The big problem of the industry: why all smartphones are the same
An industry emerging overnight from the imagination of a single man fails ten years later to overcome the moment. Almost all smartphones look the same, they perform the same functions, run similar applications. Where did innovation disappear in only ten years?
As a matter of fact, Steve Jobs was not the first runner of his kind. The man had relapsed the computer industry with Apple II and had opened the digital music era with the iPod. Although competing products were on the market, Steve Jobs had the vision to make them different, in a useful and enjoyable way, so people bought the products. The series of successes continued with the iPhone, then with the iPad, and the Apple Watch is said to have been planned by him as well.
Fast forward in 2017. Everyone makes phones, absolutely identical, both in shape and in substance. Yes, some choose curved edge design, others with straight edges. Some have a metallic phone, others are covered with glass. The screens can be 4 inches or 6 inches with 4K or 2K or Full HD resolution. The cameras can be dual, not that they make a big difference, but somehow you have a different camera. Small new details appear year after year, small processor improvements, small software advances, new games and applications.
But, in essence, nothing changes. No one has the vision to generate a new product, a technology that changes usage. The big producers are waiting, watching to see what others are doing. If Samsung or Apple accidentally opens a new direction, immediately dozens of companies launch similar products. That's how it happened after the iPad launch. Everyone has made similar devices, similar screens, similar shapes, identical uses. Eventually the industry capped in a few years. After tablet sales were capped and manufacturers were looking for something else, it happened exactly the same.
They've discovered all the smart watches and have publicly announced that this is the direction of walking. At first, it really seemed that the world wanted a smart watch or intelligent bracelet, but the sales capped fast.
As soon as the smart clocks proved to be a failure, the manufacturers began to look for other directions. Apple analyzes smart machines, now seems to be limited to car software, although there is no clear decision. Samsung has bought Harmann Kardon for audio technology. LG tested modular phones. For now, none of the directions have caught. The only cars with autonomous technology are the electric ones from Tesla. But maybe the industry will develop over time.
Steve Jobs has managed to relaunch these industries in a concrete, irreversible way. IBM finally lost the computer battle.
Nokia lost the fight on mobile phones. Microsoft has also lost on the mobile area and the touch devices. Sony lost on the digital audio players, we can find examples on all the areas where Apple activates. And Steve Jobs had no resources either when he launched his first Apple computer or when he launched the iPod. He had just been called back to save Apple from bankruptcy when she thought of the iPod.
Today's IT giants have resources, they have the most skilled engineers in the labs, they have the courage to fail - some of them have launched products that they have not caught. But they lack one thing: Steve Jobs's intuition and vision of finding not just a different product, but how to do it differently to sell. They have no imagination.
Source: https://playtech.ro/2017/probleme-telefoane-toate-smartphone-urile-sunt-la-fel/
I guess I disagree. It's true that physical innovation has stagnated. But I think that may be a sign of a mature product line. Like cars, once the general desire has been understood from the masses, companies don't need to work on 5-wheeled cars or double-decker cars or whatever. You have 3 or 4 basic types of car and then the equivalent of rounded or cornered screens on phones.
What is being done that I think is perhaps underappreciated, is the application diversity within the phone industry.
We have budget phones designed specifically for poor countries, to the point that now more people in the world own phones than have access to toilets.
We have bits of additional hardware that can use the phone as an electron microscope, or a medically life saving device. The software within is the real secret, which I don't think I even need to get into.
And, like the car industry which created innovative businesses around it (car washes, motels, drive-thru's etc), the phone industry continues to open doors to new lines of ideas, without the need to really adjust its physical appearance.
I do agree that companies need to stop just copying each other though, and actually take on new directions entirely. But with most, they have become such massive megacompanies that it's just not worth the risk anymore. You'd think the opposite would be true, but hey...
I'm still on a Galaxy 5. If it ain't broke, don't fix it eh?
It's a very good point! Too bad life's short and we cannot wait forever! 😈
"that may be a sign of a mature product line"
I agree with you. There's no need to continue to "revolutionize" smartphones anymore, they're already amazing.
Sadly - market pressure will likely force the big companies to keep acting like they reinventing smartphones with each new release. The same thing is happening with Macbooks - apple is trying to innovate, innovate, innovate, but what more can they really do with this product?
A very well reasoned response. Perhaps Blockchain tech will change everything, except the tangible product.
It's funny that while I was reading, the car industry also popped into my head as a comparison.
Yep. I am having the same opinion. It is kind of stucked. I don't see the difference between having an S3 and s8...just more money. you will do pictures, messenger whatsapp and sometimes the browser..
You hit the nail right on the head.
Hey, we have Runcible - The circular smartphone
My husband is raving about the Blackphone - any thoughts?
I agree with the article.
This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the second half of Jun 10. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $30.76 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jun 10 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
I've heard it said that a truly great business doesn't create a product for a market, but creates the market from a product.