Microsoft Surface, Will it kill the i-pad? Options

[Licentia Per Ori...]

So unless you have been hiding under a rock for the last couple of months you will know that Microsoft are planning to jump into the tablet space.

This is currently dominated by Apple.
Will Microsoft take apples crown?

many people are of the opinion that it's going to give apple a serious kicking, and will migrate more people to the microsoft eco-system, resulting in lower future sales of i-phones and i-pods to boot.

Personally i think it will do more, It has the capabilities to dominate the tablet market.

my reasoning is that.
1. It works at work.
I pad is great and that, but if you work in an office chances are you use windows there. You will use MS office,
The i-pad does not work well with Windows, The surface will be designed to work with it seamlessly.

2. It out specs the i-pad.
Microsoft are releasing two versions with the pro version packing an Ivy bridge i5!
It's a serious but of kit.

3. the keyboard.
Yea it's a tablet, but putting the keyboard on it.
(and crucially giving it away for free)
make the windows tablet a true contender for laptop replacement.
Even the biggest apple fan-boi out there will admit that the i-pad is good for consuming content (watching and reading things)
but is completely crap when it comes to creating content (like forum posts)

So what are your thoughts?
are Microsoft going to dominate in the hand-held market?
the i-phone 5 is launching, and no one is excited about it.
But the new Nokia phones are far more exciting,
and will having your PC, Tablet, Phone and Games console all operate on a single integrated eco system attract customers to Microsoft?

[Kaust]

The Ipad was always an impractical invention- its bad enough not having usbs (in this day and age...fer realz?) but everything else made by Apple needs a usb somewhere along the line (charging, syncing, whatever), making a tablet without it just seems ridiculous (especially since I remember one of their ad campaigns being about how well all Apple products work together).
Admittedly, I don't understand the desire for tablets anyways; their crazy expensive, don't seem to have any unique features, their fragile (making them more expensive), and touchscreens, while looking futuristic, are just way more impractical than keyboards. But, while adding a keyboard initially comes across as a plus, it also seems to defeat the point of a tablet rather than revolutionise it- what separates it from a laptop other than it doesn't fold on itself?

[X-M-O]

are Microsoft going to dominate in the hand-held market?
the i-phone 5 is launching, and no one is excited about it.
But the new Nokia phones are far more exciting,
and will having your PC, Tablet, Phone and Games console all operate on a single integrated eco system attract customers to Microsoft?

No, Microsoft will not dominate the market in this area, but for more reasons than their capabilities or the capabilities of their hardware/software. Primarily, Microsoft has less "fans" by far than Apple does, but also because Microsoft does not innovate in ways that companies like IBM and Apple have done. The last time MSFT had relatively large volume (over 50,000) was July 12th when they announced Windows Server 2012 Essentials Beta Release. The next day the stock returned to normal activity. The same thing has happened prior to that (and since then) whenever news has been released, and because there are a great deal of MSFT shares out there, it's difficult to move the stock so you can't always say the price of the stock means that investors see it as a successful stock, because in this case it would take a great deal to move the stock by more than a dollar. Thus, I'm using volume to show the excitement/emotional activity in MSFT during news events. And this news event has merely triggered a volume of 51,000 by the end of the day (ending the day with a grand total of 20 cents more than it opened).
There isn't enough excitement over anything Microsoft does for investors to really give it a boost.
Meanwhile, Apple only has roughly a daily volume average of 15,000 and moves anywhere from 2 dollars to 20 dollars in a single day. And then when big news events take place (such as the recent iPhone 5 announcement) it moves large (in this case nearly 13 dollars).
This expresses the interest in a company like Apple versus a company like Microsoft.
(The primary reason there is more volume in MSFT than APPL is because MSFT has far more shares available than Apple, and MSFT's shares cost roughly 30 dollars each versus APPL's shares costing roughly 700 dollars each. So you can't have as many people buying because that amount of money simply doesn't exist in the market during this economy, because people are less willing to put more risk out there so they go with a stock like MSFT that barely moves at all - which is another reason it gets so much activity despite that activity not really benefiting the stock overall.)

So it is untrue to say that "no one is excited about the iPhone 5 launch" as the market determines that excitement (there are many people who buy Apple stock because they believe in Apple, and then there are those who buy it because they have seen its sales and public reaction that boosts those sales, and they expect that it will do as it has done in the past; though even if the public is saturated with iPhones, you will find a great deal of them still buying the latest iPhone - especially in the age range of 17 to 35).
It might be true that people you know personally don't seem interested, but don't be surprised if many of them end up owning an iPhone 5 before the year is done.


