[9 November 2011: Brian: Cheers for Brian, no? I wrote this barely 2 weeks ago. Now Adobe has killed development on Flash for smartphones. I told you *from the beginning* that having Flash on your device was *absolutely not* a selling point. A few Android fanboys argued otherwise. What say they now? Listen to Brian, all.]

It's the iPad! Only better! Cause it has flash!

Probably the nicest honest thing you can say about the Samsung Galaxy Tab tablet is that sales have been underwhelming. Despite creating a device that *borrows* extremely heavily from Apple's iPad.

And runs on the (more popular) Android platform.

Which is open!

And has Flash!

I've detailed the reasons why (pre Kindle Fire) no one will buy a tablet that is not iPad and why no one should buy a tablet that is not iPad. No point in going over this yet again, particularly after having been proven so completely right. 

Rather, I will talk about flash. Or, more specifically, about those who talked up flash as a selling point. Which was dumb. And because Apple so publicly dissed Flash, the Apple haters became all the more fervent in their demand that flash be included in non Apple tablets.

And the weak, possibly dumb people running marketing for Playbook and Xoom and Galaxy Tab and others, charged with determining market requirements, fell trap once more to the grand fallacy that the Apple haters proffer:

that they are a market that matters

Steve Jobs and Apple have famously said they don't do market research. This isn't entirely true. Steve Jobs and Apple have famously said that they build products that they want to use, and not products based on what a bunch of people tell them. This is mostly true. The late Steve Jobs and the present Apple Inc. rarely talk about what they are doing. This is both true and good.

Because, I suspect that if they started talking up what they were doing, planning, working on, thinking about, then there would be no end of loud-angry demands to include or not include feature X and service Y and techology Zed. Which would probably do nothing more than throw Apple far off their game, just as it has thrown the also-rans off theirs. 

My mother has used an iPad. She has zero knowledge what Flash is or does. I have let children, who have never heard of 'Flash' use my iPad.

It works. Great. Easily. Powerfully. Just as Apple said, any benefits of Flash would be far outweighed by its harm to the overall user experience. And Apple continues to sell iPads by the millions. Meanwhile, Tabs can't be found, Xoom appears to be offering a buy anything get one free special, and Playbook, like the TouchPad, is soon to appear in the bins along with the $5 DVDs at the WalMart, I suspect.

Because these companies listened; only, not to the market, but to a very small group of haters and fanboys. HOW DARE APPLE NOT INCLUDE FLASH! CLOSED! BAD! MARKETING! ANd rather than building the best product for the market -- or for a market that did not quite yet exist -- they built a product to satiate the rapatious demands of a tiny tiny group of buyers who, let's face it, weren't going to buy the tablet anyway.

Apple haters my be loud. They may take to social media and find an echo chamber, but they are a blip on a niche market. Listen to them at your peril.

Bet against Apple, sure. But I wouldn't bet on the haters. They won't make you any money.

[9 November 2011: Brian: Can you believe I wrote this back in April 2010? It was my attempt to divine the real meaning of Dear Leader's words in his very public "Thoughts on Flash" statement. The full statement is below, followed by my decrypted summation. Re-posting today as Adobe has announced that that whole Flash-for-mobile-the-full-web thing is over. As we always knew it would be.]

As not all are capable of divining the full meaning of Dear Leader’s words, I shall provide guidance.

Apple has a long relationship with Adobe.

It’s not me. It’s you.

In fact, we met Adobe’s founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers – Mac users buy around half of Adobe’s Creative Suite products – but beyond that there are few joint interests.

Well, okay, because I’m so much better now, and we’re no longer in the same league, it’s kind of me. But, mostly, it’s you.

I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe’s Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

Bwhahahahahahahahahahaha…..

Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.

You are a weak, pink-assed baboon. I hurl my feces at you. Sit there and take it!

First, there’s “Open”.

There is no open. Only Windows (I make joke).

Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

I create magic. I use words here because it is doubtless the only way for your mind to comprehend.

Apple has many proprietary products too.

Once, we were as you. Of this world, mortal.

Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open.

