What? I'm pretty sure Apple got their arse kicked all over the block in the 70's and 80's. I strongly agree that it is a competitive advantage, but I don't get this comment.

Apple had "the biggest IPO since Ford" in December 1980, so they certainly weren't getting their arse kicked in the 70s. Things were pretty grim from 85-97 though.

Yes, but that wasn't design related. They had desirable technology and software for the time and they marketed aggressively.

Well, Jobs' desire for a small, quiet (fanless) machine drove them to hire Rod Holt, who designed the switching power supply for the Apple ][. Jobs quote from the bio (it's unclear when he said this): "That switching power supply was as revolutionary as the Apple ][ logic board was. Rod doesn't get a lot of credit for this in the history books, but he should. Every computer now uses switching power supplies, and they all rip off Rod's design."

Would the Apple ][ have been as successful without the switching power supply? Hard to say. But even at the Apple ][ stage, Jobs' design sense was making its way into Apple products.

We may be at conflict with what we mean by design. I would consider the switching power supply to be an example of desirable technology, not design.

My contention is that they wouldn't have had the switching power supply if not for Jobs' design aesthetic. They would have just used whatever was standard at the time, making the machine bigger and noisier.

Yeah, same here. If he meant that design was integral to Apple's ability to break into the market and gain a few early successes then it makes sense. But I thought along e same lines as you. Apple can be considered an example of how design didn't matter, the competition mopped the floor with them back then. I think they were only marginally successful for a few years in the 80's and didn't become really relevant again until 2001.