John Linton
.............though the products of today's awful parents and almost as awful schools will not care.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/05/26/apple-moves-on-top-of-microsoft-in-the-market/?mod=rss_WSJBlog&mod=
I don't own shares in either Apple or Microsoft so I am not affected (in this instance) by the uncaring theft of morally bankrupt individuals, or in the case of the PRC and many other Asian countries morally bankrupt societies.Ten years ago Apple had gone from an icon of technical innovation to a company struggling to survive while Microsoft made software that the whole world relied on to conduct every aspect of business, government and private lives.Then Apple 'invented' the ipod and several years later the iPhone and some other individual(s) 'invented' illegal downloading software and the two companies individual 'fortunes' began to reverse.
As can be seen from today's share prices Apple has overtaken Microsoft in terms of the value it delivers to shareholders from its activities while Microsoft, still an immensely valuable company whose products are used by an ever growing number of people and entities, has demonstrated what thieves can do to your corporate growth. It would seem highly unlikely that Microsoft would have been overtaken by Apple if the huge/gigantic number of people and entities that steal its software products had actually paid for them. I suppose the situation of embedded thievery in poorly parented individuals has become endemic to the point that it has reversed to the point where today's thieves actually believe the only restriction on whether you should steal something rather than pay for it has simply become always steal as long as you think you won't "get caught".
I wonder where this will lead in the future?
The other aspect of the article that struck a very positive note was the fact that Apple had 'rescued itself' from its seemingly inevitable downward spiral into irrelevance and since the 'birth' of the iPod had rediscovered its ability to innovate and, even more surprisingly, how to 'mass market'. I find that much more surprising but it's really good to see. I have never bought an iPod or an iPhone and my current use of an Apple computer at work was totally due to its physical design advantage of no ugly and awkward 'box' with its mess of cables cluttering up my work space - I use the version that has all of the 'electronics' built in to a beautifully designed screen - which in itself somehow seems to be better than the screens we used for the office PCs. I actually find using an Apple less simple than using a standard Windows PC - undoubtedly that's because I use it in 'Windows Mode'.
The Apple 'story' over the past ten years or so has been very encouraging demonstrating that a seemingly doomed company can re-invent itself so completely that it becomes even more successful than its early boom days. So a very 'American' commercial success story where the 'good guy' battles back from being down and out to kicking the bad guys out of town and restoring peace and tranquility to the citizenry. I can't think of any Australian examples of this sort of turnaround but there are bound to have been some. I wonder whether this scenario can apply at Telstra?
Apple was always 'adored' by its customers which is something that can probably not be said for Telstra. I also understand that Apple's customers chose to pay more for its hardware products than the equivalent PC products because of a string of perceived or actual added values where that can seldom, if ever, be said about Telstra's services. Then again there is the gigantic difference between a slothful government monopoly and a 'start up' technical innovator. A lot of differences. But one big similarity - both companies have had to face up to 'seismic shifts' in their operating environments and both have/are facing the prospect of corporate annihilation and need to find a way past their ingrained operational beliefs to a new future.
Much as I really dislike many aspects of dealing with Telstra I think I would dislike, even more, dealing with an even more bureaucratic federal government replacement - which I had stupidly supposed had been the reason for privatising Telecom Australia in the first place. It's clear that, except in mobile telephony, only a little progress has been made by privatising the Australian telephone/data communications monopoly in Australia - but it is equally true that some progress has been made over that twenty years - there is, in some areas, real choice for residential and business end users and there is little doubt that there will be greater choice as time elapses. A Telstra that has a greater need to compete will, over time, become much more efficient and that, alone, would be the very best thing that can happen for Australian communications users. Killing off Telstra by either 'absorbing' it or destroying it and replacing it with a gubmant owned new monopoly would be the very worst thing that can happen to Australians. (if you think Telstra prices are bad and the services out of date you clearly weren't around in the early 1990s to use and pay for a Telecom Australia service).
The communications, and more general, media are suggesting that a 'deal' with Telstra about the 'NBN2' is close. For everyone's sake let's hope that isn't the case.
Copyright © Exetel Pty Ltd 2010
ABN 350 979 865 46