Now we are like gods; advanced beings that give to you what we craft and your feeble mind can perceive of it only as magic. Good.

Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards.

God, you suck.

Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.

I am Duke Atriedes.

Apple even creates open standards for the web.

We must because you fail, repeatedly.

For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.

Resistance is futile.

Second, there’s the “full web”.

You are an ape. Playing with yourself.

Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video.

You are a nuisance. Did you honestly believe you were a threat. I should smile at that.

Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.

What’s the name of that chunky fellow running Microsoft? How much did he spend on Xbox? Billions! That I will smile at.

Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.

Flash bad. I do believe you are not so stupid as to understand and accept this once I speak of it. I am even communicating in your own words.

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.

Bitch. And slap.

In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?

Lay there! I am now to piss on you.

Fourth, there’s battery life.

To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.

Do you really all not know this?

Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.

You cared enough to send your very best. And it was shite.

When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

Are there even other browsers?

Fifth, there’s Touch.

Bwahahahahahahaha…..

Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers.

You are a dinosaur, last of a dying breed; not smart enough or fast enough or aware enough to understand your pending extinction.

For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

Do you see that? Up there, in the sky? That’s called a giant meteor.

Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.

Our charity and pity would be wasted on you. You cannot survive in this new world.

Sixth, the most important reason.

Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. 

Have you ever heard of the word, bukake?

We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.

Your tiny dinosaur brain…

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

The spice must flow!

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool.

I now find you so disdainful I can no longer speak your name

The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

Oh, are you still here?

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

Paybacks are a bitch.

Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. 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.

Do you know what came at the end of the Jurassic period? Your death. Ha!

Conclusions.

Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius. And you are Ward Cleaver.

The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

All will bow down before me!

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

You chose the blue pill. I chose the red pill and now can alter time and space.

Dear Leader
April, 2010

*I am not sure how this is related. However, just before exiting Dear Leader’s mind – cause it burns! – I discovered that his favorite song is ‘Pulling Mussels from the Shell.’ This must mean something. Alas, I am too weak to re-enter his mind at this time.

Sometimes, a life of quiet desperation is simply too much.

From the New York Times:

Six months before the space shuttle Challenger exploded over Florida on Jan. 28, 1986, Roger Boisjoly wrote a portentous memo. He warned that if the weather was too cold, seals connecting sections of the shuttle’s huge rocket boosters could fail.

The night before the Challenger’s liftoff, the temperature dipped below freezing. Unusual for Florida, the cold was unprecedented for a shuttle launching, and it prompted Mr. Boisjoly and other engineers to plead that the flight be postponed. Their bosses, under pressure from NASA, rejected the advice.

The shuttle exploded 73 seconds after launching, killing its seven crew members, including Christa McAuliffe, a high school teacher from Concord, N.H.

Mr. Boisjoly’s memo was soon made public. He became widely known as a whistle-blower in a federal investigation of the disaster. And though he was hailed for his action by many, he was also made to suffer for it.

Mr. Boisjoly (pronounced like Beaujolais wine) died in Nephi, Utah, near Provo, on Jan. 6. He was 73. His death was reported only locally at the time. He lived in southwest Utah, in St. George. His wife, Roberta, said he recently learned he had cancer in his colon, kidneys and liver.

After the Challenger explosion, Mr. Boisjoly gave a presidential commission investigating the disaster internal corporate documents. His disclosure of the internal memo he had written six months before the disaster was regarded as a bombshell.

Mr. Boisjoly was awarded the Prize for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and spoke to more than 300 universities and civic groups about corporate ethics. He became sought after as an expert in forensic engineering.

But before then he had paid the stiff price often exacted of whistle-blowers. Thiokol cut him off from space work, and he was shunned by colleagues and managers. A former friend warned him, “If you wreck this company, I’m going to put my kids on your doorstep,” Mr. Boisjoly told The Los Angeles Times in 1987.

He had headaches, double-vision and depression, he said. He yelled at his dog and his daughters and skipped church to avoid people. He filed two suits against Thiokol; both were dismissed.

He later said he was sustained by a single gesture of support. Sally Ride, the first American woman in space, hugged him after his appearance before the commission.

