Apple’s Rivals Miss the Mark: What They’re Getting Wrong

Apple’s success is the envy of many. Numerous competitors are eager to decode the secret formula behind the California-based company’s success. Unfortunately, rivals often resort to shortcuts without truly grasping what makes Apple’s products magical.

iMac: The Magic of Colorful Plastic

Upon his return as Apple’s CEO in 1997, Steve Jobs needed to make a bold statement with a distinctive product. The result was the iMac G3, designed by Jony Ive. With its smooth lines, all-in-one design, and notably its translucent blue color, it stood out dramatically from other computers at the time. Every detail was crafted to create an aesthetically pleasing and enjoyable user experience.

For the first time, here was a computer you could proudly display in your living room instead of hiding it away. How did the industry respond? By copying the translucent color. Worse still, HP released computers where you could attach colorful clips to the same ugly towers.

Bill Gates, discussing the iMac G3, revealed he didn’t fully understand what made the computer special: The only thing Apple has right now is color leadership. I don’t think it’ll take us long to catch up there.

Thus, the iMac sparked a trend of translucent colors throughout the industry. But everyone missed the most crucial aspects: a high-quality user experience, easy setup with just one cable, a system designed for seamless internet connectivity, and finally a computer that was attractive and not just functional.

The iMac’s success influenced far more than just the computer world. Numerous products adopted its colorful plastic design, like the Kodak DC240i Zoom camera, Pele Apolla Speakers, and Apollo P2200 printer, all released in 1999. How can we overlook the translucent colored plastics of the Nintendo 64, Game Boy Color, and Wonder Swan, clearly inspired by the iMac?

iPod: Pioneering White

Years later, in 2001, the reaction to the iPod was similar. While many initially scoffed at the MP3 player for its white color, scroll wheel, and high price, they were caught off-guard by its rapid success.

There are many lessons to be learned from the iPod’s triumph. For instance, an entire ecosystem around the MP3 player, such as iTunes with its iTunes Music Store, made the iPod even better. Limiting features on the device itself and incorporating them into the iTunes software made the iPod simpler and more enjoyable to use. Using a FireWire connection allowed for the iPod to be fully loaded in just minutes, a task that would take hours with USB 1.0. The scroll wheel enabled easy navigation through songs without the need to press poor-quality buttons repeatedly.

In response, what did the competition do? They released white players with white earbuds. Worse, instead of placing the white plastic behind a protective translucent layer like Apple, which prevented scratches, rivals exposed the plastic, making it susceptible to visible scratches right from the start.

Aluminum and Touchscreens

Apple’s recent designs heavily feature aluminum and touchscreens, which, of course, competitors quickly mimic.

It’s worth noting that even Apple has caricatured itself over time with increasingly thinner MacBooks and fewer ports. Jony Ive perhaps pushed too far in his last years in Cupertino.

Eventually, Apple had to reverse course. The 12-inch MacBook, though adorable, was discontinued without its single port. The MacBook Pro added an HDMI port and a memory card reader. And the iPhones got back some buttons!

The Sigma BF Camera

Let’s consider a concrete example of inspiration gone awry: the Sigma BF camera.

The media heralds it as a camera Apple might have made. Indeed, it adopts all the hallmarks: extreme simplification with just three buttons, a dial, and a shutter release. Its touchscreen provides access to essential functions like shutter speed or ISO, a stark contrast to most competing cameras that have numerous buttons.

To me, this is a perfect example of what not to do. Sigma has drawn the worst lessons from Apple’s success. All the choices made here render the Sigma BF a lesser camera.

Like the Macs, the Sigma BF is carved from a solid block of aluminum, a technique Apple calls unibody. Inspired by the iPhone, it’s not possible to expand the storage with a memory card, with its built-in 230 GB hard drive deemed sufficient. However, with a full-frame sensor capable of shooting 6k video at 120 frames per second, this could quickly become limiting.

Even the promotional video is strikingly similar to an Apple ad.

Ultimately, the Sigma BF also draws ideas from the Leica designed by Jony Ive (and Marc Newson).

It looks like a camera Apple might have made, undoubtedly for those who value design over photographic capability. It also seems aimed at those who desire a Leica but can’t afford one (priced at €2349 without a lens, yet three times less expensive than a Leica).

But here too, the inspiration taken from Apple is misplaced. Primarily because the extreme simplification makes it a worse camera. The absence of an optical viewfinder is likely a dealbreaker for most photographers. Trying to take photos using a screen outdoors in bright sunlight… Especially since the LCD is fixed.

Another point: the body of the Sigma BF is anything but ergonomic. It’s a brick with sharp corners that’s difficult to hold, especially with a sizable lens attached. Additionally, nothing about its design prevents it from being slippery. A beautiful camera, but not one made for taking photos…

Want more? The few buttons on the Sigma BF are capacitive! It lacks a flash and it’s impossible to connect a microphone because it doesn’t have a jack port, again like the iPhone.

Luckily, the battery is removable: for once, the Sigma BF doesn’t follow Apple’s lead. In short, this camera isn’t really meant for photography. It’s more of an art piece, going against the trend of competitors who keep adding more buttons and dials.

So, what product reminds you of Apple but completely misses the mark?