Mobile Forward

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Sign Up
  • Support MF
    • RSS
    • Twitter

iPhone 6 Plus Drives 22% of iPhone 6 Models, 8% of All iPhones

April 9, 2015

It’s been seven months since Apple released its iPhone 6 models. Supply and demand have settled, so it’s a good time to see how popular the 6 Plus model is, compared to other available iPhone models.

Data from Mixpanel, a web and mobile app analytics firm, gives us some insight. It shows how important iPhone 6 Plus is to Apple’s smartphone business. The 6 Plus drives about one-fourth of current generation units and it drives about one in twelve of total iPhone units. It satisfied a meaningful number of consumers who wanted a larger display model, and it likely retained or acquired a decent number of consumers who would have otherwise opted for an Android smartphone.

Mobile Forward 00089 2015-04-09

Source: Mixpanel

(While Mixpanel doesn’t specify the geographic coverage of its data, I’m assuming it’s essentially global. In other words, I’m assuming sites and apps using Mixpanel overlap heavily with the markets where iPhone sells the most: USA, China, UK, etc.)

Share:Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Email this to someone
email

Filed Under: Apple, Phablets, Smartphones

The Worst Things Reviewers are Saying about the Apple Watch

April 8, 2015

Better products = less friction and higher performance, focused on important problems. It helps to learn from success and from failure. And with that introduction:

The worst things reviewers are saying about the Apple Watch (BGR).

I actually found the list pretty tame (better critiques will surely follow in months ahead). The most disconcerting part is from Farhad Manjoo’s review, though BGR didn’t actually quote this part:

First there was a day to learn the device’s initially complex user interface. […] What’s more, unlike previous breakthrough Apple products, the Watch’s software requires a learning curve that may deter some people. There’s a good chance it will not work perfectly for most consumers right out of the box, because it is best after you fiddle with various software settings to personalize use. Indeed, to a degree unusual for a new Apple device, the Watch is not suited for tech novices. It is designed for people who are inundated with notifications coming in through their phones, and for those who care to think about, and want to try to manage, the way the digital world intrudes on their lives.

Apple Watch aims to introduce both 1) a new UI (glances, new home screen, plus Digital Crown and Force Touch) and 2) new habits (wearing a device, off-loading key tasks to it). With that in mind, the most worrisome part of each keynote (and there were two) was the seeming UI complexity. So, seeing Farhad Manjoo struggle, to some degree, further reinforces that worry.

What might be a root cause of this complexity? One issue may be the fact that Apple usually learns for a considerable period from others, prior to releasing its own product. Its product, then, is a measured and careful *reaction* to what has and hasn’t worked. But with Apple Watch, meaningful competitors are few, and they’ve only been out for 18 months (less, if you start counting at Android Wear models). Less time to learn may mean a less streamlined product. What do you think? Email me if you have another view.

Share:Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Email this to someone
email

Filed Under: Apple, Smartwatches, watchOS

Wednesday Assorted Links

April 8, 2015

1. Apple reportedly purchased keyboard app maker Dryft last year.

2. Amazon Hints at Smart Home Future Through Echo Device. I have one. Recommended. But for the intro $99 price. The regular $199 price… probably isn’t good for anyone.

3. Something weird happens to your brain when you start improvising. (Thinking is fun. So is being in the flow.)

Share:Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Email this to someone
email

Filed Under: Acquisitions, Amazon, Apple, Assorted Links, Intelligent Assistance, Interface

The Apple Watch Reviews

April 8, 2015

Apple Watch reviews came out today.

1. Good rundown of many key reviews, by Tiernan Ray at Tech Trader Daily: Apple Watch Draws Raves for Sophistication, Functionality; Software Updates on The Way. That’ll give you good “situational awareness”.

2. Diving deeper: Read John Gruber’s (Daring Fireball) review and Farhad Manjoo’s (New York Times) review here. Farhad’s title is “Apple Watch Review: Bliss, but Only After a Steep Learning Curve”.

