[adamnash]

Apple seems to have proved your point, but they seem exceptional in that respect. Typical reasons are that the broader you make the audience, the more you have to dial down exceptional features for cost, scale and broad appeal.

[gbhn]

One of the key things I feel like I learn from Steve Jobs is that while he may have been niche-focused at one time, he seems to me to have either intuited, or rapidly learned, that actually there's a very broad audience that values high-quality products. It's easy to forget that the "cheaper is better" pessimistic view of consumers is very strong, and that can become very cynical in a product company.

Deciding to trust the good judgment of your customers and put faith in your ability to appeal to their sense of value, rather than simply their cost-watching ability, is a brave and bold move. I think it is awesome that it turns out to pay off.

[sethg]

His genius move was turning Apple’s engineering talent to making sub-$1000 products that were not personal computers and therefore had profit margins comparable to the Mac’s.

PC manufacturers went with the strategy of “we used to be able to sell a machine with these features for $1000, and now that components are cheaper, we can sell it for $800”... and then they got into a price war that destroyed one another’s margins.

[philwelch]

It helps when you have a product like iPod with enough universal appeal and innovation that you can quickly come to dominate the market and then use that purchasing power to drive down costs from suppliers.