Quality vs Privacy vs Price: Pick Your Poison
In a recent article by Gregg Keizer, a blogger for Computerworld, there was a discussion about why apple needs a $700 MacBook Air. The idea behind this is that several of Apple's competitors have already taken this step, therefore, to maintain it's profits the company should look to sell cheaper models. Although this would not necessarily be a "dumb move" on the company's part, I do not feel like it would be a necessary one. Every company, especially the top competitors in the technology sector, has their benefits, competitive strategies, and trade-offs.
For as long as Macintosh (formerly McIntosh - like the apple) and Microsoft computers have existed, it has been a constant battle about which machines and devices are superior. Both Apple and Microsoft, since their start in the 1970's to 1980's, have been forerunners for the industry for hardware and operating systems, and overall leaders in innovation and technology. Both companies have continued to expand from personal computers, to operating systems, to COTS products, to tablets and smart phones.
Now, in recent discussion, with the increase of human dependency on mobile devices, the argument has become #TeamAndroid vs #TeamiPhone. Realistically speaking, when considering the technology sector, specifically the computer hardware industry, there are several competitors: Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Intel, Samsung, Nokia, Google, BlackBerry, Motorola...you get the point. Since I'm sure most of my readers probably think that a few of the companies I listed aren't even worth any mention, let's just focus on the top three: Apple, Google, and Microsoft. For purposes of discussion, these companies were selected as the top three because they currently have the highest market cap in the computer hardware industry. There are also other things to consider such as revenue and net income, but that's a whole separate ball game.
Apple focuses heavily on product differentiation. They are precursors: innovators of the technology world (allegedly). They offer a small number of products in comparison to other companies in the technology sector. They focus on producing a high end, high quality finished products, therefore there is this favorable bias that Apple products are far more superior than it's competitors (aka the "halo effect"). Although all this sounds great, the trade off is price. When dealing with Apple hardware, it is likely that you will pay far more for the product than you would for the same product made by a different company. Apple generally focuses heavily on increasing profits. Therefore, regardless of who is doing what and where with their company's products, Apple will always be looking to take all your pennies, your mom's pennies, and keep going down the line until they have your entire family's bank roll.
Google tends to use a broad differentiation strategy. Are you tired of new Android phones coming out every other week? Too bad, because this is part of Google's competitive edge. A broad differentiation strategy means that the company produces products that will appeal to a broad range of consumers. It would be hard to say (unless you've owned every single Android phone) that there is not a single Android phone that you like. Additionally, Google provides a broad range of complementary products and tools (Gmail, Drive, Maps, YouTube, Calendar, etc.) that are generally available for all consumers, even non-Android users. By doing this, Google is increasing the use of their products and therefore increasing brand awareness. The downside is that you will get a lot of ads. A LOT. This is because Google does not necessarily make tons of money off it's products, but more so off the data it gathers from AdWords and AdSense. They want to know so much about you, that you begin to see personalized ads (I am a victim of this BTW).
Microsoft relies a lot on technical integration between it's operating systems and applications. Microsoft has released several products and solutions that are generally easy to use with other Microsoft products and solutions. One widely used example is Microsoft SharePoint and the .NET language. I personally cannot speak on how easy or difficult it would be to custom develop a Microsoft SharePoint website using a different platform, but I could imagine that there are features built into Microsoft's product line that make it easier than other platforms. Additionally, Microsoft (before Windows 8, anyway) leveraged trust from users with familiarity and ease of use. People tend to buy products that they are familiar with, thus Windows 95 users and Windows 98 users were more included to use the (now) oh, so stable Windows XP. Additionally, Microsoft generally has lower prices than it's competitors, and a wider range of PCs. More recently, Windows users have seen an overall decline in product support and ease of use because for some reason they think they need to be "hip" and "modern". Not to mention, the overall security of Microsoft products have declined since it is so widely used.
With all that said, we are pretty much left with three things to consider: the over priced superior quality of Apple; the moderate cost, "Peeping Tom", variety of Google products, and the low cost, trustworthy, unprotected services of Microsoft.
One common cliche is "you get what you pay for". Another is "less is more". Then there's my new favorite, "More is better than less because if there's more less stuff, then you might want to have some more. But then, your parents won't let you because there's only a little. If you really like something you'll want more of it. We want more! We want more! Like, you really like it, you want more!" (Thanks AT&T).
So depending on how you look at it, each company is unique in some sort of way. Part of Apple being unique is that they are the Louis Vuitton of the technology sector. They create top of the line, luxury hardware (allegedly), and the whole world knows it. For years, Apple has gotten away with stabilizing their sky high prices. People that want it will continue pay for it, people that don't think it's worth it, won't. Someone that wants an array of reasonably priced flexible products, with tons of features, and little care or concern about the stalkerware, will likely have more of an appreciation for Google. A consumer that doesn't necessarily like change or flexibility, and wants to deal with the same old crap, is probably Microsoft all the way.
