最好的苹果

苹果被注定的历史并不重复,但它押韵。

最新的一期"莫汉伯Sawhney教授,从凯洛格管理学院(顺便说一句,我的一位前教授):

Have we reached peak phone? That is, does the new iPhone X represent a plateau for hardware innovation in the smartphone product category? I would argue that we are indeed standing on the summit of peak “phone as hardware”: While Apple’s newest iPhone offers some impressive hardware features, it does not represent the beginning of the next 10 years of the smartphone, as Apple claims…

正如我们所见,当分化的矢量变化,市场领导者往往半途而废美丽新世界的AI,谷歌和亚马逊有明显的优势超过苹果考虑谷歌的像素2电话:由基于AI技术,它提供了前所未有的相片改进特性和更深层次的硬件软件集成,例如实时语言翻译与谷歌使用时的特殊耳机…改变向量的区别AI和代理并不预示着苹果……

表的玻璃只是不再最创新的沃土这意味着苹果公司迫切需要将重心和投资AI-driven技术,作为更广泛的努力的一部分创建的生态系统迅速亚马逊和谷歌正在建设然而,苹果是落后的人工智能比赛,因为它仍然是一个硬件公司的核心,它没有拥抱开源和协作方法,谷歌和亚马逊在AI先驱。

这是一个完全合理的论证,尤其是最后一行:我自己认为苹果需要考虑其组织结构为了构建更具竞争力服务如果过去十年证明了我们什么,不过,那就是打折真正伟大的硬件,和必要的公司——是最可靠的方法在理论上是正确的和错误的现实。

三星厄运

当Stratechery始于2013年,三星是占优势的,和灾难预言者的参数,在广义范围内相同的:硬件创新,和Android的足够好的特性,广泛的硬件基础,和更低的价格将很快意味着iPhone会相对于Windows和Mac的方式。1

At that time the flagship iPhone was the iPhone 5; Apple was still only making one iPhone a year,许多声称电话——一个是硬件的峰值创新——以更大(相对于以前的iphone)领导的4英寸屏幕,8像素的后置摄像头1.2像素的前置摄像头,和苹果的A6 32位系统级芯片,不仅仅是第一的公司授权部门设计的一个变种可以肯定的是,相对较小的屏幕大小是一个显而易见的问题:我第一次的文章之一认为,三星的关注大屏幕是一个有意义的优势,苹果应该复制。

Obviously Apple eventually did just that with the iPhones 6 and 6 Plus, but screen size is hardly the only thing that changed: later that year Apple introduced the iPhone 5S, which included the A7 chip that blew away the industry by going 64-bit years ahead of schedule; Apple has enjoyed a massive performance advantage relative to the rest of the industry ever sinceiPhone 5 s还包括触摸ID,第一个大规模生物认证方法,准确无误地运行(并使苹果公司支付),通常的相机的改进,以及一个新的M7的运动芯片,为苹果的健身奠定了基础重点(和苹果看)。

,尽管批评者尖叫着,iPhone 5 c的定价,推出了与5 s,意味着公司将会中断,iPhone 5 s在记录销售数字——就像每一个之前的iPhone。

iPhone X

我宠坏了,我知道:天才的合理化技术分析师,我每年购买iPhoneEven so, I thought the iPhone 7 was a solid upgrade: it was noticeably faster, had an excellent screen, and the camera was great; small wonder it sold in record number但中国到处都2它缺少什么,虽然,我才完全理解这个iPhone X -很高兴:

面对ID并不完美:有很多优势的情况下碰ID将更为可取第四次迭代iPhone 7,触摸ID是完全可靠的,最喜欢的技术,几乎不明显。

FaceID需要这一步:虽然它需要一些时间来改变根深蒂固的习惯,我已经的我只是接起电话,刷卡没有深思熟虑;3.验证等应用1密码是更大的启示——你不需要吗任何东西。

在这些情况下,iPhone X是达到顶峰的计算:做一个必要的工作,在这种情况下安全,比人类可以更好。4这种情况下的事实security is particularly noteworthy: it has long been taken as a matter of fact that there is an inescapable trade-off between security and ease-of-use; TouchID made it far easier to have effective security for the vast majority of situations, and FaceID makes it invisible.

诀窍苹果拉,不过,除此之外,我第一次看到通知被隐藏,然后显示(如GIF)通过简单一眼产生的惊奇和兴奋——传统上苹果最好的产品特点And, to be sure, surprise-and-delight is particularly important to the iPhone X: so much is new, particularly in terms of the interaction model, that frustrations are inevitable; in that Apple’s attempt to analogize the iPhone X to the original iPhone is more about contrasts than comparisons.

