3 ms·

Firstly, by looking at Apple and its products in isolation the author is missing the big picture on how the company itself could be disrupted. > the theory of

by r0h1n 13y ago

Firstly, by looking at Apple and its products in isolation the author is missing the big picture on how the company itself could be disrupted. > the theory of low-end disruption is fundamentally flawed Android phones started eating Apple's market share from the bottom-up aka 'low end'. While Apple may have created the market for smartphones and tablets, fact is both iOS and iPad are conclusively losing market share. - http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/29/apples-ipad-market-share-chopped-in-half-as-android-takes-over/ http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/29/apples-ipad-market-share-c... - http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24257413 http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24257413 The standard response to Apple's falling market share has been "Market share doesn't matter, only profits do." That argument was demolished by Samsung when it overtook Apple a few months back to become the most profitable phone maker in the world. - http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/26/samsung-apple-profitable-mobile-phone http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/26/samsung-ap... It's easy to overlook those trends because the overall market is growing so fast, to the extend that Apple's fall in market share is masked over by its growth in revenue. As I see it there are two parallel trends that are taking place - (a) Apple's products continue to 'disrupt' an older generation of competitors like PCs and featurephones, while (b) a newer generation of competitors led chiefly by Android continue to steadily disrupt Apple.

aakashbarot 13y ago
Well you see these guys (Media and research agencies) Play with Statistics you convince you. You can give me any data and tell me in what favor I need to give my inferences and I will get it out of the same data. So I wont suggest to go with this conclusive analysis, rather look at the raw data and make your own sense. Something about Marketing: You see one really cant compare A company with B company if their market and their strategies are different. Yes, they do intersect at some point and we need to see who wins at the intersection. Example: Apple is into: Computer + phone + mobile OS + Computer OS etc. Apple V/s Android: When you compare Android with Apple: Compare iOS: And you will see that iOS is targeted to only a specific segment of society. Wherein Android is like a mass product. The reason Android is having higher market share is because in the third world country it is available as cheap as: 70$ V/s Apple (Iphone C) at 550$ (Both not on contract). (Note: Android wont disrupt apple. These industry maturing will. With players having expertise in different domain come together to create final product. (Reference: Product interface) ) Apple V/s Samsung: Same story as above: Samsung is spurred across the segment (mass product) and hence claims to be having higher market share. Which is right. It might be more profitable. Its like: Class / Higher Profits V/s Mass / Scale = Apple V/s Samsung (Note: Look at it from a business perspective not user, and we see Samsung is a better model given current stage of market) But here is an important learning: "Elephants Cant Dance" You see Apple is now a BIG established Brand. They have Brand equity (Reason they can charge higher prices). Their Market segment is fix and they cant afford t dance / change now, to say Mass / Scale. It will hurt current market (Existing customer) sentiment. Though iPhone 5C was an attempt to try and gravitate towards Lower end market. Back to Clayton theory: 1. He talks about theory as Lenses. Which doesn't necessarily indicate that what you see through that lenses is right or wrong. You are free to choose some other lenses as you deem fit. Looking through the lens of disruptive innovation: I will side him. Even though Customers dont really see these trends they do affect businesses and eventually customers are convinced to align with the change in market.
- r0h1n 13y ago
  > Well you see these guys (Media and research agencies) Play with Statistics you convince you. Fair disclosure: I am one of "these guys" (a journalist).
Tloewald 13y ago
Apple isn't being "disrupted". It's going through the exact process it expects and plans for. Apple can't be Samsung without ceasing to be Apple. So it must continue being Apple. Apple's mistakes during the 90s were to try to compete on price and then to license its OS (imitate compaq then Microsoft). Bear in mind that christensen's theory of disruption is more deadly to samsung than it is to apple. Modularization will eat the guy whose business model is makig bazillions of different models with no real value add before it hurts the guy with a premium brand. Indeed, one could argue that apple's biggest danger is to be perceived as the big ordinary brand, and gaining too much market share, especially with cheap products, would do exactly that. (But Apple avoided this with the ipod -- no mean trick.) BTW no-one except samsung knows if samsung makes more profit than apple in mobile except samsung. You're taking punditry not in evidence and quoting it as fact.
programminggeek 13y ago
Profits do matter more than market share. You can have 100% of the market and 0 profit margin, which makes you a giant break even company - a hamster wheel. At that point a lemonade stand with $0.25 in profits is a more profitable/successful business. Apple only does what is going to be long term profitable for them because that is the most sustainable way for them to run their business. They've been around long enough to learn that lesson. Many pundits haven't. If it don't make dollars, it don't make sense.

by r0h1n 13y ago

aakashbarot 13y ago

Well you see these guys (Media and research agencies) Play with Statistics you convince you. You can give me any data and tell me in what favor I need to give my inferences and I will get it out of the same data. So I wont suggest to go with this conclusive analysis, rather look at the raw data and make your own sense. Something about Marketing: You see one really cant compare A company with B company if their market and their strategies are different. Yes, they do intersect at some point and we need to see who wins at the intersection. Example: Apple is into: Computer + phone + mobile OS + Computer OS etc. Apple V/s Android: When you compare Android with Apple: Compare iOS: And you will see that iOS is targeted to only a specific segment of society. Wherein Android is like a mass product. The reason Android is having higher market share is because in the third world country it is available as cheap as: 70$ V/s Apple (Iphone C) at 550$ (Both not on contract). (Note: Android wont disrupt apple. These industry maturing will. With players having expertise in different domain come together to create final product. (Reference: Product interface) ) Apple V/s Samsung: Same story as above: Samsung is spurred across the segment (mass product) and hence claims to be having higher market share. Which is right. It might be more profitable. Its like: Class / Higher Profits V/s Mass / Scale = Apple V/s Samsung (Note: Look at it from a business perspective not user, and we see Samsung is a better model given current stage of market) But here is an important learning: "Elephants Cant Dance" You see Apple is now a BIG established Brand. They have Brand equity (Reason they can charge higher prices). Their Market segment is fix and they cant afford t dance / change now, to say Mass / Scale. It will hurt current market (Existing customer) sentiment. Though iPhone 5C was an attempt to try and gravitate towards Lower end market. Back to Clayton theory: 1. He talks about theory as Lenses. Which doesn't necessarily indicate that what you see through that lenses is right or wrong. You are free to choose some other lenses as you deem fit. Looking through the lens of disruptive innovation: I will side him. Even though Customers dont really see these trends they do affect businesses and eventually customers are convinced to align with the change in market.

r0h1n 13y ago
> Well you see these guys (Media and research agencies) Play with Statistics you convince you. Fair disclosure: I am one of "these guys" (a journalist).

Tloewald 13y ago

Apple isn't being "disrupted". It's going through the exact process it expects and plans for. Apple can't be Samsung without ceasing to be Apple. So it must continue being Apple. Apple's mistakes during the 90s were to try to compete on price and then to license its OS (imitate compaq then Microsoft). Bear in mind that christensen's theory of disruption is more deadly to samsung than it is to apple. Modularization will eat the guy whose business model is makig bazillions of different models with no real value add before it hurts the guy with a premium brand. Indeed, one could argue that apple's biggest danger is to be perceived as the big ordinary brand, and gaining too much market share, especially with cheap products, would do exactly that. (But Apple avoided this with the ipod -- no mean trick.) BTW no-one except samsung knows if samsung makes more profit than apple in mobile except samsung. You're taking punditry not in evidence and quoting it as fact.

programminggeek 13y ago

Profits do matter more than market share. You can have 100% of the market and 0 profit margin, which makes you a giant break even company - a hamster wheel. At that point a lemonade stand with $0.25 in profits is a more profitable/successful business. Apple only does what is going to be long term profitable for them because that is the most sustainable way for them to run their business. They've been around long enough to learn that lesson. Many pundits haven't. If it don't make dollars, it don't make sense.