I sit on a lot of PC company advisory boards, and, while this may surprise you, I actually point out Apple’s competitive advantages on a regular basis. The problem for me is Apple’s market share, which is at a tiny and stable 2.6 percent of the PC marketplace. Don’t get me wrong, Dell is where Apple once was at the top of the PC stack. If it weren’t for the powerful advantages Apple brings to the table, the company would be gone by now. Let’s revisit some of those advantages.
Apple truely did lose out to microsoft by not fully comprehending the demand for dirt cheap software, microsoft created market share by selling technical products to non technical people. While apple did lose horrendeous market share it refrained from sinking to microsofts level and pushing out inferior products through those unfortunate years of management driven deployment. To many people Apple proved its worth in that respect and that reputation will be extremely difficult to tarnish in the next wave of adoption, whatever that wave will be. It may not ride the booms and busts like microsoft has, its more of a turtle in that respsect. Rather then focus on what will make you buy a computer after 3 years it's concerned about what will make you buy Apple's over the extent of your lifetime. As for an Aqua skin for xp, I'de rather Microsoft bring Bob back, that would also be very "interesting", certianly dumb, borderline retarded but still interesting. Note to TechNewsWorld: Stop publishing this crap.
Like I said, Rob, I have mixed feelings about your piece. I also put a question mark after my subject line ("damning with faint praise?") I just don't think marketing is Apple's core competitive advantage. It's the quality of the product, a quality that is the result of their approach (integrated hardware and software). Sure, that approach has not been as commercially successful (to date). But in my view it produces a better product (for some purposes). Also, I never said the mac is better at everything. I said some core things. It's not a better general purpose business machine, for example. Or gaming machine. Or CAD machine (due to lack of software). It's also not about "praise." It's about the truth. There's nothing magical or perfect about Apple. I think what we've seen is a company under good leadership (Jobs), that has to innovate to stay alive. If Apple ever gets fat and really profitable again (and loses Jobs), yes, I would not be surprised if they stopped innovating.
So Jim where were you when they were looking for someone who switched from Apple to Windows? So when did you move to Windows XP? It is not clear you ever owned an Apple computer. What Mac OS did you stop at and what machine?
Jim, I have to ask...and you make money doing what on 3 XP machines? Did you get them off the back of a truck? You couldn't have bought a nickels worth of software out of your savings other wise. It's highly unlikely you've ever worked on a Mac long enough to appreciate it's features, much less switched. Jerry
I don't understand the praises for Apple's marketing. Certainly there are times Apple did not get it right the first time, such as Newton. I get the praises for iPod either. If it takes a company like Apple to develop iPod, that is pathetic; iPod should be develop with just a handful of engineers. Finally, why is Apple not pushing G5 into the engineering and scientific community? these communities is willing to pay for more processing power that Sun is unable to deliver. Apple needs to work with killer engineering and scientific software vendors, such as Cadence and Synposis to name a couple, and grab and secure a large niche market before 64-bit PCs does. Seems to me Apple doesn't understand its product. iPod isn't going to get it anywhere.
"What if this PC had an Apple hardware design and used a skin to give Windows XP an Apple-like user interface, and if the application load were similar to what you would get with an Apple?" Because that wouldn't be an Apple. Skinning XP to look like Mac OS X could make people blame the bugginess and general bad UI design of Microsoft's Windows XP on Apple because of the skinning. It would be a horrible compromise. Quite frankly it'll be a cold day in Hell before this happens. Also, you note that IBM is a second-rate partner to Intel in system design. I presume this is why Microsoft have dumped Intel and gone for 3 multi-core PowerPC CPUs (offshoots from G5s) for the forthcoming XBox2 and why they are shipping Apple Dual G5s as development kits? (confirmed by a mate of mine who is developing for XBox2) Still, what more can be said about an article that started off good, balanced and well-written and then suggests Apple copy the Acer Ferrari laptop? Rob, do you even comprehend how much people are laughing at you when you take pride in that thing? It's a shame, it was a good article until the last paragraph or two.
As a Mac user (well PC/Windows and Linux too) and someone who generally disagrees with Mr Enderle's articles, I have to praise this article for being reasonable and well-written. Unfortunately there are some Mac users who are unable to exercise their imaginations and consider his final point -- but hey, can't win them all. Of course, I am also writing to counter Mr Enderle's "nothing if not predictable" remark -- I'd hope there are other reasonable folks out there besides myself. Cheers, Matt
Thank you for this Apple article. I gave up the Apple several years ago and move to Windows XP. You've confirmed for me the value of that move. If the only thing Apple has going for it is a good logo, a start switch and marketing strategy and thank God I left Apple behind. Instead of one Apple, I now own three XP e-machines. Not only that the money I have saved has purchased a lot of software! Jim -- Michigan
I have mixed feelings about this article. It does give Apple some credit where credit is due. On the other hand, focusing on Apple's "marketing" and "design" i.e. looks, well this is often just a way (for Rob and other PC advocates) to discount or denigrate the importance of the basic functional quality of Apple's products (ease of use, reliability, etc). It's a sneaky way of saying, it's not the product or the way it works that is better - Apple just "markets better" or their products are just "pretty looking". This line of argument has surface plausibility because, of course, Apple products are good-looking and well-marketed (in many ways). The defect in this line of argument is that no amount of marketing or good looks will sell a poor product. And in this case, even making a "good" product is not enough. Apple simply would not have survived the Wintel freight train but for making a BETTER FUNCTIONING PRODUCT (better in some key ways, at least). But Enderle et al have a hard time conceding the mac DOES anything better. So they go on and on about "marketing" and "aesthetics" - things that (implicitly) don't or shouldn't matter as much as function (the computer is just a tool in the end).
