[Eden Aurora]

WHY did Apple fall so far behind Microsoft in terms of world user base and marketshare for the past 30 years; especially when Apple had a better computer hardware and more importantly a much better operating system.

Bare bones answer: Apple couldn't get their products into the hands of the masses (or at least they couldn't do it as well as Microsoft who used 3rd parties to mass produce products at cheaper prices). Microsoft dominates the computer industry and even though Apple is just now starting to show sign of life, they will never get close to microsofts strong hold position.

So when i examine Apple's iPhone and it's future success, i see a very limited future. Apple's success so far is that it's had revolutionary hardware with easy to use software. But the competition has caught up and with Droid, HTC and everyone else mass producting equivalent products with great operating systems as well (most of which are copies of Apple's OS) and they have started to eat into Apple's marketshare. So now it's just a matter of time before Apple falls behind AGAIN; unless they open up their OS to 3rd parties and try to capture long lasting future marketshare.

Don't you think it's critical that Apple allow 3rd parties to install the iPhone OS onto their devices? Marketshare is what will make or break Apple. I don't want to see them go down the same path again (especially when they are in such a great position right now to control their future).

What do you think?

[besson3c]

I agree with you, and have to wonder how much of the rationalization we will hear is sour grapes? I mean, who would *not* want a smartphone monopoly?

Apparently not Apple.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora 

What do you think?

I think you're a bit pessimistic.

Market share and user base isn't everything.

E.g., Apple's been doing fine in the last years with the Macintosh and OS X. They gained market share, but w/o knocking down MS from it's Windows throne. Yet, they are doing great, deliver awesome products and OS releases.

So, the reason why I'm not as pessimistic as you is because I see how Apple could make a great iPhone in a rather closed (home-brewed OS) system, and still deliver quality.

Even if Android will become the next M$ in the smartphone world, I don't think it would make Apple necessarily any worse than they are today. If they keep the quality, I'd still buy iPhones, just like i buy Macs.

-t

[Eden Aurora]

Turtle, marketshare is everything! Especially because people are creatures of habit. Millions and millions of people kept on purchasing Windows computer for years (and continue to do so) not because it's better, but rather because it's what they are comfortable using.

The same rational applied to the iPhone OS. Do you know who the most likely people to purchase a new iPhone are? The existing user base because they know the OS and are comfortable with it.

Smart phones are small, cheap and the OS is rather simple compared to a computer OS. These factors only hurt Apple. While it's tough to create a full OS on a computer (evidenced by only a handful of OS's being utilized), i see a future with at least 30 or more smartphone OS's. Every brand could have it's own (if they wanted). And with everyone easily copying Apple's OS, how is Apple going to stand out from the others? It will be an uphill battle to say the least.

Marketshare and maintaining marketshare is the #1 priority to a dominant future. Without 3rd parties helping to get Apple iPhone OS into the hands of hundred's of millions, i fear Apple's OS will eventually be just another OS to choose from.

[turtle777]

You are wrong.

Apple's success with the Mac and OS X prove it.

There is something called niche players. They do quite well.

-t

[starstarwar]

your topic says my mind..

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You are wrong.

Apple's success with the Mac and OS X prove it.

There is something called niche players. They do quite well.

-t

You gave me shit for saying that Apple makes boutique products a little while ago... Coming around?

[Eden Aurora]

Turtle,
I agree that Apple is a successful company and I agree Apple does an incredible job of creating niche products. I love Apple for it.

But Apple is in a postion RIGHT NOW to take it's iPhone OS to the next level.

It all boils down to a realization of past mistakes. Lets see if we can at least agree on the following:

Turtle, are you in agreement with me that Apple never became "Microsoft" because they lacked marketshare? And are you in agreement that Apple should/could have been "Microsoft" and could have had the marketshare had they used 3rd party hardware? And are you in agreement that with Marketshare comes opportunity (more developers making apps)? I HOPE YOU AGREED YES TO ALL 3. If not, please tell me what you disagree with.

Now, close your eyes and imagine a flip-flop. Imagine that Apple controlled 85% of the computer market right now. Imagine that virtually every person and business were run on an Apple. And therefore the amount of software products made for the Apple would be x100 fold. And yes, we would laugh at Microsoft having only 8% of the market. It would be funny! Wouldn't you want this future; rather than the current one?

Apple is being killed right now in terms of marketshare. We cheer when 8 turns into 9, but it's still only 9. And because it's only 9, we lose out on opportunities - mainly masses of people using the product and realizing how great it is.

