I repost this because the digg posting has a fairly interesting commentary response. See digg link at bottom:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Walt Mossberg of the Wall St. Journal had a column that created quite a stir.

http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20060511.html

I happen to like Mossberg, I think he's true to his constituents and honest and realistic. He won't hesitate to pan a product that deserves it and that's important. However, on this one I think he's really got it wrong. He attributes Apple's recent success to their model of controlling everything that goes into a product (Hardware, software, firmware, etc). He's contrasting this to Microsoft's model, which he calls the "component model" where they create the software and OS and others create other parts, namely the hardware.

I think this is flawed for a few reasons. The iPod's success might stem partly from its integration with iTunes, but I think it's primarily just due to the job Apple did on the device itself. Apple really beat Archos and Creative. Then Microsoft was in the position of playing catch-up (where they primarily targeted the video player space) and on the mp3 player, the device firmware is still primarily done by the Mp3 manufacturers. It's really not appropriate to say that Apple beat Microsoft, since Microsoft was never in that game.

Suggesting that openness and choice are not as important in the "Post PC Era" is not right. What choice and openness have users had? 3rd party software is not supported on an iPod and it's not supported on a windows portable media device either really. Even the stuff that runs Linux is not really open since it runs so much proprietary stuff that you can add 3rd party applications with "hacking it" and breaking the warranty. That's hardly open.

The most significant part of the "component model" as Mossberg calls it is the fact that devices you buy under the "component model," which has only been PCs to date, can evolve. They are not static, like most CE devices. I've had computers I kept for many years and I continue to upgrade them and customize them to my purposes. As a result, they have a lot more value. Not so with the "device model" devices, ie everything else. if my DVD burner is missing a feature or has some annoying bug, it's very likely it will never get fixed. In theory, it's true that a company like Apple could take on that entire evolution of products themselves, but is it realistic for one company to take on that entire investment? The benefit of 3rd party applications is clear even on Apple's systems.

At the same time, the open source movement is real and significant. Doesn't it make sense to bring the efforts of millions of talented hackers to bear on a new product?

I predict that once we launch our new genuinely open devices, consumers will very quickly see the value they bring. I'm not talking about "techies" or geeks but ordinary folks. As the device evolves and functionality increases and improves over time, you get a device that's much more valuable. Who would want to be stuck with a static device that can't be changed or customized if the market offers them an alternative?

I believe that the "device model" is only winning because no "component model" or genuinely open devices have been offered yet.

digg this here