It's all about execution. When Android manufacturers make these "innovations," by and large they're sloppily implemented and poorly communicated. They're generally part of dozens of features that companies like Samsung try to boast about - so the net result is that consumers don't know what to pay attention to, they aren't inspired to feel lust for the product or any of its particular features, and so the product becomes just one more indistinct phone on the scrapheap.
Whereas Apple focuses on a few core features to improve on and communicate with each phone, and they're overwhelmingly cautious - like only integrating Touch ID with a few spots of the phone at first. But they nail the initial execution, and the communication. So their phones are still the absolute centre of the market. And no other company can inspire product lust to the degree they can.
I never used an iPhone 5s but I would agree with the importance of execution. Lenovo has been shipping ThinkPads with fingerprint scanners for like what? Almost a decade? (ThinkPad T43 had fingerprint scanner, it was released in 2005) Those scanners never defined anything. I thought it'd be handy to save all the passwords at one place and then just scan your way through all the websites. Turns out it didn't work. Successful scan rate was too low, having to swipe one's finger again and again made me feel like an idiot. Then there's software. That bulky ugly software that reeks of corporate. Although I kept buying ThinkPads, I stuck to my vanilla Windows Vista/7 and never installed those "utility tools".
I think your observation aligns with startup culture in general - an idea (fingerprint scanner) can be valuable, but the execution is what matters. Execution means in this case, identifying the probable use cases, picking one or two flagship ones, really refining those (i.e., ensuring the hardware & software are good enough to make it all work as smoothly as possible).
I think Apple is in a unique place because they are beholden to no upstream provider (either hardware or software), retailer (they own their own stores) or component manufacturer (in the case of x64 chips, they flirt with AMD enough to keep Intel in check - for ARM solutions they run the show). They have volumes that can command suppliers' compliance.
Lenovo is hobbled by Windows, and the margins in that space are small enough that it's honestly not worth their time to simply "make it work right" w/r/t their drivers, which is why my Thinkpad fingerprint scanner never got used after about day 3.
I think this is slightly apologetic thinking. Apple didn't start off with a complete ecosystem of obeisant suppliers, in-house hardware, software, and retail stores - they built up their empire piece by piece, starting I suppose from the late-90s. And we still don't know their master-plan. The space has been open for any other company to decide to compete on that level. Lenovo could have decided to do that. Any other company could have decided to rise up and play the long road too. It was not impossible to think like this in 2005.
Instead Apple's competition has fallen over themselves to try and chase every short-term opportunity, leading to constant reinvention, total lack of focus, and squandered potential. Frankly, it's embarrassing - you would think that enough people outside of Apple recognise the scale of the challenge Apple poses and decide to respond. Instead these companies come off looking like cheap idiots.
I don't disagree with your facts. I am merely saying there is a structural reason for this - Windows and Android manufacturers will never command the same power as Apple (who as you say, got it the hard way by taking over ground before it became valuable - i.e., skating to where the puck will be). They will never have it because Intel, Microsoft and Google will fight tooth and nail to prevent it.
Lenovo bought IBM's business because IBM (who essentially made Microsoft who they were) decided it's a loser's game to depend on Microsoft. They are structurally incapable of meeting Apple's capabilities. If they do something novel, it will be reverse-engineered by Dell or HP and become commoditized (I would support that clandestine type of sharing if I were Microsoft).
About the only exception might be Samsung because of their dominant position supplying memory/disk/processors for Apple and other smartphone manufacturers. Apple is worried about Samsung, but Google should be as well.
Do you work for Apple, or are you an iOS only developer, or something? Throughout this thread, your gushing praise of everything Apple and disparaging remarks about literally everything every other company does is so over the top, even by HN standards, its hard to figure out where you are coming from.
By "Apple's competition", I assume he is referring to Android. Considering that Android has 80+% of the market, and Samsung is the worlds largest seller of smart phones, its difficult to justify saying that they have "squandered their potential".
He has been spouting rubbish like this all over the thread.
If he was just saying that Apple make great hardware, I dont think anyone would be disagreeing with him.
Everything you said is true but it was such a different era and market, sensitive security features for special needs. ThinkPads were designed for entreprise(+military) where everything is bulky and complex, in that regard having to install IBM battalion of tools was just the norm (and mandatory most of the time, they did provide value). The target crowd was also different, users would be trained at work, so it wasn't 'required' to be intuitive and invisible, a mainstream defining constraint, like a home button swipe. Here you have a few billion people probably using it every two days for every little id/money related task that don't wanna think about it (otherwise they'll toss it out).
"Target crowd" is a bit misleading. True, as long as fingerprint sensors were a bit difficult to use, only the ones with a specific need for them took the time and effort to use them. But the same was also the case with previous smartphones, and lots of other technology.
If some company hade made a really good and well integrated fingerprint sensor, it might well have seen more widespread use.
I kinda agree, but still, back then much fewer people needed security compared to nowadays where you have your life in your pocket. It's plausible Packard Bell did provide a very subtle Touch ID button on a cheap laptop and it flopped because nobody cared.
Well, people have their entire lives in their computers as well. You also see the same with touchpads. It's only after Apple pushed multitouch that touchpads have gradually started improving on PCs (many early gestures actually made PC touchpads _worse_ to the point where I had to turn them off).
OT: I have a HP laptop with fingerprint reader, and it works perfectly with Lastpass and Windows login. I almost never type my passwords now. HP had shipped some software, but I honestly never used it. It works just fine with in-built Windows 7 support.
You mean like how they executed with Siri. Siri was also supposed to define a market and take over the world. In the new iPhone there is no mention of Siri at all.
Siri hasn't gone anywhere and it's still being improved.
There's no mention of it anywhere? So what, there's many other previous headline features they're not highlighting.
I'm not implying that Apple can't make mistakes - it's clear they can with Maps and Siri - but a) it would be extremely uncharitable to judge them on version 1.0 of Maps and Siri, both ridiculously complex features, and most importantly b) their overall product strategy is still the best in the business. Doesn't matter how much people kick and scream about the newest Apple mistake - does anyone even remember Antennagate? Tech people cling to these memories, but normal people forgive and forget.
You have a good and reasonable argument, but I'd like to offer a couple of counterpoints.
1. In other contexts, the sheer perfection of their 1.0 products are exactly what Apple is judged so successful by. As with the commentary on the fingerprint scanner: the praise is that while other manufacturers deliver buggy, incomplete features, Apple gets things right on the first try.
2. While it's true that everyone makes mistakes, Siri and Maps were arguably the highest profile features on the 4S and the 5, respectively.
I don't think Siri falied, but disapointed. Apple hyped it up so much you would believe it could do anything, and work flawlessly. Instead it works halfway reasonably in a few soecific situations.
I can't recall the last time I used Siri on my iPhone, or anyone else I know, for that matter; however, I've used Google Now on an almost daily basis on my Nexus 7. Execution is key.
I think when parent(s) were remarking on execution mattering they were implying: 'Execution is key ... to the success of the feature (and consequently) the brand'. My experience is very few people know what Google Now is. Your preference of it does not demonstrate an example of that sort of success-due-to-execution that other posters are suggesting Apple's products exemplify.
Have there been recent instances of Apple cutting features from a device on a new release?
I hope touch id proves to be successful, but I'm really interested to see what happens if it's not. How do you save face and stop investing in a technology, while also weaving a story that convinces customers they don't need it anymore?
> But they nail the initial execution, and the communication. So their phones are still the absolute centre of the market. And no other company can inspire product lust to the degree they can.
While they may have implemented Touch ID really well, it's still just yet another way of unlocking the device. Strategically it has little benefit to Apple.
How much would you pay for Touch ID? It offers little security benefit, only allowing you to log in a tiny bit faster. I can log in with my passcode fairly quickly and often without even looking at the screen. Maybe $5? $10 at a stretch. Definitely not worth getting locked into Apple's platform for another generation.
Edit: It will be extremely telling of the politics of touch ID internally within apple when we see the uptake of this stuff on non-iPhone hardware. Does the entire company believe in this technology? Will we see it on the iPad, iPad Mini? On Macbooks? Once we see deeper integration of touch ID across the rest of Apple's hardware devices and software services would a moat start being formed, but it would require a stern guiding hand within Apple to make it happen.
> While they may have implemented Touch ID really well, it's still just yet another way of unlocking the device. Strategically it has little benefit to Apple.
Uh, how many times a day do you perform some type of authentication of your identity? I have a feeling this will be one of those foot-in-mouth statements.
Haha, I certainly hope so - that's what I meant by my edit above. If Apple pushes this technology across the entire company then only at that time does it become a compelling part of the Apple ecology. If too many services/devices "chicken out" and avoid integrating with Touch ID then Apple will continue to be forced to carry legacy authentication mechanisms, lowest-common-denominator style.
If this tech remains an iPhone (or even just iDevice) only tech, it's a (albeit impressive) party trick. Nothing provided by touch ID can't be eventually replicated by a competitor, patents notwithstanding.
No other OEM is positioned like Apple is to pull this off, but it won't be easy to elevate touch id to how we today perceive something like retina.
