That's because making the hardware and software isn't a good business model, it had Apple at the brink of bankruptcy. Macs didn't save Apple, the iPod did, then the iPhone and now the iPad have made it hugely successful. If it weren't for those devices Apple would be a very different company, and it would've been SJ getting fired yet again.
Yes... quite true... but you forgot to add that "the vision" and "visionary" was in place at Apple... but nobody wanted to hear it. He was too young and brash, so they fired him... and THEY (the remaining "hires") actually brought Apple to the brink.
Clones, bad personnel moral, bad products, Coca-Cola-style shifting of strategies, allowing MS to get away with IP theft and copyright violations... it all added up.
Without going into an Apple history lesson that everyone else here (except for you obviously), probably knows by heart... suffice it to say that Apple's... or I should say Steven P. Jobs... strategy has been pretty steady, and it so happens that over the last decade, it's bearing fruit... pun intended.
In the corporate-sense, money does grow on trees. Ya just have to plant 'em, nurture 'em, love 'em... and ____(?)... well... they'll blossom some day.
PS: note where MS is these days? Their tree(s)-MS Office and Windows -while still bearing fruit, they're getting old. They forgot to plant more trees, and their stuck right now, waiting for those trees to mature. I don't think they're giving them enough love
They have. But they aren't the only reason that macs are doing well. Apple was the most profitable PC maker even before the iPhone was introduced in 2007. It was selling the most >$1000 computers even in 2006.
There is a very clear event when Mac's popularity shot up. It was right after the transition to Intel. The ability to run Windows as a fallback made the switching process far less risky, enabling the Mac's rise.
as a tangent - I think the major factor limiting Apple's market share was not price per unit - but that the products last so long - you only need to buy them half as often as competitor's products get replaced.
All these companies sacking their CEOs because they want to be more like Apple...
The question I'd ask any board of directors is - is there room in the market for more than one Apple?
Maybe there's room for a handful but not everyone can jump into the same niche. Someone has got to be the Walmart of the PC industry.
First you have to start with the assumption that they want to be more like Apple. I think it's more of a case of canning people for losing their most profitable business, not anything about becoming a copy of some other company. If they do, how much do they want to change?
That's because making the hardware and software isn't a good business model, it had Apple at the brink of bankruptcy. Macs didn't save Apple, the iPod did, then the iPhone and now the iPad have made it hugely successful. If it weren't for those devices Apple would be a very different company, and it would've been SJ getting fired yet again.
The people who tried to separate Mac hardware from software (and only had short term financial goals) nearly put Apple out of business. Apple recovered from this stupidity before the iPod was invented. Of course, new businesses (iPod/iPhone/iPad) contribute a lot to Apple's current profitability.
And you don't think that the popularity of the iPod and iPhone has helped it immensely?
Irrelevant. The Mac business was saved by the iMac - four years before the iPod.
I remember the Apple-haters back then. They would utter statements like "who wants a stupid plastic computer" forgetting that the cases of their minitower PCs and CRT monitors were also made of plastic.
These companies only create and put together the hardware side of the equation, and the only way to differentiate themselves is with a spec-list. They are slaves to the OS providers, whether MS and recently Google.
Which leads to the bigger question and discrepancy in all other products not Apple**:
Who designs all those crap interfaces? Including almost any website not Apple or Apple-product related. Is Apple really hiring the only designers with a modicum of taste and minimalist design sense? Then why am I not employed there
**... aside from that horrid new Address Book leather-look in Lion previews. That's just NASTY-CHEESE! Include the iBookstore as well. A small blip I guess in the "overall look". But a sad "shield-my-eyes" look it is.
I agree. It's really about making well-designed, tightly integrated products, which is something Apple has done since the very beginning of the computer industry.
With the mobile platform it's absolutely crucial to own your own software and hardware stack, and the only companies that really have a chance here are those that at least own an OS, as well as having the hardware chops. It's a very short list.
RIM, HP, Microsoft, and (maybe) Motorola.
