Bend-gate is stupid and totally troll...chip-gate? Are you serious or troll? Do a little research before saying stupid things up here. Map-gate? Who gave the crap? it's only an app, not an OS like Vista. Antenna...yes, but remember this: every fucking phone got impacted by it, not only iPhone, it might just be less than iPhone 4.
Would be nice to see examples on how Apple is so far ahead, because what I'm seeing right now is MS dominating Apple enterprise offerings,
iWorks vs MS Office
iCloud vs Office 365 / Azure
OS X Server vs Windows Server
Filemaker vs SQL Server / Access
Plus you may add applications and services Apple don't have, like System Center / Intune, Exchange, SharePoint and Skype for Business. I don't see how Apple is 3-5 years ahead.
Apple tried with servers and failed. Let's see how it goes with desktops / notebooks.
Now we have to see how that deployment goes. Hope IBM release white papers with details.
To bring MS to irrelevance, you have to do more than take down Windows in the desktop. There still Office, Dynamics, plus all server, management and cloud offerings. And those applications are far ahead than Apple and IBM enterprise offerings combined. BTW, what you see in the market to think that in 2025 Mac will be in 10% of the enterprise market?
Obviously Apple doesn't server products so you can't really make a comparison with MS there. Nor does Apple pretend to have any. Their gateway into the enterprise is their devices, pure and simple and every Fortune 500 company is deploying or testing iPads & Macs, if you believe Tim Cook. And there's no evidence to suggest he's lying.
As far as the IBM / Apple partnership is going, well it seems to be going pretty well;
"To much fanfare from the crowd, Previn said that IBM is deploying 1,900 Macs per week and currently have 130,000 Macs and iOS devices in the hands of users. And all of these devices are supported by a total of 24 help desk staff members, meaning that each staff member effectively supports 5,375 employees. One stat that particularly stood out was that 5% of Mac users call the help desk, compared to 40% of PC users. This shows how simple it is for the staff at IBM to use the Mac platform, and reflects the hard work the team has done to make the experience seamless."
Now, I'm no IT expert, but if an organization the size of IBM, can deploy that many Macs / iPads, with such low support costs, why can't any other organization?
Obviously Apple doesn't server products so you can't really make a comparison with MS there. Nor does Apple pretend to have any.
I just mention OS X Server, since Apple mention it in their website. It's another story if business and enterprises ignore it.
Quote:
Their gateway into the enterprise is their devices, pure and simple and every Fortune 500 company is deploying or testing iPads & Macs, if you believe Tim Cook. And there's no evidence to suggest he's lying.
I don't think Cook lies. But I can tell you that those Fortune 500 testing and deploying Apple devices already have MS software in desktops / notebooks (from different brands, including Apple), tablets (including iPads and Android), notebooks, on-premise servers and the cloud.
Quote:
As far as the IBM / Apple partnership is going, well it seems to be going pretty well;
"To much fanfare from the crowd, Previn said that IBM is deploying 1,900 Macs per week and currently have 130,000 Macs and iOS devices in the hands of users. And all of these devices are supported by a total of 24 help desk staff members, meaning that each staff member effectively supports 5,375 employees. One stat that particularly stood out was that 5% of Mac users call the help desk, compared to 40% of PC users. This shows how simple it is for the staff at IBM to use the Mac platform, and reflects the hard work the team has done to make the experience seamless."
Now, I'm no IT expert, but if an organization the size of IBM, can deploy that many Macs / iPads, with such low support costs, why can't any other organization?
Because each enterprise have different needs. That's the reason some companies have databases from Oracle, while other use IBM and other Microsoft. Same as collaboration software with Google for Business and Office 365, or CRM's from Oracle, Salesforce or Microsoft, or ERP's from Sage, MS Dynamics or Netsuite. There is no single vendor that can cover every enterprise need, and that includes Apple / IBM.
Still, MS still have the advantage, with their large portfolio of software, from desktop, to servers and cloud. There is no other company that comes close. Now we have to see how the Apple + IBM thing works out. And even if companies move to Apple hardware, many of them will be running some kind of MS software or connected to some MS backend.
I just mention OS X Server, since Apple mention it in their website. It's another story if business and enterprises ignore it.
Because each enterprise have different needs. That's the reason some companies have databases from Oracle, while other use IBM and other Microsoft. Same as collaboration software with Google for Business and Office 365, or CRM's from Oracle, Salesforce or Microsoft, or ERP's from Sage, MS Dynamics or Netsuite. There is no single vendor that can cover every enterprise need, and that includes Apple / IBM.