“She was the only one,” he said in a whisper to a Newsday reporter in 1988. “The only one.”

There were two stories, both inevitable, that dominated the smartphone wars this week: the Facebook IPO date and confirmation that smartphones now outsell PCs.

Both of which pale in comparison to my personal news: I'm having Sheryl Sandberg's baby.

It's true! And it has nothing to do with the fact that this uber-smart -- and oh so beautiful -- lady will soon be worth a couple billion dollars. No. We love each other. 

She don't care if I'm a gold digga...

On the subject of gold...Almost from the beginning of this site I've written that the smartphone is a completely *new* personal computing platform. The old business models will not simply re-compile and port themselves from PC over to the smartphone. Thus, little click-thru ads are probably not going to do for Google what little click thru ads on the PC did.

Thus, I was the only one not at all surprised when Facebook called out "mobile" in their S-1 as a potential negative to their valuation. Unlike pretty much every other analyst and blogger who ran with: FACEBOOK CANT MONETIZE MOBILE!

Actually, being just about the most used app on just about every smartphone in the world and, soon, baked into iPhone 5, means that Facebook is in the lead for monetizing mobile activities. Only, it's a long, treacherous race and anyone can still win. 

But what about Sheryl Sandberg? I've repeatedly called her "the best hired hand in Silicon Valley -- ever". Score still one more for Mark Zuckerberg. Soon, she will be a multi-billionaire. Then, she will help Facebook reach at least 1.5 billion users. Then...she will no doubt seek new ways of directly improving the world. She is that smart, that capable and will have the resources to do so. My guess is she will create a global bank - start-up incubator - marketplace that provides all the tools necessary for every female on the planet to operate her own business, no matter how old, where from, how poor, how young.

One area I suspect Facebook to make money is as a platform for content distribution. Facebook currency, credit, sharing and likes should allow me to carefully discover and purchase quality stories, books, news analysis, movies, music. Which I think is a good thing.

I usually feel a bit hesitant asking for money from readers but then I remind myself that I drop $20 every month for the New York Times not only because it's great but because the company still can't make quality news gathering and analysis work in a digital world. I do my part and sure do hope that quality does not die. While former TechCrunch writers, for example, are boring us all with their stories about TechCrunch, and current writers at TechCrunch are doing them one better by writing still more boring stories about TechCrunch, others are out uncovering and writing -- well -- about actual stories of import. Sadly, it's the TechCrunch's of the world, and their spawn, that make money. Or, more correctly, they take money from wealthy insiders and never actually need to generate a profit.

The fact is that right now, using Google's business model, pure quality content is barely able to survive. I sure hope someone comes up with a replacement, fast. BigBlog, which thrives on Google, SEO and self-congratulation continues to be so self-obsessed as to be borderline irrelevant. We need real news. If it falls to Facebook, so be it.

Speaking of Google, I wonder if the Microsoft bear has finally awoken from its decade-long hibernation? Windows Phone is pretty damn good. Nokia Lumia is hot. And from what we've all heard, Windows 8 should beat Android at just about any carrier and at any price point. Plus, Microsoft is now starting to talk the talk once more. Y'all know I dig their Communications VP, Frank X Shaw, who is always happy to very publicly tweak Google (and Apple). Now more are jumping in. Just this week, Bing Search director, Stefan Weitz, told AllThingsD that Google saw what Microsoft was doing -- on search -- and blinked:

They did what we didn’t want to do, which was make the user experience peppered with this stuff, with +1s everywhere, the Google+ content in the top corner. I think [Google] realized we were ahead and they overextended. 

Heh.

But shiny new product and big talk aren't going to bring the world to a halt. As I've predicted for three years now, back when the world said I was MAD! MAD! I tell you!, smartphone sales have now eclipsed PC sales. Confirmed. Again.

This will never ever reverse itself.

Per Canalsys, smartphone shipments in 2011 totalled 488 million. PCs? A meager 415 million. And that 415 million *includes* the iPad. Meaning, Microsoft -- right now -- has the most lucrative software licensing franchises, but on a platform that is *shrinking*, has no iPad competitor whatsoever and for every 10 iPhones sold, I still bet doesn't even sell a single Windows Phone, of which all they would really receive is a OS licensing fee.

I don't know how many people and how much money it takes to protect and grow the Windows/Office franchise. But I will ask: what the hell has everyone else been doing in Redmond for the past 10 years?

Unlike Microsoft, Apple, per usual, didn't say much this week. As usual, us bloggers did all the talking for them. (Except for, you know, Apple's CEO letting it get out that Apple gave $100 million to high-visibility Silicon Valley-loved charities.)

I was right there at the head of the line cursing Apple for their foolish, over-reaching iBooks Author licensing agreement. The one whereby they effectively granted themselves control of your iBooks Author'ed property *everywhere* you sold it. Since Apple rarely speaks publicly, this act, which was either exceedingly sloppy and/or greedy and/or stupid and possibly illegal, created much finger pointing and gnashing of teeth.

Far too many fanboys tried to excuse Apple. 

I think my method was the better: call out Apple for something they did wrong. State it loud. State the obvious. Nothing more. Do *not* defend them when they should not be defended. And, unlike the haters, do not try and link one (bad) Apple act with all manner of conspiracies. 

Result: Apple revised their EULA. It's all good. And I know I did the right thing.

Speaking of doing the right thing, I confess I'm disappointed in many of you Apple fanboys out there with respect to over-reaching and naive accusations that Apple is "USING SLAVE LABOR IN CHINA"! 

Yes, the charge is bogus. Yes, Apple is being unfairly -- and dangerously -- singled out because they are so popular and so profitable. And, yes, the haters are always looking for any datapoint to add to their rage-filled quiver.

So the fuck what.

We use Apple not because of marketing or because of Steve Jobs (RIP) or because we are sheep: we use Apple because their products are so undeniably superior. We know Apple demands better of themselves -- and us -- and the result is something magical, revolutionary and amazing.

We should therefore demand better of Apple in all things, in my view. Even Gruber falls into the reflexive Apple defense trap on this whole Chinese labor kerfuffle, where he appears to mock Chinese Labor Watch for criticizing Apple more than the companies whose Chinese labor practices are worse, such as HP.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Apple is better. Of course the guy on the bench is going to do worse than Michael Jordan, say. Let's keep the pressure on Apple. I'm happy to demand more from Apple. Always demand more from the best. HP doesn't really matter to any of us. Apple does.

And speaking of Apple and demanding the best, I confess I loved this story, yes, about Steve Jobs, and his 'charge' for the iPhone:

When late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs assembled his first iPhone development team, he wasn't focused on conceiving a device that would run all sorts of apps and media but instead laid out a simple mission to his team: to create the first phone people would love so much, they'd never leave the house without it.

"His [charge] was simple. He wanted to create the first phone that people would fall in love with. That's what he told us."

Perfect.

I still recall the day I traded in my Blackberry for an iPhone. Thing is, I thought it was probably better and I knew I could not let it go. Yes, it's more important than my wallet. It has changed my life. Jobs' mission was fully realized. The entire Apple Insider piece is worth a read, though I confess to one disappointment: it offered no date! When, exactly, did Jobs assemble his first iPhone development team? I want to know. I want to know when because I want to recall exactly what the world was like at that moment.

Although, whenever it was, odds are high that RIM was selling plenty of Blackberrys and doing quite well. Unlike now. Just how bad, exactly, have things gotten for RIM?

So bad that Canada's Prime Minister, yes, they have one, labelled Blackberry a "critical technology" and thus the government of Canada, yes, they have one, could theoretically block the sale and/or foreign takeover of the company. Of course they won't, because that's not how Canada rolls. Still, kind of sad it's come to this, isn't it?

Though I confess that, sometimes, it would be nice to hear the leader of the United States talk similar to this:

“Takeovers of critical technology that the government’s invested in, or … hostile takeovers of key Canadian businesses, are obviously something that I think is widely understood is not in this country’s interest,” (Prime Minister). Harper said.

The government has the right to determine whether foreign takeovers over a certain size may go ahead. Its decision is based on whether the bid is considered of net benefit to Canada.

