See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322232292

A Case study of Apple’s success with iconic iPod and iPhone

Article · January 2011

CITATIONS READS 3 20,039

3 authors, including:

Muhammad Tariq Yousafzai University of Swat

26 PUBLICATIONS 46 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Waste Management View project

Entrepreneurship Education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Tariq Yousafzai on 27 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. 1

Title New Product Development Processes A Case Study of Apple’s Success with iconic iPod and iPhone

Principle/Corresponding Author:

Given name Tariq, Family Name, Muhammad, Email: [email protected]/[email protected] Affiliation Address, Sarhad University of Science and Information technology, 36 B, Chinar Road University Town, Peshawar, Khyber PukhtoonKhwa, Pakistan Phone+92-91-5846508 Cell+92-333-5838252

Co-Author* Given name Rabia, Family Name Ishrat Email: [email protected] Phone+92-91-5846508 Affiliation Address, Sarhad University of Science and Information Technology, 36 B, Chinar Road University Town, Peshawar, Khyber PukhtoonKhwa, Pakistan

Co-Author ** Given name Hashim, Family Name Khan Email: [email protected] Affiliation Address, (IMS) Institute of Management Studies, University of Peshawar, Khyber PukhtoonKhwa, Pakistan

Phone+92-3005845007

1 2

Abstract

This paper focuses on NPD processes which show a high failure rate, making businesses to rethink over their new product and processes. This has lead companies to adopt a more customer oriented approach where previously unheard voice of the customer is now taken to consideration. While launching new products level and form of innovation that a particular market could absorb should be determined in the first place and new product or services should be launched accordingly. Once the company strikes the right combination for success; the company can further use its existing image to launch new improvements in the form of line and brand extensions. Apples frequent usage of its brand name (i) as in iPod, iMac and iPhone as well as in many other new products symbolizes the company’s intentions of leveraging its success pattern across products and categories. It has been observed that other than costs many products fail because of a universal but largely ignored psychological prejudice, as consumer resist any distortion in their current-state-of-affairs. Shrewd companies like Apple devises strategies compressing the lifecycles of brands iPod—iPhone. Besides this companies also try to acquire network externalities, where a customer is contained by a dominant network such as or PC operating systems. Companies must also realize the fact that new approaches to marketing, commercialization and NPD must work coherently to maintain a sustained competitive advantage. In such a case companies must strive to adopt innovative and integrated practices by coming out of their silos and assume responsibility for new product development via using strategies such as creative marketing, lean manufacturing, flawless operations, and sophisticated use of concurrent process reengineering (rugby approach as against rally race) and corporate entrepreneurship initiatives like Apple so as to attain first mover advantage and reap the economic benefits from their new product or process innovations.

Key Words: Job based segmentation, first mover advantage, network externalities, Apple, line and brand extensions, Planned obsolescence, critical mass and voice of customer

1. Introduction

Gourville, (2006) contends that product failures reveal that new products fail at a startling rate between 40% and 90% depending on the product category. The commercialization and marketing stages come in the later stages of New Product Development (NPD) processes; however, they have a pivotal role to play in new product success. As a consequence, there is greater focus on commercialization and marketing issues today, up front, than ever realized before. Therefore companies are now taking into consideration a more detailed job based segmentation approach, because sometimes the consumer has hard times in precisely expressing, the core benefit of certain product, as these may be use getting done various jobs in various situations. According to Mueller, (1997) proposes that consumers follow a six step process to completely absorb innovative products or services. However, these steps may vary and overlap each other due to level of consumer network externalities, brand loyalty, transaction, learning, and obsolescence costs. Another important factor is that consumers over the years develop associations (brand loyalty) with existing products or services and resist any change in the status quo by over valuing the old products too much; on the other hand, companies commercializing new products over estimate their innovative features, design and differentiation. This creates a complex situation where companies need to create awareness about their new products through innovative new product launching campaigns. Companies need to find out the success recipe first and then they should launch their products or services. If the success formula is attained then the company can once and for all use it by launching new and improved versions of the products in the form of line and brand extension (Ibid).

1.1 Problem and Purpose

Steven et al. (1957) makes an interesting analogy to launch of a new generation of products and a journey into an uninhabited area as no one can fathom going out without a blueprint for guidance into a jungle. The same holds true for new product development process where a large number of new products fail because the innovators (suppliers) and the end-user do not see and appreciate the market through the same lenses. There needs to be oneness of thought between companies and consumer, which is not readily available, as often times there is a gap between the buyer and the seller’s imaginations. A company sells their innovative products to consumers for solving a certain problem but consumer may not be aware of even the primary usage of the product, its total transformations and augmentations. Therefore, voice of the customer should be taken to consideration when embarking on a New Product Development (NPD) process. However, once the right combination of people, resources and process is attained in the launch of a hit label or brand and the success formula is revealed, then it becomes easy to launch even more success stories in the form of new products or services. It is therefore for this case we have chosen the iconic Apple company brand as our empirical parameter for this scientific paper.

RQ: To analyze the high rate of new product success on a companies like Apple in comparison to a higher than normal rate of failures in other firms?

2 3

The purpose of the study is to find out ways and means that would help managers in matching their products with their customers. This is in line with basic marketing principle which stresses that the wants needs and demands of the customer should be taken to consideration first and then a product or service should be commercialized so as to satisfy the consumer in the best possible manner. However, in practice this is the other way around, especially companies coming up with really innovative products face difficulty in testing their products on the market as the demand is latent, and consumer needs are not clear. The consumer needs to be educated first about the concept and how the product will revolutionalize the way he or she do things currently. In specific terms, main purpose of the scientific article is to find out the success recipe for New Product Development and how companies like Apple, Sony, Philips, and Dell make good advantage of the success recipe.

2. Literature Review

Song and Montoya (1998), contends that new product development is a high risk proposition for firms to start, as it involves higher risk in targeting a budding market segment where customer wants are hidden and service or product requirements are unspoken. On the other hand, new products often create considerable opportunities for firms to differentiate their offering (product or service) and helps in attaining a lead from competitors through cost, quality, style and flexibility. Mueller, (1997), proposes that the innovating firm may achieve a first mover advantage that would create considerably better results for the company in the short and long term. However, first mover advantage may not always results in profiting as customers, imitators and rival firms may quickly emulate your success and take away a greater share of the market share (Teece, 1986). In the same vein, Steven et al, (1989) proclaim that a successful new product launch creates industry wise unique standards, which may become barriers of entry for new firms trying to penetrate. It also helps in refreshing the minds of the engineering personnel; sales force and give them a sense of accomplishment and may serve the opportunity for strategic corporate renewal and redirection to the firm (Ibid). It is interesting to note that the EMI, CT scanner lost market share to late entrants; Bowmar which launched the first pocket calculator, lost market share to Texas Instruments and Xerox a first mover in the office computers business lost market share to late entrants such as Apples Macintosh which had striking resemblance with Xerox’s core product ideas such as the mouse (Teece, 1986).

A study of the US market conducted by John and Gourville (2006) reveals that nearly 30,000 products are introduced yearly in the packaged goods industry. Almost 70% to 90% among these fail to occupy store shelves for more than a year. Another study, indicates that almost 47 % of the companies who enjoyed first mover advantage by commercializing before others in a particular line of business had failed, meaning that firms that introduced new product categories left pursuing those modern ideas Ibid). One prime example where innovator who was out run by followers is RC Cola, a small beverage company who first commercialized cola in a can, as well as the first mover to launch diet coke. Coke and Pepsi entered the market immediately and deprived RC Cola of any significant gains (Teece, 1986). According to Irwin et al, (1957) NPD is a process of reducing uncertainty in the minds of managers that as a matter of fact the level of uncertainty associated with new product development process depends on the degree of innovativeness of the offering. This view is in conformance with the information processing theory that as the degree of unpredictability and uncertainty enhances, there is more need for information coordination. Bonabeau et al, (2008) proposes that companies normally view NPD as a process of total uniformity, but it can be divided into two separate stages namely Pre-Launch and Post launch, where pre-launch stage as truth seeking stage, focusing on assessing the innovative products or services potential and removing the irrelevant or non functional parts. In the early stages the product designs are fluid and firms compete on the basis of designs until the emergence of dominant design such as Model T Ford, IBM 360 and Douglas DC-3 in automobile, computer and aircraft industries respectively (Teece, 1986) and those firms with dominant designs survive others normally disappear after this shakeout stage (Mueller, 1997).

According to Christensen, (2007) most firms segment their target market by population characteristics or their product attributes and try to create differentiation with value added features and applications. However, the customer simply wants to just carry out a job by acquiring a specific solution in the shape of some product or service. The “job”, is an unsatisfied state of consumer need which he or she wants to satisfy by hiring a certain product and these jobs may vary from situation to situation (ibid). According to Peter Drucker cited in Clayton et al. (2007), “The customer rarely buys what the business thinks it sells him.” Firms many a times find to their amusement that customers are using their products for getting done tasks other than the firm intended to serve. In the basic marketing literature Jobber, (2009) argue that general stages for new product development consist of idea generation, screening, and concept development. Afterwards, a marketing strategy is developed leading to business analysis and test marketing before full fledge product launch. Cooper, (1993) has identified five additional steps in NPD process such as preliminary technical and business assessment, alpha, beta tests, final business plan and production ramp up. According to Cooper, (1996) these stages are sequential just like a rally race; however, in a dynamic industry companies are using concurrent engineering which is similar to rugby game where players moves forth at back, which resembles a firm having multiple product under development (ibid) and many companies in Japan and US have adopted the same holistic approach explained with the help of rugby analogy (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986).

3 4

Lieberman and Montgomery, (2002) contends that that firms entering the market first are known as market pioneers. Their competencies and skills mainly depend on better product or process development, marketing research and technology. If the firm relentlessly preserves these competencies by making them an integral part of the corporate culture, then the probability of investments in new product development activities is high and the firm would stress on major breakthrough innovations. Whereas, Henderson, (1993) argues that competitive advantage depends on the predictably, predictable activities, such as capitalizing on historic research and development capabilities as in such a situation small incremental innovations would mainly take place like better or improved version of products.

According to Schnaars, (1994) late entrants can also overtake the first mover. The late comer may use superior placement, aggressive promotions, or may even engage in a price war. Therefore these late entrants stress on non-product competition, that’s why they do not invest heavily in research and development and mostly comes up with imitative products through reverse engineering in a weak appropriable regime.

Some pitfalls of the NPD process as pinpointed by Steven et al, (1989) are moving target, lack of product distinctiveness, unexpected technical problems, and mismatches between functional departments. Better planning leads to efficient courses of action and the likelihood of success is increased (ibid). From a marketing orientation viewpoint, there are five competing concepts under which organizations conduct marketing activities starting with basic production concept and culminating at holistic marketing concept where everything matters (Kotler, 2000). Normally organizations try to launch superior products or services and improve their quality gradually, making implicit assumption that the customer is knowledgeable and differentiates between quality and ordinary products. This is even true for companies like GM where a top notch executive once said many years ago, “How can the public know what kind of car they want until they see what is available?”

This notion was also common place in the history where phrases like “Good wine needs no bush” were used meaning that a good product does not require any promotion. This theme generated here goes in conformance with Kotler and Armstrong, (2001) where companies are wonderstruck to reveal that consumer are not necessarily looking for a better product “mousetrap” but for a better solution to the mouse problem. In an ideal situation where other things remain the same, normally consumer follow steps such as seeking awareness about a product or services, then comprehending the information, afterwards they form a positive or negative attitude about the product. If they value it positively the start considering it legitimate to use the product, then the customers uses the products or services on a trial basis so as to check efficiency of the product. If the product matches expectations they adopt it (Stanton & Kotler 2000). According to Schiff man et al, (2009) cited in Tariq and Ghaffar, (2010) diffusion is a macro process encompassing the spread of a new innovation from its creator to the general masses. Whereas, adoption is a micro process which is concerned with the steps through which a customer passes when accepting or rejecting a new innovation. Rogers, (1967) proposed a six step profile of consumer innovators as shown in figure 2-2 stretching from innovators to laggards. Innovators are the pioneers of adopting a new technology and laggards are the last ones. These six steps as shown in the Figure (2-1) are innovators 2.5%, early adopters 13.5%, early majority 34%, late majority 34%, and at the end laggards which constitute 16% of the population (ibid). Schiffman et al. (2009), stresses that time is the backbone of diffusion process as it determines the rate of adoption of new product (s) or service (s).

As evident from the above process the consumer behavior can also be traced by a careful examination of the customer buying and usage behavior. Figuratively speaking, consumers often need to modify their behavior for new products. And consumer with the passage of time may change its relationship staus as shows in figure (2-2) starting with a prospect, becoming a purchaser, turning into a client and subsequently an advocates and finally a partner of the company (Tariq and Ghaffar, 2010). Mueller, (1997) contends that companies are well aware that such a change is not easy as it may involve learning costs, planned obsolescence, switching costs, network externalities and so on. For instance, cost of learning by changing from PC to Apple Macintosh and the planned obsolescence is a deliberate ploy such as fashion and fads (Armstrong & Kotler, 2007). Similarly, switching costs incur when consumers switch from compact disc to DVD players, their previous CD collection becomes obsolete. Finally, the value of mobile or a telephone service increases with the rise in number of connections and so does is the case with credit cards whose utility increases with the number of shops accepting them. These products are characterized by a phenomenon known as network externalities (Muller, 1997).

However, according to Gourville (2006) there are also psychological costs associated with the change in behavior. This phenomenon is termed as psychological prejudice as people tend to overestimate the advantages of products they own in relation to the new products. Whereas, companies tend to overestimate the value of their new labels or brands. It is over here that disharmony is created in the perspectives of the both parties. That’s why consumers in first place may simply refuse new offer or choice, whereas, on the other hand the company is expecting success which can act as a double-edged sword. Generally, companies should think from the perspective of customers.

4 5

3. Real Time Case “Apple”

“The Iconic Apple,” Yes, it is true that half of the US over slept on the new years eve of 2011 because of the iconic iPhone. This speaks volumes of the impact of Apple on consumers by becoming a lifestyle brand and that is why we have chose Apple as a special case of success. Due to the strong marketing focus “Apples” has been very successful in creating a tribe of loyal customer base that think, live and act in a differentiated way. In the year (1998) Apple was born again when Steve Jobs launched the new computer iMac which came with a complete collection of software’s and new operating system called MAC OS X. It was an instant success. Soon the corporate entrepreneur and CEO of Apple Steve Jobbs launched its “iBook” a special kind of laptop. However, the biggest success was the introduction of iPod in the year 2001 that achieved market share in excess of 70% in the US. Furthermore, Apple made a deal with Intel to become compatible with Microsoft Windows. Since then, iPod is enjoying market leadership in the domain of competition.

Ever since its inception, Apple has remained busy with developing more than one product at a time. In retrospect, we find that in the year (1984), Apple commercialized two products namely “Apple C” and “Macintosh”, in (1986) it launched “Apple llgs” and “”, (1987) it launched “Macintosh II” and “Macintosh SE”. In the same continuity in the year (1989) it commercialized three computers namely “”, “Macintosh IIlci” and “Macintosh IIfx”. In the year (1990) it launched another three computer models , Macintosh IIlsi and Macintosh LC. Similarly in the year 1993 Apples commercialized seven products namely “Color Classic”, “Quadra 800”, “”, “Macintosh LCIII”, “Power book 180c” and “Macintosh LC 475”.

At the start of new decade in the year (2001) Apple again launched three products namely “” “Quick silver”, and its bestseller “iPod” first generation. In the year 2004 Apple commercialized four products namely “” “G5”, “iMac G5”, “iPod click wheel” and “iPod Mini” and in the year (2005) again Apple launched four successful products namely, “iPod shuffle”, “iPod Nano”, “Video iPod”, and “”. And finally, as we all know that in the year 2007 Apple scored a home run by launching its premier iPhone. By analyzing the above trends in NPD and commercialization it can easily be understood that Apple is constantly churning out new innovative products at unprecedented rate. This is mainly due to the fact that at Apple is using concurrent engineering philosophy to good effect. As earlier on stated in such a process the product under development may lie in more than one stage of development and thus we can also deduce that Apple is following a rugby approach to new product development which can go back as well as in forward direction simultaneously. These factors have enabled Apple in terms of speed, accuracy, and quality.

From a consumers behavior viewpoint in the case of “Apple” consumers who purchased MP3 can be termed innovators; the early adopters bought the first iPod. Early majority purchased the second and third models of iPod. We can say that Late Majority purchase models which came after third iPod. Finally, laggards or hard core loyal would normally buy a used or cheaper version of iPod.

Similarly, referring to Lieberman and Montgomery (2002) we can interpret that Apple has invested heavily in new product development process and therefore attained the status of market pioneer. This was especially true for Apple a couple of decades ago as well as today. As with the advent of iPod first generation in (2001) on the market it revolutionalizes the electronics industry and had a major impact on competition. Ever since, Apple has successfully launched several other line extensions of the older version with small incremental improvements. For example in the year (2003) Apple launched iPod 3rd Generation and in the subsequent year (2004) it launched two more extensions of the products namely iPod Mini and iPod click Wheel. Again in the year (2005) Apple came up with some improved products in the form of iPod Shuffle, Nano and Video iPod. And finally in the year 2007 iPhone was launched under the same brand umbrella term (i). Therefore the view point of Henderson, (1993) who states that gaining competitive advantage is a function of predictably predictable activities within the firm. Thus we see small incremental changes in Apple product line as well as the view point of Lieberman and Montgomery is best exemplified by Apple launch of iPhone in the year (2007). If we consider the case of NeXT, a desktop computer developed by Steve Jobs, the legendary founder of Apple, customers did not want the optical drive instead of the floppy drive. Because the new feature makes it difficult for end-users to switch work from a to a NeXT. The machine enjoyed other superior features like hi-fi sound; end-users never look beyond the initial resistance. Many people found it far too expensive, while engineers reckoned the workstations with superior value.

Therefore, Steve Jobs has to abandon the 200 million dollars product. Here it is suggested that if Steve has listened to the customer voice he could have been successful, because in this scenario customers were expecting an incremental innovation. However, for almost thirty long years “Apple” had remained the trend setter to foresee and foretell the future of the domestic computers. The balance of probability is high that it would continue to lead the way. The success recipe came to Apple in the form of iPod, and even Apple personal computers sales started going up because of this hit product. Apple has been very clever in its ploy of planned obsolescence as it is launching iPhone after iPod and that too with new improvements. The new improved

5 6 product has the cool feeling assorted around it. Therefore it is compelling customers to engage in repeat purchase, which serves the long term purpose of the company. Thanks to planned obsolescence. Another very interesting case in point relating to Apple is launch and commercialization of Apple Macintosh personal computers line. The new Apple Mac customers encounter mistakes while using Mac because it doesn't work the same way it would be expected to on a Windows computer? Simply the Windows users follow and expect everything to word the same way as in Windows. And on the other hand Macintosh users see and expect their Macs to work in its original way (Macintosh way). There are substantial commonalities between Apple and Windows operating systems, but there are some differences which I am reckoned worth mentioning. It is here that the concept of dominant design and network externalities comes into play with Microsoft having a clear edge in terms of network externalities and therefore greater market share. Similarly the “Apple” has its own network externalities in the form of “iTunes” that could only be downloaded for their website.