Please give me a few example of the negatives of having Apple's iPhone OS running on 3rd party hardware?

[-Q-]

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora 

Please give me a few example of the negatives of having Apple's iPhone OS running on 3rd party hardware?

1) They lose control. Leading to way too many hardware configurations to support. And the user experience suffers. And Apple's focus suffers due to having to spend time supporting a variety of hardware configurations rather than focusing on innovation. Heck, even now you could argue that they've gotten a little complacent and allowed Google to sneak up on them feature wise with Android. Apple still doesn't get the cloud and its use in mobile devices. They don't need the added worry of licensing out the os.

2) They lose massive amounts of hardware revenue. Apple is not a software company; they make money on the hardware they sell. Licensing the iPhone OS could/would lead to lost sales. They tried this with the Mac OS clones in the 90s. And while you can argue some of the lost sales were their own fault due to their lackluster product offerings, they did lose a LOT of sales to Power Computing and the like. And competing with other hardware vendors turns into a margin war. Just ask Michael Dell how well that's working out for them

3) They lose image. Apple has a hard-earned reputation for making a quality product and world-class industrial design. Licensing the OS to a third party opens them up to their polished software running on POS hardware. That doesn't help them.

Wal-mart is the largest retailer, but no one would argue that Target isn't successful in its own niche. Niches work, and has led to Apple's current standing as the second largest company based on market cap, ahead of Microsoft. Of course, that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, as Microsoft still has higher $$ sales and profits and money in the bank. But the non-dominant player in a market is still more highly valued than the "800 pound gorilla." Nothing to sneeze at.

In business, you don't necessarily have to be number 1 to be a winner. Licensing the iPhone OS would be a mistake.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You gave me shit for saying that Apple makes boutique products a little while ago... Coming around?

Actually, I was referring to the Mac side of the business.

And niche != boutique, go re-read the thread.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora 

Turtle, are you in agreement with me that Apple never became "Microsoft" because they lacked marketshare? And are you in agreement that Apple should/could have been "Microsoft" and could have had the marketshare had they used 3rd party hardware? And are you in agreement that with Marketshare comes opportunity (more developers making apps)? I HOPE YOU AGREED YES TO ALL 3. If not, please tell me what you disagree with.

No, no and no.

1) "Apple never became "Microsoft" because they lacked marketshare"

You confuse cause and effect.

Besides, what made Macs great was that Apple did NOT settle for crap that everyone could afford. They wanted to make better and higgher quality products. Better and higher quality products often don't translate into "highest marketshare".

2) "3rd party hardware"

Dead end. Apple failed with the clones.

3) "with Marketshare comes opportunity"

With market share also comes legacy headaches and stifled innovation.

Also, you again confuse cause and effect. With REALIZED opportunity comes marketshare.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by -Q- 

1) They lose control. Leading to way too many hardware configurations to support. And the user experience suffers. And Apple's focus suffers due to having to spend time supporting a variety of hardware configurations rather than focusing on innovation. Heck, even now you could argue that they've gotten a little complacent and allowed Google to sneak up on them feature wise with Android. Apple still doesn't get the cloud and its use in mobile devices. They don't need the added worry of licensing out the os.

2) They lose massive amounts of hardware revenue. Apple is not a software company; they make money on the hardware they sell. Licensing the iPhone OS could/would lead to lost sales. They tried this with the Mac OS clones in the 90s. And while you can argue some of the lost sales were their own fault due to their lackluster product offerings, they did lose a LOT of sales to Power Computing and the like. And competing with other hardware vendors turns into a margin war. Just ask Michael Dell how well that's working out for them

3) They lose image. Apple has a hard-earned reputation for making a quality product and world-class industrial design. Licensing the OS to a third party opens them up to their polished software running on POS hardware. That doesn't help them.

Wal-mart is the largest retailer, but no one would argue that Target isn't successful in its own niche. Niches work, and has led to Apple's current standing as the second largest company based on market cap, ahead of Microsoft. Of course, that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, as Microsoft still has higher $$ sales and profits and money in the bank. But the non-dominant player in a market is still more highly valued than the "800 pound gorilla." Nothing to sneeze at.

In business, you don't necessarily have to be number 1 to be a winner. Licensing the iPhone OS would be a mistake.

As correct as you are in pointing this out, and while I wouldn't go as far as the OP in characterizing this as a mistake, don't you think that Apple would like to be a monopoly if they could? I'm not suggesting that they compromise and become Microsoft or do anything differently, but little concessions like lowering the price point of each unit, making the phone available on all networks, making it available in Walmart, working with AT&T to develop cheaper data plans, etc. might be enough to make them earn that monopoly status.

