Its common knowledge that Facebook’s IPO was a failure. According to the news articles sourced Facebook was too late (8 years after founding), it had too much hype around it causing the company to over estimate the volume of shares, NASDAQ had several technical errors, and over all a lot of things just didn’t work out for Facebook.

Now Twitter is going public, and has now chosen to be listed on the NYSE (New York Stock Exchange). Usually for large Silicon Valley social media companies like Facebook, Zynga, Grupon etc. NASDAQ is the most popular exchange, but a lot of comparisons between Facebook’s IPO and Twitter’s IPO have been made, and Twitter is doing lot different.

It is rumoured that November 15^th is the date the IPO starts. Twitter is getting listed on NYSE not NASDAQ, they are using Morgan Stanley, not JP Morgan. They do it before they make their first billion dollars. And several other minor changes should make the Twitter IPO more successful that the Facebook IPO.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2013/09/13/why-twitters-ipo-wont-be-like-facebooks-ipo/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-15/twitter-picks-nyse-as-exchange-bolsters-tech-ipo-allure.html

Boeing was first. They established them selves as the strongest brand, and Airbus had no points of difference to push Boeing off their throne. Boeing was used almost exclusively for decades; until recently when a $9.5 billion order on Airbus planes was made – sheduled to overtake Boeing in the long term.

So what has happened here? Boeing had trouble with their most popular model (the 787) and when they could not deliver, nor seemed as appealing as before due to trouble with batteries etc. they lost their points of parity – a plane has to work – and thus lost a significant market share in the Japanese market.

In the world wide market, Boeing and Airbus aim at the exact same market, which could be considered  too broad of a market – which is not a profitable idea. One example of this is “But Boeing’s strategy calls for it to be dominant in the sales of midsize and larger jetliners because Airbus has pulled ahead in sales of the newest single-aisle planes, with the A320 neo tallying more advance sales than Boeing’s 737 MAX.” To avoid this, Boieng needs to create a different point of parity, for example the Boeing 777X’s fuel-saving abilities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/business/international/jal-orders-9-5-billion-worth-of-airbus-jets.html?ref=international&_r=0

According to Al Ries, the person who coined “positioning” says “by introducing a cheaper iPhone, Apple will lose its position at the high end. And conversely, it won’t sell very many inexpensive phones because of competition from Chinese and Taiwanese companies.”

What this effectively means is that Apple bit of more than they could chew, by wanting to maintain the high end smartphone market – while aiming to get a larger market share through appealing to lower income earners. According to Ries this will hurt the brand over all, by moving their positioning from a clear point where people know what to expect to an undefined brand.

Earlier this fall Apple was ranked number 1 in terms of brand value, however this could be reduced with the ambiguity surrounding the two different iPhones. Google, which ranked number 2, is the producer of Android, which is now Apples toughest competition (next to Samsung).

This, however, is only one mans opinion. There is a posibuility that the two different phones will start to dominate the market by increasing the market share significantly. And perhaps it was a smart move to use the “iPhone” brand on this new product, so lower income earners who now can afford an iPhone 5c associate them selves with the “exclusive” Apple and iPhone brand. Only time will tell.

http://www.firstpost.com/business/by-introducing-cheaper-iphones-apple-will-lose-its-high-end-position-1103013.html