Apple's iPhone: It's Not About the Phone, It's About the Revolution

Echo To All submits: There has been so much positive press about Apple's (AAPL) iPhone ever since it was announced that hearing the ‘not so bullish’ side is somewhat refreshing. John Dvorak posted such an article. Stating the razor thin margins and quick shelf life of a design pose a big challenge to Apple, even if the phone is initially successful. I agree with everything he stated, as it is true about the cell phone industry and the different environment that Apple is about to enter.

The cell phone space is that of a plethora of ‘me too’ phones, and multiple ’smart’ (and potentially beneficial) functions that most people do not use. (In my opinion people do not use the smart functions because they do not know how to, or the functions do not integrate with other types of services they use.)

Apple changed the name of the game. Even without the phone being released, we witnessed its capability and its potential, and everyone had to wipe the drool from their awe struck mouths. (I include myself as one of those wiping. ) The reason the iPhone is different and revolutionary, is the fact that Apple is not selling a phone… it is selling a stunning multi-functional device that promises its users a glimpse into the future.

The iPhone is a key component to a true IMS functioning world, at least Apple’s vision of it. (If you're wondering what IMS is, here is a good summary.) Apple is doing what Microsoft (MSFT) wants to do. Apple is in the position to benefit the most from this IMS centric world we are about to embark on.

We have not yet seen a true IMS world, even though the telecoms may say they have given it to use already. Even if it has arrived people have yet to take advantage, partly because the wireless transmission speeds were not fast enough, but mostly because systems do not easily talk to each other at the consumer level (at least for the layman). But I have a strange feeling Apple will show us all what we are missing… and we will love it, and love Apple even more in the process.

Comments

[Jon T]

Dvorak described as refreshing?! He's a vinyl LP with a needle stuck in a groove if you ask me - if anyone can remember what that is!

The reason why phones have such a short shelf life, and one third of us buy a new one each year, is because they are inadequate, difficult to use and we all hate them and hope the next one will be better.

Anyone who thinks the iPhone fits into that category needs their head examining.

It'll be the first phone that we'll be happy to be using after three years - assuming we haven't been mugged before then!

2007 Mar 29 06:45 AM

[carleast]

How on this green and blue earth do you know that it'll be the first phone that we'll be happy to use for three years? Have you tried it?

The reason people buy new phones is because they're free with new contracts. Plus technology advances slightly giving them better cameras and more features. But it's mainly about them being free.

The iPhone on the other hand costs $500. For that reason alone people will think twice about upgrading. But that's the thing. Within a year of the iPhone coming out the other manufacturers will have so far surpassed the iPhone that people will want the new phones.

$500 is the sticking point for the iPhone.

2007 Mar 29 06:56 AM

[Julian Ivan-Alexander]

"Within a year of the iPhone coming out the other manufacturers will have so far surpassed the iPhone that people will want the new phones."

Yeah, that's what everyone said about the iPod you fool. The combined might of every CE company (ie. SOny, Philips, Samsung et al), and Muicrosoft, did NOTHING to stop the iPod becoming the worlds' dominant MP3 player.

You think they'll succeeed at out-designing Apple in the phone world? Lol.. thing again.

2007 Mar 29 08:27 AM

[Dan Poarch]

Look, iPods are kind of a joke. It's a $200-$300 cigarette pack that plays music for hours. Doesn't so sexy does it? And yet, everyone has one. Everyone loves them. So, if you'll pay $300 to have music and a teeny tiny TV with you wherever you go, is it such a leap to pay $500 for a phone that's really a pocket-top?

For the consumer, such as myself, that enjoys the convenience of a cell phone but finds them utterly useless, paying $500 for a phone that could actually provide some ROI is exciting. I keep saying that a quickly accessible address book would be worth the cost and I'm not kidding. Add to it an SMS interface that looks like every other text-based communication interface that we use in day? We're already at $500 in value. I haven't even started on all of the widgets, iPod, video, email, web browsing... Not only does this phone have the imaginary features that we rarely use, it has real features that we use everyday.

Wait, did I just mention a development platform built into a phone? One simple enough for local coders to develop location-specific apps? Like the guy that made the Widget for my Mac that tracks Metro activity in Washington DC so I can check for delays before heading out for the night? While the widgets for the phone are not open for development at the moment, I can only guess that they will be. Developing a widget is akin to following a cookie recipe, can Windows Mobile even touch that? [Seriously: can it, I don't know...]

This is a product that has legs. Ones that look sexy AND can run a marathon. The point is, this phone may not last two years. It may melt in your pocket. But it has vision and appeal. Something utterly lacking in the modern mobile landscape.

2007 Mar 29 10:08 AM

[Tom B]

Dvorak's article was hilarious. To be sure, the iPhone could fail, but Dvoraks "arguements" are clearly drug-induced: AAPL will fail because even MSFT failed in the cell phone arena? Huh? AAPL will fail because phones are "hard"? And computers aren't? Companies like Samsung make phones and Dvorak thinks Apple can't?

The man is just looking for a page-hit "fix".

2007 Mar 29 10:52 AM

[carleast]

"Yeah, that's what everyone said about the iPod you fool. The combined might of every CE company (ie. SOny, Philips, Samsung et al), and Muicrosoft, did NOTHING to stop the iPod becoming the worlds' dominant MP3 player."

You're comparing apples with pears here (pardon the pun). The iPod became the world dominant mp3 player simply because the market had just been born. The pie was huge and no one had even taken a bite yet (apart from Creatives very small nibble). So Apple happily came in and took all of what was available. The mobile market on the other hand is already saturated. Growth markets remain in developing countries where people can't afford the iPhone so Apple are going to have to take market share. That is completely different to what they have ever done before. In fact they've never even been successful at taking market share and the Macs are a case in point. If it wasn't for the iPod then Macs would still be limited to designers.

People buy phones first and foremost to phone people. That is why I think $500 for a phone instead of $0 for one that does even more is ridiculous.

And to Dan Poarch. You would happily pay $500 for a phone just because it has an accesible address book? What?! that has to be the most stupid thing I've ever heard. You may as well higher a personal secretary while you're at it. People won't pay $500 for an accessible address book.

I've had enough of all of this hype. That's all it is. Hype. Well done Steve Jobs that's all I can say. I tell you one thing though. Don't expect manufacturers who have been doing this for years and have production factories across the globe that generate economies of scale that Apple can only dream of in mobile phone land to take this lying down.

Nokia are a bigger company than Apple will ever be.

2007 Mar 30 03:35 AM