Remember the iPhone naysayers? The experts, observers and competitors who said Apple's mobile phone was too expensive, overhyped, or otherwise lacking?
Well, the Industry Standard went back to seven of the critics -- including John C. Dvorak, Dan Gillmor, and Steve Ballmer -- and asked them what they think now that the iPhone has proven itself a hit with consumers and turned the mobile world upside-down. Not everyone replied, but those who did offered some intriguing commentary about Apple, the iPhone and iPhone 3G, and competing devices from Nokia and Research In Motion. They also answered the pressing question of whether or not they've broken down and bought an iPhone for themselves.
Read on to see their original complaints about the iPhone, and what they have to say about the device now, more than one year after its remarkable debut.
Critic: Dan Gillmor, director of the Knight Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Gillmor is also director of the Center for Citizen Media. He has previously been a columnist for the San José Mercury News, a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society, and a pioneering blogger at SiliconValley.com.
What Gillmor said about the iPhone: Writing on his Center for Citizen Media blog at the time of the iPhone launch, he called the original iPhone a "beta product" that wasn't ready for prime time. "I’d advise anyone considering one of these devices in the U.S. to wait for the next version," he explained. "The initial product doesn’t come close to living up to the hype."
What Gillmor says now:
Industry Standard: Are you surprised at how well the iPhone has done?
Gillmor: No. It's just fine for some folks, and genuinely innovative in some important ways.
Industry Standard: What do you think are the main reasons for its success?
Gillmor: Hype for one, including the "I'm cool" factor, but the dazzle is based in significant part on the way it works. More than any other company in the field, Apple understands software, and the iPhone is definitely a breakthrough in that category for at least some uses.
Industry Standard: Have you broken down and gotten one yet?
Gillmor: Nope. I did buy an iPod Touch, however, which has become my portable music/video device of choice.
Industry Standard: Is there a device you use to do what the iPhone does instead?
Gillmor: No other device does exactly what the iPhone does. Conversely, the iPhone doesn't come close to matching the most valuable features of the devices I do use, namely the Blackberry Curve and Nokia N95. The Blackberry uses T-Mobile's UMA [Unlicensed Mobile Access] technology, so I can make VoIP calls, and its physical keyboard make it excellent for e-mail (the iPhone's keypad is nearly useless for me.) And the N95 has a great camera, also does VoIP, and I can use it as a modem with my laptop.
Industry Standard: Is there a device on the horizon that you think could, or should, be an iPhone killer?
Gillmor: No, but Apple has some distance to go to make the iPhone a Blackberry killer or a N95 killer. Naturally, I keep hoping for a Miracle Device that will do everything, so I will continue to be disappointed . . .
Industry Standard: Do you think it will be considered as much a success this time next year as it is now?
Gillmor: Depends on what's in iPhone 2.0 . . .
Critic: Tim Wu, a Columbia Law School professor specializing in copyright and telecommunications issues. Wu is also a commentator for Slate magazine.
What Wu said about the iPhone: In a column on Slate entitled "iPhony: Why Apple's new cell phone isn't really revolutionary," Wu wrote, "The iPhone's style and user interface are pathbreaking, and (as the iPod proved) aesthetics do matter. But the iPhone is -- so far -- not a product that will turn any industry inside out . . . Saying the iPhone is a pointless gadget is a bit too strong. But it isn't yet a revolutionary device."
What Wu says now:
Industry Standard: Are you surprised at how well the iPhone has done?
Wu: No, I'm not surprised -- it is a great phone.
Industry Standard: What do you think are the main reasons for its success?
Wu: The thing about the iPhone is that it is the first phone made by people who understand what a good user interface is. By comparison most other phones are intolerable.
Industry Standard: Looking back, is there a particular factor you hadn't considered that you now believe contributed to its success?
Wu: The fact that people were able to hack the iPhone so well certainly helped its sales overseas and, to a degree, here. I love the apps.
Industry Standard: Have you personally changed your mind about the iPhone? Have you reconsidered your original opinion?
Wu: I didn't say the iPhone wouldn't be successful, I said it wouldn't change industry structure. And it hasn't. The irony is that the iPhone is pushing the industry closer and closer to a duopoly with AT&T and Verizon basically running the cell industry.
Industry Standard: Have you broken down and gotten one yet?
Hosted by Tom Sullivan, stay abreast of the latest IDG content covering IT news, product reviews, best practices, and white papers.
Comments
Great article! I wish I saw journalistic "followup" like this more often.
