4 ms·

I think Apple as a very mature company likes the long term strategy. They start with a bang but they also realize Version 2 of a product, at its core, is striki

by jsz0 16y ago

I think Apple as a very mature company likes the long term strategy. They start with a bang but they also realize Version 2 of a product, at its core, is strikingly similar to Version 10. I don't think they feel pressured to dominate a market probably because their business model doesn't require it. The iPod was a bit of a fluke in that sense. It had a lot more to do with the competition losing than Apple being hell bent on domination. Google on the other hand, like Microsoft in the past, needs to succeed with big volume. More searches, more data collected, more services to serve more advertisements, new places to put advertisements, etc.

boucher 16y ago
I think that was a good description of Apple Computer, Inc. Now that we live in the post iPhone world of Apple, Inc., they seem to be behaving quite differently. Their strategy seems dominated by short term market share grabbing in the mobile space, rather than long term product innovation and higher priced products.
- grinich 16y ago
  * Their strategy seems dominated by short term market share grabbing in the mobile space, rather than long term product innovation...* Even in light of the iPad?
  - grinich 16y ago
    Actually, I've rethought my comment a bit and I agree with you. I see the way Apple is behaving now very akin to the early PC wars, when a bunch of platforms were trying to become the dominant one. These days, the platform war is the tablet form factor, and the iPad is definitely cheaper than anyone really expected. I have yet to see an actual competitor, in terms of price, software, and retail locations. So sure, it's a land grab right now. But I wouldn't confuse that with true product innovation. They're just taking it step-by-step. And I'm sure the iPad still maintains their margins, although it seems cheaper. (my hypothesis as to why it has no camera, cleaning cloth, included slipcase, etc.)
    - zweben 16y ago
      "But I wouldn't confuse that with true product innovation. They're just taking it step-by-step." Iterative improvement and innovation are not mutually exclusive. Just like with the iPhone (which had no app store at launch, and would be boring by today's standards,) most of the iPad's innovations are ahead of it. You don't have to revolutionize a market right off the bat to be innovative.
- jsz0 16y ago
  Maybe they're preparing for the future. In a few years a $200 subsidized iPhone might be a high priced product compared to a free with contract Android phone. The iPad at $499 might be a premium device compared to a <$200 netbook. The sales of traditional PCs will eventually start to drop as these other devices fill people's needs. We're probably near the high water mark for the Macintosh. Standalone iPods are already starting to seem old fashioned. How many more years can they rely on that market to exist? It doesn't seem the iTunes Store has ever been especially profitable for Apple either. They have to bet their future on the iPad/iPhone.
- zweben 16y ago
  I disagree. The only reason iPhones aren't high priced is because they got a unprecedentedly large subsidy with AT&T. The phones may sell for $100-300, but Apple makes closer to $500-800 on them after what AT&T pays out. That's why they're the most profitable company at selling cell phones despite their small market share. Obviously Apple wants market share too, but I've seen no indication that they're willing to prioritize it over high margins.

by jsz0 16y ago

boucher 16y ago

I think that was a good description of Apple Computer, Inc. Now that we live in the post iPhone world of Apple, Inc., they seem to be behaving quite differently. Their strategy seems dominated by short term market share grabbing in the mobile space, rather than long term product innovation and higher priced products.

grinich 16y ago
* Their strategy seems dominated by short term market share grabbing in the mobile space, rather than long term product innovation...* Even in light of the iPad?
- grinich 16y ago
  Actually, I've rethought my comment a bit and I agree with you. I see the way Apple is behaving now very akin to the early PC wars, when a bunch of platforms were trying to become the dominant one. These days, the platform war is the tablet form factor, and the iPad is definitely cheaper than anyone really expected. I have yet to see an actual competitor, in terms of price, software, and retail locations. So sure, it's a land grab right now. But I wouldn't confuse that with true product innovation. They're just taking it step-by-step. And I'm sure the iPad still maintains their margins, although it seems cheaper. (my hypothesis as to why it has no camera, cleaning cloth, included slipcase, etc.)
  - zweben 16y ago
    "But I wouldn't confuse that with true product innovation. They're just taking it step-by-step." Iterative improvement and innovation are not mutually exclusive. Just like with the iPhone (which had no app store at launch, and would be boring by today's standards,) most of the iPad's innovations are ahead of it. You don't have to revolutionize a market right off the bat to be innovative.
jsz0 16y ago
Maybe they're preparing for the future. In a few years a $200 subsidized iPhone might be a high priced product compared to a free with contract Android phone. The iPad at $499 might be a premium device compared to a <$200 netbook. The sales of traditional PCs will eventually start to drop as these other devices fill people's needs. We're probably near the high water mark for the Macintosh. Standalone iPods are already starting to seem old fashioned. How many more years can they rely on that market to exist? It doesn't seem the iTunes Store has ever been especially profitable for Apple either. They have to bet their future on the iPad/iPhone.
zweben 16y ago
I disagree. The only reason iPhones aren't high priced is because they got a unprecedentedly large subsidy with AT&T. The phones may sell for $100-300, but Apple makes closer to $500-800 on them after what AT&T pays out. That's why they're the most profitable company at selling cell phones despite their small market share. Obviously Apple wants market share too, but I've seen no indication that they're willing to prioritize it over high margins.