May 2, 2012 at 11:23 am
RobertYoung (5/2/2012)
L' Eomot Inversé (5/2/2012)
The idea someone had that salesmen should be paid more because they have to look good doesn't hold waterI guess you not noticed the harlot hussy insurgence? In everything from stocks and bonds to real estate to techy bits. Sex sells, and management knows it. And, no, salespeople aren't more valuable. They only say that because, by and large, they control companies, and thus promotion processes. After all, it was salespeople who created the subprime/ARM/etc. products at mortgage companies, and salespeople who packaged and sold them from "investment" banks. Salespeople are immoral. They should be paid less.
And developers have always produced things that were ethical and perfect. Like the Slammer worm, the Melissa virus, the ILOVEYOU worm, the Conficker worm, the Stuxnet trojan, and so on.
I guess salespeople should be paid less and developers should be paid less too. Or maybe both need to be locked up and supervised at all times. Or maybe a small percentage of each gives the larger body of each a bad name in the right circumstances.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
May 2, 2012 at 3:14 pm
GSquared (5/2/2012)
RobertYoung (5/2/2012)
L' Eomot Inversé (5/2/2012)
The idea someone had that salesmen should be paid more because they have to look good doesn't hold waterI guess you not noticed the harlot hussy insurgence? In everything from stocks and bonds to real estate to techy bits. Sex sells, and management knows it. And, no, salespeople aren't more valuable. They only say that because, by and large, they control companies, and thus promotion processes. After all, it was salespeople who created the subprime/ARM/etc. products at mortgage companies, and salespeople who packaged and sold them from "investment" banks. Salespeople are immoral. They should be paid less.
And developers have always produced things that were ethical and perfect. Like the Slammer worm, the Melissa virus, the ILOVEYOU worm, the Conficker worm, the Stuxnet trojan, and so on.
I guess salespeople should be paid less and developers should be paid less too. Or maybe both need to be locked up and supervised at all times. Or maybe a small percentage of each gives the larger body of each a bad name in the right circumstances.
...except that the guys who write all those pestilences are usually called [black hat] hackers, not developers. For a reason, IMO.
May 3, 2012 at 7:56 am
Revenant (5/2/2012)
GSquared (5/2/2012)
RobertYoung (5/2/2012)
L' Eomot Inversé (5/2/2012)
The idea someone had that salesmen should be paid more because they have to look good doesn't hold waterI guess you not noticed the harlot hussy insurgence? In everything from stocks and bonds to real estate to techy bits. Sex sells, and management knows it. And, no, salespeople aren't more valuable. They only say that because, by and large, they control companies, and thus promotion processes. After all, it was salespeople who created the subprime/ARM/etc. products at mortgage companies, and salespeople who packaged and sold them from "investment" banks. Salespeople are immoral. They should be paid less.
And developers have always produced things that were ethical and perfect. Like the Slammer worm, the Melissa virus, the ILOVEYOU worm, the Conficker worm, the Stuxnet trojan, and so on.
I guess salespeople should be paid less and developers should be paid less too. Or maybe both need to be locked up and supervised at all times. Or maybe a small percentage of each gives the larger body of each a bad name in the right circumstances.
...except that the guys who write all those pestilences are usually called [black hat] hackers, not developers. For a reason, IMO.
And the salespeople who do illegal/unethical things are called "criminals" or "scam artists" or "fraud agents" or a variety of other things that Steve won't want me to post here because this is supposed to be family-friendly. If you really feel it's okay to say salespeople are unethical/criminal, but developers aren't, and then defend that statement by stating that anyone who is unethical who writes software isn't a "developer" but a "hacker", that's okay. That kind of use of semantic-twist has a long history of being perfectly acceptable to politicians and lawyers, and we all know they are definitely the best arbiters of ethics in the world.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
May 3, 2012 at 8:22 am
If you've ever been in sales/marketing, or know well someone who is, then you know their mantra: "any moron can sell a good product, they're just order takers, it takes a SALESMAN to move drek". And they really believe it. This leads to all sorts of perversions, the Great Recession being just the latest. Sales isn't about making stuff, it's about syphoning off the largest money. If you look, you'll discover that the Investment Bankers who caused the Great Recession, did (and now, again) get upwards of 50% of the revenue stream. Granted, investment banking has no real product, but you get the picture.
And, granted, sales of software isn't quite the same as subprime mortgages. Or, perhaps it is?
