First, if you narrow you scope a bit you see that the Mac is still the market leader in certain market segments.
If you're willing to play the "in this market segment" game, you can make anybody a winner. OpenBSD totally has a lock on the "paranoid dudes in their mom's basement who think Debian is too damned corporate" market segment.
The PC dominates overall because it is a generic business machine. But can you say the same about cellphones?
I think you can. "A generic mobile device". There, I said it.
The PC, in hindsight, I think was obviously a case of fully proprietary (Apple) vs. mostly open (the PC, with DOS and later Windows). One can easily say, "It's the applications!" And you'd be right...but why were there more apps for PC than Mac? Bigger market, sure. But, if Apple could stop people from making applications for the Mac, and Microsoft couldn't, I know which OS I'd be developing for. And that's the situation here. Apple are basically being bastards to their customers and their developers, and because Apple products are really attractive, extremely well-executed, and generally good and useful, people haven't immediately noticed what a bastard Apple is being about the whole thing. But, I think Matt's right. People will notice that Apple is treating them like crap, with abusive contracts, abusive terms for distribution of applications, and anti-competitive practices with regard to who gets to make and sell apps for the iPhone. It's already happening, and Apple will either wise up, or lose out.
You could even say that with Vista's DRM, even the PC is heading that way, where the open platform will eventually be relegated to a niche enthusiast market.
Nobody is saying that Microsoft is open, or good for consumers. At least, I didn't take Matt's post to indicate that at all. He merely used the early PC vs. Mac war as an interesting historical precedent for what's going to play out in the mobile market and for the very same reasons: Cost, availability of apps, and control (i.e. who controls your device: you, or the manufacturer?).
I think the comparisons are pretty obvious and pretty difficult to argue against. The current behavior and direction of Microsoft (and its own historical abusive behavior) is irrelevant. Nobody is going to argue that the PC was a less open platform than the Mac in the 80s and 90s, and changes in the landscape since then don't alter history.
So it is easy to imagine the cell market being dominated by the most shiny thingy.
I think it'll be dominated by the cheapest thing that does what people want, just like PCs. It is becoming a commodity...as most mass-manufactured goods do.
It continually amazes me why people have such intense hatred of Apple. At least, you give credit, but still: "bastards"? Abusive contracts: who knows who forced an abusive contract for the phone? I agree with you that cheaper, working things will beat the crap out of the iPhone, but still: "bastards"? What did they do to you, man?
It continually amazes me why people have such intense hatred of Apple.
I have no hatred for Apple. I have very little interest in Apple, in general. But, we're witnessing a really interesting time in computing, and I think it's worth paying attention to how it plays out, because it will shape how we use computers and online services for years to come. So, my feelings for Apple, in particular, aren't strong in any particular direction...but I'm paying close attention because my livelihood will be shaped by what plays out over the next year or three. If the industry follows Apple+AT&Ts lead, I believe it would be really bad for consumers.
Abusive contracts: who knows who forced an abusive contract for the phone?
We can know, with confidence, that the telco and Apple worked together to come up with the abomination that is the 2nd gen iPhone contract. The mobile industry, coming from the telco industry of old, is about as abusive as an industry can be and still be legal (and with a wee bit of competition allowed), and yet Apple managed to one-up every other phone contract to come up with the crazytown that is the iPhone contract. It's the worst contract in the industry, as far as I know, and that's saying something. Since AT&T does offer more reasonable contracts for other devices, I'd say it's pretty clear that Apple had a hand in devising the iPhone contract. If you'd like to believe that Jobs is a gentle soul who only wants the best for the world, and would give away free ponies to everyone if those evil telcos would only let him, you're certainly free to continue to do so. I'm not of that opinion. I'm of the opinion that Jobs is a less (monetarily) successful Bill Gates (though far more successful on other fronts...like product development). I don't hate Bill Gates, or Microsoft, either. I just avoid dealing with them as much as possible.
