5 ms·

This seems to be the most plausible explanation. I can remember Steve Ballmer, an undeniably intelligent and capable professional, laughing away the idea of the

This seems to be the most plausible explanation. I can remember Steve Ballmer, an undeniably intelligent and capable professional, laughing away the idea of the iPhone doing even single digit percentage market share. I don’t think it was just competitive posturing. He genuinely was down talking what is arguably the most successful consumer product of the last 50 years.

disgruntledphd2 5y ago
I dunno, the PC itself has probably had more overall impact, but on a consumer level, smartphones are probably bigger I guess.
- piyh 5y ago
  Smartphones have more impact. Smartphones are shipped in the billions each year and for most people on the planet it's their first and primary computer. PCs only ship in the 150 million per year range.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    Again, agreed on consumer. On society, definitely the PC as they've transformed pretty much every business and almost every home in the world. Like PC's have been shipping my entire life (approx 40 years), while smartphones (touch screen iPhone like etc) have only been around for the last 14. And how are all smartphone apps developed?
bildung 5y ago
The difference seems to be that Ballmer definitely was an expert for all things commercial/enterprisey (he made MS quite a bit of money during his reign), but not an expert for consumer products.
- sangnoir 5y ago
  > The difference seems to be that Ballmer definitely was an expert for all things commercial... That's exactly what Ballmer was commenting on - the iPhone's $500 price (IIRC) was going to cause sticker shock, had it not been spread over a 24-month contract period. When Job's announced the price, he didn't mention carrier financing.
xnyan 5y ago
Steve Ballmer was making sales projection claims. His biggest objection was cost of the phone, and apple overcame that with carrier financing. He never claimed that was Apple was trying was not physically possible according to our understanding of technology, just that it was too expensive and too different to be popular. Professionals panning Theranos were not doing so because they thought it could not sell, or the cost, or other market-based concerns. They had "what you're saying is not possible based on my understanding of the physical world" concerns, and those questions were never answered at any point because it was a fraud and there was no answer.

disgruntledphd2 5y ago

I dunno, the PC itself has probably had more overall impact, but on a consumer level, smartphones are probably bigger I guess.

piyh 5y ago
Smartphones have more impact. Smartphones are shipped in the billions each year and for most people on the planet it's their first and primary computer. PCs only ship in the 150 million per year range.
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  Again, agreed on consumer. On society, definitely the PC as they've transformed pretty much every business and almost every home in the world. Like PC's have been shipping my entire life (approx 40 years), while smartphones (touch screen iPhone like etc) have only been around for the last 14. And how are all smartphone apps developed?

bildung 5y ago

The difference seems to be that Ballmer definitely was an expert for all things commercial/enterprisey (he made MS quite a bit of money during his reign), but not an expert for consumer products.

sangnoir 5y ago
> The difference seems to be that Ballmer definitely was an expert for all things commercial... That's exactly what Ballmer was commenting on - the iPhone's $500 price (IIRC) was going to cause sticker shock, had it not been spread over a 24-month contract period. When Job's announced the price, he didn't mention carrier financing.

xnyan 5y ago

Steve Ballmer was making sales projection claims. His biggest objection was cost of the phone, and apple overcame that with carrier financing. He never claimed that was Apple was trying was not physically possible according to our understanding of technology, just that it was too expensive and too different to be popular. Professionals panning Theranos were not doing so because they thought it could not sell, or the cost, or other market-based concerns. They had "what you're saying is not possible based on my understanding of the physical world" concerns, and those questions were never answered at any point because it was a fraud and there was no answer.