Subscribe: Hey, Apple, Wake Up -- It's Happening Again
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade C rated
Language: English
android  apple  apps  business  google  hardware  iphone  mac  market share  market  microsoft  mobile  phone  share  windows 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Hey, Apple, Wake Up -- It's Happening Again

Hey, Apple, Wake Up -- It's Happening Again

Henry Blodget

Published: Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500

Last Build Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:45:02 -0400



Fri, 07 Jan 2011 04:52:13 -0500

Any application, on any platform, can wake up computers running on any other .... Apple's Apple Remote Desktop client management system can be used to send. ------------------------------ 3 mobile phones

Norman Karl

Fri, 24 Dec 2010 06:04:14 -0500

There will always be such competition between the big manufacturers like Apple and Microsoft, over computers and mobile phonnes as it is such a competitive marketplace.

Ahmad Spain Al-Saheb

Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:38:45 -0500

As a person that once had the privelage(or not) to be around Steve Jobs for about an hour a few years back, I can honestly say he is not nice. He was beligerent, nasty and sardonical. Funny Videos And after about an half an hour all World Technology could think about was, you may be richer than me BUT in the octagon I can so kick your Top Sports. Hot News


Fri, 26 Nov 2010 03:13:28 -0500

is it talking about Apple Inc or New york?


Fri, 26 Nov 2010 01:04:55 -0500

:) :) :)


Fri, 24 Sep 2010 20:46:27 -0400

as soon as the hardware catches up, every FREE PHONE, and premium phone will be running Android not iOS. Developers will want to develop for the masses, not the 10% apple minority.

quality link building

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:27:58 -0400

i love quality link building. It really helps my rankings.

Neil Denham

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 02:45:11 -0400

Windows wasn't open at all, in any meaningful way. It made it possible for a basic set of hardware to run the latest version of their OS. In theory, that was "open," but actually, it gave all the garages in the world, including do-it-yourselfers, the power to make "an IBM PC." IBM stupidity allowed Microsoft to grab the software and keep the rights to it. Wow. That's stupid. The "IBM compatible" PC was born, and MS DOS ran on it. Apple II's were for hobbyists, education, and the basic fan. Neither Jobs nor Wozniak were all that solicitous of "business." That was for Gates and co. Where the monopoly really came from is the untold story: business decided on DOS, because the generic computers it ran on were cheap, and Microsoft did a good job of running in a business environment. Businesses buy in great chunks with purchase orders. Now, the business community wants Exchange compatibility, the ability of an IT guy to manage its data centrally and so on. This isn't true of the Google phone. Do you think Google will get the licenses for syncing to Exchange? Isn't Google much more of a threat to Windows than the Mac is? Read more:


Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:51:38 -0400

you mean the same thing that is happening now where Apple has more market Cap than MSFT, and as of this quarter, more revenues and more profits? great we get to see it all over again... thanks for letting us know....


Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:57:55 -0400

American people love to see falls from grace. It's an institution here like the Super Bowl. Fact is, regardless of the many Apple-haters including the author of this piece, Apple is and will be the best mobile technology company for decades to come. From iPod to iTunes and now iPad, detractors have submitted there Apple doomsday forecasts and criticisms about how they're screwing up only to be smacked in the kisser with record breaking sales.LMAO. stop hating and either continue to use cheaper and inferior products or come aboard. That simple. Have you ever read the average demographics for consumers of Apple products? More educated, paid and creative people. I WONDER WHY. No offense to close minded broke people but I don't think Jobs made products with you in mind so save your breath. I don't think BMW or Lexus cares about consumers who bitch about price and cry that if they "opened" their vehicles to using cheap stereos and engine components, more consumers could afford them...HELLO, they don't want your broke ass driving them if you can't afford top shelf go to KIA. Dig? So now we here how android is outselling iPhone. DUHHHHH. we're talking about how many devices spanned across how many carriers including how many buy 1 get 50 free giveaway subsidies? Laughable to even compare that to iPhone. One device on one carrier. Furthermore, any 2nd grader knows it isn't just the device that people love, it is the Apple experience, simple and enjoyable UIs and integration with all other devices you own. No one in the current landscape, (GOOGLE, Microsoft, RIM) have a business model even approaching what Apple has built. This has been Jobs vision since the late 80s these other companies are just imitating a d trying to hire Apple ex execs to recreate some magic. See that Palm iphone killer (wutchamacallit?), kin, storm, etc. Etc. LAUGHABLE. Unless GOOGLE, or Microsoft can design an all inclusive gaming, music, movie, podcast, online education and book distribution software with deals with most major content providers and media channels preinstalled (on what is it over 100 million idevices now?) that makes purchasing and installing a one click proces, then I think u haters will have plenty to hate about for decades to A software developer by trade, I'd like to see Apple make changes and they have and continue too. As with anything nothing is perfect...not even apple. However, Im not even remotely interested in developing for android. Every device has a different screen, buttons, ui, etc. Etc. Plus they have cultivated a sea of cheap, free wanting consumers who are conditioned to expect heaven for free without dying. Fail. Designing on emulators is not an effective business model, any developer will tell you that most bugs must be created on an actual device to truly fix. Anyways, as with all these other posts...this is just my take....for facts...SEE APPLE SALES FIGURES. L M A O


Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:04:31 -0400

Oh, and Apple is doing something differently this time - they are working hard to protect their iOS apps advantage for as long as they can: Ultimately, their efforts won't work, though. Mobile apps generally are less complicated than desktop apps and software in general is easier to port these days. As an example of how easy it is to lose the advantage, both Palm and Microsoft saw their huge application advantages with PalmOS and WindowsCE simply evaporate in a matter of a few years (both were dominant in 2005 and, in 2010, other than vertical markets, there is little interest in either). Palm (webOS), and now Microsoft (Phone 7), each created new platforms with no built-in backward compatibility. Android is already rapidly catching up on number and quality of apps. Developers will increasingly target Android first because it will have the largest installed base. And Apple's strong-arming of developers could have the opposite effect and backfire as time goes on. As Apple's relative market share drops in relation to Android, Apple will increasingly need developers more than developers need Apple - this probably won't happen for another 1-2 years, though.


Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:30:41 -0400

>>Will Apple's insistence on maintaining end-to-end control, on trying to shoot the moon by owning every aspect of the mobile computing business, doom it to failure against a competitor hell-bent on achieving software ubiquity? Yes. Apple should have licensed iOS in 2008 or 2009 - they would have been the new Windows in the Mobile OS space. Now Android is well on it's way to being the dominant, standard OS in mobile. In 2011, we'll see Apple start to be where they were in the early 90s - if Apple tries to license their OS, there would be few takers and it would only hurt their hardware margins. So they're basically trapped in the same position (of their own making). iPads might be the dominant tablet right now (mostly have the market to themselves at the moment), but we'll see a similar scenario play in out in tablets in 2011. Android will be catch up and pass Apple. And we'll have to see how RIMM and HP do.

