Who would've thought...

Looking back at this 2001 article from BusinessWeek saying that the opening of Apple Stores was a fatal mistake and soon Apple will close them down and realize their failure, it is quite interesting to see the Apple Stores become such successes now. Heck, they make $4000+ per square foot of the store, more than Tiffany & Co. and Best Buy. Combined.

In this article, BusinessWeek also said Apple was heading into the wrong direction, and Steve Jobs was wrong.

Read the article, and it is quite amazing to think of all the doubt that surrounded Apple's risky launches (Apple Store, iPod), and how successful they've become today. And who knows? All the doubt and skepticism surrounding the iPhone may very well be the same bogus as this article was.

Enjoy!

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_21/b3733059.htm

EDIT: The page may take a little while to load. Its back from 2001 for god's sake .

 

haha, you gotta love when these business reporters are completely completely completely wrong.

they really prove their worth with articles like that.

 

Apple made 2 smart moves,

1. Intel CPU's
2. Bootcamp

I will consider an apple in the future, well as long as they keep bootcamp. (not a fan of OS X).

and I know of alot of users that need windows but like OS X and that is why they are doing so well now.

agreed with above! neat!

 

The one thing that really helped launch the iPod was the white ear-bugs. Nobody really thought about it when they set them up like that, but when people saw other people walking down the street with those white headphones, they wanted to know what was up. Major marketing for apple, when all they wanted was a constant color.

 

That Cliff Edwards guy needs to go back and redo his degree, if he has done one at all.

 

Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that , but I think he should come back to this article and re-write a new one, saying "I was wrong".

I mean, it was kinda hard to predict how the Apple Stores would work out back in 2001, when Apple had declining market share and the PC stores (Gateway, anyone?) were doing badly.

But as I said above, Cliff Edwards should write a new article praising Apple's current success and admitting that he was wrong.

 

I would say back in 2001 when that article was written he was correct.

Apple had very lil appeal (except for design purists) and was mainly a boutique product for a very niche customer.
Intel and bootcamp wernt even thought of or a glimmer in the horizon in 2001

What intel and bootcamp have done for Mac is not necessarily bring them more design type customers (because thats what their product was geared to) but they brought compability to what was and were only-use PC users to their front door.
Boot camp shaved away the fear of the "oh no what if i dont like OS X and im stuck with this thing" mentality away for normal PC users.

Plus the huge popularity of the ipod help elevate the 'cool factor' of the mac and theres no stopping the mac train right now.

As far as the $4000+ per square goes thats a lil skewered because right now theres only 4 in all of Canada (170 stand-alone mac stores worldwide) and they are always packed. That compared to 1000 BestBuys in Canada (3000approx in US) ... well, you do the math and u can see why a Mac store generates more $$ per sq footage.

The only fear now is with the migration of normal otherwise PC users moving to mac is mac gonna turn into just another pc?

 

Apple is quickly becoming a large force in the computer world. Its really pretty incredible how far they have come in the last decade. I think the iPhone is going to quickly become the same sort of status icon that both the Razr and iPod were at one point. Price is going to be the major limiting factor right now, but hopefully we see a price drop in the second or third gen phones.

 

Sam, thanks for digging this up! I certainly love it and can use it for my presentations. Now, if I only could find an article that called the $399 iPod a bonehead move, I'd be in hog heaven!

 

He wasn't right since he was predicting the future, and he got it wrong. Not that predicting - or even understanding - stuff like the success of the iPod is easy, but hey, that was his call.
Apple may not be as big or ubiquitous as MS, but last I heard they were more profitable. Apple is a force to be dealt with, and most of the time they seem to know their way around.

 

Well predicting the future is always a touchy area as it can be guessing game. But professional market analysts do this day in and day out. A lot of these analysts can be dangerous to economy as their reports can often affect stock growth but its a necessary evil not just for market projections but for the retailer itself. Cliff Edwards stated it was David A. Goldstein, (president of researcher Channel Marketing Corp) that said Apple would be closing its doors in 2yrs. Believe it or not, big business rely on these market analysts to predict the future for them and make them, pardon the pun... 'think different'
Jobs may have needed a check up from the neck up and look at the writing on the wall as the article states how Apple was being dropped by the big retailers like a cheap suit.
Drastic measures were needed to gain back the market share Apple was losing and as the article insinuated..... Apple needed to stop catering to the ultra chic design division and make the Mac more mainstream and accessible and more user friendly to more people

I see the article as a "Hey Jobs... this is what i think and this is where your going... what are YOU gonna do about it" type of challenge...touche! Jobs took up the challenge and won.

Market changes attitudes, market changes direction and market changes business and product projections and designs. Two prime examples of market product change is MercedesBenz and BMW. Two decades ago only the most sophisicated with deep pockets would be seen driving these cars. Now you can lease a Benz for $250 a month.

The market and Jobs intial vision of who and what the Mac was geared to had to change back in 2001. Who would have thunk it back then that Mac would have Intel, Office for Mac and BootCamp?? Unheard of! and even if you would think of such an idea it would be an insult to mac users.

Macs position has changed with the implementation of Intel and BootCamp. Its changed for the good thats for sure just based on sales figures. Macs market has stepped into mainstream PC users and even in this Mac forum you see some new buyers asking if theyve done the right thing. Of course sure they have. They have a safety net (BootCamp) now that they didnt have before.
So when its all said and done... the "think different' moniker is now more like... 'think the same'

 

I understand your thinking but I am not sure I agree with it all. Apple started being profitable again when Jobs came back, and I would't say that particular article had some influence in his strategy. I see the change to a Intel architecture being based much more in a demand issue with the PPC chip providers, and the undoubtably good benefits of moving to Intel arch as second thought. Apple is seen as a niche players. Paradoxically, iPods sell well because of that - technology, feature and cost wise, there are better players out there. Apple simply provides a better overall experience, and part of that is the perception of being "different". People feel different using Apple gear, wheter it is a notebook or an mp3 player. See all the buzz the iPhone generated. With the sole exception of the multitouch display, there is nothing in it that hadn't been done and used in WM/PPC PE or Symbian Phones. Heck , even the Webkit based browser has been available for years in Symbian phones. But the iPhone, and only the iPhone, is being hailed as the holy grail of the cellphone market. Had Apple gone the Dell way, or the HP way this perception would be lost. And that is what most bussinesses analist don't get, Apple is doing well because it is NOT just another player in the market. The question is not whether Apple uses Intel or PPC, or if it opens a retail store (like Dell, the proclaimed king of direct marketing is willing to do now) or not, is whether they can be perceived by their market as providing a different value. Not just "more" value. Apple manages to convey the impression they give the consumer something else the other brands can't give.