I think this is a fair statement -- if not particularly bold or creative. It is a safe statement -- in the manner that knocking Apple or Macintosh has always been safe (though not always fair.) It does make me wonder what Newton *might have done* for Apple if it had the same market positioning that the iPod market enjoys today. Regardless -- let's hope Apple milks this for all its worth.

Without Office or Windows Microsoft would be irrelevant. Windows has given Microsoft the opportunity to 'grab new life'.

Not quite true. With out the iPod Apple would still have $6 billion in cash, no debt and an innovative product line of CPU and software products.

What Apple wouldn't have without the iPod is a stock trading in the 70s and a market cap approaching $30 billion. That's because iPod sales are much easier to model than Mac sales. Apple still gets the bulk of its revenue and profits from the Mac.

Without the iPod Apple would still have G5 PMs and iMacs, G4 iBooks and PBs and the eMac. OS X would still be moving forward, as would iLife and all of the other Apple apps.

The iPod has done several important things however. First it has generated sales, profit and cash at a very nice level. It has also moved PC users to buy something made by Apple - generally for the first time - and has shown them what Apple quality means in both hardware and software. Equally important it has opened up a market for a low priced Mac mini in a way that is far more effective than it would have been without the iPod. Lastly, it has allowed for the iTunes Store to exist.

While Apple would not be irrelevant without the iPod it is a lot stronger in the market with it.

Granted, iPod and iTunes has injected a substantial amount of both cash and marketing mindset into Apple, they still have the most usable OS on the planet (yes, personal opinion) and compelling, innovative, and usable hardware.
And in support of one of the earlier comments, one of the reasons that Word and Windows "breath new life" into Microsoft is the continual cycle of updates and revisions to try an actually make them work right. Without the annual licensing fees, particularly from server client licenses, Microsofts revenues would be down considerably, since they are going on what, 3 years since a "for-pay" OS release? If there ever truly comes a threat to MS's Office/Windows revenue empire, they will be sorely hurt as revenues plummet and their relevance falls.
Give the iPod its due, but to me it was more like building a brand-spanking new seawall infront of a fifty-year-old seawall that was perfectly serviceable, but weathered. It has bolster not the reality of Apples health, but the perception of its health.

Which ever it it to be…here's to the health of Apple.

How the hell does someone get to be an "analyst?"

They usually say dumb things. If it isn't dumb, it's obvious. They have no insight. They only look at the surface. They do no investigation nor research.

They sell stupidity and platitudes. What a racket!!

Count the first four letters of analyst. You'll figure it out....

Not to me. Don't own an iPod, but I do an awful lot of design, illustration and multimedia work on my Mac.

Let us look at it this way:

• If Ford didn't have trucks...
• If Dell didn't have cheap PC's...
• If Miami, didn't have Shaq...

And last but not least:
• If Microsoft didn't have Windows, they would be irrelevant.

Why do analysts open their mouths so often? If love with their own commentary I could only assume. It is just a dumb place to start making an analysis. Rather, move on to what investors need to know - where is the company going to go, and how much gross profit will they be making in the near and long-term future...

Of course, analysts don't have a clue on those fronts - you know, the fronts they are supposed to have a clue about! ; )

If Minneapolis Star Tribune didn't have printing presses they would be irrelevant! Duh. What a stupid commment.

Technically, Gene Munster is right. Marketshare of 2% & below is the figure that the industry use to define relevance of a computer company in the overall PC market. Apple's last quarter marketshare is 2.0% and before that is 1.9%.

Ofc, without iPod, Apple will still be in business for a long time. AAPL would be trading in the 20s instead of 70s.

With the halo from iPod, elegantly designed Mac mini and ingenious marketing of not including DKM, marketshare of Mac will be on an uptrend for the next few years.

I bought a used iPod and found out that I don't really use it. My wife has taken a fancy to it and uses it a lot more than I ever will.

Now the iTMS, I use for my downloading needs. Al-la-cart is the way to go. I have no desire to rent music or buy whole albums. But now I have to seek out exposure to different songs and artists.

+

While I agree that iPod's done wonders for Apple's bottom line, so long as there are creative pros cranking out digital media (ads, brochures, websites, multimedia, etc.) the Mac -- and therefore Apple -- will always remain relevant.

Let's get real here, Munster... even without the iPod, Apple would be relevant due to its 'showing the way' on industrial design, and by fact that it has the best OS out there, OS X.

One does get tired of analysts making attention grabbing statements that are just plain dumb upon closer inspection.

Let's see... without the iPod, Apple would be irrelevent.

Does that mean I can say "Without Windows, Microsoft would be irrelevent."

Oh wow, that's probably true, but doesn't mean JACK! Just like the statement about the iPod... The point isn't about WHAT makes you relevent, it's that you're relevent in the first place.

Just call Munster "Captain Obvious" and be done with it. (obviously a short sighted one as well)

I think there's truth to this.


Apple has the best OS, but it's irrelevant because of the Microsoft monopoly. Microsoft used to be compelled to follow Apple's OS lead, and Longhorn was to be the latest imitation. Now Longhorn just keeps dropping features and its shipping date keeps moving, but there's no pressure anymore, because of the monopoly. There's Linux, but on the desktop, their focus is on copying the Windows UI, because that's what users are familiar with.

Safari is a great browser (though it could use an update), and so is Firefox, but people keep using Explorer, which is a bit like sticking to Windows 95, because of the monopoly. People used to blame Netscape's own development missteps for its decline, to parry attacks on Microsoft's gaining browser supremacy; now it's Microsoft's turn, but its monopolistic inertia keeps it on top.

iLife is fantastic (should I capitalize that when it begins a sentence?), and users rightly claim that there isn't anything comparable in the PC world; but again, it doesn't matter, there's no impetus to develop anything of similar quality there. The majority remains deprived and ignorant of that an alternative exists.

Office's development path means adding maximum bloat for minimal truly useful improvements, and continuing bugs. Like everything else, it's stagnant, and it doesn't matter, because so are users' expectations. That's why I like Pages, which doesn't really compete with Word, but tries something different: it's a true consumer page layout application. It takes consumer users beyond the usual memoranda and written reports that Word straitjackets. But again, it doesn't matter. If Microsoft does come up with its own version, it won't push it the way it does its music services.

Apple does remain relevant in content creation, but this is just a niche in the computer industry. Apple used to be a force for innovation in the industry as a whole; now, while it is still innovative, it's advances at the moment don't affect those outside its small base.

BTW, I disagree with those who compare the Munster's comment with the statement, "Without Windows, Microsoft would be irrelevant." This in fact supports his view, because it juxtaposes the iPod with Windows. Apple started out as a computer company. That MacObserver's readers equate iPod's importance to Apple with Window's importance to Microsoft is itself evidence that Apple's core may have shifted, which was the analyst's point.

Extremely good analysis guest! An for you. I see your analysis as a variation on the "broken windows" theory, which is to say that the best selling product will be just good enough for people to not hate it enough to switch.