David Malouf: > Again, I'm not sure this is an end-game (is there every such a thing?
For Apple, absolutely. The company doesn't like to compete at the margins: they need to dominate their niche by (re)framing the rules of competition. RIM would like Apple to compete on corporate ties and email, which is all they've got. (Just as Microsoft would like Apple to compete on Office.) A smart competitor's not going to do that. It is much easier to add corporate email to the iPhone than for RIM to add those 10 factors of strategic and often unique Apple strengths to the BlackBerry that I described in my article: "What was displayed by Apple at the March 6 SDK event and the uniquely competitive factors listed above, however, should overwhelm most if not all its competitors, to echo General Colin Powell's famous doctrine of attacking adversaries with overwhelming force to ensure victory. Apple's arsenal is now the widest and deepest in the industry." Who can beat iPhone 2.0? http://counternotions.com/2008/03/10/iphone2-competitors/ >From physical keyboard to 3G, many people have almost a visceral reaction to the 'weaknesses' in the iPhone, perceived or otherwise. And yet it's a testament to the supremacy of integrated/balanced design that millions of people have in fact purchased the device and report extreme UX satisfaction with it. I know Will is unhappy with the lack of 3G, but millions of others are willing to put up with it just to be able to *enjoy* the rest of the package. If that's isn't reframing design, I wouldn't know what is. (Until, of course, a bank CEO who's just written off $20 billion to bad debt enlightens me, business wise.) -- Kontra http://counternotions.com ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