There is no right or wrong, or better or worse considering that each company, though they share a market or sector, do not necessarily share the same consumer group. Besides, it would be difficult for a company to create high-end, low cost, adware free products and still remain profitable. But I guess we shall see.
For as long as Macintosh (formerly McIntosh - like the apple) and Microsoft computers have existed, it has been a constant battle about which machines and devices are superior. Both Apple and Microsoft, since their start in the 1970's to 1980's, have been forerunners for the industry for hardware and operating systems, and overall leaders in innovation and technology. Both companies have continued to expand from personal computers, to operating systems, to COTS products, to tablets and smart phones.
Now, in recent discussion, with the increase of human dependency on mobile devices, the argument has become #TeamAndroid vs #TeamiPhone. Realistically speaking, when considering the technology sector, specifically the computer hardware industry, there are several competitors: Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Intel, Samsung, Nokia, Google, BlackBerry, Motorola...you get the point. Since I'm sure most of my readers probably think that a few of the companies I listed aren't even worth any mention, let's just focus on the top three: Apple, Google, and Microsoft. For purposes of discussion, these companies were selected as the top three because they currently have the highest market cap in the computer hardware industry. There are also other things to consider such as revenue and net income, but that's a whole separate ball game.
Apple focuses heavily on product differentiation. They are precursors: innovators of the technology world (allegedly). They offer a small number of products in comparison to other companies in the technology sector. They focus on producing a high end, high quality finished products, therefore there is this favorable bias that Apple products are far more superior than it's competitors (aka the "halo effect"). Although all this sounds great, the trade off is price. When dealing with Apple hardware, it is likely that you will pay far more for the product than you would for the same product made by a different company. Apple generally focuses heavily on increasing profits. Therefore, regardless of who is doing what and where with their company's products, Apple will always be looking to take all your pennies, your mom's pennies, and keep going down the line until they have your entire family's bank roll.
Google tends to use a broad differentiation strategy. Are you tired of new Android phones coming out every other week? Too bad, because this is part of Google's competitive edge. A broad differentiation strategy means that the company produces products that will appeal to a broad range of consumers. It would be hard to say (unless you've owned every single Android phone) that there is not a single Android phone that you like. Additionally, Google provides a broad range of complementary products and tools (Gmail, Drive, Maps, YouTube, Calendar, etc.) that are generally available for all consumers, even non-Android users. By doing this, Google is increasing the use of their products and therefore increasing brand awareness. The downside is that you will get a lot of ads. A LOT. This is because Google does not necessarily make tons of money off it's products, but more so off the data it gathers from AdWords and AdSense. They want to know so much about you, that you begin to see personalized ads (I am a victim of this BTW).
Microsoft relies a lot on technical integration between it's operating systems and applications. Microsoft has released several products and solutions that are generally easy to use with other Microsoft products and solutions. One widely used example is Microsoft SharePoint and the .NET language. I personally cannot speak on how easy or difficult it would be to custom develop a Microsoft SharePoint website using a different platform, but I could imagine that there are features built into Microsoft's product line that make it easier than other platforms. Additionally, Microsoft (before Windows 8, anyway) leveraged trust from users with familiarity and ease of use. People tend to buy products that they are familiar with, thus Windows 95 users and Windows 98 users were more included to use the (now) oh, so stable Windows XP. Additionally, Microsoft generally has lower prices than it's competitors, and a wider range of PCs. More recently, Windows users have seen an overall decline in product support and ease of use because for some reason they think they need to be "hip" and "modern". Not to mention, the overall security of Microsoft products have declined since it is so widely used.
With all that said, we are pretty much left with three things to consider: the over priced superior quality of Apple; the moderate cost, "Peeping Tom", variety of Google products, and the low cost, trustworthy, unprotected services of Microsoft.
One common cliche is "you get what you pay for". Another is "less is more". Then there's my new favorite, "More is better than less because if there's more less stuff, then you might want to have some more. But then, your parents won't let you because there's only a little. If you really like something you'll want more of it. We want more! We want more! Like, you really like it, you want more!" (Thanks AT&T).
So depending on how you look at it, each company is unique in some sort of way. Part of Apple being unique is that they are the Louis Vuitton of the technology sector. They create top of the line, luxury hardware (allegedly), and the whole world knows it. For years, Apple has gotten away with stabilizing their sky high prices. People that want it will continue pay for it, people that don't think it's worth it, won't. Someone that wants an array of reasonably priced flexible products, with tons of features, and little care or concern about the stalkerware, will likely have more of an appreciation for Google. A consumer that doesn't necessarily like change or flexibility, and wants to deal with the same old crap, is probably Microsoft all the way.
There is no right or wrong, or better or worse considering that each company, though they share a market or sector, do not necessarily share the same consumer group. Besides, it would be difficult for a company to create high-end, low cost, adware free products and still remain profitable. But I guess we shall see.
Comments
Post a Comment