Of course, the situational context that brought the iPod into being will never exist again. Never again will an atmosphere exist like the one in the late 90s. Never again will Apple be able to fly under the radar of the music industry. Never again will huge competitors laugh at Apple for making a small, silly device with rounded corners and a click-wheel.

I’m not sure if I can entirely agree with this. Although there’s a lot of buzz about the iPhone in a way there wasn’t with the initial iPod I do believe that in its creation Apple has: a) managed to fly under the radar of the mobile phone industry and b) had its competitors laugh at why anyone would want to pay $500 for a phone that doesn’t even have a keyboard.

As posters above have pointed out, if the iPhone is even moderately successful in the absolutely huge cell phone market Apple stands to sell a lot more iPhones than it did iPods. In the sense that the iPhone won’t rescue Apple from obscurity, you’re right that it can’t replicate the iPod. In the sense that it may be to mobile phones what the iPod was to the Walkman, I’m not so sure it won’t have a similar sized impact.

I accept, however, this wasn’t really your point. What you seemed to be getting at is that using the iPod as the one-size fits all design analogy often obscures what the real solution should be. The iPod is a great example of how software and hardware should work together but there are problems it can’t solve. I don’t like the way newspaper web sites are designed. Should they be designed more like the iPod? Well what the hell does that even mean? Analogies are fun and sometimes even helpful but one does need to be careful, especially when using the iPod, seductive though it may be.

The Zune didn’t fail because it was too much like the iPod, it failed because it was too much like Microsoft – developed by committee and watered down to the point it had no soul left, took no risks. Innovation is the key, if it’s not really changing the way people interact with the world it won’t ever capture marketshare like the iPod. That goes for the iPhone as well, although the mobile phone market is a very different beast and Apple’s entrance into it is well behind the curve, with the right mix of innovation and style they may surprise us all.

Now wait a minute. Are you speaking here of the context of “digital music players” or of “technology in the 90’s” in general? Sure, you’re probably right about the first, but certainly not about the second. Of course there will again be a moment like the 1990’s: there will again be a time when some personal technology moves from the margins to the mainstream, possibly disrupting old industries in some unpredictable and fun ways. We will all lose our shirts in some future bubble again.

The iPod design helped but the ease of use of the whole iPod ecosystem is what gave Apple the huge market share. It is not just industrial design but the blend of good design and well designed, intuitive software.

At 70% market share, Apple has sold over 100 million iPods in 5.5 years. The yearly global market for cell phones is 1.6 billion. If Apple gets a 2.5% market share for iPhone, it will be selling more iPhones than iPods per year. That is doable and that is another big hit. Bank on it.

In case anyone asks, Microsoft’s share of the cell phone OS market is less than 0.5%. Apple will pass Microsoft’s cell phone share by next January.

It depends on your metric for success. Also, 5% of the world phone market (at $4-500/ea) might be as successful as 70% of the digital audio player market. Heck, some people might call the iPhone a success right now, considering it’s current mindshare. It’s market needs a disruption anyhow.

I’m unsure if I get to the point of the author, though.