This is a very interesting analogy, with Musk:Jobs and Tesla:Apple
Back in the mid 00s, everyone thought the next big think looked like a smaller PC (analogy: EV cars) or a souped up phone (analogy: EV bikes/scooters). The iPhone changed the game (with Android quickly cementing that change).
What happens when it's more convenient to charge or have an EV-as-service than gas-up or get a cab/uber? The automobile industry is due for a massive shakeup and the more efficient batteries and more widespread chargers get, the more likely that the future cuts out the petroleum economy.
I never understand blanket statements like these about the iPhone being a game changer; the iPhone wasn't half as capable as a windows mobile phone for quite awhile; if the makers of windows mobile phones hadn't stagnated for so long I doubt Apple would have been anymore of a blip than Palm was; moreover, I'm not sure the iPhone changed the game much at all, they really just iterated on their competitors' innovations.
To me, Apple used their inertia from their innovative iPods to have a great marketing success.
> I never understand blanket statements like these about the iPhone being a game changer; the iPhone wasn't half as capable as a windows mobile phone for quite awhile
The second part of your sentence answers the first part of your sentence.
It's shockingly obvious why the iPhone was a game changer if you're doing anything other than looking at capabilities and checking off lists of features.
> To me, Apple used their inertia from their innovative iPods to have a great marketing success.
But on the other hand you think the iPod was innovative. When the iPod was released everyone said the same thing as you're saying about the iPhone ("Less space than a nomad. Lame."). In a comparison test with other MP3 players it didn't come out on top, either.
Slick hardware and good UX is way more important than people in tech give it credit for. I used Windows Mobile before the iPhone came out and it was complete trash, regardless of how many features it technically had.
> It's shockingly obvious why the iPhone was a game changer if you're doing anything other than looking at capabilities and checking off lists of features.
It lacked MMS; it wasnt even really a phone, much less a capable smartphone. You're grossly over simplifying if you call things like that a list of features.
I used windows mobile phones for years before the iPhone. The iPhone was complete trash to me because I couldn't do the basic things I was able to do on a windows phone or even my flip phones before that.
> When the iPod was released everyone said the same thing as you're saying about the iPhone
I said precisely nothing about the iPod release. What I implied was that the iPod was viewed as innovative by the time the iPhone was released (hence my usage of the word inertia; inertia of iPod innovation counts for precisely nothing at the release of the iPod).
> Slick hardware and good UX is way more important than people in tech give it credit for.
The iPhone wasnt even in the same league as WebOs phones as far as UX; why didn't Palm make it very far? (Because UX counts for a lot less than you think) The modern Apple is a marketing titan and the fact that anyone thinks they're largely innovative is a testament to their marketing prowess.
Eh, no. Windows phone was not good. Horrible UX for the average person. Companies don't make phones for computer science graduates. The modern touch-based UI was entirely an Apple creation.
> You're grossly over simplifying if you call things like that a list of features.
What I'm saying is lists of features don't matter. It didn't even have 3G on launch, but because it made so much more sense to use is why it was successful.
> I couldn't do the basic things I was able to do on a windows phone or even my flip phones before that.
You couldn't. The average person didn't know how to use those features on windows mobile.
> inertia of iPod innovation counts for precisely nothing at the release of the iPod
What was different about the iPod in 2008 vs 2001? The wheel was touch instead of clicky? The basic interface never really changed, it's just that it started to be more widely viewed as innovative.
> The iPhone wasnt even in the same league as WebOs phones as far as UX; why didn't Palm make it very far? (Because UX counts for a lot less than you think)
I'll give you webos had a far better interface, but it was evolutionary post-iPhone. And it WAS initially successful. But did you ever use one? It was slow as shit and the hardware was jank, which is why sales lagged.
And then Apple poached some of the Palm guys to work on iOS.
> The modern Apple is a marketing titan and the fact that anyone thinks they're largely innovative is a testament to their marketing prowess.
Look at the phones pre-2008 (including Android). Look at the phones post-2008. It's delusional to think that was "marketing prowess," it was the average person looking at how the iPhone functioned and it made way more sense to them than the god-awful interfaces everyone had to deal with. Most phones didn't even have threaded SMS until iOS. No one else had a desktop-class web browser. Apple completely changed the expectations for mobile UX.
Slick capacitive multi-touch coupled with iOS: that was the game-changer.
I'd had a couple of Windows Phones, complete with their plastic cases, resistive touchscreens, and stylii. Some of the apps might have been more capable than the iPhone's at launch, but the hardware was primitive in comparison.
Most smart phone hardware keyboards > software keyboard. The iPhone caused a regression in capabilities in that regard; so I'd say the two cancelled out.
(Though I seem to remember a capacitive screen on one of my windows mobile phones; I could be wrong though)
> I'm not sure the iPhone changed the game much at all,
The iPhone was the first phone that a) had a plan with data as a guarantee and b) had an appstore that didn't suck.
a) meant that you could browse get maps & real webpages (albeit with ATT it was 2G/EDGE) anywhere you got signal.
b) was without peer for years. The alternatives really sucked. I know, I tried all of them. Do you remember installer packages or having to DL the app on a PC to sync? Yeah, this was a game-changer.
It was as others mention, also the first widely available device with capacitive touch (Apple called it multitouch) and it was a UX coup with iOS.
It’s been more convenient to charge than pump gas since the original Roadster, but inertia is real. However Tesla single handedly created this industry and adoption have been pretty good IMO. Norway [1] is proof that the only thing holding back good EVs is price and that’s largely about the battery.
[1] incentives mades Tesla far more affordable about over 50% of ALL cars sold were Teslas (last year?)
According to Tesla's website, it takes 30 min to charge with a supercharger. That seems much less convenient than the 2 or so minutes it takes to fill a tank.
It depends on how you define convenience. Since the vast majority of my (and most others') driving is local, I charge my i3 every night from a plain old 120V wall outlet. I have a "full tank" every morning. I travel long distance very seldom, and if 30 minute charges won't fit my future desire for convenience then I grab a gas-powered rental. But I'm still quite content with how my needs are met with my electric.
You cant fill up your tank at home. Imagine if your phone could charge up fully within 3 minutes, but that you couldn't charge it at any outlet or overnight and needed to stop by special phone charging stations every couple days to charge it up. More convenient in some ways if it lasts longer and charges faster, but you have to go to special stations now and cant just wake up with full charge
One thing I can do, though, with an ICE vehicle (granted - only safely with trucks and similar) is carry a can (or more) of fuel with me, and the extra weight of that fuel is minimal in comparison.
Meaning I can travel much further or refill in an emergency as needed, if I don't have any way of getting fuel otherwise.
I can't see how this would ever be possible with a battery; you can't carry around a partial battery (well, you could - in theory - but install it?), and full-sized battery is going to be difficult to carry around (and possibly impossible to install).
This is important for certain vehicle types - namely off-road vehicles. Such vehicles tend to consume more fuel (for various reasons), and off-road you may be far from people, let alone a gas station. Plus you may want to do a longer trail (or need to for some reason - maybe a detour forces you off your original route to a longer one) while still being able to get back to civilization at the end. Being able to stop and refuel on the trail is important.
Until battery tech gets to the point where that's no longer the problem, I can't see off-road vehicles being anything but ICE. Perhaps if they could double or more the range of current batteries, that would probably do it - I say that much because off-road vehicles, due to weight, size, and such already drop current batteries to the point where you're lucky to go 75 miles on a charge off-road; though that's only known with some custom conversions - a purpose built off-road electric vehicle might be different.
Which I honestly hope happens - there are a ton of advantages to be gained off-roading by electrics; the instant all-wheel traction control alone would be a game changer - not to mention the sheer torque and torque availability.
You don't remember the US even as recently as the mid 1970's.
One of the big reasons for using the Interstates was the fact that gas was available at reliable intervals. But it could take you 10-15 minutes to get it.
It wasn't until the likes of 7-11, Sheetz, Circle K, and all the other "24-hour convenience stores" started doing gas that getting a fillup was fast and convenient.
I would love to see the boardroom cameras of competitors viewing Elon Musks explanation of their data aggregator ml setup in the whole deployed tesla fleet of 400.000 vehicles during autonomous car day.
