9 ms·

Apple's New Market

129 points by chmars 12y ago

Glyptodon 12y ago
So... in Star Trek Terms... if they can be the ship's computer for Earth everyone will pay loads for really nice communicators?
- walterbell 12y ago
  HP wants to be the new mainframe for Earth, by developing memristors that they won't sell to anyone except via hosted software.
BobMarz 12y ago
Reasonable assertions followed by breathless hype for the Apple watch.
- IBM 12y ago
  I didn't get that at all. In fact he seems to be suggesting what Apple's thinking may be in terms of the Apple Watch fitting into their strategy.
  - BobMarz 12y ago
    The entire Apple's New Market section is muddled. Apple will "leave smartphones behind" for "foundational services" which are accessed...through a smartphone.
    - XorNot 12y ago
      Its because we're coming to the end of the smartphone boom. Processors are about as fast as they can go within the energy and heat envelope of current technology and displays high enough resolution that they are the start of the VR boom. But the easy gains are gone because no one has any idea how to make a smartphone which will run at full power for 24 hours.
- bobbles 12y ago
  The content of the article relating to the watch boils down to 'this is why it makes sense for Apple to make a watch' and you regard that as hype?
threeseed 12y ago
Actually the complete opposite is happening. Apple isn't modularising. They are unifying. Apple has built a unified SDK for iOS and OSX that has been used in the Photos app. This means that going forward we could see a single development platform across all Apple devices. When you combine this with Continuity and iCloud and it's a pretty big deal. Seamless movement between devices that of course only works with the Apple ecosystem.
- IBM 12y ago
  You've zoomed in on one aspect of Apple while Ben Thompson is looking at the company as a whole. Apple has integrated on what they perceive to be the important parts of the value chain (which is why Apple designs chips but doesn't manufacture them).
- bsilvereagle 12y ago
  > Apple has built a unified SDK for iOS and OSX that has been used in the Photos app. I think the important point about modularizing was about Apple Pay, HomeKit, etc. Apple's interfaces with 3rd party components are modular. Apple is setting up the modular infrastructure for other people to take advantage, not necessarily being modular about how you develop apps for their platform.
LiweiZ 12y ago
I recently think one reason that makes Apple to offer larger screen iPhone is that the Apple Watch may compensate the need for a single hand-held device experience.
alaskamiller 12y ago
Technology has a delayed effect. As in what was high-tech back then is low-tech now. Computers have finally become low-tech. Apple is top heavy, the ones in charge are the ones that scraped to the top and didn't retire or leave. They have with them the ideas that came about and pioneered in the 60's and 70's and are only finally now being in the position and getting around to implementing them. Underneath them is a cadre of management that grew up and holding on to ideas from the 80's and 90's and only are now in a position to suggesting them to someone else with more power and abilities and getting the okay to try them. Apple is really a stack of computing ideas from the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's. Starting with the Macintosh derived from the mother of all demos to now we're finally getting around to implementing the idea of a central mainframe with diskless devices accessing it. A "cloud" with black mirrors everywhere giving you value? Oh, my, that sounds like what Larry Ellison saw as the future with the Network Computer back in 1996. I'm old though. Accepting this new reality that this red-headed stepchild of a computer we used to argue about during elementary school recess about which is better turns out to become the most valuable company in a world and is finally in a position to push through something as magical as instant access to computing everywhere. That is freakin' amazing.
- LiweiZ 12y ago
  Upvoted and really appreciate your comment.
- hrktb 12y ago
  I share the feeling, but at the same time Apple seems to be what Sony was back in the day. They have central very successful products, and are spreading their influence in numerous new markets while betting a lot on artificial restrictions keeping users in their ecosystem. Sony wasn't the biggest company in the world I think, and the game was a lot more primitive back then, but I remember owning a walkman with a Cybershot, a Sony music compo and at the end a matching laptop because all of there where integrated. If I had the money at the time I'd bought a Handicam and a matching TV in a heartbeat. Sony seemed unstoppable, until the pieces just crumbled; there would be way better laptops, the camera market evolved and there were far from keeping in touch with the best players in the field, then the music industry moved on, and keeping the integration going on becomes more and more compromising. With today's Apple, while they are spreading, the same cracks seem to appear to me. They still have very competitive products on each market, but these are more and more compromised as deep design decisions are made and the competition is getting better. As an anecdote, a year ago I broke my iPhone and decided to go android for a few month waiting for the iPhone 6, and surprisingly to me it didn't really matter much in my day to day use, except for the artificial limitations (no iCloud, no iMessage) on the integration. But these limitations instead of being a deal breaker, really forced me to go into Google/third party centric services