One of the frustrating things for me during the period of Steve Jobs is that most people who move Apple from death to the most valuable company in the world don’t really see anything unusual. It was almost as if they were seeing a great player who wins a tennis match after the match and apparently stamped, “Damn it, luck!”

As Liam Neeson says in Tekken, it requires a certain skill to do what jobs do. Although jobs are not as accessible, subtle, or product as jobs were focused on as jobs, Donald Trump offers the same skill set. As the mobile phone company’s expresses laughed at Apple and the iPhone, Trump’s opponents began to misunderstand that he could not win.

What appears to be missing is that manipulation works – whether it is used to close deals, sell products, or win elections. I’ll explain and then close with my product for this week: a really interesting video projector that could be something for the big screen or external movies. (Or to throw things at the less popular presidential candidate).

Manipulation works

If you look at the market and compare Steve Jobs to Apple from another company that already exists – it’s Samsung, Ford or GE (or even Tim Cook’s Apple) – you get a clear distinction. Must see. What you will see with others is the presence of a large number of product lines, and many products within these lines. Within the products, there can be a lot of options, such as color or design size.

In contrast, Steve Jobs Apple offered a handful of well-differentiated products, and with those great deals you often only got one offer, with simple memory configuration options.

Instead of spending a lot of money on different designs and fonts and not having many in stock, Apple spent a lot of money on manipulation (marketing) – that is, assuring people that the right device was the device Apple was selling Was.

The general strategy is to saturate the product. He shot a lot of things, some type of gun, and I hope you click on enough buyers to make your numbers. However, under Jobs, Apple’s style is forced to target: install a stationary machine gun by shooting lots of the same product, and persuade people to stand in front of the talk.

To do this, you need to make sure that the product is designed for this type of approach. You need to be very focused on usability, material quality, and design excellence, because you need to turn buyers into advocates who bring their friends to the back of their class. Tesla seems to do better than Jobs, noting that he only got hundreds of thousands to register in a car that would not leave more than a year.

Consider abstinence

Have you ever seen the film 300? Although this was not correct, the war strategy he is referring to is consistent with what I am talking about.

Instead of treading more forcefully into an open valley, the Spartans joined as the attackers had to come to them in person. They actually contained more extensive power with relatively small resources by limiting the free movement of the attacking force.

Apple and Tesla line up with voters on their limited lines and thus avoid the cost and risk of sending huge numbers of different products.

Apple has not followed this approach with Apple TV or Apple Watch, and these products have almost failed as a result. In part, Apple’s problem is that it is now making more and more iPhone releases, and its financial performance suggests that this most popular strategy is not profitable.

Trump vs. a career politician

Whether you are talking about Cruz or Clinton, professional politicians are about killing people in their place of residence. They watch the polling and shoot the letters, often opposing them, making them to vote for someone’s interest. This approach is about the breadth and flexibility of the message, not the focus.

With Clinton v. Sanders, I have seen Clinton constantly adjusting her position. Her goal was to try to make people see that she was not completely different from the more liberal Sanders, but that she was more likely to be elected. Sanders was less resilient, and did not have the same level of support from the Democratic Party, so Clinton’s strategy ensured victory (assuming there was no outside influence, like early indecency, which is highly unlikely).

It was not that she was a better politician. It began with a feature that Sanders could not beat, and both played the same game.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *