Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Mar 2012 15:09 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless I'm currently reading Jerry Kaplan's excellent book "Startup: a Silicon Valley adventure". In this book, Kaplan, founder and CEO of GO Corp., details the founding, financing and eventual demise of his highly innovative company, including the development and workings of their product. What's so surprising about this book is just how timeless it really is - the names and products may have changed, but the business practices and company attitudes surely haven't.
Permalink for comment 511813
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

*cough* Twilight *cough* The Da Vinci Code *cough*

There ARE people that GENUINELY like both of those books, and not because of marketing. Tastes vary.

*cough* VHS *cough* Windows *cough*

VHS won because of marketing? No, it won because it was better where it mattered:

1. Much longer recording times - tapes were not cheap at first, so it mattered how much use you got out of one.

2. JVC licensed VHS cheaply - Sony didn't.

3. Early single piece consumer level Betamax cameras could not playback - they could only record. VHS did both from the start. And they were cheaper.

4. Rentals. More material was available on VHS. Positive feedback loop...

In fact I would go so far as to say that VHS was simply better period. The difference in picture quality was simply immaterial to the market, i.e. it's best feature was one that no one cared about.

And Windows... there are perfectly rationale intelligent people that use it every day and are quite happy with it. It isn't marketing that makes them do this - it meets their needs. There are also rationale arguments to be made as far as areas in which it is an inferior product compared to the options available. You are not making any of these arguments though - you are just copping out by explaining it away as marketing...

When have I ever made the argument that heavily marketed products cannot be good on its own merits? I did not make that generalization.[q/]

No, you simply dismiss any argument concerning what people DO like about Apple products as irrelevant - because they are brain washed. It is a straw man.

[q]What I DID say is the Apple products are not as better than its competitors as the difference in the price of those products suggests.

How the hell do you quantify that? That is a pretty blanket statement. An entry level iPad for instance costs $399. That's about $100 more than most of the competitions entry level stuff. Many, if not most, people who have experience with the other options (Kindle Fire, Playbook, Touchpad, etc.) would say the difference is easily worth the extra $100 - maybe even more. And they can give perfectly rationale reasons WHY (I won't bother, I would run out of space fairly quickly)...

You, on the other hand, DO make that claim by making the proxy claim that Apple is worth $500 billion dollars because they really produce $500 billion worth of value and perception of value is an inconsequential percentage of it.

No. I said Apple is really worth $500 billion dollars because that is what the market has deemed them to be worth by buying their stock at the current pricing. You, on the other hand, keep bringing up "perception of value", as if there is another type of value. There isn't. Value IS based on perception. That is not marketing though, that is economics. There is no such thing as "intrinsic" value.

No one has said marketing doesn't exist. What people have said is that it plays an inconsequential part of it. Like it or not, psychology affects us more than you know. Deal with it.

I don't claim it is inconsequential - just that it is no more consequential with Apple than it is with HP or Microsoft or anyone else. So it DOESN'T MATTER when discussing the relative merits of the company or its products.

Do you know what? I went back through all the comments. Did a Ctrl-F for the word "idiot". Did you know you're the only person who has used the word "idiot" more than three times in a post?

Idiot. Hipster Twat. Same thing. I'm actually quite polite normally - you just rub me the wrong way.

When someone tries to clear away the myth and mystique of a company with logic, reason and evidence, and for another person to use magical economic numbers as a counter-argument, only to reveal that is because they felt attacked by the initial demystifying, is nothing short of identifying oneself with said company.

What a load of shit! Your INJECTING myth and mystique into the discussion. I'm simply taking the position that the reason Apple is doing so well might, just maybe, have at least a teeny bit to do with the products they sell.

And I absolutely do not identify myself with Apple. I don't own any of their stock. I do have a few of their products, and I am quite happy with them and what I paid for them on their own merits.

And I'm not trying to defend Apple. I don't even care - we could be talking about any company. Your arguments are not even about Apple - they boil down to how stupid you think consumers are. Guess what bud, your one too.

Would you bet $500 billion? (You haven't answered my wager. If perceived value = actual value in a capitalist economy as you schooled me on, would you really pay $500 billion for Apple if you owned $1 trillion?)

Me personally? Hypothetically if I had a trillion dollars I wouldn't buy Apple. I don't believe in putting all my money in one basket. It WOULD invest at least some of it in them though - and based on past performance there is no reason to think I wouldn't get a return.

In reality though, if I had a trillion dollars I would probably give most of it to charity. I don't have any need for that kind of money and I don't have the ambition or desire to go empire building...

In case you haven't got it yet - it's about budgeting. Sensible spending of hard-earned dollars. Hipster twats have parents who buy everything for them. That relationship won't last forever.

I AM a parent (3 kids). I'm 40. No one buys anything for me. I would be happy to explain why I bought the Mac Mini I have, or the Macbook Air, but there would be no point because you would just say I'm a mindless drone who can't think for himself...

Reply Parent Score: 2