Fjord Prefect

Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:44:08 -0400

It's a much different situation than Windows vs. Mac (which I have been present for since 1983). For example, the popularity of the iPhone has allowed a huge third-party accessory market to develop over the last few years, itself being an extension from the wildly popular iPod accessory market. I can walk down the aisle of any CVS, Wal-Mart, etc. and find vast amounts of cases, FM transmitters, speakers, alarm clocks, and screen protectors for my iPhone. Not so on the Android platform. Why? Because there's too many different devices out there. Want a case for your Droid X? Sorry, but we have one for the Evo. People want to pimp their phones and the best platform for that will always be the iPhone simply because there's only one form factor to consider.

Jibran Ayub

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 03:19:16 -0400

monalisaThat being said, they are tools -- use them as such and leave it at that. Or.. just be an Apple fanboy and shake an angry fist at the sky. Just like every technology, something else is going to come along -- bet on it! learn golf cambridge


Tue, 20 Jul 2010 06:08:15 -0400

They are awesome machines, but having to spend a few hundreds bucks to fix it after 1 year made me mad. I gave it to my sister (which was very happy). For me, no more. It is not worth the trouble. Wrath of the Lich King


Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:18:56 -0400

I'm so glad I found this article because while I'm not a tech writer and I can't air my feelings so easily. 25 years of computer use and business experience have given me a decent vision. I have been saying the same thing to all of my friends. Google is going to squash Apple into juice because Steve Jobs is brilliant but arrogant, controlling, and stuborn. Jobs did'nt learn then and he's clearly not making the right move today. He thinks that his great ideas and control over hardware is the only way.. and maybe it's best BUT in a free market society with competition - Jobs loses. . Android is going to become ubiquitous on handsets and development and money will all go that way. Google needs to release a music program like iTunes and it's game over. OSX is fantastic ... but Windows 7 is just as good. I don't think chrome OS is going to take it's toll on OSX but watch all the Touch Pads that come out...And that will be another way HTC, Samsung, and more can take their share of the iPad market. Software development at Apple is weak and slow., iCal, Address book, and Safari are all weak. is so disappointing and pathetic that I dream of the day that Outlook arrives. Apple would be so much better if they actually listened to their customers and gave us what we asked for. I mean... how could they really come out with the iPad without a cam? At that point, I realized Apple wasn't the company i fell in love with 11 years ago. or facetime without the desktop connector to it.. and include chat. NO THANKS...


Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:36:30 -0400

ehi you Blodget, look at this :)

Jack Woltz

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:05:44 -0400

At some point of the discussion I felt sorry for Henry Blodget in a similar way that I felt sorry for Zuckerberg at the D8. Good I couldn't see the Henry face, like with Zuckerberg's, which give me the guilty sensation. I can't say poor Zuck cuz he's a billionare, (but still human), but then, poor Henry for being so lost, but onto his own fault for being so annoying: "10% MARKET SHARE" "SAME MOVIE" "BLA BLA BLA, hit me in the face"


Mon, 28 Jun 2010 13:39:08 -0400

The Android fragmentation 'issue' is phony. Your argument would hold water if developers weren't able to easily and cheaply (free) emulate all possible targets. The reverse is true for itunes. The single market place is strangling develpers. Apple is artificially holding developers back based on their singular view of their brand. This is their right, but also their problem.


Mon, 28 Jun 2010 13:26:07 -0400

Actually, I bought a Droid because as a developer I prefer an open platform.


Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:49:24 -0400

You guys don't use emulation? For small dev houses I don't see why you don't just run your code on virtual targets for the platforms you don't have or don't plan on getting. I've been having good results with that. The fragmentation 'issue' to me is limited to those folks whose code is relying on specific hardward features (memory requirements, accelerometer, etc) that not all handsets support. It really isn't a big deal for me as my apps are just using the network interface which always exists.


Mon, 14 Jun 2010 04:19:47 -0400

But my point does explain why they did not go with both. :)


Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:10:21 -0500

Looks like a case of the fan-boys strike again. Whether I disagree with Blodget or not, seeing the post above that pastes from "Mac daily news" where they attack the Android for no reason other than to garner "feel-good" points among the vocal App-fandom, just annoys me. I'd gather the majority of Apple fans who talk crap have never used an Android phone, while there are a great deal of current Android users who used to be iPhone users. My office has 3 converts. But that's purely anecdotal -- I've had two iPhones and I like my own Android better, I believe it offers a better environment and it does things (SIMPLE THINGS) that my iPhone would not do. That being said, they are tools -- use them as such and leave it at that. Or.. just be an Apple fanboy and shake an angry fist at the sky. Just like every technology, something else is going to come along -- bet on it!

Robert Collings

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:29:57 -0500

It's never been clearer that Blodget has no idea about that which he talks. Actually, that's not fair: it's been plenty clear for quite some time.

Neil Anderson

Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:47:22 -0500

My toy runs Unix. :D


Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:33:15 -0500

Yes, 1997, hence the "was"

Ron H

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:07:59 -0500

Apple vs Google Apple’s integrated “whole product” approach. Comparing competition in the mobile communications market between Apple and Google to Apple’s competition with Microsoft in the PC marketplace naively overlooks several very significant factors affecting the PC market which simply do not exist today in the mobile communications market. IBM Dominance in early PC marketplace: Being “IBM compatible” trumped innovation. The decision made by a purchaser of PC technology was not seen as a decision between Apple vs Microsoft, nor Apple vs Wintel, but rather Apple vs “IBM compatible”. The reality in the marketplace for those making PC buying decisions was that you would never lose your job by buying IBM or “IBM compatible”. The significance of this factor cannot be overstated in influencing PC buyers to chose “IBM compatible”, and therefore Microsoft operating system software. As IBM viewed the PC as a “toy” which was deemed not strategically important to their business, they created the specifications and then essentially gave away the business to Microsoft, Intel and other PC manufacturers. Any technology innovator, such as Apple, that did not conform to “IBM compatible” was fighting an almost insurmountable hurdle. No such factor exists in today’s technology marketplace, let alone in the nascent and evolving mobile communications market. IT Department “gatekeepers”: The PC purchase decision was being made by IT departments, who were heavily influenced by 3 significant factors: 1) IBM compatibility (as mentioned above) 2) job security and 3) cost of the hardware and software. The concept of “Total Cost of Ownership”, which takes into account the costs of the IT department required to install, configure, update, and maintain, wasn’t considered, and even today is often ignored, in part because it conflicts with factor number 2, which is job security for the IT department. This contrasts heavily with purchase decisions today, in part, because technology users are no longer dependent on the IT Department to support their individual purchases. Corporate/early adopter market vs Consumer Mass Market: The more significant factor, however, is that the market for mobile communications is a consumer based mass market, as opposed to an “early adopter” or corporate technology market. In a consumer based mass market, what is critical is providing the “whole product”, a concept Geoffrey Moore discusses in his book Crossing the Chasm. Apple is the master at providing the “whole product” because that has always been their approach, while every other technology company has focused on providing only a piece of the puzzle, be it software, hardware, services, etc. The “whole product” concept is why Apple was so successful with the iPod, as no other company pulled all the pieces together into an integrated “whole product”. Now Apple is taking the “whole product” concept even further, and will be providing an integrated “whole eco system” for mobile communications and mobile computing, integrated with your desktop and your home entertainment system. Apple is the only company with the expertise to pull all the pieces together and offer an integrated “whole product” or “whole eco system”, as they now have decades of experience developing [...]