May 3, 2012 at 10:05 am
GSquared (5/3/2012)
Revenant (5/2/2012)
GSquared (5/2/2012)
And developers have always produced things that were ethical and perfect. Like the Slammer worm, the Melissa virus, the ILOVEYOU worm, the Conficker worm, the Stuxnet trojan, and so on.I guess salespeople should be paid less and developers should be paid less too. Or maybe both need to be locked up and supervised at all times. Or maybe a small percentage of each gives the larger body of each a bad name in the right circumstances.
...except that the guys who write all those pestilences are usually called [black hat] hackers, not developers. For a reason, IMO.
And the salespeople who do illegal/unethical things are called "criminals" or "scam artists" or "fraud agents" or a variety of other things that Steve won't want me to post here because this is supposed to be family-friendly. If you really feel it's okay to say salespeople are unethical/criminal, but developers aren't, and then defend that statement by stating that anyone who is unethical who writes software isn't a "developer" but a "hacker", that's okay. That kind of use of semantic-twist has a long history of being perfectly acceptable to politicians and lawyers, and we all know they are definitely the best arbiters of ethics in the world.
+1
(+ a very strongly held 1, in fact)
Tom
May 4, 2012 at 6:48 am
RobertYoung (5/3/2012)
If you've ever been in sales/marketing, or know well someone who is, then you know their mantra: "any moron can sell a good product, they're just order takers, it takes a SALESMAN to move drek". And they really believe it. This leads to all sorts of perversions, the Great Recession being just the latest. Sales isn't about making stuff, it's about syphoning off the largest money. If you look, you'll discover that the Investment Bankers who caused the Great Recession, did (and now, again) get upwards of 50% of the revenue stream. Granted, investment banking has no real product, but you get the picture.And, granted, sales of software isn't quite the same as subprime mortgages. Or, perhaps it is?
I've been in sales and marketing, and that "mantra" is simply totally untrue. Sure, there are probably people who believe it, but sales is a lot of work, even for a good product or service. Anyone who says otherwise is just bitter about something, no telling what. I was very good at sales and marketing. I worked with a lot of people who, despite selling a good service, couldn't close a deal without cutting the price to the point where profitability was questionable at best, and couldn't retain customers despite good customer service. So, whoever told you that mantra was pretty much lying to you, probably for political reasons or to safeguard their own ego.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
May 4, 2012 at 7:28 am
GSquared (5/4/2012)
RobertYoung (5/3/2012)
If you've ever been in sales/marketing, or know well someone who is, then you know their mantra: "any moron can sell a good product, they're just order takers, it takes a SALESMAN to move drek". And they really believe it. This leads to all sorts of perversions, the Great Recession being just the latest. Sales isn't about making stuff, it's about syphoning off the largest money. If you look, you'll discover that the Investment Bankers who caused the Great Recession, did (and now, again) get upwards of 50% of the revenue stream. Granted, investment banking has no real product, but you get the picture.And, granted, sales of software isn't quite the same as subprime mortgages. Or, perhaps it is?
I've been in sales and marketing, and that "mantra" is simply totally untrue. Sure, there are probably people who believe it, but sales is a lot of work, even for a good product or service. Anyone who says otherwise is just bitter about something, no telling what. I was very good at sales and marketing. I worked with a lot of people who, despite selling a good service, couldn't close a deal without cutting the price to the point where profitability was questionable at best, and couldn't retain customers despite good customer service. So, whoever told you that mantra was pretty much lying to you, probably for political reasons or to safeguard their own ego.
From the horse's mouth http://www.usreference.com/sales_and_marketing/ezine_selling_vs_order-taking.shtml :
"The point is if you have the right product you don’t actually have to sell. You can just take orders. "
The point, taken from the other side, is that wrong product has to be coerced onto the customer, and for that you need a SALESMAN. Spending money to make a right product will be cheaper than paying exorbitant sums to good looking guys and gals. Just look at Apple.
May 4, 2012 at 7:54 am
RobertYoung (5/4/2012)
GSquared (5/4/2012)
RobertYoung (5/3/2012)
If you've ever been in sales/marketing, or know well someone who is, then you know their mantra: "any moron can sell a good product, they're just order takers, it takes a SALESMAN to move drek". And they really believe it. This leads to all sorts of perversions, the Great Recession being just the latest. Sales isn't about making stuff, it's about syphoning off the largest money. If you look, you'll discover that the Investment Bankers who caused the Great Recession, did (and now, again) get upwards of 50% of the revenue stream. Granted, investment banking has no real product, but you get the picture.And, granted, sales of software isn't quite the same as subprime mortgages. Or, perhaps it is?