It seems that the technology is intrinsically linked to the A7 processor. I hate linking to a Quora article, but this one actually highlights why the A7 is such a leap.
Apple bought a company that made fingerprint scanners (like the one in the Motorola Atrix HD) and put the secure info in the secure area of the ARM chip, which ARM designed for putting secure info in.
Except make that sound like the moon landing, SpaceX, Tesla and the Oceans 11 heist all rolled into one.
Are we still allowed to call Apple a cult? Or are they a full blown religion now?
In other words, you think it's fun to make up a sentence, out of whole cloth, about how Apple is supposedly "making something sound like the moon landing", etc., and then post a troll attack based on what you made up. In addition, all your facts, every single fact in your post, is wrong:
-No, the Touch ID scanner is not like the one in the Motorola Atrix, at all. Totally different and superior technology. The Motorola uses the standard, inferior, straight-line fingerprint sensor that you have to swipe your finger across. These are easily fooled by many methods, including a lifted print or a mold of the user's finger.
-No, it's not an ARM chip; Apple designed the chip. Not ARM. Apple also designed the secure area of the chip; not ARM. It does use ARM CPU cores, yes. Which is different.
Are we allowed to call you a troll yet? Or just content-free and annoying?
Apple hasn't "made it sound" like anything except a fingerprint sensor with good convenience and very good security. Which is what it apparently is. So pipe down, mister.
I was referring to the 1744 word Quora answer that was linked in the post I replied to. Not to Apple's official PR, just one member of their volunteer PR army.
That link also claims that Apple uses a "version of TrustZone" from ARM, which seems highly likely. We'll not hear about it from Apple just like Nuance aren't allowed to talk about the fact that they make the voice for Siri, and just like Samsung screen prints little Apple logos on the chips it makes for them.
But since you're so sure it's not, what's your source?
That I like reading about technology and business, not feel-good fairy stories that people make up about technology and business and (un-?) intentionally obscure the usually more interesting truth?
>While they may have implemented Touch ID really well, it's still just yet another way of unlocking the device. Strategically it has little benefit to Apple.
No, it's not.
It has two properties that are very important:
1) It's very secure (not like Face unlock, which could be fooled by a photograph or fail to work depening on poor lighting etc).
2) It's very natural (you already press the home button to open the phone anyway, you don't need good light, you don't need to hold it so that the camera centers your face etc). So people will use it, unlike Face unlock which is usually discarded.
Why are both of those things important? Because it means it can be used a authentication mechanism for buying stuff. In fact, Apple has already integrated it with iTunes IIRC.
BOOM, you don't even have to add your Apple ID password anymore!
Add Bluetooth 4, Passbook, camera for scanning codes and stuff, and half a billion iTunes accounts, and you have an "mobile payments" winner.
Strategically it has a huge benefit to Apple. Touch ID provides a secure way to authenticate your iTunes account, which millions have linked to their credit cards.
If Apple ever starts offering payment services through iTunes (using NFC or some other technology), authenticated payments can be done in an instant instead of "just wait a bit while I enter my password".
By strategically I mean that while it may offer great benefits to both customers and apple, the technology in and of itself offers only a small barrier to moving to another platform. That barrier will rise with the adoption of touch id across Apple devices and services.
If you're an iPhone user and I took away your iPhone and replaced it with an Android phone, would the first thing you complain about be touch id?
Build quality, accessories, apps (maybe?) are all things that Apple has going for it with the iPhone that at the moment are more strategically important than touch id.
It's like free samples at Costco. They're awesome, you miss them when you shop at a different grocery store, but at the end of the day there are other reasons why you shop at Costco and if you decided you needed to go to a different grocery store, those free samples aren't going to sway you to come back.
If I was used to paying for goods with my iPhone using touch ID and I had to start entering a passphrase instead with another phone to make payments, it might very well be one of the biggest complaints I had.
It's a consumer product, so it's more about the feeling that only your fingerprint can unlock your phone. If it takes off, and people like it, you're going to see it everywhere. The politicking is just slippery slope stuff, who knows what's going to happen.
"Does the entire company believe in this technology?"
Huh? Apple isn't a bunch of fiefdoms with competing and disparate product silos. Apple as a whole is completely behind this technology, and the fact that you don't understand that renders your opinion fairly moot.
Whereas Apple focuses on a few core features to improve on and communicate with each phone, and they're overwhelmingly cautious - like only integrating Touch ID with a few spots of the phone at first. But they nail the initial execution, and the communication. So their phones are still the absolute centre of the market. And no other company can inspire product lust to the degree they can.