设计质量和客户满意度作为可持续优势

Ben Thompson一直在考虑这件作品,“克莱顿克里斯滕森在低端破坏理论中的错误“,自从他两周前发表以来。

The business buyer, famously, does not care about the user experienceThey are not the user, and so items that change how a product feels or that eliminate small annoyances simply don’t make it into their rational decision making process.

Again, though, Christensen’s research is tilted towards business buyers至关重要的是,这包括PCFor the most of its history, the vast majority of PC purchasers have been businesses, who have bought PCs on speeds, feeds, and ultimately, price[...]

The attribute most valued by consumers, assuming a product is at least in the general vicinity of a need, is ease-of-useIt’s not the only one — again, doing a job-that-needs-done is most important — but all things being equal, consumers prefer a superior user experience.

What is interesting about this attribute is that it is impossible to overshoot.

从某种意义上说,有两个理性的Apple熊论点首先,苹果能否创造出卓越的产品和体验并不重要 - 低端竞争对手最终会达到“足够好”的地步,这将破坏苹果公司的业务我认为汤普森在这篇文章中提出了一个很好的论据,即这种逻辑与消费市场无关,尤其是时尚,风格和设计是重要属性的市场。手机一直以来都是时尚和设计。

汽车行业的比喻一直被用于关于苹果的争论中,但我认为这是因为从广义上说它很适合汽车是一个有着百年历史的老牌市场有一段时期的低端克莱顿克里斯滕森风格的破坏 - 日本70年代和80年代的进口以及福特,通用汽车和克莱斯勒集体市场主导地位的相应崩溃就是一个很好的例子但无可否认的是,宝马,梅赛德斯 - 奔驰和保时捷等公司都有可持续盈利的高端市场。指出这一点,有人会不可避免地争辩说,这些公司正在蓬勃发展,但它们都占有很小的市场份额但苹果有点像宝马,梅赛德斯,保时捷和雷克萨斯都融为一体手机和平板电脑市场的这一部分竞争对手并不多,而且大多数都不是很好。

汤普森真的把这个说得好:

The issue I have with this analysis of vertical integration — and this is exactly what I was taught at business school — is that the only considered costs are financialBut there are other, more difficult to quantify costsModularization incurs costs in the design and experience of using products that cannot be overcome, yet cannot be measuredBusiness buyers — and the analysts who study them — simply ignore them, but consumers don’tSome consumers inherently know and value quality, look-and-feel, and attention to detail, and are willing to pay a premium that far exceeds the financial costs of being vertically integrated.

你如何量化

Apple的第二个争论来自那些认为Apple的人已经输了its design and experience advantage — that devices from Samsung, Amazon, Google and whoever else have already equalled or surpassed Apple’s, and at lower prices to boot对于这些批评者来说,在第一个周末购买新iPhone的九百万人还没有醒过来Me? I think this second group is wrong about the state of Apple’s design advantages(令人震惊,对吗?)但我认为他们对苹果的战略需求是正确的苹果能够继续取得成功的唯一方式就是他们在过去30年中取得成功的方式:为竞争对手提供卓越的产品和经验。

因此,正如我所看到的,第一批Apple熊对于设计质量是否能在手机和平​​板电脑市场创造可持续优势是错误的关于Apple的产品在设计上是否优于其竞争对手的产品,第二组是错误的这些是非常不同的论点,并且在很大程度上相互矛盾但从广义上讲,很多人都倾向于以消极的眼光看待苹果公司的前景 - 那些人,在Horace Dediu的恰当描述中, view Apple “as a company that is in a perpetual state of free-fall” — lump these two divergent schools of Apple bearism together under the loose umbrella argument that Samsung, LG, et al are going to be the death of the iPhone and iPad任何Android设备的重要市场份额 - 被这些观察者看作 - 都证明了苹果公司的任何一个或两个学校的熊市。


还有第三所苹果熊学校,其理念可能是最好的,而且几乎可以肯定是亨利·布洛杰特最常提到的这所学校或多或少地认为,虽然设计质量可能会带来可持续的优势一些字段,它不适用于软件平台一旦一个软件平台占据了绝大多数的市场份额,开发人员将不可避免地涌向该平台,无论是技术上还是美学上的劣势,仅基于市场份额即BMW can thrive because its cars consume the same gas and drive on the same roads as every other car on the road, but the iPhone will inevitably shrivel as developers abandon it for Android.

用他自己的话说,就在上个月,这是Blodget,“苹果正在短视 - 这可能是Clobber公司“:

If smartphones and tablets were not a platform — if the only thing that mattered to the value of the product and a customer’s purchase decision was the gadget itself — then Apple’s loss of market share would not make a differenceApple zealots would be correct when they smugly assert that what matters is Apple’s “profit share” not “market share.”

但智能手机和平板电脑是一个平台。

Third-party companies are building apps and services to run on smartphone and tablet platforms.

These apps and services, in turn, are making the platforms more valuable.

Consumers are standardizing their lives around the apps and services that run on smartphone and tablet platforms.

Because of these “network effects,” in platform markets, dominant market share is huge competitive advantage.

In platform markets, as the often-hated but always insanely powerful Microsoft demonstrated for decades in the PC market, the vast majority of the power and profits eventually accrue to the market-share leader.

Put another way, this third strain of Apple bear subscribes to the theory that iOS is the new Mac, Android is the new Windows, and Apple is about to see the 1990s all over again.

我同意Blodget的一个方面:Mac及其长达数十年的针对Windows和商用PC行业的竞争,作为一个有用的例子但我不同意Mac的证明。

我在Mac上看到的是一个平台,其最黑暗的时间不是少数族裔市场份额的结果,而是与竞争对手失去设计和技术领先地位相吻合低市场份额是Mac问题的影响,而不是原因在90年代,Apple的硬件和软件都枯萎了在美学上,Macs只是看起来更好看的米色盒子,以更加混乱的产品矩阵销售(看起来没有比维基百科在Performas上的条目)苹果一直在努力与英特尔的x86芯片实现CPU平衡在软件方面,Mac OS老化,Apple对下一代操作系统的尝试都以严重失败告终,然后是Windows 95。

他们的硬件不性感,速度慢,而且容易混淆他们的操作系统在技术上是不足的(还记得“合作多任务处理”吗?)并且只是在Windows 95旁边看起来很旧简而言之,Apple的设计全力以赴。

然而,他们的市场份额很好 - 1993年达到了12%的峰值,而在接下来的黑暗岁月(美国)达到了10%左右。

乔布斯回归六年后,他的NeXT同胞控制了公司的执行官队,事情看起来不同With hardware ranging from colorful iMacs to the Titanium PowerBook G4, with a successful transition to the technically and aesthetically modern Mac OS X well underway (embraced by users and developers alike), only the die-hard Apple bear fringe continued to see the Mac (or Apple itself) as doomed.

2003年Mac市场份额下降至2.3%- 远低于1996年,当时苹果处于破产的边缘。

Mac平台的恢复与Mac的市场份额呈负相关最接近破产苹果的单一决定就是那个许可Mac OS到硬件克隆- 为了增加市场份额而决定增加市场份额的决定在整个历史中,Mac的成功是什么?与之相关的是其设计品质 - 硬件和软件,工程和美学 - 被认为优于市场高端消费者的商品竞争程度。

最后,Blodget的“网络效应”鼓一直敲打多年当然是一个真实而重要的因素但现代计算机 - 个人电脑,手机,平板电脑 - 所有这些 - 实际上只是一个通用平台上的客户:互联网在90年代,随着Mac和Apple的衰落,兼容性意味着连接到Exchange服务器,以及读取和写入Microsoft Word,Excel和PowerPoint文件今天,兼容性是一个很少说的话Twitter,Facebook,电子邮件以及更低级别的HTTP可用于所有平台。

Jean-LouisGassée很好地提出了这个论点,上个月Blodget的作品出现几天后:

Interpret history how you will, the facts show something differentYes, the Redmond Death Star claimed 90% of the PC market, but it failed to capture all the resources in the ecosystemThere was more than enough room for the Mac to survive despite its small market share.

And, certainly, commoditization has been a great equalizer and price suppressant — within the PC clone marketMicrosoft kept most of the money with the de facto monopoly enjoyed by its Windows + Office combo, while it let hardware manufacturers race to the bottom (netbooks come to mind)Last quarter, this left HP, the (still) largest PC maker, with a measly 3% operating profit for its Personal Systems GroupBy contrast, Apple’s share of the PC market may only be 10% or less, but the Mac owns 90% of the $1000+ segment in the US and enjoys a 25% to 35% margin.

After surviving a difficult birth, a ruthlessly enforced Windows + Office platform, and competition from PC makers large and small, the Mac has ended up with a viable, profitable businessWhy not look at iDevices in the same light and see a small but profitable market share in its future?

强调苹果的利润份额与其市场份额严重不相称的观点并不是利润分享重要且市场份额不重要的论点关键是要表明Apple的客户在人口统计上有所不同今天的Mac占据了PC市场的大约10%,但它不仅仅是随机分布的10%的市场恰恰相反 - 苹果10%的市场完全由高端市场组成Mac用户具有歧视性,愿意为他们认为优越的产品支付更多费用。

正如Ben Bajarin今天早些时候所表明的那样,iPhone的市场份额在美国占有相似的空间手机市场:

As you can see, the iPhone dominates the premium segment of the marketThese estimates are prior to the launch of the iPhone 5c and iPhone 5sFor that reason, I specifically included devices as low as $400, even though the wholesale cost of the iPhone 5c is an estimated $549I added that price point because I’m convinced that the iPhone 5c will continue to take share from devices — even those devices in the $400 wholesale range — which are generally priced at free by the carriersI’m also convinced that this will happen in regions beyond the US, as well.

If I were to include only devices which cost more than $500 wholesale or priced at $99 to $199 on contract, the iPhone’s share would jump to well over 70%As you can see, the iPhone outsells Samsung’s devices at nearly a 3-1 ratio and other devices at a ratio of 5-1 or higher.

所以具有讽刺意味的是iOS vs.Android(或者,如果您愿意,还可以使用iPhone和iPad商品智能手机和平板电脑)事实上,重播Mac vsWindows - 但不是大多数进行比较的人会让你相信从其行动来看,Apple敏锐地意识到20年前要吸取的教训也就是说,这与专注于原始市场份额无关,而与在设计和质量上保持踏板金属有关的一切都与此无关。If Apple maintains a lead over its rivals in those regards, the Mac suggests that Apple can occupy a dominant, stable, long-term position as the profit leader in the mobile market as well — a market that is already bigger than the PC market ever was, and不像PC市场, is still growing.


所以:

Apple熊争论1:从长远来看,卓越的设计并不重要,移动市场将被“足够好”的竞争对手商品化。

Apple熊争论2:质量很重要,但iOS设备已经失去优势,不再优于三星,谷歌或亚马逊的竞争设备iOS设备的成本更高。

Apple熊争论3:设计并不重要,应用程序开发商和外围设备制造商将仅仅因为原始市场份额而涌向Android,即使该市场份额几乎完全处于低端市场。

有趣的是,争论1和3都被Mac在成熟PC行业所处的位置所驳斥我敢打赌,大多数争论#2的人都是同样的人长期以来一直认为Macs绝不比Windows PC好,而且只是因为苹果的“营销”而堕落的傻瓜购买的价格过高的小玩意,好像Apple的广告影响了某种绝地技巧。

在这三个中,我最容易接受的论点是#1移动市场像任何其他市场一样被商品化关键是作为一个消费市场,它永远不会充分商品化。1正如我之前引用本·汤普森的话:

Some consumers inherently know and value quality, look-and-feel, and attention to detail, and are willing to pay a premium that far exceeds the financial costs of being vertically integrated.

“一些”不一定是“最”,甚至不是所有接近“最”的,因为苹果保持利润丰厚的地位,占总机构份额的一小部分,但占大部分利润。

唯一的问题是:他们需要让客户满意。


  1. 这里值得注意的可能是Mac,历史上以及iPhone和iPad之间的最大差异:iPhone和iPad不仅在消费者和教育设备方面蓬勃发展,而且在企业市场中也是如此想像像这样的人arguing in favor of Macs in corporate environments 15 years ago the way he’s arguing for iOS today, I dare you许多人将iOS的企业成功归功于BYOD(“自带设备”)政策的崛起BYOD的真正含义是“使用你喜欢的东西”,以及像iPhone和iPad这样的人这是胜利↩︎