The Network Garden - Mark Sigal's Blog

Facebook Mountain ("I wish I knew how to quit you")

"Apple is 'Evil' and Facebook is 'a Photo-sharing Site'" -- Fred Wilson, VC (investor in Twitter, Foursquare, Zynga).

It's the ultimate form of respect when the competition vilifies and diminishes your accomplishments, so take respected VC and blogger Fred Wilson's comments in that light. After all, he's got investments in a number of companies that Facebook is a potential threat to.

But let's face some facts. Love or hate Facebook, you don't grow to 500 million users if you are not doing something incredibly right.

Moreover, you don't engage those same users to the point that 50 percent of the active user base logs in daily unless you have found a way to turn the social equivalent of lead into gold.

Mind you, this is a service legions diss, dismiss and outright distrust. A service with customer satisfaction levels that rank below the airline industry.

It begs the question: Why isn't this ship sinking, as opposed to being an unstoppable force that's swallowing up the web one 'Like' and Facebook Connect sign-on at a time?

Read the full piece HERE: radar.oreilly.com

Related Posts:

1. Is Facebook a Brand that You Can Trust?
   
2. Ruminations on iPhone 4, iOS and mobile video
3. Five reasons iPhone vs Android isn't Mac vs Windows
4. iPhones, App Stores and Ecosystems

XLNT NYT Piece on Tesla Electric Cars and Elon Musk (with plenty of soap opera and spin)

 

Mr. Musk has never run afoul of federal regulators, but he has had a long history of friction with the news media. Some reporters who cover the company closely say Mr. Musk’s hyperbole sometimes crosses the line into what they regard as distortions.

“I don’t believe him,” says Ray Wert, editor in chief of Jalopnik, a blog about the auto industry. “He’s made so many prognostications in the past that just have been so completely wrong. I don’t think he’s lying. I actually believe that he believes what he’s saying. But I just think it’s nowhere near what the reality is. It never has been.”

via nytimes.com

Color me a skeptic. Given the extreme costs and complexity to achieve scale, the fact that Tesla is pursuing the main of the market vs. an underserved niche, and the fact that the auto industry is a big ecosystem with a long history and lots of pattern recognition, it just feels like too much has to go right for them to succeed.

Analysis of Apple’s Third Quarter 2010 Results: A Gorilla Climbs to the Top!

 

All that you need to know about Apple’s Q3, 2010 earnings is that the iPad, a mere 90 days after it started shipping, almost outsold the Mac – and this was a quarter that was the best ever for the Mac (there were 3.27M iPads, and 3.47M Macs sold in the quarter).  

Mind you that going into the quarter, many thought that if the Company sold 1M iPads for the year they’d be happy.

This fact led to an interesting exchange between Apple COO, Tim Cook, and one of the industry analysts, who was querying him about cannibalization of either the Mac or the iPod by the iPad.

“Cannibalization? The real answer is that it's too early to tell. If you look at the quarter we just finished, we’re thrilled that we recorded the best Mac quarter ever, at the same time we sold 3.3 million iPads. For us it's a jawdropper,” noted Cook.

Cook went on to note that, whereas everyone else seems to focus on the negatives and risks of having a diverse, nominally overlapping portfolio, within Apple, it’s the exact opposite.

They see having ‘Halo Effect’ as a bigger factor from both a technical and market perspective, a point further underscored when Tim rolled out a stat about how the growth of iPod facilitated a re-birth of the Mac, synergies that they see playing out again with iPad. 

I have previously blogged in detail on the Halo Effect working in Apple’s favor, so suffice it to say, I am just happy to hear it expressed as a core thought process within Apple.

Strictly the Facts: Apple by the Numbers

Superlatives aside, the parade of numbers is just staggering. The Company posted record revenue of $15.7 billion, which is now its best ever, ahead of the last holiday quarter.  This translated to $3.25 billion of profit (a 78% increase), and dropped another $4 billion to the coffers, meaning that they are now sitting on $45.8 billion in cash.

