Alright, you know the answer already. It’s something else. It’s an element of Apple’s culture that sets the company apart from the likes of Samsung, Google, and Microsoft. If I had to describe what makes Apple different than the run-of-the-mill tech gadget makers I would sum it up in one word.
No Tears For Redmond
If corporations are people, and people have DNA, then corporations have DNA, too, right? It only stands to reason that a company runs itself much like a human.
Humans have emotions. We react to things around us emotionally. Any company that taps into that emotional stream usually does well.
Customers love Apple products because the company’s products often connect at an emotional level, a bond that’s not easily broken. Mac, iPhone, iPad. We connect.
To compare, let’s look at Microsoft? One can argue the company has been financially successful, but most of the revenue and profits came from two intertwined businesses– Windows and Office. Since then, bupkis.
As to emotion, Microsoft creates emotions in customers, too, but not always positive emotions. That lack of good will and lesser trust set the stage for a mass exodus of customers as the nascent mobile device industry exploded. In the pursuit of money vs. creating a product that customers love, Microsoft has been left behind.
No Tears For Google
Google has a similar problem. The emotions evoked by Google products (a term I use loosely, because in reality, you are Google’s product)– search engine, advertising, free applications, smartphones and tablets– do not rival Apple.
Customers are viewing Google more as Big Brother than Big Benefactor, the devious man behind the green curtain pulling strings and levers to manipulate others.
Again, as with Microsoft, Google is highly profitable as a company, but only on one product line. Search engine advertising. Just as Microsoft completely missed the mobile revolution, Google has yet to figure out a way to diversify itself and establish a connecting bond to users. As with BlackBerry, Google pursues money at all costs.
Despite Android’s huge market share, unlike Microsoft and Windows, Google hasn’t been able to translate that success into revenue and profits. The bond between user and Google is fragile, easily broken.
The same can be said of Samsung, and many of Apple’s nameless, emotionless competitors who crank out new products devoid of personality, limited in scope and lacking in taste and creativity.
Just as Microsoft’s fall from grace was slow and steady, despite the riches, Google’s fall will be similar. Diversify or die.
Wait. Does not Apple also pursue money? Yes, but money is less the object than the result of building products that create an emotional bond with customers. That’s in Apple’s DNA.