decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
What business do you think Apple's in anyway? | 188 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What business do you think Apple's in anyway?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 02:32 PM EDT
Apple's not selling consumer electronics. They're selling a fashion, a
lifestyle, a badge, a token of distinction (aka snob appeal) just like Sony, the
US auto industry, and others before them. The workmanship going into that
rectangular box with rounded corners or that BSD-based OS is merely a means to
that end.

Appliances, not dev boards. Works of art, not commodities. Sizzle, not steak.
Louis Vuitton, not GE.

Most importantly, exclusion, not inclusion.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Excellent point & true... they failed to take advantage of it!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 03:02 PM EDT
This question is still being asked today. What if Apple had
not signed that exclusive license with AT&T for iPhone?

The result would been completely different in establishing a
Ubiquitous Market for their phone. The Exclusive Deal with
AT&T only gave it's iPhone the chance of being first to
market. By giving others not so much the chance to copy
iPhone as to introduce their own evolutionary
implementations of touchscreen phones into the market place
themselves.

Exclusives work two ways on both sides to ensure a unique
opportunity for a product to become Ubiquitous and this was
Steve Jobs goal. For Apple's iPhone to create such a market,
they needed something from AT&T that was an exclusive
feature that no other manufacture could say they had. So
AT&T created picture email service for iPhone that no other
phone on it's service had. Although they had MMS, that Apple
didn't have at the time. Being able to take a picture and
attach it an email was a unique selling feature. Along with
that AT&T had to assure Apple of an Exclusive Feature by
creating the iPhone Garden Walls completely separate from
their other phone maker customers too. Both side must
sacrifice something for an exclusive contract and both sides
must benefit.

On Apple's side what they offered AT&T was exclusive
branding of the Apple name. Movie studios have paid to
include a shot of a Mac in their films. Not the other way
around, like you'd think. There were already touchscreen
phones in the market. So that's not what made iPhone famous.
There were already rectangular smartphones with rounded
corners. So that did not make them unique or distinctive
either.

It all came down to BRAND RECOGNITION..... and that's why
AT&T could demand an EXCLUSIVE CARRIER CONTRACT as well.
Because their BRAND could could give Apple a large customer
pool to draw from. But yet Apple needed AT&T as much as AT&T
needed APPLE to be an exclusive deal, in their competition
against Verizon.

Exclusives are a double edged sword they can also cut both
ways. So if Apple had just decided to not create am
exclusive garden walled environment, then that may have
actually led them to a more Ubiquitous market share, than
they have now. Because as of right now... iPhone is headed
for being just another niche in the Smartphone Market!

And that is just another demonstration of why Android is on
it's way to becoming Ubiquitous as Apple iPhone falls into
another niche.... again!!!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )