4 ms·

> cannibalize their own product lines (iPod) I disagree on this. The iPhone was a potential iPod replacement when it launched, but the choice was selling $200

> cannibalize their own product lines (iPod) I disagree on this. The iPhone was a potential iPod replacement when it launched, but the choice was selling $200 iPods or $500 iPhones. The iPhone felt like a leap of several generations, but the hardware and business model were still similar. Where Apple actually cannibalized something was Apple Music and the iTunes store, but they drug their feet on it.

buran77 3y ago
> but the choice was selling $200 iPods or $500 iPhones I don't think we are in disagreement. But the fact is very few companies do this regardless. When it comes to the product that's their bread and butter they tend to put it on a pedestal never to be touched until it falls into irrelevance. Apple didn't launch an improved iPod and retire the old. They didn't try to sell a phone and a music player by artificially differentiating them, or by sabotaging one of them. They didn't try to make $250 off the iPod and another $250 from a phone that "shouldn't compete too well". They launched 2 product lines made by different parts of the company, knowing that the iPhone may undermine the iPod userbase and then still fail, possibly souring those customers. They wouldn't necessarily do this today. iDevices now are clearly (and artificially) differentiated from the Macs: different OS, no options to use them in a way they truly compete despite having such similar hardware theoretical capabilities. Again to give the Google example, when they tried to have competing lines (Google/Nest) they managed to fail at both and lose the customers completely.
- macintux 3y ago
  I disagree somewhat with the characterization of the differences as artificial. I think Apple genuinely believes that, despite their excellent touchpads, a cursor-driven interface is not the same as a touch interface. They’re gradually bridging them (Catalyst, and adding cursor support to iPadOS), and speaking as a fan of both product lines I’m glad they’re trying to make them each more powerful without just slapping them into a single UI. Could they do a better job of supporting external devices on iPad? I imagine so, but there’s such a long road from the extremely-protective/simplistic/sandboxed iOS 1.0 to a full-fledged workstation operating system I have to think it’s not all that easy.
no_wizard 3y ago
I think this had more to due with negotiations with the record labels[0]. All the major record labels have investments in Spotify[1] which I imagine lends more credence to Spotify being able to negotiate good deals with the labels, since they can act more like partners [0]: https://www.cultofmac.com/325034/apples-music-streaming-negotiations-are-coming-down-to-the-wire/ https://www.cultofmac.com/325034/apples-music-streaming-nego... [1]: https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/spotify-at-days-close-what-are-sony-warner-and-universals-shares-worth-a-lot-1202743146/ https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/spotify-at-days-close-what...
- scarface74 3y ago
  How are they “good deals” for Spotify when Spotify is losing money?
  - spacetime_cmplx 3y ago
    For starters, Spotify exists
dwaite 3y ago
One of the classic examples I've heard was how Apple cannibalized their iPod (classic) with the iPod Mini and the iPod nano. These were smaller and cheaper due to the flash storage, but did not replace their more expensive cousin. The iPod Classic got relatively little updates toward the end of the iPod line because while it had a dedicated fan base due to its ability to store truly massive music libraries, it just wasn't selling much. This was also the first time we really saw the scale Tim Cook could push for - competitors had difficulty going up against Apple because they hadn't just bought out all the available flash in the channel - they had funded building new factories for building denser/cheaper flash, in return for their entire initial production.

buran77 3y ago

> but the choice was selling $200 iPods or $500 iPhones I don't think we are in disagreement. But the fact is very few companies do this regardless. When it comes to the product that's their bread and butter they tend to put it on a pedestal never to be touched until it falls into irrelevance. Apple didn't launch an improved iPod and retire the old. They didn't try to sell a phone and a music player by artificially differentiating them, or by sabotaging one of them. They didn't try to make $250 off the iPod and another $250 from a phone that "shouldn't compete too well". They launched 2 product lines made by different parts of the company, knowing that the iPhone may undermine the iPod userbase and then still fail, possibly souring those customers. They wouldn't necessarily do this today. iDevices now are clearly (and artificially) differentiated from the Macs: different OS, no options to use them in a way they truly compete despite having such similar hardware theoretical capabilities. Again to give the Google example, when they tried to have competing lines (Google/Nest) they managed to fail at both and lose the customers completely.

macintux 3y ago
I disagree somewhat with the characterization of the differences as artificial. I think Apple genuinely believes that, despite their excellent touchpads, a cursor-driven interface is not the same as a touch interface. They’re gradually bridging them (Catalyst, and adding cursor support to iPadOS), and speaking as a fan of both product lines I’m glad they’re trying to make them each more powerful without just slapping them into a single UI. Could they do a better job of supporting external devices on iPad? I imagine so, but there’s such a long road from the extremely-protective/simplistic/sandboxed iOS 1.0 to a full-fledged workstation operating system I have to think it’s not all that easy.

no_wizard 3y ago

I think this had more to due with negotiations with the record labels[0]. All the major record labels have investments in Spotify[1] which I imagine lends more credence to Spotify being able to negotiate good deals with the labels, since they can act more like partners [0]: https://www.cultofmac.com/325034/apples-music-streaming-negotiations-are-coming-down-to-the-wire/ https://www.cultofmac.com/325034/apples-music-streaming-nego... [1]: https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/spotify-at-days-close-what-are-sony-warner-and-universals-shares-worth-a-lot-1202743146/ https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/spotify-at-days-close-what...

scarface74 3y ago
How are they “good deals” for Spotify when Spotify is losing money?
- spacetime_cmplx 3y ago
  For starters, Spotify exists

dwaite 3y ago

One of the classic examples I've heard was how Apple cannibalized their iPod (classic) with the iPod Mini and the iPod nano. These were smaller and cheaper due to the flash storage, but did not replace their more expensive cousin. The iPod Classic got relatively little updates toward the end of the iPod line because while it had a dedicated fan base due to its ability to store truly massive music libraries, it just wasn't selling much. This was also the first time we really saw the scale Tim Cook could push for - competitors had difficulty going up against Apple because they hadn't just bought out all the available flash in the channel - they had funded building new factories for building denser/cheaper flash, in return for their entire initial production.