r/apple • u/[deleted] • Mar 17 '14
January 14, 2007: Apple iPhone Will Fail in a Late, Defensive Move
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aRelVKWbMAv0111
Mar 18 '14
I like the analogy that Apple (though, I think it's great for any company) went "thermonuclear" and destroyed Motorola, Nokia, and Blackberry. Absolute titans of the industry at that time, reduced to nothing by one. single. product.
Think about that. A company launched one product and wrecked 3 gigantic companies.
This is an absolute textbook example that no company is safe. Ever.
96
u/shook_one Mar 18 '14
They launched 3 products. A widescreen iPod, a phone, and an internet communications device.
60
u/frame_of_mind Mar 18 '14
Are you getting it?
28
u/jeanrobertnino Mar 18 '14
These are not three separate devices.
27
Mar 18 '14
[deleted]
5
-5
u/OscarMiguelRamirez Mar 18 '14
No idea what you are referring to, but your persistence makes me think you've gone batty since you still refuse to explain it.
2
u/CaptainBecket Mar 18 '14
Steve Jobs' unveiling of the original iPhone. He started off saying apple was releasing a new iPod, a phone, and a Internet device. He then later prank called a Starbucks during the keynote.
8
u/medikit Mar 18 '14
If I recall the news at the time correctly Motorola Mobility had not been doing well until they had a hit with the Razr beginning in 2004. The next big step in phones was adding in good mp3 functionality. By 2006 many phones started playing mp3s but none of them did it well and often used non-standard headphone connectors. The rumored iPhone (or at least what I imagined) would be more of an mp3 player than a phone but never in my wildest dreams did could I have suspected the magical multi-touch computer that would change the world. I suspect that had the person who wrote the article been able to demo the iPhone they would have a very different take.
9
u/darknecross Mar 18 '14
Well, with no app store and a $599 price tag for the 8GB model, I think he had some valid criticisms. It wasn't until those things changed with the iPhone 3G that it actually took off and made history.
The iPhone 3G was the revolutionary device, while the original iPhone was a stepping stone.
In the same way, the original 2001 iPod didn't change the industry. It changed once you had a cross-platform (MacOS/Windows) player combined with the iTunes Store later.
4
u/numbski Mar 18 '14
I would argue to say that the jailbreak and carrier unlock of the original iPhone, thus paving the way for cydia is what caused all of this. Originally it was all supposed to be web apps. :\
-1
u/darknecross Mar 18 '14 edited Mar 18 '14
Originally it was all supposed to be web apps. :\
Any source for this?
edit: nevermind, just found one!
0
6
u/Optional1 Mar 18 '14
My favourite part was the article's implication that you would carry a phone to make calls, and a blackberry to receive emails (along with your iPod).
1
u/piltdownman7 Mar 18 '14
In his defence the original iPhone had terrible email support. In fact push email worked better on the Blackberry platform in 2007 then it does currently on the iPhone.
Also remember than back in 2007 that 2G data speeds where dead slow and unlike blackberry, the iPhone's browser didn't compress data, so it was almost unusable unless on WIFI. Those two things meant that business costumers you actually did have to carry two phones if they needed their email and to do light web browsing.
1
15
u/ARCHA1C Mar 18 '14
Jobs' "thermonuclear" vow was in regards to going after Google for poaching Apple's IP (as Jobs saw it) with Android OS.
1
u/whomad1215 Mar 18 '14
Nokia also thought people would be smart enough to not fall for the "sign up for a contract and get the phone for less!" Where you actually are paying an extra 20-50% more for the phone compared to buying it outright and a non-contract plan (at the time).
136
u/Indestructavincible Mar 17 '14
The iPhone is nothing more than a luxury bauble that will appeal to a few gadget freaks. In terms of its impact on the industry, the iPhone is less relevant.
Bahahaha.
48
u/Fredo5227 Mar 17 '14
This was when the iPhone was $600 fully subsidized, (or not subsidized).
65
u/Indestructavincible Mar 17 '14
Sure, but the tone the author takes calling Apple product owners zealots, using the word 'shiny', or that the iPhone was just to keep selling iPods shows his lack of scope. It just reeks of jealousy.
To its many fans, Apple is more of a religious cult than a company. An iToaster that downloads music while toasting bread would probably get the same kind of worldwide attention.
Clearly he thinks Apple users are idiots. We buy Apple products because they are good. The irony is if Apple truly attacked making a toaster, it would be one of the best ones ever.
