But he alone couldn't make that happen. He had to have talented employees who shared the same values as he did to make it happen. Two of Steve's closest colleagues/friends, Jony Ive (his design partner) and Eddy Cue (his deal maker and Mr Fix-It) weren't even hired by him. Both of them were at Apple years before Steve came back.
As boss, Jobs had the authority to fire, retain, or hire anyone he wanted. The fact that he decided to retain them is all we need to know.
At the the day, if Apple 2.0 had failed, it would be on his head. So should the success.
In any event, the opinions that people like you have about it is of piddling consequence.
As long as Apple's MO is to go 6-9 months with no new products that warrant a keynote or media attention this will continue. Under Steve Apple was given the benefit of the doubt that really cool stuff was always being cooked up in the Cupertino labs. Under Cook Apple isn't given that same benefit of the doubt. So silence basically equates to Apple out of ideas, can't innovate anymore, etc.
True. But on the positive site: Apple only needs to release one single landmark product under Cook to invalidate all this nonsense (and force these guys to innovate a new working doomsday scenario, which, given their average level of intelligence, most won't achieve in their lifetime). So far, they released a lot of very solid stuff under him, but certainly no true game changer.
g
"Apple only needs to release one single landmark product under Cook..."
We're it so simple. But it cuts to the crux certainly - because that's the overall perception by both sides of the argument. Not only does Apple have to release a new device category, but it has to be a combined home run_hatrick_Olympic Gold as well.
Perversely, Apple arguably uses raised expectations as part of its initial marketing to ensure almost instantaneous worldwide attention. In that sense it's better to make the wait worthwhile and that is the real challenge.
Back out Apple's $159 billion in cash, and its obvious that investors are clearly deluded into thinking that Google's business is worth significantly more than Apple's, despite being rooted in the PC past and proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be unable to materially expand into the present era of mobile devices in a way that matters.
Google is being valued higher because investors who are looking forward believe that their model is more sustainable in the future. Their moat is bigger. Google sells services and a little hardware. Apple sells mostly hardware, then little software and few services. In the past hardware like phones have been easily disrupted. At some point people believe phones can get extremely good and cost very little. This I believe will happen. Just look at PC's a decade ago and now today. No reason mobile should not follow the same path.
Googles moat is powerful and deep. they will be generating search and other income for the foreseeable future. Run by visionary and risk taking founders this is a different culture then apple. Just look at the moonshots google takes all over the place compared to apple who is still iterating.
Getting another ipad or iphone hit is a longshot. Time will tell. Even if apple does manage to do it the question is how long will the next big thing sustain its advantage and margins? Apple margins already down big from their peak. This is why investors value google higher PE over apple because likelihood of margin erosion and disruption is far lower. Bing tried to take down Google. Didn't make a dent. Who could build what google has taken all these years to build and what stands on the minds of 1000's of geniuses. It won't be apple or microsoft no matter how much they spend or put into it. This is the strength of google.
I wonder if your disagreement is regarding the term "new player." Apple was a new player to both the handset and tablets markets which were considered to be entrenched and unestablishable, respectively, but Apple wasn't a new player and had proven themselves with the first mass produced "PC," the first GUI PC, and dominating the PMP market, not to mention reinventing and rerouting these markets at their will.
Not at all, the OP doubted that Google could do any better than the companies that have been in robotics for years. I was merely pointing out that the same was said about Apple.
Android is a stolen product. Google is trying to kill the iPhone.
I think you meant stolen idea, and why would Google kill one of its biggest money makers? There's really nothing on a Android phone that doesn't have a iOS version.
The commercial part is the services being sold under the same domain. Promoting the blog entries promotes the services as far as search engines are concerned but it's relevant enough in that instance. If it happens regularly though, they'll be removed. The expected way is to copy/paste the content into the forum rather than link but that one was too long.
Thanks for the clarification. He's on a bit of thin ice, but like I say, it's way worth it, and I can't imagine how else he could steer us to a valuable new concept.
This is in reference to chrismariott's post on Apple as a "supercompany," #47, on page two of the comments here. The general idea is that while the shortsighted are worried about Apple's imminent decline or doom, the company itself is mapping out 25-year plans with a coherence not seen before by any industrial concern in history. Their investment in production robotics over many recent years is only one example. This view would see google's new interest as a very late effort to catch up.
Sadly, what I do now is to write my posts using Textedit (or whatever separate editor) and when I'm ready I simply copy/paste it into the post before the site gets an opportunity to crash my browser. It's sad, but it's what I do.
Weird that the site crashes on my MBA (late 2011) consistently, yet is rock-solid on my 2009 iMac. Both running Mavericks. Figure that.
We collectively need to start calling out AI for the pure piece of shit their web platform is built on. For god's sake, they are a technology focused news organization - use good technology! Start by firing your entire IT staff, trash this POS and build a technologically competent website. This is absolutely the worst site I visit in terms of speed, loading, crashing, etc. FIX IT! Please, everyone, join me in this effort to wake these people up!
Back out Apple's $159 billion in cash, and its obvious that investors are clearly deluded into thinking that Google's business is worth significantly more than Apple's, despite being rooted in the PC past and proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be unable to materially expand into the present era of mobile devices in a way that matters.
Google is being valued higher because investors who are looking forward believe that their model is more sustainable in the future. Their moat is bigger. Google sells services and a little hardware. Apple sells mostly hardware, then little software and few services. In the past hardware like phones have been easily disrupted. At some point people believe phones can get extremely good and cost very little. This I believe will happen. Just look at PC's a decade ago and now today. No reason mobile should not follow the same path.
Googles moat is powerful and deep. they will be generating search and other income for the foreseeable future. Run by visionary and risk taking founders this is a different culture then apple. Just look at the moonshots google takes all over the place compared to apple who is still iterating.
Getting another ipad or iphone hit is a longshot. Time will tell. Even if apple does manage to do it the question is how long will the next big thing sustain its advantage and margins? Apple margins already down big from their peak. This is why investors value google higher PE over apple because likelihood of margin erosion and disruption is far lower. Bing tried to take down Google. Didn't make a dent. Who could build what google has taken all these years to build and what stands on the minds of 1000's of geniuses. It won't be apple or microsoft no matter how much they spend or put into it. This is the strength of google.
Advertising is a service that is arguably the most easily disrupted of all products and services. As we can see, this is occurring currently in mobile advertising. Google advertising has been displaced on the most valuable platform dramatically reducing mobile advertising revenue for Google. If the same displacement occurs in the motor vehicle market, digital media market or mobile payments market then Google could be demonstrated to be vulnerable.
Advertising is a service that is arguably the most easily disrupted of all products and services. As we can see, this is occurring currently in mobile advertising. Google advertising has been displaced on the most valuable platform dramatically reducing mobile advertising revenue for Google. If the same displacement occurs in the motor vehicle market, digital media market or mobile payments market then Google could be demonstrated to be vulnerable.
Not sure I would agree with that. If advertising was so easily disrupted why does google dominate it still? It dominates on the desktop and is rising in mobile ad market share up from 52.36% in 2012 to 53.17% in 2013.
Also this is not just advertising and this is what you and most don't realize. There is a network effect on a grand scale:
1) Google has more traffic than anyone so they bring more buyers and more money. More searchers means the highest CPC too but also the largest pool of consumers
2) Only google has littered the web with more site ads than anyone out there. Most sites contain google adwords and are essentially partner with google utilizing their huge ad network to monetize their site. Again this brings more ad buyers and more consumers to the table. Network effect
3) Mobile share is rising even if apple sells iphones/ipads. I own iphones and ipads but the only thing I use to search on both is google app. I use google apps (gmail, etc) on both devices. I use google maps and google drive too. Google owns search on android and no reason they won't have or don't already have dominance on iphone/ipad. What do you use to search on your idevice? Is there really any alternative to Google? siri is dreadful as is bing and yahoo a 2nd ran still.
4) Yes on mobile the CPC will be lower but the volume will be demonstrably larger and we already see this in their latest numbers exactly like that. Huge jump in clicks and decrease in CPC (cost per click). Net effect is still healthy rise in revenue and profits.
As a consumer and advertise the only places I promote my sites are on google and facebook. Would not even consider wasting time or money on yahoo or bing. My sites are also monetized, in part, by google adwords. Does bing or yahoo even have an equivalent? No. Google's ad network reigns supreme.
Apple whether they like it or not are at the early stages of the race to the bottom. They used to have almost 50% margins. Now they are in the 30's. A few years could be 20's just to stay in the game. What will people do when they get an equivalent S5 coming out soon in 3 or 4 years for $100. It will be a harder sell putting an iphone up against that. A few weeks ago I'd say it didn't matter because telcos subsidize it. Now Verizon, ATT and T-Mobile all let you bring your phone, pay for it and then pay LOWER monthly rates. This is all new. The effect will be longer upgrade cycles and more price conscious buyers.
Sure apple won't lose most of their fans but even a 5% slice a year for a few years will be damaging especially if apple has to lower ASP's to keep what remains. I used to believe this would not happen but things have changed and more so recently. If you keep saying there are no weeds, there are no weeds....they will take your garden.
Not at all, the OP doubted that Google could do any better than the companies that have been in robotics for years. I was merely pointing out that the same was said about Apple.
I agree with your comment but would also point out that Apple tends to heavily leverage their current expertise when they've ventured into other areas (not just throw money at it) which does seem different than Google getting into robotics (unless they're leveraging robotics needed for their vast and numerous data centers).
That is quite trite. Of course no one does things like this by himself/herself.
Do you tend to always say 'Edison and his team,' or 'Musk and lieutenants', or 'Watson and his managers,' ....you get the point ..... when you talk about the accomplishments of leaders and their companies? If you do, you're the only one.
All I'm saying is Jobs wasn't 100% correct and that the others pushed him to make the correct decision to make Apple a success.
"Motorola threatened to consider making Windows Phones, and that was enough for Google's executives to write a virtually blank check. So in a sense, Motorola did super charge Google, but not in the way Android fans expected."
Well.... (Ahem)... That certainly increased the "thrown cat"-to-pigeon ratio.
All I'm saying is Jobs wasn't 100% correct and that the others pushed him to make the correct decision to make Apple a success.
To use a metaphor, existing Apple was the Rocketdyne F-1, NeXT was the Rocketdyne J-2, his executive team was the CM and its RCS engines, and Jobs was the LEM.
I’m sorry, but the fact that we haven’t been to the Moon in 42 years really infuriates me.
Not sure I would agree with that. If advertising was so easily disrupted why does google dominate it still? It dominates on the desktop and is rising in mobile ad market share up from 52.36% in 2012 to 53.17% in 2013.
Also this is not just advertising and this is what you and most don't realize. There is a network effect on a grand scale:
1) Google has more traffic than anyone so they bring more buyers and more money. More searchers means the highest CPC too but also the largest pool of consumers
2) Only google has littered the web with more site ads than anyone out there. Most sites contain google adwords and are essentially partner with google utilizing their huge ad network to monetize their site. Again this brings more ad buyers and more consumers to the table. Network effect
3) Mobile share is rising even if apple sells iphones/ipads. I own iphones and ipads but the only thing I use to search on both is google app. I use google apps (gmail, etc) on both devices. I use google maps and google drive too. Google owns search on android and no reason they won't have or don't already have dominance on iphone/ipad. What do you use to search on your idevice? Is there really any alternative to Google? siri is dreadful as is bing and yahoo a 2nd ran still.
I would say the biggest threat to Google is that they deal in an information economy rather than a cash economy. Google users are not customers but the product being sold to advertising customers. Awareness around the real world consequences of the information economy is building. Browser plugins that block all adwords, trackers and social networking plugins across the web are relatively trivial to implement. In fact in typing this reply I'm currently blocking 7 trackers/beacons(one of which is Google Analytics) and 2 advertisements.
There are also search engine alternatives that provide cleaner (and arguably better) results.
Google's Pagerank is patented but all the other search engines have some similar ranking algorithm. Google search is full of secret sauce and their search extends into many other areas besides text search. They have patent search, weather, movie schedule, images, financials, sports scores, on and on. The expiration of a single patent for a technology that has already been modified to the extent that it has totally replaced the original concept, is not going to change anything.
So, how does iTunes, that is the various iTunes store's revenue compare to Google's entire revenue?
Over the last several years iTunes revenue when taken on it's own has exploded and is more than every Android handset maker, apart from Samsung, earns combined.
Revenues of iTunes are strongly related to hardware sales. A slip in sales == a slip in revenue. iTunes doesn't exist as "a standalone" source of revenue.
These are the advantages and disadvantages of having an ecosystem. You can create a positive reinforcing cycle as well as a downward spiral according to sales.
Imagine Android continuing it's increase in sales: where are developers going to go? Android first and Apple second. So Apple won't have exclusives, and the interest might decrease.
Moreover: Rdio, Pandora, iTunes Radio itself are eating up music sales profits. Let's see what happens with the AppleTV. If it takes off then maybe als TV episode sales might see a slip.
Apple isn't "doomed", quite the opposite. But seeing the challenge it faces in the coming years allows to better understand, in my opinion at least, that Apple has to increase the sources of revenue (diversification) without spreading too thin, which almost turned into a disaster prior to Jobs returning.
Ten years ago when we all had one computer that did everything, owning that market was super important, and Microsoft did that. But today, where most people have several gadgets: a phone, a tablet, a computer - having 20% of each market may be better for a company than having 90% of one. Because then customers can integrate all their devices, and get pulled in to an ecosystem. And if it's the premium 20% of each market than more the better.
So in this age of many devices, when looking at marketshare, perhaps there needs to be a new kind of calculation, that takes in to account related markets.
Advertising is a service that is arguably the most easily disrupted of all products and services. As we can see, this is occurring currently in mobile advertising. Google advertising has been displaced on the most valuable platform dramatically reducing mobile advertising revenue for Google. If the same displacement occurs in the motor vehicle market, digital media market or mobile payments market then Google could be demonstrated to be vulnerable.
I agree to a certain extent. But Google was smart in creating Android. It gives them a strong foothold in the mobile industry. Much as it was the case for Microsoft on the desktop, manufacturers have a love-hate relationship with Android. They love it because it allows them to create phones which they couldn't by themselves, they hate it because they have a partner that dictates the rules (more so than anyone imagined).
Google played it smart though. They allowed a level of customization that was unprecedented for an OS (excluding Linux of course) providing the manufacturer with the chance to create their phone "slightly" different one from the other, still retaining compatibility with all apps.
Manufacturers love this approach, they always had. Carriers have historically tried to customize the phones they subsidize for a long time. I remember (makes me feel old though) that all Vodafone and Orange phones where so much full of personalized icons and stuff that all Vodafone devices' menus looked the same. And that the same phone on Vodafone or Orange would seem a totally different phone.
All of this led to poor innovation and disaster. Luckily the iPhone came along and disrupted this strategy. Still thankful to Jobs for providing a masterpiece of technology (dare I say it? Art!) and changing so much of the phone industry.
Ten years ago when we all had one computer that did everything, owning that market was super important, and Microsoft did that. But today, where most people have several gadgets: a phone, a tablet, a computer - having 20% of each market may be better for a company than having 90% of one. Because then customers can integrate all their devices, and get pulled in to an ecosystem. And if it's the premium 20% of each market than more the better.
So in this age of many devices, when looking at marketshare, perhaps there needs to be a new kind of calculation, that takes in to account related markets.
The point is that the computer market is shrinking. So, even though you have a small marketshare but command the lion's share of profits, the overall profit you make is still dwarfed by the numbers of the mobile industry.
Yes, Apple will probably retain the highest tier of the smartphone market. But they most certainly won't be selling hundred of millions of phones a year. And their cost structure requires them these kind of profits (Apple stores, free software, R&D, etc etc).
Apple cannot sell only a handful of phones a year, even at premium prices, without massively reducing its size. Or entering new, growing markets and retain the overall profit. Important is that watches don't allow for a "Per unit" profit level of a smartphone.
Comments
As boss, Jobs had the authority to fire, retain, or hire anyone he wanted. The fact that he decided to retain them is all we need to know.
At the the day, if Apple 2.0 had failed, it would be on his head. So should the success.
In any event, the opinions that people like you have about it is of piddling consequence.
I think that's a sound argument.
"Apple only needs to release one single landmark product under Cook..."
We're it so simple. But it cuts to the crux certainly - because that's the overall perception by both sides of the argument. Not only does Apple have to release a new device category, but it has to be a combined home run_hatrick_Olympic Gold as well.
Perversely, Apple arguably uses raised expectations as part of its initial marketing to ensure almost instantaneous worldwide attention. In that sense it's better to make the wait worthwhile and that is the real challenge.
You wrote:
Back out Apple's $159 billion in cash, and its obvious that investors are clearly deluded into thinking that Google's business is worth significantly more than Apple's, despite being rooted in the PC past and proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be unable to materially expand into the present era of mobile devices in a way that matters.
Google is being valued higher because investors who are looking forward believe that their model is more sustainable in the future. Their moat is bigger. Google sells services and a little hardware. Apple sells mostly hardware, then little software and few services. In the past hardware like phones have been easily disrupted. At some point people believe phones can get extremely good and cost very little. This I believe will happen. Just look at PC's a decade ago and now today. No reason mobile should not follow the same path.
Googles moat is powerful and deep. they will be generating search and other income for the foreseeable future. Run by visionary and risk taking founders this is a different culture then apple. Just look at the moonshots google takes all over the place compared to apple who is still iterating.
Getting another ipad or iphone hit is a longshot. Time will tell. Even if apple does manage to do it the question is how long will the next big thing sustain its advantage and margins? Apple margins already down big from their peak. This is why investors value google higher PE over apple because likelihood of margin erosion and disruption is far lower. Bing tried to take down Google. Didn't make a dent. Who could build what google has taken all these years to build and what stands on the minds of 1000's of geniuses. It won't be apple or microsoft no matter how much they spend or put into it. This is the strength of google.
Not at all, the OP doubted that Google could do any better than the companies that have been in robotics for years. I was merely pointing out that the same was said about Apple.
I think you meant stolen idea, and why would Google kill one of its biggest money makers? There's really nothing on a Android phone that doesn't have a iOS version.
Thanks for the clarification. He's on a bit of thin ice, but like I say, it's way worth it, and I can't imagine how else he could steer us to a valuable new concept.
This is in reference to chrismariott's post on Apple as a "supercompany," #47, on page two of the comments here. The general idea is that while the shortsighted are worried about Apple's imminent decline or doom, the company itself is mapping out 25-year plans with a coherence not seen before by any industrial concern in history. Their investment in production robotics over many recent years is only one example. This view would see google's new interest as a very late effort to catch up.
We collectively need to start calling out AI for the pure piece of shit their web platform is built on. For god's sake, they are a technology focused news organization - use good technology! Start by firing your entire IT staff, trash this POS and build a technologically competent website. This is absolutely the worst site I visit in terms of speed, loading, crashing, etc. FIX IT! Please, everyone, join me in this effort to wake these people up!
Advertising is a service that is arguably the most easily disrupted of all products and services. As we can see, this is occurring currently in mobile advertising. Google advertising has been displaced on the most valuable platform dramatically reducing mobile advertising revenue for Google. If the same displacement occurs in the motor vehicle market, digital media market or mobile payments market then Google could be demonstrated to be vulnerable.
Advertising is a service that is arguably the most easily disrupted of all products and services. As we can see, this is occurring currently in mobile advertising. Google advertising has been displaced on the most valuable platform dramatically reducing mobile advertising revenue for Google. If the same displacement occurs in the motor vehicle market, digital media market or mobile payments market then Google could be demonstrated to be vulnerable.
Not sure I would agree with that. If advertising was so easily disrupted why does google dominate it still? It dominates on the desktop and is rising in mobile ad market share up from 52.36% in 2012 to 53.17% in 2013.
