monkbent

I have been exceptionally critical of Apple, particularly in terms of ATT.

This was a mistake, since fixed, but even then there are no basketball references

Screw up by me but point holds. Fixing.

This is why the entire second half of the article was detailing where I think focus should be.

Maybe read the article

I have no idea how you guys are getting the impression I'm ok with Zuckerberg's stated goals here. I think I was pretty clear on that point at least!

"This is a response to Marco Arment, Ben Thompson, and other pundits (largely spurred by the PR efforts of Google and to a lesser extent Facebook and Microsoft)"

It may not be self-congratulation, but this sentence is definitely unsubstantiated slander.

Tell that to my family and friends who live in the rust belt and absolutely feel this way. I wrote that from personal experience.

Actually, I have never seen that before but I'll claim it! Haha

Read the last footnote

Totally fair re tech writers.

To be clear, I was not at all trying to suggest that tech was the only factor. It's a small one.

Moreover, where tech matters is in how it has devalued what the party offered, clearing the space for Trump (i.e. the effect of aggregation of the media is to neuter the party, not necessarily to elevate trump)

Turns out actually meeting a market need is important (Path), having a functional business model (Square), knowing your target customer (Dropbox), and we'll see with Medium.

User experience is a differentiator. It's not the only thing.

Perhaps I should litigate against people that say I haven't when they can't be bothered to follow the very next link in the next sentence: http://stratechery.com/2013/clayton-christensen-got-wrong/

Or this one, linked a few paragraphs later: http://stratechery.com/2013/obsoletive/

Here's another one, for good measure: http://stratechery.com/2014/best/

So actually, I have. Mush indeed.

That was my only point. Sullivan type 40 post a day blogs don't make much sense anymore, but the entire premise of my article is that blogs still matter and can still be a business.

Cheers

I think you either 1) didn't read the whole article or 2) completely misread it. The point is the meat remains, even as all the excerpt and link stuff has mostly moved to Twitter.

Apple is a hardware company. Your confusion comes from not following the money.

Their software and services exist to differentiate the hardware and allow for a profit margin.

The Microsoft corollary would be if Apple offered iTunes, iCloud, etc for Android.

Maybe don't skim and read thoroughly? I actually said they're still big. It's just that even bigger things came along.

See the previous article: http://stratechery.com/2014/business-models-2014/

But that's new market disruption, which I said I agree with. In fact, I explicitly called out the iPad (which I'm sure you read).

It's low end disruption - that the same product becomes modularized - that I have an issue with.