Sat, 09 Jan 2010 10:02:08 -0500

wow. points for creativity...


Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:57:59 -0500

Apple goes right away to his own deathbed cause back in late 80', their hardwares sucks, OS 9 sucks, Copland was a mistake, and they suffer from the clone war story. Microsoft came along with "not that bad" softwares solutions and a pretty aggressive marketing strategy: they win. It was also a good decade for alternative OSes like Solaris, IBM OS2, Next, BeOS, ... Nowdays, Apple hardware platforms are far away from competitors, theirs OSes (iPhoneOS and Snow Leopard) are far far away better than any other (a PC with the same hardware + polished skin can't be found significantly cheaper from other brands) and the OS war is over. Sorry, but you're wrong: the late 90' Apple story is more or less what Palm is going threw today... and i wouldn't be so amaze that Nokia or Samsung get 49% auctions of Palm in coming years (like M$ has done previously with Apple). Not to say that Apple was one of the only IT company that make significant profits in 2K9! you should also take something in account: Internet. Things are not the same and closed/non compatible/uniplaform-technologies are over. Welcome open APIs, cross-platform softwares/protocols, Saas, web apps, ... your OS today is more or less "just" saving the best i can you battery/stand-by mode, and host a web browser/wifi connection. Remember: it's 2010! Encarta is dead, Google and Wikipedia kills it.


Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:17:30 -0500

I think a whole lot of you don't understand the concept of open source. There is no way I can describe it in a posting but.... Even if iphone was open source (which it is not) you can't just deploy your app because it has to get the ok from the apple mother ship. While on a non proprietary system, someone can write an app, put it on their site and I download and run it on my platform. No mother ship contacting necessary. With apple, the tools are tightly controlled and has to be authorized. In open source, some young genius can just write something that is really cool and everybody can use it to write code right away. All he has to do is make it available. No body owns the open platform so he need not get permission. Javascript is open source and everyone who wants it be usable can connect to it and it will work because they know everything about how it operates. If apple wrote javascript, you would need permission to use it and even then it probably won't tell you everything that is going on inside of it so you never get the whole picture. Windows was like this. Early on there were many word processors besides word. But everybody else's program had problems running well on windows EXCEPT microsoft word. MS was the only one who had intimate knowledge of the internals so its no surprise that word became the best. Same is happening with some apple apps. Apple won't let competing apps to be authorized so even though there is a better product out there it won't see the light of day.


Fri, 08 Jan 2010 05:10:58 -0500

Stop spreading FUD, Apple had $4b cash reserves when Steve rejoined, Microsofts $150m was an investment in non-voting stock with an agreement to continue developing Office for Mac for five years. They have since sold the stock for a profit.


Fri, 08 Jan 2010 04:46:08 -0500

Take it from a recent iPhone developer turned Android coder... the coming of the masses will be slow, *especially* because of all the Android phone variations. Converting our one iPhone/iPod touch app to all the different screen resolutions, memory sizes, and four versions of Android in the wild is proving to be a nightmare. For a small iPhone developer, the amount of work is staggering. Worse still, the cost to test/debug on every Android phone is proving to be prohibitive. The software may be free, but the phones we use for testing definitely aren't. Either we have to buy a plan for each phone to get the subsidized price, or we need to buy the more expensive unlocked version. Either way, it's an expensive proposition. And we're not the only ones who find ourselves in this position. Be prepared for a large number of Android ports to work on only one or two phones for a while, and if your phone isn't the one we pick, then you won't be able to run the software. P.


Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:51:18 -0500

@Henry Blodget: you are right about the MSFT analogy but you are wrong in saying that the role of the platform is very important for mobile. aside from games, the 'apps' are just shells for cloud services that are easily portable to multiple phone platforms - so the 'developer network effect' that king-made MSFT will not exist in mobile. phones are just going to be like PCs with fewer 'write' functions, probably less purposes generally (i.e., nobody will do hardcore graphic design on their phone) and some different input methods (i..e, touch and voice instead of keyboard and moues). otherwise, they will just be used for telephony, messaging and access to the cloud (web browsing and 'apps') hence, the phone oem with the best device wins (if its Apple and can extract a brand premium) even with only 20-40% share (the rest will be fragmented) AND the best cloud service will benefit (i.e., Google will capture an incremental $200B in market cap from mobile search / direct response ads).

Jim Hassinger

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:41:28 -0500

Windows wasn't open at all, in any meaningful way. It made it possible for a basic set of hardware to run the latest version of their OS. In theory, that was "open," but actually, it gave all the garages in the world, including do-it-yourselfers, the power to make "an IBM PC." IBM stupidity allowed Microsoft to grab the software and keep the rights to it. Wow. That's stupid. The "IBM compatible" PC was born, and MS DOS ran on it. Apple II's were for hobbyists, education, and the basic fan. Neither Jobs nor Wozniak were all that solicitous of "business." That was for Gates and co. Where the monopoly really came from is the untold story: business decided on DOS, because the generic computers it ran on were cheap, and Microsoft did a good job of running in a business environment. Businesses buy in great chunks with purchase orders. Now, the business community wants Exchange compatibility, the ability of an IT guy to manage its data centrally and so on. This isn't true of the Google phone. Do you think Google will get the licenses for syncing to Exchange? Isn't Google much more of a threat to Windows than the Mac is?


Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:32:59 -0500

That's what I did, actually. Not a Dell, exactly, but a pretty good machine - a BMW, for me. Now I'm free of the erroneously advertised Apple products "quality". Apple stuff is pretty, but not good enough for me. I'm super happy!

Eric Welch

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:02:35 -0500

Since when was Windows open? It's way, way, way too early to be declaring the iPhone dead. People talk about Apple fans and their religion. But what I see in this argument from the author is a truly starry-eyed declaration of faith based on faulty assumptions. Windows was not open. Linux is open. And it's insignificant compared to Windows (the most proprietary OS out) or OS X – on users desktops. My friend who works as a computer scientist used to be a big fan of Linux for his multi-processor monsters (1200+ processors) and BSD UNIX. But now he's doing all his desktop stuff in OS X. Why? Because it can do everything from run word to running UNIX apps that simulate the way neurons communicate through chemical interchanges.


Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:07:32 -0500

I'm not at all convinced that Apple can make inroads into China... and will China's market matter to everyone eventually(probably)...


Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:54:51 -0500

I drive a Porsche—never complained about high repair costs. But, you know what: buy a Dell—Apple does not need YOU!


Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:52:57 -0500

Why should YOU care SO MUCH bout market share? Companies need to make profit and innovate. Apple does both. (the old argument about BMW, Mercedes, etc.) Microsoft, Acer, Nokia HAS market share—in all different ways changing BUT who looks to them as innovators or sources of growth of PROFIT? Well, maybe you do...


Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:32:54 -0500

> What was that mistake? The mistake was firing Steve Jobs. When Steve Jobs left Apple, he was working on a project called "Big Mac" that was to be a high-end, professionally-oriented Mac, essentially a Mac Pro, and the compact original Mac was to be the iMac of its day, for consumers. That way Apple could sell $10,000 desktop publishing workstations to pros and also sell $1000 consumer Macs that would keep clone makers from being able to get a foothold and undercut Apple in either market. People would buy Mac Pros instead of PC's because they were so much better, and buy iMacs instead of PC's because they were so cheap and easy to use. That covers both kinds of user. Steve Jobs took the Big Mac project with him and it became the NeXT workstation. There is a photo of the Big Mac that was taken inside Apple and you would think you were looking at a NeXT system, with the distinctive black casing and highly-designed display. While Steve Jobs was gone, Apple moved the consumer compact Mac up to professional status and essentially bled the original 1984 Mac dry without making enough forward progress, all the time laughing at how little the generic PC was improving and how slowly, until around 1995 they stopped laughing. All the users who should have been buying cheap Macs bought PC's and that gave Adobe a reason to port Photoshop to the PC (the first PC version was 4.0) and PageMaker and FreeHand and Director all followed. When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, he brought back the Pro/Consumer strategy immediately. In 1998 they shipped the original iMac running Mac OS 8 and sold it to consumers, and in 1999 they shipped a matching blue/white Power Mac for pros which you could get with either Mac OS 8 or Mac OS X 1.0, which was the NeXT OS in a Mac skin. The new Apple drove their technology forward at a very fast pace, which is why only 10 years after Steve Jobs returned, they shipped a phone with Unix, object-oriented C API, QuickTime, advanced typography, 3D graphics, and more. Now, if you look at smartphones, the iPhone 3GS 32GB is the best smartphone you can buy, and the iPhone 3G 8GB is the cheapest smartphone you can buy. The 3GS is the "Mac Pro" for those who want the very latest technology, fastest speed, and can make a case for paying extra. The 3G is the "iMac" for everyone else. The iPhone 3G is the "good enough" smartphone that Android was supposed to be. Another key point that is often missed in this discussion is that Apple only designs their devices, they do not build them. The same flexibility that Microsoft had in the 1990's with Windows and IBM/Compaq/HP/Dell, Apple now has in the 21st century with iPhone and Foxconn and other hardware assemblers. Only Apple sends a complete finished design over to Foxconn, so there is less chance of screwing it up, and less time is taken to build and ship. Apple can add as many assemblers as is required to scale up iPhone the same way they scaled up iPod. Finally, there is only one iPod model so far. We are not even at [...]


Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:45:41 -0500

All I know is that's one dreamy-lookin' Bill Gates. So Ferris Bueller (at least a grown-up version).


Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:39:17 -0500

Microsoft did not "inject" capital into Apple. At the time, Apple had a large patent infringement suit against Microsoft that it looked like MS was about to lose. Apple was also concerned about public perception that they may have been on the way out. Microsoft was facing anti-trust charges at the time. Bill Gate and Steve Jobs went way back; they got together and worked out a deal: Microsoft paid Apple an undisclosed amount of money and Apple dropped the patent suit. Rumours were around $700-800 million. Microsoft also purchased $150M of Apple non-voting stock and agreed to keep the version of Office on the Mac current for the next 5 years. This was mostly a show of confidence move - Apple had over $4 billion in cash at the time and did not need $150M to stay alive. Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer the default browser on the Mac. Both companies also cross licensed all their patents for 5 years.


Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:08:53 -0500

Perhaps the Apple board of directors will consider replacing Steve Jobs with our Mr. Blodget. I'm sure the stockholders will go along with that, especially considering our Mr. Blodget knows so much about running the company.

Derek Martin

Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:38:23 -0500

You think Apple's premium price point was and is a mistake? By making more money on fewer products, it allows them to really focus on making those few products high quality. Apple's build quality is one of the reasons I love them. Design is the other reason. They employ actual trained designers, not kids who learned Photoshop in their bedroom. The premium price point is also how Apple has pulled in huge profits, compared to Nokia. Nokia has 46% market share, and 55% of the industry's profit... BUT Apple now has about 2% market share, and 20% of the industry's profit. Who wouldn't want to sell many times less product for just half as much profit? (reference: In summary: you so crazy.

Scott G. Lewis

Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:37:28 -0500

Gee Henry, it still has less than 10% market share? That's one way to look at it. The other way is to see it climbing quarter-over-quarter and their sales outpacing other manufacturers by far. Yes, when there's 100 hardware companies to your 1, your overall marketshare may never be #1 - but it doesn't stop you from being one of the top selling, highest profiting computer sellers out there. Been to a mall lately with a Sony Style AND Apple Store? Notice anything contrasting between the two? Oh your statement about iPhones and iPods attributing to much of their market cap is a gem. Did it seem like a forgotten item? Has Apple not concentrated well on the iPhone / iPod Touch over the past 2+ years?


Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:11:23 -0500

This discussion is entirely tech-geek and/or business-analyst oriented, and means nothing to most consumers, who actually do the buying. What makes the iPhone so successful is the overall user experience, driven by a tightly integrated iPhone OS/App Store/iTunes/iPod/MobileMe (if you choose to pay for it) ecosystem. And all available to work with both of the two most popular PC systems (Windows and Mac). The typical consumer does not care about all this handwringing over closed systems and app store rejections if the phone does what he/she wants and provides an enjoyable experience. If Google can match or exceed this (and it looks like with Android 2, it is on its way), then all consumers benefits, whether or not Apple keeps its current iPhone market shares. The competition will drive improvements on both sides.


Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:40:48 -0500

I am by no means a fanboy but this article makes assumptions and turns that into fact. He lambasts AAPL for being on its deathbed for having tightly integrated products, yet to my knowledge it still has tightly integrated products yet have a market cap 70% of MSFT's now, beat GOOG's in October. So, what is the difference between 12/1995 and 12/2009? Surely AAPL is at risk and in many ways needs to do things better (app store approval process), but the thesis for this article is based on an opinion that can be argued 180 degrees around to a defense of AAPL's resurgence by a fanboy. So how about an article that actually figures out what AAPL did to improve on its model and rebuild its brand into a "must have" retail product category? That would be an interesting story. PS - MSFT hasn't changed either, yet how would you compare Ballmer's buzz for the HP slate yesterday vs. the *2 years* of buzz that AAPL has garnered for a product that isn't even official yet?


Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:25:08 -0500

I wonder how valid the comparisons with MS's success are ... Microsoft was in a very special position, first being able to piggyback on IBM's invincibility, then use that to control the market themselves. For me, MS has always been about control, in a very special situation not really created by them. I think it's very easy to draw the wrong conclusions about why and how MS (and, consequently, other companies) succeeded or may succeed. Just observing, Apple for now has an overwhelming momentum, iPod and iPhone killers by the dozens be damned. I'm still not betting against them.

Peter Cole

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:20:24 -0500

Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong, wrong. This a totally stupid article. Henry Blodget, you need to do a LOT more fact checking. So Apple blew it with the Mac. Okay (I disagree as the rebound this decade will show) but the iPod and iPhone show that Apple now knows how not to end up marginalised. I disappoints me to see supposed experts still talking about Apple's ancient history as if it's still relevant. With two blockbuster hits, and the ecosystem in place to prevent being forced into a niche market position, it's pure idiocy to suggest Apple is in the same (or even close to the same) position it was in the early 1990s. A very disappointing read.


Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:26:51 -0500

This is perhaps the most naive article I've read about both business and technology.


Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:53:11 -0500

I barely use google for searching (ixquick and clusty or scroogle) Why would anyone use a google phone knowing that they are now tying your calling info to your searching info and internet usage.


Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:23:41 -0500

Sorry about typos. Trying to get used to using swype to type on my phone.


Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:14:40 -0500

Good thing you are the consumer and not the company. Don't see the point of market share? It's all about profit? While the second holds true, without market share that's like saying if it costs me $100 to make a device and I sell it for $1000 its ok even of I only sell 2 of them. It's about getting ad many products in the hands of as many consumers as possible and milking it throughout its product life. Apple had a great idea with its phone/media player/app store but that's it. One hugely profitable idea doesn't change 25 years of 5- 7% market share for their computer/os (is that still even theory primary business?). It wad always quality and innovation (which is s good thing) over market saturation. They are in the wrong market for that. Their goal should be create products for the masses and then create ad many 'standards' as possible (look at the iphone). Now look at what android is doing. How many phones will they have after just this year? How long before there are more 'droids' than iPhones? Didn't they announce yesterday they were fixing the problem with fragmentation now and not later? So how long before more apps on android than iPhone? And then Google will set the 'standards'. Connect all their devices on some ad infested cloud. Because apple 1)doesnt read its own history books 2)doesn't realize its business plan is so weak that even a single phone is more profitable than the entirety of the rest of (and supposedly core) business. I have respect for apple. They had a great idea and are reaping their rewards. But unless they are to become Apple "the phone manufacturer" they are a dome deal to me. All this excitement and still only in 7% of homes. Wonder what will happen when Chrome comes out?


Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:52:13 -0500

hey darwin, don't adorn yourself with borrowed plumes:


Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:49:47 -0500

i guess he is referring to 1997. at the time microsoft invested 150 million (and "saved the company" as many pundits still believe) apple had a 4 bn cash reserve. it had a lot of problmes, was losing money but was nowhere near bancruptcy as many still tend to believe.


Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:43:30 -0500

Well Matt, on the revenues... Pretty much everyone today would agree that the boundaries between PC/Web/Phone are becoming thinner and thinner today. Convergence of devices started not so long ago, but is going fast. Why go into Mobile for Google? Mobile is the next PC market. Every gen of mobile phones gets stuffed with what people used to call "Computer" elements/software/capabilities (can you seriously imagine those thin phones now have a 1+Ghz processor? I mean this is crazy, amazing!) Phones run app, software pieces, are used for messaging, email, pictures taking / editing / posting Of course the money Google could make with the apps is But the aim behind this is the distribution of all the rest :-) Mobile youtube, gmail, apps, i-G etc etc and most importantly, secure the mobile search biz. It's all about greater control

Matt Auckland

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:08:23 -0500

I can't help but wonder what is in it for Google. Why would a giant like that go all out to disrupt the mobile market. Only possible money making point I can see (unless they sold the software like any other developer would) is an app store, and the revenue share returns from it. But even then it's a drop in the ocean that is Googles yearly revenue. Do they have a wheel of death in Google HQ. "Come one, let's spin the wheel to see what industry we'll reck next!". Matt

James Herron

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 05:29:54 -0500

Your article is pretty well argued, but I would make this point: Does Apple want to be Microsoft? It's done pretty well (when Jobs was running the company at least) ploughing its own path. And I'm pretty sure Apple's fans don't want it to be Microsoft either. Size isn't everything.


Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:54:08 -0500

I think there's a good chance that things are different enough this time around that Apple's strategy can work. Also, I think Apple is smarter now such that it would adjust it's model if it saw the same story begin to play out.

Hone Watson

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:40:50 -0500

I generally agree with the 80's Apple Microsoft comparison however there are a few differences. The patents and also the price. Personal computers whether they be Mac or Dos were way more expensive than smartphones are ( 5 or even 10 fold more). Maybe the extra cost of another $500 bucks for an IPhone isn't as big a deal as the thousands of dollars extra you used to pay for Macs in 80's dollars. There are things I like better personally. Android is web native with better cloud connection, it multi tasks, and the Android app store is vastly more developer friendly. I personally would trade these things over some aesthetics, and multi touch.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:39:41 -0500

and Apple survived only because Microsoft made a big equity investment in Apple (look it up) Jobs actually thanked Gates for the investment. Microsoft needed at least a weak competitor to hold off the regulatory dogs.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:36:04 -0500

What a baseless article looking for page impressions. The writer and lot of comments have little idea or no understanding of what was then and what is now. Things have changed dramatically in computing and innovation connected technologies. Today more than ever it's about the experience and Apple are driving that as the key aspect of their business whether it be mobile, desktop or touch computing and this is what is driving people to use there products more and more. It's as simple as that.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:18:21 -0500