最初的iPhone和过度

尽管iPod轮可能最难忘的现代计算机硬件接口,和鼠标最重要,触摸,原因很明显,最自然的That, though, only elevates the original iPhone’s single button: everything about touch interfaces needed to be invented, discovered, and figured out; it was that button that made it accessible to everyone — when in trouble, hit the button to escape.

多年来,按钮变成了充满更多的功能:app-switching, Siri, TouchID,可达性这是物理表现的另一个棘手权衡:功能和易用性当然,iPhone 5我之前引用能力大大超过原来的iPhone,iPhone X更有能力,但实际上论证基于规范使批评者的观点:更多的技术,得到车身,越无法正常用户克莱顿•克里斯坦森创新者的窘境,称之为“过度”:

Disruptive technologies, though they initially can only be used in small markets remote from the mainstream, are disruptive because they subsequently can become fully performance-competitive within the mainstream market against established products这是由于技术进步的步伐产品经常超过性能提升的速度,主流客户需求或能吸收因此,产品的特性和功能匹配市场需求今天通常遵循一个轨迹的改进他们明天超过主流市场需求认真和产品表现不佳的今天,相对于主流市场的顾客的期望,可能会直接performance-competitive明天。

这是所有的iPhone的原因批评是如此确信苹果的日子已经屈指可数“足够好的”Android手机,售价远低于一个iPhone,肯定会导致低端破坏这是克里斯腾森在采访贺拉斯•德度:

从专利结构过渡到开放的模块化架构只是发生一遍又一遍它发生在个人电脑Although it didn’t kill Apple’s computer business, it relegated Apple to the status of a minor playeriPod是一个专有的集成产品,虽然变得相当模块化你可以下载你的音乐从亚马逊从iTunes尽可能容易你也可以看到模块化围绕Android操作系统,增长速度远远超过iPhone所以我担心模块化将在苹果公司工作。

iPhone 5 s / 5 c发射后不久,我的情况克里斯腾森是错误的:

模块化带来成本的设计和使用产品的经验,无法克服,但无法衡量商业买家——分析师研究——简单地忽略他们,但消费者不喜欢Some consumers inherently know and value quality, look-and-feel, and attention to detail, and are willing to pay a premium that far exceeds the financial costs of being vertically integrated…

并不是所有的消费者价值——或者可以——苹果事实上,绝大多数但是,苹果开始失去消费者因为Android是“足够好”,便宜靴苍蝇在面对消费者行为在其他市场此外,按绝对值计算,iPhone是大大减少昂贵的相对于一个足够好的Android手机比宝马丰田,还是高端袋在一家百货商店你会发现…

苹果——至少在过去的15年里,一直是——完全集中于低端破坏理论的盲点:分化基础上设计,虽然它不能测量,肯定可以感受到消费者都是买家和用户。

Needless to say, in 2013 we weren’t anywhere close to peak iPhone: in the quarter I wrote that article — 4Q 2013, according to Apple’s fiscal calendar, the weakest quarter of the year — the company sold 34 million iPhones; the next quarter Apple booked $58 billion in revenueWe are now four years on, and last quarter — 4Q 2017, again according to Apple’s fiscal quarter — the company sold 47 million iPhones; next quarter Apple is forecasting between $84 and $87 billion in revenue.

更重要的是,经验使用iPhone的X,至少在前几天,有这种感觉:考虑,发明,是的,公司喜欢注意,硬件和软件的集成Look again at that GIF above: not only does Face ID depend on deep integration between the camera system, system-on-a-chip, and operating system, but the small touch of displaying notifications only when the right person is looking at them depends on one company doing everything仍然很重要。

Moreover, it’s worth noting that the iPhone X is launching into a far different market than the original iPhone did: touch is not new, but rather the familiar; changing many button paradigms into gestures certainly presents a steeper learning curve for first-time smartphone users, but for how many users will the iPhone X be their first smartphone?

人工智能和新市场破坏

不过,我注意到,尽管苹果doom-sayers押韵,不重复The past four years may have thoroughly validated my critique of low-end disruption and the iPhone, but there is another kind of disruption: new market disruption克里斯坦森的差异解释道《创新者的解决方案:

不同的价值网络可以出现在不同的距离原来的中断的三维图在下面的讨论中,我们将把中断,创建一个新的价值网络第三轴作为新市场破坏相比之下,低端破坏是那些攻击能力最差,overserved大多数客户在低端的原始价值网络。

克里斯腾森最终得出的结论是,iPhone是一个新的市场粉碎机的PC:它似乎不能够简单的使用,从而吸引了non-consumption,最终获得了足够的能力来吸引个人电脑用户就其本身而言这无疑是真的;5当然有一个数量级PC用户智能手机用户比以往任何时候都多。