Loading ...
Apple’s Competitive Advantage
Posted by: Rob Enderle March 8, 2004 08:29 AMI sit on a lot of PC company advisory boards, and, while this may surprise you, I actually point out Apple’s competitive advantages on a regular basis. The problem for me is Apple’s market share, which is at a tiny and stable 2.6 percent of the PC marketplace. Don’t get me wrong, Dell is where Apple once was at the top of the PC stack. If it weren’t for the powerful advantages Apple brings to the table, the company would be gone by now. Let’s revisit some of those advantages.
To many people Apple proved its worth in that respect and that reputation will be extremely difficult to tarnish in the next wave of adoption, whatever that wave will be.
It may not ride the booms and busts like microsoft has, its more of a turtle in that respsect. Rather then focus on what will make you buy a computer after 3 years it's concerned about what will make you buy Apple's over the extent of your lifetime.
As for an Aqua skin for xp, I'de rather Microsoft bring Bob back, that would also be very "interesting", certianly dumb, borderline retarded but still interesting.
Note to TechNewsWorld: Stop publishing this crap.
I just don't think marketing is Apple's core competitive advantage. It's the quality of the product, a quality that is the result of their approach (integrated hardware and software). Sure, that approach has not been as commercially successful (to date). But in my view it produces a better product (for some purposes).
Also, I never said the mac is better at everything. I said some core things. It's not a better general purpose business machine, for example. Or gaming machine. Or CAD machine (due to lack of software).
It's also not about "praise." It's about the truth. There's nothing magical or perfect about Apple. I think what we've seen is a company under good leadership (Jobs), that has to innovate to stay alive. If Apple ever gets fat and really profitable again (and loses Jobs), yes, I would not be surprised if they stopped innovating.
So when did you move to Windows XP? It is not clear you ever owned an Apple computer. What Mac OS did you stop at and what machine?
Did you get them off the back of a truck? You couldn't have bought a nickels worth of software out of your savings other wise. It's highly unlikely you've ever worked on a Mac long enough to appreciate it's features, much less switched. Jerry
I get the praises for iPod either. If it takes a company like Apple to develop iPod, that is pathetic; iPod should be develop with just a handful of engineers.
Finally, why is Apple not pushing G5 into the engineering and scientific community? these communities is willing to pay for more processing power that Sun is unable to deliver. Apple needs to work with killer engineering and scientific software vendors, such as Cadence and Synposis to name a couple, and grab and secure a large niche market before 64-bit PCs does. Seems to me Apple doesn't understand its product. iPod isn't going to get it anywhere.
Because that wouldn't be an Apple. Skinning XP to look like Mac OS X could make people blame the bugginess and general bad UI design of Microsoft's Windows XP on Apple because of the skinning. It would be a horrible compromise. Quite frankly it'll be a cold day in Hell before this happens.
Also, you note that IBM is a second-rate partner to Intel in system design. I presume this is why Microsoft have dumped Intel and gone for 3 multi-core PowerPC CPUs (offshoots from G5s) for the forthcoming XBox2 and why they are shipping Apple Dual G5s as development kits? (confirmed by a mate of mine who is developing for XBox2)
Still, what more can be said about an article that started off good, balanced and well-written and then suggests Apple copy the Acer Ferrari laptop? Rob, do you even comprehend how much people are laughing at you when you take pride in that thing? It's a shame, it was a good article until the last paragraph or two.
Of course, I am also writing to counter Mr Enderle's "nothing if not predictable" remark -- I'd hope there are other reasonable folks out there besides myself.
Cheers,
Matt
Instead of one Apple, I now own three XP e-machines. Not only that the money I have saved has purchased a lot of software!
Jim -- Michigan
It's a sneaky way of saying, it's not the product or the way it works that is better - Apple just "markets better" or their products are just "pretty looking". This line of argument has surface plausibility because, of course, Apple products are good-looking and well-marketed (in many ways).
The defect in this line of argument is that no amount of marketing or good looks will sell a poor product. And in this case, even making a "good" product is not enough. Apple simply would not have survived the Wintel freight train but for making a BETTER FUNCTIONING PRODUCT (better in some key ways, at least).
But Enderle et al have a hard time conceding the mac DOES anything better. So they go on and on about "marketing" and "aesthetics" - things that (implicitly) don't or shouldn't matter as much as function (the computer is just a tool in the end).