Again, I have to heavily disagree with your post. It's far too easy to simply dismiss Apple's success as one of shrewd marketing. It's way too easy to simply wa

Again, I have to heavily disagree with your post. It's far too easy to simply dismiss Apple's success as one of shrewd marketing. It's way too easy to simply wave Apple off as expensive baubles for image-conscious, vain consumers. > "but it wouldn't matter much to them if the brand wasn't known at all." But yet, it would. Consumers can feel quality when they come upon it. The LV bag without the luxury branding would still be far more successfully than a bag of lesser-quality and equally nameless brand. Going back to what I started mentioning with the last post - a product is perceived at 3 levels. Visceral, behavioral, and reflective. We've already covered the visceral part. Behavioral is the actual function of the product. How quickly does the kettle boil water? Does that teapot drip when poured? Does my phone actually send the SMS or will it leave me in limbo with no confirmation? Reflective is the higher, consciously engaging aspect of the product. Does it make me look good to my peers? Does it bring back memories of a bygone era? Does it appeal to my ego? etc etc. You're positing the Apple's claim to success can be largely accounted for via the reflective angle - whereas I'm saying it's impossible to be successful on that angle alone. A truly legendary product is wildly successful at all 3, and executing on all 3 is what has powered Apple's meteoric rise. Android in its current state really nails behavioral, but it's half-assing visceral, and the reflective is practically non-existent. Not from your post, but to aggregate my reply. To the mention that Android shouldn't be playing Apple's game by Apple's rules. These aren't Apple's rules. These are time-tested rules consumers will apply to any product they come across.