An interesting case in point is that in the year (1985), Bill Gates was literally begging “Apples” CEO Steve Jobs to license his Mac operating system to Personal computer vendors. Apple did not agree and later on Bill Gates came up with a smack in the face response and now the situation is that Apple has only 4% market share in PC business. However, this time around the buzz is related to digital music, encompassing iPod music player and its iTunes made it cheaper and convenient to download songs at a rate of 99 cents only. But the irony is that Apples iPod music player only plays songs in the company’s "FairPlay" digital rights management (DRM) format and songs downloaded from iTunes play only on iPod. For example, a customer who gets a song downloaded from Apples iTunes and wants to play it on his or her real player would be highly disappointed (www.macnewsworld.com). On the other hand an iPod owner is left limited to get music from iTunes, even though there are many other services on the Web, such as Napster and Real Networks. But the customer can’t help the situation. Apple must hear the voice of the customer as customers is always in search of perpetual perfection and who knows who will be the next?

4. Conclusions The new product development activities differ from company to company especially in stages of commercialization and marketing. Often times the companies overvalue their new product quality, features and adoptability, whereas the consumers are reluctant to switch the existing products thus exhibiting a high level of brand loyalty. This is mainly due to the fact that switching entails costs which can take many forms. Also important is the fact that consumers develop nostalgic fondness with products therefore not ready to accept innovation many a times.

In simple words, consumers form associations with certain products and therefore become reluctant to other alternatives because of their habits. Then the sequential new product process with path dependencies is seldom followed as gigantic companies like Apple are continuously developing three to four products in pipeline. This practice is also done at Apple with the help project oriented teams working with a well connected system of links to other areas of the over all value chain. Companies should bear in mind that apart from internal sources of innovation there is a much neglected and overlooked source of new product development i.e. the voice of the customer has to be taken into consideration. It’s good to have a visionary and charismatic leader like Steve Jobs and Henry Ford. However, these leaders should not impose their own prerogatives. In Apple case it lost market share to Microsoft in past because of the rigidity of then CEO Steve Jobs. Similarly, Mr. Henry Ford was also fond of influencing the new product development process. Someone asked him in how many colors do you produce cars? He replied cars in all colors as long as the color is black. Some of the top notch companies make silly blunders as they do not do proper research before they commercialize their products. They misunderstand between needs, wants and demands. So if consumer is not clear himself about the job he wants to get the product for how can companies doing marketing research for their new product development elicit the right information from consumer. So I reckon it’s better to analyze the market by a job based segmentation approach.

This means figuring out the specific job which for which the consumer hires the product or service in a particular situation. Companies like Apple who struck the home run in one or two of their products can help its new product development processes because of historical research and development capabilities as well as a strong goodwill on the market. The company can then easily launch brand extensions as well as line extensions to help transfer the brand equity or goodwill of existing products to new products. A prime example in case of Apple is the use of letter (i) in many of Apple products nowadays. Finally, from commercialization and marketing viewpoint it is important for companies not to launch not to launch valuable new products to pre-mature markets as was the case with NEXT computers at Apple, where customer needs were in the developing stage, and a new product was introduced which was in a way difficult to handle. Companies are also exercising to a great extent a phenomenon of planned obsolescence where the company’s products become obsolete after a certain period of time and the consumer is compelled to engage in repeated purchase so as to serve the firms profit motive. In simple, the chances of success for a seasoned company becomes more as it becomes a key opinion leader in ship shaping customer preferences and ways of thinking by design or by default after it makes a home run in the form of product or services. In nutshell, first understand the customer and then be understood on the market.

