Why Apple Is So Sticky 595
Hugh Pickens writes "'Sticky,' in the social sciences and particularly economics, describes a situation in which a variable is resistant to change. For websites or products it usually means that visitors or customers keep coming back for more. Now Fortune Magazine reports on an analysis by Deutsche Bank's Chris Whitmore on what makes the (iTunes-based) iPhone-iPod-iPad platform so sticky and why it's going to get harder, not easier, for Apple users to switch, no matter what Google and the rest of Apple's competitors have up their sleeves. Whitmore says the investment Apple's customers have made in content for those devices in terms of apps, videos, and music purchased at the iTunes Store creates Apple's 'stickiness.' Apple has an installed base today of about 150 million iTunes-dependent devices that could grow to more than 200 million by the end of 2011. Whitmore comes up with a cumulative investment in those devices of about $15 billion today, growing to $25 billion by the end of next year. 'This averages to ~$100 of content for each installed device,' Whitmore writes, 'suggesting switching costs are relatively high (not to mention the time required to port). When Apple's best-in-class user experience is combined with these growing switching costs, the resulting customer loyalty is unparalleled.'"
The question is (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is Slashdot so stuck on Apple?
Apple "It Just Works" (Score:1, Insightful)
music? (Score:4, Insightful)
What "sticky" really means (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like, at least in Apple's case, "sticky" is just another word for "vendor lockin"
So what's new? (Score:2, Insightful)
Whitmore says the investment Apple's customers have made in content for those devices in terms of apps, videos, and music purchased at the iTunes Store creates Apple's 'stickiness.'
Wow, it's almost like Windows where the thousands of dollars worth of Windows software I own are the only thing keeping me stuck to having a Windows PC in the house.
Value calculation is skewed (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's talk about applications only. Sure the average user may have purchased $100 worth of software, but how much of it do they actually use day to day? I think, just like a computer platform, that the cost of switching is lower than it would seem because most software does not need to be replaced, so the cost is lower than it would seem from simply examining purchase prices for everything you own.
Now throw in media... songs are pretty much sold DRM free these days, so there is no cost to migrate media. Video is tricker since through iTunes it is wrapped in DRM. But I wonder apart from children's video, how much video purchased online is really there to be watched again and again - I buy a lot of video online but after I watch it, I generally don't watch it more than once. I "buy" it knowing full well it's really more like a rental, and if I really like a video I'll buy it on physical media that I can load out or keep as long as I want.
There is something to the argument they make, I just don't think it's as strong on the value side as they make it out to be.
The same can be said for Microsoft's domination (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:5, Insightful)
I reject this statement because it is fundamentally not true.
Case in point, the iTunes interface is not intuitive and neither are many of the features. I'm not alone in this belief and I've seen many a novices confused by it. However, people eventually do learn to navigate it.
The same goes for the ipod interface. Thankfully my nano is rock box compatible and I was able to install something that was a bit easier to sync my music with.
I pretty much find all of their interfaces confusing and I really don't have the desire to learn them. Good news is that there are many alternatives on the market.
Re:apple needs to open mac osx to more hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
OS X only exists to make people want to buy Apple hardware. Allowing OS X on commodity hardware would dilute their brand and suck buyers away from what they're actually trying to sell.
Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
I know many people with Iphones, Ipads and Ipods, nearly all of them love the devices but hate Itunes, using it as the only option available to them. Several of my more computer literate friends are unhappy with the restrictions thier Ipods place on them regarding PC transfer rights and lack of backup options for their content, but most never even consider what would happen if their device failed and won't until it does...
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is "potentially harder?"
And no, you can't cheat with custom firmware or third-party hacks.
Re:The same can be said for Microsoft's domination (Score:0, Insightful)
Offices that made a heavy investment in Linux are stuck because their costs to switch are too great (I'm talking hours in man power and "expert" costs to switch here, not software).
See? It works for everything.
Re:Value calculation is skewed (Score:4, Insightful)
Its more psychological. People are extremely adverse to loss, even if that loss isn't really that much. A good example is the stock market and how quickly people panic the moment there is any kind of drop, even though that loss was entirely on paper and in the larger picture their stock is still worth more than it was when they bought it.
Just the thought of losing something that they paid money for, even though they never watch it or use it is a big barrier. They have to mentally disconnect themselves from any perceived value the item holds before they can get rid of it. Some people like horders aren't able to do even that.
Re:Media porting (Score:3, Insightful)
Your line of reasoning is seriously flawed.
Most of the apps in the App stores are priced at almost rental levels - with the benefit of having no time limit. If you can't afford a few dollars for a productive or utilitarian app, or even a few dollars for a few weeks of gaming fun before you're bored of the game, then owning a smartphone is probably not for you.
Most people don't buy hundreds of random useless apps, they buy things that they feel are worthwhile. And since most people don't change their phone/OS every six months, it's not an issue. Also, your stubbornness assumes that these apps are never going to become obsolete, and that you'd otherwise never consider upgrading to another app with improved functionality (or looking for new games that are new and interesting).
Because of the kind of people who buy Apple (Score:2, Insightful)
These are the kind of people who allow their self-worth to be determined by others; their cool-factor by how many Facebook friends they have, and what parties they are/not invited to.
They have convinced themselves of a form of technical superiority, when in reality, their platform is too small to be noticed by virus\malware providers, or most productivity app venders save a few like Adobe.
They consider themselves "Counter-culture" when in reality, they are the worst kind of lemmings.
Just watch next year, as hundreds of thousands of them toss their iPad for another one, because it will have a camera, and once again in a few years, for another feature that should have been in v1.0.
Does Apple have good technology? Sure. Is it beyond what anyone else could do? Never has been.
Can they market their platform beyond all common fucking sense to people seeking validation through faddish participation? Fuckin A!
Wanna see an Apple user's head explode? Ask them if their device supports IPv6, and watch them strain to answer without giving away that they dont know what the fuck you are talking about.
Re:music? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, if someone buys $100 worth of android or blackberry apps then, surprise surprise, they can only use them on whichever device they purchased them for and are locked in.
The only way to be free and not locked in is for the PUBLISHERS to allow people to download versions of their apps/media for any platform they want. It's not up to the platform owners since they don't own the media in question
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What "sticky" really means (Score:5, Insightful)
The term "lock in" apparently has had its definition changed much as "brick" has already.
How in the world is anyone "locked in" to an iPod?
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:2, Insightful)
The fundamental problem with your reply is that you saw "My Computer" and thought, "Oh, a Windows idiot." Then you got up on your elitist Starbucks-induced high and ranted,
If you had read the rest of my post, you'd know that my point was that other devices which use the mass-storage protocol don't require all that hassle to Just Work(TM), even though the majority of them provide an iTunes-like manager anyway, which means that we at least have a choice.
No, no, no. You always have a choice with Linux. One of its greatest weaknesses is also its greatest strength. Imagine that!
If the software is unnecessarily mandatory, annoying, and sucks shit(iTunes, Quicktime, Safari) on its own platform; then why buy the hardware?
Lotta good trolls in this discussion, but it seems that I respond to only the bad ones.
Re:Value calculation is skewed (Score:4, Insightful)
Except music from iTunes at this point doesn't contribute to Apple lock-in. There's no DRM on them, and AAC is supported by most major hardware vendors at this point.
Videos and Apps, but not music. And it's not like there isn't a problem going the other way if someone wants to move from Android or Windows Mobile or Palm to iPhone if they've got an investment in apps on that platform.
Besides, if someone ships a seriously compelling alternative to your current platform of choice, is $100 in content really going to stop you from switching, considering we're talking about several hundred dollar cell phones or tablets you replace every couple years.
Re:The question is (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they're the ones moving forward and being creative in the computer field with regards to consumer computers while everybody else is just following their lead? Microsoft is creating vaporware tablets to compete with the iPad. Android and the idea around it came out a year after and probably because of the iPhone and the design of its OS. HP is scavenging Palm for their own Apple inspired tablet rather than going with Windows. Things are changing as people are getting used to owning smart phones and being online just about anywhere they are located. This wasn't a feature advancement as my phone years before the iPhone could also (technically) go online, but the iPhone OS was the one that made it actually work like a browser and easy to do for the general public.
Re:The question is (Score:5, Insightful)
The worst UI except for all the others (Score:5, Insightful)
I reject this statement because it is fundamentally not true.
Case in point, the iTunes interface is not intuitive and neither are many of the features.
For novice users, I reject that any solution that is based around files (which I know you would prefer and sounds like what you are using) is easier for non-technical users to understand than the way iTunes works. You stated that you saw novice users confused by iTunes, but they got over it. Well I have seen a lot of novice users that never get over the confusion of how to deal with files.
iTunes "just works" for most users despite being somewhat nonintuitive, because the other solutions are either more clunky to set up or less intuitive still.
Re:The question is (Score:5, Insightful)
If you didn't hear, Apple's market capitalization recently surpassed that of Microsoft. That means if you add up all the Apple stock out there, it's worth a total of 234 billion dollars as of last Friday; i.e. if you happened to have a quarter of a trillion dollars just lying around, you could in theory buy the whole company*. Microsoft, meanwhile, is worth 226 billion dollars. True, the stock market is driven as much by fear and greed as any rational forces, and Microsoft still hauled in more money, but as of Friday, the various institutions and individuals out there felt that as a company Apple Computer was worth more than Microsoft. Think about that for a second. Ten years ago, Microsoft was the unstoppable Borg, ruthlessly destroying or assimilating all who opposed them. Now there's a new Borg, and their cube is stylish and made of shiny white lucite and brushed aluminum, and they have millions and millions of brainwashed drones plugged into their machines. It's pretty clearly the end of the Microsoft Era.
The reason for the shift is pretty obvious. Apple has focused on the next generation of consumer electronics, first with the iPod, now with the iPhone, and next (maybe) with the iPad. They realized that the OS wars were done, and focused on the next big fight. A while ago, Jobs declared Apple's mission was to be 'the new Sony', i.e. to own personal electronics the way Sony did in the 80s and 90s. They've done it. Microsoft never really got this.
Re:Media porting (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I'm really glad I don't have your job if the typical app price is so important to you. For the price of a movie, you could buy one or two professional apps that will probably give you more time of use each and at more convenient times before you change your phone. So maybe, you're the type of person that never goes to the movie theater because you'll eventually pick up the DVD for a dollar several years later, goes out to eat at a restaurant because you can cook food at home, or buys an espresso from a coffee shop (which is more than your typical app price these days), but most people aren't. Nobody is going to disagree with saving money, however the scale of savings you are talking about is pretty bizarre to most people I suspect. Given the typical $/hrs of use, I suspect that the price of apps you'd have to replace with a new phone compared to normal things in daily life most people do is trivial and buried in the noise of the cost of things like change put in tip jars.
Re:The question is (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you didn't hear, Apple's market capitalization recently surpassed that of Microsoft."
I see. It's because Slashdot has often posted stories about Microsoft's highly regarded market capitalization in the past.
It just proves today's Apple customers are cheap. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been saying for a while that the iPhone is no longer a "premium" brand. High school kids have them. If $100 is "relatively high", then those iPhone customers are not what Apple makes them out to be, especially when amortized over the cost of a 3-year phone plan - $100 is less than $3 a month. Less than $0.10 a day. How much cheaper can you get? Are iPhone customers reduced to saying "Buddy, can you spare a dime?"
Re:Because of the kind of people who buy Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this a serious point of view?
As a software developer, OSS advocate, multiple-os user, I couldn't disagree more.
My personal laptop is a 1st-gen MacBook Pro when they first made the Intel switch, and I'm using an iPhone 3G. Never used an Apple product until they made the intel switch, and I've loved every minute of OS X.
I still use Windows, Linux and Solaris for personal use, work use and for any other purpose, but if I had a choice I would undoubtedly choose OS X.
Why? Simple, it doesn't suck. I won't say "it just works", but it sucks a hell of a lot less then Windows or Linux. Surely, we can agree on Windows here, and Linux I'm not going to go into some kind of argument, but suffice to say my time is valuable (if not to others, to myself), I don't want to invest tens to hundreds of hours into simply configuring Linux to do what I want, when OS X does out of the box, with a cleaner and (more) unified interface.
Why did I get an iPhone instead of a phone with WebOS, Android or Symbian? Same goddamn reasons, WebOS is a tiny market, Android is fragmented and destroyed by the vendor specific distributions (sad, really, I wish this weren't the case -- or else i'd have gone here). When iPhone 3.0 came out, I was able to upgrade my phone instantly. When iPhone 4.0 beta came out, I was able to upgrade my phone isntantly. My buddy at work with his Android phone? He's stuck on something ridicuously old at 1.5 because he's at the mercy of the combination of his cell provider and handset maker to update their proprietary version of Android.
We all know that the cell phone providers have a long way to go in order to "catch up" with the technology we all want to use; and that's why I went with apple here. They used their brand power to strong-arm a major cell provider into giving them unified control. Sure, I'm "locked in" to Apple for my iPhone. But what do I get for that?
- Free (in a sense, not at additional charge) software and OS ugprades
- Largest app store by an order of magnitude (i seldom pay for anything, tons of free stuff available that do what I want)
- Unified interface to sync/get content (Sure, you see iTunes as locked in, but the app is free, purchased music is DRM free and there is simply no better alternative on any OS. So what the hell are you complaining about? Make a better competitor and maybe someone will use it.)
- The UI is smoother and more intuitive then any other device
- Flash? What? Android doesnt even run flash (except in latest betas, i believe, which wont see an actual piece of hardware for who knows how long, so dont give me that BS)
Until someone else can compete at this level (and that wont be for some time, if they are lucky), then I'll stick with my "locked in" platform, which, has more free and better tools available then the OSS alternatives.
By the way... small share of the market? Apple has moved (literally) over 50 million iPhones, and I believe significantly more iPod Touch's, and the US has a population of what.. roughly 330 million people, and lets say we make some broad assumptions that only about 1/3 (110 million) of those (cut out children, elderly) are even eligible iphone customers, thats nearly 50% market penetration. Small? Are you on crack?
Yes, that's 50 million world wide, but that is just a comparison to put it into perspective.
Lock In vrs Sticky (Score:3, Insightful)
Lock In = iTunes AAC w/FairPlay DRM
Sticky = I don't want to figure out how to migrate my iTunes mp3's to Windows Media Player
Lock In = Outlook Encrypted PST files.
Sticky = I don't want to figure out how to get my e-mail archive transferred from Hotmail to Mac Mail.
Lock In mean you can't get your own data out because it is wrapped in something proprietary. Sticky means you can, but it isn't worth your time and effort.
Apple increases sticky by making it work across multiple devices. My music "just appears" on my computer, ipod and iPhone. Switching all three means migrating my songs to a new desktop os, a new phone os and a new media player with possibly thee new interfaces. That's a powerful incentive to not migrate.
Re:The question is (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is Slashdot so stuck on Apple?
Every time we wave our pitchforks Slashdot serves a metric buttload of ads.
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not a big Microsoft fan at all (I'm writing this in Google Chrome running on Ubuntu 9.10), but really, this is just bullshit. Do you really think that Microsoft got to be where they are by ignoring usability? Do you really think Microsoft hasn't written some standards and and guidelines of their own? And do you think they get to dictate what other software developers do with their software?
I'm sorry, but your entire post is nothing but complete bullshit. I'm 100% certain that there are plenty of Mac OS X applications, probably some even written by Apple itself, that don't follow Apple's user interface standards completely.
Re:The question is (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:5, Insightful)
+1 funny
Re:Apple "It Just Works" (Score:4, Insightful)
The same goes for the ipod interface. Thankfully my nano is rock box compatible and I was able to install something that was a bit easier to sync my music with.
When I bought my 30GB click wheel 5th Generation iPod (iPod Video) I was able to figure out how to navigate the menus and use the device within a quick 30 seconds. Pretty much anyone I've given the device to can figure out how to use it quickly and easily, iTunes wasn't any more difficult.
In fact the combination is so incredibly easy the only time I get asked for help with iTunes is from those family and friends who aren't very good with computers in general and they want to burn a CD / DVD. Otherwise how hard is it to insert a disk, click Import and wait a while, eject the disk, click on "Music" in the side menu and see the recently imported disk listed there with all track names, artist, album information, and album art already taken care of automatically. When you plug in the iPod the whole thing auto syncs to the device and when I browse it I can find my music by album title, artist's name, song title, even genre if I so choose. If I had to guess, it was perhaps less than ten minutes from the time I installed the software to when I had my first album imported into iTunes and on the device.
I've taken a look at the Rock Box iPod Video install guide [rockbox.org] and skimmed through all 224 pages of it. The install instructions would be incomprehensible to pretty much anyone I've given my 30GB iPod Video to. Then there is the needlessly complicated navigation of the device, the ultimate use of it, and the need for a separate piece of software that, hopefully, stores the files in a very specific \Artist\Album\Track file directory structure so you can get some semblance of order when browsing your music on it.
Are you really trying to tell us that you couldn't figure out the simple stock Apple iPod / iTunes interface, even my 80 year old non technical grandmother can use my iPod without any coaching, yet you somehow have the technical ability to successfully flash an iPod with a copy of Rock Box and use its needlessly complicated, at least based on what I read in the virtual novel linked above, user interface?
Could I use Rock Box? Sure, taking computers apart and putting them back together has been a hobby of mine for more than 25 years. Am I going to? Perhaps when I replace my current iPod with a Touch or a much larger Classic, my 30GB is full and I still have better than a third of my CD collection still left to import, I'll consider it just for something new and interesting to do. For now though its nice to have a product that's easy to use and just works, where I don't have to spend hours screwing with it just to get it to do its primary function: playing music.
Re:The question is (Score:2, Insightful)
"... Microsoft never really got this...."
Yes and no. Microsoft is a software company. Sure they've branched out to other things, but they still primarily sell software, and even it's focused on the enterprise, something Apple can't get close with. As long as Microsoft reigns supreme with their desktops, XBox to directX APIs, and love for the enterprise to have control over their devices and assets (and not the other way around), Apple can sell all the mobile devices to consumers they want. The article is about the Apple ecosystem, and it's the same problem people have with their PCs: the investment is too high to walk away. Why go to a Mac that is too underpowered to play my DX10 games? Why go to a Windows tablet/phone that can't play any of those new, cool apps I bought for my Apple device? See the problem?
Re:Because of the kind of people who buy Apple (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The question is (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is Slashdot so stuck on Apple?
Another question is why did some bozo have to come up with "sticky" for this shit. There's no need for a new word -- it's DRM, maniacal top-down content control and savage vendor lock-in all rolled into one.
But sticky sure sounds more like fuzzy kittens.
There are a few problems with your theory. 1. All of the music Apple sells is DRM free and any DRM'ed songs that anyone still has which they could not upgrade can be burned to CD and re-ripped. 2. Even if iPhone apps were DRM-free, you would not be able to run then on non-apple device anyway.
Apps whether they be free or paid are the main part of the stickiness of the iPhone OS platform. Even ignoring the replacement costs, some apps would be irreplaceable on other platforms like Android because of the unique properties of the iPhone OS (multi-touch) and because many third party developers have not bothered with Android because of how poorly Google treats commercial software devs.
The Android store is biased in favour of free apps.
Re:It's because (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually that was obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats stupid, people have used floppy disks.
Yes, and people put eery file on that floppy disk in the root directory. They had a physical device with them that they knew had all their stuff.
These days people COULD do that with a USB drive, but generally they do not. They keep it all in the Desktop, or if they are particularly savvy they MIGHT put some data in the system supplied Documents directory.
Before, you were saving files to one place (the disk) instead of migrating them across several...
Love/hate relationship (Score:5, Insightful)
So Slashdot historically loves Apple. Reason is twofold:
1) Apple is a historic underdog and Slashdot likes underdogs. They were the small guys fighting the evil that is MS, and Slashdot REALLY hates MS. As such they like Apple, or at least what Apple was.
2) Apple provides an easy to use alternative to Windows with some UNIX underpinnings. While many are loathe to admit it, Linux is a PITA for many desktop uses. Some of the people who use(d) it do so out of anti-MS zealotry and/or a UNIX superiority complex. Well, Apple offers an OS you can pretend is UNIX (even though that is just a minor foundation) that is easy to use and not MS. So, it is the sort of thing many /.ers like.
However, Apple is, and nearly always has been, a company far more controlling than MS. They want to dictate everything about your computer usage. They want you to have to buy hardware from them, in the configurations they specify only. They want you to use only their OS. They want to control where you get your applications and media, they want to tell you when to upgrade, etc.
This is, of course, counter to what Slashdot likes. However it was something that wasn't that apparent, nor that onerous back when Apple was the little guy. However as Apple has grown, it has become more and more obvious that their vision of the future of technology is one where they run everything.
So because of these two things, you see a lot of Apple stories, and a lot of stories on their lock in strategies. Don't expect it to change any time soon as Apple isn't likely going anywhere and the combination of love/hate will continue here.
Re:The question is (Score:1, Insightful)
being the first carries a lot of risk with it. by letting Apple go first, the other players can compete in the industry far more cheaply than if they attempted to be pioneers. There is sound business sense in this approach...and I'd suggest this is why Apple is perceived to be leading the market in innovation.
