Apple: When is Enough Enough?

I’m a big admirer of Apple.  They design incredible products.  They innovate and, beyond innovation, they create new categories and approaches.  They have been richly rewarded for that and are now the second highest valued company in the world, behind ExxonMobil.  You know there’s a “but” coming.  And it’s a big one.  Is it good for anyone (other than Apple) — even you — when they put their hand so deep in everyone’s pocket and when they tell you and me how to do business?  (Full disclaimer:  I don’t own any Apple products.  I have a Sansa MP3 player, because I like the Rhapsody subscription music model.  I actually like the Microsoft Zune subscription model even better, because then I get to rent and own music, but that’s maybe my next device consideration.  I have an Android-based Motorola Droid, largely because I’m on Verizon and won’t buy any electronic device without a replaceable battery, so no, I’m not getting on line for a Verizon iPhone.  I do, however, own some really old Macs and an original, and still working Newton.  And my introduction to the technology industry in 1979 was on an Apple II+.  But I digress…)

The latest flap is over Sony’s e-reader application where Sony wants to enable users to buy books without paying Apple its 30% “tax.”  Apple, however, is insisting that all purchases must be made “in-app”…and as such, Apple wants to take its share of the transaction.

So, let’s get this straight.  Apple owns complete control over whether your application makes it into the app store and if they say no, there’s basically no “legitimate” way for you to get an application on to your phone.  With Android, while the default is to only allow apps to come in through the Android market, a simple uncheck in settings allows you to install applications from any source.  Apple will tell you that’s to protect the user experience.  That’s the same argument the telcos used to exclude devices from their network until, paradoxically, the iPhone came along and led to a new OS-centric model of wireless carriers here in the States and opened up the market to innovation that had been stalled for a decade.  In other words, bullsh**, Apple.

But that’s not enough for Apple.  Once the app has been approved, they want their full share of any revenue generated and won’t allow solutions that circumvent their taxing mechanism, regardless of how consumer-friendly and/or app provider-friendly those solutions are.  If you want to make money on the iPhone, pay us our 30%.  (This one will get really interesting the first time Oracle and SAP get serious about mobile apps.  Clash of the Titans anyone?  But it probably won’t get to that.  Read on.)

If this were any vendor other than Apple, the hue and cry would be so incredibly loud that it would drown out conversation about American Idol.  But Apple, our little darling, gets away scot-free.  Imagine if Microsoft said “any transaction that occurs on a Windows machine will henceforth and forever more involve a payment to Microsoft.”  The antitrust lawyers would move so fast that time would actually go backwards.  But Apple?

Actually, I think this time Apple made a mistake.  A big mistake.  This one is so outrageously wrong that it’s sure to draw scrutiny from all corners.  This could be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.  Apple probably thought “well, it’s only Sony.  Who cares about them any more.”  The real target, of course, is Amazon whose Kindle software is available on all platforms (imagine that, not just iPhone and iPad) and whose sales enrich Amazon’s coffers.  Amazon is a threat to Apple’s control of the ecosystem.  If Kindle is the standard for some forms of digital content, how can Apple own the whole process they way they do with music and, increasingly, video?  If someone is able to stand up to Apple and not pay their ransom, what does that mean for all the others who feel they are being held captive?

So Apple started with Sony.  A trial balloon if you will.  This, however, could instead become Apple’s trial by fire.  What Apple’s trying to do here makes Google’s and Facebook’s privacy intrusions seem like a walk in the park.  Quite simply, Apple is trying to put a meter on the flow of digital content over the Internet.  I’m loathe to draw comparisons to what’s going on in Egypt this week.  Clearly, that’s a real-life saga that dwarves anything we’re talking about here.  However, it’s hard to ignore the parallels.  Enough is enough.  Whether it’s a military dictatorship or a technological one, at some point the citizenry/customers say this has gone on too long and we need to push back.

While I’m not of course predicting such a dire outcome, this could some day be remembered as Apple’s Waterloo.  They’re inviting legislative scrutiny in the United States and around the world.  They’re forcing their “partners” to stand up and revolt.  And most dangerous of all, they’re risking the love and support of their fan base.  If there’s a coordinated effort on the part of content creators across all media types (books, music, video and, with today’s announcement of The Daily, news and information) — heck, even without a coordinated effort — the risk to Apple’s reputation, position (and market cap) is considerable.

Apple is restricting choice, controlling innovation and enriching its coffers.  And it’s not benefiting you.  Enough is finally enough.

