[mjg59]

The Maps experience on the iPhone was sufficiently better than on any other platform that it was justification in itself for many people to buy one. But you're also massively underselling the media aspect - iTunes integration was compelling enough that Palm implemented iPod imitation in the Pre so it would work with iTunes. Was the iPhone compelling to the niche enthusiast market that was on Symbian or Blackberry? Probably not, but that market was small and already saturated and the idea that the iPhone was unappealing in the market it was actually selling into is ridiculous.

[rickdeckard]

I don't know why you're coming to the rescue of the iPhone here. Everyone knows it was a successful product, no one said that the iPhone was "unappealing in the market".

Quite the opposite, the demand was so high that Apple could set requirements to carriers that were impossible before AND after...

[mjg59]

"The way Apple destroyed the competition was by creating so much hype around their product that they could demand concessions from carriers" is very easy to read as people buying iPhones because of hype and not because they were meaningfully better than the competition in ways that many people valued. Is that not what you meant?

[rickdeckard]

> people buying iPhones because of hype and not because they were meaningfully better than the competition in ways that many people valued. Is that not what you meant?

No, hype and demand are not exclusive to each other. You can create hype around good or bad products. The key aspect is that hype is not entirely grounded on quantifiable practical values of a product but a demand which is amplified by an emotional desire.

Which is exactly what Apple did, and this move allowed them to make demands towards carriers no other company could.