Net benefit to America, perhaps Mr President?

Actually, I think we will soon have a President uttering words such as the Prime Minister. Only, not because they are thinking about protecting the "net benefit" to the country. Rather, because we've allowed ourselves to fritter away much of our strength and indebt ourselves to people and nations not like us.

That and general seething anger over the harsh reality presented to us by a completely new world.

Such as being pissed that those hardworking and very smart Chinese kids that come to America, since we (still) have the best universities on the planet, are now the ones with all the cash. Per the Economist:

The number of foreign undergraduates has increased 25% in the past four years, while the number of Chinese students has almost sextupled, to about 57,000. China thus leads India and South Korea as the primary country of origin for foreign students. On the demand side, China produces vast numbers of highly qualified applicants whose families can afford to pay American fees. On the supply side, American universities are usually happy to accept such good students.

Public universities, moreover, have an additional incentive. Many are struggling financially because their states have been cutting budgets in a weak economy. So they take more pupils from other countries and states in part because they pay higher fees. For example, Californians pay an average of $13,000 a year at the ten campuses of the University of California; outsiders pay about $36,000. Naturally, this leads to some resentment among in-state applicants who fear rejection. 

Rich Chinese coming to America for our universities? I'd be fine with that if we did a far better job of ensuring they stayed here -- and helped create American jobs. I'm not so sure that's the case any longer. Meaning: we need to do a better job of bringing the right Chinese (and Indians and Malay, etc.) to this country and keep them here.

And speaking of jobs, I consider most academia-led typologies of how AMERICAN BUSINESS can create wealth -- and jobs -- to be comically off-base. But probably the worst such academic notion is the calcifying idea that every business must learn what "job" their product is doing for the customer. You know, that nice bottle of Evian isn't really "performing the job" of quenching thirst. Rather, it's "job" is to signal to others how cool and well-to-do and sophisticated you are.

Attempting to determine the "job" of your product is a very quick way of killing off your creativity. Probably forever. Thus, you get articles like this one, from Tim Bajarin, that are able to tell us that the various "jobs" people conduct are often better served by a tablet than a PC. Which is extremely true.

And tragically after the fact.

When Steve, er, Jobs, was building the iPad I can guarantee you that he never started, likely never considered, how he could create a device that would do a better "job" than the PC.

Though let's close with this notion of jobs since so many are looking for so few good ones. 

No one is buying Windows Phone, still, and Windows 8 isn't expected to be out til -- maybe -- late 2012. Late 2012! Anyone think *any* Windows Phone will be better than iPhone 5 or iPhone 6 by then?

Somebody, lots of bodies, need to lose their job over that.

Someone who should not lose their job, however, is Dan Frommer. He gets the award for chart of the week. This beauty reveals how dependent various tech companies are on their leading revenue generator. Not surprisingly, Google remains, for good or bad, in the top spot. Stationary web ads are still contributing over 90% of their revenue!

Here's hoping you have a great job!

Till next week!

What if "to Google" you required a Google device? Not a Google approved device, but a Google (only) device? What if to purchase from Amazon or eBay you needed a device from these companies, only?

Facebook has 800 million users. What if to use Facebook, to share and like and update and upload, you had to use a branded and controlled piece of hardware from Facebook?

The idea is not so far fetched. Indeed, we seem to be moving quickly toward just such a world. Think Kindle. Google's acquisition of Motorola. The mythical Facebook Fone.

Of course, bloggers, analysts and wannabes consider such hardware devices as, ironically enough, peripherals. A supplement to the core business. And for Google and Amazon and Facebook in particular, the core business is the same: platform.

On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a real business if you don't own a platform.

And this notion of a platform is what confuses so many -- including institutional investors and Big Money that ought to know better. This confused notion of the platform is also why $AAPL trades at such a relatively low P/E, particularly compared to Google and to Amazon (and to Facebook in time).

Money believes that if you control the platform, then you effectively own the market. Google believes this. They build out their server farms and pour billions into Android and offer more and more free services, like email, hotel listings, video, videochat and more not just to profit off your personal data. Just as important, possibly more so, is that they ensure that everything collapses inside their platform, which they own, they control and which they -- almost exclusively -- profit from.

Same with eBay.

Same with Amazon. Amazon is yet another closed walled garden web "platform" that opens itself up only enough to make sure that anything that is sold goes through their platform.

Investors have believed fervently in the notion of the digital web platform for two decades now. The platform is the network, in their view, and owning the network generates greater value and more revenues with each and every new participant. The platform, then, becomes its own de facto market -- and monopoly.

This is why Amazon has a P/E of an astonishing $135. It's why Google has a P/E of $20. 

And it's why $AAPL has a lowly P/E of $13.

Because Apple has no platform. Apple is a hardware company. Despite the fact that Apple is the biggest tech company in the world and earns the most profits of any tech company, and has managed to hold onto shockingly lucrative profit margins on its products for years and years, analysts remain convinced that such profits will eventually collapse.

Not simply because hardware profits are not sustainable. Not simply because so much money is at stake that other highly capable companies, like Samsung, Nokia, Microsoft, Facebook and Google will do everything in their power to copy Apple, limit Apple and in every way possible snatch some of those sales and profits. Rather, the notion remains fixed within the brains of even the smartest investors that hardware, per se, is not a platform. Hardware is not a network.

The idea of the "network effect" originated with the old phone companies, such as AT&T. Each new customer exponentially increased the value of the network. It was not that one more customer had a phone -- a piece of hardware. Rather, it was that one more customer, with their new phone, was now accessing and participating in the network; the platform.

But what if this is no longer the case?

What if the iPhone is the network? What if the iPhone is the platform?

What if the iPhone is able to deliver the uber-high though temporal profit margins found in leading hardware but sustains them -- even grows them -- because it is also the platform?

If so, iPhone alone could become a trillion dollar business in just a few years, as more and more of the world joins this "network". 

The idea is not crazy. 

Would Path exist without iPhone? Would Instagram exist without iPhone? How few would ever use Evernote? Of all the hundreds of millions of Android devices in use around the world, *most* Google mobile searches come via the iPhone. More and more shopping is taking place via the iPhone and iPad.

It is not necessarily because iPhone is so much better than any other piece of hardware on the market. The iPhone is becoming the platform -- for everything mobile and social.

Facebook is growing increasingly dependent upon iPhone users. Same with Twitter.

If the iPhone is hardware than no doubt its profit margins will be forced to come down, and soon. But it may not be just hardware. The iPhone may be its own platform, its own network. If so, $AAPL is likely to explode. And everything you think about the web is inside out.

The fastest mouse in all Mehico! One of my favorite cartoons ever.

BGR suggests that even as the smarpthone wars jump into high gear in 2012, what with a new iPhone (OMG!) and Google's takeover of Motorola, and Windows 7.5 and/or 8, and the killing off of Symbian and the possible death of Blackberry and, well, lots of stuff really, it will continue to be a fight not between two platforms but between two companies:

Apple and Samsung

This is not a war between iOS and Android. In fact, if that was a war, Apple won. Resoundingly.

No, the war now is between Apple, which exclusively offers iOS, and Samsung, which leads with Android, but also offers Bada, has considered Blackberry and may be working on still another of its own platforms. Oh, and is probably gearing up to roll out several Windows Phone devices:

The analyst believes Samsung and Apple will combine to record 90% of the smartphone industry’s pre-tax profits in 2012.

“Smartphones continue to grow strongly, now accounting for over 30% of total volumes and over 75% of total industry revenues,” the analyst wrote. “However, the performance disparity between the stronger players – Apple and Samsung – vs. the others remains stark and these two now account for over 55% of industry revenues and over 90% of total EBIT.”

Why doesn't Samsung at this point take full responsibility for *it's* version of Android? End the whole fragmentation problem. Create an Android Market where all developers can be assured that over 90% of the devices, say, have similar screen sizes and hardware capabilities? 

Then maybe cut a deal with Bing and split the search ad revenues?

At this point, it seems as if Google needs Samsung more than Samsung needs Google.