Comments on: Hardware and Software–The Lines Are Blurring

By: Karl Zachar

Karl Zachar — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:55:21 +0000

When I travel, there are two things I can’t live without: my Blackberry and my iPod. I love my Blackberry because I can get email and surf the internet (albeit poorly). I love my iPod b/c it has all my music but more importantly, my video iPod has movies, audio books, and recordings of important conference calls that I didn’t have time to listen to live.

Here’s my question: will the iPhone replace both my video iPod and my Blackberry? Will the iPhone dethrone the ‘Bery from the corporate market? If it does, could this be the Trojan horse that allows Macs to gain marketshare in the corporate PC market? At this point, I’m not betting against this possibility!

By: Karl Zachar

Karl Zachar — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:47:27 +0000

After listening to the Jobs-Gates podcast at All Things Digital, a couple of things struck me.
1) MicroSoft invented the software company business model.
2) I attribute Apple’s success to Apple’s ability to design software and hardware that makes sense. Bill Gates said, “Steve Jobs designs “things” that he himself would love to use.”
3) In describing the iPhone, Jobs described it as a great piece of software (not hardware). However, the point of the original blog is well taken – Apple’s genious is great software and great hardware and (most importantly) great software and hardware working together. It’s almost as if Jobs didn’t trust (or didn’t find) anyone to build the perfect hardware to deliver his great software applications so he built the hardware (iPhone, iPod, iMac, iBook, etc.) himself.

By: Jonathan Tilney

Jonathan Tilney — Wed, 30 May 2007 09:48:06 +0000

Unless I am mistaken, I would question the statement: “Microsoft’s great success with Xbox Live”. It is after all riddled with hardware problems and failures, appeals mainly to serious geeky gamers and is now seriously challenged by Wii, let alone PS3. PS2 sold massivley more than Xbox ever has too. Despite the huge ‘money is no object’ investment, it hasn’t made a blue bean of profit for Microsoft. Define ’success’ I guess.

A second point to make is whether making end to end products is easier or proportionately more difficult than sticking to either hardware or software.

It seems to me that Apple have stuck with the more difficult route and achieved a) the simplification of massively complex software and b) designed hardware that’s to be appreciated if not loved, not just used and abused as a tool.

I suspect it’s even harder to achieve great combo products than it is to focus on one part or the other.

By: Geoff Davis

Geoff Davis — Fri, 04 May 2007 18:48:57 +0000

@Mal McKay
I agree that pushing the Cube as a combo device is a bit of a stretch by Walt. I can see where he’s going with it though.

The concept of the Cube – a new attractive form factor with nearly silent operation, external power brick to keep the guts of the thing cool, and good looks to boot – is directly carried on by the Mac Mini. It benefited by the integration of the recently released OS X with the hardware.

By: andrew harrison

andrew harrison — Thu, 03 May 2007 22:25:26 +0000

brian smith:

“would apple success have been as great as it is today if it hadn’t made quicktime and the ipod/itunes compatible with windows? I doubt it. So, you cannot say that Apple success was due to its insistence on keeping its products exclusive to the Mac.”

Well, it’s good to see that even on brand new blogs people still miss the point entirely.

Walt’s not saying that the Apple’s success is due to keeping its products exclusive to the Mac.

He’s saying that Apple’s success is due to their insistence of developing both the hardware and the software of their devices.

True, opening up the iPod to Windows was integral to its success, however that’s not the point that is being made. Another thing integral to the iPod’s success is the user experience created through the tight iTunes/iPod integration.

That integration is a perfect example of what comes from Apple’s across-the-board development, which allows them to control the user experience from start to finish.