIc computers, while IBM was dramatically dropping prices to move inventory. At the same time, Compaq was coming into its own and producing better PCs at lower prices than IBM, and there were dozens, if not over 100 manufacturers making IBM clones. All the business software applications were released for IBM compatibles first, and business buyers felt more comfortable buying a machine based on an open architecture and which had the business apps they wanted. When the PC market was flooded with oversupply and a slumping economy, Apple got caught with its pants down, with major losses, major writedowns and major layoffs of people in late 84 through most of 85. Much of the company was demoralized as the Mac got all the attention, but it was the old stuff that generated most of the revenue. At this point, Sculley garnered sufficient political strength at the board to push Steve out. Thus, Steve lost the initial battle for market dominance of the Mac vs PC, and control of the company. While I admire Steve for what he's done, all of this is public record, and while Sculley may have lacked the vision and competence to run a company like Apple, Steve's business skills were also not ready for this sort of battle. No matter how much better the Mac was, the battle he set out to win in 1984 was not winnable. In fact, as painful as it was to watch at the time, I'd argue that the reason Steve is so successful and so much smarter about running Apple today is because of what he went through then.

I think we're pretty close to agreeing on the rest.

@Abhishek - I think it's an idea that's obvious in hindsight, but I think it is less "obvious" than it is "deceptively simple". If it was obvious, wouldn't most people be able to see it? The Surface Computer looks to me like consoles I first played video games on in bars in the 1970s (e.g. Pong, etc.) -- am I dating myself -- not like something useful as a modern computer. Perhaps it will find a niche for playing more up-to-date games in bars, but it certainly doesn't appeal to me as being practical for anything else. See Microsoft Surface vs iPhone. This link was posted in the Other Links section at the end of my article for those who already had at look at that.

@Sean - thanks. You are a loyal fan. Keep on reading.

[Roger Anderson]

What a love fest this is for Apple. Steve can do no wrong and everyone will be transformed into an Apple user without knowing it.

When do we start to hate Steve like we hate Bill? Should we just skip to that and save the steps in between?

Paul, put me in with Michael - a B- , marginally disruptive, not transformational, beautiful device.

[Paul]

Sorry Roger,

An ad hominem attack on my objectivity and credibility scores no points here. Nor does it score points against other commenters, if that's who you are referring to. If you have an evaluation based on facts, research, numbers, and/or a true understanding of what disruption is (or some other basis for evaluation, -- not all things stem from disruption), then please share it.

For the record, I respect Steve Jobs' accomplishments. I like that he cares about design and taking risks that have potential to change the world. But, my respect for him as an individual in no way influences my evaluation. His charisma and cult-like hold on the Mac faithful are reasons for a baseline market share that Apple will always get, and certainly influence the outcome, but they alone do not create success.

It's also true that he isn't infallible. Nor will everyone be transformed into an Apple user, any more than everyone will be transformed into a Microsoft user, or an Oracle user, or an IBM user. They're all great companies, with things to like and dislike about them. So, I don't get ridiculous comments like "love fest" and "hate Bill", and I'm not sure who you think you influence with such statements.

So, with that, your B- is meaningless. Do you know how Mike came up with his scoring? Do you think there is something in error in my analysis? A gut feel, or an emotional reaction to other people's slightly over-the-top enthusiasm doesn't equal a credible assessment of disruptive potential, or of likely market success.

[Suzanne Obermire]

Isn't it great to be excited about a technology product again! I want an I-Phone!!!

Thanks for the insight. Had to read to the end :)

[Roger Anderson]

Paul,
I'm not sure why I have earned your disrespect but so be it. If my B- is meaningless it really does not matter. I am not trying to influence anyone's opinion. I am just giving mine. If that is not allowed or desirable then just say so. Isn't the whole blog thing about wanting to open the floodgates of opinion?

Where did I attack your objectivity or your credibility. You are obviously capable of writing and expressing your opinion quite well. I happen to disagree with it but time will tell if I am wrong. If I am, what then? If you are, what then? Perhaps this is just your "contrariness" way of expressing yourself.

