Oh please, it's not just the experience it's everything: the hardware, software, UI, materials, industrial design, aesthetics, and peace of mind. Apple has become a 'trustworthy' company in a marketplace of untrustworthy corporations. By that I mean, if you by an iPod/iPhone/Macbook you know beyond any doubt you will get software updates, that if a problem occurs there is a reasonably easy way to fix it, that the materials and hardware (this includes the case and hinges) will be superior to what else is available. Why would someone by a Creative mp3 player or Archos when there is no guarantee the company will stay in business or that the company will ever bother updating the software. Samsung is in the business of selling phones, not building a software platform. So again, why would I buy a phone that costs as much or more for as an iPhone but may never again be updating?
Think about it, how many different types of laptops does Dell of HP or Toshiba sell? It's absurd. It's like the difference between the GM when there was Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, and Saturn. There were just too many overlapping products that confused their customers. They (GM, Dell, HP, et al) spread themselves too thin. Look at who ended up doing well: those companies who narrowed their product scope down: BMW, Honda, Acura, Scion. Maybe companies need to think about staying ahead of Apple instead of just playing catch up.
Apple isn't just selling an experience, it's selling security and peace of mind.
> Why would someone by [sic] a <company> or <company> mp3
> player when there is no guarantee the company will stay
> in business
So Apple is the only company that is guaranteed to say in business? Then why don't more people buy Microsoft mp3 players?
If we assume your claim that Apple is guaranteed to stay in business, then we also have to accept the possibility that Apple being the dominant player in the mp3 player is what is driving the other companies out of business. In other words, the fact that people are buying Apple mp3 players instead of other brands is the only reason that Apple is guaranteed to be in business while the other companies (according to you) could go under at any moment. This seems like a feedback cycle to me, and this probably has less to do with the quality of Apple products than it does with feedback cycle itself.
tl;dr If Apple is 'guaranteed' to stay in business while others could fail at any moment, then it has more to do with a feedback cycle of people buying Apple products than it does with the quality of Apple products.
You're also not realizing that (as far as the iPhone is concerned), most people get new phones every 2 years (in the US at least) because they just pay the subsidized price when they sign a new contract.
No, you're focusing on a tiny segment of what he said. There's a host of factors that go into the trust, a big one of which Apple has a tendency to keep its products updated and polished up vs. a lot of other manufacturers. When you buy a mac, you're relatively certain that they're not going to leave you out to dry just to make a quick sale.
One notable exception recently (though it may have technical reasons) is the old Apple TV not getting Netflix where the new one did. People expected better of Apple, and thus complained bitterly.
EDIT: He also mentions that the other manufacturers offer an overwhelming number of barely-differentiated products, which you have to read about in-depth in order to decide what's really right for you. Paralysis of choice is a very bad thing for a lot of people, especially for non-experts.
> Paralysis of choice is a very bad thing for a lot of people, especially for non-experts.
It's paralyzing for experts, too. The fact that I can properly evaluate the options makes it incredibly hard to actually decide. It's much easier when I can get by with ignorance.
Heh that's a really good point, actually - experts have to weigh a much larger number of factors that most people aren't aware of.
I'm the sort that cares about making the right choice the first time with expensive stuff, though, so when it comes to a field I know nothing about, I generally need to become knowledgeable in it first before I'll make a decision. Simpler when there's a more limited range of choices and they're all pretty good.
No, but with the iPhone for example is that I with an 3G still was able to get the latest version 4.2.1 for my phone, it is not until 4.3 comes out in the near future that I will no longer be running the latest iOS.
The iPhone 3G was released in July of 2008, I will have gotten software updates with new features, bug fixes and other stuff for almost 3 years. Owners of Samsung Android phones are not getting the latest and greatest (not yet at least).
Also, Microsoft has shot themselves in the foot multiple times. Plays-for-Sure and some of their other music initiatives have not been compatible with each other, especially the Zune. Why would I go with Microsoft if within the next couple of years that I own the device they could suddenly close down a music store or deprecate a certain music format thereby making my device instantly unusable. Apple has proven since the first iPod came out that if I purchase music on the iTunes store that I will be able to listen to it on any Apple device I own for years to come. That stability is important to a consumer.
Didn't 4.0 and .1 render your phone nearly useless? Even on .2 I've seen measurements of some things being faster and others slower, not to mention weird cargo cult advice to switch certain things off and delete caches or some such.
When you also consider that basically none of the features of iOS 4 made it to the 3G, I think it's a pretty poor example.
They know that they can't get the game they want because their phone isn't "new enough", when the game just depends on the Android 2.3 gaming improvements and could easily run on their hardware.
...it's not just the experience it's everything: the hardware, software, UI, materials, industrial design, aesthetics...
This. Try and think of one other computer company that has/takes/enforces that much control on every aspect of their product. Sure, some companies make decent high-quality hardware, and some companies make okay software. But what sets Apple apart is the quality/attention to detail that goes into every aspect of the product.
Each product is designed as an cohesive package, that "just works" out of the box. If you want to hack that product, it's your prerogative, but don't complain that it's not as easy to accomplish.
Disclaimer: We are a Mac software company. We consider hack-ability important, it's just not what Apple is selling.
> Think about it, how many different types of laptops does Dell of HP or Toshiba sell? It's absurd. It's like the difference between the GM when there was Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, and Saturn. There were just too many overlapping products that confused their customers. They (GM, Dell, HP, et al) spread themselves too thin. Look at who ended up doing well: those companies who narrowed their product scope down: BMW, Honda, Acura, Scion. Maybe companies need to think about staying ahead of Apple instead of just playing catch up.
Given that Apple's computer business has largely fallen by the wayside and still has only fractional sales of Dell, I fail to see your point. Laptop sales go: Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba, Apple.
Instead of looking are sheer quantity look at consumer satisfaction of said purchase.
My sister for example bought a Toshiba laptop, and it has failed (the mousepad), everything else worked fine) three times now and has had to be serviced three times, and during those times it was gone for a month at a time. Whereas with Apple she could have taken it to an Apple store and if they had the part in stock had a replacement same day, if they don't have it on stock she could have used an external mouse until they called her and she could get it replaced same day.
Customers are much more satisfied with their Apple products than with products from Dell, HP (don't get me started on their shitty hinge design ...), Acer, or Toshiba.
Everything you just mentioned can be summed up by the word experience. The customer experience Apple delivers is the sum of all of the different ways that we interact with the company's products, from hearing about them, shopping using and disposing.
Marketing sums all this up in the oft-misued word 'Brand', which is the sum of the experiences we have with a product or company.
Think about it, how many different types of laptops does Dell of HP or Toshiba sell? It's absurd. It's like the difference between the GM when there was Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, and Saturn. There were just too many overlapping products that confused their customers. They (GM, Dell, HP, et al) spread themselves too thin. Look at who ended up doing well: those companies who narrowed their product scope down: BMW, Honda, Acura, Scion. Maybe companies need to think about staying ahead of Apple instead of just playing catch up.
Apple isn't just selling an experience, it's selling security and peace of mind.