Still, MS still have the advantage, with their large portfolio of software, from desktop, to servers and cloud. There is no other company that comes close. Now we have to see how the Apple + IBM thing works out. And even if companies move to Apple hardware, many of them will be running some kind of MS software or connected to some MS backend.
"And even if companies move to Apple hardware, many of them will be running some kind of MS software or connected to some MS backend. "
Agreed. I am under no illusion that iWork, specifically for enterprise use, will dethrone MS Office anytime soon or that Apple will challenge MS, if ever, when it comes to enterprise back end / cloud infrastructure. iCloud is designed and works for its intended use - mainstream personal computing.
One of the key factors in Apple's success after Jobs return was exactly the focus on the consumer market. With consumer (generally) the "user is the purchaser". So the user cares about appearance, quality, experience, and sometimes total cost over lifetime, etc. With enterprise, the user is usually not the purchaser - the purchaser is the IT department and the "user experience" is just about last on the list. Windows appealed to that market, which is one of their factors in dominating the enterprise. They sold to the Fortune 500, which meant selling to (simplistically) 500 groups.
As we know, this allowed Apple to stabilize the Mac business, and opened the doors to consumer electronics like the iPod. Although not predicted in the early 2000's, smart phones then became the largest CE device of all time, and simply due to numbers, it is all about consumer (enterprise supplied handset numbers are relatively small, compared with the estimated 2B total smartphone users of today). So here is Apple, with its focus on consumer, absolutely owning the premium CE space across phones, tablets, computers, and related ecosystem - which in devices is the most valuable. Going into enterprise is a way for Apple to expand their devices business, but it will never be their primary focus as the larger market is consumer. Also why Apple is unlikely to focus on servers or any enterprise infrastructure - their strengths are not what those IT purchasers are looking for.
Which brings us to Microsoft. They have never really sold much to the end consumer. Windows was acquired by consumer via the PC that was purchased, and most often Office in that way too. The surface is a starting point, but still very early and very small. They really have no solid track record selling into consumer directly. Enterprise doesn't purchase as much based on design & integrated offering. Not sure MS future here is as bright as many think. Certainly it has no historical data to guide it.
Isn't TCO (as in cost to own over a lifetime) where Mac's are kicking Windows ass, you think enterprise doesn't care about that?
BYO devices, high integration across devices for Apple and the ease of configuration of modern BYO devices means MS is very fast losing their stranglehold on the end user business devices, especially the high end were there is mucho profit.
By MS screwing their OEM's, and making their offering weaker, they can only hope that business buyer don't bypass them and go to Apple when they next buy devices.
Obviously Apple doesn't server products so you can't really make a comparison with MS there. Nor does Apple pretend to have any. Their gateway into the enterprise is their devices, pure and simple and every Fortune 500 company is deploying or testing iPads & Macs, if you believe Tim Cook. And there's no evidence to suggest he's lying.
As far as the IBM / Apple partnership is going, well it seems to be going pretty well;
"To much fanfare from the crowd, Previn said that IBM is deploying 1,900 Macs per week and currently have 130,000 Macs and iOS devices in the hands of users. And all of these devices are supported by a total of 24 help desk staff members, meaning that each staff member effectively supports 5,375 employees. One stat that particularly stood out was that 5% of Mac users call the help desk, compared to 40% of PC users. This shows how simple it is for the staff at IBM to use the Mac platform, and reflects the hard work the team has done to make the experience seamless."
Now, I'm no IT expert, but if an organization the size of IBM, can deploy that many Macs / iPads, with such low support costs, why can't any other organization?
What?? The point is that for less money, you can buy a 15" rMBP that embarrasses the Surface Book at $200 more.
They are two very different devices. Despite the size comparison with the 13" rMBP, the Surface Book is still a 2-in-1 device with a stylus.
At least my comparison with the XPS 15 is between two 15" laptops. At $2200, the XPS 15 comes with a 4K touch display, an i7-6700HQ, 16 GB DDR4-2133, 512 GB PCIe SSD, GTX 960M + 2 GB GDDR5 and a Thunderbolt 3 port (40 Gbps). The XPS 15 also has an edge-to-edge display that gives the device a smaller footprint than most 15" laptops.
'For less money, you can buy a XPS 15 that embarrasses the 15" rMBP at $300 more.'
I don't agree. The Apple ads may not be to your taste (I don't like them myself), but at least they don't make me cringe because of how u professional and cheap they appear. Apart from the fact that if what the "whats" they come up with are really the biggest differentiating criteria for a PC then the PC should indeed die along with Flash, eg.
Interesting how Tim Cook is doing the same with 2 in 1 devices. I'm looking forward to see what happens to see in the next few years.
Yes. Especially as I don't see a clear positioning of iPad pro versus the MacBook. I obviously own neither but from the specs it would appear that any "serious" work would require a MacBook Pro, and then what's left is a better keyboard and better cpu? At this point I'd opt for the iPad with pencil any moment.
They are two very different devices. Despite the size comparison with the 13" rMBP, the Surface Book is still a 2-in-1 device with a stylus.
At least my comparison with the XPS 15 is between two 15" laptops. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">At $2200, the XPS 15 comes with a 4K touch display, an i7-6700HQ, 16 GB DDR4-2133, 512 GB PCIe SSD, GTX 960M + 2 GB GDDR5 and a Thunderbolt 3 port (40 Gbps). The XPS 15 also has an edge-to-edge display that gives the device a smaller footprint than most 15" laptops.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">'For less money, you can buy a XPS 15 that embarrasses the 15" rMBP at $300 more.'</span>
Yet we are not talking about an XPS system. MS made the comparison based solely on size, knowing full well the rMBP in 13" has an integrated gpu, so they could show the speed difference. But when you look at price and performance it's clear there are lots of other options.
The PC market has not sold me on why there is a need for a touch screen on a laptop. I don't buy the drawing aspect and interaction with the screen when it's in laptop form slows down speed with which you work because of the unnatural change in plane that your hands have to move.
The Surface Book is sort of a convertible, but really it's just a laptop when you take what MS is promoting.
I don't agree. The Apple ads may not be to your taste (I don't like them myself), but at least they don't make me cringe because of how u professional and cheap they appear. Apart from the fact that if what the "whats" they come up with are really the biggest differentiating criteria for a PC then the PC should indeed die along with Flash, eg.
IMO both ads look cheap in their own different way. I don't see how one is better than the other when both are bad.
And some times they miss that goal, like with recent products like, iWorks, Apple Music, Apple Watch, iCloud and the Macbook.
?Your choice of products makes it obvious that you're confusing your personal criteria with goals that Apple is trying to achieve.
iWork used to be so much better than Microsoft Word at fulfilling ordinary users' needs that it wasn't even funny. They have broken some of those aspects in their iOS/Mac file-format unification, unfortunately.
Apple Music — I dunno. The roll-out was fraught with a few difficulties, but overall, going from zero to 6.5 million paying subscribers seems like the product must be pretty good, no?
Apple Watch — I'm just gonna roll my eyes at that one. It is a magnificent product. The end.
iCloud — works fine. Seamless backups of all my iOS hardware, seamless transitions from one device to the next, seamless syncing of contacts, emails, calendars, and passwords everywhere.
MacBook — Awesome laptop. Utterly awesome. Obviously not yours. Nobody cares. In a few years' time, nobody will question why it existed.
You could have mentioned Ping, I guess — but you didn't. Actually, that would have been an awesome product if Facebook hadn't screwed it by pulling out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanVM
Yes, they have been doing that with the Macs. I don't see why that it's a bad thing. IMO, that means they believe in their product.
Moving to Retina displays across all product lines, building fan-free laptops, unibody designs, multi-touch and then Force Touch, and all the features thrown into the OS over the past decade hardly qualify as "hanging in there". They're pushing the platform so far forward that even you can't see where they're going (vis: MacBook). All the while taking in, what was it, 85% of computer profits?
"On the prospect of an Apple Car, Ballmer said it's a "much bigger leap to do cars than it is most of the things they've tried."
Did he snort uncontrollably when saying this?
I have no idea what he specifically meant by this, but I can see a case for why the 'bigger leap' is not a technological one. You're producing a product that is wading into a regulatory thicket at the local, state, national, and global levels. Other than cigarettes, and maybe some pharma products, I can't think of a more regulated consumer product. You're also talking about a product that will be far more capital intensive than anything Apple has done before.
Comments
Did he add the /s later or did you miss it?
Would be nice to see examples on how Apple is so far ahead, because what I'm seeing right now is MS dominating Apple enterprise offerings,
iWorks vs MS Office
iCloud vs Office 365 / Azure
OS X Server vs Windows Server
Filemaker vs SQL Server / Access
Plus you may add applications and services Apple don't have, like System Center / Intune, Exchange, SharePoint and Skype for Business. I don't see how Apple is 3-5 years ahead.
Apple tried with servers and failed. Let's see how it goes with desktops / notebooks.
Now we have to see how that deployment goes. Hope IBM release white papers with details.
To bring MS to irrelevance, you have to do more than take down Windows in the desktop. There still Office, Dynamics, plus all server, management and cloud offerings. And those applications are far ahead than Apple and IBM enterprise offerings combined. BTW, what you see in the market to think that in 2025 Mac will be in 10% of the enterprise market?
Obviously Apple doesn't server products so you can't really make a comparison with MS there. Nor does Apple pretend to have any. Their gateway into the enterprise is their devices, pure and simple and every Fortune 500 company is deploying or testing iPads & Macs, if you believe Tim Cook. And there's no evidence to suggest he's lying.
As far as the IBM / Apple partnership is going, well it seems to be going pretty well;
http://www.jamfsoftware.com/blog/mac-ibm-zero-to-30000-in-6-months/
"To much fanfare from the crowd, Previn said that IBM is deploying 1,900 Macs per week and currently have 130,000 Macs and iOS devices in the hands of users. And all of these devices are supported by a total of 24 help desk staff members, meaning that each staff member effectively supports 5,375 employees. One stat that particularly stood out was that 5% of Mac users call the help desk, compared to 40% of PC users. This shows how simple it is for the staff at IBM to use the Mac platform, and reflects the hard work the team has done to make the experience seamless."
Now, I'm no IT expert, but if an organization the size of IBM, can deploy that many Macs / iPads, with such low support costs, why can't any other organization?
All you need to do is go back to the very beginning...
[video]
Never forget.
Monkey dance- never, ever forget
Obviously Apple doesn't server products so you can't really make a comparison with MS there. Nor does Apple pretend to have any.
I just mention OS X Server, since Apple mention it in their website. It's another story if business and enterprises ignore it.
I don't think Cook lies. But I can tell you that those Fortune 500 testing and deploying Apple devices already have MS software in desktops / notebooks (from different brands, including Apple), tablets (including iPads and Android), notebooks, on-premise servers and the cloud.
Quote:
As far as the IBM / Apple partnership is going, well it seems to be going pretty well;
http://www.jamfsoftware.com/blog/mac-ibm-zero-to-30000-in-6-months/
"To much fanfare from the crowd, Previn said that IBM is deploying 1,900 Macs per week and currently have 130,000 Macs and iOS devices in the hands of users. And all of these devices are supported by a total of 24 help desk staff members, meaning that each staff member effectively supports 5,375 employees. One stat that particularly stood out was that 5% of Mac users call the help desk, compared to 40% of PC users. This shows how simple it is for the staff at IBM to use the Mac platform, and reflects the hard work the team has done to make the experience seamless."
Now, I'm no IT expert, but if an organization the size of IBM, can deploy that many Macs / iPads, with such low support costs, why can't any other organization?
Because each enterprise have different needs. That's the reason some companies have databases from Oracle, while other use IBM and other Microsoft. Same as collaboration software with Google for Business and Office 365, or CRM's from Oracle, Salesforce or Microsoft, or ERP's from Sage, MS Dynamics or Netsuite. There is no single vendor that can cover every enterprise need, and that includes Apple / IBM.
Still, MS still have the advantage, with their large portfolio of software, from desktop, to servers and cloud. There is no other company that comes close. Now we have to see how the Apple + IBM thing works out. And even if companies move to Apple hardware, many of them will be running some kind of MS software or connected to some MS backend.
I just mention OS X Server, since Apple mention it in their website. It's another story if business and enterprises ignore it.
Because each enterprise have different needs. That's the reason some companies have databases from Oracle, while other use IBM and other Microsoft. Same as collaboration software with Google for Business and Office 365, or CRM's from Oracle, Salesforce or Microsoft, or ERP's from Sage, MS Dynamics or Netsuite. There is no single vendor that can cover every enterprise need, and that includes Apple / IBM.
Still, MS still have the advantage, with their large portfolio of software, from desktop, to servers and cloud. There is no other company that comes close. Now we have to see how the Apple + IBM thing works out. And even if companies move to Apple hardware, many of them will be running some kind of MS software or connected to some MS backend.
"And even if companies move to Apple hardware, many of them will be running some kind of MS software or connected to some MS backend. "
Agreed. I am under no illusion that iWork, specifically for enterprise use, will dethrone MS Office anytime soon or that Apple will challenge MS, if ever, when it comes to enterprise back end / cloud infrastructure. iCloud is designed and works for its intended use - mainstream personal computing.
One of the key factors in Apple's success after Jobs return was exactly the focus on the consumer market. With consumer (generally) the "user is the purchaser". So the user cares about appearance, quality, experience, and sometimes total cost over lifetime, etc. With enterprise, the user is usually not the purchaser - the purchaser is the IT department and the "user experience" is just about last on the list. Windows appealed to that market, which is one of their factors in dominating the enterprise. They sold to the Fortune 500, which meant selling to (simplistically) 500 groups.
As we know, this allowed Apple to stabilize the Mac business, and opened the doors to consumer electronics like the iPod. Although not predicted in the early 2000's, smart phones then became the largest CE device of all time, and simply due to numbers, it is all about consumer (enterprise supplied handset numbers are relatively small, compared with the estimated 2B total smartphone users of today). So here is Apple, with its focus on consumer, absolutely owning the premium CE space across phones, tablets, computers, and related ecosystem - which in devices is the most valuable. Going into enterprise is a way for Apple to expand their devices business, but it will never be their primary focus as the larger market is consumer. Also why Apple is unlikely to focus on servers or any enterprise infrastructure - their strengths are not what those IT purchasers are looking for.
Which brings us to Microsoft. They have never really sold much to the end consumer. Windows was acquired by consumer via the PC that was purchased, and most often Office in that way too. The surface is a starting point, but still very early and very small. They really have no solid track record selling into consumer directly. Enterprise doesn't purchase as much based on design & integrated offering. Not sure MS future here is as bright as many think. Certainly it has no historical data to guide it.
Isn't TCO (as in cost to own over a lifetime) where Mac's are kicking Windows ass, you think enterprise doesn't care about that?
BYO devices, high integration across devices for Apple and the ease of configuration of modern BYO devices means MS is very fast losing their stranglehold on the end user business devices, especially the high end were there is mucho profit.
By MS screwing their OEM's, and making their offering weaker, they can only hope that business buyer don't bypass them and go to Apple when they next buy devices.
What?? The point is that for less money, you can buy a 15" rMBP that embarrasses the Surface Book at $200 more.
Because there are several potential weak points created by the angled screen to base form.
Obviously Apple doesn't server products so you can't really make a comparison with MS there. Nor does Apple pretend to have any. Their gateway into the enterprise is their devices, pure and simple and every Fortune 500 company is deploying or testing iPads & Macs, if you believe Tim Cook. And there's no evidence to suggest he's lying.
As far as the IBM / Apple partnership is going, well it seems to be going pretty well;
http://www.jamfsoftware.com/blog/mac-ibm-zero-to-30000-in-6-months/
"To much fanfare from the crowd, Previn said that IBM is deploying 1,900 Macs per week and currently have 130,000 Macs and iOS devices in the hands of users. And all of these devices are supported by a total of 24 help desk staff members, meaning that each staff member effectively supports 5,375 employees. One stat that particularly stood out was that 5% of Mac users call the help desk, compared to 40% of PC users. This shows how simple it is for the staff at IBM to use the Mac platform, and reflects the hard work the team has done to make the experience seamless."
Now, I'm no IT expert, but if an organization the size of IBM, can deploy that many Macs / iPads, with such low support costs, why can't any other organization?
Who says other organizations can't? Google has 40000 Macs of its own (https://www.usenix.org/conference/lisa13/managing-macs-google-scale).
What?? The point is that for less money, you can buy a 15" rMBP that embarrasses the Surface Book at $200 more.
They are two very different devices. Despite the size comparison with the 13" rMBP, the Surface Book is still a 2-in-1 device with a stylus.
At least my comparison with the XPS 15 is between two 15" laptops. At $2200, the XPS 15 comes with a 4K touch display, an i7-6700HQ, 16 GB DDR4-2133, 512 GB PCIe SSD, GTX 960M + 2 GB GDDR5 and a Thunderbolt 3 port (40 Gbps). The XPS 15 also has an edge-to-edge display that gives the device a smaller footprint than most 15" laptops.
