How to Make Steve Jobs Sweat: Why Competitors Can’t Touch Apple

Steve Jobs doesn’t care about HP, or any other alleged competitors. Here’s how Apple has put itself into a league of its own – and how other companies can break in.

I’m channeling Steve Jobs this week, and it is clear that he really doesn’t think very much about his largest competitors. Why? He thinks the firms are being run by idiots – even though he doesn’t lead the market in share – because he makes more profit and his company has proven to be a vastly better investment over the last 10 years. Moreover, he was CEO of the decade, while Mark Hurd, HP’s CEO, was just fired, and most everyone else is chasing each other’s tail for the low-profit end of the market.

This week, let’s look at the market through Steve Jobs’ eyes, and think about why he thinks powerful competitors like HP are a joke. This is kind of a heads up to those interviewing over the next few weeks for the CEO job at HP, because I’d bet the HP board will want them to describe in some detail how to take the grin off Jobs’ face and put it on theirs.

Product Naming

Consumers buy products with simple names. Look at the car market: The affordable sports cars from Ford and Chevy are the Mustang and Camaro, for luxury and performance you want a Cadillac STS, or for pure performance you want a Corvette. If they use designations like Audi, they have a method like S5, which is a hot A5, or TT which is a sports car. Even the complex names are easy to remember, and the car folks seem to be chasing at the moment is the Hyundai Sonata. I did all of that without having to look up a single name.

Now, look at Apple. Its small computer is a Mac Mini, its notebook line is all MacBook and comes in two screen sizes, its workstation is a PowerMac/MacPro. Once again, I can name entire lines including the iPad, iPod (Touch, Mini, Shuffle, Classic), and iPhone. If I like one, I can easily communicate what to buy, and it doesn’t take a 60-page manual to figure out what I’m talking about.

Now, name a single product from any vendor with enough specificity to get you to the product. There are a handful: the HP TouchSmart, HP Envy, Dell Adamo… and that’s pretty much all I’ve got. The rest are a daunting mess of letters, numbers, and versions that not even the vendors can recite without some kind of a cheat sheet. Lenovo is actually one of the best, with series products that go back to when IBM was running the division named T for general purpose business, and X for extremely light. Coincidently, Lenovo is also the fastest growing PC vendor at the moment.

Steve gets that if you want to sell to people, and not walking calculators, you have to have names that can convey the core values of the related products. That is a meeting that most Apple competitors evidently missed.

Revenue and Market Share Don’t Matter, Profit Does

Apple doesn’t care about market share. While it is fun for us pundits to pit one vendor against another for the dubious title of who can sell the most unprofitable hardware as each attempts to buy the market, the real test is how much money you actually make. Apple’s profit is unmatched by any vendor short of Panasonic, and they do this by focusing like a laser on building a Lexus-like product and leaving the battle for the lower margin Toyotas to everyone else. HP tried to address this with its Voodoo products, but these were based on a gaming brand that didn’t transition to luxury, and largely failed as a result.

Apple succeeds by providing a store experience in the Apple stores that is unmatched, products that are perceived to be of higher quality, and a marketing effort that focuses consumers on their advantages. It took the Japanese car market a couple of years to get that the Lexus model worked, and respond with Infiniti and Acura – and we think that market is slow compared to tech. No other PC company, again with the possible exception of Panasonic, has understood the Apple lesson, and Steve must think these guys are blind.

Smartphones and Tablets

HP at least bought Palm to address this problem, but Apple started moving on this market over four years ago, and there has yet to be a credible challenge to its position by any PC vendor. The company Apple worries most about is likely HTC, a relatively young brand and still small compared to the big players in both the cell phone and PC space.

In both the case of the iPad and iPhone, Apple didn’t really come up with anything new, it simply executed better, with the most complete eco-system and a well-managed, premium user experience. The company still gets lines to buy its relatively expensive devices. Everyone else seems to be on the “build it and they will come” wagon; even Nokia should be wearing a large pink dunce cap over this.

The formula is simple: Build something compelling, then wrap it with a well-funded, well-designed demand-generation program that drives people to the unique advantages of the product. Evidently, this is still too difficult for anyone but Verizon, which has, with the Droid, demonstrated it can execute at near-Apple levels.

Steve Jobs Shouldn’t Be So Happy

Apple is far from perfect. In many ways, companies like HP build products that equal Apple’s. However, they don’t name them, market them, or wrap them with equivalent experiences. So, from Steve Jobs’ perspective, they are mostly fighting for a part of the market that he has no real interest in, the part that has the lowest profit, the lowest customer loyalty and the highest risk. Were I HP’s next CEO, I think I’d work to fix that, because Steve has been too happy for too long, and maybe my own investors, employees, and customers need to get a couple of chuckles on their own. Or put another way, the winning candidate for the HP CEO job should be able to describe how he or she will enjoy the tech market more, and make sure Steve Jobs enjoys it less.

Showing 35 comments

  1. James at 10:36am 13th October 2010 Zune was a pretty simple name - that didn't seem to help much...
  2. Aqua Fyre at 1:12am 27th August 2010 Great analysis Rob. Steve Jobs is radical olde school. What he has done is refresh the oldest marketing principles that all the other brands seem to have forgotten. Long time ago, when I was in Marketing, there were three 'P's to consider. Product : Placement & Price. What Jobs has done is expand on those cardinal marketing points by adding his own : Profit & Presence. When combined, they make up a formidable branding model that leaves an imprint in the mind of potential buyers. The truth is, that the other computer companies have lost their own identity & worse, lost their own central mission. I bet, neither Dell, HP, Asus or Acer can clearly articulate what makes them different to any other computer brand. And that's the thing Apple do so brilliantly. Irrespective of whether you love0em or hate-em : Apple know how to maximize their message.
  3. hector at 9:09pm 26th August 2010 "In many ways, companies like HP build products that equal Apple’s. However, they don’t name them, market them, or wrap them with equivalent experiences." How blind. HP doesn't build an OS. Is this that hard to understand? What makes Apple special are their operating systems. Many companies produce good hardware. It is not that difficult. That is what has kept me with the Mac all these years. Many companies produce good hardware.
    1. ioman at 10:44pm 26th August 2010 He was referring to their hardware doofus. Apple's OSes aren't just special, their hardware is too.
      1. Nooooorm at 3:48am 27th August 2010 I think hectors point was that MAX OS is the most defining part of their PC business business and what truly differentiates them from all others. Their PC use the same components as everyone else. Their designed are nice, but really nothing special to most PC users...although it's not doubt that the MAC zealots love the "shiny". I've always thought that if Apple ever licensed MAC OS two things would occur: Apple PC sales would slow down considerably. Microsoft would be in dire straights. I've been trying to start a conspiracy theory for sometime, that Microsoft pays Apple Billions each year NOT to license MAC OS...but it won't seem to catch on.
        1. Noooorm at 3:53am 27th August 2010 Wow. Gotta take more time to proofread. I think hector's point is that MAX OS is the most defining part of their PC business and what truly differentiates them from all others. Their PCs use the same components as everyone else. Their designes are nice, but really nothing special to most PC users...although it's not doubt that the MAC zealots love the "shiny". I've always thought that if Apple ever licensed MAC OS two things would occur: Apple PC sales would slow down considerably. Microsoft would be in dire straits. I've been trying to start a conspiracy theory for sometime, that Microsoft pays Apple billions each year NOT to license MAC OS...but it won't seem to catch on.
  4. TimM at 12:16pm 26th August 2010 Apple has a huge cult of personality such that even when they screw up, they don't pay for it like another company would. As the article points out, in the eyes of the fanboys, apple can do no wrong..so even when they DO wrong, it just gets rationalized and quickly forgotten and the fanboys stick their fingers in their ears and go LALALALALALA! If Apple made water bottles with BPA in them, you're simply not cool and hip if you don't have one. But if another company sells water bottles with BPA, they are the devil incarnate. The article illustrates this accurately. If you perceive Apple to be the second coming, then that is the reality. The question should be...Is this a good thing? Or is it going to bite us in the ass someday. Good money says the latter.
