3 ms·

Your point is valid, but that ... diversity? ... comes at a _very_ steep price. Not only for the manufacturer, also for the consumer! With Apple I _know_ a coup

Your point is valid, but that ... diversity? ... comes at a _very_ steep price. Not only for the manufacturer, also for the consumer! With Apple I _know_ a couple of things about any future purchase, without ever having used, held or felt the particular product. Namely: 1) Build quality will be significantly higher than competitors, 2) It will hurt my feelings to look at the bill after checkout, 3) It will work as advertised (or slightly better). Yes there also will be quirks I'll be unhappy with, which I _could_ (given enough time and experimentations) find a better solution for. But fundamentally I'll be getting a solid product, that works well enough. It is _that_ promise, which fundamentally allows Apple to do an online store and do a mostly directly-to-customer retail operation. If you increase diversity, you make this "buy any product and you'll be fine" thing so much more complicated, loosing more sales than the niches even contain. I'd guess almost all people just want it to work :TM:, at least that's me, and that's me deciding the phone of my mum

makeitdouble 3y ago
I totally see this point, in particular as an opportunistic Apple customer myself. Apple doesn't need to do marketing regarding some aspects of their products (e.g. build quality) and can focus their messaging on more specific parts. On the other hand, that doesn't seem to be what most consumers long for. Apple had two runaway successes with the iPod and then the iPhone, but to note, the iPhone is not the best selling phone brand nor dominates the international market. Same way Apple is not the #1 computer maker. So yes, focus and consistency brings tremendous value, but there are many other ways to get that level of value, and many customers will have different priorities. (I also don't think any brands need to be #1, being profitable should be enough, but I am more and more interested by how Windows has stayed at the top for so many years. In particular Apple progressively feels closer to Sony when it was at its peak: superbe products, strong ecosystem binging, coupled with also a heavy dose of strategy tax on how to benefit from what the other companies are doing)

makeitdouble 3y ago

I totally see this point, in particular as an opportunistic Apple customer myself. Apple doesn't need to do marketing regarding some aspects of their products (e.g. build quality) and can focus their messaging on more specific parts. On the other hand, that doesn't seem to be what most consumers long for. Apple had two runaway successes with the iPod and then the iPhone, but to note, the iPhone is not the best selling phone brand nor dominates the international market. Same way Apple is not the #1 computer maker. So yes, focus and consistency brings tremendous value, but there are many other ways to get that level of value, and many customers will have different priorities. (I also don't think any brands need to be #1, being profitable should be enough, but I am more and more interested by how Windows has stayed at the top for so many years. In particular Apple progressively feels closer to Sony when it was at its peak: superbe products, strong ecosystem binging, coupled with also a heavy dose of strategy tax on how to benefit from what the other companies are doing)