In an unprecedented turn of events, it appears that Apple will, for the first time in years, not be the first to bring a new technology to market.
Let that simmer for the fifteen milliseconds it should sound accurate. After that, well, you’re welcome to look at history. By which Uluroo means the history of the past decade. Is it really so easy to forget the recent past?
Writing for Forbes, Ewan Spence tells us that “New iPhone X Leaks Reveal Apple's Competitive Failure To Match Android.”
As reported by Forbes’ Gordon Kelly , Apple is looking to introduce dual-SIM technology to the iPhone family this year. The technology, widely available on high- and mid-range Android handsets, will finally debut in the iPhone X Plus...
Wait. This technology is available on competing devices? But that never happens!
A dual-SIM iPhone will be welcomed by many...
Uluroo won’t argue this point because Spence’s analysis of the situation is rather special.
... but once more Apple’s weakness in design and lack of competitiveness has been exposed. A feature that has become common on Android is only now making its way to the iOS platform .
The ironic part is that even Spence acknowledges that this is not abnormal. He mentions wireless charging, OLED displays, dual SIM, and fast charging as a few of Apple’s late additions. There are two problems with Spence’s logic in calling this “weakness” or ”lack of competitiveness.”
First, Apple’s designs have always been derivative of previously existing technology, be it the touchscreen or 3G. Where Apple brings originality is in a better user experience, not a checked-off list of features. You may value features higher, but enough consumers disagree with you to make Apple the world’s biggest company. To say that this is a problem is to say that there’s a problem with Apple’s massive growth over the past eleven years. This strategy has worked phenomenally thus far and is continuing to work. Apple’s competitiveness has never been about beating everyone else to a new feature.
Second, Ewan attacks Apple’s design prowess with the examples of delayed feature additions to the iPhone. The problem with this is that although Apple devices don’t always get features first, that doesn’t make them poorly designed. Good design isn’t about checking all the boxes, it’s about doing those things right. You may have noticed that iPhones tend not to explode. So Uluroo doesn’t deny that features can be good, but quality is just as important as quantity. Again, the superior user experience is something to consider when you evaluate Apple’s designs.
Anyway, what are the supposed ramifications of Apple’s poor design and lack of competitiveness?
Once more, Apple is going to offer parity with Android to those willing to pay for the most expensive model. That will bias sales towards the high-end iPhones, will increase Apple’s turnover, and boost the average revenue per handset.
Wow. That actually sounds pretty good.
Prepare yourself for the load of garbage about to be dumped in the last paragraph:
What it won’t do is stop the falling market share of the iOS platform...
Why is it that we can’t talk about this without mentioning market share? Uluroo will make this very clear: iOS’s market share is irrelevant. Apple is still making loads of cash, which is far more important than worrying about the number of customers it’s getting.
... the lack of genuinely new ideas from Tim Cook and his team...
By this warped standard, there are zero companies we can call innovative. Every smartphone that uses a technology it didn’t invent is derivative and therefore not innovative. Too bad for all the companies that ripped off the iPhone X’s design, or better yet, every smartphone that effectively ripped off the 2007 iPhone. Of course, Spence isn’t going to hold them to this standard.
Probably because he can tell his logic only holds up as an excuse to point fingers at Apple. Which unfortunately happens way too often.