His blog post can be found here.

It is generally recognized that Apple has changed in the last few years, something companies are wont to do following the death of the CEO. As Adam points out, it’s hard to keep innovation when the great mind behind it is no longer in the picture.

However, companies are not set in stone. As Ries and Trout would agree, a company needs a position, a point of differentiation if they hope to attract business. According to Porter’s generic strategies, (and as implied by Adam Sibbald) Apple has been very much recognized as using a differentiation strategy, with the target audience being whoever is willing and able to buy an Apple product.

Its cutting edge technology has certainly made it a brand worth notice, but for a company to keep its original image throughout the duration of its lifespan is difficult and in fact, if a company never changes that is almost definitely why it ended. Apple is traditionally disruptively innovative and yes, it comes as a disappointment to the public that Apple no longer seems to be pumping out new, incredible gadgets. But it should also be noted that quite a few of Apple’s products have seemed similar to previously seen technologies, so its originality is questionable in the first place. Now might be the time to offer updates and make Apple products more available to a wider market anyway. Despite whatever harsh criticism, Apple remains an unquestionably strong brand name and if the current strategy means shifting so that more people can buy in, that’s respectable. It might even let them stay on top.