[Sigia-l] Apple's success [was: Design(ers)]

[Manu Sharma]

>> That's an external factor and completely independent of the "end-to-end 
>> design
>> process" you refer to. "The iPod phenomenon" would have turned into "the 
>> iPod
>> fad" within six months had the market not been so big.

Ziya:

> That's precisely the point. The iPod is not a gadget as most of its
> competitors/pundits perceive it. It's a solution/system/experience.

I don't disagree there. It's an ensemble of solutions to some important 
problems (to consumers). Which explains its popularity and mass adoption.

> Now, any design aspect of the iPod/iTunes/iTMS system has to consider the
> slowly unveiling broader market proposition. The circular interface and 
> the
> nested menu selection paradigm has to handle not just music, but 
> audiobooks,
> podcasts, documents [...] broader markets.

You're talking about user / market needs and the value proposition the iPod 
offers. I'm talking about the size of the market. These are two different 
things.

> This doesn't happen "unintentionally" at Apple; it's specifically 
> DESIGNED.

No, it doesn't happen on its own but it's not "designed" either. You design 
solutions, you do not design size. You identify a market, decide whether to 
enter it not, try to understand its needs, needs of its consumers and design 
to address them. But you have no say over how big the ultimate market 
potential is. You can only try to tap into it as much as possible. But it's 
a exhaustible matter set to expire after a period. Markets are either 
captured or lost, rarely designed.

Market size determines other strategic decisions such as, how many units to 
produce, how many and which subcontractors to employ, how much bargaining 
leverage can be utilized from vendors for products raw materials and 
therefore how much of that can be reflected in pricing and so on. Design, 
strategic or otherwise doesn't have anything to do with the size of the 
market.

> I think what Wall Street sees in AAPL is the slow, deliberate and 
> carefully
> thought-out design strategy as a digital distribution network with a huge
> growth potential in all sorts of markets.

There are several different factors that go into making a company stock 
successful on Wall Street. Yet another reason behind Apple's success is the 
mass movement of consumers from analogue to digital music. A different 
market force - Napster and peer to peer sharing is responsible for it more 
than any of Apple's innovations.

And as Scott said, iPod still isn't the largest contributor to Apple's 
revenues. So if you're arguing that iPod is the only contributor to its 
recent success, you are completely discounting the potential of Apple's 
growth in the computer business and its innovations there.

> What I am referring to is this DESIGN STRATEGY.

I agree that the design strategy has led to iPod's success. But the 
contention that iPod-as-product/system/experience (independent of its 
market) is the only factor behind rise of Apple's stock simply isn't true.

Manu.