[coder543]

> As has been said elsewhere

Elsewhere... as in the comment that I replied to? Which you then replied to me?

I was literally in agreement with the "elsewhere" that you're referring to. Your comments are confusing to me. Storage capacity was not the thing that made iPod successful, even though the anecdote at the top of this thread is trying to make that argument. There were a number of other factors that were more important. That's what I said and that's what the "elsewhere" also appears to have said. That's exactly what you just said too, so you're literally agreeing with me, but you want to argue for some reason.

Still, "Apple" was a much better brand than {someone no one has ever heard of}, which matters for something like the Personal Jukebox.

[seymourhersh]

> "Apple" was a much better brand than {someone no one has ever heard of}.

This is of course true, but not relevant.

The personal jukebox was a junk product. Nobody would seriously imagine that the reason it didn’t win against the iPod was the brand.

Now imagine it the other way around - if apple had released the jukebox, and ‘remote solution’ had released the iPod.

Startups with no brand succeed all the time, if they have a great product.

[coder543]

> Now imagine it the other way around - if apple had released the jukebox, and ‘remote solution’ had released the iPod.

They probably would have both failed, in that case. Apple for delivering a product that wasn't good enough, and Personal Solutions for having no brand recognition and no retail partnerships/network.

> Startups with no brand succeed all the time, if they have a great product.

Launching a physical product back then wasn't as easy as launching a Kickstarter and eventually transitioning to an Amazon listing. Just having a good product didn't mean you knew how to get it into the hands of customers. Things are much easier these days, and even so... lots of good products still fail to reach market for reasons that have nothing to do with the product itself.