I do believe that this week may well have been the Zenith of Apple’s power.  And that’s pretty remarkable to contemplate.  Pride goeth before the fall.

Advertisements

How Important is Steve Jobs?

With the news that Steve Jobs is taking another medical leave from Apple — his third — it’s legitimate to ask the question of just how essential he is to Apple’s success.  This is going to be a quick post, because I think the truth of the matter is that there are probably only 20 people who can answer that question…and they’re so secretive and such a part of the Jobsian communications strategy that we’re not likely to know the answer to that question for another year or more.

By all accounts, COO Tim Cook is a buttoned-down manager.  Apple has been AMR Research’s (now Gartner’s) #1 in its Supply Chain Top 25 for three years in a row.  Thus, I think it’s safe to say that Apple’s ability to execute its plan is in safe hands.  Cook has probably been running large amounts of the operational show for years anyhow.  How much it has helped him to have Jobs’s notoriously strong hammer can be asked, but ultimately this is not where Apple’s potential issues lie.

More to be questioned is how much of the marketing power of Apple is attributable to the “Jobsian reality field” and how much of the product vision is directly attributable to Jobs.  Jobs has indicated that he’s going to remain engaged as CEO and assuming there’s some veracity to that assertion, it’s reasonable to assume that his exquisite sense of product development will continue to guide the company.  With the Verizon announcement, the iPhone momentum continues even while Android continues to make inroads in the smartphone marketplace.  Apple’s business plan never was to be the volume leader so this marketplace condition was to be expected.  The same will probably happen in the tablet marketplace; Apple is quite happy to be the pioneer and then to reap early-mover profits while moving gracefully into the premium price place of the market.  But given that, the question becomes “what’s next?”  Apple has introduced two category-creating, or at least redefining, products in a row.  They probably need another home run in the next two years to sustain their momentum and lofty market perceptions.  Without Jobs at the plate, you’d have to question Apple’s ability, or at least likelihood, of hitting another home run.

This concern extends to Apple’s marketing as well.  Again, they do a remarkable job, second to none certainly in the technology space , and even the broader consumer space.  Here’s where it gets hard to call.  Jobs doesn’t have to be omnipresent to sustain the Jobsian magic.  In fact, lesser Jobs could actually mean more impact when he’s around.  On the other hand, if he becomes perceived as merely a figurehead disassociated from the company he used to rule with an iron fist, his magic could be compromised.

Apple more than most companies is a cult of personality and the extended absence of its leader is a challenge for the company.  That said, I don’t think it’s an insurmountable challenge.  Microsoft was able to transition from a “cult of Bill Gates” to something more nuanced.  But that was much easier because the cult of Bill was vastly weaker than the cult of Steve and the truth of a Bill-ruled company was less than the truth of a Steve-ruled company.  I think we’re nearing the time when for myriad reasons Apple is going to need to let Jobs sprinkle some pixie dust on someone else, a visionary who can sustain the momentum and help transition the cult of Steve back once again to the cult of Apple.  This mingling of Jobs and Apple is a relatively recent phenomenon.  While a search of Time Magazine’s web site and Google couldn’t help me locate the quote, I have vivid recollections of a late 80’s/early 90’s quote there which said “second perhaps only to Harley Davidson is an Apple user’s love of their computer and the company who makes it.”  The Jobs worship started with his return to the company who ousted him and with each successive product success, it grew only larger.  It’s imperative now for Apple to share the spotlight, to bring a new person to the forefront as well as transition that passion back to the company so that it transcend’s Jobs, whatever his health.

So, back to the question that started my musings.  I think Steve Jobs is as important to Apple’s success as any one individual has ever been to any technology company.  Any extended absence by him could prove to be damaging to Apple’s future products and prospects.  It sounds like there’s time for Apple and Jobs to transition that passion back more heavily to the company so that it can thrive in the inevitable absence of Jobs, whether it be this health-related matter, his waning interest or any other thing in life that could lead to his moving on/out.

