主题：谨以此文献给Steve Jobs和AllenKid（一） -- letitbe

Different from other successful technology companies, such as Microsoft and Google, which mainly focused on the software field, Apple’s products are usually packages of both software and hardware. While this tight integration may help ensure the “plug-and-play” functionality and better user experience, it may also cause the whole product to lose overall competitiveness when one part is significantly lagging behind. The platform war is largely a “winner-takes-all” game, and the major reason for the consistently low market share data of Mac computers is the inferiority of Mac OS to Windows. However, aside from the operating system, the stylish design had always been coveted by many Windows users, and some of Apple’s software, such as iTunes and quicktime, have already become an integral part of a Windows-user’s software repertoire.

Therefore, I propose that Apple should get the best out of its hardware manufacturing capacity by completely forgoing the bundling with Mac OS and actively competing in the Windows-using PC market. As the price of personal computers entered the price range of consumer electronics product and consumers pay more and more attention to a product’s “quality” rather than price, Apple’s time-proved reputation in product design would help it win over a sizable share of Windows-running PC market. This strategy doesn’t mean giving up the development of Mac OS. On the contrary, if implemented skillfully, the infiltration of Apple into the Windows-running PC market could greatly help its ambition in platform development, in several ways: it brings in more revenue, which can be spent on R&D; it exposes the Windows-using customers to the Apple brand, and establish a trust and even loyalty; more importantly, by preloading the computer with Mac OS-styled software, it allows customers to experience the Mac OS environment under Windows system, and thereby make future conversion to Mac OS platform as painless as possible. In the end, time also seems to be on Apple’s side. New software (such as parallels) had made possible for multiple platforms to coexist in the same computer, which bodes very well for Mac OS. As platforms become less and less mutually exclusive, a Windows user could keep a Mac OS on the side, maybe initially as a “hobby”. With this stepping stone, there is no limit for the future of Mac OS.

The above strategy aims to help Apple cope with a market in which it is being edged out. It should be pointed out that, there are some markets where Mac computers are doing very well. In video processing, music production and graphic design fields, Apple continued to commend an overwhelming market share, partly thanks to the superior softwares only run in Mac computer. Apple should still take advantage of this exclusivity to keep competitors out, a strategy it is no stranger to. It is also worth noting that, as technology and prosperity spread worldwide, new markets are constantly emerging. Unfortunately, so far Apple is losing this war of globalization—in one of the largest computer market, China, the market share of Mac computers is estimated at less than 1%. To learn from past lessons, Apple should make it a pressing priority to aggressively compete in these markets where the leadership has yet to be established.

More than anything else, the success of Microsoft has demonstrated the importance of setting up a dominant platform. So what’s the battlefield for the next platform? Or rather, what’s the future for “personal computers”? It should be ultra-portable, user friendly, versatile and powerful, and able to communicate with the world at any place, in anyway. In my opinion, the prototype is already there—the smartphones. With its elegant user interface and power operating system, Apple’s iPhones have already occupied a significant portion of the smartphone market, and poised to revolutionize the smartphone industry in the same way Nintendo Wii revolutionized the video game industry—by bringing the product to every household. Drawing comparison to Apple’ early days, we would find Apple at a very similar situation. Although currently smartphones are out of reach for untrained consumers, the potential is huge (in 2007, smartphones accounted for only 10% of the total handset market, while its market share in 2013 is estimated at 31%), and the onslaught of iPhones has greatly fueled the speed of innovation. This time, the prominent competitors in the platform war include Google’s Android, Nokia’s symbian. While the operating system on iPhones (Mac OS X) is a closed-source system, both Android and symbian are open-source, or at least scheduled to be soon in the near future. Although having an open-source system is a great way of attracting attention from software developers, Apple also didn’t stick to its old closed innovation model. Instead, it set up the iPhone app store, and creatively adopted a new innovation mechanism, which allows outside innovation to be employed, but avoids the potential problem in product integration by passing it through a quality control system. I personally prefer this novel mechanism. As long as it pays enough attention to the global market, and doesn’t allow bundling to hurt the development of its platform, Apple stands more than a fair chance on this front.