Sadly, RIM is already in deep trouble financially and will probably start to die the day the first Playbook hits the stores. Once people see the emperor has no clothes, the gig will be up IMO.
HP is slowly getting it's act together but historically famous for bungling opportunities like this (mostly for going too slow). They did the exact same thing in the pocket PC era when they bought the market leader in the field, rebranded it's leading product, and essentially killed it very very slowly through ineptitude.
Microsoft could easily do well having captured the worlds second best mobile hardware maker, but their entire future rests on the strange and highly differentiated Windows Phone 7 software. Since they haven't ever really done good software and the key weak spot of that which they have produced is usability, their chances are really not so good here either. They are incredibly persistent though, and have no scruples whatsoever, and that counts for a lot. Like as not if Windows Phone 7 is not popular they will simply radically alter it each year (by copying whoever is doing well), until they get a winner. They may not have the luxury of time however.
Motorola is a wild card as they are probably third or fourth best in hardware and have an unknown new OS under development. Also, all of these guys are basically late to the game having conceded the first three or four rounds to Apple.
Acer and Lenovo are moving to a similar understanding, but are probably going to be trying for a Chinese-only version of the same kind of attack. so that means niche market if they win, and again, probably Apple eats their lunch while they are getting ready.
Anyone not playing this new game is simply waiting to be a marginalised hardware partner. Even if they make the best laptops and desktops you've ever used right now, if they don't have a horse in the new race, they are eventually just part of history IMO.
That's because making the hardware and software isn't a good business model, it had Apple at the brink of bankruptcy. Macs didn't save Apple, the iPod did, then the iPhone and now the iPad have made it hugely successful. If it weren't for those devices Apple would be a very different company, and it would've been SJ getting fired yet again.
Your theory falls apart, all the "I" products apple makes they control the hardware and software. What almost killed apple was people who failed to understand what made apple great it was the software and hardware together. After Jobs left the people running the company keep pushing the idea that apple was a hardware company not a software company and they also failed to see M$ as a competitor until it was too late.
In reality, and Jobs has made the comment a couple of times now, Apple is a really good systems integrator and make all the piece work well together verses the consumer having to figure it out for themselves. That is what apple did really well in the past as well and when they got away from that then began to fail.
When car companies figured out how to make a car that did not require everyone to know how it works to use is the day more cars were sold. The computer industry is still operating as if everyone should know how the computer works.
Pretty much all the above is true. But if I had to say just one thing about Apple's success, it would be: The best thing Stevo brought to the table was his unique ability to "corral" nerdy software engineers into producing quality software. I mean most programmers can barely takecare of their own personal hygiene and appearance. Jobs forced them to write code for the end user instead of just for themselves.
Just look at the clunky interfaces for cameras, TV's, GPS units, cable DVR's, etc.
Apple makes the hardware and software for those devices, so I'm not sure what your point is. The pre-Jobs return Apple wasn't foundering because making the hardware and software is a bad business model, they were foundering because they were poorly run, had an unfocused and diffuse product lineup, and were competing in the environment of the Windows/Intel duopoly.
Surely their enormous success subsequent to that suggests that making the hardware and software is a great business model if you execute well.
My point is that those devices introduced millions of people to the quality of Apple products and services plus also the availability of MS Office and the option to dual windows has led more people to choose a Mac over a PC.
I agree. It's really about making well-designed, tightly integrated products, which is something Apple has done since the very beginning of the computer industry.
With the mobile platform it's absolutely crucial to own your own software and hardware stack, and the only companies that really have a chance here are those that at least own an OS, as well as having the hardware chops. It's a very short list.
RIM, HP, Microsoft, and (maybe) Motorola.
Sadly, RIM is already in deep trouble financially and will probably start to die the day the first Playbook hits the stores. Once people see the emperor has no clothes, the gig will be up IMO.
HP is slowly getting it's act together but historically famous for bungling opportunities like this (mostly for going too slow). They did the exact same thing in the pocket PC era when they bought the market leader in the field, rebranded it's leading product, and essentially killed it very very slowly through ineptitude.
Microsoft could easily do well having captured the worlds second best mobile hardware maker, but their entire future rests on the strange and highly differentiated Windows Phone 7 software. Since they haven't ever really done good software and the key weak spot of that which they have produced is usability, their chances are really not so good here either. They are incredibly persistent though, and have no scruples whatsoever, and that counts for a lot. Like as not if Windows Phone 7 is not popular they will simply radically alter it each year (by copying whoever is doing well), until they get a winner. They may not have the luxury of time however.
Motorola is a wild card as they are probably third or fourth best in hardware and have an unknown new OS under development. Also, all of these guys are basically late to the game having conceded the first three or four rounds to Apple.
Acer and Lenovo are moving to a similar understanding, but are probably going to be trying for a Chinese-only version of the same kind of attack. so that means niche market if they win, and again, probably Apple eats their lunch while they are getting ready.
Anyone not playing this new game is simply waiting to be a marginalised hardware partner. Even if they make the best laptops and desktops you've ever used right now, if they don't have a horse in the new race, they are eventually just part of history IMO.
I have to agree with your assessment of the current situation, except I would have to say Motorola probably makes the best "phone" hardware around, their phones always worked really well as a phone, make and receiving call and voice quality. That was until the software crept into the middle of what a phone does well. The only question is can Motorola come out with a solid phone with solid software that gives people what they want.
The problem today is people are willing to give up on a phone being a good phone just to have all kinds of features on the phone.
I am of the mind set if the phone can not make a good call the rest of it is not worth it. The iphone is not good at calls, and it not all the network either.
sorry if somebody already said this (I was skimming comments kinda fast), but remember all the chuckleheads last year who insisted that the iPad was not having any real effect on the PC or netbook markets? I'm thinking of people like Paul Thurrott (who also begged his readers to please, please, please not buy an iPad).
However, I really feel like some of these companies really should be producing really cool products. I would love to own an iPad, iPhone, MacBook Pro and some other really amazing or even "magical" product from HP that Apple has not even thought of yet. It is frustrating to me that there is only one (in my opinion) innovative tech company right now.
...
Does anyone have a good reason for how these giant tech companies can be stupid? Can we blame it on the corporate culture of getting through next quarter rather than the long term plan?
If it was simply a matter of having a lot of money to throw at problems, then Meg Whitman would be Governor of California.
Jobs said it years ago in the famous quote that Microsoft's problem was simply that they had no taste.
Taste isn't something you can just buy. There really is a case for creative people having a seat at the table, not just end-of-quarter bean counters and feature check-off engineers.
These companies do not suck, apple is a cult and once everyone takes a bite of the apple are under its control...
(clip)
Plus Apple is run by Jobs and he has a vision of how things should be and he is still executing again this, his vision is well beyond next year it is probably 10 to 20 yrs out.
your last sentence explains it and completely contradicts your first. It's the vision of thinking 20 years down the road combined with the clarity to not release junk just to get something on the market that creates Apple's loyal customers.
The mess that is the Win32 API vs the uniformity and scalability of the OS X APIs has everything to do with that vision of not just building for today, but planning for the future. Decisions over 20 years ago at NeXT are a huge part of why Apple is where they are today and why they can move innovate and move forward faster than their competition.
And it's not just planning for the future, it's the attention to detail every step of the way. All the way back to the original Apple 2 where Jobs made Woz design an all new power supply to eliminate the fan before they released it. Any other company would have just had a fan to ship the product.
If it was simply a matter of having a lot of money to throw at problems, then Meg Whitman would be Governor of California.
Jobs said it years ago in the famous quote that Microsoft's problem was simply that they had no taste.
Taste isn't something you can just buy. There really is a case for creative people having a seat at the table, not just end-of-quarter bean counters and feature check-off engineers.
Welcome to the forum.
