The first mover advantage gives you a chance to get most of the market share, but with Apple's walled garden, they don't need the first mover advantage to do that.
I think the second mover will have a huge disadvantage here as companies integrate the first mover into their products.
Apple will be able to do on-device AI, but I can't see that being a game changer unless paired with AR or some other new tech.
Other MP3 players existed, but flash media was too small. Other hard drive players existed, they were too big. And both had bad interfaces (by Apple standards).
Apple didn’t show up until they could meet all their goals.
They could have made a phone sooner, it wouldn’t have been the iPhone. They could have made a headset sooner, it wouldn’t be the Vision Pro.
They set their standards for what’s necessary and wait to be able to deliver that.
The first mover rarely wins in the long run.
Apple can afford to be a much later mover, even against very well-resourced competitors, now that they have a huge walled garden. If they didn't have the walled garden, it would be very difficult for them to catch up.
The iPod wasn’t a success because of the walled garden. They didn’t have one (once they released on Windows).
If MS had released a player that was good enough they could have stolen the market, yes. But that’s the point. No one did because everyone released something akin to a flash-based CD player. They didn’t rethink the interface much. The interface is why the iPod grabbed the hold it did.
Yeah it became cool over time.
But I contend an iPod with the interface of a Creative Nomad Jukebox wouldn’t have succeeded the way it did.
My reading of the upthread comments is that people are saying a walled garden isn't necessary, and using the iPod as an example of Apple's success before it had a walled garden. No one is saying that they had a walled garden back then. They did have a built-in audience (Mac users), but that is different from a walled garden. On iOS, they can prevent app devs from accessing their hardware in the same way they can, effectively neutering their efficiency.
Hmm I guess. Vision Pro seems rushed from vantage point. Odd battery pack … only 2 hour charge … limited field of vision. Also the screens that show a picture of your eyes are off putting and strange.
Think Apple may have rushed here too quickly. We need more battery life.. think we may be looking more for an Augmented Reality mode which works on top of what you see with your actual eyes rather than your eyes just looking at high def screens inside of a headset that is relaying a video captured from cameras of what is in front of you.
Looks more like a Prototype IMO
I agree that 3 would be nice, since it would get you through pretty much any movie, but I feel like when I'm watching a movie I don't mind plugging in. After all, I'm not likely moving around a whole bunch. I have USB-C plugs by my bed and near my couches, so it doesn't seem like this is a huge inconvenience (though it would be great if there were a "you're plugged in" warning if you start getting up while you're plugged to a wall).
But if the tradeoff is a heavier battery (or a more expensive device), I'm fine with 2 hours. No hot-swapping, that seems like a bigger miss! People don't want to shut down just to change battery packs.
What I meant is they didn’t need chips as powerful. They didn’t need screens as high resolution or bright. They didn’t need so many cameras.
They could have released something closer to a Quest model in specs years earlier.
They waited for this.
There are always tradeoffs. First gen Apple stuff is often weak in some way (CPU, memory, battery, software) because they like to be at the edge of what’s possible. Then they improve from there.
Six hours of connected battery [1] (compared to days for the competition), no copy paste [2], no third-party apps.
[1] https://everymac.com/systems/apple/iphone/iphone-faq/iphone-...
[2] https://9to5mac.com/2022/06/20/apple-engineer-first-iphone-c...
It's a bit like Debian*, but closed source.
*: It's ready when it's ready.
>> Because of the iPod Nano unveiling on the same day, relations between Motorola and Apple were strained and Motorola CEO Ed Zander later accused Apple of purposely undercutting the Rokr.
Apple probably saw it as an opportunity for free iTunes and Nano advertising.
They (whoever ‘they’ is) caused the phone to be terrible even though it had the iTunes name on it. So Jobs got revenge, as he always did if he could.
Perhaps they agreed to a partnership and didn’t realize that Motorola and the carriers would ruin it? Or perhaps it was some sort of “we’ll do this to learn some of the business” kind of a thing?
I’d love to know more of the story behind how it started and it’s development.
Not enough patents, tbh. It's so hard to innovate and scrap things together, that this gets left as an afterthought.
Then the giants move in and steal your lunch, leaving you with nothing.