“Even the most powerful industrialists with the biggest bets on a particular version of the future can at most influence where things are going. We saw Bill Gates do that recently when he predicted the ultimate demise of the iPod at the hands of mobile phones. Because we’ll eventually all carry phones, Bill argued, and because smarter and smarter phones will do more than just make phone calls, we’ll have no need for an iPod. That’s the impeccable logic of a man who makes mobile phone software and has no horse in the portable music player race. He’s trying to influence the future, not predict it. That’s a subtle difference, I’ll grant you, but it is a difference. And if you’ll look at Bill’s record for predicting the future, it is mainly about influencing, and therefore, hasn’t been very accurate. Mine is better,” Robert X. Cringely writes for PBS.
“It is one thing for a Microsoft, with 95 percent market share (and then some), to try and influence the future, but very much another thing for an Apple, with around two percent. But maybe market share isn’t all that important. I know that Steve Jobs is thinking in terms of his place in history, and he isn’t even remotely satisfied with the current story. Bill Gates once told me that Steve could never win, but Steve doesn’t know that, which is a decided advantage. Apple’s story is an example of seeding technology and having to wait to harvest. IPods help, of course, but there are still 20 times as many personal computers as iPods, so iPod is only part of the story. The bigger part is Apple’s QuickTime, which they’ll be happy to tell you is installed in more than 400 million devices, of which 98 percent are NOT made by Apple,” Cringely writes.
“Microsoft’s vision of the future inevitably has at its center a device that costs at least $250 and averages closer to $500. Apple, as a software-centric maker of consumer electronic devices, can set its device price much lower, say around $125. That’s a market intrinsically four times the size of the one envisioned by Microsoft. We saw this in last week’s column, where it became clear that the endpoint of Apple’s video strategy isn’t a Mac or a PC at all, but a hardware decoder device the size of a pack of cards. That’s a much easier sell, but it has to be backed up with Internet services to make it work,” Cringely writes.
“These Internet services, based on QuickTime, are what Apple has spent so many years building and seeding in the marketplace. Apple doesn’t need to increase Macintosh market share to be successful in the movie download business. Nor do they require a large end-user installed base to be a dominant player in back-end services. Apple’s goal is to remake the entertainment business and so is Microsoft’s, yet in the entertainment industry, where it counts, Apple’s presence is as great or greater than Microsoft’s. This didn’t happen by chance, but is a clear result of Steve Jobs’ attempt to create the future in his own image,” Cringely writes. “Only time will tell if it works.”
Full article with much more and highly recommended here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Cringely: This week changed the world of high tech forever – May 13, 2005
Now with integrated video support, will Apple’s iTunes soon become iLiving Room? – May 10, 2005
Apple releases iTunes 4.8; now supports QuickTime video along with contact, calendar transfers – May 09, 2005
Are Apple’s ‘iPod’ and ‘Mac mini’ the razors or the blades? – January 28, 2005
Cringely: the full story about Apple Mac mini’s purpose has not yet been told – January 21, 2005
Cringely predicts $249 Macintosh, would make Apple the world’s number one PC company – January 10, 2005
Cringely: is this the beginning of the end for Macintosh hardware? – May 21, 2004
Robert X. Cringely: Steve Jobs ‘is proud of being an a**hole’ – April 30, 2004
PBS columnist: IT hates Macs because ‘Macs reduce IT head count’ – August 15, 2003