Second, Gartner may be underestimating the impact of network effects, which is the concept that the value of a network grows with additional users. The classic example is the telephone. If you're the only person with a telephone, it's perfectly useless. But the device's value and appeal grows with each person who uses one.

Originally Posted by gerbick

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

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by geneven

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.