The MacEdition Interview: Walt Mossberg

December 1, 2001

MacEdition had the privilege recently to capture an e-mail interview with Walt Mossberg, the author of the Personal Technology column in the Wall Street Journal (among many other pursuits). Since Mr. Mossberg approaches his technology from the personal angle rather than the technical angle, we thought his insights on the industry surrounding Apple would be particularly interesting. He didn’t disappoint us.

MacEdition: Apple has embarked on a mission of sorts to establish that the personal computer, namely the Macintosh form of it, is not dead. Steve Jobs touts the Macintosh as an essential element of our digital device future, a “digital hub” to make these devices easier to use. You predict in your recent ten-year roundup article that “this will be a new world of digital devices linked by wire (and increasingly wirelessly) to the Internet, from which they’ll draw information, entertainment, commerce opportunities and communications.” Does this mean that you believe personal computers really will be essential parts of the digital device future or do you think that general purpose computers will be less a part of our daily lives?

Mossberg: I don’t think the PC (including the Mac) is dead, but I don’t feel that it will be as central to our digital lives in the future as it is now. I don’t think we are seeing convergence, but divergence – the emergence of a lot of different digital devices that will be able to access the Internet, and be otherwise useful, without a PC, or Mac. I do understand Apple’s digital hub strategy, and it makes sense in the short run – but not, in my view, in the long run.

MacEdition: Much of the upcoming technology for entertainment is going digital. HDTV, personal video recorders (such as TiVo or ReplayTV), digital motion picture projection, and the like. Do you see companies like Apple being able to capitalize on this in ways beyond simply providing hardware and software infrastructure (such as Final Cut Pro or DVD Studio Pro)? Would Apple, for example, be able to finally bring a cinema experience to the home as part of the digital hub strategy? What companies do you see being the leaders of this digital future?

Mossberg: Apple can do this, but not via the Mac. There will be all sorts of new home digital entertainment products, and networks to link them. This is a big opportunity. But it’s also risky, because new kinds of entertainment devices will take a while to succeed, and some will fail. It all depends on how Apple sees the risks and rewards, and the value of its brand in this setting. The iPod is a small step into this world, but much lower risk because it’s still a Mac peripheral.

MacEdition: You’ve had a chance to evaluate the iPod. Your November 1 review is quite favorable, even allowing that it is relatively pricey. Extrapolating from this one device, do you think that Apple is intelligently approaching consumer electronics?

Mossberg: So far, yes. It’s a brilliant design, head and shoulders above other devices in the category. Obviously, this kind of design and engineering is one of Apple’s core competencies. And I do think that if the iPod succeeds, Apple may well bring those skills – and its brand power – to other such devices. But it’s too soon to know. Certainly charging $399 in a recession, and limiting it initially to the Mac only, sets up a tough test. It’ll be very important that Apple moves quickly on a very good Windows version, and drops the price as soon as that makes business sense.

MacEdition: There were many, many rumors surrounding the “device” that turned out to be the iPod. Many of the rumors seemed to reflect what the Mac Web would want Apple to release, and most of the rumors seemed to gravitate to some portable use of QuickTime, Apple’s streaming audio/video technology, and AirPort, Apple’s implementation of the 802.11b wireless standard (Wi-Fi). Other vendors (such as Sony with the Clie) are approaching the issue rather cautiously. Do you see a need in the mass market for portable multimedia currently? If not, when would you predict demand materializing?

Mossberg: Well, people are already buying portable DVD players at high prices, so I’d say there is a potential market for portable multimedia – a handheld device that would show video clips and photos, and maybe also play music. But it won’t be a mass-market device until it can be sold for under $500. We’re not there yet.

MacEdition: You’ve been a respected journalist for many years. In that time, I’m sure you’ve seen the rise and fall of company-specific media (in print and on the Web, for platforms such as Amiga and Apple). Many of these specific sites try to catch the latest rumors, others attempt to gain an understanding of the bigger picture. Do you think company- and/or product-specific journalism does more harm than good for the company involved?

Mossberg: Well, first of all, I don’t care at all whether any form of journalism helps or hurts the companies being covered. That’s not the purpose of journalism, and thankfully companies can’t control it. There’s nothing wrong with company-specific or product-specific journalism, on the Web or elsewhere. What matters is whether the journalism is any good. If it’s a bunch of baseless rumors, possibly leaked with ulterior motives, then it’s not only bad for the company, but bad for the readers – which is more important. If it’s just fatuous praise, that’s bad too. But if it’s good journalism, done with high standards, and is accurate, then it’s good for readers, whether the company being covered likes it or not.

MacEdition: Apple has presented itself as the company to create the best digital hub, since it is able to control both the hardware and the software experience. Previously, Apple only released software and hardware to compliment third-party devices (such as DV video cameras). This changed with the iPod. Do you think that Apple is having to jump-start the public on the hub concept by releasing devices to be connected to the hub, or do you think the public understands and embraces this concept?

Mossberg: I think the public understands that, for now, many of these devices are best used in conjunction with a computer. So I don’t think Apple is doing general education, or needs to do so. Apple is, instead, trying to associate its products and its brand with that “hub” experience. Now, the truth is that, with the right hardware and software, Windows PCs can do a good job as a hub also. But if Apple can create a superior experience, easier and richer, as it has done with iMovie, iDVD and iPod, then it gains. But Apple doesn’t have a lock on this. For instance, iTunes isn’t the best digital jukebox software. MusicMatch for Windows is better. Windows XP does a better job with photos and digital cameras than OS X does. Sony has a brand that resonates in this area and has just introduced a Windows XP machine that looks like a stereo, and includes a stereo tuner/receiver and a MiniDisc recorder. So this won’t be a slam dunk for Apple.

MacEdition: Now that Intel has started using the phrase, “The center of your digital world” in marketing for the Pentium 4, does that validate Apple’s view of the personal computer hub?

Mossberg: Intel, like Apple, is just trying to boost PC sales by coming up with new positioning. All the PC makers have a similar idea.

MacEdition: Do you agree that the personal computer, as it seems to be today, will continue to be a required element in the digital society? You seem to imply it won’t be, considering you think AOL and Palm are helping set the foundation for the future. What role do you see the “general purpose computing device” playing five years from now?

Mossberg: Oh, it’ll still be around, but it won’t be as central to the digital lifestyle. For instance, people will commonly download and rip music right on their digital music players, portable and stationary, without the involvement of PCs. Same with electronic books – you’ll order and download new volumes right from the book reader. And so on. Eventually, in ten years or so, the PC will be mainly used for content creation, not playback. Apple can do well in that environment.

MacEdition: As this interview is being written, news reports are claiming that the antitrust lawsuit between Microsoft and the federal government (and 18 states) may be close to a settlement, stating that the Feds are rolling over and that the reaction from the states is yet to be seen. Do you think, given the original trial and the appellate opinion, that this case should go back to court or do you think consumers’ interests are best served by a settlement? If this settlement is upheld as valid, what do you think this portends for innovation in the personal computer marketplace? [Ed. note: Since this was written, several states have signed onto the federal settlement, but many influential states, California and New York among them, have disputed it and are pressing on for further legal remedies.]

Mossberg: You don’t necessarily need a resolution in court. I believe a settlement is fine, if it’s a tough settlement that’s in the interests of consumers. Any deal that fails to curb Microsoft’s monopoly power is, by definition, not tough enough. And, from what I can tell, this deal fails that test.

MacEdition: At a time when both the Windows and Macintosh camps are trying to move to the next level of usability and stability (with Mac OS X and Windows XP), do you think it’s ironic that both new OSes are built on a multiuser foundation which adds a level of complexity all its own? Especially in light of these underlying changes, do you think the camps are succeeding in the goals of improving usability and stability for the general user?

Mossberg: I can think of numerous improvements that could be made in both of them, but they are big steps forward. Remember, just eliminating constant crashes is a big deal. I don’t have any problem with the multiuser, multi-personality model, but I have to say that Windows XP does a better job of making that easy than OS X does – especially with its “fast user switching” feature. I actually don’t mind the changes in OS X that focus the Finder on your personal view of the PC, and your personal folders.

MacEdition: Do you agree that Apple continues to hold a lead in the personal computer marketplace in design excellence (both aesthetic and technical)? Other companies seem to fall all over themselves to copy Apple’s designs, such as with the iMac, but technologies such as FireWire (IEEE 1394) aren’t as quick to be copied. If Apple does hold that leadership position, why do you think the company is still locked into about 5 percent marketshare?

Mossberg: Well, that’s a long, long story. I do agree that Apple is once again the design leader, after going through a period of mediocrity and paralysis. The reason Apple has only a fraction of the market is mainly due to terrible business decisions in the late 1980s, especially the failure to port or license the Mac OS, and the failure to crack the corporate market. If Apple had done things differently, Windows would never have swept the world. But we’re way past that, and Apple now has to succeed as a niche player, a style and mindshare leader, which is entirely possible.

MacEdition: Looking into your crystal ball, is there some budding technology or service that we’ll look back on in ten years as “the next Internet” in terms of its affect on society? If not, what area of products or services will benefit from the relentless march of technological progress that we’re seeing coming out of companies like Apple?

Mossberg: The Internet is the next Internet. We’ve barely scratched the surface of its potential. I think, for instance, that wireless access to the Internet, and accessing the Internet in cars, are two examples of huge new technologies that exploit and enhance the Net.

E-mail this story to a friend