Admittedly the question is up there with 'Why does the beach get wet when the tide comes in?', but Krisse asks the question "Why do so many gadget fans buy devices on their launch day?", producing an easy to read essay on the cult of the early adopter. And argues, in the process, that their zeal (and expenditure) is good for all of us in the long run...
Read on in the full article.
Good article, I enjoyed reading it!
I think I fall into the 'I want to see it for myself' type early adopter. I read about gadgets and really look forward to them being released.
I don't really agree with the idea that early adopting is necessarily bad - take the iPhone 3g - i bought it after it had been out a week or so. It cost me the same as it does now and has improved over time.
I have to say that if a product is for sale it should be usable, ie not crashing all the time, and that manufacturers should work hard to make sure the product is finished before releasing it. Personally I think Microsoft has created a monster with its constant updating which means you end up with a decent product 2 years after they launched it. In the article the subject of the N-Gage redesign is mentioned - I never bought an NGage - I am not really into gaming but I followed the events at the time. I don't think Nokia was forcing people to buy 2 devices - they just made a mistake with the hardware design and I do not think alot of people who bought this device in 2003 were 'early adopters' they were just people who bought a product that was for sale! Some people don't know when X was released, or even care, they just go to a mobile phone shop when their contract is up and choose a new phone based on whats there. Why should they suffer constant crashing etc until the manufacturer releases a decent firmware?
There is nothing wrong with setting high standards - the world would be a better place if we all had higher standards!
I personally think that early adapters are highly necessary. If everyone waits for a device to be perfect before they buy it, then no one will be available to give feedback and help the manufacturer to improve the device. In such a scenario, the manufacturer will be limited to his 'test' conditions only which are no comparison to real life scenarios that are more demanding.
Of course as mentioned in the article, early adapters can get a feeling of betrayal when the manufacturer feels that he cannot improve the device any more and decides to introduce a new better model altogether. I can think of numerous Nokia models that have gone through this stage, but won't mention them here. We get plenty of rants anyway everytime there is firmware update available (I am one of the one who complains) 😉
IMO, early adopters are also typically people who can afford to switch phones frequently. So if one model does not work them, they can simply switch to another one quickly. People who are buy a phone because they are fond of technology, but cannot afford frequent changes should wait before the phone is reasonably stable.
I have to say that if a product is for sale it should be usable, ie not crashing all the time
But that's the problem: no one can say exactly what "usable" means.
No phone crashes all the time, but all phones crash at least sometimes in certain circumstances. How many crashes and bugs are acceptable?
Where do you draw the line between something that can be released and something that still needs more testing?
You can't say a product has to be bug-free or crash-free because that is physically impossible, there will always be some problems in a device somewhere which may cause it to crash.
The more complex devices become, the worse this problem will be. As more functions are added it takes longer to test them all, and also to see how they interact if the functions are used simultaneously, which means more ways for the phone to crash. Even if the phone works fine on its own, there may be third party software that causes it problems unexpectedly, and there's no way a phone maker can test every app with every phone.
Some people don't know when X was released, or even care, they just go to a mobile phone shop when their contract is up and choose a new phone based on whats there.
True, but they're less likely to buy brand new models because those will be the most expensive (and also quite often the most difficult to get hold of).
The N95 was over 600 euros when it launched, but it's now drifting towards 300 euros, so it's a lot more likely to be bought by normal people than it was at its launch.
Even on contract people will notice that kind of difference, because contract just means buying the phone in installments so more expensive devices will have a higher monthly charge.
Of course as mentioned in the article, early adapters can get a feeling of betrayal when the manufacturer feels that he cannot improve the device any more and decides to introduce a new better model altogether
Improving a device isn't always possible if the faults are in its physical design though. Firmware updates can do a lot of good, but they can't restructure the phone itself.
The N-Gage example is a case in point, there was no possible way Nokia could alter the "sidetalking" or the horrible method for changing games, so their only option was to release a physically redesigned model. Yet people who bought the original N-Gage still somehow felt betrayed, which is silly.
Another example is the 3650 where the circular keypad put some people off buying it, so they released the 3660 with a normal keypad.
I personally think that early adapters are highly necessary. If everyone waits for a device to be perfect before they buy it, then no one will be available to give feedback and help the manufacturer to improve the device. In such a scenario, the manufacturer will be limited to his 'test' conditions only which are no comparison to real life scenarios that are more demanding.