Share:Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Email this to someone
email

Filed Under: Apple, Smartwatches

The Future of Apple Watch and Apps

April 7, 2015

Credit John Gruber (Daring Fireball), for finding the most interesting part of Abdel Ibrahim’s article “The Future of Apple Watch and Apps” (TheTechBlock).

From the Watch Face, you are able to see your Glances and notifications. In order to see apps, you have to engage the Digital Crown. This makes it seem pretty obvious that Apple has purposely designed apps not to be front and center like they are on iPhone. Instead, Apple Watch apps are mere repositories where stored information can be pushed to the user in the form of Glances and via Notification Center.

This may sound a little weird, and I think to some of us it is. We’re used to apps being the focal point. But on Apple Watch, on initial waking, they’re not.

Share:Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Email this to someone
email

Filed Under: Apple, Apps, Interface, Smartwatches, watchOS

Apple Unit Share Reaches All-Time High in Urban China; Captured 27% of the Smartphone Market

April 2, 2015

From Kantar Worldpanel:

The latest smartphone sales data from Kantar Worldpanel ComTech for the three months ending in February 2015 shows that Apple’s iOS sales have reached an all-time high in urban China where it captured 27.6% of the smartphone market.

Mobile Forward 00075 2015-04-02

Source: Kantar Worldpanel, April 2015. “m/e” means “month ending”.

Market share means little. Market share multiplied by a product range (iPhones) with ~45% gross margins, means you’re doing a lot of things that consumers really value.

Share:Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Email this to someone
email

Filed Under: Android, Apple, China, Google, Microsoft, OS, Smartphones

Force Touch Could Be Exclusive to ‘iPhone 6s Plus’; New 4″ Model Unlikely in 2015

April 2, 2015

Joe Rossignol, reporting for MacRumors:

Apple’s pressure-sensing Force Touch technology could be exclusive to the so-called “iPhone 6s Plus,” according to Taiwan’s Economic Daily News (via GforGames). The report, which claims Taiwanese manufacturer TPK will be responsible for supplying Apple with the Force Touch sensors, makes no mention of the “iPhone 6s,” leading to speculation that the technology could be reserved for the larger iPhone 6s Plus.

Joe, in a separate article, also reports:

KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, who has a respectable track record at reporting on Apple’s upcoming plans […] notes that a 4-inch model is unlikely to be released this year.

Some people hear rumors, automatically assume the vendor in question will do X (where X = the “wrong” choice), and then criticize the vendor. I’m not in that camp. I just think it will be very interesting to a) try and think thru what Apple might do and b) see what trade-offs Apple actually makes.

At first glance, I think Ming-Chi Kuo is right. First, are we seeing any indication that Apple needs to do this? I don’t believe so. I’ll admit, using an iPhone 6 one-handed is bit harder, but I’d wager most (most) people value the display area more.

Second, what sort of compromises would Apple have to make to squeeze the guts of the 4.7″ model into a 4″ body?. You might say “None; they’ll just make the 4″ thicker.” Not likely. And even so, it would be a significant engineering effort, since such a 4.7″-to-4″ transition is not a simple one. Apple is more likely to focus its resources on new features, rather than re-factoring an existing architecture.

Still, there are some other avenues related to this. Stay tuned.

Share:Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Email this to someone
email

Filed Under: Apple, iOS, Smartphones

Apple Keeps Moving Mobile Forward

March 30, 2015

INVENTION

It’s too early to tell how successful Apple Watch will be. But what is clear is this: Apple continues to invent. It was striking, in fact, to realize — as Tim Cook, Kevin Lynch, and Jony Ive presented it – the amount of R&D that Apple has invested into making Apple Watch.

In terms of hardware, for instance, Apple developed unique or highly-customized technology in no less than seven areas. And these aren’t small achievements. They’re not feats of squeezing a camera into a watch or forms of specsmanship. They’re in important areas: related to CPU, interface, sensors, and very fundamental mechanics. The software achievements are equally impressive, spanning a range of 15 different problems Apple had to solve. All of these – hardware and software – are tough, fundamental advances aimed squarely at helping users achieve their goals.

Mobile Forward 00040 2015-03-30

I won’t re-explain each major technology area; others have written and said plenty. Instead, here are several of the high-order points, in my view:

1.  The S1. Very customized. As if Apple said “a new class of device deserves a new class of computer”. This degree of customization is the right call – because it affects everything that’s supposed to make a smartwatch appealing and valuable: size, functionality, performance, battery life, and upgradeability. I don’t claim 100% certainty, but I’d venture to say Apple’s competitors don’t take this aspect as seriously. If you have more color, please email me.

2.  Beyond conventional constraints. Apple didn’t allow a small display to dictate the terms of user interaction. It envisioned, and delivered, the Digital Crown and Force Touch.

3.  The Digital Crown. It’s a zig toward the tactile when the industry has zagged so far toward the digital. (And it’s not for the sake of contrarianism.) Very cool solution. If an Apple car had 10x more of this physical interface ingenuity, that would be amazing.

Also, just as the mouse, scroll wheel, and multi-touch were central to the identity of the Macintosh, iPod, and iPhone, the digital crown really is central to the identity of the Apple Watch. If you had to pinch, or weren’t able to zoom in and out, it would be an entirely different experience.

Mobile Forward 00071 2015-04-02

4.  Force Touch and Taptic Engine. These take the most widespread mobile interface, the touchscreen, and make it meaningfully richer. Pretty good achievement. And yes, to say the obvious: some form of Force Touch and Taptic Engine will land on the iPad and the iPhone. Like any new input approach, expect these to be used, over-used, and fine-tuned over time.

5.  Digital Touch (the ability to share a tap, a sketch, or a heartbeat). Apple could have taken the best-fit smartphone interactions (e.g., notification vibrations), transferred them to the watch, and called it a day. But they didn’t. Someone stepped back and thought “The fact that this product is touching you *means* something; there may be value in a new kind of communication.” First-rate thinking.

6.  Sketch. Time will tell if this perspective matters, but it’s as if the Sketch aspect of Digital Touch combines the best of Instagram (pictures) with Twitter (brevity) and Snapchat (the moment). And speed, a fourth attribute, was inherent in the demo examples.

7.  The design, including the bands. The budget and attention here likely rivals the entire investment that any of Apple’s competitors put into their first-generation programs. Perhaps by a multiple. Ditto with the “making of” videos that Apple showed.

8.  Heart rate sensor. The difficulty is in getting accurate readings. Let’s see how well Apple Watch performs, and how it addresses the challenges.

9.  The incumbents. There is SO MUCH here that traditional watchmakers can’t touch. In short, everything in blue in the chart above. Why? Because of everything else in all the other charts in this article.

10.  This is what it takes. This – all this new hardware and all this new software – is what it takes to launch a new category, and to have a shot at success. (And this doesn’t even get into the product management, marketing, and point-of-sale excellence that’s also required.)

A user interface tailored to the form. A communication method tailored to the context. A design that is careful and considerate, rather than a cost-reduced imitation of design. And the custom hardware, software, and manufacturing that optimizes each of these.

These achievements embody Jony Ive’s comment to Ian Parker of the New Yorker. (The quoted words are Jony’s.)

The creation of Apple products required “invention after invention after invention that you would never be conscious of, but that was necessary to do something that was new.”

 

A DIFFERENT FOCUS

How is Apple able to do this, while competing smartwatches (e.g., Samsung Gear models) deliver features like an “IR blaster”? I don’t think the answer is “complicated”, but it is a multi-part answer, best saved for later. (Many people have a perspective and, by helping my former company compete against Apple, I have mine.) For now, here’s a short version.

At the highest level, it has to do with company identity. Identity reflects the values of the founder(s), and it determines whether a company chooses to prioritize the new or the familiar, and whether it values quality or quantity. In turn, this drives resource focus: where a company allocates its resources – people, processes, technology.

Mobile Forward 00045 2015-03-30

Apple allocates more resources than other mobile companies (call them “component integrators”) in two key areas: Product Direction and Technology Development. The “vision thing” and the “invention thing”. It chooses new problems to solve for consumers, and it creates the technology to do so. That’s the short answer to “how is Apple able to do this?”