Also this is not just advertising and this is what you and most don't realize. There is a network effect on a grand scale:
1) Google has more traffic than anyone so they bring more buyers and more money. More searchers means the highest CPC too but also the largest pool of consumers
2) Only google has littered the web with more site ads than anyone out there. Most sites contain google adwords and are essentially partner with google utilizing their huge ad network to monetize their site. Again this brings more ad buyers and more consumers to the table. Network effect
3) Mobile share is rising even if apple sells iphones/ipads. I own iphones and ipads but the only thing I use to search on both is google app. I use google apps (gmail, etc) on both devices. I use google maps and google drive too. Google owns search on android and no reason they won't have or don't already have dominance on iphone/ipad. What do you use to search on your idevice? Is there really any alternative to Google? siri is dreadful as is bing and yahoo a 2nd ran still.
4) Yes on mobile the CPC will be lower but the volume will be demonstrably larger and we already see this in their latest numbers exactly like that. Huge jump in clicks and decrease in CPC (cost per click). Net effect is still healthy rise in revenue and profits.
As a consumer and advertise the only places I promote my sites are on google and facebook. Would not even consider wasting time or money on yahoo or bing. My sites are also monetized, in part, by google adwords. Does bing or yahoo even have an equivalent? No. Google's ad network reigns supreme.
Apple whether they like it or not are at the early stages of the race to the bottom. They used to have almost 50% margins. Now they are in the 30's. A few years could be 20's just to stay in the game. What will people do when they get an equivalent S5 coming out soon in 3 or 4 years for $100. It will be a harder sell putting an iphone up against that. A few weeks ago I'd say it didn't matter because telcos subsidize it. Now Verizon, ATT and T-Mobile all let you bring your phone, pay for it and then pay LOWER monthly rates. This is all new. The effect will be longer upgrade cycles and more price conscious buyers.
Sure apple won't lose most of their fans but even a 5% slice a year for a few years will be damaging especially if apple has to lower ASP's to keep what remains. I used to believe this would not happen but things have changed and more so recently. If you keep saying there are no weeds, there are no weeds....they will take your garden.
I agree with your comment but would also point out that Apple tends to heavily leverage their current expertise when they've ventured into other areas (not just throw money at it) which does seem different than Google getting into robotics (unless they're leveraging robotics needed for their vast and numerous data centers).
All I'm saying is Jobs wasn't 100% correct and that the others pushed him to make the correct decision to make Apple a success.
Well.... (Ahem)... That certainly increased the "thrown cat"-to-pigeon ratio.
To use a metaphor, existing Apple was the Rocketdyne F-1, NeXT was the Rocketdyne J-2, his executive team was the CM and its RCS engines, and Jobs was the LEM.
I’m sorry, but the fact that we haven’t been to the Moon in 42 years really infuriates me.
Not sure I would agree with that. If advertising was so easily disrupted why does google dominate it still? It dominates on the desktop and is rising in mobile ad market share up from 52.36% in 2012 to 53.17% in 2013.
Also this is not just advertising and this is what you and most don't realize. There is a network effect on a grand scale:
1) Google has more traffic than anyone so they bring more buyers and more money. More searchers means the highest CPC too but also the largest pool of consumers
2) Only google has littered the web with more site ads than anyone out there. Most sites contain google adwords and are essentially partner with google utilizing their huge ad network to monetize their site. Again this brings more ad buyers and more consumers to the table. Network effect
3) Mobile share is rising even if apple sells iphones/ipads. I own iphones and ipads but the only thing I use to search on both is google app. I use google apps (gmail, etc) on both devices. I use google maps and google drive too. Google owns search on android and no reason they won't have or don't already have dominance on iphone/ipad. What do you use to search on your idevice? Is there really any alternative to Google? siri is dreadful as is bing and yahoo a 2nd ran still.
I would say the biggest threat to Google is that they deal in an information economy rather than a cash economy. Google users are not customers but the product being sold to advertising customers. Awareness around the real world consequences of the information economy is building. Browser plugins that block all adwords, trackers and social networking plugins across the web are relatively trivial to implement. In fact in typing this reply I'm currently blocking 7 trackers/beacons(one of which is Google Analytics) and 2 advertisements.
