In a world with Microsoft in it, a business model based on paradigm-shifting is a sure-fire way to go bankrupt. Let me explain my somewhat cynical view:
1) Company (possibly Apple but more likely some two-guys-in-a-garage company) develops a new product which changes the way people think of... um... let's say toasters. But they're the first ones to do it, so they run into several problems:
2) The public doesn't understand it, so they get loaded with false expectations, be them too high or too low. Maybe they think it only toasts bagels. Or maybe they think it can fix them a three-course meal. That's because many people simply skim product descriptions and reviews, and fill in the blanks themselves.
3) Those early adopters who purchase the toaster or get a free copy for review in ToastWorld run into a barrage or problems. Since this was probably an ultra-secret project, user testing was probably kept to a strict minimum. And the engineers had no examples to learn from. They have to make the mistakes themselves. The first version of anything truly new usually doesn't work well. (There are some notable exceptions here, the iPod being the first that comes to mind... but then again it wasn't the first portable MP3 player either.) Anyway, ToastWorld tries it out and uses the wrong settings, turning the toast into a llama. Many users in the field run across the llama problem as well, and pretty soon popular media is picking up the llama problem and making humorous parodies and cartoons mocking the product.
4) While the original developers who put the effort and development into creating a completely new product, and the marketing dollars to get people to understand it, a third party (usually Microsoft) has been working on copying it. And guess what? It's much easier to look at someone else's product, see what they've done better, and fix it. Or, in Microsoft's case, they may just copy the idea with little regard to improving it. When it's shipped with the well-known brand name, they can put the saved R&D dollars into their marketing budget or, better yet, into reduced margins, making their product cheaper. And because it's marketed under a different brand name, it doesn't have the stigma attached to the original product.
And therein lies the problem. It's incredibly risky and difficult, even for a company like Apple, to create something completely new and different. And with Apple, whenever they create something new that isn't a complete success (look at the Cube), the press has a field day with it and the sales of all of their products, and the price of their stock, fall from the sky. People understand and soak up small changes (mostly cosmetic ones) much easier than big ones. Making the new 1GHz Superdrive-equipped PowerBook will impress media-geeks, but I guarantee that if they came out with a color they'd sell more of them than this technologically-challenging feat.
But there's no good solution to this, other than to limit the power of companies like Microsoft to force their knockoffs on hardware manufacturers that don't want them. Amazon's solution isn't bad (patenting some of their concepts) but they've taken it way too far. (one-click shopping? why not patent the hyperlink too?)
I'm not saying any of this to support Steve Jobs, and it has nothing to do with me working for Apple. It has no basis on insider information (come on, I work for the server group, they don't tell me anything). I'm just expressing disgust with the state of technology.
11:59:52 AM 
|
|
