Apple doesn't believe that niche exists [the 7" tablet], but you can bet it will if the Kindle Fire succeeds.
I hear this a lot, and I always think it discredits the authors analysis of Apple. Apple doesn't think there is a product worth making at 7", which is far different than there not being a market.
Apple also thought Netbooks weren't worth making (worst of both worlds). That didn't mean there wasn't a market or a niche, but that Apple doesn't rush to fill a void because other people have a product that is selling there.
Apple doesn't think about marketing like other companies. And they don't create products to "counter" other products. They create the products that they think are perfect.
That said, i do think there is a market. There are times I wish I had a 7" iPad. Not often, but occasionally. I would probably buy two of them to keep around the house for the kids to use.
> They create the products that they think are perfect.
They create those products that they believe will make them the most money.
No apple product ever built past or present was 'perfect' when it was released, but it was more than good enough and typically a notch or two above the competition with an associated price tag.
Agreed. Facebook may have momentum (700M+ users), but it has terrible ratings from users[1] and developers[2] alike. I will be very surprised if they are a major contender five years from now.
> In some ways, it's unfair to compare Facebook to Amazon, Apple, and Google. While Facebook's growth is impressive, its actual numbers barely register next to the other three: Facebook is reported to have made $1.6 billion during the first half of 2011 (about double what it made in the first half of 2010), but Apple makes that much in nine days.
The vertical control of Apple (most notably) as well as Amazon and Google is almost complete. The author noted that they don't have:
1. Billing/banking control - Purchases on all three go through credit cards, where a portion gets siphoned off.
2. Internet access control - Apple has a lot of clout, and can do basically whatever they want, but they're still limited by the ISPs and telecos.
I really hope to see these companies compete in these industries. However, he left off one more space where they don't compete: at the bottom of the stack, selling silicon. Companies like Samsung and Toshiba can build their own SoCs for the devices they manufacture. If those manufacturers start doing more internally, we might see some impressive and competitive new devices.
I don't think that any of the three are willing to try to integrate billing directly instead of relying on Paypal, Visa, etc. It's a regulatory minefield between all the world governments, and the % that the payment processors take is probably very much worth the costs that would otherwise be taken from keeping such a system working.
I'm sure Apple and Google have explored it, but in the end, found that the current payment processors provide both a level of service(Visa's payment backend, as far as I can tell, has never suffered non-scheduled downtime) and help avoid all the regulatory pitfalls that it's worth the price.
And that's the reason, reading story after story about the big 4 on HN is getting so boring to me. No doubt they make amazing products, but these are giant corporations now. Siri, G+, Timeline, Kindle Fire are all fascinating products, but they don't excite me nearly as much as a simple app made by a fledgling two person startup.
I'm really surprised that there was almost no mention about the competition between these companies for hiring engineers. If there is indeed a "tech war" coming (and I believe there is) then the company with the biggest and best army of engineers will win and there is a fierce competition among these companies to build those armies.
I guess it is not surprising anymore, but I couldn't help wondering about Microsoft being left out of consideration. Would love to here thoughts about how, and if, MS will compete among these companies.
Agreed. While clearly not leaders in hardware, Microsoft's entrenched position in the enterprise means you can never count them out. They have a history of arriving very late to a game, getting it wrong a few times, but finally getting it right to gain the #1 position. I guess it's just hard to see now given some of the recent high profile failures like Zune and the meager gains in Bing market share after spending so many billions. But what about expanding upon their strong foothold in the living room with Xbox and Kinect?
Guess the launch of Android 4.0 in two days will show us where we're going.
It basically decides the future for 3 major products:
Smartphones
Tablets
Google TV (this could be a LARGE market if they find the right partners)
Add to that the fact that big G will probably try to push Google+ even further with this new generation and this makes the event more important than any previous Google Keynote.
Most of what Facebook and Google do is thanks to advertising revenue, with variations on the theme.
If something comes along to take that away, a start-up with a new business model, then data becomes the thing that has value for them. Here, privacy issues get racked up so both Google and Facebook would start to look shaky if that happened too, and there are signs.
That's where Amazon and Apple are both superior. They've never been based solely based on an advertising business model, if they get revenue with iAds it's a bonus. It's the fact that they control their market places which is important. And they have what people want to buy.
> Zuckerberg is even maturing into a capable presenter. Compared to Bezos, Cook, and Page, he's most adept at mimicking Jobs's singular skills, and comes off as infectiously visionary when unveiling a new product.
