4 ms·

I think you're understating their achievement — what's the point in having the largest share in a market if a niche player makes more money than you?

czhiddy 16y ago
Agreed. http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624 http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-ma... I'd much rather have low market share and much higher profits than vice versa.
bad_user 16y ago
The point is that with a smaller market share you can lose it all extremely fast. Profitability is important of course, but resistance to the changing market / emerging technologies that invalidate your business is also important for big companies. For all the ranting about how Microsoft has lost momentum and mind-share and influence, it's still here and it's still making a shit-load of money, just because of their marketshare ... yes, they aren't innovating fast enough, but that's because they don't need to. Apple is highly profitable, but because they are a niche player their only hope is to keep innovating. IMHO the iPhone was a defensive move to keep them relevant. Kudos to them for seeing it coming, but I hope they won't rest on laurels because it won't last long.
- andrewtj 16y ago
  It's a trade off — I'd disagree that a niche player can lose their position any faster than the incumbent. The incumbent, as you allude to, tends to only see change as having the potential for loss and hence tries to avoid it; often to their detriment. Also, given Apple Computer Inc are now Apple Inc, a major OS X release has been stunted by a phone and an update of their laptops has been pushed aside for the release of a tablet, I wouldn't characterise the iPhone/iPad strategy as a defensive one.
- rogermugs 16y ago
  so you're not in the "ipad is the most innovative thing since sliced bread" camp eh.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

czhiddy 16y ago

Agreed. http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624 http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-ma... I'd much rather have low market share and much higher profits than vice versa.

bad_user 16y ago

The point is that with a smaller market share you can lose it all extremely fast. Profitability is important of course, but resistance to the changing market / emerging technologies that invalidate your business is also important for big companies. For all the ranting about how Microsoft has lost momentum and mind-share and influence, it's still here and it's still making a shit-load of money, just because of their marketshare ... yes, they aren't innovating fast enough, but that's because they don't need to. Apple is highly profitable, but because they are a niche player their only hope is to keep innovating. IMHO the iPhone was a defensive move to keep them relevant. Kudos to them for seeing it coming, but I hope they won't rest on laurels because it won't last long.

andrewtj 16y ago
It's a trade off — I'd disagree that a niche player can lose their position any faster than the incumbent. The incumbent, as you allude to, tends to only see change as having the potential for loss and hence tries to avoid it; often to their detriment. Also, given Apple Computer Inc are now Apple Inc, a major OS X release has been stunted by a phone and an update of their laptops has been pushed aside for the release of a tablet, I wouldn't characterise the iPhone/iPad strategy as a defensive one.
rogermugs 16y ago
so you're not in the "ipad is the most innovative thing since sliced bread" camp eh.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]