A recent BBC piece makes some factually incorrect and outlandish claims about the history of the smartphone. It boggles the mind that an otherwise excellent news organization gets this so wrong. It’s the sort of thing you get when a lazy (or stupid?) journalist appears to us a bad Motorola commercial as their source.
My most recent post discusses the real story behind the disruption of the music business. In it, I assert that the iPod and the iTunes Music Store were instrumental in putting Apple on the path they are on today. Are they really that important? Are the iPod and iTunes really central to Apple’s eventual success?
Today’s Apple event felt rushed to me. They covered a bunch of stuff, some of which (frankly) could have waited until November. What we didn’t get (again) was an update on “the numbers”, something that was skipped back in June. It could be that Apple is trying to avoid issues with public disclosure. Or maybe they want the focus to be on the products. There was some interesting stuff, a little bit of it groundbreaking, and most of it advances that were to be expected.
The new iPhone 5C and iPhone 5S have been unveiled. There were very few surprises with either model. We saw pretty much what was expected, although the new 64-bit processor seemed to surprise some. But are these new phones revolutionary or evolutionary? I’d say the former, and not the latter.
Over the past few weeks, there has been a lot of buzz about Apple either building or watch, or why they should build a watch. The links to the various analysts and pundits abound, but the best discussion about what an Apple watch could do is covered by Tog. Does it make sense for Apple to do a watch? Particularly when compared to the frenzy that previously was generated about a rumoured television? A watch is actually right up Apple’s alley.