Even if their profit margins are really small, by picking up more customers this might account for the difference.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Actually, I was referring to the Mac side of the business.

And niche != boutique, go re-read the thread.

-t

You win this round, my little hero in a half shell.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora 

Apple is being killed right now in terms of marketshare. We cheer when 8 turns into 9, but it's still only 9. And because it's only 9, we lose out on opportunities - mainly masses of people using the product and realizing how great it is.

This is a non argument for me. The masses think that bad reality TV and top 40 music are really great too.

[Eden Aurora]

Benson3c,
You are wise, i agree with your points. Who wouldn't want that (other than Turtle)

Wait a few months and you will see Android overtake the iPhone.
It will have nothing to do with Android being a better quality phone or the OS being more user friendly.
This is what Turtle wants, this is what Turtle will get.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora 

Benson3c,
You are wise, i agree with your points. Who wouldn't want that (other than Turtle)

Wait a few months and you will see Android overtake the iPhone.
It will have nothing to do with Android being a better quality phone or the OS being more user friendly.
This is what Turtle wants, this is what Turtle will get.

Why do you want the iPhone to dominate?

[Eden Aurora]

As an Apple Shareholder, i want everything Apple to succeed.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora 

Please give me a few example of the negatives of having Apple's iPhone OS running on 3rd party hardware?

Apple doesn't sell software. They also don't sell little boxes that play music or drop calls.

They sell an experience.

What Apple does is make their hardware as transparent/pleasant as possible, which they do by honing the hardware into seamlessness with the software. They can only do this because they have both in-house.

Splitting that up is completely contrary to everything Apple has been doing for the past twelve years and has allowed them to boom.

It would also cut directly into Apple's sales as tons of people who were on the edge about an iPhone go for the "next best".

[Eden Aurora]

Spheric,
You act as if iTunes couldn't work on another mp3 player. Apple's award winning software is what makes the iPod great. The actual hardware of the iPod isn't that fantastic. it's a rectangle.

Likewise, the iPhone is a rectangle. What's so great about the actual iPhone hardware?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora 

Spheric,
You act as if iTunes couldn't work on another mp3 player. Apple's award winning software is what makes the iPod great. The actual hardware of the iPod isn't that fantastic. it's a rectangle.

Likewise, the iPhone is a rectangle. What's so great about the actual iPhone hardware?

Geez, dude. I think it's hopeless to "explain" to you the Apple experience if you think that the iPod and the Zune are basically the same in terms of hardware.

Sorry, but I think you don't get it.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora 

As an Apple Shareholder, i want everything Apple to succeed.

That's a fair reason for wanting them to succeed

[Big Mac]

I think you're right to an extent, Eden. Not having any licensees making other iPhone platform devices will limit the platform in some ways. But I don't know if the comparison to the early Mac experience is a very good analogy. Apple has more iPhone market share than the Mac ever had.

[Eden Aurora]

Big Mac,
Apple only gobbled up marketshare because they brought this great experience to people first.
But as we've seen over the past 6 months, the competition is heating up and their is now a much wider range of options to choose from. Before it was Apple or nothing.

Turtle,
If you want to talk about the actual hardware of the iPod and iPhone, lets do it.
Weight is comparable to competitors. Size, battery life, screen resolution....all similar.
So are you just talking about the 'placement of the buttons"?
If you don't know that it's the SOFTWARE that separates Apple from it's competitors, then i say Geez Dude to you!

[Big Mac]

If and when Apple sees a sizable decline in the iPhone's current level of dominance, the next step will be to add additional models to appeal to a wider segment of the market. I could see a physical keyboard model, for example. But I doubt that Apple would create an iPhone clone market. Apple likes having exclusive control. An open hardware/clone market would be the last thing the company would resort to.

[Eden Aurora]

Big Mac,
Below was taken from Wikipedia.

"Market share
The second Android phone was released on 22 October 2008. Research company Canalys estimates that by Q2, 2009, Android had a 2.8% share of the worldwide smartphone market. By the following quarter (Q3 2009), Android's market share had grown to 3.5%.

In February 2010 ComScore ranked the Android platform as obtaining a 9.0% of the smartphone platform marketshare. This figure was up from an earlier estimate of 5.2% stated in November 2009.

In October, 2009, Gartner Inc. predicted that by 2012, Android would become the world's second most popular smartphone platform, behind Nokia's Symbian OS, which is very popular outside the US. Meanwhile, BlackBerry would fall from 2nd to 5th place, iPhone would remain in 3rd place, and Microsoft's Windows Mobile would remain in 4th place.

Analytics firm Flurry estimates that 250,000 Motorola Droid phones were sold in the United States during the phone's first week in stores.

In May of 2010, Android's first quarter US sales surpassed that of the rival iPhone platform. According to a report by the NPD group, Android achieved 28% smartphone sales in the US market, up 8% from the December quarter. The iPhone's sales fell flat at 21% over the same reporting period."

These are the facts! And the only reason this was possible was because of third party hardware developers.
The downfall has already begun...

[Big Mac]

Right now the biggest single limitation to the iPhone's continued growth isn't that there are no third party hardware vendors, it's the fact that it's only available on AT&T. Think about what happens when it comes to Verizon. Also, I think you're underestimating the amount people have invested in iTunes music and apps.

[Spheric Harlot]

There is no way in hell apple will add a hardware keyboard.

Or a CDMA version (IMO).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora 

Turtle,
If you want to talk about the actual hardware of the iPod and iPhone, lets do it.
Weight is comparable to competitors. Size, battery life, screen resolution....all similar.
So are you just talking about the 'placement of the buttons"?
If you don't know that it's the SOFTWARE that separates Apple from it's competitors, then i say Geez Dude to you!

Scroll Wheel and Multi-Touch - that's where Apple revolutionized the hardware side.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora 

These are the facts! And the only reason this was possible was because of third party hardware developers.
The downfall has already begun...

Oh teh noes. Apple is going broke again.

Really, why is the Android market share increase a threat to you (Apple) ?

Google & co. figured out a way to create a copycat device to look like it could perform as well as an iPhone.
People will flock to it, just like flies around a pile of crap.

It's no threat. Apple did well with below 5% market share and still churned out innovative and high quality products.

Your fallacy is that you think market share = quality.

-t

[pcryan5]

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora 

Bare bones answer: Apple couldn't get their products into the hands of the masses (or at least they couldn't do it as well as Microsoft who used 3rd parties to mass produce products at cheaper prices). Microsoft dominates the computer industry and even though Apple is just now starting to show sign of life, they will never get close to microsofts strong hold position.

I've been an Apple and (as they were called) IBM PC user since day 1. My take is business embraced the PC model owing to the reputation IBM brought to the table. ("You'll never get fired for buying IBM.") I don't agree with this - but it is was it was.

I don't have the stats from the last 30 years but I suspect the business to home ratio spend (not counts) was clearly dominant until the last 5 (?) years. As computer and related technology become pervasive - Apple and it's superior products is capturing the hearts and minds of home users, education AND (slowly) business.

My 1.5 cent.

~P

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora 

Bare bones answer: Apple couldn't get their products into the hands of the masses (or at least they couldn't do it as well as Microsoft who used 3rd parties to mass produce products at cheaper prices). Microsoft dominates the computer industry and even though Apple is just now starting to show sign of life, they will never get close to microsofts strong hold position.

That explains why the Zune and Windows-based smart phones are such a huge success.

-t

[Eden Aurora]

Apple is notorious for hitting a homerun with their products. iPod, iPhone, iPad.
But it can't last forever. What will they create next? Maybe nothing new for the next 7 years. That means no new revenue streams.

Apple's limited marketshare hasn't hurt because their products bordered on genious. But eventually, the creative genious will run out. And when this happens, that's where pure marketshare will make the difference.

That's how Microsoft survives. Man, they can't make anything good.
If Apple produced MicroCrap, it would be out of business by now.

[-Q-]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As correct as you are in pointing this out, and while I wouldn't go as far as the OP in characterizing this as a mistake, don't you think that Apple would like to be a monopoly if they could? I'm not suggesting that they compromise and become Microsoft or do anything differently, but little concessions like lowering the price point of each unit, making the phone available on all networks, making it available in Walmart, working with AT&T to develop cheaper data plans, etc. might be enough to make them earn that monopoly status.

Even if their profit margins are really small, by picking up more customers this might account for the difference.

It's definitely an interesting question. Looking at it from a straight business perspective, they probably would like to be a monopoly. And more customers would probably make up for smaller margins. But looking at the overall business and their company culture, the heart of their culture is their rebel, outsider status. It permeates their entire business from their branding to their product design and development. I think that once you become a monopoly, it impacts your ability to effectively innovate (from a design and product standpoint - you can certainly still innovate in other areas like product manufacturing, inventory, etc). If they were to become a monopoly, I'm not sure they could maintain the level of drive that would allow them to produce a product like the iPad. Regardless of what you think of the product, it is creating a whole new niche in the computer industry and driving the tablet computing space forward. If they were a monopoly, I'm not sure they would have the guts to take such a risk.

For example, let's look at Microsoft. They have been working on Tablet PCs for years yet they've never been able to push the space forward. I would argue that it is b/c of their monopoly status and their aversion to the risk of threatening their Windows monopoly (it's probably also why they keep trying to cram windows on a tablet rather than try a whole new OS) leading them to where they are today with that product space - nowhere. Microsoft Surface was interesting, but it seemed more like a "hey - we can still do cool stuff too" rather than a product designed to move an industry or market forward.

I could be wrong. Innovation and risk taking seem to be pretty well entrenched in Apple's corporate DNA. But my gut says that if they were to become a monopoly, they would fall victim to the same inertia and inability to innovate that has plagued Microsoft. And that doesn't do any good for anyone.

[-Q-]

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora 

In May of 2010, Android's first quarter US sales surpassed that of the rival iPhone platform. According to a report by the NPD group, Android achieved 28% smartphone sales in the US market, up 8% from the December quarter. The iPhone's sales fell flat at 21% over the same reporting period."[/I]

These are the facts! And the only reason this was possible was because of third party hardware developers.
The downfall has already begun...

Two facts to consider: May 2010 was after the news broke of the lost iPhone prototype. Guess what kills sales almost as much as a bad product? The announcement of newer, better one coming out soon.

The second fact? Analyst predictions are worthless.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora 

Apple is notorious for hitting a homerun with their products. iPod, iPhone, iPad.
But it can't last forever. What will they create next? Maybe nothing new for the next 7 years. That means no new revenue streams.

They'll do fine tapping and expanding upon existing revenue streams.

BTW, the iPod hit 7 years old in 2008.

[Eden Aurora]

Q,
Forgive me, but you'll have to go back to watching StarTrek (the next generation) if you make comments like......if Apple was a monopoly, they wouldn't be able to create an innovative product like the iPad.

In my opinion, one has nothing to do with the other.

[-Q-]

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora 

Q,
Forgive me, but you'll have to go back to watching StarTrek (the next generation) if you make comments like......if Apple was a monopoly, they wouldn't be able to create an innovative product like the iPad.

What a well, thought-out arguement. (And it's a Bond reference not TNG).

In my opinion, one has nothing to do with the other.

And I would find your opinion wrong.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora 

Apple is notorious for hitting a homerun with their products. iPod, iPhone, iPad.
But it can't last forever. What will they create next? Maybe nothing new for the next 7 years. That means no new revenue streams.

Apple's limited marketshare hasn't hurt because their products bordered on genious. But eventually, the creative genious will run out. And when this happens, that's where pure marketshare will make the difference.

That's how Microsoft survives. Man, they can't make anything good.
If Apple produced MicroCrap, it would be out of business by now.

Sorry, but you are contradicting yourself.

Earlier you stated Apple's limited market share was a problem.
You also said that big market share almost guarantees success.

Now you're saying the opposite.

Bottom line: don't look at market share, it doesn't tell you anything.

-t

[Eden Aurora]

Turtle, i think i ate you this morning.

Q, don't try to brand the new AppleTV as a new product. It's old.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora 

Turtle, i think i ate you this morning.

Translation:

"I fully realize the error of my ways but won't admit it. Therefore, I'm gonna make some unfunny remarks about reptiles."

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by -Q- 

It's definitely an interesting question. Looking at it from a straight business perspective, they probably would like to be a monopoly. And more customers would probably make up for smaller margins. But looking at the overall business and their company culture, the heart of their culture is their rebel, outsider status. It permeates their entire business from their branding to their product design and development. I think that once you become a monopoly, it impacts your ability to effectively innovate (from a design and product standpoint - you can certainly still innovate in other areas like product manufacturing, inventory, etc). If they were to become a monopoly, I'm not sure they could maintain the level of drive that would allow them to produce a product like the iPad. Regardless of what you think of the product, it is creating a whole new niche in the computer industry and driving the tablet computing space forward. If they were a monopoly, I'm not sure they would have the guts to take such a risk.

For example, let's look at Microsoft. They have been working on Tablet PCs for years yet they've never been able to push the space forward. I would argue that it is b/c of their monopoly status and their aversion to the risk of threatening their Windows monopoly (it's probably also why they keep trying to cram windows on a tablet rather than try a whole new OS) leading them to where they are today with that product space - nowhere. Microsoft Surface was interesting, but it seemed more like a "hey - we can still do cool stuff too" rather than a product designed to move an industry or market forward.

I could be wrong. Innovation and risk taking seem to be pretty well entrenched in Apple's corporate DNA. But my gut says that if they were to become a monopoly, they would fall victim to the same inertia and inability to innovate that has plagued Microsoft. And that doesn't do any good for anyone.

This is indeed interesting, thank you for the thoughtful response!

What about the iPod though? It's pretty much a monopoly, yet I don't think that Apple has lost its innovative edge there.

I agree that it might be *harder* to innovate while serving Joe average Walmart shopper, but it isn't impossible. In the case of Apple, I think their best strategy here is to release their version 1 as the hipster innovative high priced gadget for geeks/Apple cult followers/fans, and then work on propelling this into the mainstream like they did with the iPod. I think the iPhone and iPad have this same potential.

[-Q-]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Translation:

"I fully realize the error of my ways but won't admit it. Therefore, I'm gonna make some unfunny remarks about reptiles."

-t

Can you translate mine? I got nuthin'.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by -Q- 

Can you translate mine? I got nuthin'.

What ? That's it ?

I guess you haven't familiarized yourself with your newly appointed mod status.

You can now issue infractions and warnings. I wouldn't call that "nothing"
You don' even need a reason to use them - just call it practicing

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by -Q- 

Can you translate mine? I got nuthin'.

Here's mine:

Q: I don't really understand what the deal is with hulu hoops

[Eden Aurora]

Please leave hulu hoops out of this convo.
It's a sensitive topic for me.

[turtle777]

Hulu hoops ? What's that ?

Online videos set to repeat indefinitely ?

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Hulu hoops ? What's that ?

Online videos set to repeat indefinitely ?

-t

You are so green! You've never heard of hulu hoops? Really?



Winner of this round: besson3c.

[erikschmidt]

The mistake you make is in how you frame the question. "The same old mistake" is shorthand for "Apple could have had Microsoft's marketshare with the Mac, but they missed that boat, and they're going to miss it again with the iPhone."

The middle years of personal computing are behind us. We're no longer living in a winner take all environment. Android, Windows Mobile, webOS, Symbian, and other OSes are all in a vigorous fight for marketshare with iPhoneOS, and countless hardware vendors are bringing out new devices daily. Nobody in their right mind thinks any one vendor is going to control the market with overwhelming marketshare the way Windows did back in the day.

Windows dominance was built around ubiquitous presence in corporate IT departments at a time when personal computers were still entering the mainstream at work and at home. Consumers went with what they knew from work, because PCs were new and difficult to use; people weren't willing to take the time to learn a different OS, particularly when they were making a $2,000 investment.

Computers are no longer new. Operating systems are no longer as cognitively challenging for the average person, and learning a new hardware/software combination isn't such a big deal. Look at how teenagers move from one mobile device to another. Do you ever hear them worriedly asking if it's going to be too difficult to learn how to use an unfamiliar device?

Switching costs have been radically reduced. In this environment a massive app store presence coupled with hardware and software that work beautifully together is the key to success. So far Apple continues to lead in providing a well-integrated user experience, but success in this environment doesn't mean "winner takes all" the way it did in the late 80s/early 90s.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You are so green! You've never heard of hulu hoops? Really?

Hulu hoops ?

For real, does someone have to point out the correct spelling ?

-t

[Eldernorm]

Just a thought here.
"Turtle, marketshare is everything! " er actually no it is not. Just ask Dell about how they are doing. Apple is worth about 8 Dells now but Dell sells more computers with a margin of about 2%. (Apple makes about 36%) So they work like crazy and get nothing.

Ask Nokia. Nokia sells over 45% of the worlds phones. Yet Apple makes more money each year. Er, is the goal to boast or to make money.

Microsoft was lucky. Their Windows 95 copied Apple down to the look and feel (trash can vs recycle bin ?) and since they had been working with Apple on its OS and making Word and Excel work for the Mac, they knew the insides and all.

So, I suggest you are taking an overly simple approach to the issue. Open access so companies can sell cheaper than you and yet make your software look like crap. ????? I don't think so.

PS, Do you use a Mac or a PC.??

Just a thought,
en