Wow, think there could be a better cop-out than Bill Ray's? He made the stupidest prediction, then hides behind his employer? Pathetic.
Good lord, they just don't get it do they?
" I knew this phone had a huge "bling" factor and that technology aficionados would be clamoring to get one. "
Yeah and my technophobic father who wants one? They just. Don't. Get. It. Its not about number of features. The physical keyboard turned out to be a non-issue. I don't need or WANT my phone to be my primary camera, and the first guy has to use TWO devices to do what the iPhone does, and none of them seem to be willing to admit "guess what, I was wrong, it was a huge hit, a well designed product, and Apple really did a great job".
Hah! What a collection of fools. Each one trying to be the 'hero' who can see past Apple's apparently ever present wall of hype which they wrongly believe is the only amount of substance in the products released by them.
Yeah, talk about a failure and even now they don't seem like they fully understand the significance of the usability improvement over traditional phones which you may as well call 'anti-consumer' in their experience.
"And the touch screen interface, according to reviews, seems just as good as the iPhone's." I just love quotes like this, as if somehow the mere presence of some kind of touch screen gimmick can match the overall cohesion in the iPhone's interface and applications built using the SDK. Right.
Oh, and Dvorak... as pricelessly clueless as ever :P Just Gold.
I love how they cling to a physical keyboard like those micro keyboard buttons are some sort of pinnacle of function and design. I've had almost every Treo since the beginning and I never felt like I was typing fast. (I'm about 65wpm on a regular full-sized pc keyboard).
With the iPhone, I average 30wpm+. I've hit 45wpm but not consistently.
iphonetypingtest.com
What a bunch of ignorant and arrogant people. They sound like "spokesbots". All of these so-called tech gurus keep playing the same record over and over. Whenever Apple releases something that takes off, these guys predict that a competitor will come out with the same thing only cheaper and kill Apple the way Microsoft "killed" Apple in the 90's. Do they realize how ignorant they sound? I guess they don't because they keep the act up...
It is actually laughable that none of them could admit that their reviews and predictions were way off.
Got to love Gillmor's comment "the dazzle is based in significant part on the way it works." As opposed to what... the way it smells? Isn't "the way it works" really the whole entire point of, well, any consumer electronics device?
"they made hooking up to the 'Net an easy affair..." What's this 'Net you refer to "hooking up to"? Is this 1990 with a 1200 baud modem screetching on your desk? I think this person means "the iphone has a great web browser."
Actually, Geoff Long is the only one who doesn't come off sounding like just as much of an idiot today as he did a year ago. He made a prediction, and now admits that he was wrong. His original prediction was based on likely a scenario (v.1 being buggy) and then he projected forward. Now he admits that things were better than he had guessed. That's responsible on his part.
As for his predictions forward? Well, they seem pretty responsible, too. He recognizes that the iPhone is a good product (and not just some victory of smoke and mirrors by a marketing department), but also sees that there's still room for improvement. Of course there's room for improvement: the market depends on the iPhone still improving again next year and the year beyond that. Anyone who thinks the iPhone is perfect already is just as stupid as those other pundits here.
I'm just saying we should give credit where it's due: nice job, Geoff Long.
So to sum up Enderle, no one can type on an iPhone, the only reason it's successful is because Apple is great at marketing, and Apple has done a great job at hiding what a crappy device it is.
The man never fails to surprise me with his complete mastery of ass-ishness.
Nice going Rob!
I remember Gillmore from when he was a hack biz columnist at the SJ Mercury News ... this interview shows that he is the same old ass he was back then ... he projects his views on the world and looks for facts to back them up, he is unable to look and perceive what actually is going on .... i'm glad he is out of san jose
Very nice article. Pundits should be held accountable more often. If they are going to hold themselves out as being prophets, then they have to be exposed when they are proved to be charlatans.
Geoff Long made a prediction based on some assumptions, and recognizes some of the assumptions were wrong. That's how it should be. Most of the rest make me vaguely ill. "No, I'm not surprised." Well, then, why did you predict failure? None are willing to admit they were wrong. And then Endrele goes beyond that, and somehow comes across as even more delusional than last year.
I'll have to check out Geoff Long's work, though.
What a bunch of bozos. And to think, these people actually get paid for their so-called punditry. It's laughable. I've long felt that the only pundits worth listening to are consumers, which is why there is far more wisdom in the comments section than with any of your interviewees.
> Steve is unable to participate in this interview request due to his busy calendar, which he is managing using his iPhone 3G thanks to its great Exchange support.