My views come from my experience of watching, as you have, this industry and others like it. Your analysis is based on an error - the iPhone is not transformational. You want to see it as such and so you built your argument on a false assumption. To be transformational it must make prior art and skill obsolete and it does neither. It raises the bar, it makes an improvement, and it is a great new product. Just as the iPod was not transformational, it was a substantial improvement on an existing technology.
I did read Michael's analysis and as I said, I agree. Do I have to "quantify" my response to be valid if I disagree while those who agree with you get a free pass? Did I miss a note in your about that says all comments must include quantitative substantiation to be excluded from acceptance?

If this post is meant to show your expertise in the domain then time will tell if it was effective. I on the other hand am just commenting on my take of the comments and the post. If this serves to lessen my public brand then I will just have to live with that - ad hominem and all.

[Paul]

@Roger:

Ok, time out.

My reaction is to your original snarky put down, I assume of other commenters here. When you use emotionally-laden words such as "love fest" and "hate Bill", etc., you are deliberating attacking without reason, and without any back up. This is the sophomoric sort of comment I expect from teenagers, not from Phd's who hold patents in molecular biology.

If you are going to throw that kind of language around, then regardless of preemptive guidelines about how to write comments, my answer to your question is "Yes, I demand back up". No question, there are many many Apple and iPhone enthusiasts out there, but they haven't said anything nasty about you, so I guess if I let them have a pass because they're excited -- it is what it is. But negativity doesn't substitute for analysis.

It isn't that you disagree. It's how you disagree. And, as a Phd I assume you are smart enough to understand rhetorical devices. The point of an ad hominem attack (e.g. "Bill haters") is to deflect attention away from logic and from the main discussion, and hope no one notices while you're taking someone down a peg with insults rather than reason.

The point of my blog is to try to educate people about a different perspective, a different way of understanding innovation and why some things succeed and others don't. Why does it matter? Because that's how knowledge advances. We analyze, we disagree, we examine why, and we look at the evidence after the dust has settled to better understand which theory best explains the events and outcomes and therefore offers predictive value. On that basis, I'm happy to debate you.

Clearly we disagree about what Transformational means -- you say black, I say white -- but again, I'm looking at it through the prism of market success and how it got there. No product ever enters a market that is already crowded with incumbents and takes an 80% share (e.g. the iPod) without something about it being significantly different -- not better, necessarily, but almost always transformational/disruptive.

Does iPod and/or iPhone technology obsolete what came before? Does it force the market to compete on a different playing field? Yes, in the same way that graphical interfaces replaced character-oriented ones, and in the same way that computers replaced pencil and paper. On that basis, I believe they are both transformational, and time will tell.

I absolutely want people's opinions and participation in a conversation, and I hope you'll be passionate in defense of your argument, but let's keep it about the discussion at hand, not about the personalities voicing an opinion.

[Ryan]

Paul,

First off, Great blog!

I am an MBA student assessing the introduction of the iphone and Apple's use of innovation as a strategy for comp. adv. and your insightful article has clarified alot of my research thus far.

Paul, can I ask, what do you think will be Apple's biggest hurdle in attempting to achieve great success (i.e. 1% global market share predicted buy Jobs for end 2008) ? Besides the issues with AT&T ?

Have they truely overcome the inventory woes of the 90s? Are there any other internal processes that may act as rigidities to achieving these forecasts?

I would greatly appreciate any help you can provide with answering my questions and/or recommending any sources where I may find additional information concerning Apple's internal environment.

Kind regards,
Ryan

[MIke Elek]

Paul,
Very interesting post.

A new development that really begs the question “what is Steven Jobs up to” is the reports that a new software update from Apple caused phones to stop working if owners installed new applications (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/technology/29iphone.html).

This type of paternalistic behaviour flies in the face of producing a consumer friendly general purpose computer. Plus, it is reminiscent of the time where Macintosh tightly controlled their platform and stagnated, while Windows welcomed third parties. As a result. the greatly inferior Wintel platform captured all but the entire personal computer market.

I would be interested in hearing your take on this, especially given your strong opinions on Maytag’s “brandicide” through mistreating their loyal customers (http://thewaythingsare.typepad.com/antimarketer/2006/10/brand_mismanage.html).

Best,
Mike

[Small Business Answering service]

Well, after 3 years, what do we have now? An Iphone 4 rich with new features. I can say iphone is a success for apple.

Ben Cliff