He’ll be a tough act to follow, no doubt…but not impossible.  Back in the late 80’s, I actually had Steve Jobs as the luncheon speaker at a Gartner PC conference I was running.  This was right after he had introduced the NeXT computer, an amazing piece of software engineering that stood to transform the way we created and used software.  He had demonstrated it weeks earlier at Gartner’s offices in Stamford, after which none other than Gideon Gartner came to me and said “do you think we should standardize our company on these?”  The demonstration was that compelling.  I, being a noted curmudgeon, said “give me a night to think on it,” after which I came up with any number of good reasons why it wasn’t the right thing to do.  At the conference, Steve did his thing, and it was amazing.  You could hear jaws dropping in the audience.  I don’t know how many of you have ever given a meal speech but let me tell you, it’s the hardest thing in the world.  Within three minutes, all you hear is silverware clanking and the din of conversation at the tables gets louder and louder.  Not this time.  Jobs had their rapt attention.  You could have heard a pin drop.  At the end, thunderous applause.  Well, I was the next speaker.  Now what do I do?  How do you follow God and the 10 Commandments?  All I was talking about was operating system futures.  So I asked the audience, “how many of you want one of those things right now?”  Every hand in the room went up.  Then I said “how many of you are ready to standardize your company on those things tomorrow?”  Every hand went down.  (Well, I’m pretty sure Gideon wasn’t in the audience.)  I then said “so now let’s focus on what our real options might be.”

So you can follow Steve Jobs.  I’m just glad that I don’t have to do it again.

Windows Phone 7: Microsoft’s (Considerable) Challenges and its Surprising Opportunity

As I discussed in my last post, mobile is a space Microsoft needs to win if it’s to remain as relevant in this decade as it was in the last two.  I’ll never underestimate Microsoft’s power and, more importantly, its stubbornness/tenacity in battles it must win.  However, there are so many moving parts in this space and so much potential for Microsoft’s efforts to go awry that it’s very hard for me to develop any enthusiasm for Windows Phone 7, launched yesterday.

Let’s just look at some of those challenges:

  • User interface.  Microsoft looked at the iPhone and unlike Google, which said “we should copy that,” instead said “we can do better than that.”  Trying to out-interface Apple is a daunting proposition.  Has anyone done that?  Ever?  And in any event, is this the time it’s going to happen?  I’ll give Microsoft credit for realizing that perhaps the market didn’t need yet another iPhone clone.  However, its approach is actually at odds with how it has succeeded on the desktop.  The desktop and to a large extent the iPhone and Android worlds have succeeded because they’re open platforms upon which application developers can unleash their creativity and users can freely and equally access that creativity.  Instead here Microsoft has said “we know what activities you do with your phone and we’ll make those more prominent.”  If this is actually a static set of activities common across a wide enough range of users, I’d actually applaud that approach.  However, I don’t believe it’s at all a static set of activities and I think there’s sufficient variation from user to user that this approach will generally suffer.  Sure, if you’re a Zune person, great for you.  Both of you.  But I don’t think many users are thinking “wow, this iPhone is too tough to use; I wish someone would simplify my choices for me.”
  • Does Microsoft’s approach make it harder for application developers to achieve prominence?  With Microsoft controlling so much of the initial user experience, applications are relegated to a less prominent position.  This might discourage application creativity in areas Microsoft considers “core,” like pictures or social networks, and might hurt application developers whose applications might otherwise be considered core by users but are relegated to less prominence on WP7.
  • How many platforms can the market support, anyhow?  It’s clear Apple is a long-term survivor.  I don’t say “leader” because ultimately that’s not their business model.  They don’t play in high volume, low margin spaces and make no mistake about it, the smartphone market is going to be high volume in very short order.  Blackberry is positioned to be a survivor as a niche solution.  Their investments in corporate-relevant infrastructure mean that they can be a trusted provider for key scenarios even while other providers infringe on them at the margin.  That means that Android, HP/Palm, Nokia/Symbian and Microsoft are left fighting for markets that can only support one or two of those parties.  The decision may actually rest on more than just smartphones, which leads us to our next discussion.
  • Whither the tablet.  Android needs rework to adequately support tablets.  HP is going to move Palm into a variety of Internet-connected devices, including tablets, printers and more.  What’s Microsoft’s tablet strategy?  I’ll need more time looking at WP7 to assess whether this is a viable UI for tablets or whether it’s more likely to be some evolution of Windows not-Phone 7.  If, however, WP7 is not a tablet or other embedded device OS, that constrains the market opportunity for WP7 and thus its attractiveness to application developers.
  • Velocity.  Microsoft’s track record at getting operating systems out the door is, well, spotty.  (I’m feeling charitable today.)  The velocity in the phone market is a radically different dynamic than on the desktop.  Upgrade cycles are measured in weeks and months, and certainly not years.  Is Microsoft going to be able to maintain that pace and do so in a way that doesn’t jeopardize product quality.  Their track record is sobering.