While logic dictates that the law of big numbers should be catching up with Apple, these results compare to revenue of $9.73 billion and net quarterly profit of $1.83 billion in the year-ago quarter, and in fact, Peter Oppenheimer, Apple’s CFO, is every bit as bullish in the quarter ahead. 

“Looking ahead to the fourth fiscal quarter of 2010, we expect revenue of about $18 billion and we expect diluted earnings per share of about $3.44,” noted Oppenheimer.

While the Company has been quick to assert that they will not create price/margin gaps to enable low-priced competitors to outflank them, nonetheless, gross margins continued strong at 39.1 percent compared to 40.9 percent in the year-ago quarter. 

This beat expectations, and is particularly impressive in light of the impact of the strengthening dollar against international currencies, and especially the Euro, since international sales accounted for 52 percent of the quarter’s revenue.

The Mac Business

As noted, Apple sold 3.47 million Macs during the quarter, representing a new quarterly record, and a 33 percent unit increase over the year-ago quarter (and 100K Macs over last quarter).  

Not only is the Company growing its PC unit sales ahead of the rest of the market, with strong double-digit growth in each of the domestic and international regions, but in a number of Asia-Pacific segments they are simply crushing it, showing 73% year-over-year growth in AsiaPac, 144% in China, 184% in Korea and and almost doubling in Hong Kong.

The iPhone

On the iPhone front, the Company sold 8.4 million iPhones, representing 61 percent unit growth over the year-ago quarter – well ahead of the 38% growth rate of the overall global smart phone segment. 

Beyond the basic impressiveness of these numbers is the fact that the Company seems pretty clear on how they are managing their carrier relationships on a country-by-country basis, so as to maximize the balance between market penetration and financial yield (the ASP on iPhone is an impressive $595). 

Here, Cook gave the example of Spain, where the Company is toggling from an Exclusive Carrier model to Multi-Carrier in the quarter ahead (likely owing to the weakness of the Spanish economy).  As expected, no commentary was provided on the Apple-AT&T relationship, and Cook deflected the one question that came his way.

Candidly, I expected indigestion around the fact that while 8.4 million units sold is magnificent (and ahead of The Street consensus of 8.35 million units), whisper numbers actually ran as high as 9.5 million units. 

Thus, owing to the lazy logic of many analysts and the consumer investor, who equates Apple with iPhone, at least as a growth story, it would not have been shocking to see an analyst or two spin the story as disappointing and ding the stock, especially in light of the recent Antenna-Gate stories, and perceived increased competition with Google’s Android.

But, Apple was very clear on the call that some of this was a by-product of coming into the quarter with ample iPhone 3GS inventory, then needing to sell it down to nil in advance of the iPhone 4, which did not actually ship until June 24, a process the translated to inventory scarcity and about 250K less units sold during the quarter. 

And if there were any doubts about the popularity of iPhone 4, Cook put them to rest, stating that Antenna-Gate or no, Apple is selling every iPhone 4 they can make, and that returns on iPhone 4 are materially less than with 3GS, especially for antenna-related issues.

The fact that the analysts seemed to readily accept this, and have already updated their models to factor the impact of the transition to iPhone 4, tells me that whereas Apple has long been the most mis-analyzed (and thus, under-valued company in tech), within a quarter or two, they will probably be overvalued.

iPods, iPads, iTunes and App Store

Apple sold 9.41 million iPods during the quarter, representing an eight percent unit decline from the year-ago quarter, which is to be expected as they transition from standard MP3 devices, where they still have 70% of the market share, to multi-function iPods, like the iPod touch.

Also, of note is the fact that iTunes did over $1 billion, and is growing 25% year-over-year, in part fueled by the fact that there are now over 100M iOS based devices out there (includes: iPhone, iPod touch and iPad).

Similarly, Tim Cook touted the App Store as generating 5 billion downloads and having 225K apps within its marketplace, of which 11K apps are specific to iPad, a distinction that I previously flagged as a precursor to platform fragmentation.

