[kemiller]

Another factor here is that mobile devices are all a tier or two down from personal computers in terms of the raw number of dollars. Seems like a 15% premium is something people will consider paying if it only amounts to $30, but might not if it's $300.

This was especially true in the early days of the PC revolution. The Mac 128K sold for $2495 at the time, which is more than $5000 in today's dollars[1]. I can't find any good stats on what a typical PC cost at the time, but let's say it was half that. That's a HUGE difference; a mortgage payment (or more than one!) and not something many individuals or businesses are going to pay, even for substantially better quality.

Other factors:

* No amount of speed was enough. People bought computers to, well, compute things, and there were real limits users experienced because of slow processors. This is no longer true for most uses. Faster speeds are nice to have, but it's no longer true that 20% faster number crunching is a huge win for many people.

* With such expensive kit, businesses were understandably reluctant to commit to any platform that didn't let them multiple-source parts and perform repairs. Backups were expensive or non-existent. By contrast, a defective mobile device is simply exchanged or written off.

* In 1984, worldwide PC shipments totaled 6.3M units. Commodity parts were the only way to achieve any kind of economy of scale, not to mention the benefits of competition. 20 years later, it was 177M. [2] At that level, even a minority player can get the same economy of scale that the entire PC industry enjoyed a decade earlier.

Anyway. Nobody knows how this will all shake out. But the spectacular success of the modular PC market doesn't mean it's the inevitable outcome.

[1] http://bit.ly/9P293K

[2] http://bit.ly/a9XLJF

[mturmon]

The PC, once purchased, sits under your desk.

But the laptop and the phone, you touch and carry with you in public. It's a personal accessory.

People will pay more to have nicely made personal accessories -- for many reasons -- looks, durability, pleasant to use, feels well made, status signaling.

[nikster]

Yes, that's exactly the difference between the PC market, and the mobile phone / gadget market. The number one thing about a phone is looks. Then comes status. Then comes usability.

Though I might say the iPhone has turned the focus on usability much more than it was in the past - just because you can do so much with it so easily, so people now expect that from all phones.

[netcan]

The industry has changed and is continuing to change into a world that suits Apple better. Getting in early and big (eg iphones & ipads) is letting them influence the change even more in their favour.

What caught my eye in this article was: "Nobody knows what kind of CPU they have in their phones." That's a world that suits Apple. Interestingly, PCs are unique in that people take an interest in components. Do people know what kind of wood and textile is used in their couch (beyond the external, visible components.) The only products I can think of that compare are houses and cars at many times the cost.

[InclinedPlane]

Musicians know what wood or metal their instruments are made out of. Many people know what materials their clothes are made out of. Rock climbers know what materials their gear is made out of. Artists care about the quality of the graphite in their pencils. Sailors know what their boats and sails are made out of. Etc.

Enthusiasts care, not everyone cares.

[allenp]

What you're describing is essentially the computer turning into an appliance, and I agree this is what Apple is gaining tremendously from (and of course encouraging).

I think you'd find that most enthusiasts or hobbyists have in-depth knowledge of the components of their hobby and that "computer people" are no different.

Most people have no idea what is inside their computer - I think the majority of PC owners don't even know the size of their harddrive, for example, and that is something they might actually need to know, let alone RAM or CPU specs.

[netcan]

I don't how "appliance" became the way people describe this, but yeah.

[napierzaza]

Untrue, if you care you know. Cars for car enthusiasts. Espresso machines for espresso enthusiasts. Apple is targeting the lowest common denominator with their tiers. But it works because their vertical approach works better than what you get with Windows anyhow.

[netcan]

Sure. Every category has enthusiasts, some more than others.

But even people who are really into espresso machines don't know that much about it's components. Part of this is because computer components can be quantified relatively easily. Part of it is because even moderate PC users probably have more vested in than espresso enthusiasts.

Another part is vestigial deriving from the history of computers similarly to cars. Cars and computers started out under resourced and hard to use. Because they were so useful people used them anyway. But, you had to know quite a bit about them to answer your questions and make a good choice (can it run my software?) and to fix them when they inevitably failed.

Enthusiasts might know where the engine was developed, when and by who, but most people don't. Lots of people know that a VW uses the same parts as a Seat and that the golf is roughly the same car as the ibiza, just more expensive.

People still buy VWs, Mercedes, Toyota, etc. Very few people say the Audi a3 is a great car, just replace the transmition and door handles. T

[protomyth]

Cost isn't everything, even in 1984. The PC wasn't the price leader of the era, check the market share and price of a C64.

[kemiller]

No, but it was arguably price-performance leader, which the Mac, in raw terms, decidedly was not. I guess the other piece at the beginning was the IBM brand, but that wasn't enough to make it take off like a rocket.

[protomyth]

IBM salesmen were pretty effective (it was the second run after the IBM 5100), but I get the feeling Compaq isn't quite given the credit they deserve. The Compaq Portable was a pretty compelling machine for business.

I would argue that the C64 was still a price / performance leader given its low price.

edit: /BM/IBM/

[kemiller]

Well, you know. The C64 had a bigger problem: Commodore.

[eftpotrm]

Indeed. I confess I remain baffled how the Mac managed to beat the Amiga to the not-PC slot in the market. More expensive, slower, less capable hardware, vastly more primitive operating system and not an enormous delay between the two.

If Commodore had done their job properly we'd be saying Steve Who?

[protomyth]

The worst part was when Tramiel bought Atari and we got Commodore II. Although, by the time the Amiga 1000 was launched, Jobs was already on his way out. It might have helped NeXT if the Amiga would have taken some of the PC market share.

[flomo]

In 1984, my buddy received a $2500 Mac 128K for his birthday. I got a $800 Apple //c.

To this day, I believe I recieved the better gift, at the time. The original Mac, while "groundbreaking", was not only overpriced, but pretty useless.

[protomyth]

It really should have shipped with 512K (Forth was fun then). I wrote all my college papers on an Mac printing to a LaserWriter. For the time, that combo was incredible.

[jseliger]

I think your first bullet point is especially significant, and I wrote about a similar issue here: http://jseliger.com/2010/09/30/computers-and-network-effects... . If your primary uses for a computer these days are e-mail, browsing the web, using office software, playing DVDs, and listening to music... pretty much any computer in the last five to ten years will do just fine. You won't get massive increases in speed and ease like you did in the 90s.