However, Microsoft is in an interesting position when it comes to the carriers, especially here in the States.  The carriers have a love/hate relationship with Apple.  They’d love to have the iPhone.  They hate that Apple gets to dictate all of the terms.  With Google, it’s more of a wary situation.

While Google is more complicit with the carriers than Apple, the carriers are (rightly) suspicious of Google’s motivations.  If Google isn’t exactly making money licensing the core platform, then what’s in it for Google?  Clearly Google views this as an essential step in moving its ownership of the search space on desktops into a mobile world.  Thus, at some level, Google’s economic rationale and that of its partners are competitive and/or misaligned.  That doesn’t make for a great partnership.  Google competitors all around are trying to drive stakes into that misalignment with these patent lawsuits that further the economic risk elements and point out some of the inequities in the relationship (I get the benefit, you assume the risk).  That said, unless we’re about to change the patent landscape and head to Armageddon like situations, these things usually resolve themselves with small amounts of money changing hands.  I actually think that should one of the involved parties pursue these patent matters to full resolution, it will be counter-productive and will in fact hasten the time when we see patent reform up to and including the elimination of software patents, many of which, to this outside observer, seem, well, patently absurd.

So where does this leave Microsoft?  To the carriers, Microsoft may actually seem like the most benign of the three partners.  At least they understand Microsoft’s licensing model and appreciate the fact that Microsoft was their complicit partner on earlier Windows Mobile platforms (even while such complicity rendered the platform in need of its very replacement).  Again, I’ll write about my dislike for the carriers in a future posting.  They still hold to a desire for control that is unhealthy for the ecosystem and for us users.  But given that they hold on to these notions, their desire to partner with someone who will cow-tow to their mandates is strong.  If Microsoft’s willing to be that partner, all may not be lost for them.

Of course, that means that a Microsoft victory could be very bad for the rest of us…

Saving Newspapers? Amazon Introduces a New Kindle

Let’s get this straight right away.  The new Amazon Kindle DX has nothing to do with solving the root causes of the problems of newspapers.   The top 5 reasons the Kindle is not the solution:

  1. At a price of $489, this is a niche subset of what remains a niche category.
  2. Newspaper subscriptions are only available in areas where the paper editions are not available.  Yes, this is clearly early and is likely to change but that tells you what the papers are thinking about things now.
  3. The existing Kindle (cheaper and more broadly available) already offers subscriptions to 37 newspapers at $10/month.  Form factor is not the only reason keeping these versions from being a success.
  4. Amazon keeps 70% of the revenue from newspaper subscriptions.  It takes a LOT of subscribers at $3/month to make money.
  5. Articles on the Kindle do not display ads.  This too will/must change.

Let me note that the DX may be a revolutionary product for its other market, college textbookss.  I’m not going to cover that here.

I think all the discussion on the future of newspapers has missed a critical point.  Much of the discussion has focused on the broad availability of content from multiple sources and also mention the growth of “citizen journalism,” be it blogs or Twitter.  So what does this discussion miss?  There are two related issues which combine to fundamentally attack the business model, not the product or content.

First, how do people get their news today?  While some of us go directly to newspaper sites on the web or get their electronic summaries in our inbox, news is more commonly found via web portals (e.g., MyYahoo or iGoogle) or via a Google web/news search.   When this happens, the first monetization opportunity comes not to the news source but to the aggregator.  Google and Yahoo have seized the upstream revenue opportunity and have diffused the downstream opportunity by making the “choice” of news source less relevant.  You go not to the source you favor but rather the one that appears highest in the search rankings.  You may even never make it to one of the downstream sources, instead going to your portal’s newswire feed from a source like AP or Reuters.  Ultimately, a considerable portion of the audience never makes it to the newspaper site.  Newspapers, Google is not your friend.

At the same time, the core monetization engine of newspapers — advertising, not subscriptions — is under assault from many angles.  When the obituary of newspapers as we know them is written, the first major illness should be listed as Craigslist-itis.  Category after category of listings has moved on to the web where things are cheaper, more timely and more effective.  And if you think the bad news is over, you’re mistaken.  Another staple of newspapers — legal notices — will find its way to the web sooner or later, probably sooner.  Already some heavily regulated marketplaces (e.g., drug advertising) can use web notices in lieu of print lineage.  It’s only a matter of time before governments realize that web listings, while not universal, are every bit as “available” as print notices and are more “accessible”.  In other words, the affected audiences are more likely to find this information on the web than they are in the newspaper.

