I think it did. Hence the halving of their stock price since he died.

But WHY? What could Apple add to a TV that would make it better? And I don't mean the content part, I mean the actual panel and enclosure. Shipping and inventory of these things would be a nightmare.

It would be better to make a killer home entertainment box - Apple TV is awesome, but quite frankly, Roku kicks its butt. We still don't have apps on Apple TV, and I think those have been rumored since 2009. In the meantime, ny daughter can play Angry Birds on my $80 Roku with its motion sensing remote with wireless audio built into it.

I presume this was intended to be sarcastic, since the stock price is up 37% since then :)

Hah, oh really? Shows what I know.:D

Integration with all the apple devices, streaming/airplay. A lot of people know how to stream stuff to their TVs but 90% of the world does not ie: my mother. Integration would be a welcome change.

Ive had boxee, roku, ATV and WDTV i much prefer WDTV over all the others because i can stream anything to it. MKV, AVI, MP4, you name it it can play it.

Further down the article, it says Johnson Controls just purchased 180,000 Office365 licenses.

You win some, you lose some. :D

Whirlpool's 30K are gone. JCI had old traditional licenses...the net gain is -30K

And what do you think the chances are of an Apple product being open to stream anything? I also don't get just how much extra integration you need - a decent MHL equipped AppleTV box would control the TV, auto switch to the right input and even control the volume on the Apple remote. Roku can do it, why can't Apple? I just don't believe in an Apple made TV set. It makes no sense.

Well if you believe Walter Isaacson (the author of Jobs) that was Steve Jobs last major project and claims its coming. Only time will tell but I think a TV is far more realistic, practical and warranted than a watch, again only time will tell but I am hoping.

A bracelet iOS device that can be flattened out into a more regular mobile phone/phablet wouldn't surprise me. iOS glasses would seem cool but probably still too nerdy to have mass appeal.

Sony tried something like that, and failed:

http://www.wired.com/reviews/2012/03/sony-tablet-p/

Apple doesn't feel like the kind of company to over-engineer something like that. "Folding" just doesn't seem like their thing.

It's not possible to have a conversation on the merits (or lack thereof) of tech without the usual nonsense that goes on here.

That is a big part of the problem.

-David

I was thinking of a flexible OLED screen.

yeah... not Office. Maybe you'll have a better explanation as to how LotusNotes = Office, though.

Other, of course, than how they're both great and terrible in their own ways.

Let me back this bus up to make sure I understand. So from my understanding the question was "how will MS compete (in the most broad sense) now that Apple has made upgrades of their OS free?". I believe my assertion was that they'll do just fine, since Office represents the majority of their income. So the argument was made that Office is dying and "evidence" of this was presented (and let's ignore that the article actually referred to loss of zero Office licenses). Now you're telling us that JCI, who obviously paid money for 180k upgrades, is equivalent to zero, and 30k users who are now using a different email client is equal to -30.

This is Voodoo math that the MPAA would be proud of. The question was how will MS make money if Apple gives away its OS. In the article you presented, MS earned money from 180k Office licenses, despite the fact that none of those 180k Office licenses represented a "new" Office customer.

I still think that answers the original question pretty clearly: They will continue to sell licenses for Office even though free options are available. Now if the original question were "How does MS plan to get NEW customers and grow their business" or even if it were "How does MS plan to stop users from switching from their cash cow to a much-less-functional and nonstandard yet free service" then maybe this might have been almost an argument. The original question was "How is Microsoft going to compete with free?", and I think the answer is still "because everybody's still buying Office and that in itself is still a rationale for everyone else to buy Office".

And just to briefly touch on the functionality aspect: sure, 80% of users may not use the advanced features of Office, but that doesn't mean that they aren't using them somehow. Few people here know how to use an excel macro, but every project here relies on at least two of them. And without them, a significant amount of change would be required just so people who don't know the difference between VLOOKUP and a Worksheet can continue to use the same tools they've been unknowingly using all along, even if they "don't use them". Now maybe this is just my experience, but I've also never subscribed to the "well most people don't need these, so you shouldn't need to have them either" attitude.

I don't think the tech is there just yet. Flexible yes, but folding in half (and in massive quantities) may take longer. Remember, Apple needs millions and millions of anything it orders.