Why do so many gadget fans buy devices on their launch day?
Published by Tzer2 at 13:12 UTC, September 21st 2008
When the mainstream media covers a gadget launch they often show queues of people waiting to buy it on the first day it goes on sale, but why do people do this, and is it a good idea? AAS takes a look at the cult of the Early Adopter, people who have to have something when it's new because it's new.
Why do so many gadget fans buy devices on launch day?
Imagine if there was a shop where you could buy all the latest gadgets before anyone else. However, that shop's gadgets are much more expensive, have far more faults in the hardware and firmware, suffer from compatibility problems, and lack widespread support from third party manufacturers and developers.
Would you buy from that shop so you could have gadgets first, or would you wait a bit and buy elsewhere?
Well, that's the dilemma facing "early adopters", the kind of people who are tempted to get something as soon as it's available to the public. Almost every device from every manufacturer has been somehow improved over the course of its lifetime, and anyone who buys at launch is getting the worst possible deal.
The Nokia N95: Anorak-pleaser in 2007, reliable smartphone in 2008
First Is Worst
Perhaps the best example of a device improving over time is the Nokia N95.
At its launch, the N95 started out with a low amount of free RAM, a very high price, unstable firmware, loose slider mechanisms, a very slow camera, slow GPS and an unstable maps application.
Now, getting on for 2 years after its release, thanks to firmware updates, the N95 has a lot more free RAM, its price has almost halved, the firmware is much more stable, the slider mechanism tends to be stronger, the camera is much faster, the GPS locks more quickly, and the maps app is much more stable. On top of that there are all kinds of completely new features added to the phone such as built-in music and gaming download services, a podcast app and an internet radio directory. There's also a much larger and more diverse third party software and hardware market, so you can buy far more games, apps and accessories for the N95.
Of the two devices, the N95 of late 2008 is far better than the N95 of early 2007, yet it's the N95 of early 2007 that got everyone's attention and upon which most of the N95's reviews are based. Many people, especially technophiles, have formed their judgement of the N95 based on its initial release, yet it's those who waited who got to see the device at its best.
A textbook case against early adoption: the very first Sinclair QL models had an external (!) ROM chip containing the OS because it wouldn't fit on the internal ROM chip, and the QL format as a whole never took off so there was barely any software support.
So, if we know gadgets are rubbish at launch, why do people buy them?
There are lots of reasons why you might get a device on its release date:
- To show off to your mates, it's the latest thing and you've got it, which means it's more of a status symbol than anything that serves a practical purpose.
- To satisfy that craving you've had for the device after all the hype and rumour that preceded it: you want to see it for yourself. Again, this isn't really the device being a useful tool, it's more an object of desire.
- To genuinely serve some purpose that other devices aren't capable of, with perhaps a crucial combination of features. But how often is this true, and how often is it just a cover story for one of the reasons above?
In short, people who buy a device at launch mostly seem to do it because it's fun at a very basic level, satisfying anticipation like a child getting a new toy at Christmas (and indeed many technology journalists openly call them toys).
But if the manufacturers know gadgets are rubbish at launch, why don't they make them good before they release them?
To some extent manufacturers DO try to make gadgets good at launch. Even a cheap mobile phone has to go through a lot of testing before it hits the shop shelves, and much of that testing is required by law for the sake of safety and preventing radio frequency interference.
But it's very difficult to fully test a modern device, especially mobile phones where each model may come in literally dozens of different variations for different frequencies and network operators. Phones can do so many things nowadays (and smartphones can do them all at once) that there are many many many different situations where things can go wrong, and it's a heck of a task to go through each one of those situations.
Also, even with the most exhaustive testing, there's never a point where any product is 100% free of problems. There will always be certain circumstances where a device can't cope, where it crashes or produces an error message. You can never ever get rid of all of the bugs, especially in something as complex as a smartphone. The challenge for manufacturers isn't to rid their product of bugs completely, but to decide how long to continue the search for new bugs and how long to fight known bugs. Sometimes they get the balance right, sometimes they don't, but it's surprisingly difficult to know what consumers will accept.