A valid point you are making is that the options in the new Microsoft tablet will be attractive to the public, and this might be true, however consider the last "successful" Microsoft release: Windows 7.
"Commercial retail sales of Windows increased two percent due to Windows 7's launch (link for reference)", and that isn't much at all - as a matter of fact, it's horrible by comparison to every Apple product released since 2000... (And here's the most recent quarterly report from Apple. See the bottom of the page for a chart expressing their finances.)


Apple will not be dramatically affected by this new Microsoft product, and Microsoft will likely lose sales because so many people already own a tablet (iPad) and don't need another luxury electronic in this economy.

There will, undoubtedly, be many retail sales based on the compatibility that this product will have in relation to other Microsoft products, however that is not enough to boost sales. And the new apps idea they have isn't enough to really change the way things are going for the iPad (unless Microsoft goes against its nature and past by allowing things to be more open than Apple allows - and still that isn't enough in an overbought market like the tablet market).

[Licentia Per Ori...]

Well Some interesting Market information there, But I am not sure it is entirely relevant.
The markets reflect what the situation of a company is now / value, and of course an idea of the value in the future.

I don't think the markets are a very good indicator of future success if i am honest.

Personally, I think Apple is existing on borrowed time at the moment, and If I owned shares I would get ready to sell them.

The reason i think Apple is going to find itself in some seriously hot water is as follows.

1. Innovation
They don't do any. Apple spend almost nothing on R&D compared to other tech companies. The i-macs, I-pods and I-phone were all very revolutionary. but that's pretty much it.
The tech that it is releasing is behind the curve, the i-phone 5 for example doesn't pack as much power as the Samsung Galaxy 3, and the S4 is already on the horizon.

2. People and technology
The current belief held by many is that "apple is easy to use and simply works" and you know what, that's true.
But it's not unique to apple.
I think another thing is that not too long ago, "ignorance of tech was a status symbol".
"Oh i don't understand technology", or "oh i'm not really into technology so i just got an apple."
But this core market is starting to wane. Already the Apple eco system no longer has dominant market share in the smart phone market.
Whats more being "tech savvy" is now being considered more cool than it was before.
Certainly more cool than having no clue.

3. The glow will wear off.
There is only so long you can overcharge for a lesser product, Apple has an amazing marketing dept. And this is their strength. Apple sales are almost exclusively dependent on the apple marketing and PR team.
And when you look at some the award winning material they have produced

you can see why they have been so successful.
It starts with apple being some kind of freedom fighter against the uniform / monopoly etc. of Windows / IBM
(you could, and people have written entire essays/dissertations on that one advert)

Mac then became a lifestyle brand.
Had it's aspirations in all the right places,

Again, it was a massive win. Apple = cool, PC = looser/geek
except geeks are cool now.

what is the big message apple is pushing now?
honestly i don't see one, It seems that apple is concentrating on selling to it's existing customers,
Also relying on being an aspirational brand.

But this is far from sustainable in the long run.
And with a marketing machine out of ideas from apple.
Not to mention the PR disaster that is the multiple lawsuits apple are filing
(which goes completely against the ethos from the 1984 advert,
If anything the roles have revered, they are now the large monopoly who are sending heavies after any trespasser)
it's certainly not a case of certain seas ahead for apple.

That's not to say that they can't come out swinging and winning,
But if they are faced with a serious marketing pr salvo from a cash rich giant like Microsoft
It may be the moment that turns the tide.

[X-M-O]

Well Some interesting Market information there, But I am not sure it is entirely relevant.
The markets reflect what the situation of a company is now / value, and of course an idea of the value in the future.

The market is entirely relevant and yes it has been used for years to determine the past value, current value, and projected future value of many companies. The simple fact that people don't understand how pertinent it is to the success of a business is actually quite typical of the public.
Without its market success a publicly owned company cannot grow. Investment in companies, privately or publicly, allows companies to do things that they otherwise would not be able to do.
Apple is one of the largest companies in the world and this is reflected in its stock, whilst the investment in its stock is also one of the reasons it has continued to be successful. (Its sales are great, but a company that large cannot grow on sales alone, but because it has good sales investors trust in the company enough to invest more and more in it, as is represented in the stock price.)