I've been in sales and marketing, and that "mantra" is simply totally untrue. Sure, there are probably people who believe it, but sales is a lot of work, even for a good product or service. Anyone who says otherwise is just bitter about something, no telling what. I was very good at sales and marketing. I worked with a lot of people who, despite selling a good service, couldn't close a deal without cutting the price to the point where profitability was questionable at best, and couldn't retain customers despite good customer service. So, whoever told you that mantra was pretty much lying to you, probably for political reasons or to safeguard their own ego.
From the horse's mouth http://www.usreference.com/sales_and_marketing/ezine_selling_vs_order-taking.shtml :
"The point is if you have the right product you don’t actually have to sell. You can just take orders. "
The point, taken from the other side, is that wrong product has to be coerced onto the customer, and for that you need a SALESMAN. Spending money to make a right product will be cheaper than paying exorbitant sums to good looking guys and gals. Just look at Apple.
That's just the old garbage about "build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door" with enough words changed to avoid copyright infringement.
It's always been false. It is false. It will always be false.
There's just enough truth in the idea that garbage can be sold that it looks reasonable. Politicians "sell" themselves routinely, and lots of people "buy" them, is a good example of it. Apple products are a good example of good marketing selling what people don't actually need, yes. And lots of people still think OS X is more secure than Windows when, in fact, last June, OS X finally caught up with Windows XP SP2 in terms of actual security. It still hasn't caught up with Vista or 7. Very good examples of perception being skewed away from reality by marketing.
But there have been millions (if not billions) of "better mousetraps" that absolutely did NOT sell themselves, where the inventors believed what you're preaching here, and ended up bankrupt because they didn't put the necessary work into sales and marketing.
No matter what you're selling, it takes work. A good product may be easier to sell than a poor one, but they both take work.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
May 4, 2012 at 8:07 am
GSquared (5/4/2012)
RobertYoung (5/4/2012)
GSquared (5/4/2012)
RobertYoung (5/3/2012)
If you've ever been in sales/marketing, or know well someone who is, then you know their mantra: "any moron can sell a good product, they're just order takers, it takes a SALESMAN to move drek". And they really believe it. This leads to all sorts of perversions, the Great Recession being just the latest. Sales isn't about making stuff, it's about syphoning off the largest money. If you look, you'll discover that the Investment Bankers who caused the Great Recession, did (and now, again) get upwards of 50% of the revenue stream. Granted, investment banking has no real product, but you get the picture.And, granted, sales of software isn't quite the same as subprime mortgages. Or, perhaps it is?
I've been in sales and marketing, and that "mantra" is simply totally untrue. Sure, there are probably people who believe it, but sales is a lot of work, even for a good product or service. Anyone who says otherwise is just bitter about something, no telling what. I was very good at sales and marketing. I worked with a lot of people who, despite selling a good service, couldn't close a deal without cutting the price to the point where profitability was questionable at best, and couldn't retain customers despite good customer service. So, whoever told you that mantra was pretty much lying to you, probably for political reasons or to safeguard their own ego.
From the horse's mouth http://www.usreference.com/sales_and_marketing/ezine_selling_vs_order-taking.shtml :
"The point is if you have the right product you don’t actually have to sell. You can just take orders. "
The point, taken from the other side, is that wrong product has to be coerced onto the customer, and for that you need a SALESMAN. Spending money to make a right product will be cheaper than paying exorbitant sums to good looking guys and gals. Just look at Apple.
That's just the old garbage about "build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door" with enough words changed to avoid copyright infringement.
It's always been false. It is false. It will always be false.
There's just enough truth in the idea that garbage can be sold that it looks reasonable. Politicians "sell" themselves routinely, and lots of people "buy" them, is a good example of it. Apple products are a good example of good marketing selling what people don't actually need, yes. And lots of people still think OS X is more secure than Windows when, in fact, last June, OS X finally caught up with Windows XP SP2 in terms of actual security. It still hasn't caught up with Vista or 7. Very good examples of perception being skewed away from reality by marketing.
