Guy Clapperton has an axe to grind
Against Apple and iPhone. Though why that might be I’ve no clue. There’s plenty of hints however, in his article published by The Guardian.
Look at how he begins the article:
The iPhone has never been “one among many,” whether 2 G or 3 G. It has captured a 20% market share in US in just one year. But more to the point, the touchscreen iPhone was launched LAST year, so why bring up this question now? Makes no sense to me. But let’s read on.
Still, what’s definitely coming this summer is a battle of the touchscreen phones. Apple, through marketing if nothing else, is leading the charge but Samsung, RIM (the BlackBerry people) and HTC are there as well.
The emphasis in the quote is mine, but the insinuation is entirely Clapperton’s. What about the best browser ever in handheld devices? What about the extraordinary software and interface design that anyone learns to use in minutes? The accelerometer? AFTER one year of watching iPhone make great progress, how does one say it’s all thanks to marketing?
And then, AFTER saying a battle of touchscreens is coming up and stuff, he starts off:
But do people want touchscreens?
The launch of the original iPhone, at least in the UK, must cast some doubt on that - on the launch day the queues didn’t stretch around the streets as they did in the US, although the initial order did sell out.
So if people don’t queue up, or if the queues don’t “stretch far enough” that means they don’t want the touchscreen iPhone? Has anyone EVER queued up for a BlackBerry? Does that prove that people don’t want phones with keypads?
Over 6 million iPhones have sold so far, and even moderate estimates (Apple is always the most moderate of them all) peg the number at over 14 by the end of this year, and 24 million by the end of 2009.
No concern for facts, OR logic. What gives, Mr. Clapperton?
Comments
Thanks for writing this.
Let me say first that I am hoping to get an iPhone on launch day of the 3G version and I am a big Apple fan - something that appears to have passed you by. Were I grinding my own axe I’d just have told everyone to go and buy an iPhone.
Let’s take your points in order, though.
First, journalists don’t write their own standfirsts, that’s down to the Guardian internally so your suggestion that I put the ‘one among many’ quote in doesn’t stack up. That said, there are an awful lot of iPhone-alikes coming onto the market.
Second, the iPhone’s impact was not as great in the UK as it was in the US. That’s not going to be important to an American site I agree, but I’m writing for the Brit press from a Brit point of view. And the iPhone didn’t set the world alight over here. It would be wrong of a UK newspaper not to reflect that.
Third, you seem to think my comment that Apple’s marketing is phenomenal is a criticism. It isn’t, you ask the marketing VP. But it’s certainly true that in the UK the phone made a lot more noise than sales, particularly around the launch.
Which leads me to question whether the market for which I write actually wants touch screens. I asked three different independent sources whether there was actual researched evidence that they did, and as you’ll see from the article didn’t really get an answer. This doesn’t mean there’s no demand, but then a whole bunch of manufacturers flooding the market with product doesn’t mean they’re right. I stress, the spectacular success hasn’t happened over here. It’s been OK, no more.
You clearly weren’t sent to cover the iPhone launch on a freezing winter day as I was in the UK. Apple’s Regent Street store had barriers up. It had security people on guard. It hyped the event and set huge expectations, inviting TV cameras, radio and newspapers to come and see everyone lining up around the block. In the event it had one person sleeping overnight to get their iPhone and it had about 20 people queueing. Again, this begs the question of whether the manufacturers have got it right for the market for which I write. Clearly had Apple only set the expectation right it would have looked better.
Those are facts and that’s logic. I find it odd, though, that you’re quoting the fact that I ask the question about whether the touch screen is right for a given market - journalists are supposed to ask questions - but not the answers I quoted. It’s specifically my job to ask the questions that will be in readers’ minds and to report the responses.
Had I put my own opinion in instead, then it would have said that Apple goofed by not allowing 02 to subsidise the tariffs on the iPhone first time around (other manufacturers are fine with this in the UK, which is a quirk of our market) when people could get Nokia N95s (for example) free on contract. And I’d have said the tariffs themselves were too high. I would also have mentioned (in fact I did but it got cut) that I’m determined to get an iPhone 3G as close to launch day as possible because I believe I’ll save about $100 per month on the new tariff and won’t have to pay for the handset.
So you see, I didn’t grind an axe. I was as objective as my job demands, anticipating the readers’ likely questions based on things people have asked me about iPhones since they first launched. But I can assure you, far from having a grudge against Apple I’m typing this on a 24in iMac into which an iPod Touch is plugged for updating and will certainly buy an iPhone when they’re available.
If you couldn’t see that bias coming through in the article then frankly I’ve done the job for which I’m paid.
Thanks
Guy