My personal fight for almost half a century That's why I decide to become a tech and integration consultant as well as a designer. Before the consultant part, I wasn't even invited. I have a pretty decent seat now days
I call myself "The Pixel Doc" for a reason... and belittle my abilities as a self-proclaimed "B2B Tech-head with Crayolas in his toolbox".
...Apple only sell 3 Macs, 3 MbPs, 2 MbAs, 2 iPhones and 1 iPad as mainstream products. That's a core of just 11 pieces of hardware. All those devices run the same OS, albeit with iOS being OSXLite for the time being. It's focussed and keeps the brand identity clean and clear...
and the Mac Mini (AAPL's MiniMe) and the AppleTV!
The Mini may not qualify as being in the core, though, but the AppleTV might be seen as a minor hit. I always liked the idea of the Mini -- just never had use for it.
Don't Forget the pc market was an artificial duopoly after IBM cemented Microsoft DOS in all pc by default.
You cannot compete against windows (thanks to the tremendous place dos had)
-
Apple couldn't sell the Mac in a mono-cultural market. So what ? Apple took the move to make that possible.
others would have sell the computer activity. Not apple, apple wants to _create_ computers and computing devices.
So apple did iTunes, a good musical device for mac, own retail distribution and so on. Apple made itself what it was necessary to make the Mac usable in the closed market
It was difficult.
Ipod, iPhone have a easier life. Their quality is mostly enough to sell them. Digital device and mobile market is a lot of more open than old 90s pc market.
But don't forget itunes, the music store , the web apple store and all. It was a long, deliberate works, to allow apple to make a life creating and selling great hardware.
The main point is : apple wants to build and invent great computers (whatever their shape) so they took the effort to make that financially possible. With a steady and focused strategy years after years.
The problem today is people are willing to give up on a phone being a good phone just to have all kinds of features on the phone.
I am of the mind set if the phone can not make a good call the rest of it is not worth it. The iphone is not good at calls, and it not all the network either.
I am in agreement. I leave the house each morning and always double check: wallet, iPhone, house key, coffee. That's it, I'm good to go. If there was a phone that just made really clear calls and was, say, only as big as a Shuffle, I'd consider adding that to my morning checklist.
Comments
That's because making the hardware and software isn't a good business model, it had Apple at the brink of bankruptcy. Macs didn't save Apple, the iPod did, then the iPhone and now the iPad have made it hugely successful. If it weren't for those devices Apple would be a very different company, and it would've been SJ getting fired yet again.
Yes... quite true... but you forgot to add that "the vision" and "visionary" was in place at Apple... but nobody wanted to hear it. He was too young and brash, so they fired him... and THEY (the remaining "hires") actually brought Apple to the brink.
Clones, bad personnel moral, bad products, Coca-Cola-style shifting of strategies, allowing MS to get away with IP theft and copyright violations... it all added up.
Without going into an Apple history lesson that everyone else here (except for you obviously), probably knows by heart... suffice it to say that Apple's... or I should say Steven P. Jobs... strategy has been pretty steady, and it so happens that over the last decade, it's bearing fruit... pun intended.
In the corporate-sense, money does grow on trees. Ya just have to plant 'em, nurture 'em, love 'em... and ____(?)... well... they'll blossom some day.
PS: note where MS is these days? Their tree(s)-MS Office and Windows -while still bearing fruit, they're getting old. They forgot to plant more trees, and their stuck right now, waiting for those trees to mature. I don't think they're giving them enough love
They have. But they aren't the only reason that macs are doing well. Apple was the most profitable PC maker even before the iPhone was introduced in 2007. It was selling the most >$1000 computers even in 2006.
There is a very clear event when Mac's popularity shot up. It was right after the transition to Intel. The ability to run Windows as a fallback made the switching process far less risky, enabling the Mac's rise.
as a tangent - I think the major factor limiting Apple's market share was not price per unit - but that the products last so long - you only need to buy them half as often as competitor's products get replaced.
