60 percent of Apple’s sales are from products that did not exist three years ago
asymco.com
asymco.com
Not to say that Apple software is all awesome, but at least they don't treat it as a cost center that has to be trimmed.
In other words, the only way to consume Apple's hardware is through Apple software. Therefore, every single sale of Apple's hardware also involves the sale of Apple's software. I find it a bit disturbing that the article does not mention this.
Now, what they conceivably could do is to look at their aftermarket software and devote less resources to that -- especially in places where Apple's presence in the aftermarket doesn't make or break the platform (e.g. music sequencing -- there are half a dozen mature competitors to Logic that run on OS X). Also, I suspect some of those places Apple is in strategically because it funnels money away from companies they don't like -- Aperture cuts away from Adobe and iWorks pulls away from Microsoft, despite Photoshop and MS Office for Mac being platform-completing tools. Also their offerings there are important as leverage; Apple doesn't want to be back in the position of needing Microsoft or Adobe since they've been burned in the past.
>>You’re looking at it wrong. You’re looking at it as a hardware person in a fragmented world. You’re looking at it as a hardware manufacturer that doesn’t really know much about software, who doesn’t think about an integrated product but assumes the software will somehow take care of itself. And you’re sitting around saying, well, how can we make this cheaper? Well, we can put a smaller screen on it, and a slower processor, and less memory, and you assume that the software will somehow just come alive on this product that you’re dreaming up, but it won’t. Because these app developers have taken advantage of the products that came before, with faster processors, with larger screens, with more capabilities that they can take advantage of to make better apps for customers. And they’re not… it’s a hard one, because it throws you right back into the beginning of that chicken-and-egg problem again, to change all the assumptions on these developers. Most of them will not follow you. Most of them will say, “I’m sorry, but I’m not going to write down a watered-down version of my app just because you’ve got this phone that you can sell for $50 less, and you’re begging me to write software for it.”<<
http://www.macworld.com/article/154980/2010/10/jobs_transcri...
An "aged revenue" ratio might make a good performance predictor for a company: the proportion of revenues that comes from products designed in the last 5 years.
GOOG:MSFT:FBK:AMZN - you could get some powerful performance indicators from that simple stat.
This is largely good news for those doing startups. Since the lifespan of profitability for any one business model is decreasing in the future, existing firms are going to be offering a lot of money to buy new ones or get pushed out of the marketplace.
Oh wait, there's Mistry's "Sixth Sense" setup still to go. Where is that thing, anyway? He promised to open source it, by around this last January. Someone's bought him, for sure. It'd be more interesting if it was someone other than Apple. I'm just amazed that it hasn't been on the radar, one way or the other.
edit: Not sure why I'm being downvoted. The answer affects the whole tone and meaning of the article.
One interpretation makes this post one giving false credit for the creation of entire industries. It is something I've seen from a minority of Apple users.
It's a valid question.
There is some inherent value of the iPhone and iPad in them being phones and tablets, respectively. A portion of their sales has nothing to do with innovation. I would agree.
And it's been dead in the water the whole time. There were many failed attempts at flying machines before the Wright brothes.
The iPad also created the tablet industry. Sure, people had tried tablets before, even Apple did with the actually quite successful newton (though this was stylus based like the palm pilot, and other copies.) But the computer tablet industry that is taking share away from laptops didn't exist before this year.
Apple created two industries. I'm a fan of apple because they are always innovative, always honest, and they always try to ship quality products. They're about the only company I can say that about.
I don't know why people should diminish that. This is a gold standard we should all attempt to emulate (And I don't mean by copying their products, but by copying their methods and standards.)
If we go by that reasoning, Microsoft created the word processor industry.
Innovator isn't a dirty word. Let Apple take credit for what they've accomplished.
I was kind of hoping HN was the sort of place where I could ask that without being jumped on as some sort of anti-Apple instigator.
Some people are upvoting, so yay. Maybe it is. :)
In order to say that Apple didn't come up with the idea behind the iPod or the iPhone, you have to generalize the category to the point that it was painfully obvious to anybody even remotely aware of what's going on in the industry. MP3 players are an obvious idea to anybody who has heard of the Walkman and knows that computers can store and play music. The idea of using a tiny hard drive in one is similarly obvious. So is the idea of making a phone that can surf the web and also be an MP3 player.
When people praise Apple's ingenuity with the iPhone and iPod, they are referring to the fact that almost everything other than the most fundamental idea was revolutionary or at least clever. In other words, every aspect of the product that actually affects its success in the marketplace was invented or re-invented.
I want to, but I was looking forward to hitting 200, and now it's pretty far off.
I've upvoted most of your comments in this thread: While they are not brilliant in my book, they are not bad either. And certainly not bad enough to deserve large negatives.
But you have a lot more posts and time in here, so you've got a clearer perspective.
It would appear to mean "products made by Apple"
My tone and manner are no worse than anyone else who manages to stick around for more than a day without being downvoted in to oblivion. I haven't even called anyone names.
I've even had deeper, more protracted arguments than this without losing any points.