  5. vert at 5:10am 26th August 2010 Good article, but I think Apple got caught up in its own quality "illusion" with the iphone4. It simply wasn't and isn't there. Design and marketing only get you so far. In the end, the product has to work well. Also might have mentioned the perception of Apple customer service as excellent. I've had absolutely horrible customer service experiences with HP on several occasions, which has turned me off to any HP products. It's as if they intentionally want to drive away potential repeat customers.
  6. Andrew at 5:08am 26th August 2010 Just wondering how much profit does apple make compaired to Microsoft? Apple will fail in the long run because most of there products have limited functionality, iPhone, iPad, and there OSX desktops and laptops.
    1. RattyUK at 6:42am 26th August 2010 Apple will clear 20 Billion this quarter. Their profit for the quarter will exceed Microsofts for the first time.
  7. steffenjobbs at 4:57am 26th August 2010 What's HP gonna do when their tablet venture falls flat on its face? They should have just stuck to building cheap netbooks for the indigent masses. They're clearly out of their league going after Apple's iPad iOS ecosystem with some WebOS tablet. Does HP even have any retail stores where consumers get a chance to play with them? How are they going to reach consumers with their tablet? Does WebOS even have an ecosystem? What type of consumer perception does WebOS even have except that it's somehow connected to some failed Palm devices? HP seems to have a long, hard road ahead as their stock price has plunged recently, investor interest is waning and internally the company structure must be a mess. HP doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with Apple. What's HP most known for to consumers? They make printers. Wow!
  8. Geoff at 4:10am 26th August 2010 To see how hard it is for other, high quality, well established companies to compete on Apple's turf go no further than one of the new Sony stores. No, Sony isn't a direct competitor of Apple but the store is illustrative of the challenges facing a competitor. The Sony store is a hodgepodge of discordant brand images. Each brand is fine on its own but, when put together in one spot, creates a visual and conceptual chaotic landscape. Colors are different and clashing. Messages are different and clashing. The list goes on. Most consumer marketers have chosen to optimize each and every brand and not optimize their overall company brand. And, it has worked famously for companies Proctor & Gamble, Lever Brothers, and many others. Apple chose to make the company the Brand, instead. Now, all the product lines are simple, strait forward extensions of the core brand image - Apple. For the other companies to compete with Apple on its own turf will require them to abandon much of their traditional branding formula and adopt a completely new formula. They would have to bet the whole store on such a change. What company has the moxie and deep pockets to take such a risk? Not any that I can see. They will have to compete in other ways that nips at the heels of Apple, at least, for the time being.
  9. Sam at 4:07am 26th August 2010 dear Ron: you mention Thinkpad X and T those are the older premier lines, R was dropped. Lenovo Notebooks have 5 lines, Ideapad has 4 lines and thinkpad has 6 lines. Now that is confusing! Furthermore, Lenovo is not growing in the USA-- in China
    1. ioman at 1:52pm 26th August 2010 It's Rob, not Ron.
    2. Nooooorm at 3:40am 27th August 2010 Lenovo...what a bunch of idiots! Focusing their efforts on the largest, fastest growing PC markets in the world. *shakes head"
  10. HawkA at 2:59am 26th August 2010 -MacOS 1.0 -AppleWorks -Appletalk -Quicktime -MacOSX (portions of which have been ported to PowerPC, Intel, ARM and A4) -WebKit -iPod, iPhone, iPad -iTunes Music, Movie, TV, App and Book Stores And thousands of other products/technologies/services/paradigms...... yeah Apple is just a marketing company. *rolls eyes*
  11. don don at 2:38am 26th August 2010 This is THE most laser sharp analysis of the tech market at high level to date. If big tech firms don't rush to hire Rob as an adviser they are all idiots. Period. I usually consider journalists as idiots but Rob has just proven ME WRONG.
  12. John at 2:35am 26th August 2010 PowerMac? That's been gone for years... and so has the iPod mini; the picture you show just prove it! And it's not like your article is written in a way that indicates you remember even past names...