I don't think the markets are a very good indicator of future success if i am honest.
But if they are faced with a serious marketing pr salvo from a cash rich giant like Microsoft
It may be the moment that turns the tide.

The markets are the primary source for understanding the current and future success of a company, and for determining the strength of the economy as a whole. Any good economist will tell you that, as there is very little data outside the market that can be used to determine a company's projected success. (You certainly aren't going to trust the company to tell you that, as they are biased. The market is not biased in this way.)
I understand your opinion of the market, however the stock market is indeed a great deal more important to determining a company's future success than even a company's quarterly or yearly sales reports.

Microsoft as a company has far less financial value and far less buying power than Apple. And just like any public relations activity, those with the most money tend to do better.
MSFT's Market Capitalisation is $261.64 Billion.
APPL's Market Capitalisation is $655.98 Billion.
Nearly 3 times the money, and that's its market capitalisation (which does not include total sales or company assets - of which, we know already that APPL is doing better in the sales department).
Here is a quote from Forbes' magazine:
"One Apple product, something that didn't exist five years ago, has higher sales than everything Microsoft has to offer. More than Windows, Office, Xbox, Bing, Windows Phone, and every other product that Microsoft has created since 1975. In the quarter ended March 31, 2012, iPhone had sales of $22.7 billion; Microsoft Corporation, $17.4 billion."

Simple facts, not opinion. So I don't want you to think that I'm in love with APPL or anything, because that's simply not true. I dislike APPL quite a bit, though not as much as MSFT, at any rate these are facts that are available to the public and are from official sources.

Marketing/PR is not enough to bring MSFT to APPL's level, in sales or in its market capitalisation. And the relevance in its success is related to how the market reacts to news/products/sales MSFT releases publicly.
If you find MSFT reaching $40 in this next month, then it is somewhat possible for MSFT to become a real competitor with APPL.
(Note that it is at $31 and that it hasn't touched $40 since mid-2000 and has sat at an average of $~30 since then.)
If the market doesn't move on MSFT, then it simply isn't going to be as successful as APPL.

[Sparrowsmith]

I'd say Apple will always have two things over Microsoft.
1 - style
2 - function

Apple products crash a helluva lot less than other products on the market. Take the macbooks. They're not thrown together from bits and pieces, they are a solid 'whole' piece of technology. Taking one apart is like rocket science (exaggeration). They also know how to sell themselves. They REALLY know how to appeal to a crowd.
But it's never scared microsoft because they dominate the workplace. In fact, they dominate most markets.
I own a PC, and I intend for my next computer to be a PC. I do like macs, but I like the honesty I get from a PC. If I look up reviews on an apple product, the reviews are all polarized, I don't learn anything. On the other hand my current laptop, a Medion Akoya P6613, has really good reviews, and while I've treat it very badly and it is somewhat broken, it still fights the good fight.
And then there's the other reason I prefer PCs. You can take them apart. I know my laptop inside and out. I've taken a soldering iron to it. Fixing this things little bugs and problems has actually taught me a lot of skills. When a mac breaks, you take it to an istore because there's nothing you can do, but a PC is designed to be easily accessible.

And that's it basically. Apple brings out magical technology that you can't really do anything with, while standard PCs running windows can be altered and upgraded so long as you know how to open youtube and find a guide.
My brother owns an macbook and it took him about an hour to change out his hard drive for a static one. I could do that on my Medion in ten minutes.

And this is why I think the Microsoft Surface isn't really a great idea.
Microsoft's strong suit has never been hardware, it's software. They make an OS that, buggy as it is, several markets rely on. Leave the 'future' stuff to Apple, cause people will buy it no matter how shitty it is. I'm not saying the ipad is shit, but if you wreck the screens on one of those bad boys, you're FUCKED. If I wreck my laptop screen, I just buy a new laptop screen. I don't even need help attaching it.

Out of interest, has anyone here seen Pirates of Silicon Valley?
Sums up the Apple/MSoft relationship nicely.

[X-M-O]

I'm with you on the MSFT products, as I know them better and prefer them. I don't like the company as a corporation better than APPL, but I like my PCs better than my Macs (which is why I have 3 times more PC computers than Mac computers, lol).

