Why every "iPhone killer" will fail
Here are three bitter realities that a lot of people who want to figure out what comes after the iPhone fail to see:
- There's no general purpose computer
- There's no Joe Six Pack
- The iPhone was neither meant to be a general purpose computer nor did it replace the Macintosh.
So if there's no general purpose computer, that's meant for everyone (or Joe Six Pack in General Magic terminology). What does the future of computing look like? The future of computing adds on to what the iPhone is successful at, by addressing its deficiencies and frustrations. It's a lot of small things that add onto the iPhone, rather than one giant replacement.
For the sake of making sense, I'll elaborate a bit more, but this is meant to be a very quick rant.
There's no general purpose computer
Run! If someone says they're building a general purpose computer. There's no such thing as a general purpose computer. Usually when people say this they mean they want to make the iPhone / Mac replacement.
In reality, the iPhone and Mac weren't general purpose computers either. They spent highlighting things they were better at than existing counterparts to get into people's lives. The iPhone was a great touch screen phone, iPod, camera and internet device, before it became a platform for other great things. The Mac made it possible to draw digitally, publish digitally, manage information with clarity.
They were never general purpose computers, they were computers that were great at very specific tasks. That showed their potential beyond the said tasks.
So when you say you're building a general purpose computer what is it really? A much better note taker, a better camera, a better manager for your thoughts?
There's no Joe Six-Pack
"Who is it for?" – "Well, it's for everyone who uses a smartphone, so everyone" a.k.a. Joe Six-Pack.
General Magic made this mistake. Humane made the same mistake and anyone building an "iPhone killer" is bound to make the same mistake.
Why? Because you're starting with a very wide net of people and not someone specific.
What that leads to is a string of cool demos that showcase the power of a technology, not a cohesive product. So when people do eventually look at it, they don't know what to do with it. They think "they're too dumb to use this product" and walk away.
The reality is, the device isn't meant for them. Because it's meant for everyone, and no one in particular.
The iPhone was neither meant to be a general purpose computer nor did it replace the Macintosh.
You've heard the first part of the spiel, the second part is abundantly clear. I am writing this on a Mac and would never write this kind of a post on a Phone.
The Mac is a great medium for some things, the Phone is a great medium for others. There's some overlap but in general they're two separate devices that I own for specific purposes.
So a future third kind of a device, would have to be the perfect medium for some key tasks, such that it's compelling enough to make the space for a third device in my life. I am not replacing my phone for something else any time soon.
One more thing
Learn from the Apple Watch
The Apple Watch Series 0 was a similarly misguided attempt at creating a general purpose computer. It didn't fair too well that year. But Apple quickly realised what it was great at and iterated fast enough to create a compelling fitness companion, that democratised health and fitness information.
The Apple Watch does great when it prioritizes people who want to be healthier and fitter.
It's totally ok for the first version of your product to fail. It's not ok to not learn from those failures and build something better.