Actually I liked Geoff Long's reply. He seems to be the only one who honestly stands corrected. The other guys on the other hand....
You have to laugh at all these idiots don't you?
They all say the success is only due to Apple marketing, and everyone is being duped.
Don't these guys appreciate how really, really, stupid they look?
I mean come-on, I give more credit to Dvorak who chose not to reply rather than the others who continue to spout yet more nonsense to justify the unjustifiable.
Apologies to Geoff Long - I meant to exclude him from my criticism above in view of his comments (though he had to be pretty out of touch with reality when he said: 'people will start to realise it’s just a phone, and not a particularly 'smart' one at that. ...! I'd say the phone turned out smarter than him...
The problem with most of these guys (besides often being clueless link-baiters) are imho the following:
1. They can't transcend their own perspective ("I want a physical keyboard so everyone wants a physical keyboard so the iPhone is doomed to fail"). Same with push email. Yes, iPhone 1.0 was not perfect for anyone, but – geez – if you took an unbiased look you could see the potential for the future quite easily.
2. They underestimated the iPhone (as well as the iPod in the past) as being a part of a well-integrated ecosystem. It gets worse when critics focus on feature lists alone. Example: "Phone XYZ has these more features so the iPhone is a worse choice than XYZ". It's true that iPhone 1.0 didn't have all features (some of them obviously deliberately left out like MMS), but the features it has/had, worked extremely well. In contrast to most other phones.
3. They underestimate the value of simplicity in a user interface. In fact, it is much harder to make it simpler that to add new features. Skins for Windows Mobile Touchphones are mostly … well, just skin-deep.
Rob E.'s insistence that the success of the first generation is just due to Apple's brilliant marketing, is however plainly stupid.
This was priceless. And Enderle! (This is the first article in quite a while that I read past the Enderle quote. As soon as I see one, I assume the writer is ignorant or lazy or both.)
Everyone: While it's OK to debate some of the opinions that were expressed by the iPhone critics, the attacks are uncalled for. This piece was intended to spark an honest, frank discussion about one of the most remarkable product launches of the decade, and a technology that disrupted a multibillion-dollar industry. Gillmor, Wu, Enderle, Long, and Mearian were kind enough to respond and answer our questions, and talk about the iPhone with the benefit of hindsight. Ray also responded, but had a very good reason for not answering.
So, if you want to discuss some of the points that they brought up, please feel free to do so, but keep the tone respectful.
Ian Lamont
Managing Editor
The Industry Standard
Ian,
Come on, you have to at least give everyone a pass for Rob Enderle, he really is a joke in the Mac community. The rule of thumb is, if someone uses a Rob E quote it means they're pretty much a hack, and I agree with it. I've never read anything from him that didn't sound like total and complete crap.
Brian: Enderle brings up some perfectly valid points that others, including Apple, have conceded are problems for the original iPhone (such as Exchange support).
i really think the virtual vs. physical keyboard comes down to age. my parents, both about enderle's age, have iphones and while they really like the phone and have no complaints, neither is very fast with the keyboard despite being particularly computer savvy (again for their age).
my wife on the other hand who isn't computer savvy does just fine with the keyboard even with her long nails. and of course me - young and a nerd, well i can easily type 30 wpm on the iphone.
Ian:
The complaints for Enderle are probably based on a long history of his writings. If he brought up a valid point, then it was by mistake…again, judging from his previous body of work regarding Apple and its products.
As to whether not have Exchange support in the first version of the iPhone software was a mistake or not is up for debate. If we judge by Apple's initial comments, then they were not targeting the enterprise audience and thus Exchange support was certainly not needed for the product to be a success. Judging by the iPhone's sales numbers, I would say that they were correct. It seems however, that the product was such a success that even enterprise customers were demanding the iPhone–even without Exchange support. Seeing an opportunity to increase their potential customer base, they chose to add the support for Exchange. Doesn't sound like they made a mistake to me. Sounds to me like they have a hit product that is even more desirable than anyone originally anticipated…especially the likes of Enderle.
I live in Flint, Michigan and I have never seen a single iPhone. What is this "success" all you people are talking about?
It's just marketing. And what is marketing? Finding out what people want and giving it to them. /yeah, they're good at that!
Not surprised at all about Dvorak's non-answer. He has been wrong about Apple for much longer, and more dependably, than anyone else.
I really have to second Christian's comments above. Any pundit who lived through the success of the iPod and knee-jerked a prediction on the failure of the iPhone should be forced to use a Zune Phone for the next year. I mean seriously, the only defenses against being so absolutely off base is that "I still need a physical keyboard"?
The reason the tone is less than respectful here at times is that most of the answers are insulting to the reader's intelligence. And if you're going to put your opinion out there, you have to know someone is going to call you on later, it if it is as off the mark as these were.
Wouldn't it have been refreshing to hear: "Yep, I blew it. Thought it would go the way of the Newton and it didn't." But no, instead we get the "Apple could sell anything because they have great marketing" mantra.
Yeah, I should be respectful to the great minds who deliver THAT.
These people said some of the stupidest things imaginable about a product NONE of them had even seen, and some didn't see til months after the release if that. And after all of their dire warnings and failed predictions, they still can't let go of their prejudices and their biases.
I ask you, who is the blinkered Kool-Aid drinking zealot here? The person who backs Apple for consistently putting quality and customer experience first, or the Microsoftie acolytes who year after year trot out their failed predictions of Microsoft's Real Soon Now dominance of everything?
attn: idiot webmaster @ thestandard:
where is the "single page" view command?
why is there no print command? (without javascript, please!)
why am i forced to re-load 6X to view all the pages in this article -- to drum up bogus page impression numbers for your publisher?
YOU WASTE MY TIME, SO I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ANGRY WITH YOU!
it's too bad readers didnt have the power to fire incompetents like yourself!
hey nimrod webmaster @ thestandard:
your comment engine needs to be fixed ...
it threw off the folloiwng err msg:
"Error posting to Solr: org.apache.lucene.store.LockObtainFailedException: Lock obtain timed out: SimpleFSLock@/usr/local/solr/data/index/write.lock at org.apache.lucene.store.Lock.obtain(Lock.java:70) at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.init(IndexWriter.java:579) at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.<init>(IndexWriter.java:341) at org.apache.solr.update.SolrIndexWriter.<init>(SolrIndexWriter.java:65) at org.apache.solr.update.UpdateHandler.createMainIndexWriter(UpdateHandler.java:120) at org.apache.solr.update.DirectUpdateHandler2.openWriter(DirectUpdateHandler2.java:181) at org.apache.solr.update.DirectUpdateHandler2.addDoc(DirectUpdateHandler2.java:259) at org.apache.solr.handler.XmlUpdateRequestHandler.update(XmlUpdateRequestHandler.java:166) at org.apache.solr.handler.XmlUpdateRequestHandler.doLegacyUpdate(XmlUpdateRequestHandler.java:355) at org.apache.solr.servlet.SolrUpdateServlet.doPost(SolrUpdateServlet.java:58) at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:154) at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:92) at com.caucho.server.dispatch.ServletFilterChain.doFilter(ServletFilterChain.java:103) at com.caucho.server.webapp.WebAppFilterChain.doFilter(WebAppFilterChain.java:167) at com.caucho.server.dispatch.ServletInvocation.service(ServletInvocation.java:226) at com.caucho.server.http.HttpRequest.handleRequest(HttpRequest.java:263) at com.caucho.server.port.TcpConnection.run(TcpConnection.java:477) at com.caucho.util.ThreadPool$Item.runTasks(ThreadPool.java:591) at com.caucho.util.ThreadPool$Item.run(ThreadPool.java:513) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:595) "
Geoff Long here. More than happy to fess up when I get it wrong :-)
I'm also a fan of this type of follow-up article, so great job Jake and The Standard. I should also point out that I did my own follow-up, way back in Feb of this year, which you can read at
http://www.notshort.net/2008/02/apples-iphone-paves-way-for-android.html
i applaud your skill and sense of righteousness.
this is the touchstone of journalistic integrity.
well done sir.
i hope dvorak reads this. smugness beside.
Everyone: We had some technical issues on Friday and Saturday which may have resulted in error messages or the page not even loading.
zahadum: I am puzzled why you had to load the page six times, because it was only broken up into four. There are two reasons why it's not a single-page article -- it was about 3500 words long (more than 10 double-spaced pages, if printed out on A4-sized paper) and putting long features on a single page doesn't support our business model. This feature cost a lot, in terms of money and time, and that has to be recouped some way. Advertising-supported page views are currently the model that we and many other publishers use nowadays.
Ian Lamont
Managing Editor
The Industry Standard
How much have I enjoyed reading and commenting on this article, having a cup of coffee in the shopping mall, using my iPhone. Just fantastic!!
Post new comment