But there have been millions (if not billions) of "better mousetraps" that absolutely did NOT sell themselves, where the inventors believed what you're preaching here, and ended up bankrupt because they didn't put the necessary work into sales and marketing.
No matter what you're selling, it takes work. A good product may be easier to sell than a poor one, but they both take work.
And, if you go here: http://ycharts.com/
You can plot SG&A/Revenues for companies of interest. Try AAPL vs. GS, for instance. The numbers:
AAPL/SG&A -- 2.3 B
AAPL/Revenue -- 39.2 B
GS/SG&A -- 5 B
GS/Revenue -- 11.8 B
You can clearly see the difference. One company makes good products, the other not so much. They divide revenues differently. So far as the cite goes; it's from The Preacher, not some rabble rousing Commie, for crying out loud. Fact is, the lousier you make your product, the more you have to pay slick used car salesman. That's just the way it works. It's not very efficient from a macro-economic point of view, of course.
May 4, 2012 at 8:53 am
I think you're both off track slightly here. Apple doesn't do well because of sales. They do well because they've made very intuitive products that work great in some ways, but they also have fantastic marketing. Not sales, marketing.
The "salespeople" in Apple stores can show you how to easily do slick things, and people like that, but for the most part it's other Apple users that grassroots sell things.
But Apple, MS, Google, etc. aren't really what I was talking about. Let's say Dynamics v Peachtree Accounting. There you have sales reps that work to convince different companies to use their software. The software is fairly generic, but the developers work hard to build things in. Who's more important to the company? Without either (sales or dev) you don't have a business.
I'm not sure, however, that commission salespeople that work to meet a number deserve to make 10x or 100x what the lead developers make. I'm not sure they add that much more.
May 4, 2012 at 9:08 am
RobertYoung (5/4/2012)
GSquared (5/4/2012)
RobertYoung (5/4/2012)
GSquared (5/4/2012)
RobertYoung (5/3/2012)
If you've ever been in sales/marketing, or know well someone who is, then you know their mantra: "any moron can sell a good product, they're just order takers, it takes a SALESMAN to move drek". And they really believe it. This leads to all sorts of perversions, the Great Recession being just the latest. Sales isn't about making stuff, it's about syphoning off the largest money. If you look, you'll discover that the Investment Bankers who caused the Great Recession, did (and now, again) get upwards of 50% of the revenue stream. Granted, investment banking has no real product, but you get the picture.And, granted, sales of software isn't quite the same as subprime mortgages. Or, perhaps it is?
I've been in sales and marketing, and that "mantra" is simply totally untrue. Sure, there are probably people who believe it, but sales is a lot of work, even for a good product or service. Anyone who says otherwise is just bitter about something, no telling what. I was very good at sales and marketing. I worked with a lot of people who, despite selling a good service, couldn't close a deal without cutting the price to the point where profitability was questionable at best, and couldn't retain customers despite good customer service. So, whoever told you that mantra was pretty much lying to you, probably for political reasons or to safeguard their own ego.
From the horse's mouth http://www.usreference.com/sales_and_marketing/ezine_selling_vs_order-taking.shtml :
"The point is if you have the right product you don’t actually have to sell. You can just take orders. "
The point, taken from the other side, is that wrong product has to be coerced onto the customer, and for that you need a SALESMAN. Spending money to make a right product will be cheaper than paying exorbitant sums to good looking guys and gals. Just look at Apple.
That's just the old garbage about "build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door" with enough words changed to avoid copyright infringement.
It's always been false. It is false. It will always be false.
There's just enough truth in the idea that garbage can be sold that it looks reasonable. Politicians "sell" themselves routinely, and lots of people "buy" them, is a good example of it. Apple products are a good example of good marketing selling what people don't actually need, yes. And lots of people still think OS X is more secure than Windows when, in fact, last June, OS X finally caught up with Windows XP SP2 in terms of actual security. It still hasn't caught up with Vista or 7. Very good examples of perception being skewed away from reality by marketing.
But there have been millions (if not billions) of "better mousetraps" that absolutely did NOT sell themselves, where the inventors believed what you're preaching here, and ended up bankrupt because they didn't put the necessary work into sales and marketing.
No matter what you're selling, it takes work. A good product may be easier to sell than a poor one, but they both take work.