Couldn't help myself - below is MDN's response to your conjecture, which is Henry Blodget blows it: ‘Hey, Apple, wake up, it’s happening again’ "We've seen this movie before. And, last time, Apple fans didn't like the ending," Henry Blodget writes for The Business Insider. MacDailyNews Note: What ending? We love the movie so far because it's 2010, Henry, not 1997, and Apple's Mac is healthy, growing, and, as always, the leader that others poorly copy and fruitlessly aspire to be. We also liked this movie's ending: Henry Blodget is an American former equity research analyst, now barred from the securities industry, who was senior Internet analyst for CIBC Oppenheimer during the dot-com bubble. He was later employed by Merrill Lynch. In 2002, then New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, published Merrill Lynch e-mails in which Blodget gave assessments about stocks which conflicted with what was publicly published. In 2003, he was charged with civil securities fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He settled without admitting or denying the allegations and was subsequently barred from the securities industry for life. He paid a $2 million fine and $2 million disgorgement. This is why Henry Blodget is reduced to being nothing more than a Dvorak wannabe hit-whore. Blodget continues, "In the 1980s, Apple took the world by storm, rolling out the Macintosh and changing personal computing forever. Steve Jobs and 'The Woz' became legends (and dynastically wealthy) and a generation of consumers fell in love with Apple's products, and investors who took a risk on the Apple IPO (temporarily) laughed all the way to the bank. A decade later, however, Apple was on its deathbed, a victim of a major strategic mistake that turned it into an also-ran." MacDailyNews Take: Why do you insist on pretending it's still the 1990s, Henry? Oh, yeah, that's the last time you had a promising career. It's quite understandable that you wouldn't want to think too much about today. Regardless, the fact remains: It's now 2010, so where's Apple's Mac business today? That's right, gaining share while maintaining very healthy margins while the PC box assemblers (the ones that are still left) languish in low- and no-margin commodity hell; closing plants, axing workers and some not even able to fulfill their holiday orders in a timely fashion. PC box assembler to[...]


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:58:58 -0500

Windows supports netbooks, laptops, desktops, ... Android can support different price points for different features and different usage. Given this is the first fifteen months of Android, I'm not sure that the so-called multiple versions is going to be the "Achilles heel" in the long run. In fact, I'd argue that in the very short fifteen months, Google has tinkered and refined the features. The initial versions of Android didn't attract a huge installed base. Also, those were acquired by the early adopters (i.e. gadget freaks) and I won't be surprised those early adopters will be more than happy to continue acquire the latest and greatest technologies. I have to disagree that Apps store is the killer app. Do you proudly show your friends that your cell phone can tap to Apps Store? Nobody uses Apps Store for the sake of Apps Store. That's a delivery system. Same as nobody picks up the phone just to hear the dial-tone. Just like the Wii controller is NOT a killer app. Wii Sports is. Because people play Wii Sports If there were NO games on Wii, would people buy Wii?

Jim Z

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:50:45 -0500

Why do people always point out Apple's market share like it's some major deficiency? Apple is the computing equivalent of BMW - and BMW's market share is only around 2-2.5% worldwide, but I don't hear "analysts" clamoring that they should increase that, or how they'll be dead if they don't.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:09:16 -0500

He can't go back to his old job:

Khürt Louis Francis Williams

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:52:25 -0500

He's an armchair CEO.

Khürt Louis Francis Williams

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:43:31 -0500

Yes. Not everyone can afford a Mac. Not everyone can afford a BMW or Lexus or Mercedes either. None of that prevents any of those companies from profiting. Apple will continue to profit.

Khürt Louis Francis Williams

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:32:09 -0500

Yes. Stupid Apple. They found a way to be hugely profitable on less than 10% market share.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:27:37 -0500

@freddy bee You don't get it at all. First Macs have closer to 10% here currently as has been reported in the media and 4% World Wide(which affects us little here). Apple is about "The user experience" which includes the great industrial design. Too bad you don't get that. You also forget that the cheap Wintel OEM's like Dell walk a tightrope. With their race towards the bottom of the profit margin ruler, a very small misstep can spell disaster. Witness Dell. How many other Wintel PC OEM's have fallen, victims of the race to the bottom of the profit scale? HP makes decent profits, but that''s not due to computers. Apple is quite happy where they are with a secure, successful company. I wouldn't want the job of running Dell either...

Khürt Louis Francis Williams

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:22:59 -0500

" Apple won't open up the platform". To what? Do you mean they won't give away their OS for free? Do you mean it's not available on other devices? I know my non-technical friend and family don't understand what an "open platform" is. They just want to run apps.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:21:42 -0500

@tim.hobbes Do you buy things for how they work and get your work done OR by price? I'm not going to buy a cheap adj. wrench in the bargin bin at he hardware store figuring it will break in a while, just when I need it vs buying a Crescent brand wrench which I own and have NEVER had one break. All things break, no matter how good, but to lay blame to Apple making them "Luxury goods" because of your personal experience is painting with way too broad a brush. Lots of folks have had the opposite experience. Given that ALL laptops are far more fragile than desktops, I would have opted for the insurance of the Apple service contract as I did. No problems.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:15:55 -0500

Henry, have you ever heard the story of the Tortoise and the Hare? It would appear to aptly apply in the computer business. What you so easily miss is that Apple, as a company and all it's products is about "the user experience" pure and simple. The Mac wasn't called "The Computer for the Rest of Us" for nothing. And that continues today with the Mac as we know it. Not all the world is about buying something, whatever it is in it's market segment, at the cheapest price. You should know better, but don't. All you have is a large shout-box.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:09:34 -0500

I can't help but to wonder what all the fuss id about. On one hand you have a hardware/software company who is in clear control of the smartphone market. Then. You have the search engine/ad revenue leader. It's funny how every time a new smart phone comes out we compare it to the iPhone. The iphone will for at least near future remain the single most dominant phone out while Android will become the widest used mobile os. Android will be the new symbian and apple will continue to be Apple. But.... when Androids market eclipses the app store(and it will eventually happen), Android comes with a "great" media player/ music-movie store, and a better way to store apps than on the ROM...then Google will start to take market share away Apple and not just rim, symbian and winmo. Right now I think Google is doing a great job. Apple did and are doing a great job innovating and being the smartphone leader. No one phone is going to match the iPhone right now. That fact that Google isn't trying to and doesn't have to in order to reach its goals is good since that means it doesn't have to be a winner take all scenario like with windows vs. Mac


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:02:03 -0500

The answer is right under your nose. The "killer app" is just that ... the app store. A single marketplace, accessible by one button touch. And just all of the apps will work on any iPhone and most iPod touch devices. Android's Achilles heel is the very attribute that you're touting -- its capacity for many different phones at many different price point. Problem is that this fragments the market and creates clusters of users around specific devices rather than a single unified platform. It's not like Windows where MS had final say over the UI and moved to phase out older versions of Windows once the newer ones come out. Android already has 4 versions getting installed into current devices, with more to come as the year rolls on.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:42:45 -0500

Excellent summation of what's actually happening in the market, rather than biased wishful thinking over what should be happening. The jaded tech press' continued ignorance of the iPod touch is rather telling as they continue to push the tired market share meme. I guess they consider the iPod ecosystem passe, even as Apple continues to sell them by the millions. The iPod touch accounts for over 40% of the iPhone OS devices currently in use, and roughly the same % of app downloads. So, in actuality the market upside for developing on the iPhone platform goes well beyond just the smartphone users. On the flip side, Android is already a fragmented platform and this presents a serious impediment. There are four different versions of Android getting installed into CURRENT Android devices, and every Android model uses different hardware specs and UI variations. The potential for apps working on one Android device and not another already exists, and this will only get worse as the market gets flooded with multiple Android devices.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:40:19 -0500

