Smart phones are primarily pocket-sized PCs. Many of their most-attractive features could be developed only with strong expertise in computer and computer-interface design. Apple was world-class in these areas. Granted, the additional feature of being a phone was outside of Apple’s wheelhouse. Nonetheless, Apple could contribute strong expertise to all but one of the features in the sum
(features of a pocket-sized PC) + (the feature of being a phone).
Somehow, this one remaining feature (phoning) got built into the name “smart phone”. But the success of the iPhone is due to how well the other features were implemented. It turned out that being a phone could be done sufficiently well without expertise in building phones, given strong expertise in building pocket-sized PCs.
In general terms, Apple identified an X (phones) that could be improved by adding Y (features of PCs). They set themselves to making X+Y. Crucially, Y was something in which Apple already had tremendous expertise. True, the PC features would have to be constrained by the requirement of being a phone. (Otherwise, you get this.) But the hardest part of that is miniaturization, and Apple already had expertise in this, too. So, Apple had expertise in Y and in a major part of combining X and Y.
In other words, this was not a case of a non-expert beating experts at their own game. It was a case of a Y-expert beating the X-experts (or Xperts, if you will) at making X+Y.
On the other hand, PhilGoetz identified an X (cars) that could be improved by adding Y (good cup-holders). In contrast to Apple’s case, Phil displays no expertise in Y at all. In particular, he displays no expertise at the hardest part of combining X and Y, which getting the cup-holder to fit in the car without getting in the way of anything else more important.
If Phil turned out to be right, it really would be a case of a non-expert beating the experts. So it would be much more surprising than Apple’s beating Nokia.
Smart phones are primarily pocket-sized PCs. Many of their most-attractive features could be developed only with strong expertise in computer and computer-interface design. Apple was world-class in these areas. Granted, the additional feature of being a phone was outside of Apple’s wheelhouse. Nonetheless, Apple could contribute strong expertise to all but one of the features in the sum
(features of a pocket-sized PC) + (the feature of being a phone).
Somehow, this one remaining feature (phoning) got built into the name “smart phone”. But the success of the iPhone is due to how well the other features were implemented. It turned out that being a phone could be done sufficiently well without expertise in building phones, given strong expertise in building pocket-sized PCs.
In general terms, Apple identified an X (phones) that could be improved by adding Y (features of PCs). They set themselves to making X+Y. Crucially, Y was something in which Apple already had tremendous expertise. True, the PC features would have to be constrained by the requirement of being a phone. (Otherwise, you get this.) But the hardest part of that is miniaturization, and Apple already had expertise in this, too. So, Apple had expertise in Y and in a major part of combining X and Y.
In other words, this was not a case of a non-expert beating experts at their own game. It was a case of a Y-expert beating the X-experts (or Xperts, if you will) at making X+Y.
On the other hand, PhilGoetz identified an X (cars) that could be improved by adding Y (good cup-holders). In contrast to Apple’s case, Phil displays no expertise in Y at all. In particular, he displays no expertise at the hardest part of combining X and Y, which getting the cup-holder to fit in the car without getting in the way of anything else more important.
If Phil turned out to be right, it really would be a case of a non-expert beating the experts. So it would be much more surprising than Apple’s beating Nokia.