Answering the blog title: nothing. He's dishing on competitors like always.
A better answer: this is a tired story, author. Can't we be more creative than "Android v. iOS is today's Windows v. Mac?" Why would Jobs worry about Android's market share if we'll see an iPhone on Verizon in January? That's another 1-2 million handsets sold. Why would he worry about Android tablets when the iPad dominates (edit: is) the tabloid market? Answer: he isn't--he's just smack-talking.
The author argues that, by Jobs' logic, the iPhone is "too small to create compelling apps." This is a straw man, though--tablets have nothing to do with phones. Each device has a different use, as made evident by how developers create separate apps for iPhone vs. iPad. Jobs's main point was that a 7" screen delivers a sub-optimal tablet experience.
A week ago, people talked about 7" tablets as though they weren't that different from 10" tablets. Yesterday, Jobs injected a (by all appearances extremely successful) meme that they're a very different, vastly inferior thing. This, right before the holiday season in which Apple hopes to sell a ton of 10" tablets and hopes that not many competing 7" tablets will be sold. Hey, they've got a soapbox, why wouldn't they use it?
A friend pointed out that Jobs spoke as one of the few people in the world who's used 7" and 10" iPad prototypes side-by-side, and thought hard about which is better, so that his memes catch on is probably a good thing ;)
Let's go one step further. Instead of interpreting his comments as shots against Android tablets, let's interpret them as shots against rumors of a 7" iPad.
By speaking out adamantly against 7" tabs, he pushes consumers waiting for that 7" iPad toward the 10" instead. This increases market share (and mind share) in the near-term, so that Apple will further entrench themselves as the tablet leader.
Then, next year, Jobs says "you've heard about those 7" tablets...we've figured out a great way to make it work!" at WWDC, and releases a 7" iPad.
I don't buy into this idea fully, but it wouldn't be the first time he says one thing and does another (iBooks).
He kept mentioning price as if it was the only reason that someone would want a 7" tablet - 'because it was $50 cheaper'. I saw that as totally manipulating the listener.
I think it would be a great size, personally. I'd love something bigger than my iPhone but smaller than an iPad, and that's what my mother described she wanted, too.
Hmm, I suppose I must have just read a selection of his comments.
As others have noted, the 'no usable area in 7 inches' idea makes absolutely no sense, considering the size of the iPhone and iPod Touch.
I think that mainly, they don't want to saddle developers with an in-between device as it would be onerous, costly and confusing for us. As much as I'd like a 7" tablet, it's smart of Apple to keep things as simple as possible for now.
> As others have noted, the 'no usable area in 7 inches' idea makes absolutely no sense, considering the size of the iPhone and iPod Touch.
Jobs is talking about tablets, not phones. The iPod Touch is not merely a small iPad. If you look at an iPhone app and an equivalent iPad app, you'll see that they often have radically different interfaces. Jobs' point, as I take it, is that a seven-inch screen is too small for the kind of apps the iPad runs.
Exactly, and I think that's what he said, that it would be a nether region in between a tablet and a phone. However, I don't agree that this size would not be desirable and useful. I want one.
If I had an iPad, I'd use it for the same things I use my phone for - web browsing, skype, music, reading books, email, photos and games. Why would this size not be appropriate for those tasks? What is it that Steve Jobs thinks people do with iPhones and iPads, if not the aforementioned?
I find the only time I wish the iPad were smaller would be for reading, though I think I would rather have a separate device like a Kindle than a smaller iPad.
I find that I more often wish it were a little larger so that art+sound apps could have more tools onscreen at once.
Easy. He says it right in the call: he's fighting for developer mindshare. That's the reason one of the first things he says is that Apple is activating 70k more devices per day to run your iOS apps than your Android apps (200k vs 270k). He's afraid that if there's a significant drain of developers like Joe Hewitt to Android, what Steve sees as the superior "integrated experience" he's creating in iOS (iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, iTV) won't be nearly as useful.
Misleading: "Investors punished Apple for its gangbusters quarter. The stock opened at $303.49 today, after closing at $318 yesterday"
It was omitted that the stock rallied after the open and closed at $309.49. Investor reaction was not as negative as portrayed in the article, especially given that today was a down day on the broader market.
Some people are picking out a peak for Apple to get out, and selling on news is nothing extraordinary.
If tomorrow's presentation weren't about the Mac Jobs would have had this discussion right a the beginning of his keynote, as he does before talking about any product. He doesn't have a platform to talk about iPhone or iPad this fall, so he gives us talking points via the conference call.
I don't think Steve is afraid of Google/Android. I think he's pissed. I think his single minded focus and belief is that Apple makes the single best smart phone/ecosystem for users and gets pissed when Google and Android say that theirs is better for consumers in some way.
