Originally Posted by gerbick (Post 355390)

Mind you, I own an iPhone. But I don't think that it quite "owns" the market as much as it's owning mindshare right now.

And the Kindle... I think Barnes & Noble's nook with sharing/wifi actually has a slight edge imho too.

Originally Posted by Noxias60 (Post 355395)

had an arguement with an iphone user telling me that it can do anything.....its quite bothersome

Originally Posted by livefreeordie (Post 355387)

He has a point, but what exactly are these network effects apps that he talks about? As far as I know all the social networking apps are just interfaces to websites, and you don't need to have an iPhone to communicate with your friends on them.

Originally Posted by kaithomsen (Post 355438)

If you take into account the small screen estate you have on a mobile device, e.g. custom apps instead of the social networks' (Facebook, Myspace, whatever) do make sense IMHO.

Originally Posted by livefreeordie (Post 355477)

That wasn't my point. Network effects will be irrelevant unless there's a service that can only be accessed through an iPhone app. Any platform can have a Facebook interface.

Originally Posted by livefreeordie (Post 355477)

That wasn't my point. Network effects will be irrelevant unless there's a service that can only be accessed through an iPhone app. Any platform can have a Facebook interface.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man (Post 355910)

And yes, I fear Maemo has the same fate as the iPhone in the long run. That it will be in its own little marketshare world while an OS like Android that can run on nearly everything dominates the market (like Windows does now).

Originally Posted by DaveP1 (Post 355921)

An example would be seeing how many of your friends are within a kilometer of your current location and linking them all together in an ad hoc network to discuss where to meet for drinks.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man (Post 355910)

It has been proven in psychology and in marketing the greater choices a user has the more problematic it is for decision making. Until something negative comes along and forces them to choose (e.g. a kid that is in front of the candy rack that has many choices will be immobilized because they can't choose one out of all their favorites. Yet tell them you will leave in 5 minutes and if they haven't chosen by then they'll choose one). But that doesn't mean that they don't like choice.

Originally Posted by tso (Post 355927)

google latitude?

Originally Posted by DaveP1 (Post 355921)

Two comments.

Network Effect - As has been pointed out, any reasonably smartphone can access Facebook or Twitter or whatever. You don't need an iPhone or an N900 to do that. But the social aspect of the network effect is not connecting through other apps but connecting directly. An example would be seeing how many of your friends are within a kilometer of your current location and linking them all together in an ad hoc network to discuss where to meet for drinks. That's not to say all the apps exist now. But the value of the apps are linked to the number of users and thus if the iPhone and the N900 both released a similar networking app in two months, the iPhone app would be significantly more valuable than the N900 app because of the potential user base.

Originally Posted by DaveP1 (Post 355921)

Choice Paralysis and Confusion - This should not be underestimated. The mass market will gravitate towards easily understandable and easily used solutions that are good enough and away from more complicated solutions that are better. A confused market segment will lose customers to a less confused market segment. Unfortunately, Android may have made the wrong decision in allowing carrier customization. It leads consumers to feel that there are multiple Androids and that confusion will drive some consumers away. Similarly, the confusion between the mobile Linux based OSs - Android, Maemo, Moblin, and probably et cetera, will drive some consumers away. The mass market likes safe products and they like products that other people own because it validates their buying decision.

Originally Posted by bronzetank (Post 355929)

Laughing Man, I totally agree with you (and the author) that greater choice can cause "analysis paralysis"...but in the end, we know that kid isn't leaving without a piece of candy in his/her hand.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man (Post 355964)

Granted there are users who..

*sighs*

Buy expensive stuff just to check their email and browse Facebook.

Originally Posted by gerbick (Post 355426)

I've had that same argument. Pulled out my N810, viewed a site with Flash on it. Then opened up terminal and gained root.

Asked them to do the same.

Originally Posted by bocaJ (Post 356058)

I only browsed this thread, but I think everyone should be clear that the term "Network Effects" (or Network Externalities) is not directly related to Facebook or other social websites at all. Read the authors description again:



You can read a longer description here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

In the case of smartphone, network effects are huge, and the iPhone has worked to take advantage of this. The author goes on to speak about how you'll only be able to play multiplayer iPhone games with other iPhone users, and there's some merrit to this line of thought, but the network externalities are much more extensive then that: When I buy an iPhone, I'm executing an agreement between Apple and myself, but external to the two parties who have any say, iPhone developers get value in that their install base grows by one. This becomes a virtuous cycle: as the install base grows, more developers are attracted to the iPhone and develope more apps, which in turn attracts more users, etc. etc.

To expand then on the authors argument, Apple has been successful in inducing enough users and developers to get on the iPhone that the reaction has become self sustaining, and despite a new phone coming to the market with the best hardware and development environment along with a reasonable cost, it will not be able to break Apple's market domination because these network effects.

I don't know myself if Apple's reached that point, but it certainly has happened before. The most obvious example is Windows Vs. Mac (vs. Linux!) - Windows took off because it got all the apps, then everyone flocked to the system, and then developers spent the vast majority of their time working on Windows systems, lather, rinse, repeat. Apple vastly improved their OS with X, and made a dent by spending tons of money on advertising, but ultimately, they are still in second place.

An even better (although more obscure and less controversial) example would be alternate DNS systems. You can use one, but hardly anyone else does, so you just stick to ICANN. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root

Originally Posted by gerbick (Post 355390)

Mind you, I own an iPhone. But I don't think that it quite "owns" the market as much as it's owning mindshare right now.

And the Kindle... I think Barnes & Noble's nook with sharing/wifi actually has a slight edge imho too.

Originally Posted by Texrat (Post 355930)

A caveat: a very recent study refined that premise, demonstrating that only when too many choices induce anxiety is this really an issue. The main driving factor appears to be time as you say... which makes perfect sense. If I have days to decide, 20 choices is great. If I have mere minutes, not so much.

But I'm in alignment anyway. 60 "varieties" of toothpaste on my grocer's shelf is about 50 too many IMO. :D

Originally Posted by geneven (Post 356130)

I don't think it's just short time that makes people fear choice. See the old book Escape from Freedom by Erich Fromm for why people often prefer dictatorship, which is the perfect analogy to Apple, I think.