In contrast, most other mobile device makers either don’t invent, or they do so very sporadically. If you peered into each and counted the number of leaders, engineers, product managers, assets, and hours devoted to i) identifying new jobs to be done and ii) creating new technology to solve them, you might be surprised. Mostly, they purchase standard, complex components and work hard to integrate them into products.

Mobile Forward 00050 2015-03-30

 

To be clear, component integrators are important companies. They serve a valuable role: they help many of us get effective, reliable, reasonably-priced products. And the engineers at these companies are some of the best in the world. Component integration that is high quality, fast to market, and cost-effective is quite difficult.

But integration is not invention. As a company of invention, Apple conducts both broader and deeper exploration, it demonstrates the ability to take on higher risk, and it often reaps the resulting greater reward.

A DIFFERENT OUTCOME

Invention and integration produce different outcomes for the companies that specialize in either. Generally speaking, the differences are in performance and impact.

  • Performance. By shaping their technologies, companies that invent increase their ability to shape their products. Invention enables differentiation. Differentiation – or doing valuable jobs in a better way — enables healthy pricing, and healthy profit. That’s why, in smartphones for instance, the vast majority (~ 99%) of the operating profits belong to the companies that invent the most: Apple and Samsung. Invention isn’t the *only* driver behind their performance, but it’s a major driver. The component integrators, in contrast, have been disrupted. (See Nokia, BlackBerry, Motorola, and HTC.) And Xiaomi? Yes, selling a product for minimal profit will move a lot of units, but the company has yet to make a significant profit.
  • Impact. Component integrators, by virtue of (mostly) competing on price, help spread technology across the world. That’s important and valuable. But inventing companies also do this. They don’t do it via rock-bottom prices; they do it by offering functionality that’s both powerful and inspirational. Moreover, inventing companies do something that component integrators can’t: they shape the future, they push frontiers. They introduce the hardware, software, apps, or services that previously didn’t exist or weren’t polished enough for mass consumption. They create the NEW. And if it’s good enough, soon others make something similar.

Component integrators bring new advances to market, too (BlackBerry: the keyboard; Samsung: the phablet; Nokia: PureView camera; Motorola: Moto Voice). It’s just that companies that invent are able do so repeatedly and more frequently.

That’s what makes Apple – one of many technology inventors – so fascinating: watching it perform well, stumble at times, and watching it move mobile forward.

Welcome to Mobile Forward. Please email me with questions or comments.

Share:Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Email this to someone
email

Filed Under: Apple, Innovation, Interface, Processors, Product Development, R&D, Sensors, Smartwatches, Technology - Gen'l, watchOS

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

MOBILE FORWARD POSTS

Popular Posts

   Go to Complete List  ››

Latest Posts

  • The PC is Passé. What Now?
  • Google RankBrain: AI in Search
  • Tim Cook on Cars
  • Foxconn Makes About 30% of the Components in a Tesla
  • A Search for Another Run-Time Model
  • How Tesla is Ushering in the Age of the Learning Car
  • Nobody Can Override the Director
  • Apple’s Bold Platform Risk
  • Toyota Executive: “Toyota has to change its ways” to Move Forward
  • Intel Working on an iPhone Modem: New Chatter
  • On Product Names
  • Windows Laptops Need Better Engineering, Not Better Marketing
  • On Robot Creativity and Imagination
  • Perfecting Pixar’s Movies Takes a Crazy Amount of Research
  • A Leading Indicator of Success

Categories

Archives

  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015

Mobile Forward

About
A
Contact

Categories

Recent Posts

  • The PC is Passé. What Now?
  • Google RankBrain: AI in Search
  • Tim Cook on Cars
  • Foxconn Makes About 30% of the Components in a Tesla
  • A Search for Another Run-Time Model

Support MF

Subscribe

Follow MF

Twitter
A
RSS
A
By Email

Search

Copyright © 2021 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in