Whether they "get" anything is a matter of what criteria you use to judge them. They're surely profitable, and I suppose that buys them a lot of accolades for "getting" the technology they sell.
And yet, if they did the exact same thing they're doing now but weren't making a profit, I'm sure the vast majority of the people who are praising them now for "getting" the technology would excoriate them for "not getting" it.
I never said that profitability was the main criteria here. I just seems obvious to me that Apple creates a great blend of hardware and software that is pretty much unmatched in the industry. That doesn't mean their products are perfect for everyone or that I even own one -- just that they get how to build hardware and software. That's fairly rare in this industry.
Now your argument seems to be that regardless of what they do, profitability is no way related? They're profitable because they make products that people like and buy. If they weren't profitable it would because people don't like their products and don't buy them. I'd say that's rather significant.
"They're profitable because they make products that people like and buy. If they weren't profitable it would because people don't like their products and don't buy them."
I agree with the "buy" part: that's obviously necessary for them to be profitable. Not so sure about the "like" part.
There are many reasons to buy or not buy a product apart from liking it.
You could buy it because that's what's used at work, or because that's what all your friends have, or because they have a monopoly on interfacing with other products you need to use (like games, or photoshop, or tax or music software), or because that's what you've been using all along and it's just too much of a pain to switch, or just because the product is marketed so well that you feel the need to buy it without having any sort of clue as to whether you'll like after you've bought it (or any sort of clue as to how good the competition is).
I don't see any evidence that the reasons I cited are statistically insignificant or temporary. They clearly do happen, but to what extent? I don't know of any large-scale studies that show why people buy iphones or ipods.
As for not adding anything to the discussion, the same could be said about your own comments. Or you could also be accused of being "desperate to defend Apple".
But I wouldn't accuse you of that because I don't think that's a very constructive way of having a discussion.
> I don't see any evidence that the reasons I cited are statistically insignificant or temporary.
Really? So you think the overriding reason that people buy a product has nothing to do with whether they like it? Because that's the argument you seem to be making. I'm not desperate to defend Apple, I'm desperate to defend logic and common sense.
Honestly, I have no idea what point you were trying to make on this little aside to my original comment.
