The Causality of Apple's Success Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 12/06/2009 12:26:47 AM PST by Swordmaker
Apple's new 21-inch iMac was October's best-selling desktop computer, according to retail analyst firm NPD. While sexy, the sales success was partially due to a slowdown in sales of competing PCs prior to the launch of Windows 7.
No it wasn't.
Much has been written about the demise of clarity and objective truth in this Age of Blogs and infinite, incessant opinion in which we live. Old codgers like me bemoan the disappearance of proper spelling and grammar, as well as the lack of civility in daily life. The sizes of packages on store shelves seem to have shrunk. Service is worse. The days are getting shorter. You know the drill: what is can't hold a candle to what was.
My entry into this litany of losses would be the proof of causality, especially in business theory. Nowadays, things need only happen concurrently to be connected; trends cross space and time via the Internet so that they appear not just parallel but inexorably intertwined. Much of what passes for analysis today requires no tangibly real proof of cause and effect other than that two topics can be surfed during the same online session.
It's silly to presume that people bought iMacs because retailers were clearing out inventory prior to Windows 7. If anything, any clearance efforts on Vista boxes would have been a competitive pressure on Apple, meaning that its success was greater (selling in spite of redlined PCs). If consumers were waiting for Windows 7, that wouldn't have translated into Apple sales whatsoever; it would have depressed overall PC sales, though I have trouble believing that the vast numbers of Wintel boxes and retail outlets were so badly hit by new OS anticipation to make Apple's sales numbers shine so much better.
The causality of consumer choice drove 21-inch iMac sales, and I'd guess it boiled down to very specific factors like functionality, in-store experience, and price. There's a ton to study and synthesize on these points, most notably the fact that the success came from a company that owns a single digit fraction of a product category, distributes through an even smaller percentage of retail outlets, and charges its customers more for the privilege of buying its products over similarly-configured alternatives.
Any schlub can see connections where none exist, and it makes for a fun read when analysts make these grand, expansive declarations from high above. But it's usually a description of a theory, at best, and a fantasy, more often. The causes of Apple's success have everything to do with what Apple does better, more creatively, authentically, and consistently than its competition. I think Microsoft or its hardware partners don't fully understand this phenomenon. It's what dooms them to suffering its effects.
Jonathan Salem Baskin is a global brand strategist, writes the Dim Bulb blog, and is the author of Bright Lights & Dim Bulbs.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Just a couple of points. First, Apple collects all it’s apples in a few baskets. The 21” iMac is the default Apple general use non-laptop. People on the PC side have a ton of manufacturers and choices within the manufacturer.
That said, I think the number of offerings on the PC side is the reason PC manufacturers have such a hard time competing in the higher end with Apple. If Dell, for example, creates a high end desktop computer, they’re going to have a difficult time differentiating it from lower end systems. With the Apple Store, both systems are out there, properly maintained, at the appropriate height for a standing individual to use comfortably. You can check all the differences right there. When I was shopping for my new iMac last year, they had Photoshop loaded, along with sample photos. I could check Photoshop speed with real photos right in the store on the different systems. The internet runs! I could go to my idisk in the store and pull my photos in and check them.
At most PC stores, the internet isn’t set up, there aren’t any useable programs on the system, and all you can do is pull up minesweeper or some system utility. They’re not set up to comfortably use, either too high or low, so you can’t really check the system.
Speaking of Apple's price differential over a "faster, similarly configured PC" is like speaking of saving money by skipping the new Mercedes and buying a build-it-yourself sports car kit. :)
Find an all-in-one computer with 64bit Linux with a 3.06GH, Core2Duo Intel processor, 4GB RAM, 500GB HD, with a 1920 X 1080 21.5 inch LED lit LCD screen with 178º angle of view screen both vertically and horizontally with 320c/m2 brightness Monitor, wireless keyboard, WIFI and Bluetooth built-in, built out of a single block of solid aluminum that sells for $1200 and you tell me. Or, you could install LINUS on an iMac and compare. I suspect, that since OS X is a certified UNIX, that the IMac would blow the LINUX away.
I will probably be taking the plunge in the first quarter of 2010 and buy my first Apple computer. Ten years ago I was running Linux, went back to Windows, and will soon move on to OSX. I am quite comfortable on UNIX, so I don't think this will be much of a problem. The user interface is of course different from both Windows and Linux, but that is only a matter of learning a few new habits.
I stayed away from Apple because of the price. But I really do think the quality is there. If you want that quality, you have to pay for it.
This iMac looks interesting. But I am also pricing and comparing the MacBook Pro line of laptops. One or the other, it will happen over the next couple of months.
I think they are paid to write a column so they pontificate on schedule, rhyme or reason be damned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.