Is Apple too powerful?
mobileopportunity.blogspot.com
mobileopportunity.blogspot.com
Seriously, they own the music market because they have the best product around and still do after giving the competition years to catch up.
Apple does not currently own the video market, and I honestly don't expect them to any time soon.
I think that, if anything, it'll encourage innovation because suddenly there's a clear target: "It has to be better than iPod. And not just a little better, way better." Apple's not unbeatable.
I'm a huge Apple fan, I root for them loudly and occasionally drunkenly, but they don't rule video. The nano release was a backstep for them in that it doesn't unify their product category. If they'd released a camera with the iPod touch, as I think they will, then suddenly they've got a chance for a powerhouse, but the nano is a music product, not a multimedia product, and this camera is as close to lackluster as Apple gets. It will sell nanos, but this isn't a competitive product like the touch-with-camera would have been.
I stopped there. Features per millimeter is not why the Nano is a threat. Hardware and software integration and UX are what made Apple so powerful.
You know, there were MP3 players before the iPod. Apple improved on the design and usability and coupled their MP3 player with an online store that had buy-in from the music industry, but they were still essentially angling for a cut on an existing market.
So what's the difference? You nailed it by mentioning the online store. iTunes was a unified interface backed by a large company with the ability to purchase new music. The iPods themselves, at first, weren't that special. I'm actually quite amazed with how nice the iPods have continued to get over the years, and with the new Nano they provide a compelling reason to continue buying a standalone music player.
When the iPod was released its sole competitors were the Nomad Jukebox and the Compaq PJB-100 -- both of which were HUEG (2.5" hard drives), had shit for battery life, were made of the creakiest plastic, and took several minutes to boot up and index your files (due to not having an index (drag-and-drop has consequences!)).
The bad experience dealing with those programs negated any benefit from HAVING an MP3 player. I remember messing with my Nike/PSA's player and trying to load my songs onto it, and I simply gave up.
Apple figured out that iTunes needed to be as easy to use as the iPod. That was their win.
When the iPod first came out it was Mac only and very expensive. I knew plenty of people with MP3 players many years before getting an iPod. Saying they had "wrapped up" the market is pointless, since it was all early adopters at that stage.
When the iPod started to get REALLY popular (just prior to the Mini) and hit critical mass, there was plenty of good competition out there. So what made the difference for Apple? These original points. Not sure why I got downvoted to -2 for saying so. I thought we reserved downvotes for trolls, not dissenting opinion?
Apple doesn't make quality products. It makes quality marketing. And it proved that style trumps substance.
If any of them want to listen to music with legitimate headphones, they have to buy adapters to fit the intentionally-small opening. It's the same for all their proprietary plugs and devices. They exclude other RAM and hardware manufacturers from their desktop, even those that produce better products at a cheaper price.
I've also bought plenty of cheap RAM and hard drives for Apple products. Just bought a Seagate hard drive for a MacBook last week. Apple doesn't manufacture their own hard drives.
The RAM statement is false.
The "even even those that produce better products at a cheaper price" statement is a matter of opinion. As a side note, I'm afraid it's an opinion that few people share. There are a lot of points where you can pick on Apple; industrial design is not a good place to start. (It's kind of like going after Benjamin Franklin for being a crappy politician, instead of say slave ownership or smoking pot. Industrial design may be what Apple is best at.)
They do exclude other computer makers from shipping computers running their OS. A lot of companies do this, though; the only reason it seems weird of Apple is that Microsoft doesn't do this and competitors are so small that it's basically dual market. There are other examples, though: you can't port the software running a Texas Instruments calculator or Mercedes Benz' iDrive control system anywhere else. But I'm not sure it's an abuse of power, it's just proprietary software. Go Linux if you want more freedom.
The contacts were all standard, but most existing cables had big clunky molded plastic plugs that wouldn't fit past the case to fully engage. The iPhone case was redesigned in 2008 and no longer required the recessed jack.
It's all tradeoffs. Extending the jack would have had it protrude past the semicircular profile of the case, that would make a lump and spoil the look and feel.
So every time you notice that your new headphones no longer have a giant molded lump on the end of the cord to make it look like a serious 1970's 1/4" jack, you can thank us 2007 iPhone purchasers. It's ok, I can wait.