Re: New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.

With respect, I have a little problem with Bill's put-down. Narrow credentialism is a plague of our age, just IMHO of course.

"So Monsieur Fermat, what would you know about mathematics? Where's your Ph.D? Exactly. You're just an ****ing lawyer."

How far up the greasy corporate pole might Steve Jobs, sans MBA, have got? Indeed, how far even he had had one?

I modestly suggest that Aindreas has made a contribution worthy of consideration.

My interest is in how Apple has junked some conventional rules of marketing and strategy. HIgh-end products exist largely to motivate the aspirational segment. The girl who buys a Hermes scarf is very likely to aware of the Kelly bag, and to hope that someone some day will give her one. It has been said that the only reason BMW produces the 3-series is to make buyers want a 5-series. Do Canon and Nikon make their money from their top-of-the-line cameras? No, but buyers of compacts know that these are the brands on the big boys' cameras. And consider mavens, usually thought important. Where are the mavens going to come from for FCPX?

In terms of strategy, it is conventionally thought important to have a place at the top table of an industry, or at least not throw it away. I don't know of course, but it would surprise me if Steve had not worked the phones, and called in more than a few favors when Avid attempted to cease Mac development. Do you think Apple is in as good a position to do that now, if Avid and Adobe pull the plug on Macs? Who expects howls of protest from Hollywood producers next time?

A problem Apple faces is its size. It is hard to make decent returns on huge capital. But do you think there is a sustainable competitive advantage in, ah, gadgets? Samsung seems to have an idea on how to deal with it:

http://www.hardmac.com/news/2011/12/16/samsung-uses-the-court-procedures-vs...