Are newspapers doomed?  In their current state, yes.  Period.  How would I reinvent the industry?  Here are a few thoughts:

  • Local is not your salvation.  Niche audiences are very hard to monetize.
  • Digital paper is important.  When the price point of a newspaper-like device falls under $100, you’ve got a market.
  • Look at what’s going on in the netbook space.  Not so much from the point of view of a cheap device — that’s obvious — but rather the emerging discussions with cellular carriers where, much as is the case with today’s cell phones, the carriers will subsidize the price of the device to drive network usage.  I’m not sure what Amazon’s revenue relationship is with Sprint, the network carrier for the Kindle, but there’s clearly money there to be divvied up.
  • Two models:  Hulu and The Week.  What these both have in common is aggregation.  Curiously, the best vision in this regard, The Week, is a weekly print publication.  I find it a compelling read as it looks at the top news of the week from the perspective of multiple newspapers.  A single story might give me regional US slants, a European snippet or two and something from an Arabic perspective.  What makes these two sources compelling is their aggregated nature.  From a consumer’s perspective, it’s a single destination where I’m likely to find what I want.  From an advertiser’s perspective, it’s an aggregated audience.  The bigger the audience, clearly the better the monetization opportunity.  If a site can achieve a critical mass (which I’ll leave undefined for the purposes of this discussion), it can broaden its advertising base and achieve some independence from Google or the advertising networks.  Newspapers have largely not done that.  Aggregation may be their only salvation.
  • eBay partnership.  eBay has its own challenges.  At some level, Craigslist has delivered an important localization the eBay hasn’t.  When the shipping price of a product is greater than the price of the product, you’ve got a market inefficiency.  By making things local, Craigslist has become the first destination for many products that otherwise would have ended up on eBay.  I know I said “local is not your salvation.”  However, it’s a start to monetization.  Leverage the eBay opportunity and combine it with the aggregated opportunity I talk about into a fundamental redefinition of your revenue model.  Much as bricks-and-mortar retailers have one-upped dedicated web retailers by offering physical pick up and return, so to can newspapers combine the benefits of local with the benefits of global.

 The newspaper is dead.  Long live the newspaper.  Digital paper, aggregation and savvy partnerships.  These three can redefine the newspaper.

Who is the Technology Bellwether?

On my news analysis blog, I posited that IBM’s strong earnings announcement this week cements the fact that IBM is no longer the technology bellwether.  On Twitter, someone asked me “if not IBM, then who is the bellwether?”  Interesting question.  To be the bellwether, I think you have to have exposure to a wide range of solutions — consumer vs. enterprise, computing vs. consumer electronics, etc.  These days, almost all of the largest companies have significant platform bets, narrow portfolios or are otherwise unbalanced when it comes to assessing the overall health of the total ecosystem.

I’d rule out Apple,Microsoft and Intelfor just those reasons.  Apple is obviously heavily consumer-focused and is at this point as much or more of a consumer electronics company than it is a “computing” company.  Microsoft has such an unusual set of arrangements, most notably its OEM arrangements with hardware manufacturers, that sometimes make its results an anomaly.  Intel is still so heavily wedded to the PC/Windows world that its results may hide the news of strength in other platforms.

If I had to pick a bellwether, I’m tempted to make the easy choice and say HP.  They have a reasonable mix of all of the above elements and are perhaps most representative of the overall health of the industry.  It’s also significant to note that they’re the largest computer company.  (I’ll bet most people, if asked, would still bet it’s IBM, but HP passed them a few years ago.)  However, let me also posit that a company like SanDisk is a good indicator.  Their storage solutions play across a wide range of devices and sectors.  Yes, they’re underweighted in the enterprise segment but that’s likely to change and, in fact, share gains they have in the enterprise would be a good indicator of a rebound in that sector because of the relative price premium you have to pay for these types of storage solutions in enterprise class.

So those are my two nominations:  HP and SanDisk.  Others?

What We Can Learn from Circuit City

With the announcement today that Circuit City has been unable to find a buyer and is therefore going to be forced to close its remaining stores, lost in their demise could be one of social media’s more significant lessons.  E-commerce is a sufficiently small piece of their business that no amount of success as an e-tailer would compensate for their shortcomings as a retailer in this gruesome economy, but don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Circuit City was one of the early retailers to make what at the time was a highly controversial decision.  These retailers make big bets on inventory, stocking large volumes of products that they think are going to be successful and even going so far as to strike preferential deals with manufacturers to secure allotments of hot products.  Given these bets, you would imagine that it would be highly controversial to open up their corridors to dissenting opinions.  However, Circuit City was one of the relatively early brick-and-mortar retailers to host user opinions.

