I read the article, Steve Paul Jobs: 1955- 2011, from the magazine Billboard today. It talks about how Jobs took over the digital music market. Jobs had earned his way into history by creating a sleek new way to listen to music and by knowing how to push other competitors back.
At first, the iPod was made of fun for being such a high-priced product in a market area without much interest. Also, there were already major companies established in this area like Napster. What made Jobs' work different was the ability to have the owner's choice music in different customized playlists all within a portable device. The article mentioned "The original Napster had introduced to music fans to digital downloading, but for most consumers, those downloads remained on their computers (Steve Paul Jobs: 1955- 2011)." This disadvantage of Napster and other companies gave the iPod a competitive edge.
Jobs also had great marketing skills. He had built a plan for the company's income that is incredibly difficult to even come close to matching. The songs available were worth 99 cents a piece, the selling of individual songs was another unique aspect of Apple's iTunes. From each product sold 70 percent of the profit was given to the publishers. Although this plan seems illogical, Apple was and still is able to perform well due to the money that came in through the money coming in from other products such as the iPod.
A question that pops into my mind is how would have Apple performed if another competitor, such as Napster, had already built a portable MP3?
MLA citation:
Bruno, Antony, and Kyle Bylin. "Steven Paul Jobs: 1955- 2011." Editorial.
Billboard 15 Oct. 2011.
Gale Cengage Learning. Web. 19 Feb. 2012
Link to site:
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=GPS&userGroupName=west51213&tabID=T003&searchId=R2&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=2&contentSet=GALE|A269776848&&docId=GALE|A269776848&docType=GALE&role=AONE
Posts
