Market Share Metaphysics

Twice before I have used Aristotle’s concept of “Essentialism” to explain why tablets are “real” computers and why OS X will not be merging with iOS. Today, I go to the well one last time ((…unless I need to go there again in my desire to quench my thirst for knowledge (or drown my stubborn opponents therein).)) in an attempt to definitively and finally put an end to the messianic myth that market share equals platform. Hopefully, we shall never speak of this again. ((Fat chance.))

Essentialism

What attributes make things what they are? Or, what attributes make things not what they aren’t? (Confused yet?)

Aristotle drew a distinction between “essential” and “nonessential” properties. ((Actually, Aristotle called “nonessential” properties “accidental” properties. That’s totally confusing so I “accidentally” changed Aristotle’s wording from “accidental” to “nonessential”. It’s my article, I can do what I want.))

Essential properties are those without which a thing wouldn’t be what it is. Nonessential properties are those that determine how a thing is, but not what it is. For example, Aristotle thought rationality was essential to being a human being and, since Socrates was a human being, Socrates’s rationality was essential to his being Socrates. Without the property of rationality, Socrates simply wouldn’t be Socrates. He wouldn’t even be a human being, so how could he be Socrates?

On the other hand, Aristotle thought Socrates’s property of being snubnosed was merely nonessential; snub-nosed was part of how Socrates was, but it wasn’t essential to what or who he was. To put it another way, take away Socrates’s rationality, and he’s no longer Socrates, but give him plastic surgery, and he’s Socrates with a nose job.

The Elephant In The Room

Baby elephantOne could describe an elephant as being big, gray and wrinkled. But are those essential or nonessential attributes?

  1. Are there elephants who aren’t big? Sure. Baby elephants are small. So were prehistoric dwarf elephants.
  2. Are there elephants who aren’t gray? Sure. There are brownish elephants. There may even be albino elephants.
  3. Are there elephants who aren’t wrinkled? Sure. Maybe. Or maybe not. Who knows.

In other words, bigness, grayness, and wrinkledness all fail Aristotle’s test of defining what an elephant essentially is. Instead, they describe how elephants are, generally and nonessentially.

The Church of Market Share

The Church of Market Share says majority market share is essential for a computing platform to thrive. But is this even close to being true?

  1. Are there successful platforms that aren’t big? Sure.
  2. Are there successful platforms that don’t have majority market share? Sure.
  3. Are there successful platforms that aren’t wrinkled? Uh, maybe. Or maybe not.

In other words, massive market share fails Aristotle’s test of defining what a successful platform is. Arguing market share size makes a platform successful is like arguing being “big” makes an animal an elephant. That’s simply a “whale” of a lie.

What Is Essential

Greek astronomerWhat is “essential” to a computing platform is an operating system which forms the foundation upon which third party developers can develop; developers who create desirable products; and consumers who desire and acquire those products. Bigness may be nice, but it ain’t “essential.”

In other words, bigness, grayness, and wrinkledness all fail Aristotle’s test of defining what an elephant essentially is. Instead they describe how elephants are, generally and non-essentially.

Likewise, bigness, majority market share and wrinkledness all fail Aristotle’s test of defining what a successful platform is. Instead, they describe how platforms are, generally and non-essentially.

This is true only up to a point. Something as small, white, and round as an aspirin cannot be an elephant, and confronted with such an object, we would not be tempted to ask, “Is that an aspirin you’re taking or an atypical elephant?”

Market share as small as Microsoft’s Windows 8 and Blackberry’s cannot be dominant platforms. Confronted with such a platform, we would not be tempted to ask, “Is that an insubstantial, unfounded stereotype you’re swallowing whole and without critical analysis…or an atypical platform?”

The point is that bigness, grayness, and wrinkledness are not precise enough terms to be the essential qualities of an elephant. Likewise, bigness, majority market share and wrinkledness are not precise enough terms to be the essential qualities of a platform.

It’s a certain size range and a certain color range that, among other qualities, determine whether or not something is an elephant. It’s a certain size range and a certain market share that, among other qualities, determine whether or not something is a successful computing platform.

Wrinkledness, on the other hand, may be a red herring, or perhaps a “whistling herring”.

The Wrong Question Will Get You The Wrong Answer

    Abe: I got a riddle for you, Sol. What’s green, hangs on the wall, and whistles?
    Sol: I give up.
    Abe: A herring.
    Sol: But a herring isn’t green.
    Abe: So you can paint it green.
    Sol: But a herring doesn’t hang on the wall.
    Abe: Put a nail through it, it hangs on the wall.
    Sol: But a herring doesn’t whistle!
    Abe: So? It doesn’t whistle.

Microsoft’s Windows platform was big, a monopoly and it whistled (or it didn’t whistle). But that doesn’t mean that it was or is the one and only way to create a successful platform. And anyone who says it is, is telling you a fish story.

Post-Moretm

Feel free to steal this argument and use it since I essentially (not accidentally) stole it, er, borrowed it from Thomas Cathcart: “Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar.”

Of course, a link to this article would be nice…

…just not “essential”.

Published by

John Kirk

John R. Kirk is a recovering attorney. He has also worked as a financial advisor and a business coach. His love affair with computing started with his purchase of the original Mac in 1985. His primary interest is the field of personal computing (which includes phones, tablets, notebooks and desktops) and his primary focus is on long-term business strategies: What makes a company unique; How do those unique qualities aid or inhibit the success of the company; and why don’t (or can’t) other companies adopt the successful attributes of their competitors?

11 thoughts on “Market Share Metaphysics”

  1. Aristotle was on the right path, but born waaaaay too early.

    An elephant is an elephant (and not a mastodon) because of it’s genome, which then determines the rest of the elephant’s properties. It’s unique and unambiguous. It’s also not really subject to debate anymore, on scientific terms at least.

    An aspirin is an aspirin because it contains acetylsalicylic acid, which defines the aspirin properties.
    Acetaminophen is an advance over aspirin, because it is milder to the stomach and causes less blood loss.

    What I’m trying to say, is that I agree with you. You can indeed have an ecosystem consisting of a single unit. So what?

    1. Unfortunately, there is no genome for distinguishing between a successful and an unsuccessful platform so many will continue to argue that nonessential qualities define a platform which ignoring the essential qualities that really matter most.

      1. Again, you’re right. Except that there is a clear cut way to distinguish. Survival of the fittest.
        It’s not a moral or ethical criterion (MS as proof), rather, a survivalist one. I don’t like it, but that’s what it is.

        1. I like the unattributable variation, it is the one most adaptable to change that survives. I think that encapsulates why _both_ Apple and Android are doing so well, and Apple and MS before them. When Apple couldn’t adapt is when they started to flounder and why MS is having such a struggle now.

          Joe

  2. OS/X is mouse driven while iOS is touch. One thing they are finding on the (otherwise completely separate) Sugar Project – which builds development environments for kids – is the switch to tablets is giving them new challenges. Walter Bender due to give a talk on this at an upcoming open source conference in Boston:

    No more mouse: saving elementary education

    Walter Bender
    Room 32-141 | Thread: Applied free software
    The lack of a mouse and the presence of “the mouse” are having a detrimental impact on global elementary education. The rush to adopt tablets is putting passive tools of consumption into the hands of young learners at a time in their development when “making” is paramount. The “Disneyification” of media further erodes the opportunity for personal expression by young learners. In this panel we will characterize these threats and discuss strategies for combating them.

    1. “The rush to adopt tablets is putting passive tools of consumption into the hands of young learners at a time in their development when “making” is paramount”

      That sounds like an assumption that a device like the iPad isn’t good for creation. I can tell you the reality is quite the opposite. We homeschool our four kids and use iPads as their primary device. My kids create all kinds of stuff with ease, from illustrations to movies, writing, music, basic programming, all kinds of things, it’s amazing. The iPads are their primary computers. I don’t think it has even occurred to them to think about not having a mouse on the iPad. Of course we do have hardware keyboard cases, for protection and also for the ease of typing. I do think a hardware keyboard case is a must for the iPad, it takes the device to another level.

      1. Not sure there’s any assumption. They already have 3-4 million kids using their learning software, and have needed to move from a mouse based to a tablet based UI, noticing the differences on how it’s moved from a “lean forward” to “lean back” device with the change. I’m sure it will be interesting to hear their experiences in doing so.

        Kudos for giving your kids iPads though. I bought an iPad Mini for my iPhone native 2 year old granddaughter. Only downside is that “skip ad” appears not to work on out 37″ TV 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *