5 ms·

but the fact that AAPL now has a larger market cap than MSFT, twelve years after Jobs' return to Apple, has to give one pause. This just reads to me that Micro

but the fact that AAPL now has a larger market cap than MSFT, twelve years after Jobs' return to Apple, has to give one pause. This just reads to me that Microsoft has been failing hard since the great succession and Apple is capitalising on the void more than Apple's excellent strategy would've won the game against Microsoft back in the day. My take is that Apple will lose, and yes, history is repeating himself. They'll lose in the mobile/tablet space to Android handset/tablets, and they'll maybe lose in the "real computer" space (eventually) to Ubuntu/Chrome OS or a revitalized Microsoft. I'm more confident of the former than the latter though, have heard "year of the linux desktop" just too many damned times.

theli0nheart 16y ago
What makes you think they'll lose in the mobile space? Isn't there something to be said for the difficulty of developing on a fragmented platform? From yesterday: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/05/23/2313245/Fragmentation-vs-Obsolescence-In-the-Android-Ecosphere http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/05/23/2313245/Fragmentatio...
- etherael 16y ago
  The same reason that they lost in the computing space originally, which was the point of the article. I also don't buy that android is fragmented, I've read that story as well as the stories where people were whispering about fragmentation before the first devices were even released. Saying that android is vulnerable to fragmentation because of varying hardware features and screen resolutions of devices which use it is quite similar to positions stating the same about windows imho. Also, Apple are being so relentlessly bad strategically on OS X Touch I think it would take a lot less than a technically superior implementation on technically superior hardware to beat them. But hey, I could be wrong, personally I am a very happy Linux user, this would be good prima facie evidence that I am "out of touch with the market" ;)
  - ams6110 16y ago
    No Microsoft achieved dominance in the PC space because it was the "safe" choice. IBM PCs were not cheap back in the day, but neither were Selectrics and in the business world, "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." Once Windows came along, businesses had the choice of keeping compatibility with their existing PC software and hardware or starting over with Macintosh. Most made the easy choice. And consumers who used PCs at work typically bought the same platform for home so they could install pirate copies of Wordperfect or Lotus 123 or Microsoft Word/Excel from the office. Unlike then, in the mobile space, and now the tablet space, Apple has won the huge market share position. Microsoft, Palm, and others have been working for years on the platforms but never quite got it right for the mass consumer market. Apple did. Will Android beat them? Remains to be seen but I don't see this as history repeating itself at all.
- wvenable 16y ago
  Android is less fragmented than Windows PC's ever have been and look how that worked out.
  - blasdel 16y ago
    The Windows features that succeeded most (loosely coupled applications with root access) don't overlap at all with what Android is trying to do. Android is trying to do tightly-coupled sandboxed applications that invoke and include one another. The Windows features in this area (like COM) all failed pretty miserably.
    - wvenable 16y ago
      Yet that has nothing to do with fragmentation. If Android's applications to fail to invoke and include one another, at worst, that's just the same as the iPhone.
      - blasdel 16y ago
        iPhone apps can only invoke one another via registered URL handlers, which can't be overridden — the one-way loose coupling of a modern hyperlink. Android apps can one effectively link with one another with Intents and transclude one another freely — DLL hell. Fragmentation works into it because app transclusion via Intents is the official API for many system functions, but so many users are stuck on ancient versions of Android, many of which have been fucked with by HTC or the carrier. If Android's apps fail to invoke and include one another, they don't just devolve into the iPhone single-tasking model, they throw exceptions and crash.
philwelch 16y ago
On marketshare, Apple is still losing the PC space to Windows. And on marketshare, they may yet lose the mobile space to Android. But in terms of profitability, it remains to be seen. And Apple just might go and attack another product category yet.
- etherael 16y ago
  True, you can survive a long time on a small slice of the pie if you're charging like a wounded bull.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    How many analogies was that?
    - etherael 16y ago
      three?
    - abalashov 16y ago
      Metaphors, not analogies.
- maurycy 16y ago
  APPL focuses on the high ROI clients. By definition, there's a limited supply of such clients, so they have to go into new markets.
- jister 16y ago
  Android is still immature but if Google continues to improve it then maybe it will be on par with Apple (or much better)...someday...who knows maybe just like the Yahoo vs Google search way back.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    The Droid Incredible seems to be comparable to the iPhone. The ecosystem needs to catch up. I'd wager that the phone service is better.
seb 16y ago
Does Apple want to win? They are not trying to go to cover the complete market and filling everybody's wants. In other markets doesn't one company covers the complete market. For example Ferrari is not going for the same market like Toyota, but are they failing because of that?
bonaldi 16y ago
By the same token, Microsoft capitalised on the void left by Sculley-era Apple. While Apple was charging thousands of dollars for underpowered Macs with 9" screens, Windows PCs could leap into the bottom end. They weren't really good: users actually wanted Macs, but couldn't afford them at home, and businesses wouldn't pay the premium at work, except where absolutely necessary (publishing and design, mostly). Software and "closedness" had nothing to do with it. The Mac had much better software -- Word and Excel were born on the Mac, as was Photoshop, Quark, Postscript, Hypercard. The question isn't "is Jobs making the same mistake?" it is "is Jobs making Sculley's mistakes?". And the answer is "no". The iPhone and iPad are aggressively priced, ensuring they go just low enough to put them in reach of people who want them, and success doesn't depend on penny-pinching CYA CIOs. Windows succeeded because it was good enough, just as Android is. Apple is trying hard to sure you don't have to settle for "good enough", you can actually have good, this time.
- etherael 16y ago
  I don't buy it, Apple products still attract a significant premium just for the brand. You don't see linux users purchasing Apple hardware to install linux on generally, which would actually be a good measure of if the hardware was worth the cost. They're just trying to tie the software to the hardware and push the benefits of the software to the average user in a way that it can't be separated from the hardware (via their DRM etc in the chips). Nothing Apple has ever made has been compelling to me in any way, shape or form. So from my perspective, they generally make worse products than the alternatives, this includes OS9, OSX, and definitely OSX touch.
  - bonaldi 16y ago
    The Mac still attracts a premium, because that's its market now, for better or worse. When it was conceived, the target price was $999, which it didn't actually hit until the underpowered Mac Classic arrived. The other products -- iPod, iPhone, iPad -- have definitely been priced to sell, even if they don't appeal to you. As for compelling, we're talking 1980s here. If the choice was DOS vs System 6, or later Win 3.1 vs System 7, the only thing in Microsoft's favour was price.