汀,为此,这样的论点是不同于旧的灾难预言者:这并不是说苹果将由廉价的“足够好”地打乱了Android,而是因为一个新的向量是新兴-人工智能:

向量的区别是再次转移,远离硬件我们在电话的一个重大转变的边缘和设备空间,从硬件的焦点人工智能(AI)和基于AI软件和代理。

这意味着的重新定义对我们最重要的个人电子产品AI-driven手机像谷歌的像素2和虚拟代理像亚马逊回声激增,智能设备与我们的理解和沟通,提供一个虚拟的和/或增强现实技术将成为一个更大的环境的一部分今天的智能手机可能会失势。

很有道理,但是对于一个关键错误:消费者使用不是,至少在这种情况下,一个零和博弈许多思考时这是错误的方式正交企业竞争:

The presumption is that the usage of Technology B necessitates no longer using Technology A; it follows, then, that once Technology B becomes more important, Technology A is doomed.

不过事实上,大多数的范式转换的上面一层互联网上使用电脑,使用社交网络和搜索引擎当然,我只是指出,越来越多的智能手机取代电脑,但即便如此,大多数使用添加剂,而不是替代换句话说,没有理由认为人工智能的到来意味着人们将不再关心他们所使用的智能手机当然,后者可能会“失势”专家的思想,但他们仍将消费者的口袋里很长一段时间。

第二个错误,然而,来自这个推定zero-summedness:它忽略了近期各方的业务规则谷歌是最好的例子:是限制其服务的公司自己的智能手机平台公司将财务摧毁最具吸引力的顾客在iPhone上谷歌的广告商——看看谷歌愿意付多少钱收购6理论上,而谷歌可以说服他们独家开关通过保持其优越的服务,这种做法实际上是站不住脚的In other words, Google is heavily incentivized to preserve the iPhone as a competitive platform in terms of Google’s own services; granted, Android is still better in terms of easy access and defaults, but the advantage is far smaller than it could be.

苹果,与此同时,正忙着建造自己的竞争性服务,虽然很容易——并纠正——认为他们不是真的与谷歌竞争,并不重要,因为竞争不是发生在真空中Rather, Apple not only enjoys the cost of switching advantage inherent to all incumbents, but also is, as the iPhone X shows, maintaining if not extending the user experience advantage that comes from its integrated modelThat, by extension, means that Apple’s services need only be “good enough” — there’s that phrase! — to let the company’s other strengths shine.

这导致一个完全不同的画面:“障碍”意义的Android采用苹果的客户基础远远大于使得唱衰者不得不闭嘴会让你思考。

苹果的持久的优势

我不是苹果盲目乐观:我第一次争论年前that the ultimate Apple bear case is the disappearance of hardware that you touch (which remains the case); I also complimented the company因为他有勇气将走向未来。

事实上,苹果的侵略性在衣物和地区,至少从软件的角度来看,增强现实,建议公司将按其硬件优势得到未来在竞争对手之前,建立一个滩头阵地,将更加难以驱逐的优质服务产品此外,有证据表明,谷歌认为苹果的价值的方法:该公司进军硬件可能在某种程度上是一个尝试找到一个新的商业模式建立竞争的能力,但在硬件以外的智能手机无疑是一个目标。

What is fascinating to consider is just how far might Apple go if it decided to do nothing but hardware and its associated software: if Google Assistant could be the iPhone default, why would any iPhone user even give a second thought to Android? I certainly don’t expect this to happen, but that giving away control of what seems so important might, in fact, secure Apple’s future more strongly than anything else, is the most powerful signal possible that the integration of hardware and software — and the organizational knowledge, structure, and incentives that come from that being a company’s primary business model — remains a far more durable competitive advantage than many theorists would have you think.

  1. 备案,是吗误读的历史(↩︎]
  2. Speaking of China, the point of that article was that hardware differentiation mattered more there than anywhere else; I expect the iPhone X to sell very well indeed [↩︎]
  3. Many of those edge cases are in cases where you are not picking up the phone and thus triggering wake-on-rise; the car, for example, or the desk [↩︎]
  4. To be clear, this is all relative; in fact, Face ID is arguably even less secure than Touch IDSure, 1 in a million chances of a match are better than 1 in 50,000 if the sample is fully random, but given that close siblings, for example, can overcome it in theory is a reminder that relevant samples are not always random更广泛的观点,是人们安全使用比他们不优越的解决方案(↩︎]
  5. Christensen never did explain why the iPhone defeated Nokia et al, who he originally expected to overcome the iPhone; I put forward my theory inObsoletive(↩︎]
  6. What I wrote in this Daily Update about Google’s acquisition costs almost certainly explains the bump in Apple’s services revenue last quarter; more on this in tomorrow’s每日更新(↩︎]