Steven Weyhrich's Profile

"Next iPod Video Expected To Destroy Both Microsoft And Dell, While Doubling Apple's Market Share Monthly"

Some (not so brief) comments: Regarding the analogy of pharmaceuticals: I believe I know what you are trying to communicate here, but I'd like to clarify something. First to market CAN be important for a drug in a new class, if it does something that no other drug has done before. And if that "new thing" is a significant advancement in medical care, and if the creation of similar drugs is very difficult technically, the company who is first to market with a new drug has the advantage of DEFINING that new class of drug. They may capture a large share of market for treatment with this new drug, especially if there is nothing else available that does what this drug does. As for withdrawal of a drug from the market: It is not necessarily going to happen ONLY because the drug caused deaths (although that is definitely a good reason to take the drug off the shelves of your local pharmacy). It may happen because of non-fatal safety issues that were not identified in pre-release testing, issues that are significant enough to make the disadvantages of the drug outweigh the advantages. Sometimes drug #2 or drug #3 in a class actually outperforms drug #1, the "first in class" drug that DEFINED the class, or it may be significantly safer, or more convenient, or whatever. But if this happens, that first in class drug will fall back in popularity, because a new product does the same job better, cheaper, more conveniently, etc. Comparing this to Apple Computer: The Apple II was NOT the first computer available, nor was it necessarily the best (it had 40 columns of text, when a close competitor, the Radio Shack TRS-80 had 64 columns of text). It did, however, have some things that made it "first in class" and "best in class", before anyone else had it. One first was color graphics that were easy to produce; another was BASIC in ROM (didn't have to be loaded from tape); but the most important was VISICALC, the first spreadsheet program, which ONLY ran on the Apple II in its first incarnation. This was the COMPELLING APPLICATION that actually SOLD Apple II computers to businesses who would not have bothered getting a computer before. The connection to the iPod is a good one. Other companies had MP3 players prior to the release of the iPod; there were sources of digital music to play on MP3 players prior to the iTunes Music Store. But Apple took what was available and what was in demand, and made it BETTER, FASTER, and more CONVENIENT than the other players out there, and as a result, they captured a large share of the market. And they have continued to evolve the product (both the iPod and the iTunes Store) since then, gradually increasing its value to both old and new customers. Continuing the analogy with the Apple II: If Apple had done to the original iPod what it did to the Apple II, we would have seen them release an "iPod II" that was not necessarily compatible with the original iPod, didn't use all of the same music formats, and maybe even required users to re-rip their music or re-purchase songs. Even if technically this was a BETTER MP3 player than the original iPod, it would not have done as well as things actually have transpired. Similarly, if Apple had treated the Apple II the way they treated the iPod (and the way they have treated the Macintosh for years now), they would have evolved THAT platform to add features and capabilities, rather than going for a totally new platform (the Apple III, the Lisa, the Mac 128K). As far as the next six months are concerned, if Apple can avoid the arrogance that can go along with being the best in show today, they have a good chance of zinging the Zune. They probably can; they have hopefully learned from their own company history about what NOT to do this time.

Nice article. I agree that "killer app" is less likely to sell a computer today than it was a few years ago, at least to experienced users. The experienced user already has his or her collection of regularly used applications, such that the purchase of new hardware will almost always be dependant on whether or not the new hardware runs the old applications, rather than on how cool the new hardware is. The exception would be if a new or updated compelling application requires a technological leap in order to have the horsepower to run it (Windows Vista, for example). In my case, I just purchased a Palm Treo 700p phone. Why a 700p instead of a 700w? I've owned Palm devices for years (after Apple killed the Newton, which I also owned and used), and I have my favorite database and other programs which I really don't want to have to change. "Killer hardware" (such as the iPod) may be a more likely candidate for a compelling reason to purchase a particular piece of new computer than application. (BTW, it's "hodge-podge", not "hotch potch")