Apple's Brand Image: Past, Present and Future

BillyRay05:

Amphipathic:

It doesn't matter what is in their ads, the hipsters and elitists will buy them simply because they are more expensive and bring status.

While on vacay- noticed 4 texas mothers sitting on the beach clumsily sifting through pictures on their IPhones.

Came back from vacay- noticed 2 midwestern couples swiping on their IPhones with their thick meaty fingers.

Walking home from work last week, saw 2 geriatrics playing on their IPhones while at Sarabeths (not even eating or talking)

This is the antithesis of what the nerds and hipsters, both of whom are responsible for the phones success, believed in. It is no longer cutting edge, and worse of all, your parents probably own one. Unless Appl does something really crazy (which it doesnt appear that they will) with the 5, I see these phones losing their luster really quickly. In fact, all of my techie friends are basically done with the phone if 5 fails to push the boundries.

Agree 100%. Apple is going to be the victim of its own success. It's like those clothing lines that expanded too much, started letting their items get sold at discount retailers, and then got hammered.

BillyRay05:

rls:

Never been one for Apple advertising, but those new ones seem kinda crappy. Not funny at all. I found the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" commercials pretty pretentious and grating- and I've purchased exclusively Apple computers since 2006. I guess they decided to be less confrontation. For the entirety of the Jobs era, Apple wanted to behave like it was a start-up. There are upside and downsides to that, but we'll see how it develops. Like Harvey Dent said, "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

BillyRay05, 'cutting edge' and 'widely available' aren't mutually exclusive. Apple is trying and largely succeeding in putting state-of-the-art, or near state-of-the-art, technology in the hands of everyday people. That, for all intents and purposes, is the purpose and result of capitalism. Ultimately, you do not want your consumer base to be limited to the nerds and hipster indefinitely because 1) they are not large enough to build a trillion dollar company; and 2) they are capricious and cannot be relied upon for any enduring period of time. Hipsters are people who define themselves based on what other people are doing. It's built into their demonym. Why is the iPhone 'less cool' or 'less functional' just because Apple sold 100M of them?

'widely available' and cool are very much mutually exclusive. See Zoo York, for example.

You cannot deny that one of the bigger draws for many to get an apple product is that its much 'cooler' than those 'boring' pc/phone makers. When the IPhone first came out, it was lightyears ahead of the bigger players in terms of being cutting edge. Because of this and the already apple 'cool' factors, nerds and the early adopter hipsters were in love from the get go- and these people normally set trends for items such as these.

But tell me, what does the phone today have that is so cutting edge compared to others? Will people still considered it cool, despite the fact that my mom is checking out 'neat' IPhone covers online? high volume/low cost firms could care less about image, but I couldnt think of a tech company more opposite than this. Most of you youngin's grew up in an IPhone/apple world, so trust me when I tell you that these things come in waves...

First, the mass market, which has the deepest pockets to tap, buys products because the products are a mix of functional, cool, and quality-made. The iPhone started as a status device, not because of, I would argue, hipsters and nerds. Some hipsters and nerds may have latched on as early adopters, but the iPhone was not created for them- it is too simple/intuitive for nerds and too mass-market-oriented for hipsters. (Remember, iOS and iTunes are incredibly restrictive regarding customization - which is very anti-nerd and anti-hipster). When it started selling at AT&T, it was being sold for $599, one of the most expensive consumer phones at the time. Only when AT&T realized they had an enormous hit on their hands did they begin extensive subsidization. So, I would argue, that it was not the nerds or hipsters primarily who drove the initial iPhone sales and popularized the device, but the socialites and status seekers.

Second, a company, like most hipsters and nerds, eventually has to grow up. They can retain their youthful spirit, but there is no principled reason why quality and mass market have to be mutually exclusive. This is why Apple is such a smashing success. Even after its stock has increased 90 times or so in the last decade, it is still not expensive- because Apple still creates quality products and yet appeals to an enormous market. It is the culture of uncompromising quality that Jobs instilled during his tenure.

Lastly- the technology question. Yes, the other phone makers have made up some lost ground. But that doesn't mean that the iPhone is a bad phone or technologically irrelevant. The fact that in 2007 the iPhone was so far ahead of its time was unusual, not the a more normal gap that exists between phones today. Counter-factuals are impossible to quantify but here are two I would pose:

1) Would the Samsung Galaxy S3 exist without the iPhone preceding it? I doubt it. 2) Would Android exist in its current state without iOS preceding it? I doubt it.

The fact that Apple was able to jump ahead of its competitors so many times is a reason to buy their products for some consumers. They think about product design and function differently. That, and Apple has created an unrivaled ecosystem for all of your Apple devices to interact that increases the likelihood that your next computing device purchase will be an Apple product.

So, fine, for those perpetually unhappy folks forever searching for the next 'hip' thing, mainstream success is a death blow. In the meantime, they are missing out on quality products from a stellar company.