> I don't know that anything Apple is doing is that revolutionary Apple is proof that there is a very fine line between good and great but it's hard to make so

> I don't know that anything Apple is doing is that revolutionary Apple is proof that there is a very fine line between good and great but it's hard to make something good great. Apple has a long history (now) of taking things that suck and making them not suck. How do you define revolutionary? > the difference is that Apple and Jobs are phenomenal at presenting the idea so that people actually get it. Marketing people will tell you that good marketing sells products. They have a vested interest in fermenting this view. The truth is simpler: good products sell themselves. Marketing just helps. The real success of Apple isn't in the success of their market (although their ads are really quite brilliant generally speaking), it's that their products are simple enough TO get. > The bottom line is that Apple knows how to sell products to consumers Apple is a consumer hardware company. That's all they really do and care about and it shows. Microsoft is an OEM and enterprise Windows and Office license selling company and it shows. Apple can (and did) change their desktop OS to make the best experience possible. In Microsoft there would be a turf war (particularly with Ballmer at the helm, given his history) to make sure that any new product somehow pushes the Windows agenda. A new OS? No way that'll happen. It's not about marketing, it's about singularity of purpose. The guy with one goal is more often than not going to do better at achieving that goal than the guy with that goal and another one.