MSFT has the market with businesses, but businesses don't buy things that are flashy or expensive whilst the public does buy flashy/expensive products.
On that note, I own an Android and an iPhone and an iPad, and yes because I must have every piece of technology I can get my hands on, I will also own the Microsoft Surface, lol.
But that's just me, and I have lovely parents that will buy me anything. Otherwise, I'd only own my Android and about half of my computers. XD
Yeah, I show off my technology to all the guys I know because... well... it gets their attention off of my breasts. Yes, I said it, and that makes me a bad person, but you know... they need to get their eyes elsewhere anyway. XD
A little off-topic there, but still, I can be a savvy/techy geek and be a girl all at the same time and no guy can change that!

[Licentia Per Ori...]

I dunno xmo -
I think there is far more to a company than it's share price. Or market value.
This is a representation on how much money the company is making, But does not take many things into account.

Apple does not have lots of money because it made lots of profit from selling gadgets.
It has lots of profit because it charges a commission for everything that happens on it's eco system.
Want to sell a song on i-tunes, apple take a cut
Want to release an app for i-phone, apple take a cut.
Or buy a book for your i-pad, yup, they take a cut.

This is of course not unique to apple,
But you have to look at the type of people who own apple products (more money than sense) -
If you compare the average spend on apps, and music, between android, apple, and nokia owners.
The apple user will have the highest spend.
After all this is the type of person who can afford to spend £3000 on a laptop, even though it's a £800 pc model with a shiny case and ios preinstalled. Is probably going to give less thought to buying a £1 app that makes a silly noise.

The markets judge a company on pure profits, and that is a very one dimensional way to look at a company
After all if you judge a company by the rise in it's share price alone. then Coca-Cola isn't exactly doing great.
Certainly a lot worse than apple.
However far more people know the coca-cola brand than the apple brand.
Whats more it's likely that 99% of the worlds population will be a customer at some point
and if i had to make a bet on which company will still be around in 200 years time.
My money is on the beverage company from Atlanta, who's name has more global presence and recognition than that of Jesus Christ.

Apple relies entirely on it's "cool" and the myths surrounding it's "stability" and "Usability" (that these are unique to apple)
Now part of that cool comes from the fact that graphic designer, photographer, post production, musician. used to = apple.
They were more powerful than PC's. But those times have gone.

Apple iOS is in reality no more stable or easy to use than Windows,
Apple iOS is just as vulnerable to virus's as windows (more so because so many people think apple can't get virus)
Apple i-phone is just as simple to use as every other phone.
Every smart-phone has been designed with idiots in mind.
I have yet to see a single one that would require the reading of a manual to use.

If apple lose these things, what do they have?
let me put it this way.
You go to a shop to buy a laptop.
You can buy an Acer for £800, or a Sony with the exact same spec for £3000
Which do you buy?
now no-one would by the sony for 3 times as much, because it's not cooler, it wont be more stable, more secure, better for pictures, better for movie editing, easier to use.

It's not in the tech, it was never about the tech. It was the marketing.

Steve Jobs was a genius.
He took a bunch of 3rd rate components, a buggy operating system (remember when mac os used to do a skynet, refusing to even switch off?), put them together in a shiny cool looking box, called it the i-mac and sold it at a huge mark up.

He gave the world the i-phone
a phone that did not have anything ground breaking about it what so ever.
but within a year had become synonymous with the word smart-phone.
much like google is used instead of search, or Hoover the term for vacuum cleaner.
i-phone nearly became the word for smart-phone.

That buzz
That marketing, and media insight and effectiveness is what put apple to the position they are at now.
Which is why Apple is closer to being a fashion brand than a Tech brand.
And that is somewhat superficial.

5 years ago. what did having apple say about you?
today, what does having apple say about you?
and what of tomorrow.

This is what will determine the success or failure of Apple,
and this is something those working in the banks have no clue about.
because it's not about numbers, and profits and costs.

It's media, it's marketing
and that my chums and chumettes, is a whole different field of knowledge

:-)

This post has been edited by Licentia Per Oris: Sep 18 2012, 06:46 AM

[X-M-O]

Everything you've mentioned is subjective, so it is difficult to properly discuss something as rigid as the future success of APPL or MSFT without bringing about the facts.
I simply disagree that marketing and media are what makes a company based on the fact that without proper funding, it doesn't matter how much marketing and media you want to do, you simply cannot do it without funds.
APPL received a great deal of money before it was able to kick off a large "campaign" and Steve Jobs delivered the first Macintosh computer in 1984; that would not have been possible if he had not convinced his investors (and even self-funded) the project and company.

