Article is spot about its topic - tradeoffs. The professionalism is in picking the right corners to cut.
Steve's marketing was IMO a whole load of bollocks, like all other marketing. it gets attention now when Apple is a trillion $$$ company, and superficial minds wanting a simple answer attribute it to the most visible thing - Apple's marketing. no one bought Apple products for Apple's marketing or advertising. Its for the weirdos. Same theme as other Apple marketing e.g. the bicycle for the mind metaphor, the 1984 ad, etc.
This article is good and its not about the backs of cabinets.
> no one bought Apple products for Apple's marketing or advertising.
That statement would require quite a source. Of course a lot of people bought Apple products because of the ads, like for any company that is a serious advertiser.
I think the revenue chart is a bit misleading. Apple was very successful with the Apple II and the early Macintosh models (otherwise they would have gone the way of Commodore and Atari), it's just that the market was much smaller in the 1980s - also, I doubt that the graph is inflation adjusted.
Social media and it's amplification of the desperation to show off. Apple products are cool/expensive and I am cool/above average/have buying power/<insert_your_wannabe_reason> to have them while I sip my pumpkin latte at Starbucks. They are also high quality machines but I don't think for everyone that buys them, the motivation is solely the software/hardware stack.
Steve's marketing was IMO a whole load of bollocks, like all other marketing. it gets attention now when Apple is a trillion $$$ company, and superficial minds wanting a simple answer attribute it to the most visible thing - Apple's marketing. no one bought Apple products for Apple's marketing or advertising. Its for the weirdos. Same theme as other Apple marketing e.g. the bicycle for the mind metaphor, the 1984 ad, etc.
This article is good and its not about the backs of cabinets.