The rest of the quote is relevant too: "no demonstrated ability to rescue doomed businesses with (soon-to-be-)failed business models". If you're referring to M

The rest of the quote is relevant too: "no demonstrated ability to rescue doomed businesses with (soon-to-be-)failed business models". If you're referring to Macs, the Macintosh line is more like a luxury clothing brand than a horse-drawn buggy manufacturer. Macs sell because they're commodities that have been dressed up with a luxury veneer[1], like a boutique clothing brand or "luxury"-class car. The perceived (and monetary) value of "luxury" commodities comes from the cachet of owning it more than any increase in value from better quality. Sure, luxury goods do usually have better craftsmanship too, but the high profit margins of luxury brands is pretty good evidence that consumers are paying for more than just the increase in quality. There isn't really any analogue to luxury commodities in the media distribution space. The closest I can think of is HBO, and that's a pretty good model of the future: it's a service you subscribe to if you want it, and it's delivered over a generic pipe. More pure HBO-like entities are the future, except without the artifacts of having to be shoehorned into a cable and satellite distribution system. 1. Some would argue that they're also better from a functional perspective too.