Actually, the BMW comparrison is a little off.
BMW DID have other holdings and businesses (airplanes, heavy equipment, etc). That sorta got scrapped when the Germans lost WWII and they were forbidden from continuing in those areas. They were relegated to "just" making cars. Now, the company is looking earnestly for other business opportunities because they know that they are a niche company and need to do more than just sell cars to survive.
Appletalk shortcomings: I was referring to the basic performance shortcomings. Yes, NetBUI had shortcomings as well. That's not the point... NetBUI never dominated either. By bringing up the issue with Appletalk, I meant to demonstrate that Apple had the vision to recognize the importance of internetworking to include protocols and ports in their machines and code from the very begining. The problem is that they lost the opportunity to capitalize on that vision and continue to push for more stability and faster throughput throughout the life of the Mac. They had the money. They had the vision. And they eventually let Novell take over the market. Clear demonstration of market failure.
I'd disagree with your assertion that Apple always wanted to be a small, niche company. They saw the success of the Apple II and wanted to break the market open further with a new product that would be the computer for everyone. That's why they developed the Mac. They really did want to be a big company (when your stated goal is to be able to let everyone use your product, you are definately trying to be a BIG company), but they couldn't pull it off.
Russ wrote:
Quote:
| "Marketing" has little or nothing to do with it. "Marketing" is what gets an IT manager at a given company to switch from Compaq to Dell or from Gateway to IBM. But marketing is NOT what's going to switch a company from one platform to another. That can only happen if the morons with the purse strings think it will be cheaper in the SHORT TERM to do so, and it almost never is. |
Actually, if Apple had pushed and marketed their products appropriately to businesses in the mid to late 1980s, that would not be true. As it is today, you are correct.. the decisions are basically which PC vendor to go with. That's only because Apple has already lost the war and will likely continue to be just a niche company.
RE: the Mac ad during the SuperBowl... a classic example of Apple's woefull marketing. They spent HUGE sums of the available marketing budget on an ad that consciously and purposefully ridiculed corporate customers/users. Gee, I wonder why no Fortune 500 companies decided to switch over to using Apple products!
Those decisions affect the consumer market as well. If your work computer is a PC, there's a lot of pressure to buy a PC for home. Why should people have to learn two different operating systems? And, since most people use PCs at work, you can see how that might affect the buying decision of ordinary folks. Example: "I'd like to get that Mac for our home! It looks totally cool. But, we should get a PC for little Johnnie. I mean, we want him to be successfull. When he goes to get a job, are there any businesses that use Macs? It's going to be more helpful for him to have experience with a PC." Do you really believe this was a good marketing decision???
Bruce wrote
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no other way to look at what happened at Apple other than as a HUGE opportunity lost and huge marketing failure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ wrote:
The fact that so many people do look at it differently proves your statement false.
Actually, that proves nothing except that many people disagree. Large numbers of people used to believe that the earth was flat. They weren't right either despite their large numbers of believers.
I won't say that Apple totally failed (as in, they went out of business). They are still a niche company that has some very fanatical followers (by fanatical, read: can't or won't accept that Apple has ever messed up). They still have some very good products. But I WILL say that Apple failed to meet it's promise. I WILL say that Apple could right now have a very large chunk of the available PC market pie if they had made some different business decisions.
Here's the basic issue... the unifying theory that divides our perceptions.
You seem to believe that Apple is a hardware company first and software company second. So does Apple.
Apple REALLY is (and should be) a software company.
All the other arguments go away once you get down to this simple truth. The reason that Wintel is dominant despite having inferior products is that MS wanted to be a software company first. They let the hardware vendors get caught up in the price wars that chase hardware profits in an endless downward spiral.
Apple has failed to live up to it's promise because they clung (and still cling) to the idea that they were a hardware company that also made software.
I'll use your "history lesson" as an example: Word and Excel. The rest of the world was using text based software that was clearly inferior. Yes, I DO remember using Visicalc! How then did Apple NOT take advantage of this clear superiority of it's hardware and software in fundamental business applications? Clear example of market failure.
GUI: how did Apple NOT take advantage of this clear superiority in the basic operations of a personal computer? They let MS take over despite having a better product. In fact, it's more than that. MS didn't just pop up one day with a decent gui and start taking over the market. They had a TERRIBLE gui in their first several releases of Windows that took place over years. Apple's response? Let's SUE Microsoft for making a similar looking but poor example of our product. Do you REALLY think this was a good business decision? REALLY?!?! It's especially galling when you realize that Apple, ummm, acquired their GUI look and feel from an earlier Xerox PARC project!
Another clear example of a market and business failure.
There are a plethora of Apple software apps that did not get the support that they needed because Apple was confused about what it wanted to be. I'll also disagree with your assessment that Clarisworks (and Appleworks before it) were not aimed at competing with office products. They were THE standard, then MS took over and eventually did it better. Clear example of market failure.
What REALLY made the Mac a superior product? Was it because Apple used the best possible hardware? No. The reason Apple was successful with the Mac was because of the software that controlled the hardware. Yes, they used good hardware on their machines. But that's not the compelling reason most people use to buy a computer (there are exceptions that proove this rule... e.g., military). Most people buy a computer (or any other tool) because it can do things for you easier than could be done without one. If Apple had opened up the hardware and focused on the software, they would have dominated the personal computing market. It wouldn't matter that the "Taiwanese vendors" would be pushing low cost hardware onto the US market. That would have actually HELPED Apple in the same way it helped Microsoft and hurt companies like Gateway and Micron.
Bruce