With respect to the iPad, the Company began selling them during the quarter (in 10 countries), with total sales of 3.27 million units, and a $640 ASP.  Nine more countries are coming online on July 23.

But to really frame the incredible ramp of iPad, consider Cook’s comment that it took 20 months for the one millionth iPod to be sold, but only one month to reach that same milestone on iPad.

Cook’s point, which he came back to more than once, is that iPad is moving well beyond an early adopter device and into the mainstream.

Apple Retail Store Performance

In Q3, Apple Retail did $2.58 billion across an average of 287 stores, which is up 73% year-over-year, owing in part to the fact that average revenue per store increased from $5.9M to $9M.  Nobody asked the question about same-store numbers relative to year-over-year, but it’s clear that their retail model is thriving.

Moreover, relative to the earlier mentioned Halo Effect, Apple Retail sold 677K Macs vs. 492K a year ago, and about half of these were to customers who had never owned a Mac before.

Corporate Market Penetration

This remains an area where Apple’s strategy feels more opportunistic than strategic, inasmuch as large enterprises have never been the Company’s strong suit, nor is it apparent that the Company has a sales, marketing, support and professional services organization focused here.

Nonetheless, Tim Cook cited 80% of the Fortune 100 being in pilot or deployment on iPhone, 60% of the Fortune 500 and another 400 higher education institutions that have approved for iPhone for faculty and students. 

Similarly, in the first three months that iPad has been available, 50% of the Fortune 500 is testing or deploying that device.  

iPad and iOS in general lend themselves very naturally to a vertical segmentation strategy should the Company ever get religion about cultivating an indirect ISV and VAR channel.

Netting It Out: This is a company that had two game-changing product launches in the last quarter alone (i.e., iPad and iPhone 4); that is very confident in its product pipeline (an iOS-based Apple TV, anyone?) and is at an all-time high on its “legacy” Mac business.

Plus, this is like 22 out of 23 quarters in a row where they have simply left their own projections in the rear-view mirror, and of course, $46 billion of cash reserves is a crap-load of money for a rainy day fund.

For the first time, though, I felt that the analysts in the call were treating Apple with the respect of a industry 'Gorilla,' a point made even clearer watching Cook and Oppenheimer effortlessly flick off the analysts' questions, just as King Kong did to tiny airplanes standing at the apex of the Empire State Building.

Whether it occurs this quarter or next, when Apple passes Microsoft in revenue, that will be the seminal moment for those of us who have embraced Apple both in the dark days and the happier ones; i.e., times like right now.

Related Posts

1. Holy Shit! Apple's Halo Effect 
2. "Antenna-Gate" (How Apple's PR perception shapes its reception reality)
3. Apple, iOS and the Post PC Era
4. “Unfair Advantages” – Assessing Apple’s March, 2010 Quarter

What Makes a Winner?

I just finished reading ‘The Book of Basketball’ by Bill Simmons.  I am a HUGE basketball fan (go Lakers), and the book definitely satisfies on that level – highly recommended.

No less compelling, however, is Simmons' point of entry into understanding the history of NBA Basketball, its stars, the great teams & classic battles. 

In this regard, he works backwards from the actual outcome of Winning, rightly understanding that winning, and not impressive stats, is what legacies are made from.

So, what makes a winner? In hushed tones, NBA greats call it “The Secret” (although Bill Walton, an NBA legend whose tutelage came under UCLA Dynasty-maker John Wooden, calls it “The Choice”). 

Basically, The Secret is that greatness and winning championships is a by-product of teammates liking each other, knowing their roles, ignoring statistics, and valuing winning over everything else.

In a star-driven game, winning comes about because a team’s best players sacrifice to make every one else happy. And let us note that history shows that these teams only continue to win as long as everyone remains on the same page -- before the disease of "more" takes hold (i.e., wanting more money, more playing time and more individual recognition).

This is somewhat fly in the ointment to simpletons that assume that he/she who assembles the best talent always wins, which is not to say that winning comes in absence of having stars. 

Quite the contrary. In fact, Bill Russell, he of the unfathomable twelve championships with the Boston Celtics, notes that star players have especially enormous pressures beyond their statistics; namely, the responsibility to pick their team up and carry it at critical times. 

“You have to do this to win championships - and be ready to do it when you'd rather be a thousand other places,” notes Russell.  In fact, what makes a star a star is specifically the ability to measure the game, so as to understand the moments when winning requires you to make the big plays (either directly or by facilitating others), and rise above. That is what repeat winners are made of.

From NBA Superstars to the Real World

How is the different from real life?  Well, not very much, in fact. I hearken back to the story of chipmaking-giant, Intel’s ascendance, and the role that Andy Grove played within it (as amazingly told in George Gilder’s ‘Microcosm').  Literally, at every key stage of the business, there was Andy either personally solving the hardest problem (technical, business or strategic) or commandeering the forces to higher ground.

Yeah, you say, but Andy Grove is one in a million. NBA superstars are one in a million. 

True, but this begs the question; are the legends of Business and Sports cut from that different of a cloth than you and I? 

The answer brings me to the other book that I just finished reading, Malcolm Gladwell’s ‘Outliers. The Story of Success’. Outliers contemplates the recipe for success by asking first if successful people are truly ever self-made.  

He concludes that while there is plenty of brilliance behind successful people, no less integral is an invisible – but very real – hand working behind the scenes in providing the proper "environment variables" for their future success.

Gladwell’s narrative, which I wholeheartedly embrace, is that culture is a memetic self-perpetuator that manifests and perpetuates far beyond an immediate generation through parentage, patronage and pattern recognition.

Further, he elucidates the tangible role of timing as a contributor to success, in terms of being born during certain favorable macro economic and micro-industry movements. Some examples:

1. The case of tech legends Bill Joy, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates having the good fortune to gain early and prolonged access to computer technology and like-minded peers, by virtue of where they were born and/or attended school.
2. The dynamic where the lawyers that came to dominate the massive M&A legal segment were mostly Jewish and mostly children of garment industry parents that had emigrated to the US the generation before, and why this was so. 
3. The fact that a disproportionate number of the wealthiest individuals at the beginning of the 20^th century came to maturation in a narrow age window at the onset of the Industrial Revolution.
4. The unfortunate negative gravity for those coming of age professionally during the depths of the Great Depression.

The net-out is that success is an offspring of being in the right place at the right time; with “good enough” skills (to succeed), the right work ethic, ambition and the simple practice of getting enough “reps” – about 10,000 hours of focused experience – to become an absolute expert in one’s field of interest.

Understanding the Potency of Accumulative Advantages

Gladwell does a wonderful job of framing the interplay of opportunity, timing and chance, and how, collectively, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  

At the same time, he shows how we continue to operate under the illusion of "catching up" from early deficits, not understanding how Accumulative Advantages really work; most basically, that early advantages lead to increased attention, positive affirmation and reinforcement, culminating in "unfair advantages" down the road.

(SIDEBAR: As a parent on the fence of whether to push a youngish son to the next grade level or give extra time in a lower grade for “seasoning,” the section on Accumulative Advantages was especially illuminating.)

Of particular relevance to success is Practical Intelligence, a topic that Gladwell delves into so as to underscore the importance of seeing the big picture and using that understanding to drive the little picture of direct action, as opposed to getting buried in analysis.  

Here, Gladwell shows how so-called Geniuses that are lacking in Practical Intelligence have far more difficult life paths than those that are merely Smart and Motivated, but which are armed with Practical Intelligence.

Similarly, Outliers considers the integral-ness of pursuing meaningful work in achieving success, not to mention, happiness in life.  Such a realm offers complexity and autonomy, and equally, yields outcomes that are based upon a direct relationship between effort and reward.  In other words, purpose matters.

Taken together, the analysis and exposition that Outliers provides is a great tool for evaluating priorities and paths in career pursuits, entrepreneurialism and parenting.   I strongly recommend it.

Related Posts:

Sullenberger’s Moment: A life's grounding and Dharma path in the Bardo Realm

Success Formulas: Life is Not a Board/Bored Game

Nine Essential Truths for Entrepreneurial Success

All In: On Getting Rich

NBA Basketball as Opera

"Antenna-Gate" (How Apple's PR perception shapes its reception reality)

"...but I'd say one of the worst aspects is how the issue undermines your confidence in the device, leading to a kind of idle paranoia that at any moment a call may drop or an email won't go through if I'm not holding the phone in just the right way." - Ryan Block, gdgt

via engadget.com

So the good folks at Engadget have taken an informal survey across their geographically-dispersed team and among their media inudstry peers, concluding that the Antenna problems associated with iPhone 4 are inconsistent and overblown.  

Nonetheless, I am just going to call this hiccup on Apple's most successful product launch ever Antenna-Gate from here on out, so it's clear that at least from a PR perspective, Apple has a (mini) crisis on its hands. 

Why?  Simply put, perception is reality.  As much as I love Apple, and as much as I hate to say it, this is one of those cases where Apple's legendary secrecy, certitude and silence on gray areas (e.g., think: App Store and iOS platform policies), has lead many to conclude that Apple is wearing a black hat in this matter.  

Add to that, the Apple haters and attention whores that have a vested interest in this one not going away, and you have the requisites for a firestorm - heat, oxygen and fuel. Or, "shit storm," as industry curmudgeon, Dave Winer, puts it.

This, despite both the macro data (there are no legions of frustrated users that one would expect with a sample size of 2M units) and the anecdotal data (media types are exactly the group to self-righteously flagellate themselves if they could consistently replicate a problem) suggesting that this is more mole hill than mountain.

Put it all together, and it will be really interesting, from a future case study perspective, to see how Apple unwinds this one in a manner that reconciles their brand equity, their (recent) history of limited missteps and their legacy of heroic customer support.

Mea Culpa: I mocked up this cheesy overlay of Steve Jobs on Nixon not because I think Apple is doing anything scandalous, illegal or otherwise, but rather, to frame how (mis) handling of even minor crisis' can be ruinously damaging, if for no other reason than perception has a way of becoming reality, something that I blogged about HERE.  

UPDATE 1: Jim Dalrymple reports that Apple to hold special iPhone 4 press conference on Friday.

UPDATE 2: Crisis "resolved," as Steve Jobs does the mea culpa, offers unconditional return for unhappy iPhone 4 owners (no re-stocking fee) and offers up free iPhone 4 cases.  At the same time, touts 3M units sold in three weeks since launch. Yowza.  You watch, this one's over.  Light is always/usually better than shadows - except when there is a marketing advantage to be gained from said shadows.

Related Posts:

1. Apple, iOS and the Post PC Era
2. Five reasons iPhone vs Android isn't Mac vs Windows
3. Is Facebook a Brand that you can Trust?

Four Thoughts on the WHAT, WHY and SO WHAT of Google App Inventor for Android

There is something enticing about a software toolkit for non-developers; the concept that if you can articulate a workflow or algorithmic outcome, you can "meta-program" it without writing a line of code. 

That's why I think that there is some warranted excitement around Google's App Inventor for Android. It represents a holy grail and a myth at the same time.

