So is it a good thing or a bad thing when tech analysts get around to noticing the stuff you explained in detail about 6 months earlier? I mean, on one hand, they eventually got it. On the other hand, they're months away from grokking the obvious.
From Michael Gartenberg's latest hand-job about Apple:
But more interesting was the 1.1.3 update. It wasn't important for features per se, it's important because it shows Apple can give the iPhone extended life by delivering upgrades through the iTunes utility that change and enhance the iPhone and the way it works.
It's really something no one else has done as well (Microsoft does offer some in place updates to Windows Mobile but it's rare that anyone has implemented them. MSFT also offers some ROM refreshes to carriers but rarely do we so those offered to consumers and they also require a complete re-setup of the device). The iPhone's updating mechanism is one of the un-sung feature of the line and it's something that, I suspect, is going to become even more important later in 2008.
And the stuff I wrote back in August 2007:
The ease at which Apple has distributed the updates, and automated the firmware upgrade process is without doubt, an incredible competitive advantage for them. This is an "empirical" advantage in my opinion, not a "I like this GUI better than some other one" type. It means they can respond to both problems and the market in general much quicker, and it will extend the life of the iPhone way beyond the normal lifetime of a normal mobile phone.
This is a good calibration test I think... If you read something that seems insightful from a generic tech analyst, know that people who have an actual clue about that industry probably were aware of it six months earlier.