This paper analyzes Apple's strategy of frequent product updates and the concept of planned obsolescence in the context of management decision-making. Drawing on Nick Wingfield's 2008 Wall Street Journal article, the paper explores how Apple's pace of innovation—faster than competitors like Microsoft—risks alienating loyal customers even as it maintains a first-mover advantage. The analysis draws on economic theory regarding planned obsolescence, comparing Apple's situation to textbook publishing markets, and examines the trade-offs managers face when allocating resources to R&D versus consumer goodwill. The paper concludes with management implications around pricing strategy, consumer trust, and the limits of novelty-driven marketing.
Although the phrase "comeback kid" has become a cliché, it must be applied to Apple. Although the Macintosh long played second fiddle to Microsoft, the iPod became every marketer's dream — Apple made its version of the MP3 player synonymous with the entire format of musical technology. The iPod remains a triumph of branding. But has one of the most celebrated success stories in modern business become threatened by its own arrogance and commitment to technical innovation?
Nick Wingfield's January 12, 2008 Wall Street Journal article, "The Downside to Apple's Frequent Product Updates," suggests that Apple's current dominance may be unseated because of consumer frustration over its rapid product release cycle. Beyond Apple's own internal issues, the article raises important questions about how managers should cope with the pace of technology change and the degree to which creating product obsolescence — when a product becomes out-of-date — is an advantage or a disadvantage for a company.
What is the best way to allocate resources within an organization? Should a company always focus on improving technology? When should new products be released, and on what timeframe? Given that planning is one of the four functions of management, how should managers mitigate public resistance to continual new product releases when those releases occur extremely rapidly?
As a company, Apple caters to a very young demographic for whom "built to last" has less value than living in the here and now and buying the next trendy item. Because technology has changed so quickly, consumers have become accustomed to the need for constant system upgrades. However, Apple's pace of product releases has grown so rapid that even relatively major purchases — such as a laptop received as a Christmas gift — may seem questionable if a similarly priced, more portable version becomes available to consumers within the first months of the following year. An obsession with innovation and being a first mover into a new market can become excessive, as Wingfield suggests.
Of course, all technological products eventually become outdated. But the problem is that even in comparison to its competitors, Apple seems to tax its users' patience with its upgrade cycle. Five years passed before the Mac's major competitor, Microsoft, released Vista after Windows XP — yet Apple has released a major upgrade to its Mac operating system almost every year. Mac loyalists must consult independent websites like MacRumors to discuss the best time to make a new purchase. This generates positive buzz and discussion about Macs, but it can also create hostility.
The argument for planned obsolescence as an effective deployment of organizational resources suggests that producers face potential competition from already-purchased goods, and thus introduce new versions to make existing purchases obsolete. Although some economists have argued that "used units do not compete with new goods since the price of new goods reflect the present value of all future services of a product," empirical analysis of markets such as textbooks shows that "textbook publishers revise editions more frequently when the share of used textbooks increases, holding time trends and other factors constant" (Toshiaki 2004: 1, 3). In other words, the greater the danger of lower-priced substitute goods competing with the current product, the stronger the incentive for producers to change the model — making older editions more difficult or impossible to use — and thereby underscoring the strategic value of obsolescence.
"First-mover edge may not guarantee long-term success"
"Managers balancing R&D investment against consumer goodwill"
Artificially generated scarcity and excitement over novelty may be effective selling points, but Apple's example serves as a potent warning about the limits of relying upon these techniques. Managers must weigh the organizational benefits of rapid innovation against the erosion of consumer trust that can follow when loyal customers feel penalized for their early commitment to a brand.
You’re 62% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.