And, if you go here: http://ycharts.com/
You can plot SG&A/Revenues for companies of interest. Try AAPL vs. GS, for instance. The numbers:
AAPL/SG&A -- 2.3 B
AAPL/Revenue -- 39.2 B
GS/SG&A -- 5 B
GS/Revenue -- 11.8 B
You can clearly see the difference. One company makes good products, the other not so much. They divide revenues differently. So far as the cite goes; it's from The Preacher, not some rabble rousing Commie, for crying out loud. Fact is, the lousier you make your product, the more you have to pay slick used car salesman. That's just the way it works. It's not very efficient from a macro-economic point of view, of course.
List 50 great products nobody but the inventor (and possibly a patent office in his/her country) has ever heard of, including you.
I guarantee there are more than 50 great products in the world that fit that bill, but you of course can't list them, because you've never heard of them, by definition. I can't either, for the same exact reason.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that "the better mousetrap" selling itself is a well-known fallacy. It's an appealing idea, but it doesn't actually work in the real world.
You're arguing with the part of my posts where I already said I agree with you. We're not disagreeing on the points that:
A) It's easier to sell a good product/service.
B) A poor product/service can be sold by a good sales/marketing team.
All I'm disagreeing with is the apparent assertion that you don't need sales or marketing if you have a good product/service.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
May 4, 2012 at 9:16 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (5/4/2012)
I think you're both off track slightly here. Apple doesn't do well because of sales. They do well because they've made very intuitive products that work great in some ways, but they also have fantastic marketing. Not sales, marketing.The "salespeople" in Apple stores can show you how to easily do slick things, and people like that, but for the most part it's other Apple users that grassroots sell things.
But Apple, MS, Google, etc. aren't really what I was talking about. Let's say Dynamics v Peachtree Accounting. There you have sales reps that work to convince different companies to use their software. The software is fairly generic, but the developers work hard to build things in. Who's more important to the company? Without either (sales or dev) you don't have a business.
I'm not sure, however, that commission salespeople that work to meet a number deserve to make 10x or 100x what the lead developers make. I'm not sure they add that much more.
Actually, I've been referencing sales and marketing in most of my posts. Honestly, they're both in the same category of function, of making the product known, liked, and purchased (or the service, either one).
Really, if you want to split hairs on it, Apple has okay marketing and great PR.
On the point of two comparable products/services, both of reasonable quality, you need both technical and sales/marketing/PR people in order to make the business work for either. You also need good management, good executives, and good support personnel. And a good HR dept to get and keep all those other good people. And good janitorial/facilities personnel to keep the building going. And so on.
If you have to pick a good salesperson vs a good dev, for whatever reason, as discussed above, you'll have an easier time selling a better product, so pick the better dev. I'm not sure that's a realistic situation for most businesses, where you have to make that kind of choice, though.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
May 4, 2012 at 10:24 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (5/4/2012)
I'm not sure, however, that commission salespeople that work to meet a number deserve to make 10x or 100x what the lead developers make. I'm not sure they add that much more.
They don't, which is what my argument has been. I'm not saying that no SG&A is required, even for a product oriented company, such as Apple. Their SG&A isn't/wasn't/won't be zero. But the historical evidence is clear: sales/marketing take precedence over product in companies where management bubbles up from salesman. That's not debatable. HP is the poster child for salesman killing a tech company. Companies which would rather pay lavish sums to those who can shift carloads of drek are a large part of any economy's problem. That's what got Detroit in trouble (no, it wasn't unions).
May 4, 2012 at 10:54 am
RobertYoung (5/4/2012)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (5/4/2012)
I'm not sure, however, that commission salespeople that work to meet a number deserve to make 10x or 100x what the lead developers make. I'm not sure they add that much more.They don't, which is what my argument has been. I'm not saying that no SG&A is required, even for a product oriented company, such as Apple. Their SG&A isn't/wasn't/won't be zero. But the historical evidence is clear: sales/marketing take precedence over product in companies where management bubbles up from salesman. That's not debatable. HP is the poster child for salesman killing a tech company. Companies which would rather pay lavish sums to those who can shift carloads of drek are a large part of any economy's problem. That's what got Detroit in trouble (no, it wasn't unions).
