|
|
|
|
|
|
by simbolit
957 days ago
|
|
|
> they don't have billions in pocket change they don't know how to spend otherwise your parent comment's example is literally Google, world-class experts at burning money on developers producing a million dead-end products and abandoning them a year later. if Google would get some sensible leadership, focus on a few core products, and stick with them for a decade, they'd have just as much money to spend. But "focus" and "Google" seem to have become opposites. My point: the 'winning formula' of Apple is laser-sharp focus: have a few products, do them as well as anyone else or better, and only introduce a new product if it is mature-ish and very profitable. (We'll see how the vision headset fits in here) |
|
|
They also aimed at markets that are ripe for disruption, because of weak competition: The MP3 player market before the iPod, the PDA-with-a-SIM-card market before the iPhone, etc. pp. all could be reasonably disrupted by just delivering a reasonably (but not even best-in-class, specs wise) product with better UX (not hard, in the cases mentioned) and massive marketing. You can't do that in a heavily competitive market that's already full of these products. VR headsets are probably closer to the "ripe for disruption" end of the spectrum, and I think the Vision will probably do well. But I doubt the "Apple Car" plans that have been floating around for 10 years now will ever lead to anything.