The MSM drooled over the iPhone because it was something worth drooling over.
Microsoft failed with Vista because (like Kodak and Motorola and Smith Corona) the companies lost sight of who their real customers were. Kodak decided their customers were retail stores, who used film-oriented products to bring their customers into the stores several times (buy film, drop off film, buy prints) - forgetting it was the people taking pictures who were the real customers, and who decided they wanted digital photography instead. Motorola decided their customer were cellular services, who use phones to entice customers to switch or stay (cheap/free phone with any 2-year lock-in) - forgetting it was the people making calls who are the real customers, and who are tired of getting “crippled” phones labeled “Motorola”. Smith Corona decided their customers were stockholders, who wanted stock value maintained at all costs (despite the technology’s relative but not complete demise) - forgetting there ARE people who want typewriters and not pathetic computer-wannabes. And ... Microsoft decided their customers are content services, who see the PC & OS as a controllable conduit for movies & music (wanting end-to-end DRM) - forgetting that it is the people actually watching movies and listening to music who are the real customers, and don’t want degraded performance just because of a break in the DRM chain.
Apple KNOWS their customers are the people who actually make phone calls, surf the web on the run, listen to music, watch pocket-sized movies, take pictures, and want a new platform to run their digital lives on - people who DON’T want their digital-life experience degraded by some company’s grubby fingers. And so, Apple created exactly what people want - not what they say they want (a la Ford’s “faster horse” theory), but what they WILL want when they are shown the next generation of the technology, and will adhere to when it works for them.
As such, a new phone/musicplayer/videoplayer/camera/browser/etc. garnered lots of free MSM drooling precisely because it was what the people want, and what they would pick up MSM content to read/see/hear about because they wanted it so badly even if it was experienced by proxy. This in contrast to other similar devices, which merely put those technologies in the same box while trying to sell it to someone (cellular services, music services, movie services, retailers) other than the actual user.
Go into comedy because you are hilarious!
Apple's policies on what software you can have on your iPhone is really not a company degrading your experience, is it?.
That "one size fits all" philosophy leads one astray as often as not. It led Xerox to sell its office solutions technology to Apple, leading us to where we are now on this thread. It led AT&T to get out of the personal computer business after developing Unix and the first networked personal computers. It led Exxon to abandon personal computer manufacturing. The same with Tandy Corporation and Texas Instruments. Eventually the exodus included IBM.
Are those companies who got out to concentrate on their core business the smart ones? Considering that personal computers were considered emerging technology at the time I am sure it made sense in that particular economic climate. But in the long run.... ?
How well would a large company like Xerox have faired with the early version of Mac to go along with their copy machine superiority in an expansion of office automation?
How well would AT&T done with their quality computers and the ability to network in the office?
What about IBM with its money and contacts and a newly developed operating system of their own?
It was in this environment that Microsoft's disk operating system prospered while others were getting back to their core business. It obviously helped Apple and Microsoft but did the others make the right decision?