Linked by David Adams on Wed 17th Aug 2011 17:46 UTC
Permalink for comment 485608
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-03-08
Believing that hardware is so important is precisely what killed IBM and turned Apple into a niche in the early days of the desktop/laptop.
Computer hardware is a generic heap of electronic components, that is trivially cloned and replaced every few years. Software is the only thing that lasts, the only thing which can trap people on a platform also. Which is why controlling the software stack that runs on the greatest amount of future hardware is what counts.
And this conflicts with integrated HW/SW ecosystems, in my opinion, as unless you have the sheer manpower in R&D it takes to produce lots of different devices (like Apple with iPods), it mean less hardware on the market.
Well, we'll see what the future will be like... Frankly, I'd rather see a stable equilibrium between several big players, just like we had before in the feature phone world, than watch Windows' history repeat itself all over again. I just think it's probably not going to happen, unless players other than Android don't get a clue about how huge of an asset hardware diversity truly is.
Edited 2011-08-17 21:11 UTC