Yup, and that's what I said at the end of the article.
Early adopters take risks on brand new hardware and if a manufacturer has any sense at all they will listen to the feedback from early adopters very carefully so they can fix any problems before the device is bought by the mass market.
To be honest, the classic N-gage and the QD didnt really share the same hardware. Gaming-wise yes but not otherwise. The Classic N-gage had stereo sound and radio while the QD didnt. Quite a big factor in those days. Also the classic N-gage had a mini-usb connector and was triband , which again the QD didnt have.
Just thought i'd clear that up 😊
Early adaptors suffer, but innovators feel the full force on the future on their palm of their hands!
Life as an early adoptor or innovator is a lot of fun!
For me it's about being ahead of the masses - a head start if you will. Unfortunately, as with N-Gage, it sometimes leads you down the wrong path for a few miles.
Great article, really enjoyed it.
For me it's about being ahead of the masses - a head start if you will. Unfortunately, as with N-Gage, it sometimes leads you down the wrong path for a few miles.
Yeah, that's what a lot of this is about, seeing stuff before anyone else.
That reminds me, I didn't include this in the article but sometimes entire countries can be early adopters and pay the price for it to some extent.
For example the USA got colour television years before Europe, but because Europe waited it got a better system with a sharper picture. Unlike individuals though, entire countries can't switch to a new system easily because it usually requires everyone buying new hardware. Most people would resent it if they were forced to buy new hardware every time a better standard comes out, so countries end up stuck with technological standards for decades.
To be honest, the classic N-gage and the QD didnt really share the same hardware. Gaming-wise yes but not otherwise. The Classic N-gage had stereo sound and radio while the QD didnt. Quite a big factor in those days. Also the classic N-gage had a mini-usb connector and was triband , which again the QD didnt have.
Good point, but that makes the article's case even stronger: original N-Gage owners were complaining about the QD, yet the QD was actually a downgrade in many ways (no radio, no stereo sound, no triband, no USB port).
But as you said the games were the same on both machines, they had the same processor, same RAM, same OS version etc so all the games ran identically.
I feel that the example of N95 is an extreme one. When this phone was released, there was no other Nokia phone which had the same features/hardware. Since Nokia introduced a lot of new things in this phone, it took a while before it became stable.
Even in this extreme case of N95, early adopters got constant firmware updates. (Has Nokia modified the hardware of N95 since it was first released? I don�t think so.) So how is today�s N95 better than the N95 of 2007 which has the latest firmware v30?
Now let's take the example of N85 which will be launched within a month.
- It has the same chipset which is currently being used in other Nokia phones (e.g. N78)
- OLED screen has been used in Prism and Arte.
- OS and other softwares have already been used in numerous other phones.
This phone has a great combination of many features which were already there in other Nokia phones (primarily N95 and N78).
I strongly believe that if a person wants to purchase a new phone in near future then he/she should choose N85 over the well tested and established N95 8GB. Why?
- As I have pointed, the softwares and hardwares used in this phone are not new and the early adopters will probably not get a buggy product.
- There are many important but _not_so_revolutionary features. e.g. Battery life, compact size, excellent USB transfer rate, improved GPS functionality.
- Its price will be 450 EUR at launch time. I do not think that it will fall by more than 70-80 Euros in a year.
Similar argument holds true for N79 as well.
I can think of some other examples:
E71: Its price didn�t drop very much. Do you think its early adopters were at loss?
E72 and E75: They are nothing but improved versions of existing E series phones. I do not expect their initial models to be buggy.
Perhaps your argument is valid for phones which have lots of new features but I do not think that the same holds true for phones which are not revolutionary but which build on its predecessors.
I feel that paying a slightly higher price is better than purchasing a well-proven, well tested but outdated product.
I'm a gadget freak of the worst order. I'm like the kid waiting for the new toy. I cant help myself. At the moment it's the N85 thats got me. I set google alerts for myself and read absolutely any article that comes up that so much as mentions this phone. When it finally arrives I'll be waiting! I'll take it home and explore its every dark little corner. I feel sorry for myself for having to wait so long. I'm not an early adopter...I'm obsessed!!! EEEaaaaaagh