The thing I found most interesting about this story was the role of ecosystem in the purchase decision.
From ComputerWorld:
iPads were first introduced in Parliament as part of a pilot in 2012, with 209 currently in use by MPs, according to John Thurso MP in response to a written parliamentary question.
The decision to hand out iPads was taken after an “independent assessment” of alternative tablets and how much it would cost to re-work existing services, infrastructure and train members and staff, Thurso said.
And:
The requirement was “for a secure, SIM-enabled tablet with a good life expectancy and capable of supporting future upgrades”.
The iPad Air 2 met these requirements and the committee found it to be “competitively priced” compared to similar models
The committee reviewed tablets ranging from £100 to £600. A basic cellular iPad Air 2 costs about £500 when bought individually.
“iPads are integrated with current business processes…a move away from the Apple operating system (iOS) at this time would incur costs to change these processes,” he explained.
Boom. There it is. Ecosystem. That’s why it is not critical that Apple sell a specific number of Apple Watches. The key is to recognize the boundaries of the ecosystem and continue to do all that is necessary to keep it healthy, keep customers happy, keep customers spending. This is not a moral or ethical strategy, it is a business strategy.
This is not new and certainly not a reflection of Apple’s iOS, iTunes, Mac, AppStore lock-in ecosystem/”halo effect” you are implying. This is how biz has worked in enterprises for ages. Get a foothold, build process/value around it for stickiness, rinse, repeat. It’s how IBM, Microsoft, HP, Dell, etc. have played the enterprise game for decades. It’s also how they have lost as well – sticking to status quo, assuming recurring revenue and sales each time contracts are up for renewal, and not innovating.
IBM has been reinventing itself for longer than MS has been around. I would argue, MS out smarted IBM in the 80s, only to fall for similar issues in the 90s… HP wants to be IBM, yet their CEOs (previous ones anyway) had no idea how IBM became IBM.
I think Apple is the IBM of consumer space and gadgets, but in a good way. People (mostly) want thing to simply work. If one did not know better(?) one would be forced to conclude most MS or HP or Autonomy software is designed to NOT work. Also web/ browser “apps” suck!
Apple does get plenty wrong, though. I wish the Woz would come back in a meaningful capacity, to balance the minimalist approach out.
Totally agree! I think Apple gets most right vs. plenty wrong but you are correct – there are some missteps that happen.
MS did out smart IBM for the longest time. MS recent undoing is Ballmer. He let MS stagnate, assumed recurring revenue, and watched everyone pass them by. Hopefully Apple learns from their own mistakes as well as others so as not to repeat.