Richard Sprague WebLog : Apple

Sneaking into the Macintosh launch

sprague — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:07:31 GMT

The Apple Macintosh was launched 25 years ago, which seems like ancient history because of course it is, but it’s fun to reflect a little on it because it brings back lots of personal memories for me – especially memories of what I think was the true Spirit of Macintosh. In those days, most of us felt like the true meaning of computing was embodied in a company like Apple (and to a much lesser extent, Microsoft, which was barely known at the time) which were fighting the on-coming onslaught from the Big and Boring Establishment (i.e. IBM). We wanted Apple to succeed because we thought of it as the Good Guys versus the Bad Guys in the Establishment, led by IBM with their zillions of dollars to force the world to use their software. All we had was our ingenuity.

I was in college at the time, and I remember being pretty excited during the weeks leading up to the launch. In those days there was no world wide web where you could read up on leaks about the product, and the whole thing was shrouded in ultra secrecy. I was working part time at a small startup software company funded by a Japanese printer manufacturer that was hoping to successfully introduce a PC to the US (based on, of all things, the CP/M operating system). But the management of the company was very interested in Apple too, and I had access to some of the early Mac stuff at the Stanford lab where I hung out. My friends and I were also avid high tech stock gamblers investors too, so we were Apple stockholders as well, which entitled us to get into the annual shareholders meeting at the De Anza Auditorium, where we knew we could see the introduction in person.

Unfortunately, when we got there the place was packed and it was impossible to find parking, so we agreed to split up in order to ensure we could get inside. One of my roommates, David, was driving, so he dropped us off at the front while the other three of us, Craig, Dario, and I went inside to find seats. But the auditorium quickly filled up and they closed the doors before David could get inside! What to do?

Without hesitation, Craig reminded us of some advice that I still remember: “Sometimes, if you can’t get in through the front door, you have to go in through the back door”.

So that’s what we did. Remember, this was before cell phones, so there was no way to call each other to set up the plan. Instead, Craig held our seats while I ran outside to find David. Dario and I agreed that in precisely five minutes, he would be standing at the locked exit door in back and would let us back in. I rushed outside and fortunately was able to quickly find our friend, and sure enough, Dario had the door ready for us and we snuck inside in the nick of time. We saw the entire event – and by sneaking in we felt even more like insiders for having “beaten the establishment” just like the Macintosh Spirit encouraged us to do.

Craig’s good advice still applies today when you’re a startup forced to think creatively about how to get around obstacles. The Established Players have the front doors all locked up. If you want to get inside, you need to be creative – and more often than not, that means going through the back door.

Getting to Version 3

sprague — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:44:31 GMT

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?

What I got wrong about the iPhone

sprague — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:04:03 GMT

Looks like this morning my inbox is flooded with people reminding me of my post made long ago, before the iPhone was announced, where I predicted that it wouldn't sell as many as Apple was claiming.

Most of the reaction is just simple gloating: "ha ha, you idiot" kind of stuff. But I'm curious what people really think. What did I get wrong? Was it the technology--the phone itself is just far, far better than anything else? Was it the marketing? Was it something else?

Note: I'm not a Microsoft spokesman, and I'm not affiliated with the Windows Mobile team. I'm just another guy who wants to to understand an interesting problem about technology and the future. So please, let me know your thoughts.

[update: my hastily written post from this morning didn’t link to the original, so I added that. Also, don’t forget to check out other people who weren’t as excited about the iPhone.]

Pippin Flops

sprague — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:14:11 GMT

I'm proud to say I once worked on this project, now honored by Wired as one of Apple's most notorious flops:

The big lesson I learned is not to stick with a product that you don't use yourself. Pippin (named after a type of apple) was supposed to be a multimedia machine for kids, but people in our group couldn't get their own kids to use it. The funny thing is that focus groups loved it -- another reason I don't trust focus groups.

Is iPhone the worst phone?

sprague — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 04:34:07 GMT

I got in trouble the last time I claimed the iPhone will fail, but now I see Garrett Smith is listing all the reasons the iPhone is the worst phone. I don't completely agree with Garrett -- his complaints about battery life, for example, apply to any phone -- but he's right to bring the hype back down to earth.

This week Apple announced they've sold 4 million of the things (although, mysteriously, a large percentage have never been activated). Product Reviews UK posted an article today titled "iPhone Sales Look Unlikely To Hit 10 Million Target" (maybe they read my original bet from one year ago ? :-)

It's still possible for Apple to turn this around. Add a keyboard, faster networking, ~~upgrade to Windows Mobile,~~ software improvements -- it has the potential for being a great phone.

IMeanwhile, if you really want to see the future of mobile phones, check out MSR's Lucid Touch.

Speech on Macintosh

sprague — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:42:27 GMT

Rob Chambers, the new GPM for my old group, is blogging about Macintosh speech recognition, asking users to tell him what they think of OS X. While visiting Palo Alto yesterday, my friend Bill Katz showed me the new Leopard: some nicely done "eye candy" features like Time Machine, and the sorts of fun you can have on an OS that lets you go under the hood to Unix. He didn't know about the speech stuff, which I understand is unchanged, and which frankly was a big yawn the last I checked.

I was at Apple in 1994 when they did the "Casper" speech system, but unfortunately very little has changed since then. It's English-only, which really limits the usefulness, and although there are a few "ear candy" type features, you just won't find much that pushes the state of the art.

If you're a Mac speech user, and you disagree, please let Rob know what you think.

Bet's still on

sprague — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 06:48:00 GMT

I stand by the bet I made in January that Apple's iPhone won't sell anywhere near the 10M units they're targeting for their first year. You don't cut the price of something that's selling well. One of my friends at T-Mobile, who knows the business extremely well, thinks they'll have a tough time selling 3M in the first year.

Verizon says no to iPhone

sprague — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:01:00 GMT

According to USA Today:

Among other things, Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly cellphone fees, say over how and where iPhones could be sold and control of the relationship with iPhone customers, said Jim Gerace, a Verizon Wireless vice president. "We said no. We have nothing bad to say about the Apple iPhone. We just couldn't reach a deal that was mutually beneficial."

Ten million iPhones by the end of '08? That's $5 Billion in spending? Since Americans usually get their phones for free or nearly free thanks to service subsidies, I bet that's as much or more than what Americans spend on all other phones combined.

The portable media player market that Apple successfully entered (some would say created) with iPod is completely different from the much more well-established phone market. For one thing, with phones the device is worthless without an active subscription agreement with another separate, large company. Apple's whole business model, which is based on complete control of the end-to-end experience, will have a hard time fitting.