I have had this continuing concern for human isolationism. I observe with so much frequency the noses of us all buried in our iPhones sending and receiving messages to and from anyplace but here. We are physically in the same room but our minds and souls are elsewhere.
I have so many times adjudged our iPhones to be the tipping device that has sent us to a place far away from the way we should be-connected in the flesh. I have wondered why we have suddenly embarked into adjacency and what the magic of the iPhone device may have been.
And then it dawned on me: this device did not cause any sudden metamorphis - we were aleady trying to achieve escape velocity. It is very difficult to change human behavior much less do it en masse. The great popularity of iPhone isolationism can thus only suggest to me that the device did not change human character but rather revealed it. Behavior and the human tendency is magnified. It was something people were already doing but wanted to do better, to do more deeply.
This raises an interesting frame for investment thesis-find things that tap into deep social trends and unleash them. So in a way we [venture investors] would not be technology investors but rather social psychologists that tempt our vices. This actually sounds like it could be a good business.
Sunday, May 9
Thursday, April 22
iPad in Between
I have been fiddling with an iPad for about two weeks now and my initial judgment is that it lies someone between an iPhone and a notebook computer and it replaces neither. It overcomes some of my "wouldn't it be great" wish list for my iPhone such as screen and keyboard size (are too small) and does the same for my notebook such as (I wish it were smaller and I don't want to lug around a mouse).
The interesting thing to me about the iPad is not so much the device itself but the strategic aspects of the device in the context of overall positioning of Apple in the market. When I heard the early rumors of the coming iPad I sort of supposed that it would diminish the role of the iPhone. I have also wondered about the likely impact of Google's cell-phone-based operating systems (android) and the pressure it would apply to the iPhone market stature. Then came the iPad.
I think that Apple employees would not be offended by my initial judgment of the iPad (between iPhone and Notebook). I think that Apple purposefully left applicability of the device to the eye of the beholder rather than saying it is a this or it is a that and thus, would not be uncomfortable with my descriptive latitude. The reason Apple can avoid defining the Product (without confusing the customer) is that the device already has a large developer community behind it via the iPhone. The applications produced by the developer community makes the device serve many different roles.
So here is where we get to the strategic implications of the iPad (work with me here): The iPad has range because it has a large embedded developer community which stems from the iPhone. Applications enable the device to do many different things. If I am a developer, the more markets I have for my products the happier I am. Since the iPad and iPhone application development frameworks are close I can basically take the same application into both markets. The result of the iPad is that the developer community sees more life than before (the iPad) in a relationship with Apple products. He thinks to himself, "Hey...I can keep selling my products for years to come!". This in turn is good for the iPhone because (a) the developer community doesn't abandon the iPhone and, (b) the community will actually grow as more persons are willing to dedicate themselves to developing on apple products. And the final result is this: the iPhone's position is strengthened relative to anything powered by Google. So I am making the argument here that the iPad may have negatively impacted Google's cell-phone ambitions.
Here is the other thing: I think touch computing now actually has a chance. With the iPad, I can actually touch the screen and compute. This is going to require that application development think differently. That application development submits to the notion that meaningful things can be done at the press or touch of a "button". How many times before over the past ten years have we tried something other than a mouse and a keyboard and found these "alternatives" falling short of the star trek version of computing? Big ignition, no rocket lift off.
I really think we are seeing the dawn of something new. Something that will, in fact, stay with us. I have never observed so much hope in a single device during my investment career. Folks seeing me with this device asking me what the experience is like. Everyone wants to know and their instants are right. This may be it.
The interesting thing to me about the iPad is not so much the device itself but the strategic aspects of the device in the context of overall positioning of Apple in the market. When I heard the early rumors of the coming iPad I sort of supposed that it would diminish the role of the iPhone. I have also wondered about the likely impact of Google's cell-phone-based operating systems (android) and the pressure it would apply to the iPhone market stature. Then came the iPad.
I think that Apple employees would not be offended by my initial judgment of the iPad (between iPhone and Notebook). I think that Apple purposefully left applicability of the device to the eye of the beholder rather than saying it is a this or it is a that and thus, would not be uncomfortable with my descriptive latitude. The reason Apple can avoid defining the Product (without confusing the customer) is that the device already has a large developer community behind it via the iPhone. The applications produced by the developer community makes the device serve many different roles.
So here is where we get to the strategic implications of the iPad (work with me here): The iPad has range because it has a large embedded developer community which stems from the iPhone. Applications enable the device to do many different things. If I am a developer, the more markets I have for my products the happier I am. Since the iPad and iPhone application development frameworks are close I can basically take the same application into both markets. The result of the iPad is that the developer community sees more life than before (the iPad) in a relationship with Apple products. He thinks to himself, "Hey...I can keep selling my products for years to come!". This in turn is good for the iPhone because (a) the developer community doesn't abandon the iPhone and, (b) the community will actually grow as more persons are willing to dedicate themselves to developing on apple products. And the final result is this: the iPhone's position is strengthened relative to anything powered by Google. So I am making the argument here that the iPad may have negatively impacted Google's cell-phone ambitions.
Here is the other thing: I think touch computing now actually has a chance. With the iPad, I can actually touch the screen and compute. This is going to require that application development think differently. That application development submits to the notion that meaningful things can be done at the press or touch of a "button". How many times before over the past ten years have we tried something other than a mouse and a keyboard and found these "alternatives" falling short of the star trek version of computing? Big ignition, no rocket lift off.
I really think we are seeing the dawn of something new. Something that will, in fact, stay with us. I have never observed so much hope in a single device during my investment career. Folks seeing me with this device asking me what the experience is like. Everyone wants to know and their instants are right. This may be it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
