Explaining Away Apple’s Success

• via ★:

John Kirk, writing at Techpinions in response to John Naughton’s the-headline-alone-tells-you-just-how-craptacular-it-is column for The Guardian, “If Steve Jobs’s Death Didn’t Ruin Apple, the iCar Surely Will”:

The author has — as so many have before him — reversed cause and effect. People didn’t buy Apple products because they revered Steve Jobs. They revered Steve Jobs because he created products that people wanted to buy. Similarly, people don’t buy Apple products because they like Apple. They buy Apple products because Apple makes products they like.

Along similar lines, here’s a phrasing/line of argument I’ve been noticing a lot recently: “For now, Apple is doing well…”, employed by writers and pundits who seem to remain convinced that Apple is never more than a misstep or two away from collapse.

The Best Way To Convince A Fool That He Is Wrong Is To Let Him Have His Own Way ( Josh Billings ) || Samsung Schadenfreude And The Fall Of The Church Of Market Share by John Kirk

via theLoop

Samsung Schadenfreude And The Fall Of The Church Of Market Share:

…


Pundits have predicted, correctly, that hardware would inevitably become commoditized. This, they proclaimed with confidence, would cause Apple’s prices to fall while Samsung, with its good-enough and better-than-good-enough hardware and its lower prices, would usurp Apple’s market share, relegating Apple to niche status. Ironically, commoditization DOES apply to Samsung — the favorite of the Priests of Market Share — but it DOES NOT apply to their favorite whipping boy, Apple. Why? Differentiation.


…