I think he meant "dominant" market share, of course a new product needs a plan to create and/or take market share. But Apple (under Jobs anyway) is much more interested in profit share, nowadays they own maybe 5-10% of the computer market but their profit/unit dwarfs any other manufacturer.

On the lock-in I'm with you, but I do think the whole iTunes store/Fairplay was a happy accident that the music companies forced Apple to do. The music companies inadvertently helped Apple lock consumers into the iP*d platform, Apple leveraged it for the app store that pundits/developers were demanding (remember when iPhone first came out and the outrage about having to use web apps?)

>But Apple (under Jobs anyway) is much more interested in profit share

Microsoft blazed a trail of both incredible profit margins and dominant market shares. I have absolutely no doubt that Apple was dreaming of the same scenario.

I do think there is a bit of lost perspective in all of this. Just a mere six months ago when people discussed Android desperately clawing for a slice of marketshare, universally there were comments that everyone everybody knows owns an iPhone, and no one owns an Android device. Effectively there was a short period where the iPhone absolutely owned the smartphone arena (I simply ignore RIM phones as generally they're work provided, or they're purely used as messaging phones, neither of which really qualifies). Major organizations were turning significant focus on iPhone applications: If you didn't have an iPhone, you were simply a second class citizen. Case in point -- CIBC here in Canada that spend millions of dollars advertising their iPhone application, while their terrible mobile web site withered.

Oh, come now. Six months ago it was obvious to knowledgeable people that Android would surpass iPhone, and I'm pretty sure that was true a year ago, too, notwithstanding the occasional contrary opinion.

It's clear that some people think that Android vs Iphone is a team sport, and they've chosen up their side. The problem is no one agrees on how we score. Some people want it to be market share even though the real name of the game is profit.

It is incredibly well known that Apple can thrive with a limited market share. Would they love to have the dominant market share in phones? Of course. Will they try to maximize their market share? Of course. But, at the end of the day, they're not going to sacrifice their vision or profits in the name of winning that fool's game.

Comparing iPhone to Android isn't comparing apples to oranges. We're talking about one phone versus a host of phones on a host of carriers.

>Six months ago it was obvious to knowledgeable people that Android would surpass iPhone, and I'm pretty sure that was true a year ago, too, notwithstanding the occasional contrary opinion.

The dominant opinion was absolutely that Android wouldn't crack the iPhone's dominance. Of course it's all clear now though, and everyone has carefully adopted new positions.

>Some people want it to be market share even though the real name of the game is profit.

Wow, I care so incredibly little whether Motorola or HTC or Samsung makes boatloads of profit. In fact I think I would be a bit offended if they bragged about their great margins (who would clutch onto their copy of Windows and crow about how great a profit margin Microsoft made on it? That is just perverse). Profit margin, unless you're a material shareholder or have options, are irrelevant.

I care about the platform that I develop for, that I use, that empowers or limits us. That is what matters to me, and it's why I care. I don't care if Google doesn't meet their quarterly numbers.

>Comparing iPhone to Android isn't comparing apples to oranges. We're talking about one phone versus a host of phones on a host of carriers.

This is the new talking point, and it's a curious one. The strength of the iPhone all along has been paraded as the single vendor solution: It is consistent and high quality and you know who's behind it...what's with all this crazy Android fragmentation from who knows who?

That's been the line.

Now that's the weakness?

> The dominant opinion was absolutely that Android wouldn't crack the iPhone's dominance. Of course it's all clear now though, and everyone has carefully adopted new positions.

This is simply wrong. I don't know how you could have developed such a misreading of popular analysis, but the idea that 6 months ago most people didn't know Android would overtake iPhone is laughably false. Six months ago several of my coworkers already had Android powered phones and there were numerous reports of many more Android phones from multiple vendors on the way.

> Wow, I care so incredibly little whether Motorola or HTC or Samsung makes boatloads of profit. In fact... [snip]

> I care about the platform that I develop for, that I use, that empowers or limits us... [snip]

Well, then why are you so excited that Android has greater market share than iPhone? That's not relevant to how you're scoring. Lots of developers vastly prefer programming Linux or Macs over Windows, and it is often for intangible reasons as you suggest.

> Now that's the weakness?

No, that continues to be the strength insofar as it empowers entrepreneurial software developers. This is along the lines of your last point. Developers will choose the OS that helps them reach their goals, which in many cases is money.

It is a weakness with regards to market share since it is one phone on one carrier. How could this be any more obvious?

>This is simply wrong.

Revisionism is glorious.

>Well, then why are you so excited that Android has greater market share than iPhone?

Am I? How am I excited? What's exciting is that the iPhone is no longer in a position where it is dominating, or poised to dominate, the emerging smartphone ecosystem. THAT is exciting, for exactly the reasons I mentioned.

You should have kept reading. That was a minor point.

I did keep reading, and it's a very interesting entry. That point, however, was so detached from reality that it completely threw me off.

Ever think that maybe you didn't understand it?

Apple had a personal computer OS before Microsoft did. Did they try to lock Microsoft out of the personal computer OS business? No.

Apple had a graphic operating system before Microsoft. That time they did try to lock them out, but it was half-hearted and didn't even begin to work (and that wasn't Jobs anyway).

Not sure what to call the iPhone, what category it is, but did they erect any barriers to keep Google out of it? When Google entered did they do anything to try to take the market Google was going after? (They would have had to license their OS to do that.) No. They didn't care. As long as they control their own platform they're happy.

You guys ought to think a little. When you hear something that strikes you as totally wrong, consider the possibility that you're not looking at it from the right angler, as you did in this case.

> Not sure what to call the iPhone, what category it is, but did they erect any barriers to keep Google out of it?

The "no developing apps with cross-platform toolkits" policy is pretty anti-competitive.

> As long as they control their own platform they're happy.

Then why the patent suit against HTC?

Not to mention the whole subtle warning to Google not to implement multi-touch. Google finally opened up that can of worms after the organizations had a falling out.

>Ever think that maybe you didn't understand it?

You purport that I didn't understand it, yet then you go on to state exactly what my interpretation of the statement was. I suggest that you choose your approach more consistently.

>Did they try to lock Microsoft out of the personal computer OS business? No.

Of course they tried, at least to the degree that is legally allowed, just as pretty much every company does.

>but did they erect any barriers to keep Google out of it? When Google entered did they do anything to try to take the market Google was going after?

At this point I have to think that you're writing satire or something.

Of course Apple tried very hard to keep competitors out. One by creating a compelling product and cross-marketing the symbiosis between it and their existing successful products in other markets (namely the iPod and iTunes). Two, and this is a very big one, by the app platform. Apple came very, very close to achieving the universal lock-in in the fact that an iPhone app almost became a pre-determined conclusion for most businesses, such that you were either with them, or you were living in a second tier world.

If you think Jobs et al weren't dreaming of a world where everyone had an iDevice, you are absolutely delusional. Of course that is what they want, and whenever anyone argues otherwise it just stinks of rhetoric.

Indeed. I shifted into skeptic mode after hitting that absurd statement. If Apple ever gets the kind of monopoly position in any market that Microsoft has enjoyed in desktop operating systems you're going to see lock-in like you never dreamed of.

How did AT&T go "all in" on the iPhone? I guess they probably marketed it in their stores, I never visited one, but they weren't allowed to sell the phone in their own commercials at all. By contrast, Verizon is the force entire behind "Droid" and have marketed it so well that most people seem to call all Android phones by that name.