There are also search engine alternatives that provide cleaner (and arguably better) results.
So they're here to stay, bummer.
So, how does iTunes, that is the various iTunes store's revenue compare to Google's entire revenue?
Over the last several years iTunes revenue when taken on it's own has exploded and is more than every Android handset maker, apart from Samsung, earns combined.
Revenues of iTunes are strongly related to hardware sales. A slip in sales == a slip in revenue. iTunes doesn't exist as "a standalone" source of revenue.
These are the advantages and disadvantages of having an ecosystem. You can create a positive reinforcing cycle as well as a downward spiral according to sales.
Imagine Android continuing it's increase in sales: where are developers going to go? Android first and Apple second. So Apple won't have exclusives, and the interest might decrease.
Moreover: Rdio, Pandora, iTunes Radio itself are eating up music sales profits. Let's see what happens with the AppleTV. If it takes off then maybe als TV episode sales might see a slip.
Apple isn't "doomed", quite the opposite. But seeing the challenge it faces in the coming years allows to better understand, in my opinion at least, that Apple has to increase the sources of revenue (diversification) without spreading too thin, which almost turned into a disaster prior to Jobs returning.
Re: Apple not having majority phone marketshare.
Ten years ago when we all had one computer that did everything, owning that market was super important, and Microsoft did that. But today, where most people have several gadgets: a phone, a tablet, a computer - having 20% of each market may be better for a company than having 90% of one. Because then customers can integrate all their devices, and get pulled in to an ecosystem. And if it's the premium 20% of each market than more the better.
So in this age of many devices, when looking at marketshare, perhaps there needs to be a new kind of calculation, that takes in to account related markets.
Advertising is a service that is arguably the most easily disrupted of all products and services. As we can see, this is occurring currently in mobile advertising. Google advertising has been displaced on the most valuable platform dramatically reducing mobile advertising revenue for Google. If the same displacement occurs in the motor vehicle market, digital media market or mobile payments market then Google could be demonstrated to be vulnerable.
I agree to a certain extent. But Google was smart in creating Android. It gives them a strong foothold in the mobile industry. Much as it was the case for Microsoft on the desktop, manufacturers have a love-hate relationship with Android. They love it because it allows them to create phones which they couldn't by themselves, they hate it because they have a partner that dictates the rules (more so than anyone imagined).
Google played it smart though. They allowed a level of customization that was unprecedented for an OS (excluding Linux of course) providing the manufacturer with the chance to create their phone "slightly" different one from the other, still retaining compatibility with all apps.
Manufacturers love this approach, they always had. Carriers have historically tried to customize the phones they subsidize for a long time. I remember (makes me feel old though) that all Vodafone and Orange phones where so much full of personalized icons and stuff that all Vodafone devices' menus looked the same. And that the same phone on Vodafone or Orange would seem a totally different phone.
All of this led to poor innovation and disaster. Luckily the iPhone came along and disrupted this strategy. Still thankful to Jobs for providing a masterpiece of technology (dare I say it? Art!) and changing so much of the phone industry.
Re: Apple not having majority phone marketshare.
Ten years ago when we all had one computer that did everything, owning that market was super important, and Microsoft did that. But today, where most people have several gadgets: a phone, a tablet, a computer - having 20% of each market may be better for a company than having 90% of one. Because then customers can integrate all their devices, and get pulled in to an ecosystem. And if it's the premium 20% of each market than more the better.
So in this age of many devices, when looking at marketshare, perhaps there needs to be a new kind of calculation, that takes in to account related markets.
The point is that the computer market is shrinking. So, even though you have a small marketshare but command the lion's share of profits, the overall profit you make is still dwarfed by the numbers of the mobile industry.
Yes, Apple will probably retain the highest tier of the smartphone market. But they most certainly won't be selling hundred of millions of phones a year. And their cost structure requires them these kind of profits (Apple stores, free software, R&D, etc etc).
Apple cannot sell only a handful of phones a year, even at premium prices, without massively reducing its size. Or entering new, growing markets and retain the overall profit. Important is that watches don't allow for a "Per unit" profit level of a smartphone.