Trouble with that is that Apple, for example, is not a product oriented company. It's very much a marketing company, and because of its marketing expertise has arrived where it can sell an inferior product at a higher price - the marketing team has somehow created a number of widespread perceptions about apple products that are completely counterfactual: for example that their OS is more secure than Windows (when in fact it is actually less secure than Windows XP with SP3 and up to date patching), that they can get better connectivity on an Apple smart-phone than on a Samsung one (despite what some have called "Arial-gate"), that Apple invented windows and pointing devices (that one was thrown out by the courts when they tried it on seriously), that Apple provides systems that don't lock you in (I haven't a clue how they got away with that one), and so on. That's all marketing, not development - they've done no innovation in their whole history, except maybe for innovative marketing tricks.
So the example you quote to prove that good products don't require selling is pure nonsense; in fact it's an example of how with good marketing you can shift expensive and derivative drek - just what you suggest is a large part of any economy's problem.
I've yet to see an example of a successful "better mousetrap". If you ever discover one, please let me know - but if you just think you've discovered one because you've been taken in (again) by some clever marketing misdirection, please don't bother me with it.
Tom
May 4, 2012 at 11:38 am
L' Eomot Inversé (5/4/2012)
RobertYoung (5/4/2012)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (5/4/2012)
I'm not sure, however, that commission salespeople that work to meet a number deserve to make 10x or 100x what the lead developers make. I'm not sure they add that much more.They don't, which is what my argument has been. I'm not saying that no SG&A is required, even for a product oriented company, such as Apple. Their SG&A isn't/wasn't/won't be zero. But the historical evidence is clear: sales/marketing take precedence over product in companies where management bubbles up from salesman. That's not debatable. HP is the poster child for salesman killing a tech company. Companies which would rather pay lavish sums to those who can shift carloads of drek are a large part of any economy's problem. That's what got Detroit in trouble (no, it wasn't unions).
Trouble with that is that Apple, for example, is not a product oriented company. It's very much a marketing company, and because of its marketing expertise has arrived where it can sell an inferior product at a higher price - the marketing team has somehow created a number of widespread perceptions about apple products that are completely counterfactual: for example that their OS is more secure than Windows (when in fact it is actually less secure than Windows XP with SP3 and up to date patching), that they can get better connectivity on an Apple smart-phone than on a Samsung one (despite what some have called "Arial-gate"), that Apple invented windows and pointing devices (that one was thrown out by the courts when they tried it on seriously), that Apple provides systems that don't lock you in (I haven't a clue how they got away with that one), and so on. That's all marketing, not development - they've done no innovation in their whole history, except maybe for innovative marketing tricks.
So the example you quote to prove that good products don't require selling is pure nonsense; in fact it's an example of how with good marketing you can shift expensive and derivative drek - just what you suggest is a large part of any economy's problem.
I've yet to see an example of a successful "better mousetrap". If you ever discover one, please let me know - but if you just think you've discovered one because you've been taken in (again) by some clever marketing misdirection, please don't bother me with it.
Apple is, of course, product oriented. They figure out how to make an existing device class work better. Apple didn't invent the classes of the devices they sell; they weren't first to market. However, they did manage to create versions in these classes which were found superior by customers; they didn't get as big as they have based on a small cult of rabid followers, cults never get big enough (Mormons possibly excepted 🙂 ). If all they did was Gorilla Marketing, there would never have been an iPhone 2 or iPad 2, etc. since no one would be interested. Appealing to "their customers are just a few brain dead zombies" doesn't meet the facts. They shift prodigious numbers of units; built by (nearly) slave labour, of course. Look at reviews of their devices at sites such as AnandTech. Apple gear is generally top of the heap. There was no meaningful smartphone market until the iPhone. And iPad, as much as I think it's a silly waste of time, has created a entire new market of passive devices. Did HP do that? Or Dell? Or Samsung? Or Microsoft? "Innovation" has been used to describe all that toxic waste ginned up by the Banksters, but that just debases the word. An "innovation" is something which is not just new, but better. iPad meets that criterion. So did iPhone at initial release. Apple didn't have salesman out there, twisting peoples' arms to buy these things. They offered up products which were genuinely new, to the target audience. Wireless tablets, in particular, have been around for decades. The regular consumer has no idea, of course. The iPod is likely the archetype; an existing device class that Apple destroyed.
One should make the distinction between "sales" and "marketing". They are surely not the same thing, and the point of the OP is specifically "sales". That Apple is good at marketing became clear in 1984, if you remember.
OTOH, Apple's drive to patent a rectangle, and other such nonsense, makes me no fan of the company, on the whole.
Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 119 (of 119 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply