Dear Steve Jobs: You're wrong again.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/17196/dear_steve_jobs_youre_wrong_again

by Garbage • 16 years ago

61 65 16 years ago

blogs.computerworld.com

preek• 16 years ago

I'm concerned with the authors heart rate. I hope he's well.

The article certainly has truth in it, but I would propose a rename to: Random ramblings from an Android user. Also, I propose the author might take a look into Paul Grahams essay on "How to disagree"[1].

1. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

SmokenJoe• 16 years ago

That is a good article. I did not see much point to the computer world opinion piece.

drats2• 16 years ago

I am not sure trolls have a pulse. Perhaps you are detecting the speed with which his editor patting him on the back with all the page views?

That said, I agree with every delicious word of the article (I am rabidly anti-Apple) and enjoyed reading it and enjoyed even more the twisted outrage I imagined would be forming (foaming?) in the minds of certain people as they read it, and then I had to chuckle a bit as I now see said people freaking out and firing madly into the jungle, Predator-style. Except this type of pulse-free troll doesn't bleed and you can't kill it. And no matter how many times this is pointed out the pro and anti Apple trolls will continue and there will be no light,

Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;

And we are here as on a darkling plain

Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,

Where ignorant commentators clash by night.

Dbug• 16 years ago

If the author wants to rant, I would think digging into the motives for Apple backing away from Java support might be more fertile territory. At least it'd have more substance to it that what amount to PR positions on numbers.

Things to ponder... Could Apple be trying to throw a wet towel on doing Java development for other platforms (Android in particular)?

Of course if they're wanting more of a closed system, they're probably also aware that some of the more popular peer to peer apps use Java too. (Limewire / Frostwire, Vuze / Azureus). Between not being allowed on the store, Java probably not being installed by default soon, and questionable robustness of future Java options, they've thrown a wet towel on the sharing apps too.

It's not like the cost of paying developers to work on Java is a burden for Apple, and it doesn't have the reputation Flash does for crashing/slowing the system.

Vulnerabilities could be an excuse to stay clear of Java, but like Flash, if users have it installed and have to get updates outside of the (semi) automatic software updates, users are less likely to be up to date, not more.

If the author wants a little speculation for his rant, he ought to ask questions like will Steve kill X11?

The Mac with OS X has had a lot of respect as a stable very interoperable do-everything platform. If Apple wants to change that, some of us will be kicking and screaming. Apple has been able to give users an extra nudge towards new hardware by limiting the length of time old hardware sees major OS updates. (The 1985 Mac Plus was still supported under System 7.5, well past the five year period seen now). Killing support for something without the justification of certain hardware being inadequate is a tougher pill to swallow. If Apple goes too far, they'll certainly lose more science/engineering types to Linux.

pohl• 16 years ago

It's not like the cost of paying developers to work on Java is a burden for Apple,

Perhaps, but since Oracle is trying to monetize Java through litigation and premium JVMs, it makes sense for Apple to stand back and let Oracle do the porting & maintenance.

philwelch• 16 years ago

Things to ponder... Could Apple be trying to throw a wet towel on doing Java development for other platforms (Android in particular)?

No, because Android already distributes an SDK for Mac, and can easily deploy whatever Java stuff they need along with it: http://developer.android.com/sdk/index.html

* Of course if they're wanting more of a closed system, they're probably also aware that some of the more popular peer to peer apps use Java too. (Limewire / Frostwire, Vuze / Azureus). Between not being allowed on the store, Java probably not being installed by default soon, and questionable robustness of future Java options, they've thrown a wet towel on the sharing apps too.*

Transmission, the best BitTorrent client, runs natively on Mac.

davidedicillo3• 16 years ago

Why people can't accept the fact that Apple doesn't care about having biggest market share. Of course if they can they'll be happy to take it like for the mp3 players market. At the moment, looking at the numbers, Android is eating market share mostly from Apple's other competitors. Remember, this is not a race to be the company who makes the most money, it's just about making tons of money, and this is what Apple cares about. Look at the computer marktet, they don't care in selling more pc than Dell, they care of making a boatload of profit, even with their 7%.

w1ntermute• 16 years ago

> Apple doesn't care about having biggest market share

If this is true, why did Jobs make such a big deal about market share during the earnings call? Shouldn't he have just ignored that topic?

KirinDave• 16 years ago

Probably because everyone else seems to think that market share is so important. I'm not sure why. Look at Apple's current position as a minority PC vendor.

I think Steve is trying to make the point that the iOS ecosystem is huge, healthy, and a much larger play than a smartphone OS.

davidedicillo3• 16 years ago

if the iPhone had infinite color models, he would probably highlight that every chance he had, but that doesn't make it a priority in their strategy. But of course if you are passing a company like RIM that represented the concept of smartphone for years, that's something you want to tell people about.

protomyth• 16 years ago

You don't ignore the topic when your on an earnings call unless you want some really bad articles written. You could do like he did with the flash question ("we love flash memory") or you can give them some stats. The actual quotes (not the summarized crud in the article) were about on par with what was said about Apple at the last Google event.

The big take away from the call really wasn't Android versus iPhone, it was iPhone versus Blackberry. The "aw shucks" businesses are adopting iPhone / iPad all on their own without an Apple push is a pretty big shot at RIM. Add to that the whole 7" screen thing, it really looks like Apple is thinking of RIM customers as up for grabs.

I find it funny that a column called "Android Power" isn't talking about cool Android stuff. Seems like another "I need some page views" article.

zaphar2• 16 years ago

Part of the point of the article was that Steve seems to be acting like he does care. His recent rantings make it look like he's upset with the surging market share that android is experiencing and is trying to paint it as less than it is. If he really doesn't care then why is he talking so much about it?

davidedicillo3• 16 years ago

Because more important than the market share is the stock market, and a lot of those people still think like this author that the market share is the number they should focus on. Talking about the iOS market share is more a way to keep this people's confidence than a reflection of Apple's strategy. Apple's current market share is just a by-product of their profit machine.

ergo984• 16 years ago

Why people can't accept the fact that Apple doesn't care about having biggest market share

Thank you for bringing up the biggest lie in technology. It's a transparent loser's speech that, thankfully, we've yet to actually hear Apple incant.

Apple is trying quite hard to get the biggest market share: Did you happen to catch Steve bragging about leaving RIM in their rearview? How desperately he compares iPhone activations to Android activations?

Have you noticed the incredible quantities of lucre that Apple is dumping on mass media advertising lately? (I don't have the numbers, but it is, by far, the #1 advertised brand from my perspective). Have you noticed that Apple is now making products at virtually every price point?

Apple is the very definition of a mass market company. They are not a niche or a luxury maker, and delusions to that effect are simply bizarre.

Sure, they don't sell a discount iPhone, but that's entirely because consumers are accustomed to subsidized models, so going from $600 to $500 really makes no difference (it really doesn't matter whether the phone is $200, $150, $99, $49, or even FREE when each comes bound with a $3500 smartphone contract).

If people were accustomed to buying devices without subsidization, Apple would have the entire low-end market covered. On the Android front by far the most popular phones are the high end phones like the Galaxy S and the Droid 2, which are hardly inexpensive devices.

Apple came incredibly close to achieving a brilliant strategic lock-in to the nascent smartphone market that would have locked them in as the default choice: Many organizations had a mobile strategy that simply relied upon "releasing an iPhone app", creating a network effect where you were either onboard with the iPhone, or you're a second class citizen. Here on HN there were quite a few single-person startups that had a business plan involving nothing more than creating an iPhone app, yielding a strong anti-Android bias -- having multiple platforms is just a PITA, right?

Remember, this is not a race to be the company who sells the most units, it's just about making tons of money, and this is what Apple cares about.

I edited that slightly to what I suspect you meant to say. It's another ridiculous lie that we keep hearing.

Apple had the "niche market" for quite a few years. Yeah it led them to desperately go to Microsoft, hat in hand, begging for some "we'll get the anti-trust police off your backs" payoffs (which they got, funding the recovered Apple).

HTC is a relatively new smartphone company. They've been going gangbusters on the backs of Android. Motorola was in complete mobile collapse so their balance sheet isn't quite so great right now, but without Android they would have been done. On and on. The "Apple makes more profit" angle is nice, I guess, if you own Apple shares, but otherwise it's completely meaningless.

I don't want Android to dominate. In fact I hope that RIM gets some mojo back (and that QNX plays a part. Anyone who did comp sci in Ontario is generally in love with QNX, because it's a beautiful OS), that Windows Mobile 7 can get an R2 out soon that fixes many of the failings, and of course Apple is and won't be going anywhere, and will continue to provide technology kungfu.

We need a vibrant, competitive market where one person -- like Steve Jobs -- isn't making technology decrees for an entire industry (see: Flash).

lukasb• 16 years ago

The "Apple makes more profit" angle is nice, I guess

51% of profit share, $238 of profit per phone sold. If market share was all they cared about, they could drop the price of the iphone by $200.

http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/31/making-it-up-in-volume-how-...

edit: formatting

masklinn3• 16 years ago

> HTC is a relatively new smartphone company.

Wrong. HTC is a relatively new smartphone brand, they've been making smartphones since 2000. They created the first Windows Mobile smartphone, the first 3G Windows Mobile smartphone, the Palm Treo 650, the iPaq and the first Android smartphone. They were probably the major WiMo smartphone builder in WiMo's heydays (and they might very well still be).

HTC is a relatively new smartphone company? By that metric, RIM is just getting started building communication devices.

ubernostrum• 16 years ago

Apple is trying quite hard to get the biggest market share

I'd argue that the key difference is priorities. Traditionally, consumer-electronics companies (Dell is a great example) have pursued market share first, and then looked for ways to translate that into profitability. Apple, in recent years, seems to reverse that: first they aim for a good profit margin, then they try go for market share.

We've seen this with their various lines of laptops, with the iPod, with the iPhone, etc., and judging from their quarterly statements it seems to work.

GHFigs3• 16 years ago

Saying that Apple doesn't care about having the biggest market share is not the same thing as saying they are a niche or luxury maker. Markets don't always divide so neatly. There is a vast expanse between where competitors are sufficiently differentiated to maintain decent margins instead of sliding off into a slow spiral of beige doom. This is actually what the smartphone market looks like if you include everyone else or break down by handset vendor, but people seem to have an aversion to pie charts with more than two colors.

It might be easier to understand if you say that Apple cares less about market share than the individual Android handset makers do. If Apple loses share to "Android", that's not that bad for them, because their profits are still astronomical.

But who is "Android"? Google isn't making much money off of it, and none of the handset makers are making what Apple makes. They're stuck in competition with each other and their product is mostly the same thing. They're all trying to differentiate, but with what? The Sense UI? Bunding a copy of Avatar? NASCAR apps?

forgottenpaswrd• 16 years ago

I think they care, in fact they have the biggest market share on single devices and probably will. There could be millions of Android devices but it is important for Apple that Ipod Touch and Iphones are the first sold device in the market speaking as hardware not software.

Why? Because of mass production, the first one has enormous advantages in components price, and that is the reason for ipod touch.

Also being number one means no single software vendor or developer could ignore them like Adobe, Autodesk and others did when Windows became so widespread. Remember how Apple had to create Final Cut Pro because it was being left behind.

mattdonahoe• 16 years ago

Did not know about the TweetDeck thing.

zaphar2• 16 years ago

I found his ramblings on it Just Working to be of interest. My experience with getting an IPod to just work was the same. Getting music and apps on the Android phone is far easier than the IPod. Their stance of requiring the ITunes app really harms the User Experience there. It actually suprises me that they have let it go like this for so long. I would have expected from Apple's reputation that they would have made it much easier by now.

cshenoy• 16 years ago

I agree but I would assume it has to do with anti-piracy measures. Being the number-one music vendor in the US has its downsides since all the record companies (and RIAA) have a vested interest in it.

Though I could be wrong.

chadp• 16 years ago

Ok, this computerworld kid has a couple of points but the writing is drawn out drivel.

The personal dig about steve's wardrobe was totally un-needed and unclassy.

Steve Jobs has masterminded the most amazing turnaround story probably in history. Have some respect at least. What an idiot this writer is.

drats2• 16 years ago

You say that the dig about the wardrobe is "un-needed and unclassy" and then go on to say the writer is an "idiot". I think you need to look in the mirror and see that the pot is just as black as the kettle.

bryanlarsen• 16 years ago

No, it wasn't a great joke, but the funniest part about it is that it came at the end of a long article that would have had Apple fan-boys so steaming mad that they would be unable to rationally respond to it. And there is nothing funnier than watching normally rational people so angry that they're irrational.

(And thus unable to rationally respond to this comment, making the whole situation worse, but even so much more funny.)

brown9-2• 16 years ago

JR Raphael: "First, when you say that Apple has more daily activations than Android, your figures include all iOS devices: iPhones, iPads, and iPods. The Android figures we've been looking at so far focus solely on phones."

The actual quote from Steve Jobs on the earnings call:

"Well, what about Google? Last week, Eric Schmidt reiterated that they are activating 200,000 Android devices per day. And have around 90,000 apps in their App Store. For comparison, Apple has activated around 275,000 iOS devices per day on average for the past 30 days with a peak of almost 300,000 iOS devices per day on a few of those days. And Apple has 300,000 apps on its App Store." (Source: http://seekingalpha.com/article/230710-apple-s-ceo-discusses...)

Why is the author rebuking Steve Jobs about "your figures include all iOS devices" when that is exactly what Steve Jobs actually said?

Mr. Raphael even cites an article which has a disclaimer at the top that says "The story you're about to read is not (entirely) true" as evidence that Mr. Jobs doesn't allow the word "open" to be used in his house.

This feels like manufactured criticism.

jnovek• 16 years ago

I believe that the author was implying that Steve Jobs carefully chose data to support an argument when other data would have better suited the comparison that he as making. Disagreements about whether he was trying to conceal his choice in data don't seem very relevant to me.

EDIT: You are probably right about the author. He does seem to have an axe to grind. But I don't think it make his argument (in this case) less correct.

jmm• 16 years ago

This reads like an argument analysis answer choice on the LSAT or GMAT. In a good way.

GHFigs3• 16 years ago

I believe that the author was implying that Steve Jobs carefully chose data to support an argument when other data would have better suited the comparison that he as making.

Which is likewise wrong. Jobs cites total iOS activations because Apple makes no distinction. It's reflective of how the company that he represents actually thinks, and he used the data that they actually pay attention to.

The author presumes that including iPads and iPods is somehow "cheating", but he's the one selectively picking only the market in which Android is succeeding. If you look at everything that runs either OS, Jobs is right. It's only if you selectively pick smartphones (and growth, specifically, as Apple's share is still greater) that Android looks good.

jacobolus• 16 years ago

The author wrote the joke article he cited, himself, so I’m pretty sure he knew it was a joke. [Doesn’t invalidate your broader point that his reasoning is sloppy and (I find) his writing neither insightful nor funny.]

tvon• 16 years ago

I have been somewhat baffled at the insistence on only comparing "smartphones" vs all devices. Seems to be a fairly irrelevant distinction if you're not an exec at a wireless carrier.

apl• 16 years ago

P.S. That was a nice black turtleneck you had on the other day. You should really consider wearing those more often.

Well played, JR.

[EDIT: Wait a minute: That classless hack makes a vacuous ad hominem attack his punchline, and I get voted down for pointing that out?]

jordanmessina• 16 years ago

You get my up-vote considering I copied that exact line to point it out until I saw you already did. This guy's Twitter handle is AndroidPower, I couldn't even take him serious writing about Jobs. Leave it to CW to get the best of the bunch!

rodericksilva3• 16 years ago

I don't want to piss anybody off but I know a lot of Android users that would be using an iPhone but they are not on AT&T.

If the iPhone was available on every carrier we would have real numbers.

Plus, we ARE comparing OSes so platform does not matter. Right now it iOS vs Droid. The fact that Apple has managed to push it on multiple devices should not count against them...just as keeping it in one carrier has hurt them.

gloob• 16 years ago

If the iPhone was available on every carrier we would have real numbers.

I disagree with the notion that the real numbers are somehow not real, and the real "real numbers" are the result of a "shoulda, coulda, woulda" situation.

isleyaardvark• 16 years ago

The real numbers are certainly the most important, but there are confounding factors.

Locke1689• 16 years ago

Depends on what you're trying to measure, right?

rodericksilva3• 16 years ago

Ok, you are right Gloob. Real is a bad choice of words.

If the iPhone were available on every carrier their would be a lot more people using the iPhone. It's almost like its every carrier and every phone manufacturer vs Apple.

Don't get me wrong, if I were in contract at Sprint or Verizon I would be on Droid also.

I have invested money in applications (not a whole lot). Switching platforms would also mean finding new software and purchasing some of them.

usaar3333• 16 years ago

You'd most likely still see Android winning. Android outsold the iPhone by a 2:1 ratio last quarter. AT&T has something like 35% of the US customers. I imagine they cover at least 90% of US customers very well (probably only Verizon is better).

It is certainly possible that 25% of all Android users are not getting an iPhone simply because of carrier. I find this really hard to believe though.

rodericksilva3• 16 years ago

Remember its a battle of OSes and not devices. When will we see iOS or Droid built into our TVs?

If it were just devices the iPhone would be out-selling each individual phone independently.

yoak• 16 years ago

It always surprises me when someone mistakes this kind of smarminess for wit, especially if they appear to have learned to bathe and not make messes in the house otherwise. There were a couple of points in there that might have been pleasant to read under other circumstances.

sp4rki3• 16 years ago

So it's alright for people to inflate Android's numbers by using all the phones, tablets, and e-readers when comparing them with the iPhone as was done some time ago, BUT when Apple adds the other iOS devices to the party (which off course makes a fairer comparison) and surpasses Android's numbers they're wrong?

