Darren responded to my post on Chris Anderson, and I've responded there. This is almost like real blogging.
In doing that, I read Anderson's shuffle piece again and found it even more annoying the second time around. Apparently he disagrees with the Nokia researchers who believe the iPod Shuffle will be a huge hit, yet "no doubt they will still sell millions". But because of the long tail, it's success will be limited. You have to ask - limited compared to what, exactly? The iPod, maybe? It's rather shocking to think that Apple may have come up with a product that doesn't cannibalize its existing iPod market.
Anderson believes that the Shuffle will still sell millions despite its tail-imposed limitatations because of Apple's brand and momentum. I am wondering he believes that companies should approach every design problem as if they had no brand or existing market share - as if they were a startup entering the market for the first time. Isn't the point of building a brand and market share that you don't have to?
Not that I think having a good brand is an excuse for shipping shoddy or useless products - though clearly it is possible to succeed with such products if you have a good brand (though how long your brand will stay good is somewhat open to question.) I believe the reason Apple will sell zillions of these things where a startup would not is because they have established a "value network" around iTunes, the other iPod models and to a lesser extent the Mac that will make it easier for people to recognize the value in the iPod Shuffle.
(Updated: added the last paragraph.)
Comments