on my laptop/ipad/other family members devices. In a Apple heavy household there is now one device that forces the others to change service providers for central things like email, messaging, calendar, online storage, and the thing is it's not really difficult nor handicapping, the pros and cons balance very well. Interestingly enough, with Apple Pay, Apple is starting to step on the feet of the new Sony who've been investing in payment processing and ecosystem for so many years now. TLDR; I think Apple has started playing a game that put them in a position where they have to be better than everyone else at basically everything. Right now I don't think they are at the top of their game, especially in giving options to their customers or software quality/reliability. So, while they have a ton of money and are super successful, I think there is even bigger pitfalls waiting for them ahead. Hope they don't fall.
Touche 12y ago
> There is perhaps no idea this blog has litigated against more fiercely than the idea of low-end disruption and the inevitable doom of the iPhone. They have been disrupted in markets where phones compete on price. Their most successful market, by a wide margin, is the one where phones are capped at $200. The comparison to BMW that is often made is laughable. If only BMW sold to dealerships who then turned around and sold the car for the same price as a Toyota. It's a droll-worthy position to be in, that's for sure. It would be interesting to see how the U.S. market changed if there were no subsidies. My guess is that payment plans would be more common so it wouldn't be such a tremendous blow. But I always wonder if "good enough" Nexus style devices would become more popular and the Galaxy Ses and iPhones a little bit less.
- dntrkv 12y ago
  Carriers in the US are already moving away from the subsidized model. Verizon has the Edge program where you make monthly payments on the phone for the duration of your contract, but interest-free. Your payments are setup to last the full length of the contract, if you would like to leave the contract, all you have to do is pay the rest of the balance you owe on the phone.
  - cwp 12y ago
    T-Mobile does the same thing. You can also buy unlocked iPhones directly from Apple. I've done it 4 times - 3G, 4S, 5C and now the 6. I bet Apple sells millions of them at full price, even in countries where subsidies are available.
- m_mueller 12y ago
  One of our networks in Switzerland (Sunrise) has a really innovative subscription model: They give you a cheapish subscription that's completely independent of the phone (~25-40$/m depending on whether you need unlimited free calls etc.) and which you can cancel/modify with every month. Then they offer you a leasing contract for your phone where you choose yourself how many monthly payments you'd like to make (payment per month inverse proportionate to the contract duration). At the end you can have about the same total cost of ownership as before, but you're much more flexible. The leasing contract amounts to ~5-8% interest on the upfront price for the whole duration and it's not dependent on how you set it up. So, I wonder how many people will opt to just buy it up front now, when the subsidy isn't hidden anymore. It could also have a negative impact because some people will find it too complicated, however the widely trusted consumer review and comparison sites all give it a big thumbs up, so I think many will figure out why it's better.
squozzer 12y ago
What the article doesn't explain or maybe cannot is that apple's strategy, if correctly stated, depends upon two factors: 1) the willingness of others to produce things that integrate with the iPhone; 2) how much trust end users are willing to place in apple.
npalli 12y ago
Strange that he thinks Xiaomi is the company of reference for this gigantic new market, when Google has very good alternatives for each one of the services. Whatever you might think of the Google versions, hard to see how Xiaomi will get more traction than Google outside of China. Homekit -- Google Nest with Android Home. Carplay -- Android Auto, not to mention what crazy things the self driving cars research will provide. Apple Pay -- Google Wallet Siri -- Google Now HealthKit -- Google Fit EDIT: BTW, I see that his refutation of Christensen hinges on the nebulous "user experience". It is not clear what "user experience" or the often repeated most Apple-like quality "design" actually entails. For a very good analysis of the pitfalls of just using “design” as a strategy to create market-defining products at Path, Dropbox, Square, Medium is by a designer http://mokriya.com/designer-duds-losing-seat-table/ http://mokriya.com/designer-duds-losing-seat-table/ Why Apple is successful today, when its core principles have remained pretty much constant over the entire history is to be found outside Apple.
- schoolixer 12y ago
  I'd hazard to say that the nebulous "user experience" advantage for Apple boils down to consistently committing to integration of a handful of products. Google seems to have an iterative sink or swim approach with many products (often overlapping) and to a lesser extent, so does Amazon.
  - npalli 12y ago
    > I'd hazard to say that the nebulous "user experience" advantage for Apple boils down to consistently committing to integration of a handful of products. This is a good example of what I'm talking about. You have redefined user experience to mean something that most people will not think of. Even giving you that, look at the current iPhone setup. Leaving aside the carrier aspect, you can buy worldwide a new iphone 4s,5c,5s,6,6plus in multiple colors and sizes. basically 3.5", 4", 4.6" and 5.5" screen for a phone. With prices points from $250 to $1000 in minor increments. In contrast, Google has only one phone currently on sale the Nexus 5. The 'focus', 'handful of products' mantra is repeated but is not true. Frankly, the only thing missing is the stylus and adding it would cover the entire gamut.
