Comments on: Why Apple Was My Company of the Decade

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:54:25 +0000

Well in this battle I see google coming out on top they are already in the buisness of selling energy and are going to many be offering a lightning fast Internet speeds it should be interesting you have to remember thought competition is great for the customer better prices and more inovation

By: Sachin

Sachin — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 04:34:30 +0000

I only hope that Apple's new tablet will be as revolutionary as the iPhone is...otherwise it will the biggest flop of the decade...

By: Samir JALLOUL

Samir JALLOUL — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:51:19 +0000

Great post Om,

Indeed your portrayal is similar to that of mine, being an IBM ThinkPad xXX, x31, x41, tablet...etc user solely for durability and faintly mere for premium user experience!

However, few things became clearer with the introduction of the 1G ipod, followed-up with complimentary products that unified the divide between software and hardware (i.e. my Compaq MP3 player to Windows) my experience was painful and cumbersome. Apple sought after making the process of managing, organizing, purchasing as a full life cycle and not only from the perspective of an iPod.

Clearly Apple understands the underlining potential for connectivity of devices, experience beyond the device, and the cloud as a medium to enable these experiences. With the latest buzz around a (tablet) to the device family, Apple is in better position to deliver even richer content via this medium (as much of the architecture / services (Apple MobileMe, and iTunes store is already in place to achieve this feat)).

I am excited for this new device, as it will cannibalize the short comings of many NetBooks - which in my mind, was a push for Nicholas Negroponte approach at making laptop affordable - to that respect this was a great, but now comes time for someone to make everything work and Apple is ready to deliver yet again !!! I am excited and ready to cancel my order for the Kindle DX, sorry Jeff 

-Samir

By: Cheese

Cheese — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:06:11 +0000

@Piyush, Om

While we are digressing from Apple and Google to Microsoft, allow me to go a few feet further...

What's wrong /unfortunate with being (or Microsoft becoming) an IBM?

Yes IBM used to be "the" computer company, and, thanks to well known reasons, it got sidelined..up to the point of irrelevance. But then IBM is not a dinosaur that disappeared - it metamorphosed into another animal. It didn't win gold in the race for desktop domination, but it moved on to other fields of play, where it performs reasonably well today. There are several others companies who have failed to survive much lesser challenges. IBM is not a loser, in comparison.

Coming back to Microsoft, notwithstanding the positive vibes for some of their recent products (Bing, Azure, xbox live), the best bet for Microsoft is to ensure that they don't ape Google or Apple. Microsoft should go beyond the me-too game and start a new one. The project Natal is a great example.

By: Liam Ke

Liam Ke — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:18:01 +0000

For instance, blocking the access of the Palm Pre to their store, is a typical microsoft action, but this time taken by Apple.

By: Piyush

Piyush — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:11:46 +0000

@Avro: Sorry, I don't know what consumer products they have dropped. Perhaps you could enlighten? Zune HD received rave, positive and surprising reviews -- I won't rule out the DNA is in place for gorgeous devices (phone, tablet, whatever) to result from those same teams. Windows Mobile certainly is where MSFT is being beaten to death and I agree the release of Mobile 7 not until 2H 2010 can cause rather significant damage to their prospects in the mobile world.

Cheers, Piyush

By: Piyush

Piyush — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:11:11 +0000

@Avro:
Sorry, I don’t know what consumer products they have dropped. Perhaps you could enlighten? Zune HD received rave, positive and surprising reviews — I won’t rule out the DNA is in place for gorgeous devices (phone, tablet, whatever) to result from those same teams. Windows Mobile certainly is where MSFT is being beaten to death and I agree the release of Mobile 7 not until 2H 2010 can cause rather significant damage to their prospects in the mobile world.

By: Avro

Avro — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 22:30:44 +0000

Positioned well? They have dropped many of their Consumer projects in 2009 and retreated to Enterprise. Windows 7 doesn't seem to be making OEM products fly off the shelves. Zune? Windows Mobile?

By: Om Malik

Om Malik — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 21:00:08 +0000

Piyush

I think Xbox and XBox Live are Microsoft's true awesome products of the decade in my opinion.

As for looking forward into the future, Microsoft will have to do amazing things to "not be an IBM."

By: Piyush

Piyush — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:05:57 +0000

To be fair and just, I do think Microsoft showed up some awesomeness specially in the last couple of years of the decade -- Windows 7, Natal, Xbox, Xbox Live, Bing and perhaps the admittedly-not-so-long list can go on. That leads me to believe they started finding a footing around 2008 and are positioned very well to continue the success .. and be not left-to-dust for perhaps atleast the next 3 years. By saying this, I don't mean it will outperform Apple and Google (not that it can't or won't); I just mean it is not a company to be written off, that it is not an IBM. I may well be wrong but if I am, it'll be a lesson to learn.

Cheers, Piyush

By: Avro

Avro — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:27:41 +0000

Statistics are a bit off. The computer/other split is closer to 50/50 and the music playing iPod revenue and sales are dropping. To include the iPod Touch and iPhone in the other category is a bit silly as they are really highly mobile computers. Why should Dell count their netbooks as computer sales when they are used for email and browsing while Apple users do this with the iPhone/Touch and they get counted as "music players or mobile phones"? The 5 percent figure is only accurate if you include the 70 percent of computers that go to Enterprise. Look at consumers and you end up with 1:6 worldwide and if you look at Australasia, North America and Western Europe, it is about 1:3.

I think another winner from Apple is on the horizon.

By: Ken

Ken — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 07:07:22 +0000

Apple's success comes primarily from two product lines: iPod and iPhone. The two products alone comprise about 2/3 of Apple's current revenue. In this current economic state, [most] consumers will be less prone to choose expensive Apple desktop and laptop units in comparison to their more economical Windows counterparts. Mac OS X still only maintains a 5% market share in the worldwide operating system market.

The reason for Apple's success is simply the following: people "want" their products. Consumers have decided in favor of iPod/iTunes as opposed to other digital music options, and they are quite marveled by iPhone OS and its impressive selection of apps. They are not economical options by any means. They are expensive. But, many are willing to pay the price for the experience.

Yes, it is true that Mac OS X, and iPhone OS, are clearly not as feature-filled nor capable as other software currently available. However, Apple is appealing to the average user, who in large part will sacrifice several bells and whistles in favor of convenience, simplicity and the Apple user experience.

The market for iPods is currently saturated and is experiencing much slower growth than it has in the past. iPhone, a product line that is now about 2.5 years old, will experience market saturation at some point in the near future.

The bottom line is -- Apple will need to introduce a new product line, similar in revenue generation to the iPhone, in order to sustain its current growth pattern. Apple is very healthy financially at the moment, but if the i(Slate/Tablet/Pad) does not perform as expected, or (other new product line we've never heard of) doesn't either, the company might head south.

Apple rolled the dice with iPhone. To the surprise of many, droves of people (40% of whom had household incomes of over $100,000) shelled out $599 for the original model.

Let's hope Apple creates another winner.

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 03:02:12 +0000

Wow, I didn't realize just how much better Apple stock did over the past decade than Google.

My belief is that this decade will be all about the smartphone -- everything is migrating toward being accessed, bought, managed through this device.

Who will win? On my site (www.brianshall.com) I have Android with a slight 1 point lead over the iPhone. Both are great bets!

By: timjones17

timjones17 — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 22:03:19 +0000

By: SIPguy

SIPguy — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:31:24 +0000

Interesting. I also approach the two companies in a fundamental way and get a very different answer. Neither are perfect but Apple is about design and the user and Google is about advertising and marketing information. Apple is trusted enough by consumers to have 40 million credit cards and Google has none. In three years I can see a world without Google, but not Apple.

I am just saying Google has far more risk than Apple.

By: jhn

jhn — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:44:43 +0000

Brett, that's a good perspective, but Apple was considered to be worse off than a startup in the mid-to-late 1990s. Google started at zero, Apple dug out from a hole. I agree that if you start at 2000, Google should win. But turning around a huge company, dumping nearly its entire product line and changing the entire way it does business, is a pretty fantastic achievement.

Google's success comes from one product it does well: search. Apple's path to success has been based on execution.