If so, I would agree that the "cannibalization" is not an opportunity cost for Apple; indeed, it is a necessary and smart part of its product/market strategy ("if I don't cannibalize, my competitors would do so anyway - so I'd better get in front of it"). It would be the same logic that led Apple to kill its own Mini for the Nano.
No it's not an ad hominem argument. That would be if the poster said "the study was bad because Solutions Research Group don't brush their teeth".
Or, say, something like "the study was bad because Apple funded it." An ad hominem is an irrelevant attack that fails to address the argument head on.
It doesn't matter if Apple funded it or not. There's next to no way that could influence a survey. Therefore, throwing out the research as "bad" because Apple "might" have funded it which "might" have influenced it in some way or another isn't logical.
Quote:
The poster didn't say the study was bad because SRG was bad, he said he wanted to know who funded the study as it could influence the findings.
But note the difference between "could" and "would."
Logic deals in absolutes. While SRG is, I assume, competent, and therefore incredibly unlikely to bias a poll, there's always the chance that that could happen. (After all, it's "basic psychology.")
The problem is in assuming that because the findings could be slightly biased automatically makes them so.
It sounds like a great idea, but its not about the idea that gets people to buy something, its about cost, implementation, performance, abilities, features, etc, etc, etc.
Though I've found it helps if the idea comes first & in tech products that's rare, very rare. One company does it well though.
If so, I would agree that the "cannibalization" is not an opportunity cost for Apple; indeed, it is a necessary and smart part of its product/market strategy ("if I don't cannibalize, my competitors would do so anyway - so I'd better get in front of it"). It would be the same logic that led Apple to kill its own Mini for the Nano.
All valid stuff but cannibalisation is the key here. The iPod phone isn't a market generator (like the iPod was with the digital music player market) it will pull from existing music player & phone markets. The question is can it pull back lost iPod sales from people going for cheaper MP3 players (iPod market share is reducing) and capture phone buyers who want a better music option? Device consolidation could address some of the cost issues behind lost iPod sales but will it put Apple in the space to recover market share of music players as well as extend into the phone market?
Comments
Outstanding point.
If so, I would agree that the "cannibalization" is not an opportunity cost for Apple; indeed, it is a necessary and smart part of its product/market strategy ("if I don't cannibalize, my competitors would do so anyway - so I'd better get in front of it"). It would be the same logic that led Apple to kill its own Mini for the Nano.
No it's not an ad hominem argument. That would be if the poster said "the study was bad because Solutions Research Group don't brush their teeth".
Or, say, something like "the study was bad because Apple funded it." An ad hominem is an irrelevant attack that fails to address the argument head on.
It doesn't matter if Apple funded it or not. There's next to no way that could influence a survey. Therefore, throwing out the research as "bad" because Apple "might" have funded it which "might" have influenced it in some way or another isn't logical.
The poster didn't say the study was bad because SRG was bad, he said he wanted to know who funded the study as it could influence the findings.
But note the difference between "could" and "would."
Logic deals in absolutes. While SRG is, I assume, competent, and therefore incredibly unlikely to bias a poll, there's always the chance that that could happen. (After all, it's "basic psychology.")
The problem is in assuming that because the findings could be slightly biased automatically makes them so.
It sounds like a great idea, but its not about the idea that gets people to buy something, its about cost, implementation, performance, abilities, features, etc, etc, etc.
Though I've found it helps if the idea comes first & in tech products that's rare, very rare. One company does it well though.
McD
Outstanding point.
If so, I would agree that the "cannibalization" is not an opportunity cost for Apple; indeed, it is a necessary and smart part of its product/market strategy ("if I don't cannibalize, my competitors would do so anyway - so I'd better get in front of it"). It would be the same logic that led Apple to kill its own Mini for the Nano.
All valid stuff but cannibalisation is the key here. The iPod phone isn't a market generator (like the iPod was with the digital music player market) it will pull from existing music player & phone markets. The question is can it pull back lost iPod sales from people going for cheaper MP3 players (iPod market share is reducing) and capture phone buyers who want a better music option? Device consolidation could address some of the cost issues behind lost iPod sales but will it put Apple in the space to recover market share of music players as well as extend into the phone market?
McD