I do agree that APPL is closer to being a fashion brand than a tech brand, but it is a tech brand first and a fashion brand second (otherwise they would be selling clothing, accessories, and cosmetic products).
Also the comparison between CocaCola (KO) and APPL is financially improper as they are in different sectors of the market, despite both having a retail product and consumable products.
(It is closer in relation to MSFT than APPL, in that its average range is around $30+.)

One thing I suppose you don't take into account is the fact that the market represents the value of a company based on what people are willing to pay for it. This implies that the value of the stock expresses the public interest in the company, not just its sales and/or dollar value.
When people believe in a company, they buy its stock (if they have the ability and/or knowledge), and as such it does not strictly relate to bankers or fund managers; it expresses the emotional effect the company has on the public (this can be shown in its volatility each day).
The more people are emotionally attracted to a stock, the greater the stock's volatility; when they expect the company to do well, they buy; when they expect the company to do poorly, they sell. So you can have a great deal of emotion in the market that ends up causing a stock to either rise or fall; it isn't only about the money though that is a very important piece. Without money being involved, what interest would someone have in buying a company's stock?

So it is implied that a company's overall welfare and public interest is what defines its value, and that value is expressed in the emotionally-based and financially-based purchasing of the company's stock.


Also, it is the job of investors to know, clearly and completely, all relative information about a stock prior to investing in that stock.
Therefore, what you assume about (what you call bankers, but they are investors that work for banks) investors is false because they would be fired if they invested in a company that they know nothing about. So whilst their motive is for profit (and to keep their job), their knowledge of a company they are investing in is far better than the average person's knowledge about that company.

I work in the financial industry, and have for years (the only job I have currently), and my father and older brother does as well (they have worked in it since 1992 when I was 2 years old). Since 1992, throughout my childhood and even now, I consistently meet new people who work in an exchange (CBOE, NYSE, etc.) and who work on the floor of the exchange, and they have a motive for profit, but they will absolutely not invest in something they don't know a great deal about. I've learned more from them about companies than I have been able to learn from the company's website, news releases, financial reports, or marketing.
The assumption that they don't understand these basic ideas about a company, especially one they are investing in, is completely false.
They would not be where they are if they did not understand such things, and they would not be profitable if they did not understand such things.
Amateur traders believe that they can trade based on what they see on a chart (price and indicators), and the simple fact is that they might get lucky, however without being lucky they will fail to make profit based on the price alone.
This is why the overwhelming majority of activity and strength in the market is done by banks and fund managers, because they know what stock they are trading in the sense that they understand what that stock is at a very advanced level.
(And yes, even with all that knowledge they can make fatal errors by over-leveraging and not properly managing their portfolio risk, but that is not because they are ignorant about a company - it's because their strategy is either wrong and/or because they are not properly managing their risk. If you manage your risk properly, you will hedge your position so that you cannot lose more than a certain percentage of your portfolio in a single trade. We've recently seen several failures in that area, and by people who are extremely smart in the areas mentioned above. No one is inherently safe from failure based on their knowledge.)

So, the markets do not judge a company solely based on profit. Profit is merely the motive for investment. Belief in a company is what triggers investment, and without that belief the profit potential has no relevance. Which is why the market is an amazing tool for determining the success and projected success of a company.

Also note that the market value of a company is not a representation of how much money the company is making, instead it "is subject to seller and buyer's perception and interpretation of parameters that they decide to take into consideration (Wikipedia quote, just for reference)". So they could determine that the company is valuable simply based on the fact that its name is "Apple", and then buy it simply for that reason (a very amateur investment, but there are many retail traders that make amateur investments based on criteria like this). The point being that they could have any number of reasons to invest in the stock, and none of those reasons might be relative to the company's sales.
Consider the real estate market. What makes the market value of a house increase or decrease?
The fact that someone (or multiple people) either want it or does not want it. The more people want to live in Dublin, the greater the market value for real estate in that area, and the less people want to live in Dublin, the lesser the market value for real estate in that area.
Consider the Tulip Mania (click for history lesson). It was not based on the value of the tulip, rather the speculative/projected value of the tulip. It was "all the craze" and people bought tulip bulbs because it was the thing to do, and then its value collapsed (similar to the real estate market in recent years). The underlying factor was that the tulip bulb had no ability to increase its own value after being invested in. The same with the real estate market, of itself real estate is incapable of increasing its own value. The value is based on supply and demand.
The same is true of APPL, there is a supply and demand for its stock, and as long as APPL increases its own value (through products, marketing, media, popularity, etc.) then investors will invest in it and it will continue to grow.
So long as investors do not begin to inflate the value of the stock (similar to what happened with tulip bulbs and real estate) it will not have a bursting bubble.
APPL is not immune to supply and demand, and it isn't able to control who invests in it and/or why they invest in it, thus they might eventually become a bursting bubble, however at this point their market value is a bit off compared to their fair value (see here for fair value), so things like their sales aren't quite as important to investors as the speculation is (speculation implies future success in this case) for the stock.