And what did Circuit City discover?  They found that people who read user opinions on their site were 2-5x more likely to purchase than those who didn’t read the user opinions.  Of course, this is a complicated equation that raises all sorts of cause-and-effect questions.  It isn’t a simple matter of getting people to read user opinions.  Those who read such opinions are probably already more inclined to purchase.  Whatever the relationship, however, Circuit City experimented with and capitalized upon the power of their user community to their benefit.

No, it wasn’t enough to save the chain but in these tough times, when retailers are questioning whether the hassle of user-generated content is worth the outcomes, it’s worth remembering the outcomes Circuit City produced.  Those would put their heads in the sand, pretending that if they don’t support engagement with their users and  buyers that it somehow doesn’t exist, are only kidding themselves.  If we all haven’t figured out the ultimate power of social networking and how to harness it in the advertising and selling cycle, early pioneers have already demonstrated that there are tangible returns to be achieved.  Let this perhaps be Circuit City’s lasting legacy.

Apple and Steve Jobs: Is There Another Emperor in the House

I’m hard pressed to come up with another situation like Apple’s.  Has there ever been a company where not only is the image of the company so closely associated with its CEO but also the company’s product strategy and even product details?  I can’t think of a remotely similar situation.

There might have been a time when you would have said “Bill Gates and Microsoft.”  Yet behind Bill was a cadre of senior executives (Ballmer, Raikes) who wielded significant product and strategy power.  It was convenient for Bill to be the face of the company — the friendly nerd — but when it was time for things to change, Microsoft was able to effect the change with minimal disruption.

Non-technology celebrity CEOs have included Southwest’s Herb Kelliher, GE’s Jack Welch and a long list, and in almost all instances, the company was able to transcend the personality of its leader, either sustaining his or her core values or seamlessly transitioning to a new stage in the company’s evolution.

So what of Apple?  Caveat:  I have long believed that many Apple products are a triumph of style over substance.  Yes, they’re beautiful products, well finished, and I perhaps consistently underrate how much that matters, even in technology.  However, Jobs has always had some huge blind spots that have influenced his product design often times for the negative.  For instance, why in the world would you design a phone/music player/web browsing/communicating device on power-sucking 3G networks without a replaceable battery?  Well, the added thickness to support a replaceable battery offended Steve’s aesthetic notions.

Perhaps only Jobs could pull this off.  He was truly a master showman without equal.  I had the interesting opportunity to speak immediately after him one time.  This was at the Gartner PC conference around 1990, when Jobs was at NeXT.  He was our lunchtime speaker and gave this amazing product demonstration.  Of course, large portions of it were smoke-and-mirrors but that didn’t really matter.  People had seen the future and wanted it now.  The only way I could get people in the room back paying attention to my session — which was about PC operating systems — was to ask two questions.  First, “how many of you want one of those?”  Virtually every hand in the room went up.  OK.  “How many of you are ready to standardize your company on those right now?”  Hands went (mostly) down and point made.  I hated to be the buzz kill but someone had to point out that the emperor had no clothing.

I’m sure Microsoft in particular but a lot of other players are hoping this is their opportunity.  Not that they’re wishing ill of Jobs, of course, but this is the opportunity to start the drumbeat “the (new) emperor ain’t the old one, and this one has no clothing.”  Can anyone continue the string of hits that Jobs has championed at Apple?  I’m not even sure Jobs himself could maintain this record.  Is COO Tim Cook the main to seize the mantle?  I don’t know Cook.  He’s clearly well regarded.  But to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen of all people, “I know Steve Jobs.  I’ve been up on stage with Steve Jobs and Tim, you’re no Steve Jobs.”

This is clearly a pivotal time in Apple’s history.  They’ve been able to sustain above-market pricing in large measure because of the “Jobs factor.”  If their products receive greater scrutiny and are unable to sustain those price-premiums post-Jobs, it’s a new world.  And this, to me, is the likely scenario.  Welcome, competition.  Microsoft makes some inroads.  A few consumer electronics players (Sony?) are newly reinvigorated.  And we consumers benefit from new competition, more choice and freedom from the “Steve knows better” overhang.