[AnthonyMouse]

The platform changes had very little to do with their success. They switched from PowerPC to Intel because PowerPC was uncompetitive, but that doesn't explain why they did any better than Dell or anyone else using the exact same chips. Then they developed their own chips because Intel was stagnant, but they barely came out before AMD had something competitive and it's not obvious they'd have been in a meaningfully different position had they just used that.

Their hardware is good but if all they were selling was Macbooks and iPhones with Windows and Android on them, they wouldn't have anything near their current margins.

[robbiep]

You’re not really making sense.

If they hadn’t made platform changes they would have never been able to turn into what they are today. I hardly thing that is ‘little to do’.

They would likely barely exist. They have ‘achieved product market fit’ as the saying goes. Which requires more than just a sharp UI, as their history shows

[BeefWellington]

I think the point here is that their first platform shift onto x86/x86-64 was driven by how far Power had fallen behind. Even their fans were having difficulty justifying the slowness of their comparatively expensive computers.

It was more forced upon them than anything else.

The move to M1 was an actual innovation that came after their success.

The real story of the company though is the iPhone, which is absolutely their own technical innovation.

[jacquesm]

I would say the turning point was either the iPod or the rainbow Macs.