gruber's rebuttal of the cybart article doesn't make sense. an achilles' heel is a small, obscure weakness that can bring down an otherwise invincible competito

gruber's rebuttal of the cybart article doesn't make sense. an achilles' heel is a small, obscure weakness that can bring down an otherwise invincible competitor. cybart seems to be correctly using this analogy (whether you agree with the argument or not). gruber however calls the iphone apple's achilles' heel, but the iphone is a highly visible, dominant aspect of apple's business. it's obvious that if you can successfully attack the iphone, apple would be in serious danger. in any case, cybart's analysis makes some sense. the macbook pro, mac pro and macOS products buttress the iphone and app store businesses, so they're strategically important and deserve more attention and investment than they might otherwise seem to warrant. underinvestment in the ($23 billion) mac businesses allows companies like microsoft and google to undermine the brand and goodwill that apple has developed over the past many years, so it does seem to be a potential achilles' heel.