[jeethsuresh]

This seems a little far-fetched.

There's a great quote from someone whose name escapes me right now, about the definition of a platform being when revenue generated by software running on the device far outpaces revenue generated by sales of the device itself. I've always liked that definition, and it seems accurate to me based on historical evidence (PCs - definitely a platform. Smartwatches - definitely not).

In this test, the airpods fail abysmally - not only do they not allow for revenue generation today, they don't even allow for third party developers to use their hardware features in any capacity. In fact, the main use-case for airpods appears to be efficiency and convenience when combined with Siri. All three "sources" described by the article fail to define for me the benefit users will gain from airpods as a platform, and instead have done an excellent job of convincing me that users will benefit far more from treating airpods as a product.

Compounding this is the fact that most computing platforms are primarily visual in their interactions with their users - this is clearly no coincidence. Visual interfaces allow developers to surface many pieces of information at once, and they allow users to absorb information at a pace that is variable (based on context) and comfortable to them. Aural platforms don't have this capability, and the context that they assume is often wrong. For example, I've been driving a lot these past few days, and one of the worst Apple-built experiences I've ever had occurred when I needed to stop for gas. Not only was I directed to a gas station I had already passed (driving on the freeway), but when I wanted to navigate to another gas station there was no way (obvious or not) for me to tell Siri to find me a gas station ahead of me. In fact, there was no way to confirm where any of the gas stations Siri found me were in relation to me, without looking at my screen.

One more thing: Aural platforms are exclusively serial. They surface one piece of information at a time, and in fact they would be less usable if they surfaced any more than that (or surfaced each piece of information any quicker). This alone, I feel, makes them unsuitable platforms in today's world.

Edit: randall found the quote, by Bill Gates: 'Gates said something along the lines of, “That’s a crock of shit. This isn’t a platform. A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it. Then it’s a platform.”' [1]

[1] https://stratechery.com/2018/the-bill-gates-line/

[randall]

>>There's a great quote from someone whose name escapes me right now

Bill Gates. You're looking for Bill Gates.

https://stratechery.com/2018/the-bill-gates-line/

[johnnycab]

More recently, the concept been distilled by the current Microsoft CEO, without indulging in apophasis.

He goes on to contrast the role of companies such as Microsoft with that of aggregators, which dominate a market by amassing far more content than rivals — like Google and Facebook Inc. in online media, or Amazon in e-commerce. Referring to how companies like these work, he says: “You commoditize supply. You’re even sort of commoditizing the demand, in some ways. That’s a very different dynamic.”

https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2019-12-21...

[francescopnpn]

wasn't the Bill Gate's something line along the lines of "It's not a platform until businesses that make $1M+/y can be built on top of it"

[jeethsuresh]

So I am, thanks!

[Ozzie_osman]

Agree 100%... But keep in mind the iPhone launched in 2007. The App Store launched about a year later and was really what made the iPhone a platform (that satisfied the Bill Gates test, created wonderful network effects, etc).

Apple having a spot in everyone's ear sets them up quite well strategically. While Google, Amazon, etc have been battling it out with in-home devices, Apple went straight for the ear.

[bryanrasmussen]

The thing is there that Gates might have his own reason to gatekeep the word platform.

Obviously something does not become a platform when people write software for it and the value of that software exceeds the value of the company that creates the platform, because this would mean that the day when the value of that software is $1 less than the company then there is no platform but the next day when the value is $2 more there is one.

A platform exists when the company that creates the product has provided the means for third party developers to write software that runs on the product.

As to whether it is a successful or important platform that will be determined by the amount of revenue it generates and the amount of applications written for it and the amount of people that use it. If the software for a platform did not make very much money, comparatively to other endeavors, but there was a lot of it (think free software written for Linux) then the platform still might be important.

If these amounts are going up and the company making the product is also doing good you have a growing platform. if it's going down you have a decreasing platform. If it is going down real quick, or the company that makes the product is declaring bankruptcy or announcing they will be shutting off the possibilities for development on the product - thus standing in the way of the platform - you have a dying platform or will have one shortly.

Obviously aside from all this you will be able to find platforms that are well made and that you have confidence in their longevity and their company's support and platforms where you do not have much confidence. Platforms where you think it is worth investing your time to write software and reach customers, and platforms where you think that is going to fail by the end of next year. For some of the reasons you outlined above I believe aural platforms will underperform visual platforms, although this does not mean that one cannot make money from the platform or that they will not end up having their own niche.

I wouldn't say I know more about what makes a platform than Bill Gates, but I have less reason than he would to try to define what is a real platform or not.

[debt]

“Aural platforms don't have this capability.”

Using 3D sound, you could surface multiple things simultaneously to the user. For instance, a user could instantly recognize three beeps at varying loudness and location relative to themselves.

We could also use simulated echolocation.

There’s many ways to simulate aural perception that mimics visual perpection.

[gok]

> the definition of a platform being when revenue generated by software running on the device far outpaces revenue generated by sales of the device itself

By this logic smartphones are not a platform?

[jeethsuresh]

They absolutely are. Apple makes money from the iOS ecosystem in two ways: through device sales, and through App Store purchases.

I'd agree that iOS is an example of a restrictive platform, in that ~30% of all revenue goes to a single gate-keeping party.

In any case, I messed up the quote a little, another commenter found the source and real comment: 'Gates said something along the lines of, “That’s a crock of shit. This isn’t a platform. A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it. Then it’s a platform.”' [1]

[1] https://stratechery.com/2018/the-bill-gates-line/

[achow]

Bose seems to think otherwise..

https://developer.bose.com/bose-ar

There seems to be some opportunity, maybe not at the same level as something with visual interface, but voice interface (hands eyes free) has lot of untapped potential - fitness, education/training jumps to mind.