I have four thoughts that I would like to put forth for assessing the "WHAT" (what is it), "WHY" (why do we need it) and "SO WHAT" (how is it materially better than current practices) of Google App Inventor for Android:

1. App Builders like this face a classic 1.0/3.0 Conundrum: The question with such solutions is are they powerful enough to solve a REAL problem out of the box, versus merely facilitating a proof of concept. This is analogous to the distinction between a dog walking on its hind legs (impressive, but not compelling) and an organism that functionally walks upright to the point that it can reliably get between Point A and Point B, completing meaningful tasks along the way.  On this one, I hearken back to the Java Bean Box, another component-based model for non-technical users whereby you could pull objects into a runtime sandbox, define the hookup parameters between various methods, and build a finished app. The challenge was that while it was all impressive, in practice to solve a real problem, you needed to enter the bowels of the underlying code, which broke the connection to the Bean Box, meaning that the solution was neither compelling in 1.0, nor scaled to ANYWHERE useful in 3.0.  How does App Inventor for Android reconcile this one?
2. History Suggests the Real Opportunity lies with ISVs, not Laypersons: The success of Visual Basic for Applications (on the Windows platform, which spawned many an ISV, while creating tremendous lock-in advantages) and HyperCard (on the Mac) shows that there is a need for Rapid Application Development tools that find the balance between facilitating specificity for a desired outcome and simplicity of implementation and subsequent refinement, while reconciling the practicality that in most cases, these efforts are 1-5 person efforts.  Dale Dougherty of O'Reilly/Maker cogently argued this same point in 'The iPad Needs its Hypercard.' Given Apple's proximity to so many media/content providers, its failure to move quickly and visibly in this realm presents an opportunity for Google to outflank them.
3. Will Google 'Eat its own Dog Food' by Exposing Core Google Services to this Model? If Google really wants to prove out the efficacy of this model, the most compelling way to do so is by eating its own dog food; namely, but wiring core services such as News, YouTube, Search, Gmail and Maps to the Google App Inventor.  Why does this make sense?  One, the moral of the story from the PC era is that the potency of Visual Basic was not that you could create wholly new apps from scratch, but rather that you could harness and extend Microsoft Office.  Carrying this analogy to the present, extending Google Apps and Services is the most fundamental way to create a 1+1=3 relationship between Android, Google App Inventor for Android and core Google Services. Two, it forces the company to get better at usability and workflow around specific application use cases, as opposed to merely supporting generic workflows, a tendency that often pushes the company towards a fuzzy "NOT EXACTLY" bucket I railed on in 'Google Buzz: Is it Project, Product or Platform?' Three, such an approach pushes the company beyond its somewhat sanctimonious "Open-ish" position, where it pivots between being REALLY open in areas that it wants to commoditize (such as Mobile, Tablet and Desktop OSes) and quasi-open in areas that it sees as proprietary differentiators (Search and Advertising).
4. Why Limit App Inventor to Android? I get it that the primary battle that Google is fighting today is against Apple's iOS platform of 100M iPhones, iPod touches and iPads, not to mention the mindshare battle with developers. Moreover, the App Inventor toolset and runtime are built in Java and tuned to Android's runtime dynamics.  But, if the Google credo is that open always wins and that what's good for the Web is good for Google, shouldn't such an initiative be structured to work great on any mobile device that is HTML 5 ready (i.e. outflank iPhone by making universal apps more/as compelling as native apps), not to mention for web designers, bloggers, micro-bloggers, Facebookers and the like? To be clear, the choice of the naming scheme that Google chose -- App Inventor for Android -- is suggestive of just such a conclusion.

As always, God is in the details (back to my 'Project, Product or Platform' pushback), but kudos to Google for pushing the ball in this direction.

UPDATE 1: Jason Kincaid of TechCrunch does an early test drive of App Inventor, and his thoughts are pretty much what you'd expect at this stage of the game.  

UPDATE 2: Google is shutting down App Inventor, which was both entirely predictable, and smart to do sooner than later. One year of life then and "done" (it was announced mid-July last year).

Related Posts:

1. Google Buzz: Is it Project, Product or Platform?
2. Open "ish": The meaning of open, according to Google
3. Decomposing Google News and Making it Social

 

New @Radar Post: Apple is pushing us into the post-PC era (thoughts on #iOS, Mobile Video and Fragmentation)

Ruminations on iPhone 4, iOS and mobile video

We're on the cusp of the post-PC era, and Apple is pushing us there.

