Originally Posted by nikon133
Well, if it wants to expand outside of Mac-centric 5% of the world wide IT market, iPad does need to flirt - and shamelessly! - with Windows environment.
Think of it. iPod would be nowhere near to current domination without fully functional (albeit crappy) iTunes for Windows. Likewise iPhone - of 8 individuals I know owning iPhone, all of them are syncing it with Outlook, half of them with Exchange (meaning they are using iPhone as their work phone). Without Windows connection, I doubt any of them would have iPhone - me and my wife included.
Do you really think that Microsoft technologies will be with us forever? Because, if it is not, then the argument that Microsoft technologies should be kept as standard because it is currently predominant is not only a backward view of technological development, it is also dangerous.
Where would Google be, if we mandated that the one predominant MS/Yahoo(???) search engines were taken simply as standards?
Technologies evolve, those competing must be allowed to co-exists and battle it out. Sometimes, it is not even the best technology that wins. There are other contributing factors that may have contributed.
Whatever the basis of the iPod popularity, it cannot be denied (even by Gates or Ballmer during interviews) that currently the iPod/iTunes ecosystem has about 70% of the digital music market, and the predominant hardware beating the Microsoft's Zune. The argument that its success rested on Windows is a false argument. The same can be said of Microsoft. Where will Microsoft be if IBM has not given it a break, and Bill Gates was not savvy enough to understand the significance of its intellectual property? Where would Google be if Yahoo had not given it a break as its default search engine?
A technology company that ignores the prevailing technologies and are too far advanced from what is acceptable may likely not make it. At the same time, a company that does not go beyond current standards may be swept to oblivion, if the standards are toppled.
No one can deny that the iPhone has changed the dynamics of the smartphone and the Apps business -- everyone tried to copy them in an attempt to catch up.
Bill Gates has talked about tablet mobile computers since the early years of this century, and even produced demos, abd actually had some early very costly versions on the market? [Of course there was Newton(?) before that.]
How come that it required an Apple iPad -- in spite of all its perceived imperfections -- to re-energize the Tablet technology? Didn't Ballmer not made the first demo and all those PC tablets during the early part of this year? Was it all really the mystic of Steve Jobs that they have to await the Apple version?
Whether Apple is 5% or whatever you want to base your stats from, it cannot be denied that it has come out with innovations that captured significant number of people, changed technologies or how an industry is evolving (iPod and music industry, iPhone and those that tried to emulate it in smartphone, Apple Store and retailing).
In business, and especially technology centric business it may not always be the domination (market share) that will dictate your profitability or survival. However, you view Apple, it cannot be denied that it is only among the few technology companies that remained profitable in the worst recession during the past 30 years.
What you deride as 5% of world market share still can boast a cash reserve of almost $40Billion with no debt. Can you say that of Microsoft, HP, Dell, Lenovo, or any other technology company?
Derisions, such as terms like "fanboy", are the last resort and argument of people who cannot summon more logical rebuttals.
And those who use such labels seem to suggest that only they can be right, and all those hundred millions of iTunes clients, more than 70 million iPhone/iPod users must be fools and could not think for themselves.
Such flawed arguments are the epitomy of arrogance, if not more revealing of other personal flaws,
It is very revealing of a person's character when (s)he thinks that his view must be right and everyone else who has a different view must be wrong or misguided.