MacDailyNews Take: Our iCal is havin’ a par-tay!
Dainow continues, “Hardware manufacturers make their money by selling new phones. They have no interest in making phones that last forever, or that can be upgraded via software.”
MacDailyNews Take: Mr. Dainow, they do if their customers expect upgradeable devices, as nearly 100 million iPhone OS users do. Android settlers, not so much.
Dainow continues, “Smartphones, like all other computers, sell on the basis of what you can do with them. People buy IT equipment (laptop, PC, or mobile) on the basis of the applications they can run on it. The item purchased needs to be able to do what the customer wants it to. There are so many programs around for PCs today that this is rarely a consideration — almost every conceivable application you could want is available. As a result we have largely forgotten that capabilities are central to sales. However, there are many instances in which purchasing a Mac is not an option because the required software does not exist, which shows that applications still control purchases.”
MacDailyNews Take: Mr. Dainow seems to not know, or has forgotten, that Apple Macs run everything, including Windows and Windows apps natively and/or via fast virtualization. Fact: Apple Macs run the world’s largest software library, of which software written for Windows is but a subset.
Dainow continues, “So an operating system’s success is dependent on being an attractive platform for developers. In order to be attractive, the operating system must have (or promise) a large installed base.”
MacDailyNews Take: Wrong again, Mr. Dainow. In order to be attractive to developers, an operating system, or, more accurately, a platform, must be profitable. Period. Taken to an extreme, imagine Steve Jobs is the world’s only Mac user. However, he spends $200 million on software per year. Guess what? Even with one Mac user, there would be Mac developers. Now, in reality,Apple Mac users are better educated and have more disposable income than Windows PC sufferers on average and Mac users buy significantly more software than their PC suffering counterparts. Therefore, Mr. Dainow’s argument is flawed from the outset.
Dainow continues, “Apple’s desire to control its marketplace has made it a poor choice for developers, even when it offers a large market. Having a large base of customers makes Apple initially attractive, but its poor support for the developer community eventually forces smaller niche players out. The long term result is easy to see — Macintosh now runs Microsoft Office because no one else was interested in providing a compatible office suite. Apple’s restrictive policies over the Mac almost caused the death of the Apple Corporation, and it was only by opening the environment to its arch-enemy Microsoft that Apple was able to survive.”
MacDailyNews Take: Not this again. The iPod/iPhone/iPad is not the Mac, so stop comparing them:
iPhone isn’t the Mac, so stop comparing them. To draw an analogy between the Mac and iPhone platforms simply highlights the writer’s ignorance of the vast differences between the two business situations. Look at the iPod, not the Mac, to see how this will play out.
Google Android offers the same messy, inconsistent Windows PC “experience,” but without any cost savings, real or perceived. Windows only thrived back in the mid-90s because PCs (and Macs) were so expensive; the upfront cost advantage roped in a lot of people, who were, frankly, ignorant followers who did what their similarly-ignorant co-workers and friends told them to do. Microsoft still coasts along on that momentum today.
The fact is: Apple’s iPhone 3G costs just $99 and the 3GS goes for only $199 in the U.S. with a 2-year plan. I’d call any Android device the “Poor Man’s iPhone,” but you have to spend just as much, if not more, to partake in an increasingly fragmented and inferior platform. There’s no real reason to choose Android, people settle for Android. “I’d have bought an iPhone if Verizon offered them.” Just look what’s happening in any country where iPhone is offered on multiple carriers. It’s a bloodbath.
Apple offers consistency to developers of both software and hardware. Just look at the vibrant thrid-party accessories market for iPhone vs. the Zune-like handful of oddball items for Android. If you make a case or a vehicle mount, does it pay to make 14 different Android devices that number under 1 million each, or to make one or two for what’s rapidly approaching 100 million iPhone/iPod touch devices? As Apple’s iPhone expands onto more and more carriers, Android’s only real selling point (“I’m stuck on Verizon or some other carrier that doesn’t offer the iPhone”) evaporates. – SteveJack, MacDailyNews, December 23, 2009
And Microsoft introduced Office for Macintosh in 1989. Before any Windows version existed.