There's also pressure on manufacturers, especially in the electronics field, to release gadgets before their components become dated. How often has a phone received poor reviews because its features are considered a bit old-fashioned? The Nokia N81 would certainly have received better reviews if it had had an autofocus camera with a resolution higher than 2 megapixels. One of the main criticisms of the original iPhone was its lack of 3G, and when Apple added 3G for the second iPhone they were still criticised for the relatively primitive camera.
It seems that many gadget fans will not be happy unless their devices have technical specifications at (or respectably near) the cutting edge. But to do that, manufacturers have to keep the testing process as short as possible, which in turn reduces the manufacturing quality. A device can have the very latest features or the very best reliability, but not both.
A very peculiar idea of betrayal
One strange phenomenon is that some early adopters feel a sense of betrayal when a manufacturer releases a new model and they own the preceding model. Some bloggers even use rather extreme phrases like "stabbed in the back" and "forced to upgrade" and "exploiting their customers".
To give an example that may be familiar to many readers, Nokia's original N-Gage smartphone released in 2003 was heavily criticised for its "sidetalking" (where you had to speak into the side of the phone during calls), the difficulty in changing gamecards (you had to switch off, remove the cover, remove the battery, change the card, replace the battery, replace the cover and switch on) and various other bits and pieces. To respond to this criticism Nokia released a newer version in 2004 called the N-Gage QD, which was essentially the same hardware but fixed most of the design problems associated with the original N-Gage. While this action made sense to most outside observers, many owners of the original N-Gage were furious, and some even came up with a conspiracy theory where Nokia wanted to "force" people to buy two devices instead of one.
The N-Gage and QD both used exactly the same games and their processors rendered them in exactly the same way, so why did original N-Gage owners talk as if they'd been left behind? Why did original N-Gage owners claim they were being FORCED to buy a QD, when the original N-Gage continued to be 100% compatible with new games?
To answer these questions we have to go back to the reasons early adopters buy gadgets at their launch: they want the latest gadget to show off to people, and they want to find out what the latest gadget is like in real life. If a newer model comes out, the older model no longer has the same value as a status symbol, which explains the feeling that the early adopter has lost something. And a newer model also starts a new itch in the "got to buy one to see what it's like" early adopters, which explains their feeling of being forced to buy another phone.
The truth is that no one is forcing anyone to buy anything, and people don't really give a monkeys which phone model you own, but it's very difficult for some gadget junkies to accept this.
The Space Shuttle, featuring (until very recently) 8086 microprocessors
Even NASA hates being an early adopter
Professionals in many fields actively avoid brand new gadgets because of their innate instability and unknown failure rate.
NASA obviously know a thing or two about high technology, and they're obviously "power users". But even they famously went on eBay in 2002 to buy second-hand microprocessors which were so old that they were no longer in production. It sounds insane, but if you're trying to make sure that a very complex machine like the Space Shuttle works, the best replacement for a broken part is exactly the same kind of part. If you use the same components you know how they behave together from previous tests and flights, whereas new and experimental elements could cause unpredictable effects on the system as a whole.
The bottom line for NASA is that if your smartphone stops working you can take it back to the shop, but if a spacecraft stops working then equipment worth billions may be destroyed, years of research may be lost, and people may die. In those circumstances cutting edge technology is a very bad idea and old familiar technology is a very good idea.
A site which may be familiar to AAS readers, Nokia's Beta Labs where upcoming software is tested by early adopters
Early adopters: good thing or bad thing?
If you're purely interested in good, reliable hardware then you certainly wouldn't be an early adopter. Early adopters place novelty above stability, which isn't a good idea if you're going to depend on a device.
However, early adopters do serve a very useful function for the rest of the gadget world by volunteering large amounts of their time and money towards making products better, and providing vast amounts of feedback which clever manufacturers would do well to listen to. Public beta tests depend entirely on the early adopter mentality, where people are willing to put up with really buggy and unstable products just so they can get an early look at them and perhaps brag about it to their friends. Without early adopters, hardware and software development would probably be a lot slower and less efficient.
It's partly because of the N95's early adopters in 2007 that the N95 is so much better in 2008. Even those of us who have chosen to wait should be grateful that there are people who can't stand waiting.
Tzer2, All About Symbian, 21 Sept 2008
Categories: Comment, Hardware
Platforms: General
Feature Discussion
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!
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 |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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.
Just thought i'd clear that up :)
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. |
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. |
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.
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.