[emdowling]

Reading this essay again (via Wayback), I'm struck by Steve's clarity. His writing is concise and simple - my favourite bit:

> Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.

What strikes me is that he simply states Apple's goal - to sell more devices and make more money. He doesn't try and sugar coat it about serving some greater purpose, he just states what everyone knows to be true. It is refreshing, given how many business leaders seem reluctant to publicly admit that their goal is to make money.

Secondly, it clearly broadcasts what problems they are and are not trying to solve, and where their priorities lie. Love it.

[m_mueller]

I've yet to see an exec with such concise outside communication, from technical details up to the big picture, as Steve Jobs. Interviews with him are a master class in communication skills.

[sumedh]

I guess Buffett would be another example though his talks are about finance and investments.

[i_have_an_idea]

Not at all, Buffet rambles a lot. It takes significantly more effort to understand the points he is making.

His writing style is quite good though and often very insightful.

[hutzlibu]

"He doesn't try and sugar coat it "

But I am not sure, if it is really honest or true.

"Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps"

Apple having the best apps meaning apple only has the best apps, meaning walled garden. Not PWA's that run on any good device for example.

It is a very huge Apple boost, when some awesome apps are apple only - Apple wins there, but not everyone.

[emdowling]

It is important to remember context. At the time, Apple was absolutely not a services company. In fact, their services were terrible (eg: MobileMe).

All of their revenue came from selling devices - the improvements year over year were more significant than they are today. Each year would bring new features that would open up entirely new market opportunities for developers and it was happening at such a pace that even Apple engineers could not keep up. Apple needed developers to sell devices much more than they do today.

Steve's argument that having an intermediary between Apple and developers would delay the implementation of new technologies and capabilities is entirely valid in that context. Of course, the context has now changed - Apple is increasingly a services-oriented company, and that means their objectives are to both sell more devices AND sell more services, which puts them at odds with developers who were typically responsible for providing the actual services that ran on top of the platform.

The 2010's was perhaps the single most transformational decade in technology, and while the shift from devices to services may be obvious now, it was far from obvious back then. Steve's clarity is even more impressive when you consider the era in which it was written.

[ksec]

And to add more context, those words were written when iPhone sold only ~10M per year. Now iPhone sell that many in a single weekend only bottlenecked by production and delivery.

Not to mentioned Steve was baffled by the App Economy. Unfortunately it didn't live long enough to see all the beauty and Chaos it brings.

[scyzoryk_xyz]

Well, back then reality was much different. Just getting developers on board to begin with was difficult and users were reluctant to pay for apps and e-commerce in general.

Mobile devices sucked and applications sucked The promise of a phone with a little marketplace for little paid apps made by little developers empowered with good UI tools was utopian at the time. And it didn’t seem like a multi-billion dollar business until apps like Uber started proving that this was going to be a huge lifestyle change for everybody.

It really is a shame the guy is dead, I would be really curious how he would be tackling all of these issues today.

[hutzlibu]

Ok, in the context of that time, that apples devices had the best hardware (and optimized drivers) - then yes, it makes some sense, that apple would have the best mobile apps, so win in that regard.

But since he clearly stated the goal as apple should have the best apps, I am not convinced, that he would have continued to push for a open technology, that would run well on any good hardware, whether apple or not.

And in 2010 the competing smartphones were already not that far behind.

[scyzoryk_xyz]

I really don’t know how to count “best” either in hardware or software. Very difficult to define something like that. The promise of Apple apps early on was that they conformed to a particular UX style which definitely gave the user a feeling of safety.

The way I see it - his strategic decisions were based on all of the decades of experiences in the computer industry. The goal was to build a closed platform and to guard it by emphasizing quality as an ideal. And then to incentivize eager developers small and large to come to it and become dependent on it. I don’t think he would have pushed for “open technology” or running that software on anything but apple. It was the hallmark of his whole thing.

But he could have run and defended the whole thing in a completely different way. And this is why it would have been very interesting to see the guy live. Would he have enforced on all those quality related shortcomings that Apple stands accused for today? Would he have argued vehemently in their defense or would he respond differently? Or maybe perhaps he would have moved on to another “big thing” product-wise by now?

[simondotau]

In terms of marketing, Steve didn't sugar coat but he did create the most intricately crafted of savoury dishes. These dishes were still far more appetising than the ingredients had any right to. I won't comment on their nutritional value though.