Dainow plods on, “Apple never joined in the universal move to PC compatibility. Based on the Motorola chip, Apple chose to cater to niche market players with hobby computers such as the Apple II. Apple’s day came later when it copied the GUI operating system being developed by Xerox and created the first Mac. The GUI posed a threat to Microsoft’s survival and the dominance of the PC, until Microsoft got its own GUI right with Windows 3.0. Microsoft’s strategy was always to open its platform to the widest possible developer community, while Apple’s was always to restrict and control. In many ways, Steve Jobs continued to think in terms of the world he grew up in, a pre-PC world — each computer manufacturer producing its own operating system and strongly controlling developer access.”
MacDailyNews Take: Mr. Dainow, Apple did not “copy” the GUI from Xerox. To state so only highlights your ignorance. You might just as well have written, “I do not know what I’m talking about, so here are five pages of my disjointed, illogical theories.” For anyone who cares, the real story, as told by the people who lived it, is right here.
Dainow continues, “Right now the iPhone has a dominating position in the U.S. smartphone marketplace. However, we must recognize this is a global village. Apple cannot sustain the iPhone as a purely U.S. phenomena.”
MacDailyNews Take: Mr. Dainow, please explain this: Apple dominates Japan’s smartphone market with 72% market share; sales tripled in latest quarter – May 19, 2010. Hello, Mr. Dainow? Paging Mr. Dainow…
Dainow continues, “If the smartphone goes the way of previous computers, and the way of the internet, Apple’s strategy will eventually lead to the iPhone occupying a similar niche to the Mac — a miniscule market share sustained only by the fanatical loyalty of dedicated followers.”
MacDailyNews Take: Mr. Dainow, the operative word in your statement is “if.” And it won’t, for the reasons we’ve explained above; not to mention that, four pages in, you haven’t yet been right about anything.
Dainow continues, “Steve Jobs says he hates Adobe Flash and will not support it on iPhone. The reason is clear — Flash provides a cross-platform development system. Build an app in Flash and it runs on every operating system that supports Flash.”
MacDailyNews Take: For the umpteenth time: We do not want ported software on our iPhones, iPads, and iPod touches. The type of “write once, deploy everywhere” software that lazy Adobe wants to “help” developers to excrete results in lowest common denominator apps that fail to take advantage of individual platforms’ strengths. Rather than see developers create great experiences by playing to the strengths of individual platforms, lazy Adobe, and Mr. Dainow it seems, instead want mediocrity everywhere. Adobe just wants to control the tools developers use to poop out cookie-cutter apps that fail to inspire users because they fail to take advantage of each platform’s unique hardware and operating system features.
Dainow continues, “Locking Flash out is unsustainable if you want to retain market share.”
MacDailyNews Take: Is this guy serious?
Dainow continues, “When I look at the lessons of history, Apple’s own past, and how things work out, it seems to me inevitable that within 5-10 years the iPhone will hold around 5 percent of the smartphone market at best.”
MacDailyNews Take: Seriously, our iCal might have just audibly sighed. Not sure if it was satisfaction, consternation, or something else.
Dainow continues, “iAd is just a second-rate widget. Calling iAd creations ‘advertisements’ is misleading. iAd advertisements are, in reality, widgets… The iAd is a symptom of Apple’s inability to come to terms with the way computing has been for the last 30 years. While designing innovative products, as a business Apple still strategizes like it’s the 1970s — trying to create isolated ecosystems when everyone else knows the world wants one big open inter-connected system.”
MacDailyNews Take: Mr. Dainow offers no proof of that statement either. At least he’s consistent. We have about 100 million reasons and rapidly growing that proves that Dainow’s wrongly-described “isolated ecosystem” hasn’t dissuaded “the world” from accepting the iPhone platform. Really, how can you call a platform “isolated” when it’s connected to the Web, has over 200,000 apps made and supported by tens of thousands of developers and supports a flourishing ecosystem of third-party accessories, including mass market vehicle and electronics makers? Mr. Dainow’s arguments are illogical and incoherent.
Dainow continues, “Apple seems wedded to the idea that it can own all aspects of its customer experience, even though its own corporate history shows this is unsustainable. The smartphone environment is a mirror of the early days of personal computing, yet Apple shows no sign of having learned from this experience.”
MacDailyNews Take: Mr. Dainow, you’re wrong and your attempt to compare two dissimilar things in order to try to predict the future is just plain silly.
Full article — click away, as we’ve linked to Dainow’s “print article” page that not only has his five rambling pages combined into one, but (whoopsie Mr. Marketing Consultant!) also has no ads 
— here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “David M.,” “Chris,” “DifferentVoice,” “Chas,” “Ampar,” “zmarc,” “iWill,” and “jax44” for the heads up.]
This guy knows absolutely nothing about Apple’s history.
He stated: “Based on the Motorola chip, Apple chose to cater to niche market players with hobby computers such as the Apple II.”. This is utter nonsense. The Apple I and Apple II were based on the 6502 processor from Rockwell, not Motorola. Apple didn’t start using the Motorola 68000 until the Macintosh and then abandoned that processor series for the PowerPC years later.
None of his “facts” are correct.
Sorry MDN had to counter the obvious words El Supremo Chair Thrower, Ballmer dictated.
I just put Windows 7 on my new i7 15″ MacBook Pro and it runs faster than a Dell M4500 (& that Dell costs twice as much with less RAM and a slower i7 processor >$6000 with tax). The MBPro totalled out slightly over $3000. Take that Dell. Ballmer won in that I had to pay retail for Win7, though.
I’ll transfer my Parallels HD file in next so I can run XP Pro as an appl inside Mac OSX. If I had a reason to run DOS or Linux, I’ld put that in, too, assuming I could figure out how to triple boot.
The author is obviously inexperienced if he is new to the game, and ought to get up to speed on Mac before he gets deried into obvlivion.
The hilarious thing is this idiot thinks Microsoft will ultimately win with its W7 phone! (He’s a former M$ guy, so his bias is obvious.) M$ is so far beyond Android it’s a joke.
And this guy obviously doesn’t understand operating systems if he thinks different versions of an OS don’t matter. As Android users are finding out, their “marketplace” is full of apps that won’t run on your phone because you’ve got weird hardware or an old version of the OS. What does marketshare matter if your OS installed base is broken into a dozen incompatible variations?
Don’t listen to marketing or sales experts.
————–
“People always ask me why did Apple really fail for those years, and it’s easy to blame it on certain people or personalities. Certainly, there was some of that. But there’s a far more insightful way to think about it. Apple had a monopoly on the graphical user interface for almost 10 years. That’s a long time. And how are monopolies lost? Think about it. Some very good product people invent some very good products, and the company achieves a monopoly.
But after that, the product people aren’t the ones that drive the company forward anymore. It’s the marketing guys or the ones who expand the business into Latin America or whatever. Because what’s the point of focusing on making the product even better when the only company you can take business from is yourself?
So a different group of people start to move up. And who usually ends up running the show? The sales guy.”
– Steve Jobs
I read the article and even better, the comments.
While a few agreed with him (the usual Hate Apple fanboys) most of the commenters tore him apart. I see more and more of that these days. Apple haters write a biased and lame article and commenters tear into them.
And the great thing is it is not Apple fanboys that comment but people who have used Apple and just do not like being lied to in print.
Just a thought here.
en
Reads like a high school term paper.
Great job pulling apart this article, but, after reading it, it wasn’t worth your time. That’s an amazing level of ignorance. Apple has learned from it’s history; we’re seeing that now.
Speechless on Dainow’s ignorance and stupidity. Just speechless.
He’s right and there a billion people who are convinced of the very reasons he points to.
I can’t bring myself to condem him for thinking the way he does; I’ve been listening to this rhetoric for half my adult life.
Here we are twenty-years later and he sounds like Rip Van Winkle.
One thing is certain, he’s exposed everyone of Steve Jacks illuminated buttons.
I expect everyone else to drag out the customary talking points to combat the man’s ignorance.
iCal schmiCal, like that’s going to hurt his feelings, bring him closer to the light! You’ll find there are more people who agree with him than not.
