Hello, you may now embed "gifv" simply by pasting the link (same as youtube). Enjoy!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
"The Business of New Technology" OR "Selling Icemachines to Eskimos"
IN an attempt not to drag down other threads, I thought it might be worthwhile to create a separate thread to discuss how technology producing companies market their wares in a society where tech and gadget products are being increasingly mainstream, at a rate seemingly faster than the mainstream understanding of these products appears to be increasing.
The discussion is going to be starting off with Apple, simply because that is the company I am attempting not to derail a different thread with, but feel free to discuss any company in here, and what you think is positive, or negative, or just plain interesting about their business strategies, be they marketing to the niche group who understands them, or the big wide group who has no idea what they do, but know that they want one.
People aren't ignoring your arguments, they're disagreeing with your fundamental assertions. Your claim is that Apple's branding has created a bubble, our counter-claim is that Apple's consistent user experience and style has created a value that goes beyond technical specifications, and that the reason competing products stuff more tech (like 4G) and bigger numbers (like 8 megapixels) into their products is an attempt to bridge the gap in value that Apple creates between their products and every other product on the market.
Exactly. You AREN'T reading my posts, because I'm NOT harping on technical specifications.
I'm an economist, not a computer engineer.
My point is that the value adds that you are talking about Apple creating simply don't track with the same percentages of the population in other markets. I am NOT saying that there is no value in aesthetics or experience, what I am saying is that the portion of most markets that is willing to pay a premium for them is not as large as the following that Apple seems to have built.
You're an economist by trade, Evander? That's interesting.
Your point seems to be changing by the minute. Is it that Apple's business model sucks? Is it that their marketing sucks? Is it that their products are overpriced? Is it that their business model doesn't suck, but isn't infinitely sustainable? Pick an argument so we can have a rational conversation about it.
My point isn't changing, the points I'm being "attacked" on are.
My point is simply that Apple's current business model isn't sustainable. It isn't that the model "sucks" (or that Apple or any of their products "suck"), and it isn't that Apple is doomed to fail (changing a business model isn't the easiest thing in the world for a larger corporation, but it is still incredibly possible.) It is simply that Apple cannot continue to do exactly as they are doing forever, and if they want to maintain a larger marketshare at that point of unsustainability (as opposed to going back to being a niche product manufacturer) then they will have to make drastic changes to the way that they do things at that point.
edit: just so that I don't appear to be misrepresenting myself, I am an economist by training, but my job experience itself has trended more towards cost accounting and regulatory compliance matters, not that I don't have experience working in economic analysis, I just don't want folks to think I'm claiming to be an expert of all economics ever, my point was more about my utter lack of knowledge when it comes to technical specifications (that is to say, I am a tech hobbyist, not a tech professional.)