|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 01:24 PM EDT |
There is a market for a design company, but it is a niche market. Apple, at its
current size, needs much more customers then those willing to pay premium for
extra design.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 03:37 PM EDT |
That is, Apple, via Steve Jobs, was essential in bringing *many* miracles
that now go unremarked out of laboratories to the general public, even if
the products they now live on lack fruity labels. They embodied them in
generally very beautiful packaging.
I claim that if they want to survive in the long run, they need to spend some
serious energy on figuring out how to continue the process, how to
continue with that Christian Dior distinctive Aesthetic (why is my iThing a
rectangle and not a more interesting shape, anyway?), how to find the next
miracle and move it from the lab to the marketplace( do youknow how slow
this iThing is compared to touch-typing?)
Steve Jobs had a special something, a combination of an open mind and
ruthlessness, that is hard to duplicate in individuals, much less entire
organisations.
(Christenson, ranting again)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 02:27 AM EDT |
I would agree Apple has always been a design company. Apple had had technical
people, and art people from the beginning. They combined these to create artful
technology. They then locked down the specification so it becomes easier to code
for.
Still, they are a just design house with a great marketing team, marketing an
artsy technology. Doesn't mean it is better. I've never really cared much for
Apple's design or products or technology, and the tech isn't any better, it's
just fine tuned for one hardware configuration at a time. I can tweak Linux to
do the same things.
There were other superior products back in the day, but they've not survived.
Much like the inferior VHS won over Betamax. Marketing is more than half the
battle.
By far the most powerful, elegant OS I've ever seen is Mapper. But it's not
properly an OS, more of a interpreted language running in a interpreter
environment. It was zero marketed, and then allowed to languish and fall behind
from being a decade or more in front.
If anyone were ever to pick one distro of Linux running a particular fine-tuned
GUI, and market the bejesus out of it. It'd wipe up the field.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 10:10 AM EDT |
PJ, with regard to your comment, I agree that people who
like Apple's designer label, styling, and think their
product is beautiful and functional will continue to buy it,
and why shouldn't they?
The problem for Apple is that not everyone thinks it is more
functional or more beautiful (and indeed from the market
share, you could argue most customers don't). The fact is
that whatever Apple fans may say about the iPhone or Mac and
its OS which is Apple's added value, the Windows, Linux, and
Android user interface is every bit as functional and usable
as Apple's OSX and indeed better in many ways. It is a
question of personal preference, and the plain and simple
fact is that most people opt for Android or Windows than
Apple's user interface. Many people want something
functional rather than a fashion accessory.
I don't agree with you that "the real thing" - meaning Apple
will always be better. Things change. iOS may have been the
leader in terms of usability at one time, but it may not be
now - it is called progress - and at the moment I do not
think Apple's products are better than Samsung's and
Google's latest products - sales of the Galaxy S3 Note and
Nexus 7 tablet point to most customers being in agreement
with my point of view.
Besides what is real, older Samsung hardware badged by Apple
as an iPhone and sold at a high price, or cutting edge
Samsung hardware badged as Samsung hardware? Most people
would regard the former as the fake and the latter as
genuine, and let's be honest here Samsung isn't selling a
fake branded iPhone as Apple is claiming, they are simply
using features which are common in phones and other devices
and which Apple didn't invent but also happen to use. The
fake means deceptive, and if anything it is Apple's devices
that are fake - in the sense that Apple's badge deceives the
fact that the hardware is Samsung's hardware, and Apple is
claiming to have invented or own a whole lot they didn't
invent and don't own. Believe me Apple iPhone and the claims
Apple makes over it is far more fake than any of Samsung's
devices, and Apple is undergoing a "Monkees moment" now in
this respect because more and more people are realising
this.
I have used all of these OSes, and I don't find OSX, Mac or
iOS particularly compelling. For example Apple's one button
mouse is less functional and more restrictive than Windows
or Linux. I started out on the iPhone, and then switched to
Android, and I first found The Android user interface clunky
and difficult to use because it works very differently,
especially with regard to the three buttons vs one and the
ways of doing things which are different but supposedly are
intuitive and so not well documented. After using Android
for a while though, and getting used to it, I now find the
iPhone more clunky. It is all about familiarity, not
function.
I said that Apple is a badge engineering company, I didn't
say Apple doesn't do design - even something as mundane as a
lavatory bowl requires someone to do design - it is what
type of design they do, and what they own and contribute to
the product they are selling. Apple is a designer label like
Eves St. Laurant, or Mary Quant - they do design, however it
is the badge that adds value to one of their products. Take
the badge off, and the product is worth a fraction of what
it is with the badge on. It is the same with Apple's
products. The problem with such a company is that once
others see through this, the product with its high margin
mark-ups is only compelling to niche customers who buy it
for the exclusivity of demonstrating that they are able to
pay a high price. That is what is happening and were Apple
is headed now.
Apple is a classic badge engineering company according to
the definition of the term, which arose in UK in the 60's
when the UK car industry underwent massive reorganisation as
a result of nationalisation. This resulted in the new state
owned car manufacturers run by civil servants producing cars
that weren't always what the customer really wanted. This
created a scope for a lot of new "badge engineering"
companies which bought up cars from the state manufacturer
and modded them to suit the customer better. Some of these
were quite good - like MG cars, whose label survives to this
day (now Chinese owned), who took ordinary cheap low powered
cars and put a fun sporty body on to pioneer the British
sports car concept - a fun to drive two seater car with
mediocre performance but good handling and good looks. While
badge engineering allowed the production of some very iconic
cars, it ultimately led to the demise of the British car
industry. This is because the British badge engineering
companies which knew what the customer wanted didn't have
ownership of most of the product they were selling, and what
they sold depended on the state owned manufacturers who they
didn't have control over either. When Japanese and German
companies, who understood both the engineering and the
customer needs entered the market, the British car industry
was decimated. Those who understood the customer didn't have
the leverage over the manufacturers who made their
technology for them to bring compelling cutting edge
technology into the market to compete with the integrated
German and Japanese manufacturers.
The reason why Apple is behaving in this way now - going
thermo nuclear is an act of desperation, rather than one of
strength. The latest Samsung devices like the Galaxy S3 and
Galaxy Note, and devices like the Google Nexus 7 tablet are
more innovative and compelling than Apple's rather dated
looking offerings. This is not my opinion, but customer
opinion based on sales figures for Q2 of 2012. Android sales
is now officially 68% of worldwide smartphone sales while
iPhone marketshare is down to 16.8% of marketshare - that is
taking into account only 2 months out of the four when the
Galaxy S3 has been on sale. Apple knows it has a dire
problem, and that is why it is reacting like this.
I believe the reason for this sudden turnaround in Q2 is
that most Apple customers have been mislead into thinking
that Apple invented the smartphone, that they invented
pioneered and own the hardware technology in their
smartphones, and that Apple invented and owns rights to
basic GUI concepts, icons etc. Just look at some of the
posts in various blogs, and you will see that that many
actually believe this is the case - at least in Apple's
hardcore cult following.
More people are realising that the iPhone they paying for is
probably a Samsung or an HTC with a badge on it, and judging
from customer demand for Android phone, most are askingh for
Android not iOS on it - in other words, they don't see
anything compelling about iPhones or iOS. This is underlined
by the spike in Samsung S3 sales in the US after the trial
verdict was announced. These people want to buy the Galaxy
S3. They know exactly which phones are Samsung phones and
which are iPhones, and they do not want the iPhone forced on
them by US law.
Apple had a choice to make. Like Google, it could price its
iOS at competitive levels and engage with partners who can
provide cutting edge technology to make a cutting edge
phone. Don't forget the iPhone rakes in a significant amount
of money from iTunes and Appstore. Instead it chose to use
unnatural means - ie a broken legislation and smart lawyers
to fix free competition to their advantage and so control
what they didn't invent and what doesn't belong to them.
This may lead to short term success, but it will lose them
the war and eventually lead to their extinction. Apple used
to have a designer phone, now they have a lawyered phone,
and the worst thing is that the patents that Apple is
wielding are flimsy and dubious at best and will only work
in as rigged US court, while those they are attacking are
hardware patents with a solid basis which can be enforced
anywhere. Apple have either been very stupid, or they really
are in a serious position in maintaining market share.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