What did they do to you, man?
Nothing. They have no power over me, at all, since I've never entered into any contract or agreement with Apple, and probably won't as long as they are as controlling as they have historically been.
I perhaps use strong language...I figure I'm among friends here at HN, and that you'll all understand that I'm coming from a somewhat more extreme position than is the norm (I contribute to EFF regularly, I have been an Open Source software developer for ten years, and I generically hate anti-competitive practices wherever they appear). I'm not saying Apple kills babies, just that they are on the wrong end of history if they think they can maintain the level of control they have over the iPhone without dramatically damaging their future market share. I'm not RMS, but I think and hope that openness will win out over fully proprietary.
If you don't think the iPhone has an abusive contract, by all means, buy and use an iPhone with joy. If you don't think iTunes terms of service and DRM are bad for consumers (and that poor Steve is being strong-armed into using DRM by those nasty record labels), then by all means buy your songs from iTunes. I'll continue to use a mobile device other than an iPhone. I'm planning to buy the HTC G1 when it arrives, assuming the contract is sane. And I'll continue to get my music from other, non-DRM encumbered, sources, like emusic, Amazon Unbox, Amie St., direct from artists, etc.
Not sure how things are (& were) in the states, but down here I think Apple did something interesting. The iphone plans must come with 'data plans.' These have been available but something that consumers just didn't want (to pay for) previously. They always took the 'pay as you go' options, & just avoided using it. So the majority of people that bought phones in the past couple of years had internet enable devices that they never used. Apple broke that.
I think it comes back to Apple's measures of success. They don't just measure sales, they measure use. Do you check mail? Do you listen to music? Do you use the browser?
The contracts (while highly priced) are there to optimise for those latter metrics. It's a much more forward minded strategy then most of what we've seen up to now. Given the whole segment a kick up the arse.
If you're willing to play the "in this market segment" game, you can make anybody a winner. OpenBSD totally has a lock on the "paranoid dudes in their mom's basement who think Debian is too damned corporate" market segment.
The PC dominates overall because it is a generic business machine. But can you say the same about cellphones?
I think you can. "A generic mobile device". There, I said it.
The PC, in hindsight, I think was obviously a case of fully proprietary (Apple) vs. mostly open (the PC, with DOS and later Windows). One can easily say, "It's the applications!" And you'd be right...but why were there more apps for PC than Mac? Bigger market, sure. But, if Apple could stop people from making applications for the Mac, and Microsoft couldn't, I know which OS I'd be developing for. And that's the situation here. Apple are basically being bastards to their customers and their developers, and because Apple products are really attractive, extremely well-executed, and generally good and useful, people haven't immediately noticed what a bastard Apple is being about the whole thing. But, I think Matt's right. People will notice that Apple is treating them like crap, with abusive contracts, abusive terms for distribution of applications, and anti-competitive practices with regard to who gets to make and sell apps for the iPhone. It's already happening, and Apple will either wise up, or lose out.
You could even say that with Vista's DRM, even the PC is heading that way, where the open platform will eventually be relegated to a niche enthusiast market.
Nobody is saying that Microsoft is open, or good for consumers. At least, I didn't take Matt's post to indicate that at all. He merely used the early PC vs. Mac war as an interesting historical precedent for what's going to play out in the mobile market and for the very same reasons: Cost, availability of apps, and control (i.e. who controls your device: you, or the manufacturer?).
I think the comparisons are pretty obvious and pretty difficult to argue against. The current behavior and direction of Microsoft (and its own historical abusive behavior) is irrelevant. Nobody is going to argue that the PC was a less open platform than the Mac in the 80s and 90s, and changes in the landscape since then don't alter history.
So it is easy to imagine the cell market being dominated by the most shiny thingy.
I think it'll be dominated by the cheapest thing that does what people want, just like PCs. It is becoming a commodity...as most mass-manufactured goods do.