 

"It's a little bit like holding a high-definition television just inches from your face." 
-- Travis Boatman, EA Mobile (talking about the iPad)

Follow the path that Apple has forged in creating a 100-million-device-strong iOS platform and ecosystem (iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad).

Next, watch the seamless flow of tens of billions of consumer downloads from an iTunes and App Store marketplace that is backed by 150 million active credit cards.

Then, understand that behind the scenes, many tens of thousands of developers, writers, artists, musicians and filmed entertainment professionals are pretty much able to post, manage and monetize their creative vision within this same marketplace, guided by Adam Smith's invisible hand and the "soft touch" of Steve Jobs and Co.

Simply put, whether you consider the emerging "it" a phone, a computer, a media player, a netbook or a gaming device, is it even a stretch to argue that Apple is on the cusp of completing the last mile to ... something?

via radar.oreilly.com

Read the full post HERE.

App Store Mover: Astro Junk HD FREE rockets to #26 in Top Arcade FREE iPad Apps

 Very cool. Check it out HERE.

Astro Junk HD FREE for iPad launches in App Store: It’s Space, Garbage and Rapid Fire Fun!

 via itunes.apple.com

Built especially for iPad™, Astro Junk HD FREE is a shooter’s delight, with rapid-fire, dazzling outer space visuals and great sounds. Your mission is simple: stay alive by destroying flying Asteroids and Space Debris. Play this one with two hands, headphones on and the sound WAY up! 

Did I mention that it's free? :-)

Check it out by clicking HERE.

Check out Unicorn Labs re-designed Web Site and new Blog

Web Site: http://www.unicornlabs.com

Blog: http://unicornlabs.posterous.com 

Let me know what you think. :-)

iOS and OpenDoc: Everything Old is New Again (Apple and the "last mile" to true Mobility)

  
There was a brief period in the late 90s when computing had the potential to be almost Widget-like, simultaneously Composite, Distinct, Rich and Unified.

This was a divergent computing path from the homogeneity of Microsoft's Windows computing model, which by then was well on its way to winning the Personal Computing Wars. 

Pioneered by Xerox, but spearheaded by Apple, the divergent path was called OpenDoc. 

OpenDoc was premised on common document "data sets" and integrated, but autonomous, "workflow structures."  

In the fallow period before Steve Jobs returned to the Company in 1997, OpenDoc was a relatively big push by Apple (read about it HERE).  

That stated, OpenDoc's failure was total, best evidenced by Jobs putting a bullet through its head almost immediately after he returned.

But, I would argue that the moral of the story on OpenDoc is less a case of a solution in search of a problem, and more a case of poor execution meets poor timing on the wrong platform.

Specifically, I would assert that today's APPLE -- with the iOS Platform of 100 million mobile devices and 150 million credit card-validated consumers -- is very well-positioned to solve the meta-problem OpenDoc pre supposes.

Case in point, this post was a stream of thoughts shuffled between Pages and Mail on my iPad; and then on to my MacBook Pro, with final push off to the Web, where you are reading this. The end-verdict (for me, at least) is that in creating this post on iPad, there is still too much friction from a workflow and data flow perspective.  

And don't even get me started on the kludgey-ness of mashing and syncing data repositories and managing information lifecycles, which are still somewhat primitively handled in this model.

The bottom line is that, as configured, it relegates the device to "lite" content creation and data input when the iPad has the potential to be so much more, given all of the nooks and crannies of times, tasks and activities that the device has inculcated itself into my life (and many others, per the recent 'The State of iPad Satisfaction' Survey).

As such, none of my current truths mitigate my core belief that we are on the cusp of completing the "last mile" to rich, persistent information mobility; a domain where compute, communications, gaming, media playback and media creation tools are literally at your fingertips.

Exciting times, to be sure.

Related Posts

1. Five reasons iPhone vs Android isn't Mac vs Windows
2. Understanding Apple's iPad
3. The Google Android Rollout: Windows or Waterloo?