Comments on: Does Apple have a self-imposed maximum market share limit?

By: Ashutosh

Ashutosh — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:22:50 +0000

Nice analysis … interestingly put

By: Shantan

Shantan — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:52:53 +0000

hey good one harshad! pretty interesting read!

By: Amit Namjoshi

Amit Namjoshi — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:36:36 +0000

interesting read indeed, but i have to say i dont quite agree. Apple has always been more a technology driven company. And i believe this has more to do with mass appeal. After all the Iphone is also an Apple product and yet is one of the most popular one in the market.
There are many other examples in the market that are free and yet never took off. In languages Python is one heck of a scripting language and yet it works in corner of the development world.

By: Manoj Mathai

Manoj Mathai — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:55:58 +0000

interesting read …

By: harshad

harshad — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:30:14 +0000

@vivek : for the simple temptation of dramatic increase in topline. But yes, as you agree, they have several stronger reasons not to do that.

@Hemant : Agree with most points, except number 7. Apple’s uniqueness lies with their OS in the computer market; an advantage which they would actually have to work hard to negate. Yes, Apple does behave in a very monopolistic and high handed manner with several of its associated companies – which is exactly what I was trying to say – but they can afford this attitude simply because they have the rebel, I-don’t-care way of looking at things.

@Ashwin : You’ve raised excellent points. Agree with 1, I don’t have figures for what their share is for the plus $1000 market, but I doubt it’s anything substantially higher than its overall share.

In point 2, in response to my first point, I didn’t mean to say that Apple will knowingly release an OS with obvious holes. The point is that they don’t have to worry half as much MS does. The anti-virus line was a bit of a mistake, I actually meant that they don’t even have to think about all these things. But in the context of the article, yes, maybe that would have been better left out. About the additional legal bills per dollar earned – it is indeed worth studying that, though I wonder with what accuracy one could arrive at a figure.

By: Ashwin

Ashwin — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:08:22 +0000

Interesting argument. A couple of thoughts:
1. Is this analogous to saying that LVMH or Prada has low market share in leather bags? Maybe the Apple market is high-end laptops. What would be its share in the market for laptops above $1000?
2. Of the four points you make to support your argument, (1) and (4) seem implausible. In (1) for one, is is counter intuitive that a company that prides itself for product design will knowingly release an OS with obvious holes. Secondly, Antivirus is a business in itself. Apple need not get into creating Antivirus software for the Mac – Symantec and the likes would be happy to pitch in. Point (4) again seems to say that Apple chooses to be small and hence ‘ignored’ from possible legal proceedings. But what is the additional legal bill per dollar earned for MS? How much does that eat into the profitability number?

I like your premise though, that a company should ‘choose to remain small’. I tend to feel that this is likely to be more existential philosophy than a deliberate strategy.

Comments/reactions?

By: Hemant Karandikar

Hemant Karandikar — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:26:03 +0000

First the disclosures: I am not an Apple user \ fan. I admire ‘design’ aspects of the products.
Apple’s success is product design led (with spend in tech to back that).
Coming to its strategy I see following factors
1. Limited market share (premium – exclusive positioning) is great for branding and can be a valid strategy if you have ability unleash product after product that users love.
2. This ability is by no means a given thing even if Steve Jobs is around.
3. Windows or MS is not a great factor -they might sink under the weight of their success.
4. Google docs \ Android or Linux may change landscape once again.
5. If your product creation waves peter out, you are in a dangerous game of having to fund your ‘attitude’
6. Who knows tide may turn against the current absurd patent regime (read a fortnightly in BS) due to shift of center of Gravity from western civilizations.
7.In any case today there are many non-Apple touch screen based devices and Apple’s uniqueness go off unless they come up with something new.
8. It may be the sign of times that Apple had to open of API for Iphone to encourage third party applications. But it is a pain to deal with Apple.

Phew! That’s almost an essay. But that’s that.

Hemant

By: Vivek Raj

Vivek Raj — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:10:37 +0000

Interesting read, but the point is why do they need to come up with a product which is opposite to their current positioning (the want-factor associated with Apple products)? Wouldn’t a low-priced product disrupt the current users’ exclusivity?
at the same time, it may pose a threat of downward movement along the value-chain (for its existing customers) an unwanted aspect.

Apple need not become a yet another company in electronics goods manufacturing. That too when it commands such an interesting and lucrative niche 9a big one too). Something that every other organization crave for.

By: Posts about the iPhone as of June 28, 2009 | Iphone Talk

Posts about the iPhone as of June 28, 2009 | Iphone Talk — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:27:15 +0000

[...] [...]

By: AT_korvus

AT_korvus — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:57:11 +0000

Very interesting read.