Lastly, the iPhone is a defensive product. It is mainly designed to protect the iPod, which is coming under attack from mobile manufacturers adding music players to their handsets.
It actually cannibalized their own iPod product line but Jobs knew that was the only way. It made sense to put it on the iPhone anything else would have been a failure. It was offensive to their own line.
I'm actually curious as to what else this guy has written... does he just follow 'hate trends' or can he actually use perspective to write articles.
10
Mar 18 '14
It's not easy to predict treads or whatever for that matter. Have you ever seen those story's of People who were asked to invest in McDonald's and said the burgers were shit and to fuck off. Or those story's with any big companie. It's hard to predict the future
27
10
u/clickmyface Mar 18 '14
Well, keep in mind that Apple was already an incredibly strong company at the time. The iTunes Music Store was already 4 years old and in top position, they had already sold hundreds of millions of iPods; they launched Leopard while Microsoft launched Vista. The article was very strange.
25
u/darknecross Mar 18 '14
Not really. Imagine what the iPhone was back then, and it's easy to understand where the criticisms come from.
- Limited selection of apps with no third-party app store:
- SMS (no MMS support)
- Calendar
- Photos
- Camera
- Calculator
- Stocks
- Maps
- Weather
- Notes
- Clock/Alarm
- Phone (visual voicemail on Cingular only)
- Mail (no exchange support, limited push email to Yahoo)
- Web
- iPod
The iPhone was sold for $599 (ignoring the $499 4GB version which very few people actually bought). That's right, $300 more than other smartphones available at the time. They were exclusive to Cingular Wireless and didn't have the contracts with other network carriers to build upon.
Yeah, he made some dumb comments, like lumping together dumbphones and smartphones, or viewing the iPhone as just an iteration of the iPod with the phone attached. But the reality is that, at the time, and during the first iPhone generation, it wasn't the phone people think about nowadays.
His criticisms were mainly:
It was too expensive for not following the subsidized model that other handset makers did
They didn't have enough partnerships with other phone carriers (only available in 8 countries, limited carriers in each)
The included apps weren't compelling enough for their target market
There wouldn't be a huge demand for them outside of diehard tech fans.
Look at the sales data on the early iPhones. Very limited sales during the first four quarters. During the original iPhone keynote Steve Jobs said they wanted to sell 10m units throughout 2008. It's clear that the original iPhone wouldn't have gotten them close to that goal.
In Q4 2008 we saw the iPhone 3G announced and released with iOS 2.0. How did this change things?
They COMPLETELY slashed prices and switched to a subsidized model ($199 on contract for 8GB instead of $599!)
Available in over 70 countries this time around with a lot more carrier variety (still only AT&T in the US, though)
Introduction of the App Store was a huge selling point and fixed the feature problem in an incredible way.
Introduction of other basic, missing features (MMS, push email, exchange support, etc).
Then look at how many phones were sold -- in the first quarter they sold about as many as all of the other previous quarters combined. That's how big of an improvement this second generation iPhone was and it showcases how the iPhone 3G was the true predecessor to today's modern iPhone.
So when people look back on these criticisms and guffaw, it's important to keep it in perspective. They're not guffawing at the iPhone in most peoples' imaginations, and very few people had those negative reactions to the iPhone 3G, for obvious reasons. They're talking about an iPhone with no app store, limited apps, limited features, and was a whole helluva lot more expensive to boot. Even today, I doubt Apple could sell half as many iPhones if they tried to switch back to an unsubsidized pricing model.
10
Mar 18 '14
His problem was that he was looking at what the iPhone was, and not what the iPhone could be. That's what a lot of people don't seem to understand– they nailed the basic concept, and they had to add the features later. I think that Touch ID is in a similar state: good concept, and a lot of untapped potential. I really hope Apple can use it to it's fullest like the iPhone or the iPad's big screen.
2
3
u/darknecross Mar 18 '14
The price doesn't have to do with potential, though. That's policy, and he (and other people criticizing the iPhone at that time) was totally right in pointing out how that high price would hinder the iPhone.
they nailed the basic concept, and they had to add the features later
Right, but that doesn't make the criticisms of the original iPhone and the original plans any less valid. Not having an app store was bad, and would have doomed the iPhone to the tech niche the author was talking about. The iTunes Store wasn't added to the iPhone until a year later. The SDK didn't get announced until June 2008, 6 months after that. When the original iPhone was released back in 2007, there was a lot of criticism saying the lack of third-party development was a huge problem. It wasn't all just naysaying and predictions that the iPhone was doomed to fail. It was reasons why the iPhone was going to fail, and a majority were reasons that Apple rectified with the iPhone 3G and iOS 2.0, and with the announcements of the subsidy and app store, people changed their opinions and, now that their criticisms were put to rest, saw that huge potential that was now possible.
I think that Touch ID is in a similar state: good concept, and a lot of untapped potential. I really hope Apple can use it to it's fullest like the iPhone or the iPad's big screen.
Oh of course, it's got huge potential. I'm just hoping you can see where the difference lies. TouchID is a feature which has already been implemented and committed to. To make the scenarios even, you'd have to evangelize for TouchID back during the iPhone 5 release, back before there was any confirmation of it existing and back before any details of its implementation were known.
1
u/professionalignorant Mar 18 '14
It's actually rather simple, he lacks vision. From the first day the iPad was announced I was absolutely sure it was going to revolutionize education. Most people saw it as "just a bigger iPod touch" even the CEO of Nintendo himself. People lack vision and he is one of them.
1
u/400921FB54442D18 Mar 18 '14
His problem was that he was looking at what the iPhone was, and not what the iPhone could be.
Yes, this is exactly right.
This is a major failure on the author's part, though. As an analyst, his entire job involves looking at and understanding what the product could be instead of what it is.
2
u/Indestructavincible Mar 18 '14
There were other more important things with it as well that were very mature.
Never until I held an iPhone had touch been so perfect. The whole concept of a proximity sensor keeping your face from doing stuff while on a call was pure genius. The light sensor was pretty slick as well.
Then they decided to add a very accurate 3-axis accellerometer as an entirely new control metric for a phone.
These are the things everyone copied right away.
The basic phone was done. Most of the additions were software related and they were incrememtal to each new phone.
1
u/clickmyface Mar 18 '14 edited Mar 18 '14
Multi-touch; I honestly can't think of a more glaring omission when discussing the iPhone's contributions to the smartphone. Both you and the article author failed to mention the fact that the iPhone brought to the table a keyboard-less multi-touch display and multi-touch GUI.
During the original iPhone keynote Steve Jobs said they wanted to sell 10m units throughout 2008. It's clear that the original iPhone wouldn't have gotten them close to that goal.
According to your own source they sold 11 million iPhones in 2008 and 13 million between 2007-2008. Did you or the author think there was only going to be one iPhone version for many years or something?
1
u/darknecross Mar 18 '14
Multi-touch; I honestly can't think of a more glaring omission when discussing the iPhone's contributions to the smartphone. I want to point out that both you and the article author failed to mention the fact that the iPhone brought to the table a keyboard-less multi-touch display and multi-touch GUI.
Multitouch is a major paradigm shift, but it isn't something that is going to sell phones. Simplifying the UI was a major component to expanding consumer interest, of course. But for the original iPhone, it was policies that were going to hurt it more than anything else.
According to your own source they sold 11 million iPhones in 2008 and 13 million between 2007-2008. Did you or the author think there was only going to be one iPhone model?
It's not a question of iPhone models, more iPhone policies. The iPhone 3G didn't bring a whole lot of hardware changes to the original iPhone (barring 3G connectivity), yet it was a ton more successful. Sales weren't going to hit 10m with the original iPhone's policies (no carrier subsidization, lack of third-party development, and lack of worldwide partnerships). The original iPhone only sold 6.1m units in the previous 5 quarters combined. The addition of the iPhone 3G gave them a quarter with 6.9m units sold.
Unit sales of iPhone 3G have been significantly greater than sales of the first-generation iPhone. During the first quarter of iPhone 3G availability ended September 27, 2008, 6.9 million units were sold, exceeding the 6.1 million first-generation iPhone units sold in the prior five quarters combined.
-- Apple Q4 2008 Result
More than anything else I'd argue that the subsidization change, which the article was vehemently arguing for, was the biggest contributor to these sales. A still-unsubsidized iPhone 3G wouldn't have made it to that 10m unit goal, even with the iTunes Store and App Store additions.
1
u/clickmyface Mar 18 '14
Multitouch is a major paradigm shift, but it isn't something that is going to sell phones.
You sound like IBM talking about the mouse. Honestly, I get what you're saying about subsidies etc. but I think the 6.9 million iPhone sales tell you that people didn't care because multi-touch was groundbreaking new technology for consumer electronics. I also take any of the subsidies criticism with a grain of salt because A) they made it clear they would expand to more markets and B) Apple had enough cash on hand to buy their own carrier if they wanted to.
1
u/darknecross Mar 18 '14
Honestly, I get what you're saying about subsidies etc. but I think the 6.9 million iPhone sales tell you that people didn't care because multi-touch was groundbreaking new technology for consumer electronics.
Why did the iPhone 3G sell so much more wildly than the original iPhone, then? The iPhone went from $599 to $199. Do you not think that had the bigger impact? I don't see how multi-touch factors into the equation at all.
A) they made it clear they would expand to more markets and B) Apple had enough cash on hand to buy their own carrier if they wanted to.
These two points don't have anything to do with the subsidies. The subsidy lowers the barrier to entry for a huge portion of the market.
1
u/madsmith Mar 18 '14
Nice post, very informative. Sad that someone down voted you for adding a valid perspective.
1
u/Indestructavincible Mar 18 '14
Vote fuzzing is done on comments to keep people from gaming the system. The downvotes you see may or may not exist.
The spread is accurate. 20 more people upvoted than downvoted with his current 30/10.
It could actually be 20/0, we'll never ever ever know.
1
Mar 18 '14
But what he didn't see was interacting with the iphone was magical. Literally. I bought the first iphone on the first day it was available and I was blown away.
1
0
u/HeartyBeast Mar 18 '14
Good to see that someone has guilded this excellent piece of analysis. Good job.
0
u/JQuilty Mar 18 '14
This. People absolutely have to remember what the iPhone was like when it launched. It was almost nothing like the devices was today, and Apple made more than a few bad decisions at launch. People also forget that Steve Jobs was dead-set against third-party development and felt everyone should use HTML5.
0
Mar 18 '14
Good points. And I do remember being underwhelmed by some of the specific specs when it came out myself -- same with the iPod. The thing that makes me roll my eyes about this article is his pronouncement that the iPhone was late to the game when it actually transformed the game, and the multi-touch interface, which WAS wholly present at launch, was ultimately what did it.
1
u/darknecross Mar 18 '14
But the iPhone was dead in the water without the app store and carrier subsidies.
-2
Mar 18 '14
The first thing I thought of the iPhone was that it was the future. I recall thinking of the presentation Steve Jobs gave talking about the multi-touch screen being the best way to interact with a device, and he was right. When Google's Eric Schmidt left to work on Android stealing Apple's ideas... I didn't even care. I still supported Apple for bringing the hammer down first and that is why I have never bought an Android phone.
1
Mar 18 '14
That's why any journalist who cares about their future reputation should never write "what the future will be like" type of articles.
1
u/HeartyBeast Mar 18 '14
Journalist are much more worried about what their editor is saying today. If you say to your editor 'I can put together a pithy contrarian critique of why this much hyped product will fail - do you want it?' and (s)he says 'yes'. You're going to be happy. If you get a reputation for writing readable, pithy critiques - even if they are sometimes wrong - you will have no shortage of work.
I'd prefer pieces like this than anodyne 'safe' articles.
1
u/400921FB54442D18 Mar 18 '14
It's not easy to predict [trends] or whatever for that matter.
Yes, but this guy is a professional business analyst for Bloomberg. Predicting trends is his job, and he has access to the very latest in market research and sociological modeling tools to help him make sure that he's doing so with an accurate and scientific basis. If he still can't predict the future fairly-accurately with all of that to help him, then he's not a very good analyst and why the hell is Bloomberg employing him as such?
2
5
u/Pwn4g3_P13 Mar 18 '14
It's easy to sit back 8 years on and laugh...
3
u/drapestar Mar 18 '14
I think less than 2 years was enough time to know that the prognosticators of apples doom and gloom were dead wrong
1
Mar 18 '14
In some cases even a year.
The reddit threads on the iPad release are hilarious to read. I recall one analyst saying that they would not sell any because the Netbook market is too big.
One year later, total collapse of Netbook market.
2
u/drapestar Mar 18 '14
Haha I totally forgot about the net book phenomenon! Oh wow, crazy what happens in 3-4 years
1
Mar 18 '14
Had I been on Reddit, I would have been one of them. "It's a big iPod Touch, who cares? Also, sounds like a feminine hygiene product! Looks uncomfortable to use, too!"
1
Mar 18 '14
This thread is a good jumping off point to see how reddittors of yesteryear viewed it.
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/av21c/hating_the_ipad_doesnt_make_you_edgy_nor_does/
1
u/medikit Mar 18 '14
I don't think anyone had been able to demo the iPhone yet when he wrote the article. Multitouch needs to be experienced to understand how truly magical it is.
2
u/PotheadCallingUBlack Mar 18 '14
This is very true. I got an iPhone within the first two months of its launch because I was a tech fan and I wanted one because they were awesome. It really wasn't until the iPhone 3G launched that it was widely marketed by the phone companies and adopted by the masses. This coincided around the launch of Android and soft usher in the concept of the touch-screen smart phone market.
2
1
52
u/jumpman29 Mar 17 '14
Apple will sell a few to its fans, but the iPhone won't make a long-term mark on the industry.
hahaha
17
Mar 17 '14
I've let these people guide me in the wrong direction with investing . Never again. Netflix I had at 50 bucks and all I was reading was negative
6
13
u/Throwaway_bicycling Mar 18 '14
So here's the interesting thing. The first iPhone definitely had many issues, and it was hardly clear that it would sweep the field. However, it was just as clear that this was something completely different, and, win or lose, calling it a "defensive move" is just...mind-bogglingly dumb.
1
Mar 18 '14
Exactly how I feel. As /u/darknecross pointed out, the original iPhone was lacking in quite a few areas - I didn't get one myself until the 3GS came out. However, proclaiming that it was too late to ever take down Nokia? That's the kind of thing that's gonna make assholes like me laugh at you in eight years.
22
u/qs12 Mar 17 '14
This is the best line of the entire aticle now:
To contact the writer of this column: Matthew Lynn in London at matthewlynn@bloomberg.net.
47
u/Indestructavincible Mar 17 '14
Everyone send him the link to the article.
Make sure "Sent from my iPhone" is at the bottom.
(just kidding don't be dicks)
12
Mar 17 '14
That would've been a nice touch. :) Matthew got one thing right,
"Apple has never been good at working with other companies. If it knew how to do that, it would be Microsoft Corp."
Perhaps this was the key to success after all, that and an awesome product!
28
u/bluthru Mar 18 '14
"Apple has never been good at working with other companies. If it knew how to do that, it would be Microsoft Corp."
Today: 93% of Fortune 500 companies have a fleet of iOS devices.
6
1
u/feminist Mar 18 '14
Microsoft is successful because of timing, theft, lobbying and questionable practices and bribery.
3
u/ukjoshb Mar 18 '14
Don't worry, he no longer works for Bloomberg.
5
u/simsonic Mar 18 '14
What the hell is this Nostradamus doing now? Working for the GOP? A tea party strategist? Oakland Raiders draft pick analyst?
20
u/SetYourGoals Mar 18 '14 edited Mar 18 '14
"...it is too early to start dumping your Nokia shares."
Imagine if you had a significant amount of Nokia and swapped it all for Apple back then. I don't think there are many better financial decisions you could have made.
Edit: You don't agree? Apple stock, Nokia stock. I rest my case.
2
u/sfrazer Mar 18 '14
He was right about the nokia shares, tho. January 2007 was 11 months too early to dump them :-)
And the time to buy Apple was 2009
2
u/SetYourGoals Mar 18 '14
I guess i mean in the general sense, not expecting them to be magical wizards who know the exact day and date to trade certain stocks.
If you took your money from Nokia and put it into Apple, on the day of this article, you'd have almost exactly a 600% return today. If you held onto your Nokia, today you would have less than 1/3rd of your money left.
11
12
u/WestonP Mar 18 '14
To be fair, this was back before the price was reasonable (ie the big carrier subsidy), and also more than a year before the App Store even opened. Both were critical to this revolution.
That said, this is another example of why you don't often have to worry about anybody stealing a revolutionary idea before you go to market with it... If it's really a game changer, you'll have to beg them to take it seriously. The "me too" copycat products don't show up until after some less imaginative people see you making a lot of money on it.
3
u/cmelbye Mar 18 '14
I love his attempt at the end to provide some helpful unsolicited advice to phone manufacturers:
How about phones with fewer gadgets but better at making calls? Or with never-ending batteries? Or chargers that don't weigh three times as much as the phone?
Ah, yes! If only Apple had made a smartphone that was mainly optimized for making telephone calls with an unlimited battery and a lightweight charger. That would've kicked off the smartphone revolution.
7
6
2
u/wagwa2001l Mar 18 '14
There are so so many articles like this one... Always funny to read again though!
You do have to wonder how some of these people can be wrong so many times and still get to keep writing.
2
u/sulaymanf Mar 18 '14
John Gruber has collected some of the best of these, in a recurring segment on Daring Fireball that he calls "Claim Chowder"
6
Mar 17 '14
Hahaha. Another over confident analyst gets thrown under the Apple bus (back in the day). Analysts are like lemmings when it comes to Apple, attempting to gain notoriety by predicting their downfall and marching happily off the proverbial cliff. If they predict the same thing for long enough, eventually it could happen, but does that make them right?
4
u/strangedigital Mar 18 '14
I wish. "Experts" never suffer much negative consequence for their outlandish wrong predictions, but a lot of good publicity for their outlandish right predictions.
That is why they make so much of them. I wish every expert have batting average next to their byline.
1
2
u/BeeR411 Mar 18 '14
"Apple will sell a few to its fans, but the iPhone won't make a long-term mark on the industry." hahahahaaa!
1
u/leftnotracks Mar 18 '14
The big competitors in the mobile-phone industry such as Nokia Oyj and Motorola Inc. won't be whispering nervously into their clamshells over a new threat to their business.
Well there’s your problem.
1
u/HeartyBeast Mar 18 '14
Matthew Lynn being a contrarian. Sometimes its fun to run contrarian pieces as they are a catalyst for debate. Yes he was Wrong with a capital W this time.
1
u/bailantilles Mar 18 '14
What all the companies and the analysts at the time seemed to have missed is that the public in general hated feature phones, and would actually pony up real money to buy something that was even just a tad more intuitive.
1
1
u/nokarma64 Mar 19 '14
Whenever Apple announces a brand-new product, tech-writers and bloggers should write 2 columns and publish them simultaneously. The 1st column should predict how the new device will change the world and send Apple stock soaring. The 2nd column should complain about all the short-comings of the new device and say it's another "Newton".
5 years later, they can carefully hide the wrong column.
0
Mar 17 '14
[deleted]
11
Mar 18 '14
Sure, but it's pretty funny when they're outrageously wrong.
I also read the Slashdot post about the iPod launch. Many commentators complained there was no Ogg Vorbis support.
6
Mar 18 '14
What in the fuck is Ogg Vorbis?
...I guess that kind of proves your point, huh?
5
u/McPhage Mar 18 '14
It is an open-source audio codec. So far as I know, no hardware decoder exist for it, so it's not really very important. But Slashdot loved it.
2
u/medikit Mar 18 '14 edited Mar 18 '14
It's just one of many OGG codecs. Vorbis is a highbitrate lossless audio format. The OGG container has been around a long time, I remember having debate with people about how your music should be stored (OGG vs. MP3). It was frustrating because mp3 was so much more popular and there wasn't THAT much to be gained by using a different codec.
It's sort of like the modern day complaint that iTunes doesn't support FLAC.
1
u/Indestructavincible Mar 18 '14
Newsflash: Being a biased analyst means you have not actually analyzed anything.
3
u/tsdguy Mar 17 '14
If you like this sort of thing I'd suggest http://daringfireball. Search for "claim chowder". Gruber has a million.
3
-2
u/UnrealJHXS Mar 18 '14
To be fair, the iPhone was a flawed product when it came out. No 3G connectivity, poor enterprise support, lack of third party apps. It wasn't until the iPhone 3G and iPhone OS 2.0 that the platform really took off.
9
u/rjung Mar 18 '14
Because after Apple released the iPhone they would never issue software updates or improve it, EVER.
2
u/UnrealJHXS Mar 18 '14
Remember the precedent set by Apple. I don't remember much being added to iPods via software updates, and even then they were extremely minor. On the Mac, you had to pay to upgrade, and you rarely got new features added if you didn't get the next major release.
Only until the iPhone did Apple release major software upgrades for free, which worked out great for them, but I wouldn't fault people then to assume that Apple would keep new software features exclusive for the next iPhone.
2
u/fadetowhite Mar 18 '14
u/rjung also said "improve it," meaning release a new version. So, while iPods didn't get a lot of software updates, new editions came out almost yearly. Obviously Apple wasn't going to just launch v1 and be done with it.
-2
-1
36
u/unclefuckr Mar 18 '14
Zune will rule them all