In relation to the comments about Apple's products, I agree. I don't prefer Apple over Microsoft products, and without some form of marketing there is no way I'd be purchasing their products for the prices they set them at.
So it is true that, in the public/retail market, the only thing that causes people to purchase the product is the hype/appeal/marketing/etc. versus its intrinsic/fundamental value.


Anyway, it's rather interesting to see how others view the market, but I think I'm doing a terrible job at explaining it so I'll stop, lol.

[Rukiri]

I prefer Unix and Linux systems and stopped caring for MS years ago, mainly because of no innovation and just a half baked product every single time... Look at the Windows 9X release, windows 98 SE was what MS wanted 9E to be, and Windows XP was technically the finished product of both ME and 2000 and also dropped dos(not..really the best thing they could have done as a terminal is always going to be more powerful than a Gui application.. A gui is not required).

And Windows 7 is what windows vista was supposed to be but I really did prefer Vista's taskbar a lot better.. the option to change icon size and just not group IS NOT THE SAME THING... Sorry just do not like the windows 7 SUPER BAR.

Apple has a much better foundation and a much less "buggy" product but any PC gamer will go ape shit and just lie to themselves thinking MS is god... However if Apple took the approach MS did back in the early 90s MS would be no where near as big as it is now and would probably be smaller than what Apple is now. I understand the premium but they could have let say HP, Toshiba, Sony, and some of the other High End PC OEM's sell the Mac OS on their machines and apple could still do what it is doing now.

Will the surface gain traction? Probably not and it will most certainly NOT dominate the market.

One thing Mac nor Windows will teach you is, is actually knowing how to use a computer. You know how to use a gui, not the computer itself. This is why I LOVE UNIX and Linux systems(except the newbie versions..) I do use a desktop gui but I'm mostly in my terminal and I use a very minimal desktop. OPENBOX!

This post has been edited by Rukiri: Sep 26 2012, 06:12 PM

[Licentia Per Ori...]

Ok I have been meaning to reply to this thread for a while now,

I think it is interesting to see the different way's of looking at the whole, what is the future of apple, thing.
(as this is what the thread seems to be leaning towards)

One way of looking at it is from a finance, markets and milton point of view.
The markets have their wisdom, and the future and fortunes of any brand or company will be predicted by the market.

On the other hand, and certainly more interesting for apple's case, is to look at it from a branding and marketing space.
This is where Apple, as I have mentioned previously, have been nothing short of genius.

Even the amazingly computer wizzed penguin user before me follows the line that Mac OS is less buggy.
In reality it's not. In truth when was the last time you saw a modern OS (of any kind) give a blue screen of death, or permanent rainbow wheel type crash? When was the last time you even heard of it happening?

But what I want to get at is the branding.
In the earlier advert i linked to, the famous superbowl advert. have a look at that.
then have a look at this advert (for the new Nokia Lumia running Windows Phone)


What's interesting is that Nokia (and by extension MS) are positioning themselves in the same way that apple did all those years ago.
"I buy apple because I am different, creative and unique. I don't follow the herd"
this was pretty much apples consumer slogan.
Yet now several other brands are positioning themselves along the lines of.
"I don't buy apple, because I am different, creative and unique. I don't follow the herd"

And this is even starting to take root amongst apple users. Who are struggling to identify with the brand as they once did.
asked what apple users find apealing about the apple brand. answers are likely to include words like.
Innovation, Easy to use, apps, build quality, high tech - advanced/better technology, creativity

However these important brand markers have been left to one side.
Even the most die hard apple fan-boi will have to admit that there is no innovation in the new i-phone 5.
This hits at the creativity brand point too.

For how can a company that does not innovate be creative.
There is very little creativity involved in the evolution of the i-phone. less so more recently
They all look pretty much the same.
It's not about creating new tech. It's about creative use of tech.
Something Apple is again leaving behind.

Also apple is now incredibly mainstream - something the markets love - but again, removing a major part of it's brand structure.