The only hard fact i have is regarding France. The iphone is available on 3 difft carriers and its sales rate has increased. Google: iphone france sales.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:30:08 -0500

This is so true. There is a false premise in the modern world of capitalism (or more accurately, corporatism, which is NOT the same thing). The mantra: "GROW OR DIE" False. That is only one way of looking at things, and some cases, it's so short sighted it should be rewritten as "GROW, THEN DIE" If you over-expand to fit a temporary market, you are left with legacy employees and factories during lean times, overcapacity and fire sales. You diminish your brand cache and loyalty in many cases that way. You lose quality control. You are seen as a ubiquitous commodity, not something to covet. And you can even end up competing with your own stores and products for business (see MS, with Vista competing with XP for dollars, or netbook makers competing with their own low cost laptops for dollars, etc.) Hugely "successful" restaurants, clothiers, retail stores, etc. have all fallen into the "GROW, THEN DIE" trap in the past 25 years.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:28:08 -0500

Wrong. They initially went ti Verizon ( cdma) and were turned down


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:55:02 -0500

It doesn't change the fact that the computer was not durable as people like to say. Don't believe the hype! And I take care of my machine, but can't do much if internal circuits start to fail. MBP is beautiful and awesome while it works, but it is definitely not durable. PS: I'm not in USA. AppleCare is not worth for me as it is for you. ;)


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:53:30 -0500

Henry Blodget is an American former equity research analyst, now barred from the securities industry, who was senior Internet analyst for CIBC Oppenheimer during the dot-com bubble. He was later employed by Merrill Lynch. In 2002, then New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, published Merrill Lynch e-mails in which Blodget gave assessments about stocks which conflicted with what was publicly published. In 2003, he was charged with civil securities fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He settled without admitting or denying the allegations and was subsequently barred from the securities industry for life. He paid a $2 million fine and $2 million disgorgement. This is why Henry Blodget is reduced to being nothing more than a Dvorak wannabe hit-whore. Okay, enough with Henry's stupidity, regardless of whether it's real or simply feigned in a quest for hits, it's fundamentally flawed. Again, look at iPod, not the Mac, if you want to see how iPhone's vertical integration bodes for its future. Google Android offers the same messy, inconsistent Windows PC "experience," but without any cost savings, real or perceived. Windows only thrived back in the mid-90s because PCs (and Macs) were so expensive and buyers were extremely tech-illiterate; the upfront sticker price roped in a lot of people. Microsoft today still coasts along on the momentum generated at the end of last century. There is no price barrier today: Apple's iPhone 3G costs just $99 and the 3GS goes for only $199 in the U.S. with a 2-year plan. I'd call Android the "Poor Man's iPhone," but you have to spend just as much, if not more, to partake in an increasingly fragmented and inferior platform. As iPhone expands onto more and more carriers, Android's only real selling point ("I'm stuck on Verizon or some other carrier that doesn't offer the iPhone") evaporates.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:49:46 -0500

Mr. Blodget are you not old enough to remember your history? 1. Apple created the personal computer industry with the Apple II 2. At the time IBM dominated the computer business and once they came out with a personal computer in 1981 large business standardized on the P.C. Other manufactures were then able to clone the computer and DOS became the OS of choice for most businesses and consumers. 3. Apple brought out the Mac in 1984. The Mac was never a market share leader or even close. As I recall, it's market share peaked at around 10% in the late 80's or very early 90s. 4. No one owns the phone business like IBM did the computer business, therefore any supposed similarities between the computer business in 1980 and the phone business currently are highly dubious.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:39:45 -0500

The idea of MSFT becoming so successful, while AAPL didn't because AAPL became an integrated company is wearing thin. Just how many Windows HARDWARE manufacturers have been successful for any lengthy period? None that I can recall. They have all come and gone, unless you count DELL as a success (we lose a dollar on every one we sell, but we make up for it in the volume). AAPL may or may not succeed on all fronts — and GOOG may finally have a hit on its hands in a market outside of its search engine. Time will tell. Besides, AAPL has a long history of innovation, and there is nothing to indicate that they are stopping that process. Ciao. Anthony


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:32:07 -0500

I also saw the same movie for many years. Where the "experts" have tried to define and understand the Apple customers or business model. What is it now 30 years? And they are still alive and better than ever? That's without having to license their core technology. Hardware sales are up as well as market share and revenue margins. I dont belive the PC clone builders can say the same. How many PC's does HP have to sell to make up for the margin of 1 mac sold? (check it out your jaw will drop) I believe the Apple CEO once mentioned that Porsche and BMW were small players in the market and we're doing fine. Why can't Apple? I believe there is a confusion that in order to be a market leader, you have to license your OS to 100,000 companies and that's not true. If we take that as an example of licensing your software, look at where windows mobile is today. Nowhere! After more than 10 years and billions of dollars in development and marketing they are totally irrelevant in the mobile world. Why will Google survive under this model? Because it's Google? The handset manufacturers for many years only pumped out real bad phones with terrible interfaces dictated by the carriers. They are now at the altar with Google in the hopes that they can develop better UI experiences that can match the hardware. Unfortunately as today's move by Google proves, handset manufactures still do not get it and Google had to take the reins and build something more in line to their expectations and software capabilities. I believe that only companies that have manufactured the whole "widget" will get the biggest share of the super smart phone market, i.e. Apple, RIM and Nokia have the best shot at it and yes it is a new movie.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:12:53 -0500

@ parv I would like to know in how many of those global markets has the iPhone being successful?


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:55:31 -0500

Right now, iPhone is dominating because it is the cool phone. Android (if Google does not kill off competitors of Nexus One) allows MANY different phones with different features and different price points. The choice allows young people to "stand out" instead of owning a "me-too" phone. Certainly, it is a high hurdle for Android to overcome the already high market share of iPhone. But the Smart Phone market is growing so rapidly, I just cannot see Steve Jobs alone can offer solutions that hundreds of innovators can. It is true that iPhone has a head-start in building up a eco-system. BUT, out of those thousands of applications available on iPhone, what's the percentage that are freebies versus people who are willing to pay for? What matters is the "killer application". Currently, Apple may have a lead on the "killer applications". But the developers of those killer applications would be more than happy to broaden their customer base since they have the economics to support porting. Finally, porting from one platform to another is getting trivial compared to 10 , 15 years ago with the many new software tools widely adopted nowadays. So, I don't think it is a high hurdle for developers to switch over if they smell potential money in Android land Besides, there are all these complaints about Apple's approval process for getting included in Apps store. Remembering one important driver of the adoption of VHS, internet, ... was porn. I just cannot see Apple being too supportive of porn being broadly included in Apps store.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:54:08 -0500

Why should they open up? So that they can have the same level of crap products that MS offers? There's something to be said for quality control. Apple should stay the course and surely they aren't reading this anyway.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:52:33 -0500

I'll take one of those 3GS's off your hands.