I had the same reaction, but you have to keep in mind the company he's in. Cook's iPhone presentation struck me as fine but uninspiring, I've never seen Bezos give a presentation, and Larry's... not good in public. I still can't stand Zuck, but at least he hasn't had any more "hoody moments".
Outside of possibly Amazon-Google, I don't see anyone joining up. Google hates Facebook, Apple hates Google, neither has integrated facebook into their mobile OS, and everyone seems content to ignore Amazon. We'll see how that changes with the introduction of the Fire, but I can't see facebook moving beyond their niche, and there's too much direct competition between Apple-Google and Apple-Amazon to allow for a partnership between anyone other than Google and Amazon.
quite a bit of the article reads like it was written before his death, and then only hastily revised (mentions of Steve Jobs doing things in future tense, etc)
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|14 years ago|reply
I hear this a lot, and I always think it discredits the authors analysis of Apple. Apple doesn't think there is a product worth making at 7", which is far different than there not being a market.
Apple also thought Netbooks weren't worth making (worst of both worlds). That didn't mean there wasn't a market or a niche, but that Apple doesn't rush to fill a void because other people have a product that is selling there.
Apple doesn't think about marketing like other companies. And they don't create products to "counter" other products. They create the products that they think are perfect.
That said, i do think there is a market. There are times I wish I had a 7" iPad. Not often, but occasionally. I would probably buy two of them to keep around the house for the kids to use.
[+] [-] 0x12|14 years ago|reply
They create those products that they believe will make them the most money.
No apple product ever built past or present was 'perfect' when it was released, but it was more than good enough and typically a notch or two above the competition with an associated price tag.
[+] [-] mikeryan|14 years ago|reply
Maybe, someday, but not quite yet.
[+] [-] jobu|14 years ago|reply
[1] - http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebook-webs-worst-custome...
[2] - http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/11/facebook-wins-worst-api-in-...
[+] [-] johnyzee|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exit|14 years ago|reply
> In some ways, it's unfair to compare Facebook to Amazon, Apple, and Google. While Facebook's growth is impressive, its actual numbers barely register next to the other three: Facebook is reported to have made $1.6 billion during the first half of 2011 (about double what it made in the first half of 2010), but Apple makes that much in nine days.
[+] [-] nimblegorilla|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reemrevnivek|14 years ago|reply
1. Billing/banking control - Purchases on all three go through credit cards, where a portion gets siphoned off.
2. Internet access control - Apple has a lot of clout, and can do basically whatever they want, but they're still limited by the ISPs and telecos.
I really hope to see these companies compete in these industries. However, he left off one more space where they don't compete: at the bottom of the stack, selling silicon. Companies like Samsung and Toshiba can build their own SoCs for the devices they manufacture. If those manufacturers start doing more internally, we might see some impressive and competitive new devices.
[+] [-] cube13|14 years ago|reply
I'm sure Apple and Google have explored it, but in the end, found that the current payment processors provide both a level of service(Visa's payment backend, as far as I can tell, has never suffered non-scheduled downtime) and help avoid all the regulatory pitfalls that it's worth the price.
[+] [-] fleitz|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] revorad|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bergie|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] evanjacobs|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YetAnotherAlias|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tsotha|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FilterJoe|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Apocryphon|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] algorithms|14 years ago|reply
It basically decides the future for 3 major products: Smartphones Tablets Google TV (this could be a LARGE market if they find the right partners)
Add to that the fact that big G will probably try to push Google+ even further with this new generation and this makes the event more important than any previous Google Keynote.
[+] [-] chris_dcosta|14 years ago|reply
If something comes along to take that away, a start-up with a new business model, then data becomes the thing that has value for them. Here, privacy issues get racked up so both Google and Facebook would start to look shaky if that happened too, and there are signs.
That's where Amazon and Apple are both superior. They've never been based solely based on an advertising business model, if they get revenue with iAds it's a bonus. It's the fact that they control their market places which is important. And they have what people want to buy.
[+] [-] exit|14 years ago|reply
really?
[+] [-] redthrowaway|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ihateSJCS|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ethank|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redthrowaway|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Apocryphon|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] suivix|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hkmurakami|14 years ago|reply
http://www.fastcompany.com/1787260/the-legacy-of-steve-jobs-...
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bergie|14 years ago|reply