The Future in Your Pocket
by Olivia Conkling and Courtney Campbell
Early Computing Devices
Would early computing devices have been as successful if they weren’t ahead of their time?
Before smartphones took over the World, tons of companies were trying to find a way to fit a computer into the pockets of consumers everywhere. The problem was that there were too many problems: too big, too expensive, and even weak tech. Handheld computers were not just a fad for Silicon Valley, they were a goal for many tech companies.
Companies like GO Corp., who wasted millions of dollars trying to develop the new handhelds, and GeoWorks, attempted to be the next big thing in the tech world. A division named General Magic, with now-famous names like Pierre Omidyar, Tony Fadell, and Andy Rubin, and a division called Newton were both Apple teams. Newton created the Figaro, a huge tablet with networking and a hard drive. However, this device was too expensive to make, and was therefore a failure.
The Newton MessagePad
The Newton team did not give up, nevertheless, and began creating a small handheld device. The CEO of Apple (at the time), John Sculley, became obsessed with personal digital assistants (PDAs). He predicted that the market for these devices would be $3.5 trillion. This team created the Newton MessagePad. It was large in size, but you could send faxes and emails via this device. It included apps like:
- Calendar
- Address book
- To do list
- Notepad
 |
Apple’s early Newton MessagePad came with a stylus and touchscreen.
It was released on August 2, 1993.
|
Newton’s failure even had impacts on Jeff Hawkins’ Zoomer. Zoomer was an organizational tool that could connect to a computer, but had simple capabilities otherwise, such as a calendar, an address book, and a memo pad. The idea was good, but no one wanted a computing device after Newton.
Why did Apple release technology that was barely working?
Palm Computing vs RIM
Palm Computing
As the reality of mini computers continued to rise, competition came with it. Palm Computing was founded by Jeff Hawkings in 1992, with the product Zoomer in mind. A failure, the birth of the PalmPilot followed soon after in 1997. It was an accessory to a computer with organizational necessities: calendar, address book, and memo pad. This would become the fastest-selling computing device in history, with a million units sold in eighteen months. See Palm products over time here.
RIM & BlackBerry
In 1984, Canadian Mike Lazaridis founded Research in Motion (RIM), challenging Palm Computing by focusing on communication on the go. Their first project? Inter@ctive Pager 900 in 1996, a personal wireless messaging device. It was a similar style and size to PalmPilot. In 1999, BlackBerry would be launched. It had seamless communication to your computer and was the first mobile device to be synced completely. This had very similar functions to PalmPilot, but stepped up with messaging features. This is one of the first instances users were glued to their mobile device. See the growth of RIM & BlackBerry products here.
PalmPilot vs Inter@ctive Pager
If you were alive at this time, do you think you would have purchased a PalmPilot, Inter@ctive Pager, or neither? Why?
Rise of Smartphones
Nokia Communicator Phones
Nokia, a Finnish company, released a Communicator phone called the Nokia 9000 that flipped open and had a keyboard. The phone had a web browser, digital camera connectivity, a way to make calls and text, and apps (calculator, contacts, notes, and calendar). It was too expensive though and was never a hit.
 |
The Nokia 9000 was released in 1996, but
was not very successful.
|
Ericsson R380
Why do you think these smartphones were unsuccessful?
Apple probably wanted to capitalize on the new idea by being one of the first to release a product they thought would captivate the public, even if it wasn't good. It was the first of its kind and a never seen before technology.
ReplyDeleteI would probably use an interactive pager because I have no need of a lot of the business-y stuff of the Palm Pilot.
As they said in the book smartphones were just too ahead of its time. If you're making something that people know nothing about, there's not going to be any demand or market for it. I think they should have waited a bit longer and also advertised it better before release.
I remember a kid in the Java class bought an iPhone right when they were first released, and everyone looked at it like it was radioactive. We had no idea why we would want this thing!! Granted, there weren't that many apps back in the day...
DeleteI didn't even think about how waiting to release the phones would impact their success. I always thought it was good for a product to be ahead of its time, but I guess that "too soon" could be just as unsuccessful as "too late".
DeleteApple's release of barely functional technology was mainly so they could gain attention. Holding the spot as the first to release a version of a brand new product gains you more attention, you set a sort of precedent and captivate the public with things no one has really encountered before.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't thought about the fact that Apple wanted attention, but that is a great point. Being the first was definitely important, but it's confusing as to why they would want to release something that doesn't work well and expect it to make a lot of money.
DeleteRemember the lesson from Netscape - it's better to be first!
DeleteI don't know if they expected to make a lot of money, I think Apple focused more on the long term goal of a solid user base because of loyalty. It really just depends on how you want to view Apple and how they wanted to capitalize this upcoming market.
DeleteI agree with this, I think it was most important (especially at this time) for companies to be first to release a new product so they could become the household name.
DeleteAs a person who doesn't buy a new phone until the old one breaks, I don't think I would have bought any of the original pocket computer models.
ReplyDeleteI think that smartphones were widely unsuccessful for a number of reasons, one being that people didn't know that they needed them/could have a use for them, and another being that the initial versions were expensive and kinda sucked.
Do you think that a cheaper model would have gotten more sales, or was it the combination of all of these factors?
DeleteI too wait until my phone is almost unusable before I upgrade. The new new thing isn't always that necessary.