  13. ricardo at 2:10am 26th August 2010 In my opinion, one of the main reasons for Apple success is the focus on user experience. This have all to do with the perceived quality but mainly by the integration of all the parts on a same language. The fact that apple develops the OS (both mac and iOS) and the hardware, ensures a level of integration that differentiate from the competition. HP is often dependent on MS Windows and have little control of the software it uses.
  14. Charles Y Farley at 1:19am 26th August 2010 I've always maintained that Apple lovers were a simple-minded bunch. Thanks for confirming my opinion.
  15. david at 1:13am 26th August 2010 you can name the ipod mini?
  16. ioman at 10:21pm 25th August 2010 Are you sure about that? Acura is only sold in the U.S. because everywhere else they are just called Honda. We live in a world where perception is reality, and people perceive a car like a Lexus or Infiniti as being better than Toyota or Nissan. But in truth its just a fancy wrapping. Look at Bose, Prada, Gucci etc...
  17. ioman at 10:17pm 25th August 2010 Apple's philosophies sound a lot like the storage maker La Cie: "Joel Kamerman founded La Cie on three principles: (1) profit was more important than revenue; (2) product differentiation would create profit; and (3) vertical integration was key to La Cie's long term viability. La Cie's objective was to create premier products and differentiate the company through industrial design and value added software."
  18. Baran at 10:13pm 25th August 2010 Yes, marketing does impact how product sales goes but making an assumption only on that is totally imaginary and wrong. Apple has a reputation that HP cannot have. You cannot put Apple in the same line as Dell or HP or Lenovo come. Its altogether a different league of user experience, customer service and a sort of class that it provides. Sure Apple is catching up and will definitely have a larger user base across the world, don't see any reason for Apple to be worried about HP unless they themselves take some insane decisions.
    1. ioman at 10:22pm 25th August 2010 The key as Rob points out is that Apple is focused on profit, not necessarily revenue. They area smart company. Dell and HP focus on bottom line revenue even if that means slim margins. As a result, their products are failing because they are built like crap just to sell as much volume as possible.
      1. Baran at 10:49pm 25th August 2010 Cannot agree with you more. Only point of disagreement is the conclusion where the only difference cited is about how Apple market its products. I would love to see some analysis over product quality, customer service standards and the rate of issues reported for apple compared to other major giants to support this claim.
    2. RattyUK at 5:34am 26th August 2010 Hmmmm. Rob has never been right on Apple. The closing paragraph sums up exactly why he has been wrong and remains wrong. In fact this is where he is precisely wrong: "However, they don’t name them, market them, or wrap them with equivalent experiences. " The entire article is predicated on the principle that Apple is just a company with good marketing. Marketing would only take you so far - if you didn't actually have the products to take you there. This has been a chess game. Apple have been putting the pieces in place since 1997. Building bit by bit until the competing companies final see what the plan was all alone. But of course it is too late. Employing someone who want's to make Steve Jobs sweat is a fine idea. The problem is that there will be a lot of bluster and people will make these claims, take the bosses of Acer and LG last week - both promising "iPad Killers" but really they have to follow through. In January HP announced a Slate. Nice name. Where is it? Well two days later Apple announced the iPad and every tablet went back to the drawing board the day after. Projects got cancelled, shelved, redesigned. Look at the Sammy tablet that is coming out in the next few weeks. The interface completely stolen from the iPad, down to the color scheme. You have a huge international corporation and the best they can do is clone the market maker? Look at the connector for power and data? Where is it? Yup. In exactly the same place as the iPad. Your company can't afford Johnny Ive as a designer? Doesn't matter just steal what he does. But this is far from the point. Apple just doesn't come out with something and give it a cute name and let the people buy it. That is just too shallow a description of what happened and is happening. If that were true then the samsung tablet will sell like hotcakes. It might do well at the beginning and then people will start to see it's limitations, the bits of the Android UI that don't quite work, the limitations of Android itself, the knock-off of something that was designed from the ground up. The people will go to the thing that works. HP have bought Palm. A company with a really decent OS that could give iOS a run for it's money. But where is the Slate tablet with WebOS? Shelved until 2011. Meanwhile they will eventually get around to releasing the Windows 7 version of the Slate before the holidays as promised by Ballmer back in Jan. Robbie Bach got fired the week HP bought Palm. The guys at Microsoft must have worked awfully hard to swing this. So by carefully ignoring what Apple actually does and brush it all off as "just marketing" Enderle yet again gets paid for writing an article on a tech leviathan and yet misses the story. Way to go.
      1. ioman at 10:19am 26th August 2010 Totally disagree. Your hatred of Rob Enderle makes you blind to anything he says. Personally I am surprised he is giving Apple so much praise, and you should be too. I don't think anywhere he says Apple makes bad products and wraps them in good marketing. Quite the opposite. "The formula is simple: Build something compelling, then wrap it with a well-funded, well-designed demand-generation program that drives people to the unique advantages of the product. " He calls Apple products well designed, and compelling. How is that even close to just saying that their products are just well marketed and that's it?
  19. DLaw at 9:26pm 25th August 2010 Arrogance and complacency are Apple's main opponents right now.
  20. c.o. at 9:25pm 25th August 2010 Side note; an S5 is a hot A5. An S4 is a hot A4. If you cannot get the small details right...
    1. ioman at 10:19pm 25th August 2010 Fixed. Totally my fault for messing that up while editing the story. Sorry. It has been corrected.
  21. Thi Halpern at 3:56pm 25th August 2010 I was with you all the way until the last section where most unfortunately after all the insights you gave you resorted to the naive analysis that it boils down to marketing. You say HP makes products that equals Apple " However, they don’t name them, market them, or wrap them with equivalent experiences." By "wrap" I take it to mean packaging design? If so, what you're saying is all about marketing and presentation. But you have it wrong! One other area that Apple shines where most other tech companies have yet not met is the actual user experience, the experience the user gets when interacting with the product! That's where a lot of the big difference counts too! It's not all about marketing and product packaging. People are not lemmings. People are not idiots.
  22. melgross at 3:47pm 25th August 2010 Carrie, Apple is growing much faster than Hp is. Two years ago their sales were about $24 billion. Last year, about $43 billion. This year they will be about $60 to $62 billion, and estimates for next year are for between $78 and $83 billion. It won't bee too much longer before their sales equal that of Hp, and when they do, they will be making several times as much jprofit, and they are making more now. So, while Hp's sales were $114 billion this year, I believe, their growth has been small. They also compete in areas that Apple isn't involved in, such as heavy duty mini computing and large servers, plus enterprise software and services. Those areas constitute a significant part of their business, as are printers, which Apple doesn't make. I've been following Rob for years, and he's got the worst track record as far as predictions go. I read his article saying that Apple's sales would "tank" because they were going to Intel, and we all know what happened. Anything he says is almost always wrong. He talks about how he knows names by heart, but forgets that Apple hasn't made a Powermac for years, even though he posts a picture of their lineup. Amazing.
  23. Carrie at 2:24pm 25th August 2010 For as much good things Apple is doing, I believe their revenues are not even close to HP's right? I believe HP has a lot more products out there in more channels and in more countries. But I guess in the end, we perceive Apple as being a better product for a number of reasons: 1) Apple fans are the strongest salespeople out there, Apple can do no wrong 2) Perceived quality of Apple products is much better than that from HP, Lenovo (and especially Dell) 3) Apple customer service is much better than the aforementioned companies 4) Apple stores, like Rob mentions, look pretty amazing
    1. Arun Nagarathanam at 1:19am 1st September 2010 visit here for more info http://lensfire.blogspot.com/islate for info abt apple islate
Close Suggestion Logitech Trumpets THX-certified Speaker System Z623
View Article