Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd Nov 2012 01:11 UTC, submitted by Panajev
Apple "Earlier this week Apple fired Scott Forstall, the architect of its iOS platform, and handed his duties over to the company's chief industrial designer, Jonathan Ive. Ive and Forstall had an infamously chilly working relationship, and one of their biggest disagreements was over the role of so-called 'skeuomorphic' design in Apple's products. Forstall, like his mentor Steve Jobs, favored it; Ive disliked it. To many observers, Forstall's forced exit looks like a vindication of Ive's stance. But if he wants to continue Apple's enviable trend of innovation, he'd be a fool to throw the baby of skeuomorphism out with Forstall's bathwater." Hoped for a thorough article on the benefits of skeuomorphism - got the age-old and intrinsically invalid excuse 'because it sells'. Windows isn't he best desktop operating system because it sells so well. Lady Gaga isn't the best artist because she sells a lot of records. This argument is never valid, has zero value, and adds nothing to what should be an interesting discussion.
Thread beginning with comment 541019
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by kwan_e on Mon 5th Nov 2012 08:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

I hate this argument. Three or four people on this board have tried this one on me and I still don't buy it. It's not because there is no truth to it, its because it is often used as supporting evidence for a completely different claim - that certain products are successful solely because of marketing, or that people believe certain things because they are brain washed by marketing.


You don't buy it because you've completely mischaracterized the argument into nothing but a strawman. No surprises there.

I have yet to see anyone, including speaking for myself, argue that it's SOLELY because of advertizing.

Try again, and try not to misrepresent anyone's argument as you are prone to do.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by galvanash on Tue 6th Nov 2012 04:41 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Im not terribly interested in another pointless debate with you on this. Ill just add the following:

You said this in a previous debate on this very subject:

The initial question was why Apple is so successful beyond what is normally expected. My argument that the DIFFERENCE between what is normally expected and Apple's actual success IS about marketing in one form or another.


Fine. You did not say solely - but you did imply that it is the most significant difference between Apple and it's competitors.

And I would argue that the DIFFERENCE is NOT about marketing, it is about people ultimately liking the product they get (and therefore becoming repeat customers and buying again). Over half of all iphones purchased are bought by people who have owned one before...

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but in my opinion a repeat purchase rate of over 50% over 5 generations of the same product indicates that there are other factors involved. In the case of Windows (and Apple to a degree), the repeat purchase rate can certainly be viewed as skewed by network effects and other forms of purchase pressure - there are a lot of things that effect the products success or failure, and they are not all marketing or advertising related.

Anyone saying "I bought it because I like it" are by definition repeat purchasers, as such marketing and advertising may have played a significant role in their first purchase, but attributing significant weight to it on the 2nd purchase is foolish - there are other factors that are more significant.

In other words, yes, marketing and advertising can convince people they want something they may not have wanted otherwise. Once they have it, however, if they want more or better of it and spend money to get it - well there is something else going on and pretending it is "just marketing" is silly.

Reply Parent Score: 2