> Dell e.g. has 100 different models each year -- each representing a small sliver of the overall units sold. So if a problem surfaces with one, it doesn't matter as much to as many customers.
So Dell does a much better job at mitigating failure. Sounds like Apple has a lot to learn here.
> Plus, other companies don't push the envelope and move to new technologies as fast, or use as specialized parts. They just throw some off the shelve components as is in their branded box -- with Apple half of the box components is custom.
Specialized parts are a liability, not an asset. How do you replace a broken component that only Apple makes, which they refuse to sell separately?
>So Dell does a much better job at mitigating failure. Sounds like Apple has a lot to learn here.
Or, you know, it's a tradeoff for a more streamline product line, that's less confusing to users, and can pack more for more general cases.
>Specialized parts are a liability, not an asset. How do you replace a broken component that only Apple makes, which they refuse to sell separately?
It's almost as if that is also a tradeoff, between having unique features that others don't and more control of integration, vs the ability to replace commodity parts.
What part of the idea of tradeoffs don't people understand?
As for whether people agree to said tradeoffs, well, being the #1 company is units and profit in the world, means people want what's on offer.
P.S. Not to mention that in fact in the past Apple was even more exclusive with their parts (e.g. PowerPC vs Intel).
So Dell does a much better job at mitigating failure. Sounds like Apple has a lot to learn here.
> Plus, other companies don't push the envelope and move to new technologies as fast, or use as specialized parts. They just throw some off the shelve components as is in their branded box -- with Apple half of the box components is custom.
Specialized parts are a liability, not an asset. How do you replace a broken component that only Apple makes, which they refuse to sell separately?