Has Apple Already Conquered the Game Market?

[W8taminute]

Interesting and something just came to my mind after reading your post Gus.

The reason why Apple's quality is on the decline, and why Dell is so shoddy, is because of subcons.  A sub contracting manufacturer is typically not headquartered in the United States, nor are they American companies either.  When a firm outsources is work overseas it loses control over the quality of it's product.  The subcons are in the business to make money and know that they have a captive audience in their design customers (i.e. Apple).  The design customer may have some specifications, proven production processes, and quality standards that they demand of their subcon, but the subcon doesn't have to follow the process to the letter. 

This is why US firms should keep the jobs at home and not outsource.  In the long run, you save money despite higher wages because you're not blowing it all on customer quality issues that you have little or no control over. 

I work in the semiconductor manufacturing industry and I'm a quality engineer.  What I see every day in my own firm sickens me and if I had my own company I know exactly how I'd run it and I'd keep the jobs here at home.  People and quality not profits.

[Gusington]

^I don't know about the whole profit thing man...when you have to answer to shareholders clamoring for your head, it's a whole new game.

On the flip side, my current job has me working with a tech team based out of Chennai, India. To get this team, the company let go of 50 IT techs before I came here. The resentment here is palpable still, to the point that when staff hear I work with the Indians, they typically comment 'hey how's that working out for ya?' because for most people the outsourcing is not effective.

So the Indian tech team is not particularly responsive to staff, but my particular team is great. It can go either way.

Don't fool yourself...profit and money wins out every time. And sometimes for good reasons!

[LongBlade]

Ultimately people - consumers - drive the market. If there were demand for circuit boards that would last for 30 years, we'd be making them.

Most technology is developing so rapidly (Moore's Law) that there simply isn't a need.

Sure, Gus' laptop has lasted a decade. If all he's doing is writing his next Great American Novel and checking email, he's probably OK. Some of us need more. Whether it's a smarter phone or a beefier gaming rig anything more than three years old is outdated.

[MIGMaster]

Ultimately people - consumers - drive the market. If there were demand for circuit boards that would last for 30 years, we'd be making them.

Most technology is developing so rapidly (Moore's Law) that there simply isn't a need.

Sure, Gus' laptop has lasted a decade. If all he's doing is writing his next Great American Novel and checking email, he's probably OK. Some of us need more. Whether it's a smarter phone or a beefier gaming rig anything more than three years old is outdated.

It's really hard to stop the momentum of a 6-month hardware cycle ! I'm guilty for wanting - not needing - 90% of the items that hit the PC market.

[Gusington]

^Good point on the cycle and perception of need. People do demand quality and reliability from things like cars too.

I am convinced that there are companies out there building cars that have abandoned planned obsolescence in some ways.

The cars I own are what come to mind first...both are extremely well built and very reliable. I have hit deer with my Subaru going 70 mph and the car barely made any noise and there was no damage to anything. The Volvo is virtually indestructible.

So yes...demand it and they will build it.

[tgb]

This thread is bringing back some memories - and not in a good way.  I was an Atari 800/ST  loyalist for years before getting into the PC.

[airboy]

Here is a completely different take on this.

Starbucks enlarged the coffee market.  US coffee consumption was on the decline.  Starbucks offered something appealing and made a lot of money at it.  Total US coffee consumption increased.

Lots of new competitors entered the coffee market after the Starbucks thing took off.  Some of the new competitors (say McDonalds) beat the daylights out of Starbucks.

And Starbucks made mistakes.  They overexpanded.  Profits fell.

What Starbucks did was be very, very profitable (for a short while) and expand the total market.  They did not control the market far into the future.  Why?  Very low entry barriers.

I look at a lot of the hand-held, casual games in the same light.  Angry Birds, Plants vs. Zombies and other simple shooter/type, inexpensive games have gotten more people introduced to gaming and interested in it.  Does it mean that Apple or handhelds will control the market forever?  Nope.  The profits of Farmville, Angry Birds, etc..... provided incentives for tons of other firms to enter the gaming market.  Plus, lots of people who have not played computer games before have been introduced to them.

You see this all of the time (the theory is the Product Life Cycle).  If you have a highly profitable market entry it attracts competitors.  More options proliferate and prices fall.  Sound familiar?

[LongBlade]

Product Life Cycle.

I've been out of school too long. Thanks for the reminder, Airboy. Excellent points.

[bayonetbrant]

the greater Starbucks comparison from Airboy should've occurred to me too, given than I did about 12-page-ish case study on it back in grad school in South Carolina.

damn old age is catching up with me!