OMG News flash!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
This just in: "Vendor lock-in makes it harder to switch to a competitor's products!"
Wow!!!! Story at 10!!!
Re:Love/hate relationship (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that whole certified UNIX-thing is probably because of the 'minor' foundation. OS X IS UNIX.
Re:The question is (Score:4, Insightful)
He said health care. That particular industry is not only not a dead end, it just received the biggest boost in completely reality-divorced profitability in American history. It doesn't even matter what aspect of health care: insurance, equipment manufacturer, pharmaceuticals, even just a hospital administration and management company; they were all just a few short months ago handed an enormous blank check.
What it lacks on Apple is the same thing their competitors in the electronics market lack: sex appeal. Apple has sex appeal, Apple products have sex appeal (doubt it? if you want to get laid, should you carry an iPod, or a Zen? sex appeal), Dell does not.
Re:The question is (Score:4, Insightful)
Once upon a time, almost all stocks in profitable companies paid dividends. Those that didn't were special cases facing certain market changes that led them to reinvest that profit into the company for a short time. Then things changed and people got the idea that the best way to make money was to gamble on the future price of the stocks of a company and not worry about getting a share of the profits.
Many of the problems in current corporate governance are a result of the fact that the owners of most companies (the stockholders) no longer want a share of the profits. Instead of stockholders expecting to make money from the profits of the company they invest in, they expect to make money by selling their stake in the company to somebody else for more than they paid for it. That means that most stockholders are investing in a ponzi scheme. For example, if next week the overwhelming majority of people decide that Apple has no value and they continue to believe that to be true for the indefinite future to such a degree that current Apple share holders are unable to sell their stock, it will take somewhere close to 30 years for Apple share holders to get their money back (and actually probably much longer since Apple has never issued a dividend). On the other hand, if the same situation were to occur to the company the original poster mentioned, it would take a much shorter time for the stock holders to get their money back (especially considering that historically most major companies in the health care fields, do issue dividends).
What a crock of crap (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason Apple is doing so well is that they turn out devices that suit the people's needs and are well-designed and reliable. This marketing bullshit about how Apple has some "secret sauce" is just nonsense promoted by those who can't research the stories they write - or those who want to turn out the same old junk and think they should be competitive just because they showed up.
The so-called competitors have been shown up for what they really are and they're squealing. Ever use a Motorola phone? How did you like their excuse for a user interface? Or have you ever used a Blackberry? How many times a week do you have to pull the battery to reboot it? Even the newer Droid phones - great concept, but they leave a lot to be desired in the execution. And that's just the cell phones.
How about tablets? I've used a HP TX series tablet and after that I bought an iPad. There's lots of noise from vaporware vendors but anything like competition for the iPad is nowhere in sight. At least HP looked at the way things are and killed their Windows tablet - they'll bring it out running Web/OS sometime in the future. Probably it'll be delivered by virgins riding unicorns.
Creating and building fully developed and well rounded products isn't a trivial task - Apple spent a lot of time and money making their iThingies good. For those companies who want to compete with Apple on this ground - they're going to have to get rid of their "good enough" mentality and create great products. And even then, they'll be months or years behind Apple. This isn't wrong or unfair; when all the geeks were kicking Apple while they were down, they had some good stuff brewing in the labs. Now that it's out on the street it's a different day and a different game.
I'm hoping that other corporations will be impelled to improve their game and actually compete with Apple. That would be good for everyone - but until they can compete in the market, the promotional BS is nothing more than vapor that isn't worth listening to.
Re:The question is (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft got it. They've had tablets and phones and all sorts of cool electronics, even years before the competition.
Outside of the Xbox, which "cool electronics" are you referring to? And MS has never had any tablets or phones (well, now they have the Kin), they've only had tablet and phone operating systems.
And their best success, the XBOX, lost money hand over fist for years.
You worded that as though MS has finally made a profit on the Xbox. They're still billions in the hole on that one.
Re:The question is (Score:3, Insightful)
"It's pretty clearly the end of the Microsoft Era." Call me when osx breaks 20%. Or whe pad w/e usage is more important than pc usage.
We are in the end of that era right now, not that the era has ended. MS is becoming increasingly irrelevant by the day, and the market is reflecting that. Apple's market cap exceeding MS's is a milestone on this road. To focus on Mac OS X market share vs Windows 7 market share is focusing on where the puck was, and not where it's going.