Deleteyeah, i agree the public wasn't educated or aware that they would need this tool. to them computers were their whole world
DeleteI agree. I think a lot of people are like that, where they won't buy the newest thing until they can't use the old one anymore. My dad had an iPhone 5 until last week when he dropped it (twice in one day) and it broke...and then he just took out my moms old iPhone 6 and started using that one!
Deletei think that all tech has to be ahead of its time in some aspects to grab the attention of users. if you just do the same thing thats been done a bunch of times the market doesn't progress and people get bored.
ReplyDeleteapple wanted to be ahead of the curve, even if that meant putting out tech that didn't work properly, anything to get in the heads of consumers.
i think i would have used an interactive pager because i'm not a business person.
they were too chunky and the public was scared of them.
If you were apple how would you have handled the situation differently?
DeleteThat's a great point. For something to be interesting, it has to be new. I totally see the point about Apple wanting to get ahead. I agree that the public was confused about the usage of smartphones.
DeleteI agree that fear, while possibly unnecessary, often plays a part in decision making. Some people would rather stick to what they know then venture into completely new territory.
DeleteI think it is surprising that Apple released such a faulty product as the MessagePad, because they were known for their quality in various markets. They obviously wanted to reach out into a new market and crush competition, but they evidently too hasty in this. If I were alive during this time, I probably would have picked the Inter@ctive Pager, because it was easier to use, without syncing necessary, and it could send email, which makes it extremely portable and self-sufficient. I think many early smartphones were unsuccessful because they were trying to do too much, creating a market that already had huge advancements before it was conceived.
ReplyDeleteYou are right that smartphones did fail because they seemed focused on being the best, but not really knowing what the best is. They focused on quantity over quality, but instant gratification was a theme of the time.
DeleteI was also surprised. Apple shot down a lot of ideas, so I was shocked when they released a product that wasn't perfect.
DeleteTo those of you who say you wouldn't use a Palm Pilot or Blackberry - my daughter was your age when the Blackberry came out and ALL HER FRIENDS had one. We called them "crackberries". Even Obama had one. The Blackberry was the craze before the iPhone and really set the stage for the popularity of modern smart phones.
ReplyDeleteyeah, i can remember my grandpa had one and it he talked about it like it was the best thing ever, even after iphones came out
DeleteThat's so crazy how blackberries were so popular then but now everyone goes crazy over Apple, who couldn't even produce a phone that worked at first.
Delete@anabell my daughter was the last one in the family to move to a smartphone. I think the real draw for teenagers at the time was the group chat feature on blackberry - no other cellphone had that.
Deleteoh wow thats really interesting i didn't know that!
DeleteApple was trying to sell barely working technology because I believe they were almost testing to see if there was a market for it. It let to the opposite affect of killing the market for any kind of handheld computer.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what I would buy if I had the choice during that time period. It really would have depended on what I needed because they both cover different needs.
I believe that smartphones didn't do well in the beginning was because they were extremely new and people didn't know what to think of them. Many people didn't need devices like them during this time. It also didn't help how the first handheld computer was absolutely terrible.
I think smartphones didn't take off at first because users probably didn't see a need for them in their life. If they were satisfied with their other devices, which seemed to work well, what would be the point in spending money on new technology that you don't completely understand? I think to some smartphones probably seemed frivolous.
ReplyDeleteI agree that users at the time were simply satisfied with what they had, and so didn't see a need in investing money in something they felt they did not need.
DeleteSometimes people do not realize how big something is or how impactful it will be when it is so new. A lot of the phones were unsuccessful at the time and this made customers more apprehensive.
DeleteI think that Apple was releasing barely working technology to ensure that they were at the forefront of this new tech wave. If I was alive at the time, I probably would have used an interactive pager because I am not a business person and the stand-alone, easier to use interactive pager probably would have appealed more to me. I think that smartphones were unsuccessful at the time because no one really understood how they worked or how to use them, an obvious challenge at their release
ReplyDeleteI think Apple wanted to capitalize on this idea before other companies could release their own versions. I probably would've chosen to use the interactive pager because I don't need the business aspects of the Palm Pilot. I think that smartphones were unsuccessful because people did not understand why they needed them, considering they were an unfamiliar technology.
ReplyDeleteI agree that apple definitely wanted to capitalize before any others did, similar to the Get Big Fast era. I also would not have chosen the interactive pager, as I am not really a business oriented person at this point.
DeleteAlthough the early apple products were definitely ugly, being able to do it first definitely helped Apple's name grow, and lead customers to believe that they are on the way to something great. Keeping the customers informed that they were in the midst of a great innovation gained credibility, and now they are probably the most trusted technology company in the world
ReplyDeleteYeah. Because Apple was the first to put something onto market, it definitely put their name out there. Any press is good press.
DeleteI agree. Apple wanted to get some skin in the game, so at the very least they were part of the market
DeleteI agree with Anabell because I think tech thats not ahead of its time is too ordinary and expected, therefore users wouldn't be so eager to use it and it wouldn't be as big of a success.
ReplyDeleteI think Apple wanted to release their technology as soon as possible to be the first, even if it didn't work properly. Like Microsoft releasing Internet Explorer, they just needed something to release that would compete with other products, and then they could go back and refine it later (which Apple was probably trying to do).
The first smartphones were probably unsuccessful because of the failure of Apple's handheld devices so people did not even want to try again with smartphones, especially because they were so expensive and the service was definitely not worth the price.