While the company itself is going from strength to strength. on the back of digital sales revenue.
The core brand of the apple has been completely gutted.
much of the ethos has been replaced with an expansion of the status element that any brand worth it's merit has/provides.

you don't buy a ferrari because you want to drive fast. you buy a ferrari to show everyone, that you can buy a ferrari.

Now apple has always been a strong brand. It has always been a status brand.
it was a status symbol of creativity, independence, going against the crowd, etc. etc.

The only real status symbol apple products now provide, is one of wealth.
Particularly in poorer countries.
"Look at me - I have the new I-phone, I am thus richer and therefore better than you"

This combined with the fact that as far as releasing "behind the curve" tech is starting to get noticed.
I think the Apple brand is in dire straights.

Again - the company is doing great. but the brand. Is in serious trouble.
And for a company that practically doubles as a fashion accessory and relies so heavily on it's branding and image for it's continued success. I think apple could quickly find itself in hot water.

The death is a 3 stage one but once it begins there is very little than can be done. and once you get to the latter part of stage 2 - it's done.
and stage one is loosing your cool, and letting others epitomise the core values of your brand.

This is happening to apple at the moment. The problem is that they are not reacting. Apple had a very unique marketing strategy that relied and fed into it's air of "cool". For example Apple does not do any sponsorship.
The company is behaving as if it is the quirky outsider. because the strategy based upon this (headed up by jobs) gave rise to the largest and richest tech company we have ever seen. However. It's no longer a quirky outsider. and most importantly. it's not seen as one.

I am currently in the market myself for a new phone (probs gonna get the lumia 920)
I've been looking at some sites and stuff. and while the usual ragy apple fanboi's were there telling everyone that NFC is pointless and so what if the i-phone 5 doesn't have it. (er hello, pay for drinks at a pub with my phone? - get in!)

I noticed that there were amongst the comments of phone articles a new breed. that you didn't get before.
such as:

Nope, your not alone... Ive had iphones since the 3g came out and im sick and tired of the things... they are so commonplace, so samey and well, there is nothing overly new about them... not that id want to spend money on anyway!
Im waiting to get my hands on a 920 as that really seems to be a little different... I have a couple of people that have WM7.5 phones and they love the tiles and im getting used to them on Win8 preview.
Ive tried android - I have an android tab, whilst I like it, it feels like every Linux distro ive tried - unfinished...
Roll on the release... If only I could get a pre order in!!!!

Am I the only one...
...looking forward to the release of WP8? I'm a current iP4 user. Love the phone, contract up in less than 6 months time but fancy a change because something about the iP5 doesn't catch my eye. Doesn't seem as well built as the iP4 and the mapgate stuff annoys me.
I'm a huge supporter of Apple products, but the iP5 for me feels like a start a small downhill course. Especially the disappointment of iOS6.

Nothing stays cool forever.
And the one thing Microsoft certainly has going for it. Is that it never has been cool. and it's not trying to be cool.
It's taking the focus of the logo and centring it on "the experience."

This I think is a wise move.
and is a brand alignment that could easily have the largest amount of traction in the future.
And i will tell you now.

The day a hipster says to his friend, on his own unprompted merit.
"yea i had androids and i-phones before. but you know, I use a microsoft one because it gives me the best experience, and thats what i'm about man...the experience...you know what I mean...who gives a shit about that geek stuff anyway"

you had better hope you have already sold your apple shares :-)

This post has been edited by Licentia Per Oris: Oct 6 2012, 10:20 AM

[The Welsh Paddy]

The only time an Apple product has appealed to me, was back when I was in college studying music technology and saw its potential when it came to recording and making music. Before I studied music, I studied art, and I remember my graphics tutor saying how an Apple Mac is much better for making graphics than a PC. Not knowing any better, I believed him, and for a while I did want an Apple Mac.

As for the i-Pod, i-Phone, i-Pad and what have you... I have never owned one, and have never wanted to own one. When it comes to listening to music, I always depend on my trusty CD walkman (Which I have been using excessively for the past 15 years). When it comes to phones; so long as I can call and text people on it, and it's sturdy, then I'm happy. With tablets... I've never owned one. Never really seen the appeal in them except for e-readers (Only because I read so much and have an insane amount of books that are taking up so much space).

With said Apple products, they have never appealed to me simply because I don't go out and buy something because someone tells me that it makes you cool. Everything I heard hasn't been even remotely appealing to me. It's mostly been cosmetic bullshit that appears only to serve to make it look cool and futuristic. Other than that, all I here is about all these pointless apps you can buy for it, and then how easy they are to break and how impossible they are to repair.