All these companies sacking their CEOs because they want to be more like Apple...
The question I'd ask any board of directors is - is there room in the market for more than one Apple?
Maybe there's room for a handful but not everyone can jump into the same niche. Someone has got to be the Walmart of the PC industry.
First you have to start with the assumption that they want to be more like Apple. I think it's more of a case of canning people for losing their most profitable business, not anything about becoming a copy of some other company. If they do, how much do they want to change?
That's because making the hardware and software isn't a good business model, it had Apple at the brink of bankruptcy. Macs didn't save Apple, the iPod did, then the iPhone and now the iPad have made it hugely successful. If it weren't for those devices Apple would be a very different company, and it would've been SJ getting fired yet again.
The people who tried to separate Mac hardware from software (and only had short term financial goals) nearly put Apple out of business. Apple recovered from this stupidity before the iPod was invented. Of course, new businesses (iPod/iPhone/iPad) contribute a lot to Apple's current profitability.
And you don't think that the popularity of the iPod and iPhone has helped it immensely?
Irrelevant. The Mac business was saved by the iMac - four years before the iPod.
I remember the Apple-haters back then. They would utter statements like "who wants a stupid plastic computer" forgetting that the cases of their minitower PCs and CRT monitors were also made of plastic.
It comes down to exactly one reason:
These companies only create and put together the hardware side of the equation, and the only way to differentiate themselves is with a spec-list. They are slaves to the OS providers, whether MS and recently Google.
Which leads to the bigger question and discrepancy in all other products not Apple**:
Who designs all those crap interfaces? Including almost any website not Apple or Apple-product related. Is Apple really hiring the only designers with a modicum of taste and minimalist design sense? Then why am I not employed there
**... aside from that horrid new Address Book leather-look in Lion previews. That's just NASTY-CHEESE! Include the iBookstore as well. A small blip I guess in the "overall look". But a sad "shield-my-eyes" look it is.
I agree. It's really about making well-designed, tightly integrated products, which is something Apple has done since the very beginning of the computer industry.
With the mobile platform it's absolutely crucial to own your own software and hardware stack, and the only companies that really have a chance here are those that at least own an OS, as well as having the hardware chops. It's a very short list.
RIM, HP, Microsoft, and (maybe) Motorola.
Sadly, RIM is already in deep trouble financially and will probably start to die the day the first Playbook hits the stores. Once people see the emperor has no clothes, the gig will be up IMO.
HP is slowly getting it's act together but historically famous for bungling opportunities like this (mostly for going too slow). They did the exact same thing in the pocket PC era when they bought the market leader in the field, rebranded it's leading product, and essentially killed it very very slowly through ineptitude.
Microsoft could easily do well having captured the worlds second best mobile hardware maker, but their entire future rests on the strange and highly differentiated Windows Phone 7 software. Since they haven't ever really done good software and the key weak spot of that which they have produced is usability, their chances are really not so good here either. They are incredibly persistent though, and have no scruples whatsoever, and that counts for a lot. Like as not if Windows Phone 7 is not popular they will simply radically alter it each year (by copying whoever is doing well), until they get a winner. They may not have the luxury of time however.
Motorola is a wild card as they are probably third or fourth best in hardware and have an unknown new OS under development. Also, all of these guys are basically late to the game having conceded the first three or four rounds to Apple.
Acer and Lenovo are moving to a similar understanding, but are probably going to be trying for a Chinese-only version of the same kind of attack. so that means niche market if they win, and again, probably Apple eats their lunch while they are getting ready.
Anyone not playing this new game is simply waiting to be a marginalised hardware partner. Even if they make the best laptops and desktops you've ever used right now, if they don't have a horse in the new race, they are eventually just part of history IMO.
That's because making the hardware and software isn't a good business model, it had Apple at the brink of bankruptcy. Macs didn't save Apple, the iPod did, then the iPhone and now the iPad have made it hugely successful. If it weren't for those devices Apple would be a very different company, and it would've been SJ getting fired yet again.
Your theory falls apart, all the "I" products apple makes they control the hardware and software. What almost killed apple was people who failed to understand what made apple great it was the software and hardware together. After Jobs left the people running the company keep pushing the idea that apple was a hardware company not a software company and they also failed to see M$ as a competitor until it was too late.
In reality, and Jobs has made the comment a couple of times now, Apple is a really good systems integrator and make all the piece work well together verses the consumer having to figure it out for themselves. That is what apple did really well in the past as well and when they got away from that then began to fail.
When car companies figured out how to make a car that did not require everyone to know how it works to use is the day more cars were sold. The computer industry is still operating as if everyone should know how the computer works.
Just look at the clunky interfaces for cameras, TV's, GPS units, cable DVR's, etc.
They are abysmal!
Best
Apple makes the hardware and software for those devices, so I'm not sure what your point is. The pre-Jobs return Apple wasn't foundering because making the hardware and software is a bad business model, they were foundering because they were poorly run, had an unfocused and diffuse product lineup, and were competing in the environment of the Windows/Intel duopoly.
Surely their enormous success subsequent to that suggests that making the hardware and software is a great business model if you execute well.
My point is that those devices introduced millions of people to the quality of Apple products and services plus also the availability of MS Office and the option to dual windows has led more people to choose a Mac over a PC.
I agree. It's really about making well-designed, tightly integrated products, which is something Apple has done since the very beginning of the computer industry.
With the mobile platform it's absolutely crucial to own your own software and hardware stack, and the only companies that really have a chance here are those that at least own an OS, as well as having the hardware chops. It's a very short list.
RIM, HP, Microsoft, and (maybe) Motorola.
Sadly, RIM is already in deep trouble financially and will probably start to die the day the first Playbook hits the stores. Once people see the emperor has no clothes, the gig will be up IMO.
HP is slowly getting it's act together but historically famous for bungling opportunities like this (mostly for going too slow). They did the exact same thing in the pocket PC era when they bought the market leader in the field, rebranded it's leading product, and essentially killed it very very slowly through ineptitude.
Microsoft could easily do well having captured the worlds second best mobile hardware maker, but their entire future rests on the strange and highly differentiated Windows Phone 7 software. Since they haven't ever really done good software and the key weak spot of that which they have produced is usability, their chances are really not so good here either. They are incredibly persistent though, and have no scruples whatsoever, and that counts for a lot. Like as not if Windows Phone 7 is not popular they will simply radically alter it each year (by copying whoever is doing well), until they get a winner. They may not have the luxury of time however.
Motorola is a wild card as they are probably third or fourth best in hardware and have an unknown new OS under development. Also, all of these guys are basically late to the game having conceded the first three or four rounds to Apple.
Acer and Lenovo are moving to a similar understanding, but are probably going to be trying for a Chinese-only version of the same kind of attack. so that means niche market if they win, and again, probably Apple eats their lunch while they are getting ready.
Anyone not playing this new game is simply waiting to be a marginalised hardware partner. Even if they make the best laptops and desktops you've ever used right now, if they don't have a horse in the new race, they are eventually just part of history IMO.
I have to agree with your assessment of the current situation, except I would have to say Motorola probably makes the best "phone" hardware around, their phones always worked really well as a phone, make and receiving call and voice quality. That was until the software crept into the middle of what a phone does well. The only question is can Motorola come out with a solid phone with solid software that gives people what they want.
The problem today is people are willing to give up on a phone being a good phone just to have all kinds of features on the phone.
I am of the mind set if the phone can not make a good call the rest of it is not worth it. The iphone is not good at calls, and it not all the network either.
Time for Gruber to serve up some claim chowder.
However, I really feel like some of these companies really should be producing really cool products. I would love to own an iPad, iPhone, MacBook Pro and some other really amazing or even "magical" product from HP that Apple has not even thought of yet. It is frustrating to me that there is only one (in my opinion) innovative tech company right now.
...
Does anyone have a good reason for how these giant tech companies can be stupid? Can we blame it on the corporate culture of getting through next quarter rather than the long term plan?
If it was simply a matter of having a lot of money to throw at problems, then Meg Whitman would be Governor of California.
Jobs said it years ago in the famous quote that Microsoft's problem was simply that they had no taste.
Taste isn't something you can just buy. There really is a case for creative people having a seat at the table, not just end-of-quarter bean counters and feature check-off engineers.
Welcome to the forum.
These companies do not suck, apple is a cult and once everyone takes a bite of the apple are under its control...
.
You start out with this nonsensical statement, then proceed to write 3 lucid paragraphs destroying your topic sentence. Interesting.
These companies do not suck, apple is a cult and once everyone takes a bite of the apple are under its control...
(clip)
Plus Apple is run by Jobs and he has a vision of how things should be and he is still executing again this, his vision is well beyond next year it is probably 10 to 20 yrs out.
your last sentence explains it and completely contradicts your first. It's the vision of thinking 20 years down the road combined with the clarity to not release junk just to get something on the market that creates Apple's loyal customers.
The mess that is the Win32 API vs the uniformity and scalability of the OS X APIs has everything to do with that vision of not just building for today, but planning for the future. Decisions over 20 years ago at NeXT are a huge part of why Apple is where they are today and why they can move innovate and move forward faster than their competition.
And it's not just planning for the future, it's the attention to detail every step of the way. All the way back to the original Apple 2 where Jobs made Woz design an all new power supply to eliminate the fan before they released it. Any other company would have just had a fan to ship the product.
If it was simply a matter of having a lot of money to throw at problems, then Meg Whitman would be Governor of California.
Jobs said it years ago in the famous quote that Microsoft's problem was simply that they had no taste.
Taste isn't something you can just buy. There really is a case for creative people having a seat at the table, not just end-of-quarter bean counters and feature check-off engineers.
Welcome to the forum.
My personal fight for almost half a century
I call myself "The Pixel Doc" for a reason... and belittle my abilities as a self-proclaimed "B2B Tech-head with Crayolas in his toolbox".
...Apple only sell 3 Macs, 3 MbPs, 2 MbAs, 2 iPhones and 1 iPad as mainstream products. That's a core of just 11 pieces of hardware. All those devices run the same OS, albeit with iOS being OSXLite for the time being. It's focussed and keeps the brand identity clean and clear...
and the Mac Mini (AAPL's MiniMe) and the AppleTV!
The Mini may not qualify as being in the core, though, but the AppleTV might be seen as a minor hit. I always liked the idea of the Mini -- just never had use for it.
You cannot compete against windows (thanks to the tremendous place dos had)
-
Apple couldn't sell the Mac in a mono-cultural market. So what ? Apple took the move to make that possible.
others would have sell the computer activity. Not apple, apple wants to _create_ computers and computing devices.
So apple did iTunes, a good musical device for mac, own retail distribution and so on. Apple made itself what it was necessary to make the Mac usable in the closed market
It was difficult.
Ipod, iPhone have a easier life. Their quality is mostly enough to sell them. Digital device and mobile market is a lot of more open than old 90s pc market.
But don't forget itunes, the music store , the web apple store and all. It was a long, deliberate works, to allow apple to make a life creating and selling great hardware.
The main point is : apple wants to build and invent great computers (whatever their shape) so they took the effort to make that financially possible. With a steady and focused strategy years after years.
The problem today is people are willing to give up on a phone being a good phone just to have all kinds of features on the phone.
I am of the mind set if the phone can not make a good call the rest of it is not worth it. The iphone is not good at calls, and it not all the network either.
I am in agreement. I leave the house each morning and always double check: wallet, iPhone, house key, coffee. That's it, I'm good to go. If there was a phone that just made really clear calls and was, say, only as big as a Shuffle, I'd consider adding that to my morning checklist.