Getting to Version 3

We all know extremely good and cool technology products that never seem to catch on, while there are other products you look at and just say “how on earth did that ever become popular”?  So what’s the difference?

Lots of people are commenting on what I got wrong about the iPhone, mostly repeating the standard explanation that “it’s so much easier” than anything else out there, implying that the main difference is Apple’s famous focus on the end-to-end experience.  But there are other super-easy products that don’t catch on. Why not?

Part of the reason, I think, is that a brand new product needs some room to grow. You need to be able to make an initial stab at the market, even if it has some flaws, get users, and then iterate over and over based on that feedback.  Something happens with some products, where they get enough initial buzz and usage that they have time to grow.  (Brad Feld calls it the 80-19-1 Rule and  Tom Evslin even has a downloadable spreadsheet to try to simulate it.)

People often say Microsoft gets it right on the third try, and that you should ignore the first two versions.  But many of the world’s best ideas, especially at startups, never make it to the third version because nobody gives them the market buzz at that critical initial version.  How do you get to version 3?

Published 23 October 08 07:44 by sprague
Filed under: ,

Comments

# infoblog » Getting to Version 3 said on October 23, 2008 1:11 PM:

PingBack from http://blog.a-foton.ru/index.php/2008/10/23/getting-to-version-3/

# homba02 said on October 23, 2008 2:41 PM:

I think a better question is Microsoft got it right with XP but complete screwed up VISTA, why?

Anyways, thanks to VISTA there's a MAC PRO running Leopard in my study at home.

# mth said on October 23, 2008 4:59 PM:

1. iPhone 1.0, at the time of launch, wasn't just an easier-to-use version of other equally full-featured devices. It was superior, in many respects:

a) The web experience was (and still is) markedly superior to any other phone on the market. Not just easier to use, but technologically a leap beyond everything else.

b) The phone experience was (and still is) very good, and visual voicemail remains an amazing feature. Being able to delete voicemails out-of-order without having to listen to them? No more painstakingly slow voicemail management while a female robot constantly drones on about what buttons you should push? Seriously, I'd have switched services and bought a new phone just for visual voicemail.

c) It was a better iPod than any other iPod.

I think (a) is especially important, but also gets taken for granted by people like the author. Web surfing doesn't feel like a "new" feature--we all do it on our PCs every day. But it's a feature that's either non-existent or else really, really wretched on every other phone on the market. The iPhone is the first phone that surfs the web well enough that you can leave your laptop at home.

2. Garrett's list of flaws was always dubious. The only legitimate one is that Outlook integration sort of sucked until a few firmware updates after launch. The rest are just sort of random (it gets hot? /rollseyes), or else true of its contemporaries (Treo and BB battery life were in the same ballpark as the original iPhone), or else exaggerated beyond their import: I agree, the speaker phone is wimpy, the camera is awful, and it ought to have MMS, but... none of those really affect my ability to get important stuff done with my iPhone. As for the rest, I still love the touch UI, my iPhone's screen still works great, and I've never had to experience Apple's service for good or bad because I've never needed any sort of technical support for it, at all.

So your implication that the iPhone was, at launch, a flawed product that only became successful because Apple had the financial wherewithal to stick with it for three releases is just wrong. Out of the box, it was a better device than any Win Mobile or Palm device ever made. Compared to a Blackberry, it was (and still is) inferior with respect to heavy-duty email processing, but is otherwise better in virtually every other interesting way.

# djjd said on October 23, 2008 5:14 PM:

I think super easy is just part of it. I think it's the ease with which it solves existing problems which lack satisfying solutions.

People think media is the heart of the iPhone - I'd argue it's browsing. I think the way the iPhone resolves the difficulties of browsing in a mobile form factor is dramatically different in the eyes of its users.

Those sales are more than just bandwagon sales or people buying a hip, niche product. Those are people responding to something that solves a need.

Look at any other comparable solution on the market, and you'll come up short. Zoom buttons just aren't as easy to work with as a well made, gesture-based, multi-touch interface.

Easy is one thing. Real solutions are another. Real easy solutions are yet another thing altogether - and that's where the iPhone is in a league of its own.

# Hade said on October 23, 2008 6:44 PM:

There 's a distinct possibility that I am reading this wrong. If so, apologies in advance. But seeing as you so explicitly tie this post to the previous one concerning the iPhone, it seems to me like you 're actually asking: "Why does a company like Apple get so much room to screw up and re-iterate, while any excuse these days seems good enough to bash Microsoft?" (And: how does a start-up become more like the current Apple than the current Microsoft?)

The answer to that, I think, is two-fold: clear vision, and good marketing.

By 'good marketing', I mean both 'advertising your (potential) customers care about' and 'good PR' (read: word-of-mouth, a rather epic fail for Microsoft since Vista). It 's a conventional wisdom that marketing in both of those senses has played a big part in Apple 's success over the last decade.

(And yeah, sure, Steve Jobs being the showman that he is also helps - there might be some truth to the ongoing myth of the "reality distortion field". )

But while marketing is important, it 's an empty bubble unless it goes hand in hand with the other thing I mentioned: vision. And a clear focus on implementing it well.

Most Apple users - including me - will tell you to hold off on buying any first-generation Apple product if you can help it. That 's because they know beforehand that there will be some kinks that need ironing-out. In a perfect world, there would of course be no need for such 'ironing'. But in practice, people are willing to look past these imperfections to some degree, because when they do, they usually see an inspiring product. It either solves an actual problem they have (I happen to be one of the people who continue to buy Apple laptops partly because of the company 's ongoing focus on reducing the weight and size of their offerings), or it just 'wows' them into wanting one. Usually, it 's some combination of both.

If we momentarily forget about the non-Jobs era, Apple has had a clear vision practically since its inception, and it has been on simplicity. Never mind tons of features. Never mind ten different models to choose from. Never even mind bacwards-compatibility too much. Simplicity is king. That 's the Apple mantra. And last time I checked, it was definitely working.

So how does a startup get to version three, even if their first-gen product is obviously and inevitably flawed?

Well, first of all and most importantly, by building a product people care about. It doesn 't even matter much why they care about it. Maybe it 's just because it 's pretty. Maybe it 's because it 's easier to use than any competing product. Or maybe it 's because it makes the user feel part of where the future is going. Ideally, it 's a combination of a bunch of things, which will dramatically increase the likelihood of initial problems being either overlooked or taken in stride.

Secondly, by way of marketing. Whatever next week 's hottest start-up makes may be truly amazing, but it won 't matter until someone other than the people who developed it understand that.

And thirdly, once a position of some relevance has been established, by maintaining a clear focus on how to keep improving the existing product in a way that will keep the initial interest alive.

If all three of those conditions are met, I don 't think it matters how many iterations are needed to eventually - if ever - churn out the perfect product.  

As an aside: it 's clear that Microsoft is still a company that solves actual problems for actual customers (even if in some cases, it 's only because there is no better solution for the problems they face - as is often the case with businesses that depend on a particular setup or a piece of critical software). It 's questionable, however, whether Microsoft and its products truly inspire anyone these days. And while I 'm certainly no expert, Microsoft 's focus, if it has one, doesn 't seem all that clear to me. As for marketing ... well ... <a href = "http://www.microsoft.com/video/en/us/details/da433e86-d5c2-4aac-98d7-837bdf821338">See for yourself.</a> 'Nough said.  

# James Bailey said on October 23, 2008 11:51 PM:

You say, "Lots of people are commenting on what I got wrong about the iPhone, mostly repeating the standard explanation that “it’s so much easier”...  But there are other super-easy products that don’t catch on."

Can you give examples of such products? In general, tech products are rarely easy to use. That is Apple's genius. Even some examples that did catch on aren't really easy in every way. TiVo comes to mind. Once it is set up it is very easy but getting it up and running the first time is daunting.

So, you must have something in mind when you said that other "super-easy" products didn't catch on. Examples would allow us to make distinctions between a failure and the success of the iPhone.

Without further information, I would guess that it is likely that "super-easy" isn't enough. The product needs superior functionality that is intuitive. I can easily create a product that has limited functionality and is therefore easy to use but if the product doesn't have sufficient functionality to compete with a more complex product, it will likely fail. FInding the set of functionality that is most desired while refining the ease of use is a difficult task that most technology companies cannot do. Apple has the ability to throw things away and in the process make a better product. Few other companies have shown such ability.

# DomArch said on October 24, 2008 2:29 PM:

Wow.  I just read all the comments on the 'what i got wrong' post, and it seems to me the answer is right there, but you just don't see it .  It's not the 'great idea' that doesn't make it, but the implementation.

Microsoft and Apple have the luxury to test the market and get a product to version 3 that startups don't have.  But look at the iPhone and what your commenters said about it.  It was basically right from initial release.  You can argue that it needed the GPS or the 3G, but honestly I know plenty of people who are still happily using their original iPhone.  When I'm in a zone with no 3G service, that doesn't stop me from surfing.  So what is it that made it right from the start?  It's not the idea of it, it's the implementation - at it's out of the box incarnation it has everything included that PEOPLE will USE - great phone, email, internet, contacts.  People can add their idiosyncratic needs to the device via the app store, but at it's basic, it has the essentials.  No extra buttons, no extra lights or complicated functions.

A great idea is a great idea, but if you can't put it into a form that people find useful and necessary, it's not going to go anywhere.  The way you get to version three is by making sure that version one is something that people will want.  What's interesting is that if you are honest enough about your own wants and needs, if you focus on doing it right for you - in the best, simplest, least complicated way - than you'll probably find that it works for others as well.  There's another great example of this out in the blogosphere today - check out Tim Bray's post (via daring fireball).

Good luck with your search...

# Dave Lindhout said on October 25, 2008 9:50 AM:

When I was in college I had a roommate that had a third album theory, judge a band by their third album. Many bands never get to a third album. Others are turning out crap by their third album. The only example my brain cells can recall is Aerosmith. Their third album, Toys in the Attic, solidified their status. Sweet Emotion, Walk This Way, Big Ten Inch Record, they could still write songs. So I think the third version theory transcends operating systems.

So let me start a version 7 theory. When Apple got to System 7, they were on the ropes, in the dumper, given up for dead. It took more than a couple of failures, but Apple is now moving in a more positive direction. Microsoft finds itself in a similar position on both the mobile and desktop front.

Windows Mobile 6.1 is really version 7, and Microsoft is calling the next Windows, 7, even though it looks like 6.1 under the covers. So Microsoft is finding themselves at a crossroads. They need to re-think, re-engineer, and re-tool both of these products to move forward. Midori shows signs of that re-invention on the desktop front. Componentize and move to the web. I don't know what Mobile 7 is planning, but it better be good. Mobile 6.1 is receiving harsher criticism than Vista. Apple and Google have changed the mobile landscape.

I'm not going to predict success or failure, but I am going to predict that history will look at this moment as a critical, game changing period for both platforms. Both platforms will have to be significantly different if they are to survive. Get back to me in about 5 years.

New Comments to this post are disabled
Page view tracker