[AndrewO]

I disagree with the parent, but don't think he should be downmodded (at least not below 1 as it is now). He's making a point which goes against what most people here probably have, but it's prompted more discussion and was made civilly.

[nkurz]

I appreciate your attitude. But which part do you disagree with?

I'm guessing that most people are reacting against my implication that Apple is primarily profit-driven rather than design-driven. I suppose this might be true (and probably is true of some pieces of the company), but I have trouble believing that their financial success is just a happy accident that follows naturally from their focus on design.

Or is there a different part you disagree with?

[AndrewO]

Well, I hope that didn't come across as being diametrically opposed to you or anything. I actually quite agree that Apple is profit-driven. Its success has mainly stemmed from learning how to profit on its design.

Apple's most successful products have been those where its best to market, rather than first to market, which by means competition is good for it by definition (most especially at the beginning). Creative Nomad and (soon at least) WinMo are evidence of that (on the other hand, there's Newton, which was way too early to market).

It remains to be seen whether or not their more successful products fall into a MS Word-like malaise (see my other comment) now that they're entrenched in the media player and smart phone spaces. My guess is that the design that has driven them to success in the past will continue to be able to head off competition, but I don't want to sound like a fan boy.

So mainly, I was disagreeing that a monoculture could be in their best interest. It may in certain cases (or other companies), but I don't think it does on average.