Chanson de Roland

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:36:55 -0500

Dear Mr. Bloget: This is the most incompetent analysis of the mobile tech sector that I have seen. If Apple's approach of integrating its operating systems with its hardware is fatal error, it will have a lot of excellent company, because every leading manufacturer, except two, Microsoft and Google, have adopted Apple's approach, and even Google has adopted Apple's approach in a modified form. RIM with it proprietary OS, Palm with its Web OS, and Nokia with its several proprietary OSs have joined Apple in integrating their respective operating systems to their respective hardware and in restricting their operating systems to their respective hardware. Only Google attempted the approach of releasing Android to third party OEMs. But that proved to be a disaster, because it resulted in a platform with so many myriad configurations of hardware with various capabilities that developers simply couldn't develop for it. Google has responded by producing its own Nexus One Android phone, as the reference standard for the design of Android smartphones and as the reference configuration for software developers. In short, Google, with the Nexus One, is adopting Apple's approach of integrating its Android OS with its hardware, as far as it can, given that it has open-sourced Android. With Android being open-sourced, the Nexus One reference standard is as far as Google can go in adopting Apple's approach of integrating a proprietary OS with proprietary hardware. However, it is uncertain whether Google's modified approach to unifying its open-source operating system, Android, with its reference standard smartphone, the Nexus One, will be sufficient to unify the world of[...]


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:32:38 -0500

@freddy, your argument is that : 'apple would be a more successful company if it's computers were cheaper so more people could afford them. in otherwords, what they lose on profit margin they would make up on sales. Apple has become more price competitive compared to 10 years ago. I assume you would reply that they should drop their prices even further. But who is apple targeting? It's consumers - not corporates. Corporates are more price conscious so not sure how apple could compete on price. The consequence of this? Apple does not dominate the PC market like it dominates the ipod/iphone market.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:23:32 -0500

@matty, apple lost in the sense that they had tried to become the dominant OS/hardware company in the PC world and failed. Yes, i agree that they are successful but they do not dominate the pc market. Microsoft and Intel dominate the PC world.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:19:33 -0500

No, I think you're missing my point. Yes, the iPhone is unquestionably superior to the competition right now from a complete user experience point of view. Yes, it's extravagantly profitable. Just like mainframes were superior in every way to PCs. But ultimately they lost out because users didn't like being locked into a manufacturer. But yeah, it took a while -- Apple is fine for now. I'll grant you that if the phone manufacturers are as boneheaded as the early MP3 player suppliers, Apple will be fine for a long time. The consumer router market is being taken over by Linux-based units. Whether that constitutes "blockbuster success" is a matter of perspective, but the openness of the platform is unquestionably one factor in their success, as it lowers the barriers for entry. I would argue that open source mobile OSs are indeed in their infancy. Symbian was belatedly thrown over the wall; it doesn't really count.

Usually Named

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:18:21 -0500

If Porsche didn't try to act like a hedge fund and acquire VWAG, then Porsche would be just fine. I don't see Apple trying to use financial instruments to buy IBM anytime soon.

Mark Sigal

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:17:28 -0500

I think that 95% of the griping is AT&T. As a Verizon customer, it's the ONLY reason that I am not using an iPhone (I love, love, LOVE my iPod Touch, though). I think that where Henry's analogy falls apart is that it forgets how much of Apple's playbook is TAKEN from Microsoft Windows; namely, build the biggest, most deeply engaged ecosystem, and start with the developers. Then build derivative products (iPod, iPhone, iPod Touch, Tablet, Mac, Apple TV) that leverage the core feature set, distribution, etc. (iTunes, App Store, SDK, Apple Retail) so that there is a good reason to standardize or buy multiple products from the same vendor. If anything, I think the better analogy is Microsoft v. Novell, where Novell, the one time network operating system leader was so envious of Microsoft's desktop position, that they left themselves vulnerable to the innovations around the Internet, and now no one uses Novell anymore, something that I blogged about in: The Google Android Rollout: Is it Windows or Waterloo? For Google, the obvious vulnerability is AdWords/AdSense, which represents 90%+ of their revenues. Check out the full post, if interested. Mark Mark


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:15:15 -0500

@Henry.....nice Bio! Fraud Settlement In 2002, then New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, published Merrill Lynch e-mails in which Blodget gave assessments about stocks which conflicted with what was publicly published.[5] In 2003, he was charged with civil securities fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.[6] He settled without admitting or denying the allegations and was subsequently barred from the securities industry for life. He paid a $2 million fine and $2 million disgorgement.[7]


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:07:47 -0500

@Henry Market Share.....I would much rather have the top 10% than the bottom 10%. I am sure there is a sweet spot and it looks like Apple found it. PC people ALWAYS babble about market share, I never really understood that argument. Quality vs Quantity ...personally I prefer Quality over Quantity...if it is crap to begin with having more of it doesn't make it smell any better.... ATT vs Verizon...or any carrier for that matter...who cares...doesn't it come down to who has the best coverage in THEIR area? Apple is doing well because people picked up an iPod and said, WOW! this thing works GREAT! I wonder what else I have been missing. MS didn't push us ahead they have been holding us BACK! I don't CARE how closed Apple is as long as it works. Do you? I mean really, who cares if the software or the entire system is CLOSED if it works? I only care when it doesn't work, and in the Apple world that is a pretty rare event. but got some INK which I suspect was the point.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:07:38 -0500

sounds like someone didn't have applecare for their laptop. therefore, you're an idiot. the 3-year applecare warranty extension/service costs less than a screen replacement. PC or Mac, ALWAYS buy this kind of warranty for laptops. you're an idiot. :)


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:06:42 -0500

Apple is brilliant at educating the consumer but not very good at keeping hold of educated consumers because their demands differ and they become more discerning. Furthermore this is cyclical. Most of the Apple consumers today were notr even born when the Mac was released and they are enthralled by the current itteration of the brand. Yesterday I had to buy a PC because even with Bootcamp there were certain tasks that my Mac just could not do. With the shift of the research market to India and China away from the US and Europe I as a consumer need to be aware that the software that I want to use just is not availible on OSX and Mac Platform and I would just work myself into a frenzy by trying to rig my mac to run the software, which would make me feel like I am using a PC and kind of defeat the object. Furthermore, Apple has not changed over the the last 30 years, their business model is still nearly exactly the same.... But ONE THING that I find interesting is this APP APPROVAL process is VERY SIMILIAR to MICROSOFT SIGNED and we all know what happened to that.

Ted T.

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:06:14 -0500

You are a little behind the times, Apple has 30+ Billion in cash reserves. They have a bigger market cap than Google. And, doomsayers notwithstanding Apple continues to grow at a rapid pace.


Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:06:07 -0500

"They lost because they were much more expensive and did not innovate." Given Apple's current market cap and cash in the bank, I'm not sure I'd agree that Apple "lost" at all. If they lost, who won? Apple is a computer manufacturer and I'm hard pressed to think of one more successful.