Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 24th Dec 2011 13:00 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "Earlier today, Samsung revealed that it won't update the Galaxy S, its most successful smartphone to date, to the latest version of Android. You might shrug and dismiss that as just more evidence of Android's inherent fragmentation or the need for buyers to beware, but I take grave issue with it. This is a decision based not on technical constraints, as Samsung would have you believe, but on hubris." This. A gazillion million thousand times this. Also: "It's simple: make a large high-end device, a smaller value device, and a QWERTY device. Maybe one or two other specialty form factors, tops. That's it. Update them once a year, and keep the names the same." It would make updating a hell of a lot easier. We don't need the Samsung Galaxy SII Epic 4G Touch Sensation.
Thread beginning with comment 501266
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: silly advice
by unclefester on Sun 25th Dec 2011 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE: silly advice"
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Scotsman's fallacy


You don't seem to understand the Scotsman Fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

The legendary investor Sir John Templeton once said “This time is different” are among the most costly four words in market history.

Apple has not proven any business rules wrong. It has merely had a 6-8 year period of very rapid growth by choosing an extremely risky short term strategy. This is commonly known as "betting the farm" based on the practice of foolish farmers who risk everything they own on the expectation of making a huge profit.

It is utterly absurd to think that Apple, despite having the largest capitalisation of any corporation is capable of maintaining or even increasing it's current growth rate. This is something that no other corporation in history has ever achieved. Every "Top Dog" corporation in history has had a very short (typically only 1-2 years) stay at the top before having a significant decline in value.

The companies that survive the longest are invariably extremely risk averse. They are typically very heavily diversified or willing to grow slowly. Apple does neither.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: silly advice
by earksiinni on Sun 25th Dec 2011 12:10 in reply to "RE[2]: silly advice"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

I'm not qualified to assess Apple's market strategy, but I do know a Scotsman's fallacy when I see one. You've defined "much choice" in such a way that apparently excludes Apple's offerings, which is misleading for at least two reasons:

1. In absolute terms, Apple offers several configurations for its products.
2. In relative terms, you've defined choice in a way that places your own personal values above those of others. Others might not see Polo's different kinds of colors as a matter of choice at all, and in fact they may enjoy Polo for the reason that it is as restrictive (and therefore possibly exclusive) in its cut/tailoring as Apple is in its support for operating systems. Conversely, someone might value the plethora of apps available through Apple's App Store and think that Apple offers them an enormous variety of choices. Choice is all about perception.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: silly advice
by unclefester on Mon 26th Dec 2011 00:49 in reply to "RE[3]: silly advice"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Choice is all about perception.


Welcome to 1984.

Choice is a purely objective

Maybe you should get a job with the North Korean government as a propaganda advisor.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: silly advice
by brichpmr on Sun 25th Dec 2011 14:22 in reply to "RE[2]: silly advice"
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

"Scotsman's fallacy


You don't seem to understand the Scotsman Fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

The legendary investor Sir John Templeton once said “This time is different” are among the most costly four words in market history.

Apple has not proven any business rules wrong. It has merely had a 6-8 year period of very rapid growth by choosing an extremely risky short term strategy. This is commonly known as "betting the farm" based on the practice of foolish farmers who risk everything they own on the expectation of making a huge profit.

It is utterly absurd to think that Apple, despite having the largest capitalisation of any corporation is capable of maintaining or even increasing it's current growth rate. This is something that no other corporation in history has ever achieved. Every "Top Dog" corporation in history has had a very short (typically only 1-2 years) stay at the top before having a significant decline in value.

The companies that survive the longest are invariably extremely risk averse. They are typically very heavily diversified or willing to grow slowly. Apple does neither.
"


The intelligence of Apple's business strategy is confirmed by their results..an ecosystem that is coupled with an infrastructure of planning and management on multiple levels that puts most competitors to shame. Keeping in mind that most of their recent buyers are not Apple koolaid drinkers (they run PCs), their strategy seems to be wise. Most buyers are not slaves to specs or numbers on a page. It's more about the experience with the integrated hardware and software, and the support Apple provides....all of which drives positive word-of-mouth buzz...it's a very profitable business strategy, uncluttered with confusing product layers, assorted crapware/bloatware (no rooting required) like some of the competition.

Choice is really powerful, and one of Apple's greatest strengths has been their ability to carve out a differentiated market space and execute.

Edited 2011-12-25 14:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0