5 ms·

I think it's easier than that. Just make consistently superior products, with a consistent, recognizable brand design, and charge 2x for them. Good examples are

• mattmaroon 19y ago
  You know, I think I have to grant you that on BMW. They've got some fanboyishness going on too. Not sure as much about the other two. (Starbucks has a number of haters exceeded only by Wal-Mart).
  • wumi 19y ago
    but haters usually in regards to their fair trade coffee (or lack there of). Starbucks junkies are fanboys as well -- and I find often coincide with Apple fanboys
    • apotheon 19y ago
      Good point -- and one I was going to make, until I saw you beat me to it: there are usually a godawful lot of Macs at Starbucks, in my experience. I tend to notice this on my way to a local 24/7 coffee shop with better quality beverages, competitive prices, free wireless, and less business, carrying my Thinkpad.
      • wumi 19y ago
        seemingly, Starbucks only competes on "better coffee," which is , of course, subjective. This is why I believe Starbucks is like Apple in that regard, as it seems to be more about the culture and inferred status of the product, than the actual value of the product itself.
  • mixmax 19y ago
    Lots of haters == Lots of fanboys
  • andreyf 19y ago
    On second though, you're right, Starbucks was a bad pick... My general intuition is that Apple seems so unique because we're tech-oriented and mostly surrounded by techno-centric people. If we were into fashion, coffee, or cars, there would be other companies which would seem just as fan-boy-ish. It's hard for me to pick companies, because I don't know the first thing about fashion, coffee, or cars :)
    • apotheon 19y ago
      No, you were right to pick Starbucks on the strength of its fanboyish customers. The fact that it attracts haters as much as fanboys doesn't change the fact that it has a lot of fans.
• jrockway 19y ago
  ... charge 2x for them. Good examples are ... Starbucks. FWIW, prices are about the same between Starbucks and @LOCAL_COFFEE_SHOPS. I don't think they are charging more because of their brand, they're just charging what people will pay for a cup of coffee.
  • apotheon 19y ago
    True. The startling thing about all this isn't the price of coffee at Starbucks. It's the fact that Starbucks is charging the same amount for coffee that's only half as good and still putting better coffee shops out of business. On the other hand, the bottled Frappuccino I can get in gas stations is great. It's my caffeine of choice while driving on long road trips. Amazing they can get their prepackaged per-unit retail stuff so right, while getting their in-store freshly made beverages so wrong.
• sfk 19y ago
  Starbucks does not make superior products. The core product, coffee, is absolutely horrible. When you order an espresso you'll taste that the coffee they use is cheap over-roasted junk provided by the lowest bidder. I agree though that - like apple - they managed to build a nice trendy facade that appeals to many people. Apple had the good sense to replace their mediocre core product (<= OS 9) with an excellent one (FreeBSD).
  • andreyf 19y ago
    Touché, it was a bad example.
  • apotheon 19y ago
    Starbucks isn't the only one of the three that doesn't really make superior products. BMW has a heck of a reputation for making superior products, but that reputation doesn't match up to reality so much -- unless you're comparing it to something like Ford. Similar standards apply to A&F, for that matter. Coffee isn't Starbucks' only product quality problem, by the way. The tea is substandard, too. Hell, even the hot white chocolate is only passable. . . . and I skipped the commercial middle-man. I'm typing this from a Thinkpad running FreeBSD.