The Apple 2020 revolution
The Apple 2020 revolution: Google and Microsoft have failed, Apple has to success.
Because the display experience on the smartphone is going to a dead-end; as a result, the iPhone also will go into the same way if there's nothing more refreshing. The only route for Apple is a potential digital world that Google and Microsoft explored (but they have failed).
The history of the hi-tech market development has proved that sight is the most important sense for human: Amazon pioneered the smart speaker revolution in 2015, which just need the voice to get access to information from the internet or control digital devices. However, all the technology giants such as Google, Apple, Microsoft or even Samsung also jumped into this field after 4 years, but in the end, smart speakers still can't replace for smartphones.
When Steve Jobs launched the iPhone in 2007, this was synonymous with a concept of the most standard screened device: "modern smartphone" created. That was not only a small device for people to carry wherever but also was a powerful device; moreover, it even can display all kinds of content those people want on a big screen.
The iPhone faces challenges when the screen is expected to become more perfect
At that time, the smartphone was the best technology form, which people can touch. Nevertheless, this technology also has harmed to smartphone companies, especially for Steve Jobs’ company. For example, iPhone revenue decreased by 30% in the last quarter and Apple was still a hardware company although other segments (especially services field) have developed. Therefore, Apple needed one more next revolution, and Tim Cook also promised about that revolution.
THE PLACE MICROSOFT AND GOOGLE WERE UNSUCCESSFUL
Of course, this has to be a display revolution. This must be a real revolution, which is not only an increase resolution or OLED, etc., but also has to refresh the human’s display experience. Apple has to refresh the way of interaction with the digital world as the same way of the Macintosh, iPod, iPhone or iPad did in the past.
There were at least two giants had done the same way because there was no way for “pack” the digital space into the screen, so they blended the digital space to the cyberspace. Google launched Google Glass with Android 4.4, which was full of integrated features in 2013. Microsoft also launched HoloLens with cyberspace, which had the Windows' tone colour values in 2016.
AR- a potential field but Microsoft and Google were unsuccessful.
Nevertheless, both of them were unsuccessful in attracting the customer. Google Glass had an initial price of up to 1500 USD and HoloLens even cost 3500 USD (for the technology developers). However, two kinds of these technologies only can become special solutions for business because of the concerns about privacy and limited experience.
THE APPLE FAMILIAR WAY
Ironically, Microsoft and Google's failures have created a golden chance for Apple to develop this field. Apple has had the same succeeded way in the decades: let others went ahead, after their stumbles, Apple has come in and found out a complete solution then ... becoming successful. For example, Microsoft has had a tablet since 2001 but they used the Windows keyboard-optimized interface; Apple created the touch's optimal tablet and got success. Google launched Android Wear before Apple half a year, but Google did not create an optimized interface for "one touch" button as well as did not use the intuitive rotary knob; Apple Watch has not made this mistake so Apple "monopolizes" the smartwatch market now.
Apple is good in improving other's ideas
In the AR field, Microsoft and Google have faced the "optimal experience" issue; however, Apple has solved it very well so far. And we have to wait until 2020 to know what Apple AR’s experience is.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-06-07 | AnnaPhan90 | 65 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 132, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: there's
...Phone also will go into the same way if theres nothing more refreshing. The only route...
^^^^^^
Line 8, column 428, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...s, but in the end, smart speakers still cant replace for smartphones. When Steve Jo...
^^^^
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ent those people want on a big screen. The iPhone faces challenges when the scr...
^^^
Line 18, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e Windows tone colour values in 2016. AR- a potential field but Microsoft an...
^^^
Line 21, column 23, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ited experience. THE APPLE FAMILIAR WAY Ironically, Microsoft and Googles failur...
^^^^^
Line 24, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...izes' the smartwatch market now. Apple is good in improving others ideas ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, so, still, then, therefore, well, as to, at least, for example, of course, such as, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.5418719212 190% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 8.36945812808 287% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 12.0 5.94088669951 202% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 22.0 20.9802955665 105% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 31.9359605911 191% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 5.75862068966 278% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3294.0 1207.87684729 273% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 632.0 242.827586207 260% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21202531646 5.00649968141 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.01394158123 3.92707691288 128% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86770807289 2.71678728327 106% => OK
Unique words: 314.0 139.433497537 225% => Less unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.496835443038 0.580463131201 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1006.2 379.143842365 265% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.57093596059 102% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.6157635468 130% => OK
Article: 10.0 1.56157635468 640% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 1.71428571429 233% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 0.931034482759 537% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 12.6551724138 213% => Too many sentences.
Sentence length: 23.0 20.5024630542 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.2360186706 50.4703680194 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.0 104.977214359 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4074074074 20.9669160288 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.74074074074 7.25397266985 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 15.0 4.12807881773 363% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 5.33497536946 112% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 6.9802955665 215% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 2.75862068966 254% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 2.91625615764 206% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.198225026476 0.242375264174 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0567225160692 0.0925447433944 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0852103086736 0.071462118173 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.085228042825 0.151781067708 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103257021323 0.0609392437508 169% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 12.6369458128 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.1260098522 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.54236453202 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.9458128079 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 11.5310837438 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.32886699507 101% => OK
difficult_words: 146.0 55.0591133005 265% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.94827586207 136% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.3980295567 108% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.5123152709 133% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum five paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 58.5 Out of 90
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.