I think it's inevitable for the integrated iPhone to be displaced by the modular Android (or some nascent modular tech), because integrated devices only provide competitive advantage at certain points of market development - where performance matters more than customization, price etc. The disruption guy (Clayton Christensen) talks about this.
To be a leader, Apple's solution has got to be to always be on the leading edge of a wave. Once the iPod is commoditized, the iPhone, then the iPad, and very soon after that, there needs to be something else. Consider: are iPod sales growing as fast as they used to? Apple wisely cannibalizes its own sales, but can only do so while its competitive advantage is needed by the market (viz. performance from integration).
This is traditional tech surf-style: intel, TI, HP, Sony and so on. You need a continuous pipeline of new products. (Maybe iTunes is an exception that can last significantly longer, perhaps over many generations.)
Steve knows all about this. Perhaps he hopes it's different for consumer products...? but I think the tech elements still dominate, which the example of Sony seems to confirm.
BTW I discovered recently that Larry Ellison (whose Oracle is suing Android) calls Steve his "best friend".
People have been predicting the commoditization of iPods for nearly as long as there have been iPods, but Apple continues to hold on to consistent market share (it's been around 70% for as long as I can remember) and continues to be able to price iPods competitively and profitably. What's gonna change to make this much-predicted commoditization come true?
Firstly, Apple has done a great job of riding the engineering curve, from the first iPods, down to several versions of the iPod shuffles. During that period, performance was crucial, partly because it enabled a smaller battery, and therefore a smaller and more convenient size overall. It does seem that iPods are now as light and can carry as many songs as anyone could want - that is, there is little room left for improvement that people will pay for (and I believe the last version of the Shuffle - v.3 - didn't sell that well, even though it was tiny).
At this point, the iPod market is ripe for commoditization. Since tech advances have made performance factors no longer an issue, there's an opening for the less efficient modular approach to offer other benefits, like cheaper price, more configurable and so on. But there's a problem.
iPod sales are down. They are being cannibalized by iPhones and iPads. That is, performance is now so good, that people would rather carry something heavier than an iPod Shuffle in return for more functionality (like movies, phone calls, internet and apps). I haven't checked, but I imagine the current iPhone probably has similar weight & size to the first iPod.
In these new categories, performance again becomes a premium: people would love a faster iPhone, that has more memory, that is lighter (where "love" means "would pay for").
To summarize: the iPod digital-music-player category wave didn't last long enough to become commoditized.
But note that my key point remains: Apple needs a pipeline of products, where its integrated approach gives a competitive advantage.
Or, you can accept the obvious answer: the 7" screen doesn't have enough real estate. It's a tweener cum bastard child, too large to be a phone form factor, and too small to do many things that work well on the 10" screen, but not smaller.
"Judging by today's nip at Apple shares, I'm not the only one."
Google, RIM, and Microsoft are all down today too so maybe investors are really really confused... or maybe it is simply a down day for the broader market.
BetaNews has gone downhill year on year in quality. I remember reading it back in 2000 and it was a decent site but now it just has these poorly written FUD "stories" about nothing of any real value.
Well, but it wasn't just Steve's presence on the call.
The actual official guidance (for future revenue) was significantly less than investors were looking for.
Expected December revenue was significantly less than you might hope for the season and an expected margin decline as they plan 'aggressive pricing' may not have sounded encouraging to some investors.
Companies talk about their competition and future plans. So expectations in regards to competitors are on the table. People always try to coyly ask about future products etc.
Although I will say that Steve sounds much better "unscripted" on stage, than he did tripping over the scripted statement.
Also, on the screen size, I think Steve's point is if it's going to be small, you should be at the very least be gaining pocket portability. Otherwise, 10" is as small as Apple thinks a touch UI should go. Personally, I think the reason Apple isn't going to do a 7" device is more about iPad's 2x compatibility of iPhone apps. Adding a 3rd size makes that compatibility story confusing.
A better answer: this is a tired story, author. Can't we be more creative than "Android v. iOS is today's Windows v. Mac?" Why would Jobs worry about Android's market share if we'll see an iPhone on Verizon in January? That's another 1-2 million handsets sold. Why would he worry about Android tablets when the iPad dominates (edit: is) the tabloid market? Answer: he isn't--he's just smack-talking.
The author argues that, by Jobs' logic, the iPhone is "too small to create compelling apps." This is a straw man, though--tablets have nothing to do with phones. Each device has a different use, as made evident by how developers create separate apps for iPhone vs. iPad. Jobs's main point was that a 7" screen delivers a sub-optimal tablet experience.
Sorry guys, I just really hate linkbait articles.