Hacker News Reader

Comment by MBCook | Hacker News Reader

Even when they didn’t have that garden. Look at the iPod.

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.

View on HN

Things are a bit different now, compared to the iPod. If Microsoft had released a competitor a year or two in advance of the iPod, Apple would have had a much harder time getting traction for their iPod because they didn't have a large walled garden back then. They only had a very small subset of the computer market, and iPods were only compatible with Macs (at first).

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.

I think people give way way too much credit to the walled garden for their success.

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.

> The iPod wasn’t a success because of the walled garden. They didn’t have one (once they released on Windows).

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.

“They could have made a headset sooner, it wouldn’t be the Vision Pro“

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

> Vision Pro seems rushed from vantage point. Odd battery pack … only 2 hour charge … limited field of vision

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...

> Odd battery pack … only 2 hour charge

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.

That’s the tradeoffs they wanted to hit whatever guidelines they had. They clearly didn’t want to ship a 2 pound battery.

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.

Apple cooks the tech required for their vision behind closed doors. Then release it when it's ready by their standards.

It's a bit like Debian*, but closed source.

*: It's ready when it's ready.

It's also worth remembering though that neither the iPod or iPhone were really breakout products on Day 1.

I think you are spot on - looking back at all this its really interesting -like what on earth was Apple thinking when the Motorola ROKR came out?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_ROKR

From the link you provide...

>> 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.

I don’t know about advertising. But I would be willing to bet money that Steve Jobs chose that day for the Nano to do exactly what Zander thought: screw them over.

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.

I don’t remember the story of how Apple got involved in that, but it was incredibly clear when it was released that Steve Jobs hated the thing. Even when he demoed it on stage.

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.

> The first mover rarely wins in the long run

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com