Hacker News Reader

Comment by culturestate | Hacker News Reader

Well Toshiba was an inch from bankruptcy and Sharp was sold to Foxconn to stave off its own impending dismemberment so now I really don't understand this definition of success.

View on HN

maybe "they were successful in a period that comes quite close to where we are now"? People forget that success is not an immutable attribute - it is the sum total of hard work and decisions that are put in every week, every month, every year, over a longer period of time. But as much as it is the product of a longer period of time, success can wax and wane throughout the decades and a company can be wiped out or acquired on less-than-favorable terms if they fail to adapt to the next large-scale change in the industry.

To declare Apple's model as a success, they will have to survive a lot longer. 3 decades into existence isn't enough to evaluate. Their model failed in desktop computers but worked well in handheld devices. Let's see how well they do in the next computing platform before we are sure of it.

But Microsoft is a "clear success" and only one year older than Apple? Does Apple only need to survive one more year to be a success?

Microsoft survived huge failures and also when governments came after them. And they did it in their first attempt. Apple survived only by sheer luck, not because their products or business model was designed to survive. They could be the next scapegoat of the trade war and it will take them back to their Mac days.

And Microsoft is not alone, Google essentially became MS 2.0 when they launched Android. Following MS footsteps to become successful. Which just further proves Microsoft's model.

Wow this just gets more and more confusing. Google, at 22 years old, is "MS2.0" and "successful" even though just a post ago 3 decades (though it's actually 4.5 anyways for both MS and Apple, but who's counting) wasn't enough.

Even though that's also approximately as long as Apple has been on its current success cycle anyways? If Apple had been "born" in 1998 would it be a "success" now like Google because the mac era never happened but things took off with the iMac and then the iPod?

This kinda feels like you decided on a conclusion and are now trying to backfill an explanation into it. :P

Okay so when I meant Google is "successful" was that they successfully beat MS in smartphone race and became a dominant player in the industry. They are definitely not even close to being a proper industry stalwart like Microsoft is, and it's quite possible they won't even survive the next decade if Government starts regulating them.

"Handheld devices", I think Iphone and Ipad are a different category of devices. Apple watch (wearables) also seems to be becoming huge.

Apple owns the high end of the laptop and desktop computer market, their average sales price is triple everyone else. Mac sales give it over 10% of industry revenues, but even better Macintosh as a stand-alone business is by far the most profitable PC maker in the world and has been for nearly two decades.

In fact the Macintosh lineup profits are likely more than the rest of the pc makers combined.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com