6 7

Annexure 1

Figure 2-1 New Product Adopter Categories (adopted from Everett M. Roger, 1967)

I nIn Innovators, EA EM LM Laggards

Figure 2-2 Source: Adopted from Tariq and Ghaffar (2010)

Partner: Someone one who has the relationship of partner with you.

Partner Advocate: Someone who actively recommends you to others, who does your marketing for you. Advocate Supporter: Someone who likes your organization, but only supports you passively.

Supporter Client: Someone who has done business with you on a repeat basis neutral, towards your Client organization.

Customer: Someone who has done business just once with your organization. Customer Prospect: Someone whom you believe may be persuaded to do business with you. Prospects

7 8

5. References

Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1995), “Benchmarking the firms Critical Success factors in New Product Development”, Journal of Product Innovation management Vol. 12, Issue 5, November p. 1-5 Clayton M. Christensen, Scott D. Anthony, Gerald Berstell, Denise Nitterhouse (2007), “Finding the Right Job for Your Product”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 48, Issue 3, pp 1-8 Cornelia Dröge, Jayanth Jayaram, Shawnee K. Vickery (2000),. “The Ability to Minimize the Timing of New Product Development and Introduction: An Examination of Antecedent Factors in the North American Automobile Supplier Industry”, Journal of Product Innovation Management Volume 17 Issue 1, January. Eric Bonabeau, Neil Bodick, Robert W. Armstrong (2008). “A More Rational Approach to New-Product Development”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86.Issue3. Gary Getz and Pedro do Carmo Costa, Linking New Product Development to Strategy, Published on managementsmarter.com December 2008 Dennis c. Mueller, “First Mover advantages and path dependencies” , International Journal of Industrial Organization, 15 (1997), 827-850, Austria James P. Hackett (2007)., “Preparing for the Perfect Product Launch”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85, Issue 4 John T. Gourville (2006). “Eager Sellers and Stony Buyers: Understanding the Psychology of New-Product Adoption”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84, Issue 6 R. G. Cooper E. J. Kleinschmidt (1987)., “New Products: What Separates Winners from Losers?” Journal of Product Innovation Management Volume 4 Issue 3, September Robert G. Cooper (1993) “Winning at new products”, Addison-Wesley, reading, Massachusetts, p.29 Steven C. Wheelwright, Kim B. Clark (1992), “Creating Project Plans to Focus Product Development”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70, Issue 2 Robert Veryzer, (1998) “Discontinuous innovation and the New Product development Process”, Journal of Product innovation Management, Vol. 15, issue 4 Steven C. Wheelwright, W. Earl Sasser Jr (1989)., “The New Product Development Map”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 67, Issue 3 Song and Montoya (1998), “Critical Development activities for Really new versus Incremental products”, Journal of Product innovation Management Vol. 15, Issue 2, March T. Michael Nevens, Gregory L. Summe, Bro Uttal (1990)., “Commercializing Technology:What the Best Companies Do”, Harvard Business Review,Vol.68,Issue3. William T. Robinso, Jeongwen Chiang (2002). “Product development strategies for established market pioneers, early followers, and late entrants”, Strategic Management Journal, Volume 23 Issue 9, Preventing the premature death of relationship marketing: by Susan Fournier, Susan Dobscha and David Glen Mick (Harvard Business Review Jan-Feb 1998 v76 n1 p42(8) Websites

AOL tech, (2006), Common mistakes made by new mac users, available via: http://www.tuaw.com/2006/01/25/common- mistakes-made-by-new-mac-users/, accessed on March, 11, 2009

LowEndMac, 2007, Mac Musings, available via: http://lowendmac.com/musings/07/0430.html, accessed on Saturday 14th March 2009.

Applehistory.com, 2008, available via: www.apple-history.com, accessed on Saturday 21th March 2009.

Link New Product Development NPD to Strategy published on managesmarter.com accessed on 10th March 2009

MacNewsWorld, 2008, Apple replace old mistakes, available via: http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/35795.html, accessed on 11th March, 2009

8

View publication stats