What is not helping are the rabid who want to burn this man in effigy.
What is not helping is Apple’s failure to stay ahead of the curve, these past few months regarding myriad public relations nightmares.
They seem to be allowing the media and the blogoshpere to shape the news of perceived Apple missteps and instead are forced into damage control. First impressions are lasting!
The issues of an internal nature like tight-lipped control, and just control, in general over their platforms should be explained thoroughly, in simple terms, using propaganda in order to difuse any potential to harm the brand.
For example, Steve Jobs should publish a series of White letters that address Apple’s business culture. So, rather than “attacking” others for what their doing, just explain Apple’s position in the marketplace and let the readers draw their own conclusions.
I’m tired of all the attempts to characterize Apple as wanting to control every aspect of our lives! Google is now using 1984 against Apple! That’s bullshit and we know it.
MDN forget iCal, it’s meaningless if your “gottchas” are only seen by your readership. You want to hit this whackjob where it hurts? Send him dead flowers in a public restaurant!
Take up a collection for a full-paged ad in the Times to illuminate the man’s stupidity.
I realize MDN is a news aggregator but just as sure as you have a neglected opinion page going to waste, you could easily devote some space for a real Hall of Shame armed with a couple cub reporters who go TMZ on these PC Nazis.
@marco
He’s a former M$ guy, so his bias is obvious.
Link please.
According to his Bio he used to work for Microsoft, and is a self taught computer expert. He works primarily in GB and Australia, countries noted for idiot self taught journalist.
“People who forget history are doomed to repeat it.”
That is very true. However, you have to correctly know history, understand it, and appropriately apply it to the present.
I think Dainow did a performed poorly in all of those areas.
People posting to his own comments page ripped him a new one so he shut off the comments. A real laugh!!!!
I love reading articles by the clueless.
Oh, wait… no, I hate that.
I went back and re-read his bio. Thanks. I overlooked the “highlighted” Microsoft.
Macintosh now runs Microsoft Office because no one else was interested in providing a compatible office suite. — D Brandt
Did anyone else find this statement interesting? If you know your history, you’d know why no one else was making office suites, for any platform, period.
“Macintosh now runs Microsoft Office because no one else was interested in providing a compatible office suite. Apple’s restrictive policies over the Mac almost caused the death of the Apple Corporation, and it was only by opening the environment to its arch-enemy Microsoft that Apple was able to survive.””
Wow, there were so many errors in those two sentences, I had to stop!
offtopic, but anyone notice that aapl is only 16B away from passing msft market cap ? thats why I love corrections…
Besides getting all of their facts wrong, most of these idiots either don’t know or choose to ignore the fact that the problems with the Mac all happened when Steve Jobs was away, wandering in the wilderness, creating or building NeXt and Pixar.
@G4
I was going to highlight the same sentence regarding the office suite issue, mainly because it doesn’t make any damn sense in the context of his stupid arguement.
As MS Office still has over 75% share in the US including the Windows market, does this mean that nobody is interested in providing a windows compatible office suite because Windows is not an attractive platform for developers?
“Macintosh now runs Microsoft Office because no one else was interested in providing a compatible office suite.”
NOW?
How about always…
Excel was originally developed for the Mac.
Word was available for Mac 5 years before Windows.
PowerPoint was also originally developed for the Mac.
And as HMCIV points out, there have been plenty of others (missed ClarisWorks).
I am an engineer for a major automotive company. In automotive engineering it has been a windows world and for the most part it still is. However just yesterday I meant with a major supplier and the engineer had a MacBook Pro – he explained that from a technical standpoint it could accomplish what their PC laptops could not.
Times are a changing.
So what was the point of even posting and linking his article here??
Was it to give him or MDN the hits???
Just curious.
@MDN
Why bother commenting with takes and notes? This guy will never learn. He just summarized all misconceptions about Apple. Waste of time.
Brandt Dainow,
You are a retard.
I just tried to e-mail Brandt Dainow. He is a professional hit piece writer. He promises very good results. He’s not afraid to bend the facts to fit his premise. He is Enderlie Lite.
The good news is, his last big hit piece was aimed at Google.