So I presume you have started a company based around your ideals? I think people don't realize that there is no magic fairy dust at 1 Infinite Loop. Apple's success is really quite easy to reproduce. It only takes one thing: guts!
> "Apple's success is really quite easy to reproduce."
I doubt this...
They're not unbeatable, but let's be honest, a lot of money has been thrown at the "kill Apple" by some very large players with a lot of money and experience. No one has done it yet - I'm not convinced it's really simply a matter of determination.
"Kill Apple" is a poor goal. One of the first things Steve Jobs said upon returning to Apple was "We have to let go of the notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose."
Are a human? Do you work on a product that you would want to buy from yourself? Seems like a pretty easy target if you ask me... (hint: you're not as unique as you think, and that's a good thing!)
I really think the reason why people haven't done it is they're trying to compete on Apple's terms.
Palm trying to out-iPhone the iPhone, Microsoft trying to out-iPod the iPod, both of which weren't successful on the same level.
You either need to transcend their technology (which is difficult given the positive brand experience that Apple has) or compete in different fields to truly beat them. This just hasn't happened yet.
Or they could mount a full-frontal assault like Google is and attack the iPhone from every angle with an open platform. Palm was a small fish, Google, not so much.
Look at Zune -- First generation was ugly (eh, that's a personal opinion), but it had some features the iPod didn't. Second generation cleaned up the design a bit, was at least competitive on price, and had a feature that iPod's still to this day don't have: the ability to sync wirelessly...
...but was Microsoft ever really that into Zune? I mean, they made one strong push at the start, but then what? Microsoft is such a schizophrenic company these days. If they were really determined, I think they could've beaten Apple.
But, then, if they were really determined I think they'd have to do something radical...like change their name. I mean, come on! Microsoft? That's so...80s! Sure, changing their name would mean throwing away practically priceless brand identity, but I'll bet you it would improve their ability to compete with Apple in the consumer electronics market. What's that you say? They'd be stupid to toss the brand behind their Windows/Office monopoly just to compete in consumer electronics? Well, maybe...maybe they don't really want to kill the iPod...maybe the Zune was a half-hearted, ultimately misguided attempt...
...maybe they don't have the guts. I did hear about this one company that changed its name and abandoned the best selling personal music player so that they could introduce a new model with less capacity at a higher price because they believed that flash technology was better than mini-hardrives and then held their announce their annual developers' conference wouldn't cover their operating system even as sales of it are better then they've ever been before...
Similar to Zune, Google's efforts with Android seemed really promising at the start. They took a different approach, attempting to be open from the start...and then went, what? six months without an update to the "public" source? That was just the first sign of trouble though, and the first indication that Google was not willing to do what it took to stand up to the carriers and stick by their original idea: an open phone OS.
Since then, we've seen time and again how Google has essentially just thrown this OS out there and the handset makers and service providers are free to do with it as they please... Want to never update the OS for your users? eh, Google doesn't care. Want to provide a custom, potentially inferior, UI while still claiming the "Android" brand? bah, who cares about brand purity anyway, right?
Seriously, outside of the hacker community I don't know of anyone who identifies their "Android" phone as an "Andriod" phone. In other words, Google seems to have done a giant favor to the handset makers by doing their job for them and demanding almost nothing in return, including nothing to improve the situation for Google's customers. If I buy an HTC phone from Verizon running Android, who's making sure I get what I want? and not just what happens to be most convenient and profitable for the companies involved?
When Apple went carrier shopping, they went to Verizon first. Verizon was the biggest. Verizon had the best network. But Verizon demanded their typical suite of extortions and lock-downs on the phone. Did Apple cave? Nope! GUTS! They said, "You know what? AT&T might not have the best network, but we see this as a platform. Trust us, the call quality might not be great, but we're going to give you in a phone something no one has ever thought of giving you in a phone, and that's going to change everything!"
Oh, and Google is no less schizophrenic of a company at the moment than Microsoft. Worse even! They seem to be frantically trying to find some way of earning money that doesn't involve advertising, but at the same time they seem too timid to really put all their chips behind anything.
(edit: Oh, and yes...dropping "Computer" wasn't huge, but I also didn't mention the drastic change of processor architecture, the complete reinvention of their OS, cutting their product line down to 3 or 4 major SKUs...I could go on.)
Android wasn't gutsy at all: they hired the original Sidekick developers that were already most of the way through developing a bastard medley of other failed platforms on top of a bludgeoned Linux kernel.
Palm's WebOS and HP's acquisition of them are gutsy. Google's development of ChromeOS is gutsy. Android ain't.
The Android team did most of what they could to repeat all the mistakes of NewtonOS (app transclusion), the Sidekick (mandatory incomplete instant OTA-only sync), and classic Windows Mobile (total fealty to fractious manufacturers and carriers) — and then they added some of their own absurd retardation on top of that (like anything to do with the SD card, Dalvik, OpenBinder, etc.).
Have you actually used a recent Android phone? I recently switched to an incredible after more than two years with iPhones (a first-gen and then a 3GS). In many ways I find the Android superior to the iPhone model.
App transclusion, in my mind, is a positive. The application stack on Android makes great sense. It creates a repeatable sequence of events that I find easy to navigate. My wife, who is very much non-technical agrees. She has a much easier time with Android than she did with iPhone(s).
While there are definitely issues with device fracturing it's an issue I'm hoping Google works to control more cleanly in the future. As it stands today you can safely target a small number of devices with more or less compatible specs and do quite well.
Android 2.2 continues to address a lot of these issues. The pace at which the platform has matured is very nice.
Overall, I think the user experience on Android is rapidly approaching (and in some cases surpasses) that of the iPhone. I do find it interesting that in my social world, 2/3 of my non-technical friends have Android phones (mostly Motorola Droids). Every single one of them is pleased as punch.