'For less money, you can buy a XPS 15 that embarrasses the 15" rMBP at $300 more.'
Because there are several potential weak points created by the angled screen to base form.
Apparently, durability is not a problem.
Surface hardwares are competing with other wintel hardwares which is easy competition.
Is the surface series taking away market share of iPad? I hardly think so.
I don't agree. The Apple ads may not be to your taste (I don't like them myself), but at least they don't make me cringe because of how u professional and cheap they appear. Apart from the fact that if what the "whats" they come up with are really the biggest differentiating criteria for a PC then the PC should indeed die along with Flash, eg.
Sales numbers would not agree with "shocking".
Yes. Especially as I don't see a clear positioning of iPad pro versus the MacBook. I obviously own neither but from the specs it would appear that any "serious" work would require a MacBook Pro, and then what's left is a better keyboard and better cpu? At this point I'd opt for the iPad with pencil any moment.
Yet we are not talking about an XPS system. MS made the comparison based solely on size, knowing full well the rMBP in 13" has an integrated gpu, so they could show the speed difference. But when you look at price and performance it's clear there are lots of other options.
The PC market has not sold me on why there is a need for a touch screen on a laptop. I don't buy the drawing aspect and interaction with the screen when it's in laptop form slows down speed with which you work because of the unnatural change in plane that your hands have to move.
The Surface Book is sort of a convertible, but really it's just a laptop when you take what MS is promoting.
I don't agree. The Apple ads may not be to your taste (I don't like them myself), but at least they don't make me cringe because of how u professional and cheap they appear. Apart from the fact that if what the "whats" they come up with are really the biggest differentiating criteria for a PC then the PC should indeed die along with Flash, eg.
IMO both ads look cheap in their own different way. I don't see how one is better than the other when both are bad.
And some times they miss that goal, like with recent products like, iWorks, Apple Music, Apple Watch, iCloud and the Macbook.
?Your choice of products makes it obvious that you're confusing your personal criteria with goals that Apple is trying to achieve.
iWork used to be so much better than Microsoft Word at fulfilling ordinary users' needs that it wasn't even funny. They have broken some of those aspects in their iOS/Mac file-format unification, unfortunately.
Apple Music — I dunno. The roll-out was fraught with a few difficulties, but overall, going from zero to 6.5 million paying subscribers seems like the product must be pretty good, no?
Apple Watch — I'm just gonna roll my eyes at that one. It is a magnificent product. The end.
iCloud — works fine. Seamless backups of all my iOS hardware, seamless transitions from one device to the next, seamless syncing of contacts, emails, calendars, and passwords everywhere.
MacBook — Awesome laptop. Utterly awesome. Obviously not yours. Nobody cares. In a few years' time, nobody will question why it existed.
You could have mentioned Ping, I guess — but you didn't. Actually, that would have been an awesome product if Facebook hadn't screwed it by pulling out.
Quote:Yes, they have been doing that with the Macs. I don't see why that it's a bad thing. IMO, that means they believe in their product.
Moving to Retina displays across all product lines, building fan-free laptops, unibody designs, multi-touch and then Force Touch, and all the features thrown into the OS over the past decade hardly qualify as "hanging in there". They're pushing the platform so far forward that even you can't see where they're going (vis: MacBook). All the while taking in, what was it, 85% of computer profits?
"Hanging in there", indeed.
Does OS X 10.7 Lion count, since it was considered the Apple "Vista"?
http://gizmodo.com/5819418/mac-os-x-lion-this-is-not-the-future-we-were-hoping-for
http://www.zdnet.com/article/os-x-10-7-lion-is-more-painful-than-vista/
I may add to the list, iWorks, iOS7 / iOS9, Ping and Photos as a replacement for Aperture. Can we forget of all of them too?
Maybe iWorks shouldn't be on the list, since still available. Still, can we forget about it?
Snow Leopard was considered "Apple's Vista", too.
I have no idea what he specifically meant by this, but I can see a case for why the 'bigger leap' is not a technological one. You're producing a product that is wading into a regulatory thicket at the local, state, national, and global levels. Other than cigarettes, and maybe some pharma products, I can't think of a more regulated consumer product. You're also talking about a product that will be far more capital intensive than anything Apple has done before.