With Windows, I have already expressed me opinion about how pointless the upgrades have been getting post-XP in another thread. Vista and Windows 7 seems to be crammed full of crap I will never need that takes up a lot of ram. I hear that Windows is very buggy, but I haven't come across any problems that could be resolved relatively simply.

As for the Microsoft Surface, I doubt I will ever buy one, for the same reasons I have gone over above. I won't ever need one. It won't serve any purpose to me. Or at least, not any more use than a much cheaper tablet would serve.

By today's standards, I'm probably stuck in the stone age when it comes to technology. I still use a CD walkman, I use a phone dated back to when they started using MP3s for the first time... I'm far behind most people, and I really don't see the point in progressing because I have yet to see something that would do anything new that I would want to do.

To me, Apple is already notorious for feeding people aload of bullshit and (to my dismay) people just seem to eat it all up. Gladly, at that. And now Windows seems like it's about to go down that same path, and I bet people will follow along like sheep... again. I think all these tablets and whatnot are a complete waste of money.

[Rukiri]

The only time an Apple product has appealed to me, was back when I was in college studying music technology and saw its potential when it came to recording and making music. Before I studied music, I studied art, and I remember my graphics tutor saying how an Apple Mac is much better for making graphics than a PC. Not knowing any better, I believed him, and for a while I did want an Apple Mac.

As for the i-Pod, i-Phone, i-Pad and what have you... I have never owned one, and have never wanted to own one. When it comes to listening to music, I always depend on my trusty CD walkman (Which I have been using excessively for the past 15 years). When it comes to phones; so long as I can call and text people on it, and it's sturdy, then I'm happy. With tablets... I've never owned one. Never really seen the appeal in them except for e-readers (Only because I read so much and have an insane amount of books that are taking up so much space).

With said Apple products, they have never appealed to me simply because I don't go out and buy something because someone tells me that it makes you cool. Everything I heard hasn't been even remotely appealing to me. It's mostly been cosmetic bullshit that appears only to serve to make it look cool and futuristic. Other than that, all I here is about all these pointless apps you can buy for it, and then how easy they are to break and how impossible they are to repair.

With Windows, I have already expressed me opinion about how pointless the upgrades have been getting post-XP in another thread. Vista and Windows 7 seems to be crammed full of crap I will never need that takes up a lot of ram. I hear that Windows is very buggy, but I haven't come across any problems that could be resolved relatively simply.

As for the Microsoft Surface, I doubt I will ever buy one, for the same reasons I have gone over above. I won't ever need one. It won't serve any purpose to me. Or at least, not any more use than a much cheaper tablet would serve.

By today's standards, I'm probably stuck in the stone age when it comes to technology. I still use a CD walkman, I use a phone dated back to when they started using MP3s for the first time... I'm far behind most people, and I really don't see the point in progressing because I have yet to see something that would do anything new that I would want to do.

To me, Apple is already notorious for feeding people aload of bullshit and (to my dismay) people just seem to eat it all up. Gladly, at that. And now Windows seems like it's about to go down that same path, and I bet people will follow along like sheep... again. I think all these tablets and whatnot are a complete waste of money.

Windows is buggy and you can't simply fix it, unless you have kernel access which is not stored or hidden in windows so users could fix windows. Also going past XP, if your a graphics artist than you would want to be on 8 as DX12 will not be on 7 just like DX10/11 are not on XP.

However, Opengl has always been ahead but MS has money and people listen to people when they have money even if they're selling you absolute crap.

The only GOOD software from Microsoft is Office which is actually really good and prefer it to libreoffice.

It's also really funny how games run better under wine than windows itself but takes a lot of effort to make it work which is why gamers use windows for now.

Steam already runs great under Wine mainly because Valve is moving it's core to Linux, they're not supporting 8 at all but it will install due to windows 7 comparability.

Also, the more ram you have the better and it keeps your PC running cooler because it can load and swap memory much quicker because it has more memory to work with and less overhead to your cpu and your fans running crazy.

What people don't know is at least for many gamers is that OpenGL is as good as DX11 and ahead of the game and XP fully supports OpenGL and you can disable DirectX and use OpenGL in your games so they look their best but really just use a Linux distro like Ubuntu, install wine and call it good but use the 64bit version to utilize all your resources.