Apple’s defensive new iPhone is bound to fail

The writer, Matthew Lynn, gives three reasons why he believes the iPhone will not be as successful as all the recent hype suggests:

[the following is all quoted from the above article]

Apple is late to this party - The company didn’t invent the personal computer or MP3 player, but it was among the pioneers of both products. Yet there is no shortage of phones out there. There are already big companies that dominate the space, all of which will defend their turf. . .That means Apple will have to fight hard for every sale.

The mobile-phone industry depends on cooperation with the big networks - Apple has never been good at working with other companies. If it knew how to do that, it would be Microsoft Corp. . . On top of that, its rivals will be pulling out all the stops to prevent the networks offering iPhones.

the iPhone is a defensive product - The price and the e-mail features make it look like a business product. But Apple is a consumer company. Will your accounts department stump up for a fancy new handset just so you can listen to Eminem on your way to a business meeting?

The writer’s final conclusion is that “Apple will sell a few to its fans, but the iPhone won’t make a long-term mark on the industry.”

I mostly agree with this writer’s comments, although I do feel as if he trivializes some of the iPhone’s interface innovations such as the “multi-touch” touch-screen and the gesture input which it enables. However, the writer really hits the nail on the head with his point about how a large percentage of high-end smartphones such as the iPhone are purchased by corporations. Are companies going to be willing to shell out big bucks, more than competing devices from Palm, RIM and others, to give their employees superior music and photo capabilities. Furtheremore, it’s imperative for Apple to deliver a CDMA version soon so Sprint and Verizon customers - both of whom dominate with corporate customers - can enjoy the iPhone with high speed (500kbps+) evDO connectivity.