AdeptusAquinas 12y ago
While technically the iPhone keeps getting better and better, and Apple has all these other initiatives that make it and its ecosystem impressive, I would doubt that this has anything to do with their massive profits. It might be why a lot of techies buy the phone (though I'm still loyal to my Lumia :)) but surely the primary reason remains the fact that the iPhone is a premier fashion item and/or has most of the apps?
- adamlett 12y ago
  > the primary reason remains the fact that the iPhone is a premier fashion item But what does that mean? _Why_ is the iPhone a fashion item and other phones are not? Why does the iPhone command such a high degree of customer loyalty compared to its competitors? Perhaps it's not what you meant, but when I read the argument that the iPhone is only/primarily successful because it's a fashion item, I feels like what is implied is that the iPhone as a product is similar to it's competitors and is only differentiated by better marketing. Which I think is BS. But if it were true, it would be even more astounding, considering Apple spends only a fraction of the amount Samsung does on marketing.
  - ttty 12y ago
    status
  - tonyedgecombe 12y ago
    There is no doubt when the original iPhone came out it was streets ahead of the competition, the likes of Nokia and Blackberry had become complacent, Apple turned the industry upside down. The competition hasn't stood still since then though, the difference between a Lumia a Samsung and an iPhone much. So why do people continue to pay a large premium for a small increase (if any) in functionality?
    - girvo 12y ago
      A large premium? Outright, an iPhone is the same price as a Galaxy S5/Note. The Lumia on the other hand is much cheaper, which is one of the reasons my girlfriend wanted a 930 for Christmas (which I got her), the other being that she really likes Windows Phone. I personally prefer the iPhone, but I use Apple everything.
kh_hk 12y ago
Hey, that's Google's new market too! They foresee a dystopian future with driverless cars, intelligent ads, perfect synergy and communication between our brains through implants. It's dystopic not because of what it promises, but how much control these providers will get over public services. Pure Philip K. Dick. Welcome Google, Apple and Amazon, the companies of the future, the companies that help us on our most mundane and daily tasks. From waking up, drinking coffee, conmuting, working and going to bed. Of course, this keeps their stock value high, not doing it, but reaching for it. Cannot really blame them.
- bobbles 12y ago
  You don't have to use their services or products
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    Not yet. A few years/decades after self-driving cars become common, though, I wouldn't be shocked to see manually driven cars banned or strictly limited for safety reasons. What then?
    - freehunter 12y ago
      Then there will likely be several companies competing in the self-driving car market? It's not like when horse and buggy went out of fashion, we all had to rush out and buy a Ford.
      - ceejayoz 12y ago
        Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. compete in the smartphone world but all are privacy disasters in one way or another. I don't expect things like self-driving cars to buck that trend.
tim333 12y ago
The Steve Jobs quote mentioned about bicycles for the mind is cool https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob_GX50Za6c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob_GX50Za6c . I know it's old but I hadn't seen it before. The rest of the article is kind of intellectual mush starting from saying "litigated against" in the first sentence when he hasn't and continuing in a similar vein.
- monkbent 12y ago
  Perhaps I should litigate against people that say I haven't when they can't be bothered to follow the very next link in the next sentence: http://stratechery.com/2013/clayton-christensen-got-wrong/ http://stratechery.com/2013/clayton-christensen-got-wrong/ Or this one, linked a few paragraphs later: http://stratechery.com/2013/obsoletive/ http://stratechery.com/2013/obsoletive/ Here's another one, for good measure: http://stratechery.com/2014/best/ http://stratechery.com/2014/best/ So actually, I have. Mush indeed.
  - peteretep 12y ago
    You know that when a dictionary calls a definition of a word "archaic", they mean "no longer correct", right? Using "litigate" to simply mean "argue against" or "dispute" is to confusingly misuse the word.
    - simonh 12y ago
      > when a dictionary calls a definition of a word "archaic", they mean "no longer correct", I just checked a few dictionary definitions of 'archaic' and none of them say anything about no longer being correct.
      - peteretep 12y ago
        OED lists as: > Belonging to an earlier period, no longer in common use, > though still retained either by individuals, or > generally, for special purposes, poetical, liturgical If "no longer in common use" or "for special purposes" doesn't mean incorrect in an entirely consensus-driven language, what does? It gives a motivating example of "obleege", for oblige, which I note my spell-checker has helpfully underlined in red.
benwen 12y ago
Apple Pocket Phone http://blog.benwen.com/opinion/product/2015/01/29/apple-pocket-phone/ http://blog.benwen.com/opinion/product/2015/01/29/apple-pock...