theli0nheart 16y ago

What makes you think they'll lose in the mobile space? Isn't there something to be said for the difficulty of developing on a fragmented platform? From yesterday: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/05/23/2313245/Fragmentation-vs-Obsolescence-In-the-Android-Ecosphere http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/05/23/2313245/Fragmentatio...

etherael 16y ago
The same reason that they lost in the computing space originally, which was the point of the article. I also don't buy that android is fragmented, I've read that story as well as the stories where people were whispering about fragmentation before the first devices were even released. Saying that android is vulnerable to fragmentation because of varying hardware features and screen resolutions of devices which use it is quite similar to positions stating the same about windows imho. Also, Apple are being so relentlessly bad strategically on OS X Touch I think it would take a lot less than a technically superior implementation on technically superior hardware to beat them. But hey, I could be wrong, personally I am a very happy Linux user, this would be good prima facie evidence that I am "out of touch with the market" ;)
- ams6110 16y ago
  No Microsoft achieved dominance in the PC space because it was the "safe" choice. IBM PCs were not cheap back in the day, but neither were Selectrics and in the business world, "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." Once Windows came along, businesses had the choice of keeping compatibility with their existing PC software and hardware or starting over with Macintosh. Most made the easy choice. And consumers who used PCs at work typically bought the same platform for home so they could install pirate copies of Wordperfect or Lotus 123 or Microsoft Word/Excel from the office. Unlike then, in the mobile space, and now the tablet space, Apple has won the huge market share position. Microsoft, Palm, and others have been working for years on the platforms but never quite got it right for the mass consumer market. Apple did. Will Android beat them? Remains to be seen but I don't see this as history repeating itself at all.
wvenable 16y ago
Android is less fragmented than Windows PC's ever have been and look how that worked out.
- blasdel 16y ago
  The Windows features that succeeded most (loosely coupled applications with root access) don't overlap at all with what Android is trying to do. Android is trying to do tightly-coupled sandboxed applications that invoke and include one another. The Windows features in this area (like COM) all failed pretty miserably.
  - wvenable 16y ago
    Yet that has nothing to do with fragmentation. If Android's applications to fail to invoke and include one another, at worst, that's just the same as the iPhone.
    - blasdel 16y ago
      iPhone apps can only invoke one another via registered URL handlers, which can't be overridden — the one-way loose coupling of a modern hyperlink. Android apps can one effectively link with one another with Intents and transclude one another freely — DLL hell. Fragmentation works into it because app transclusion via Intents is the official API for many system functions, but so many users are stuck on ancient versions of Android, many of which have been fucked with by HTC or the carrier. If Android's apps fail to invoke and include one another, they don't just devolve into the iPhone single-tasking model, they throw exceptions and crash.

philwelch 16y ago

On marketshare, Apple is still losing the PC space to Windows. And on marketshare, they may yet lose the mobile space to Android. But in terms of profitability, it remains to be seen. And Apple just might go and attack another product category yet.

etherael 16y ago
True, you can survive a long time on a small slice of the pie if you're charging like a wounded bull.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  How many analogies was that?
  - etherael 16y ago
    three?
  - abalashov 16y ago
    Metaphors, not analogies.
maurycy 16y ago
APPL focuses on the high ROI clients. By definition, there's a limited supply of such clients, so they have to go into new markets.
jister 16y ago
Android is still immature but if Google continues to improve it then maybe it will be on par with Apple (or much better)...someday...who knows maybe just like the Yahoo vs Google search way back.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  The Droid Incredible seems to be comparable to the iPhone. The ecosystem needs to catch up. I'd wager that the phone service is better.

seb 16y ago

Does Apple want to win? They are not trying to go to cover the complete market and filling everybody's wants. In other markets doesn't one company covers the complete market. For example Ferrari is not going for the same market like Toyota, but are they failing because of that?

bonaldi 16y ago

By the same token, Microsoft capitalised on the void left by Sculley-era Apple. While Apple was charging thousands of dollars for underpowered Macs with 9" screens, Windows PCs could leap into the bottom end. They weren't really good: users actually wanted Macs, but couldn't afford them at home, and businesses wouldn't pay the premium at work, except where absolutely necessary (publishing and design, mostly). Software and "closedness" had nothing to do with it. The Mac had much better software -- Word and Excel were born on the Mac, as was Photoshop, Quark, Postscript, Hypercard. The question isn't "is Jobs making the same mistake?" it is "is Jobs making Sculley's mistakes?". And the answer is "no". The iPhone and iPad are aggressively priced, ensuring they go just low enough to put them in reach of people who want them, and success doesn't depend on penny-pinching CYA CIOs. Windows succeeded because it was good enough, just as Android is. Apple is trying hard to sure you don't have to settle for "good enough", you can actually have good, this time.

etherael 16y ago
I don't buy it, Apple products still attract a significant premium just for the brand. You don't see linux users purchasing Apple hardware to install linux on generally, which would actually be a good measure of if the hardware was worth the cost. They're just trying to tie the software to the hardware and push the benefits of the software to the average user in a way that it can't be separated from the hardware (via their DRM etc in the chips). Nothing Apple has ever made has been compelling to me in any way, shape or form. So from my perspective, they generally make worse products than the alternatives, this includes OS9, OSX, and definitely OSX touch.
- bonaldi 16y ago
  The Mac still attracts a premium, because that's its market now, for better or worse. When it was conceived, the target price was $999, which it didn't actually hit until the underpowered Mac Classic arrived. The other products -- iPod, iPhone, iPad -- have definitely been priced to sell, even if they don't appeal to you. As for compelling, we're talking 1980s here. If the choice was DOS vs System 6, or later Win 3.1 vs System 7, the only thing in Microsoft's favour was price.