The whole Google concept of copying the Microsoft model, as in steal Apple's IP and distribute through anyone that wants it, failed to realize that the Microsoft model isn't exactly working these days. The Mobile industry is running through the time line at 10x the rate as the PC market did so it makes sense that the model would end this way round about now.
What alternative would've worked?
Selling the company and giving the money back to the stockholders?
The whole Google concept of copying the Microsoft model, as in steal Apple's IP and distribute through anyone that wants it, failed to realize that the Microsoft model isn't exactly working these days. The Mobile industry is running through the time line at 10x the rate as the PC market did so it makes sense that the model would end this way round about now.
What alternative would've worked?
Selling the company and giving the money back to the stockholders?
This just reinforces Apple's unspoken policy to never mention the competition by name. It's a rotating list of copycats and wanna-be's that doesn't deserve any recognition. And soon, this one too, will fade into history.
Thats not an Apple policy. That is taught in Marketing 101.
The reason why you never mention a competitor by name, is because you are providing free advertising & publicity for that competitor. More often than not, consumers are uninformed when making purchases. The entire premise of marketing is to create a strong want or need for a product in consumers.. something that didn't exist before the marketing campaign. After all if strong want or need already existed, there would be no need to 'market' your products.
Where Samsung screwed up by constantly mentioning or mocking Apple in their ads (as would any company who mentions their direct competition by name) is instead of creating a strong want or need for their products.. they created a curiosity in the difference between their products and Apple. So a potential Samsung customer who may have initially wanted a Samsung phone.. is now curious about the iPhone and wants to do their own personal comparison. That curiosity means the customer will now investigate Apple's phone to see what features it offers, whats the cost difference and what other smaller details would make a difference in the purchase (warranty, customer service, reviews, resale value, etc).
As a business, one of the worst things you can do is promote your competition. Its literally shooting yourself in the foot. And for several years watching a Samsung commercial you could not tell if it was an Apple commercial or a Samsung commercial. Samsungs string of commercials showing the long lines at Apple stores, showing all the people with iPhones constantly charging up their phones or their commercials with a Samsung user bullying a friend or colleague for using an iPhone.. all severed to promote the iPhone even more. Apple didn't need to show their phone on TV ads.. because every Samsung ad on TV already showed the iPhone and mentioned its name.
That's all wrong. Samsung did not create anything for Apple that Apple didn't already have. Your Business 101 works great for smaller businesses but not household name companies.
Daekwan is actually correct. The hope of Samsung by mentioning Apple is to hope they can create a sense that both companies are in the same league and worthy competitors. However, that rarely works in the customer's mind and the negative things one says about the competitor gets attached to advertiser's product.
As Daekwan points out, Samsung brings the competitor into the discussion and reminds the customer that Apple exists. It's far better to keep the discussion about your own product and its advantages ... Apple may have done a good job of getting its own name out there, but it's never smart to echo your competition's name.
This just reinforces Apple's unspoken policy to never mention the competition by name. It's a rotating list of copycats and wanna-be's that doesn't deserve any recognition. And soon, this one too, will fade into history.
Thats not an Apple policy. That is taught in Marketing 101.
The reason why you never mention a competitor by name, is because you are providing free advertising & publicity for that competitor. More often than not, consumers are uninformed when making purchases. The entire premise of marketing is to create a strong want or need for a product in consumers.. something that didn't exist before the marketing campaign. After all if strong want or need already existed, there would be no need to 'market' your products.
Where Samsung screwed up by constantly mentioning or mocking Apple in their ads (as would any company who mentions their direct competition by name) is instead of creating a strong want or need for their products.. they created a curiosity in the difference between their products and Apple. So a potential Samsung customer who may have initially wanted a Samsung phone.. is now curious about the iPhone and wants to do their own personal comparison. That curiosity means the customer will now investigate Apple's phone to see what features it offers, whats the cost difference and what other smaller details would make a difference in the purchase (warranty, customer service, reviews, resale value, etc).
As a business, one of the worst things you can do is promote your competition. Its literally shooting yourself in the foot. And for several years watching a Samsung commercial you could not tell if it was an Apple commercial or a Samsung commercial. Samsungs string of commercials showing the long lines at Apple stores, showing all the people with iPhones constantly charging up their phones or their commercials with a Samsung user bullying a friend or colleague for using an iPhone.. all severed to promote the iPhone even more. Apple didn't need to show their phone on TV ads.. because every Samsung ad on TV already showed the iPhone and mentioned its name.
That's all wrong. Samsung did not create anything for Apple that Apple didn't already have. Your Business 101 works great for smaller businesses but not household name companies.
Daekwan is actually correct. The hope of Samsung by mentioning Apple is to hope they can create a sense that both companies are in the same league and worthy competitors. However, that rarely works in the customer's mind and the negative things one says about the competitor gets attached to advertiser's product.
As Daekwan points out, Samsung brings the competitor into the discussion and reminds the customer that Apple exists. It's far better to keep the discussion about your own product and its advantages ... Apple may have done a good job of getting its own name out there, but it's never smart to echo your competition's name.
It did work because many people ditched their iPhones for a Samsung device.
Daekwan is actually correct. The hope of Samsung by mentioning Apple is to hope they can create a sense that both companies are in the same league and worthy competitors. However, that rarely works in the customer's mind and the negative things one says about the competitor gets attached to advertiser's product.
As Daekwan points out, Samsung brings the competitor into the discussion and reminds the customer that Apple exists. It's far better to keep the discussion about your own product and its advantages ... Apple may have done a good job of getting its own name out there, but it's never smart to echo your competition's name.
Actually that's marketing 101 (not business 101) and it goes something like "the market leader should not give it's competitors visibility by mentioning them by name" However like many "rules" in marketing it's application is contextual.
That said Samsung's ads have been horrible, I can't believe that samsung management wasn't steering their ad agency(s) heavily. Nearly anyone with a whit of sense could have pegged them as disasters. Their attempts to "create" viral campaigns have all fizzled (some even backfired spectacularly) Again any ad exec worth his salt knows that trying to "create" viral campaigns is extremely difficult and such schemes are almost certain to fail (as happened repeatedly) I can't believe that any agency would have done the profoundly stupid things that have been done in the name of samsung unless they were being heavily steered
(and in the case or PR or advertising agencies; the client has the last say and is ALWAYS right, that is just the nature of the business. The agency needs to decide f it's reputation is worth more than the income from the particular client (in this case we know the answer, take the money, and make the ill-advised and insipid campaigns that the client wants)
It did work because many people ditched their iPhones for a Samsung device.
Like who? Last I checked Samsung's mobile division has been going in the negative direction for the past 8 quarters, while Apple has continued selling the iPhone at record setting levels.
Did you even read the article on which this discussion thread is based? The entire presentation is how Samsung's Mobile is going downhill not up. Do I even need mention Tim Cook has said the amount of Android users switching to iPhone is now higher than ever? In the the past quarter.. 30% of iPhone buyers were people switching from Android. Facts disagree with everything you have said thus far.
It did work because many people ditched their iPhones for a Samsung device.
Like who? Last I checked Samsung's mobile division has been going in the negative direction for the past 8 quarters, while Apple has continued selling the iPhone at record setting levels.
Did you even read the article on which this discussion thread is based? The entire presentation is how Samsung's Mobile is going downhill not up. Do I even need mention Tim Cook has said the amount of Android users switching to iPhone is now higher than ever? In the the past quarter.. 30% of iPhone buyers were people switching from Android. Facts disagree with everything you have said thus far.
Because Apple did what Samsung was doing, so the people that left have come back.
Comments
Selling the company and giving the money back to the stockholders?
That was dumb then and it's dumb now.
Daekwan is actually correct. The hope of Samsung by mentioning Apple is to hope they can create a sense that both companies are in the same league and worthy competitors. However, that rarely works in the customer's mind and the negative things one says about the competitor gets attached to advertiser's product.
As Daekwan points out, Samsung brings the competitor into the discussion and reminds the customer that Apple exists. It's far better to keep the discussion about your own product and its advantages ... Apple may have done a good job of getting its own name out there, but it's never smart to echo your competition's name.
It did work because many people ditched their iPhones for a Samsung device.
Daekwan is actually correct. The hope of Samsung by mentioning Apple is to hope they can create a sense that both companies are in the same league and worthy competitors. However, that rarely works in the customer's mind and the negative things one says about the competitor gets attached to advertiser's product.
As Daekwan points out, Samsung brings the competitor into the discussion and reminds the customer that Apple exists. It's far better to keep the discussion about your own product and its advantages ... Apple may have done a good job of getting its own name out there, but it's never smart to echo your competition's name.
Actually that's marketing 101 (not business 101) and it goes something like "the market leader should not give it's competitors visibility by mentioning them by name" However like many "rules" in marketing it's application is contextual.
That said Samsung's ads have been horrible, I can't believe that samsung management wasn't steering their ad agency(s) heavily. Nearly anyone with a whit of sense could have pegged them as disasters. Their attempts to "create" viral campaigns have all fizzled (some even backfired spectacularly) Again any ad exec worth his salt knows that trying to "create" viral campaigns is extremely difficult and such schemes are almost certain to fail (as happened repeatedly) I can't believe that any agency would have done the profoundly stupid things that have been done in the name of samsung unless they were being heavily steered
(and in the case or PR or advertising agencies; the client has the last say and is ALWAYS right, that is just the nature of the business. The agency needs to decide f it's reputation is worth more than the income from the particular client (in this case we know the answer, take the money, and make the ill-advised and insipid campaigns that the client wants)
It did work because many people ditched their iPhones for a Samsung device.
Like who? Last I checked Samsung's mobile division has been going in the negative direction for the past 8 quarters, while Apple has continued selling the iPhone at record setting levels.
Did you even read the article on which this discussion thread is based? The entire presentation is how Samsung's Mobile is going downhill not up. Do I even need mention Tim Cook has said the amount of Android users switching to iPhone is now higher than ever? In the the past quarter.. 30% of iPhone buyers were people switching from Android. Facts disagree with everything you have said thus far.
Because Apple did what Samsung was doing, so the people that left have come back.
Better yet stick to making parts for Apple (and kitchen appliances) and get out of the business of copying and competing with your own client.
And what happens when Apple decides to take that component business away?
None that is known to man as we speak but perhaps they could have come up with something original, who knows. LOL
Well my logic here is, part for anyone as well as Apple, I didn't mean Apple alone.
At the rate it's going who is going to be left to make components for?
Well I didn't like to say that