I think it's also an issue that many Asian companies haven't figured out how to add value with software the way a company like Apple does. Apple can ask a big premium on their tablet and phone devices based on the exclusivity and capabilities of iOS. Certainly lots of innovations could still be achieved in (e.g.) the television markets by creating great software for these products. We still don't have really "smart" television sets.
This is the reason why I think the rumoured Apple television set will be a big hit with very nice profits when it finally arrives.
The key is to differentiate with the competition and if you can't differentiate on a hardware level, then you have to do it on a software level.
> I think it's also an issue that many Asian companies haven't figured out how to add value with software the way a company like Apple does.
I think you can completely remove 'Asian' from that sentence. Few companies ANYWHERE have figured out how to add value with software like Apple does.
I'm still highly sceptical of "smart" TV although I am a big believer in easy UI and attractive content. My own long term view (since about 2002) has been the TV control will move to a handheld touchscreen display (a tablet) removing most or all of the UI from the main display.
I also think there are good reasons why Apple hasn't entered the market. It will be hard, even for them to make money there. Also to deliver what is accepted as a TV requires significant localisation to broadcast and cable standards. Apple may be able to go with HDMI and internet connections only but that isn't something that many other companies would get away with. I don't think that they will make real money if they do come although they could still hurt Samsung which might make it interesting to them.
There are three main phone/tablet OS's out there from Apple, Microsoft, and Google which are all US companies. The real question though is why did Google have to step in with Android vs Samsung / Sony / LG etc already having a high quality OS? They had been making quality feature phones for a while, but somehow never made the jump and said the hardware if fast enough for something close to a desktop OS.
I think Apple were exceptional with brilliant vision of how a smartphone should work and the ability to develop from a clean slate without having to support existing platforms before the initial launch. They also left out many features competitors had which I think would have been harder to do with an existing product line.
Google had by that point been sucking in huge volumes of software talent. Once given the iPhone as a template they could develop quickly and then iterate further improvements but they are also exception. They are also a software company and critically a web services company rather than a broad electronics company. They are far from infallible (GoogleTV).
Microsoft were years late to the party despite existing mobile OS. They are also a massive (although fairly broad) software company. They also saw an almost existential threat in iOS and Android devices. They still may fail to reach a position of power in this market.
For a platform to reach the point of positive feedback between developer and consumer feedback needs scale. It isn't surprising that the offer of attractive, cost free platform with developer support was attractive and competition (in the software space) killing. Unless you were confident that you could win in the software space why wouldn't you take Android?
That only five platforms (Symbian and RIM being others) emerged is not surprising, less may survive. Given that who would you expect to have the scale, commitment and capability to develop the best mobile platforms?
Apple is an outlier even among US companies; I don't think there's much to be gained by asking "why aren't Asian companies like Apple".
I think in the case of a lot of electronics (e.g. TVs) the market has been commoditized, which is usually permanent. The big profit margins are gone, and they won't be coming back.
No, but it's interesting to ask why, for instance, Sony lost its position as the number 1 cool gadget inventor. There are many reason for this, including politics and sticking to proprietary technology for too long, but I agree that a lack of focus on software is a big reason.
The PC market is commoditized as well, but that hasn't stopped Apple from capturing the high end (and increasingly the low end with the iPad).
Comments
I think it's also an issue that many Asian companies haven't figured out how to add value with software the way a company like Apple does. Apple can ask a big premium on their tablet and phone devices based on the exclusivity and capabilities of iOS. Certainly lots of innovations could still be achieved in (e.g.) the television markets by creating great software for these products. We still don't have really "smart" television sets.
This is the reason why I think the rumoured Apple television set will be a big hit with very nice profits when it finally arrives.
The key is to differentiate with the competition and if you can't differentiate on a hardware level, then you have to do it on a software level.
> I think it's also an issue that many Asian companies haven't figured out how to add value with software the way a company like Apple does.
I think you can completely remove 'Asian' from that sentence. Few companies ANYWHERE have figured out how to add value with software like Apple does.
I'm still highly sceptical of "smart" TV although I am a big believer in easy UI and attractive content. My own long term view (since about 2002) has been the TV control will move to a handheld touchscreen display (a tablet) removing most or all of the UI from the main display.
I also think there are good reasons why Apple hasn't entered the market. It will be hard, even for them to make money there. Also to deliver what is accepted as a TV requires significant localisation to broadcast and cable standards. Apple may be able to go with HDMI and internet connections only but that isn't something that many other companies would get away with. I don't think that they will make real money if they do come although they could still hurt Samsung which might make it interesting to them.
There are three main phone/tablet OS's out there from Apple, Microsoft, and Google which are all US companies. The real question though is why did Google have to step in with Android vs Samsung / Sony / LG etc already having a high quality OS? They had been making quality feature phones for a while, but somehow never made the jump and said the hardware if fast enough for something close to a desktop OS.
I think Apple were exceptional with brilliant vision of how a smartphone should work and the ability to develop from a clean slate without having to support existing platforms before the initial launch. They also left out many features competitors had which I think would have been harder to do with an existing product line.
Google had by that point been sucking in huge volumes of software talent. Once given the iPhone as a template they could develop quickly and then iterate further improvements but they are also exception. They are also a software company and critically a web services company rather than a broad electronics company. They are far from infallible (GoogleTV).
Microsoft were years late to the party despite existing mobile OS. They are also a massive (although fairly broad) software company. They also saw an almost existential threat in iOS and Android devices. They still may fail to reach a position of power in this market.
For a platform to reach the point of positive feedback between developer and consumer feedback needs scale. It isn't surprising that the offer of attractive, cost free platform with developer support was attractive and competition (in the software space) killing. Unless you were confident that you could win in the software space why wouldn't you take Android?
That only five platforms (Symbian and RIM being others) emerged is not surprising, less may survive. Given that who would you expect to have the scale, commitment and capability to develop the best mobile platforms?
Apple is an outlier even among US companies; I don't think there's much to be gained by asking "why aren't Asian companies like Apple".
I think in the case of a lot of electronics (e.g. TVs) the market has been commoditized, which is usually permanent. The big profit margins are gone, and they won't be coming back.
No, but it's interesting to ask why, for instance, Sony lost its position as the number 1 cool gadget inventor. There are many reason for this, including politics and sticking to proprietary technology for too long, but I agree that a lack of focus on software is a big reason.
The PC market is commoditized as well, but that hasn't stopped Apple from capturing the high end (and increasingly the low end with the iPad).