5 ms·

> Apple won out over Microsoft in consumer electronics because they were able to make decisions up and down the stack as a unit whereas Microsoft had to deal wi

by boxed 6y ago

> Apple won out over Microsoft in consumer electronics because they were able to make decisions up and down the stack as a unit whereas Microsoft had to deal with layers of device makers and consortia. That sounds nice but can't be true. Remember when Apple almost went out of business? It was the exact same situation then. I'll offer an alternative hypothesis: Apple won out because they executed well year over year over year. They made that vertical integration work for them by slowly making things better faster than the competition. Apple also never paid a strategy tax. They cannibalized their existing business ruthlessly. This is also unrelated to vertical integration.

dredmorbius 6y ago
Microsoft's key strategy was always market domination by monopoly, paid through the vig of per-CPU licence fees (whether DOS/Windows was installed or not, still largely the case), and extending through "productivity software" (MS Office) and later organisational glue (MS Active Directory / Exchange) and the Web (MSIE). The DoJ case had Microsoft back off that lever a bit, just as Apple executed beautifully (and with some Microsoft concessions in part devolving from the DoJ suit ... yes, a simplification, my 4th-fav pedants), and then hit it out of the park with the iPod and iPhone (subscriptions, apps, hardware sales, fashion accessories, ...). Google cracked Microsoft's revenue model with advertising (though that may be starting to give a bit), as has Faceboook. Amazon got where both Microsoft and Google wanted to be: between the buyer and the lion's share of online retail. Work, comms, adverts, shopping, fashion, and entertainment. There's hot competition for transport (automobiles, whether smart, electric, for-hire, or self-driving). There's not a whole lot of consumer spend left to grab that I can see. (Housing. Utilities. Insurance. Finance.)
- zepto 6y ago
  Do you love Apple products? Not a trick question. I think they are the best, but I don’t feel great about them.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    No. By the late 1990s, though I thought Apple were dead. My pet name for "Rapsody" was "Requium". "Hit out of the park" is in that context --- the company had been on death's door. It is no longer.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > No. Then you are someone else’s potential customer, as am I.
      - dredmorbius 6y ago
        I fail to see how this connects to the question at hand.
        zepto 6y ago
        The same opportunity exists for new competitors now as existed when Apple recovered from their near extinction at a time when Microsoft seemed unassailable.
        dredmorbius 6y ago
        What's your basis for that assertion?
zepto 6y ago
> I'll offer an alternative hypothesis: Apple won out because they executed well year over year over year. They made that vertical integration work for them by slowly making things better faster than the competition. You say this is an alternative hypothesis, but it is in complete agreement with me. Without vertical integration they would have been held back by the rest of the industry. Vertical integration is how they were able to move faster.
- noptd 6y ago
  >Without vertical integration they would have been held back by the rest of the industry. Vertical integration is how they were able to move faster. Without supporting evidence, this is nothing more than a post hoc fallacy.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > Without supporting evidence, this is nothing more than a post hoc fallacy. Not really - it could also mean you don’t have industry experience to know what I mean. I’m guessing you weren’t around at the time. The evidence is widely available for you to check out. Just read accounts of how industry committees work and look at how industry alternatives have failed to keep pace with Apple’s proprietary alternatives.
zepto 6y ago
> That sounds nice but can't be true. Remember when Apple almost went out of business? It was the exact same situation then. At that time the company was being run by an executive whose backround was as a flavored soda salesman who tried to adopt Microsoft’s strategy of licensing the OS. That’s why they nearly went out of business. When they returned to the integrated model and stopped trying to compete head to head, their success returned.

by boxed 6y ago

dredmorbius 6y ago

Microsoft's key strategy was always market domination by monopoly, paid through the vig of per-CPU licence fees (whether DOS/Windows was installed or not, still largely the case), and extending through "productivity software" (MS Office) and later organisational glue (MS Active Directory / Exchange) and the Web (MSIE). The DoJ case had Microsoft back off that lever a bit, just as Apple executed beautifully (and with some Microsoft concessions in part devolving from the DoJ suit ... yes, a simplification, my 4th-fav pedants), and then hit it out of the park with the iPod and iPhone (subscriptions, apps, hardware sales, fashion accessories, ...). Google cracked Microsoft's revenue model with advertising (though that may be starting to give a bit), as has Faceboook. Amazon got where both Microsoft and Google wanted to be: between the buyer and the lion's share of online retail. Work, comms, adverts, shopping, fashion, and entertainment. There's hot competition for transport (automobiles, whether smart, electric, for-hire, or self-driving). There's not a whole lot of consumer spend left to grab that I can see. (Housing. Utilities. Insurance. Finance.)

zepto 6y ago
Do you love Apple products? Not a trick question. I think they are the best, but I don’t feel great about them.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  No. By the late 1990s, though I thought Apple were dead. My pet name for "Rapsody" was "Requium". "Hit out of the park" is in that context --- the company had been on death's door. It is no longer.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > No. Then you are someone else’s potential customer, as am I.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      I fail to see how this connects to the question at hand.
      - zepto 6y ago
        The same opportunity exists for new competitors now as existed when Apple recovered from their near extinction at a time when Microsoft seemed unassailable.
        dredmorbius 6y ago
        What's your basis for that assertion?

zepto 6y ago

> I'll offer an alternative hypothesis: Apple won out because they executed well year over year over year. They made that vertical integration work for them by slowly making things better faster than the competition. You say this is an alternative hypothesis, but it is in complete agreement with me. Without vertical integration they would have been held back by the rest of the industry. Vertical integration is how they were able to move faster.

noptd 6y ago
>Without vertical integration they would have been held back by the rest of the industry. Vertical integration is how they were able to move faster. Without supporting evidence, this is nothing more than a post hoc fallacy.
- zepto 6y ago
  > Without supporting evidence, this is nothing more than a post hoc fallacy. Not really - it could also mean you don’t have industry experience to know what I mean. I’m guessing you weren’t around at the time. The evidence is widely available for you to check out. Just read accounts of how industry committees work and look at how industry alternatives have failed to keep pace with Apple’s proprietary alternatives.

zepto 6y ago

> That sounds nice but can't be true. Remember when Apple almost went out of business? It was the exact same situation then. At that time the company was being run by an executive whose backround was as a flavored soda salesman who tried to adopt Microsoft’s strategy of licensing the OS. That’s why they nearly went out of business. When they returned to the integrated model and stopped trying to compete head to head, their success returned.