Jesus there are more than 60 phones right on Android, more than 25 tablets, and a couple of readers. How is that a fair comparison? In any case, the real issue is not iOS vs Android, who cares about adoption rates of an OS when you're in the business of selling the product itself. The iPhone is still the most popular and best selling smartphone, and the iPad does the same for tablets. That's not going to change overnight because 20 new crappy phones from China are now Android powered.

usaar3333• 16 years ago

1) Comparing all Android devices to just the iPhone is also deceptive.

2) It is much more important to compare OS share to individual phone share. This is because it indicates the industry's trajectory far better. A user who has an Android phone and purchase another and not have to spend anytime learning a new framework; he'll highly likely buy a new Android phone (regardless of manufacturer) when he needs a new one. And on mobile devices, downloadable apps remain very important; the most popular OS (not phone!) will get the most developer attention, producing a virtuous cycle for the winner.

sp4rki3• 16 years ago

1) Uhm that is exactly what I said. It's common practice to compare Android as an OS adoption vs the iPhone adoption rates. Then when people do the same for Apple and add the other iOS devices, then articles as the one in the OP are born. Read my post again, because you're agreeing with me kind sir.

2) Here you're assuming that the users actually care about the iOS vs Android wars. A regular user who has an Android phone will not buy another Android phone because of its OS, they'll buy it because it's marketed as the successor of the phone they used before. By your example a regular user of Blackberry phones would easily move to another brand because it used the same Blackberry OS, or a iPhone user would move to a different phone manufacturer because he was told it also has iOS. This is simply not true. Nexus One users are more likely to buy a Nexus Two (and not a HTC Magic 2 in contrast) and iPhone4 users are more prone to buying a iPhone5 because of the product loyalty and brand popularity inherent in both choices. Industry trajectory is not measured by who has the most amount of devices with an specific OS out there, it's measured on who has the most amount of POPULAR devices period. Twelve years ago, people bought Nokia phones because they where the most popular ones around, not because they used Symbian OS.

On the downloadable app part you seem to equate quantity with quality, which is flawed at best. Quality developers will flock to the platform that is more profitable and merchantable. You're right, the most popular platform is the one that will get more developer attention, but device share is not a measure of popularity in the mobile app sector. Profits are.

fleitz2• 16 years ago

Steve jobs is right because as he's said numerous times, he doesn't give a shit about market share, what he gives a crap about are profit share and making great products, I suspect the latter is primarily to ensure the former.

The low end of Apple's products are last year's model. With 3 generations going they don't need to make 'low-end' hardware, Moore's law takes care of that for them.

random422• 16 years ago

The term profit share makes me curious (about something). Can you please find the link where Jobs says so?

fleitz2• 16 years ago

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/21/pie-chart-apples-outr...

An old one: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/Steve_Jobs_Talks_Mark...

"If you went to BMW and asked them why they donit outsell the Ford Taurus, they would say they donit want to make that sort of car," says Mr Jobs. "Apple has 25 million customers around the world, and our goal is to give them the best personal computer that we can, with the best operating system and some of the best applications."

easp2• 16 years ago

I suspect that you have it backwards. Making great products comes first. Profitability validates that, and makes it possible to keep making great products.

Pewpewarrows2• 16 years ago

What I find hilarious is when people say in the same sentence that it's not fair to compare Android numbers to Apple's because iPhone isn't on multiple carriers, then in the next breath say that comparing Android to iOS on all devices is fair and balanced. You can't have it both ways.

ugh• 16 years ago

Which people and where?

ceejayoz• 16 years ago

There are Android tablets. Why is it unfair to compare the Android OS to the iOS?

Pewpewarrows2• 16 years ago

Google has made public announcements saying Android isn't ready for the Tablet yet. Just because some manufacturers managed to get it working on some doesn't make it equivalent to the sponsored and ready-for-retail iPad. It's the equivalent of someone hacking the iPhone to work on Verizon and then Google trying to claim that the carrier argument is now null and void. Even if you factor in tablet activations with phones, Android wins. Why?...

You're also conveniently ignoring the iPod Touch. iPhone sales have historically accounted for only a little over half of total iOS devices. In terms of phones, Android activations dominantly win, no matter how Jobs feels like playing around with the numbers.

Dear Steve Jobs: You're wrong again.

Related Stories