Apple on the other hand, often seems to actively prefer to compete at a disadvantage. It's hard to get an Apple for work, it usually employees voicing (loudly)

Apple on the other hand, often seems to actively prefer to compete at a disadvantage. It's hard to get an Apple for work, it usually employees voicing (loudly) a preference. They rarely use price to break into or maintain markets. They want people to overcome those barriers to get the product. So if someone buys an Apple or an iphone it's because they really wanted it. When they win, it's usually because they made something someone really wanted. Wanted enough to pay for it themselves; nag their boss; learn something new or some other obstacle. It would be a break from this strategy if iphones started to be mass issued by employers putting them in to the hands of people who are apathetic. MSFT take the opposite approach. Their usually involve the path of least resistance. That often using high high/dominant market share; pricing strategies; barriers to switching; barriers to being the odd one out, etc. Both are IMO good business strategies & both are good businesses. But there is a qualitative difference in the approach. If sheer commitment to high level of craftsmanship is the primary way to winning, they probably won't win.