Ask HN: Why did the iPhone win over Windows phones? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why did the iPhone win over Windows phones?

Here's a video of Steve Balmer--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qycUOENFIBs

Balmer says:

Five hundred dollars fully subsidized with a plan I said that is the most expensive phone in the world and it doesn't appeal to business customers because it doesn't have a keyboard which makes it not a very good email machine now it may sell very well or not I you know we have our strategy we've got great Windows Mobile devices in the market today we you can get a Motorola Q phone now for $99 it's a very capable machine it'll do music it'll do internet it'll do email it'll do instant messaging so I I kind of look at that and I say well I like our strategy I like it a lot.

Why was he wrong?

View on HN

He was out of touch.

People give Balmer a lot of crap, and while most of it is well deserved, I think people give him too hard a time for his comments about the iPhone. It's essential to consider the context of the time. When he made that statement, BlackBerry was dominant in the business sector due to its keyboard and secure email features. Windows Mobile devices were also pretty competitive, and the concept of a touch-only device was foreign to many people. Balmer's comments were reflective of the prevailing business sentiment at the time.

The lesson here is not just that Balmer was wrong, but that any executive can be if they become too myopic, focusing only on what has been successful in the past without considering the disruptive potential of new technologies.

He wasn’t wrong in 2007.

Very few people were willing to fork over money for an iPhone for personal use. $500 phones were for business.

The world changed in the next five years. Streaming video, widespread 802.11N and 3g changed the calculus.

That's not the world i remember, i remember iphones being all the rage, and regularly selling out and drawing insane lines at launch locations.

I also remember the people who couldn't stand touchscreens or the beer-pouring app, but that doesn't obviate the iphone.

I don’t disagree.

Your world was probably different than mine. The people in my social circle had different priorities. I didn’t know anyone with an iPhone until late in 2008.

Yep I saw my first Iphone 1st gen from a friend that visited in a 2008 (I was wowed), two years later we bought 5 for the family, insane times..

For context, Balmer was talking about Windows Mobile. Windows Phone came later and had to compete with Android as well as iOS.

When my Symbian phone broke, I went with Windows Phone 8. I bought a refurbished Dell with a hardware keyboard and it was a much better experience than the iPhone I am typing on now.

But Google effectively banned Windows Phone from YouTube and that sucked. And the Dell Phone camera went bad and had they sent me a replacement under warranty.

I replaced the Dell with a big screen LG Android phone after my contract was up because the camera sensor had a giant dust. Later I replaced the LG with a Lumix running Windows Phone when that contract was up because of the Lumix camera…this was after Microsoft bought Nokia.

Again no YouTube.

The camera in that phone failed while I was on a road trip. Microsoft replaced it under warranty. And when it broke in a pants pocket, my child said “just get an iPhone” and I have had this one for five years and it was only $99 to have the battery replaced last year.

So Windows Phone was a great OS but I had poor experience with the hardware. And Google first broke the YouTube app and then wouldn’t even allow the Edge Mobile browser over http.

There are those who are shackled to old paradigms and those who create new ones.

> Motorola Q phone now for $99 it's a very capable machine it'll do music it'll do internet it'll do email it'll do instant messaging

I had the Moto Q. Windows Mobile 5 did all that but not well. Safari in the first version of iOS was ahead by miles just in terms of rendering websites. Windows Mobile 6.5 was behind the iPhone, and at that time iOS has been around for a few years.

Windows Phone 7/8 had some good ideas but developer adoption was abysmal.

Ballmer didn't anticipate how the form factor of the iPhone and having the internet in your hand would fundamentally offer different ways to communicate beyond just email. He overlooked how capable the device would be for text messaging, social media, video calls and that the new device would shape how we communicate going forward. And not to mention the myriad of apps and other use cases the iPhone would have.

Not enough developers, Developers, DEVELOPERS!! Also touch screens blew keyboards out of the waters.

If MS had launched one phone that incremented a number each release and stuck to it, I reckon a lot of people would have it right now. Maybe that's not the success criteria they wanted though

Because the angle of the iPhone was not to be pragmatic or cheap.

The value proposition of something is not in what it already has in comparison to other items, but in what it offers that other items don't.

Let's talk about programming languages for example.

In APL [1] there are no loops, no keywords, but that is not the value proposition of APL.

It's value comes from the fact that you can think about complex programs very effectively and write complex programs in very short statements in a quick amount of time.

Let's also talk about luxury brands like Louis Vuitton bags/shirts. It's not that the buyers get those bags/shirts at 10x - 100x the price of a normal bag because they are stupid. They do that because LV bags/shirts are for signaling wealth i.e proof of riches not proof I am not naked.

Now lets go back to the iPhone what was it's value proposition. I would suggest they are the following.

1. The iPhone was aesthetically superior to other smartphones in terms of both the hardware & software. I believe this came from Steve Jobs's formal background in fine art and it's intersection with his interest in technology.

2. Over the years the iPhone has built a trust worthy reputation for the masses as "a device that doesn't suck". If you buy an iPhone it is very unlikely you will experience buyers remorse. I reminds me of the phrase corporate people used to say "No one ever got fired for buying IBM".

So, it is a brand you can trust, you can't say the same for Android, what brand, if sumsung? What model, they have hundreds.

If the masses buy a cheap android phone that freezes apps or sucks in touch response, they will generalized the sucking to all android phones and them being "cheap", they won't waste any time & money exploring the different hundreds of brands and models looking for the best android phone.

iPhones however though more expensive make sure the hardware & software are decent. And entry level iPhone will always better than an entry-level android phone. So consumers will trust it more.

3. It the third world it's a signalling/good or fashion accessory. I also heard in the USA kids in school are bullied for having Green Bubbles in SMS texts? [2]. So, the peer pressure among superficial adults & teens definitely drives sales.

The dynamic island for example is nothing more of a gimmick. It has no real technological value. But it's cute and fashionable to have a phone with a dynamic island.

I recommend you read Rory Sutherlands "Alchemy" if you want to understand more about branding. [3]

[1]: https://tryapl.org/

[2]: https://youtu.be/BuaKzm7Kq9Q?si=kd7FT6yeGwFUUumU

[3]: https://www.amazon.com/Alchemy-Surprising-Power-Ideas-Sense/...

> The dynamic island for example is nothing more of a gimmick. It has no real technological value. But it's cute and fashionable to have a phone with a dynamic island.

I'm not sure what you mean by "technological value", but I've already pretty useful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com