129 points by chmars 12y ago

So... in Star Trek Terms... if they can be the ship's computer for Earth everyone will pay loads for really nice communicators?

walterbell 12y ago
HP wants to be the new mainframe for Earth, by developing memristors that they won't sell to anyone except via hosted software.

BobMarz 12y ago

Reasonable assertions followed by breathless hype for the Apple watch.

IBM 12y ago
I didn't get that at all. In fact he seems to be suggesting what Apple's thinking may be in terms of the Apple Watch fitting into their strategy.
- BobMarz 12y ago
  The entire Apple's New Market section is muddled. Apple will "leave smartphones behind" for "foundational services" which are accessed...through a smartphone.
  - XorNot 12y ago
    Its because we're coming to the end of the smartphone boom. Processors are about as fast as they can go within the energy and heat envelope of current technology and displays high enough resolution that they are the start of the VR boom. But the easy gains are gone because no one has any idea how to make a smartphone which will run at full power for 24 hours.
bobbles 12y ago
The content of the article relating to the watch boils down to 'this is why it makes sense for Apple to make a watch' and you regard that as hype?

threeseed 12y ago

Actually the complete opposite is happening. Apple isn't modularising. They are unifying. Apple has built a unified SDK for iOS and OSX that has been used in the Photos app. This means that going forward we could see a single development platform across all Apple devices. When you combine this with Continuity and iCloud and it's a pretty big deal. Seamless movement between devices that of course only works with the Apple ecosystem.

IBM 12y ago
You've zoomed in on one aspect of Apple while Ben Thompson is looking at the company as a whole. Apple has integrated on what they perceive to be the important parts of the value chain (which is why Apple designs chips but doesn't manufacture them).
bsilvereagle 12y ago
> Apple has built a unified SDK for iOS and OSX that has been used in the Photos app. I think the important point about modularizing was about Apple Pay, HomeKit, etc. Apple's interfaces with 3rd party components are modular. Apple is setting up the modular infrastructure for other people to take advantage, not necessarily being modular about how you develop apps for their platform.

LiweiZ 12y ago

I recently think one reason that makes Apple to offer larger screen iPhone is that the Apple Watch may compensate the need for a single hand-held device experience.

alaskamiller 12y ago

Technology has a delayed effect. As in what was high-tech back then is low-tech now. Computers have finally become low-tech. Apple is top heavy, the ones in charge are the ones that scraped to the top and didn't retire or leave. They have with them the ideas that came about and pioneered in the 60's and 70's and are only finally now being in the position and getting around to implementing them. Underneath them is a cadre of management that grew up and holding on to ideas from the 80's and 90's and only are now in a position to suggesting them to someone else with more power and abilities and getting the okay to try them. Apple is really a stack of computing ideas from the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's. Starting with the Macintosh derived from the mother of all demos to now we're finally getting around to implementing the idea of a central mainframe with diskless devices accessing it. A "cloud" with black mirrors everywhere giving you value? Oh, my, that sounds like what Larry Ellison saw as the future with the Network Computer back in 1996. I'm old though. Accepting this new reality that this red-headed stepchild of a computer we used to argue about during elementary school recess about which is better turns out to become the most valuable company in a world and is finally in a position to push through something as magical as instant access to computing everywhere. That is freakin' amazing.

LiweiZ 12y ago
Upvoted and really appreciate your comment.
hrktb 12y ago
I share the feeling, but at the same time Apple seems to be what Sony was back in the day. They have central very successful products, and are spreading their influence in numerous new markets while betting a lot on artificial restrictions keeping users in their ecosystem. Sony wasn't the biggest company in the world I think, and the game was a lot more primitive back then, but I remember owning a walkman with a Cybershot, a Sony music compo and at the end a matching laptop because all of there where integrated. If I had the money at the time I'd bought a Handicam and a matching TV in a heartbeat. Sony seemed unstoppable, until the pieces just crumbled; there would be way better laptops, the camera market evolved and there were far from keeping in touch with the best players in the field, then the music industry moved on, and keeping the integration going on becomes more and more compromising. With today's Apple, while they are spreading, the same cracks seem to appear to me. They still have very competitive products on each market, but these are more and more compromised as deep design decisions are made and the competition is getting better. As an anecdote, a year ago I broke my iPhone and decided to go android for a few month waiting for the iPhone 6, and surprisingly to me it didn't really matter much in my day to day use, except for the artificial limitations (no iCloud, no iMessage) on the integration. But these limitations instead of being a deal breaker, really forced me to go into Google/third party centric services on my laptop/ipad/other family members devices. In a Apple heavy household there is now one device that forces the others to change service providers for central things like email, messaging, calendar, online storage, and the thing is it's not really difficult nor handicapping, the pros and cons balance very well. Interestingly enough, with Apple Pay, Apple is starting to step on the feet of the new Sony who've been investing in payment processing and ecosystem for so many years now. TLDR; I think Apple has started playing a game that put them in a position where they have to be better than everyone else at basically everything. Right now I don't think they are at the top of their game, especially in giving options to their customers or software quality/reliability. So, while they have a ton of money and are super successful, I think there is even bigger pitfalls waiting for them ahead. Hope they don't fall.

Touche 12y ago

> There is perhaps no idea this blog has litigated against more fiercely than the idea of low-end disruption and the inevitable doom of the iPhone. They have been disrupted in markets where phones compete on price. Their most successful market, by a wide margin, is the one where phones are capped at $200. The comparison to BMW that is often made is laughable. If only BMW sold to dealerships who then turned around and sold the car for the same price as a Toyota. It's a droll-worthy position to be in, that's for sure. It would be interesting to see how the U.S. market changed if there were no subsidies. My guess is that payment plans would be more common so it wouldn't be such a tremendous blow. But I always wonder if "good enough" Nexus style devices would become more popular and the Galaxy Ses and iPhones a little bit less.

dntrkv 12y ago
Carriers in the US are already moving away from the subsidized model. Verizon has the Edge program where you make monthly payments on the phone for the duration of your contract, but interest-free. Your payments are setup to last the full length of the contract, if you would like to leave the contract, all you have to do is pay the rest of the balance you owe on the phone.
- cwp 12y ago
  T-Mobile does the same thing. You can also buy unlocked iPhones directly from Apple. I've done it 4 times - 3G, 4S, 5C and now the 6. I bet Apple sells millions of them at full price, even in countries where subsidies are available.
m_mueller 12y ago
One of our networks in Switzerland (Sunrise) has a really innovative subscription model: They give you a cheapish subscription that's completely independent of the phone (~25-40$/m depending on whether you need unlimited free calls etc.) and which you can cancel/modify with every month. Then they offer you a leasing contract for your phone where you choose yourself how many monthly payments you'd like to make (payment per month inverse proportionate to the contract duration). At the end you can have about the same total cost of ownership as before, but you're much more flexible. The leasing contract amounts to ~5-8% interest on the upfront price for the whole duration and it's not dependent on how you set it up. So, I wonder how many people will opt to just buy it up front now, when the subsidy isn't hidden anymore. It could also have a negative impact because some people will find it too complicated, however the widely trusted consumer review and comparison sites all give it a big thumbs up, so I think many will figure out why it's better.

squozzer 12y ago

What the article doesn't explain or maybe cannot is that apple's strategy, if correctly stated, depends upon two factors: 1) the willingness of others to produce things that integrate with the iPhone; 2) how much trust end users are willing to place in apple.

npalli 12y ago

Strange that he thinks Xiaomi is the company of reference for this gigantic new market, when Google has very good alternatives for each one of the services. Whatever you might think of the Google versions, hard to see how Xiaomi will get more traction than Google outside of China. Homekit -- Google Nest with Android Home. Carplay -- Android Auto, not to mention what crazy things the self driving cars research will provide. Apple Pay -- Google Wallet Siri -- Google Now HealthKit -- Google Fit EDIT: BTW, I see that his refutation of Christensen hinges on the nebulous "user experience". It is not clear what "user experience" or the often repeated most Apple-like quality "design" actually entails. For a very good analysis of the pitfalls of just using “design” as a strategy to create market-defining products at Path, Dropbox, Square, Medium is by a designer http://mokriya.com/designer-duds-losing-seat-table/ http://mokriya.com/designer-duds-losing-seat-table/ Why Apple is successful today, when its core principles have remained pretty much constant over the entire history is to be found outside Apple.

schoolixer 12y ago
I'd hazard to say that the nebulous "user experience" advantage for Apple boils down to consistently committing to integration of a handful of products. Google seems to have an iterative sink or swim approach with many products (often overlapping) and to a lesser extent, so does Amazon.
- npalli 12y ago
  > I'd hazard to say that the nebulous "user experience" advantage for Apple boils down to consistently committing to integration of a handful of products. This is a good example of what I'm talking about. You have redefined user experience to mean something that most people will not think of. Even giving you that, look at the current iPhone setup. Leaving aside the carrier aspect, you can buy worldwide a new iphone 4s,5c,5s,6,6plus in multiple colors and sizes. basically 3.5", 4", 4.6" and 5.5" screen for a phone. With prices points from $250 to $1000 in minor increments. In contrast, Google has only one phone currently on sale the Nexus 5. The 'focus', 'handful of products' mantra is repeated but is not true. Frankly, the only thing missing is the stylus and adding it would cover the entire gamut.

AdeptusAquinas 12y ago

While technically the iPhone keeps getting better and better, and Apple has all these other initiatives that make it and its ecosystem impressive, I would doubt that this has anything to do with their massive profits. It might be why a lot of techies buy the phone (though I'm still loyal to my Lumia :)) but surely the primary reason remains the fact that the iPhone is a premier fashion item and/or has most of the apps?

adamlett 12y ago
> the primary reason remains the fact that the iPhone is a premier fashion item But what does that mean? _Why_ is the iPhone a fashion item and other phones are not? Why does the iPhone command such a high degree of customer loyalty compared to its competitors? Perhaps it's not what you meant, but when I read the argument that the iPhone is only/primarily successful because it's a fashion item, I feels like what is implied is that the iPhone as a product is similar to it's competitors and is only differentiated by better marketing. Which I think is BS. But if it were true, it would be even more astounding, considering Apple spends only a fraction of the amount Samsung does on marketing.
- ttty 12y ago
  status
- tonyedgecombe 12y ago
  There is no doubt when the original iPhone came out it was streets ahead of the competition, the likes of Nokia and Blackberry had become complacent, Apple turned the industry upside down. The competition hasn't stood still since then though, the difference between a Lumia a Samsung and an iPhone much. So why do people continue to pay a large premium for a small increase (if any) in functionality?
  - girvo 12y ago
    A large premium? Outright, an iPhone is the same price as a Galaxy S5/Note. The Lumia on the other hand is much cheaper, which is one of the reasons my girlfriend wanted a 930 for Christmas (which I got her), the other being that she really likes Windows Phone. I personally prefer the iPhone, but I use Apple everything.

kh_hk 12y ago

Hey, that's Google's new market too! They foresee a dystopian future with driverless cars, intelligent ads, perfect synergy and communication between our brains through implants. It's dystopic not because of what it promises, but how much control these providers will get over public services. Pure Philip K. Dick. Welcome Google, Apple and Amazon, the companies of the future, the companies that help us on our most mundane and daily tasks. From waking up, drinking coffee, conmuting, working and going to bed. Of course, this keeps their stock value high, not doing it, but reaching for it. Cannot really blame them.

bobbles 12y ago
You don't have to use their services or products
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  Not yet. A few years/decades after self-driving cars become common, though, I wouldn't be shocked to see manually driven cars banned or strictly limited for safety reasons. What then?
  - freehunter 12y ago
    Then there will likely be several companies competing in the self-driving car market? It's not like when horse and buggy went out of fashion, we all had to rush out and buy a Ford.
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. compete in the smartphone world but all are privacy disasters in one way or another. I don't expect things like self-driving cars to buck that trend.

tim333 12y ago

The Steve Jobs quote mentioned about bicycles for the mind is cool https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob_GX50Za6c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob_GX50Za6c . I know it's old but I hadn't seen it before. The rest of the article is kind of intellectual mush starting from saying "litigated against" in the first sentence when he hasn't and continuing in a similar vein.

monkbent 12y ago
Perhaps I should litigate against people that say I haven't when they can't be bothered to follow the very next link in the next sentence: http://stratechery.com/2013/clayton-christensen-got-wrong/ http://stratechery.com/2013/clayton-christensen-got-wrong/ Or this one, linked a few paragraphs later: http://stratechery.com/2013/obsoletive/ http://stratechery.com/2013/obsoletive/ Here's another one, for good measure: http://stratechery.com/2014/best/ http://stratechery.com/2014/best/ So actually, I have. Mush indeed.
- peteretep 12y ago
  You know that when a dictionary calls a definition of a word "archaic", they mean "no longer correct", right? Using "litigate" to simply mean "argue against" or "dispute" is to confusingly misuse the word.
  - simonh 12y ago
    > when a dictionary calls a definition of a word "archaic", they mean "no longer correct", I just checked a few dictionary definitions of 'archaic' and none of them say anything about no longer being correct.
    - peteretep 12y ago
      OED lists as: > Belonging to an earlier period, no longer in common use, > though still retained either by individuals, or > generally, for special purposes, poetical, liturgical If "no longer in common use" or "for special purposes" doesn't mean incorrect in an entirely consensus-driven language, what does? It gives a motivating example of "obleege", for oblige, which I note my spell-checker has helpfully underlined in red.

benwen 12y ago

Apple Pocket Phone http://blog.benwen.com/opinion/product/2015/01/29/apple-pocket-phone/ http://blog.benwen.com/opinion/product/2015/01/29/apple-pock...