1

Personal Computing Industry Analysis &

Apple, Inc. 2010

Accounting is our L.I.F.O.

William Jenkins

Matthew Sinibaldi

Daniel Litfin

Emmeline Hoang

Leah Koznarsky

Yulia Kolomenskaya

PART I: THE PERSONAL COMPUTING INDUSTRY

The personal computing industry is defined by the United States Census Bureaus classification
system as NAICS code 334111 and SIC code 3571 (United States, 2012). The products that
make up this industry are personal computers such as desktops, laptops, and tablets computers.
These products provide important functions for business, government, education, and home
users. Computers allow users to communicate, enjoy entertainment, play music and games, and
create and store documents. Users utilize personal computers for organization of their daily
calendar, reminders, and to-do lists. One of the most important features of personal computers is
the access to wide amount information from the internet for research. The main players in the
personal computer industry are Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Acer, and Lenovo with about 55% of the
market share in this industry. Apple is also an important player with 4.2% of the market share in
the personal computer industry (Yoffiee & Kim, 2011).
Part 1-1: Barriers to Entry
The threat of new entrants into the personal computing industry is important because new
entrants could take away market share from incumbent firms. This would decrease incumbent
firms sales and profits. The barriers to entry include capital requirements, economies of scale,
switching costs, access to distribution channels, government policies, and product differentiation.
Capital Requirements
Capital requirements are the financial capital that is required to set up operations for production.
In the personal computing industry, a firm must have enough financial capital to lease or
purchase production facilities. The facility must have the necessary layout to produce personal
computers, so the firm needs capital to remodel the facility accordingly. The firm must purchase
production materials like memory chips, glass for screens, and plastic for the computer housing.

Skilled labor is needed to manufacture the electronic components. The biggest financial capital
for a firm in the personal computing industry is the capital needed for research and development
(Yoffie & Kim, 2011). The firm must undergo constant innovation in order to remain a player in
this industry. Based on the financial capital that is needed to set up manufacturing, hiring, and
research and development, the capital requirement barrier is high for a new entrant firm.
Economies of Scale
Economies of scale are the cost savings that incumbent firms have based on improved efficiency
as the firm increases the size of its operations. In the personal computing industry, the cost of
key components decreased at an average rate of 30% per year. Because these components
became more standardized, the cost of research and development decreased (Yoffie & Kim,
2011). The industry leader, Dell, retained only 1% of its revenue for research and development.
This barrier to entry would be high as incumbent firms have significant economies of scale.
Switching Costs
Switching costs are the one-time costs buyers incur by purchasing another firms product. The
Microsoft operating system paired with an Intel processor ensures that there is no learning curve
when switching between products from companies such as Dell, HP, Acer or Lenovo (Yoffie &
Kim, 2011). Because Apple has developed their own operating system known as OS X, a
learning curve exists in switching from a Microsoft-based system to an OS X system. Other
software such as Microsoft Office, which is important for both business and home users, is
available for all personal computers no matter which firm manufactures it (Yoffie & Kim, 2011).
Due to the small learning curve and the compatibility of software across operating systems, the
barrier to entry is low to moderate based on switching costs.

Access to Distribution Channels

An important barrier that new entrants have to overcome is the ability to secure distribution
channels to sell its products. Personal computers are distributed several ways. Large companies
purchase personal computers directly from the manufacturer. Home users and small businesses
will purchase personal computers from physical and web retailers such as Wal-Mart, Costco, and
Best Buy. Apple has its own retail stores where customers can directly use and experience Apple
personal computers before purchasing (Yoffie & Kim, 2011). The barriers of access to
distribution channels are high because it is difficult for a new entrant to secure its products in
these retailers since they are not known manufacturers in the personal computing industry. It
would take a new entrant large amounts of financial capital to set up and advertise for its own
retail store, let alone draw new customers into a store that offers totally unfamiliar products.
Government Policies
Another barrier to entry is the requirements imposed by government policy, such as patents.
Patents help firms protect technology and give them exclusive rights to manufacturing and
distribution. There are constant court battles to protect the rights to patents and innovative
technology. After allegedly copying Apples iPad tablet design, Samsung was ordered to pay
Apple $1 billion dollars in punitive damages for patent infringement, and cases of this magnitude
are found between large companies on a regular basis (Essers, 2012). The barrier of government
policies would be a moderate barrier to entry because patents on design and technology restrict a
new entrants ability to design products without infringing patents of incumbent firms.
Product Differentiation
Product differentiation is the perception that an incumbent firms product uniquely meets a
specific customer need. Communication, document creating and sharing, and research are

abilities of all personal computers. The unique specifications of a personal computer would not
hinder or aid a users ability to perform those basic functions. Regarding media replay for
music, videos and games, a personal computers specifications can really set them apart from
other products. A customers perceived experience with a certain brand can create loyalty that
will exist between the firm and customer for quite a long time. This barrier of product
differentiation is moderate to high because brand loyalty has a major affect on a customers
perception of an incumbent firms unique product.
Threat of New Entrants
In summary, the personal computing industry maintains high barriers to entry for new firms.
Capital requirements, economies of scale, and access to distribution channels present high
barriers. Product differentiation is a moderate to high barrier to entry because firms are
challenged to create products that are appealing to customers while being unique in their own
right. Patents and government policies that are in place create a moderate barrier to entry,
requiring a firm to create a completely unique product that falls within governmental standards.
The switching cost for a buyer would be low to moderate, based on the fact that there are several
operating systems that have their own learning curves, and the costs of new personal computers
can be large. Overall, the barriers of new entry into the personal computing industry are high
while the threat of new entry is low.
Part 1-2: Substitute Products
In 2010, a large selection of product substitutes became available as they entered into
competition with the computer manufacturing industry. A comparable substitute product was
judged on three categories: its availability, close resemblance, and performance related to price.
Additionally, substitute products for the computer industry filled the needs of communication,

entertainment, composition and viewing of documents, and access to the Internet. In 2010,
several technological advancements offered to fulfill the needs listed above. Specifically,
smartphones became more advanced with the LTE technology by offering fast web surfing on a
3G network (Pica, 2013), video gaming systems started offering web and communication
functions, Web TV became available from several competing firms (Gross, 2010), and MP3
players became more advanced and offered entertainment comparable to those of computers
(Skee, 2010).
Table 1.1 shows that although product substitutes existed for the computer industry, only
smartphones had the capability to meet the same consumer needs as computers and tablets in all
categories. In addition, smartphones were compact and portable which was an advantage over
desktop computers. However, smartphones had much smaller screens than computers and tablets,
making work involving documents inconvenient; additionally, computers had larger keyboards
which made typing faster and more comfortable. Although smartphones gave users access to the
Internet, included a camera, document editing software, and had many other functions and
capabilities which were comparable to the functions and capabilities of personal computers (see
Table 1.1), their small display size made them unable to completely replace computers and
tablets. Other substitutes, such as Web TV, video game systems, and MP3 players lacked key
functions of computers (see Table 1.1); therefore they could not serve as permanent
replacements. Overall, although all of the compared substitute products rated high on
availability, only smartphones rated high on performance and close resemblance to price. Based
on the reasons stated above, the risk of substitute products was low as these products and
technologies did not pose a significant long-term threat for personal computers.
Part 1-3: Bargaining Power - Suppliers

The computer industry consisted of sub-industries that maintained huge market control because
of their specialization and quality products that were inimitable, or manufacturers that supplied
parts and peripherals that could be purchased from the firm that was the most competitive.
The sector manufacturing products with intense differentiation saw market leaders emerge and
maintain great control over the industry. Within this sub-category, the industry was dominated
by Microsoft and Intel who played their respective parts; Microsoft with operating systems and
Intel with CPUs.
In the software production industry, Microsoft was the powerhouse with claim to over 90% of
the market share (Brodkin, 2011). Microsoft had dominated the market easily as they provided
products for IBM personal computers since the 1980s. Microsoft established itself as the market
leader by creating the best product for the cheapest price. It was very difficult to find an
operating system that would come close to rivaling Microsoft Windows for a similar price.
Within the CPU industry, the two main industry leaders were Intel as the largest player by far
with an astounding 81% of the market share in 2010, and AMD with 11.4% (McGlaun, 2011).
As the CPU industry had only two major suppliers who owned over 92% of the market share, it
was safe to say that AMD and Intel classified as powerful suppliers. As the dominate force in the
personal computer CPU supply chain, Intel was able to in effect dictate the price of their
processing chips to achieve up to a 78% profit margin on many of their products (Copeland,
2012). Since Microsoft and Intel maintained control over their respective markets, they
established dominating influence over personal computer manufacturers such as HewlettPackard, Dell, Acer, and Lenovo.
Beyond CPUs and operating systems, most parts and resources used in manufacturing personal
computers were subject to competitive pricing and high competition. Products such as disk

drives, memory chips, mice and keyboards, etc. did not come from one market leader. In this
sector of the supply market, personal computer manufacturers had the ability to choose the
supplier that provided the most competitive prices (Ramstad, 2012).
Part 1-4: Bargaining Power - Buyers
As personal computers became more ubiquitous in our daily lives, the business of manufacturing
and selling personal computers was becoming more fast-paced and dynamic. An overwhelmingly
large change in the personal computer industry saw buyers doing away with bulky desktop
computers and embracing lighter and thinner laptops or tablets. The worlds largest desktop
personal computer maker was Hewlett Packard who would go on to lay off more than 27,000
workers in 2012 due to the growing change in consumer taste. In the business environment,
desktop computers still had high sales but soon desktops would lose a share of demand to thinner
laptops similar to what happened in the home consumer market (Goldsborough, 2012). Buyers of
personal computers and tablets were grouped into five main categories: home, small/ medium
sized business, corporate, education, and government (Yoffie & Kim, 2011). Each group was
very concerned with price, while each segment of buyers had specific needs and differentiating
levels of buying power.
Purchasers of home computers were the largest of the five segments. They represented almost
half of the personal computer buyers market. Home consumers were predominantly concerned
with specifications regarding design, mobility and wireless connectivity (Yoffie & Kim, 2011).
Purchasers of home computers were powerful as a market segment since they represented the
largest number of purchasers of computers for home use. Individually, users owned two or three
computers which only gave them power when working together. The computer manufacturers
had to work to distinguish their brand as a superior value to others. Switching costs were only

moderate because consumers already owned other computers, and learning curve on a new
product would be low to moderate so it would not discourage new purchases.
The next major category of computer buyers was businesses. Purchases of computers for
business had to balance price with service and support. The purchasing power of a small- to
medium-sized business was somewhat powerful while corporations had great power due to the
volume of their purchases. Switching costs for small- to medium-sized businesses were high
because they needed to purchase multiple new computers and spend time teaching the new
computer systems to staff members. Switching costs for corporations were significant due to the
quantity of computers to purchase and time spent training the staff.
In the education sector, buyers were predominantly focused on software availability. It was
critical for the best software to be available so that students could utilize the computer to meet
their specific needs. As the education system continued to grow, so did their buying power.
There were moderate to high switching costs for an educational institution due to the large
number of computers needed to supply each school.
Buyers of personal computers for government use were concerned with network safety. It was
critical that computers were secure enough to protect from hackers and thieves. Governments
had great buying power and represented a significant portion of personal computer buyers. The
government had very high switching costs in regards to purchasing new computers. Regulations
would need to be met, large numbers of computers would have to be bought, and extensive
training would have to be given on new systems.
Part 1-5: Industry Rivalry
Rivalry in the personal computing industry was high. There was a constant battle between
companies to take the advantage from each other. The creation of new products, improvements

10

on current ones and competitive pricing developed a cutthroat atmosphere. Patrick Seitz
summarized saying the rivalries stem from a battle to control a new business area and are
central to a companys future (Seitz, 2010). As profitability is the number one goal, computer
manufacturers thrived on the sale of products.
Rivalry became extremely apparent in advertising campaigns. Most of the campaigns bashed the
rival company. The subtlety of the bashing was determined by the desired effect. Typically a
company attacked a rival product that received the most praise at the moment and most closely
resembled the product they were trying to promote. The ad campaign run by Apple between Mac
computers and PCs (slang for everything else) featured John Hodgman and Justin Long. Apple
chose to use a cool kid versus nerd approach (Stevenson, 2006). In one quick commercial,
Apple put their products on a pedestal and attempted to mar the reputation of PC products and
their users.
As competition heated up, rivalry between firms increased. High level executives began
throwing out personal remarks against each other. According to Inventors.com in 2010 the top
tech rivalry was Apple vs. Google. Steve Jobs, Apples CEO, was quoted saying that, we think
competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal
ours, this was directed towards Eric Schmidt (Seitz, 2010). While Schmidt, CEO of Google,
made a remark about Jobs saying, you might want to tell me the difference between a large
phone and a tablet (Seitz, 2010). In the computer industry rivalries were intense and vicious.
The fight for market share continued to grow more demanding of advertisers and corporate
executives, and the tech war is still in effect today.

11

PART II: STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP

2010 saw Apple as one of the technological powerhouses in the United States and across the
globe. Steve Jobs had come back to the company thirteen years ago in 1997 and had truly lead
the company in a disagreed-upon direction. It was clear that Jobs wanted his company to stand
out in a field in which no other company even knew existed. The iPod changed the music
industry, the iPhone changed the cell phone industry, and in April of 2010, the iPad changed the
computing industry. Jobs liked to quote Wayne Gretzky stating I skate to where the puck is
going to be, not where it has been, (Jobs, 2007). Critics were unable to criticize Apple in the
production stages of their new products because Jobs maintained such an excellent level of
secrecy that even Apple employees didnt know what was coming out. When the iPad finally
launched, it was greeted with mixed emotions (Yoffiee & Kim, 2011). Users were upset by the
lack of a physical keyboard among other things, but the sensation created by Apple caused the
demand for something brand new to skyrocket.
Steve Jobs was an incredibly successful strategic leader in 2010. While his health was faltering,
he was still able to guide Apple in a direction that no company had previously gone. Although he
did not lead Apple the way scholars would have expected, he nonetheless was able to be the most
important corporate figurehead of the 2000s. Strategic leadership is the ability to create and
define a goal for an organization, then guide that organization through change to achieve that
goal (May, n.d). Managing change was somewhat of a specialty for Jobs, and as Tim Cook
noted, he was able to effectively change his mind and then speed in the new direction (Tyrangiel,
2012). Jobs defined his goal for Apple when they changed their name from Apple Computers to
Apple, Inc. in 2007. Instead of a general computer company, Apple began to strive to create the
very best in consumer electronics.

12

According to the Harvard Business Review, it is essential that a strategic leader has the ability to
anticipate (Schoemaker, Krupp & Howland, 2013). This forward-thinking ability is what gave
Jobs the ability to envision what the public would want in emerging products and provide for
their demands before they were demanded.
Based on the necessities for being a strategic leader, Jobs certainly fell into that category. He did
not, however, lead with the traits that were considered accepted by general management in the
United States. Jobs cold attitude and demanding personality drove those around him to work to
the best of their ability, but other managers may not be capable of such motivation without it
coming across as negative (Luo, 2013).
In 2014, Apple is led by Tim Cook. He describes his leadership style as people, strategy and
execution (Medlyn, 2013). As Apple has continued to create new and exciting personal
computing devices, critics have begun to doubt the continuity of Apple as an electronics
powerhouse. Cook is known for his meticulous attitude and intense desire to get things correct
with absolutely no variances. He is known as a stickler for details, and employees have described
meetings with Cook as terrifying (Kane, 2014). Cooks leadership style seems to be significantly
different than that of Jobs, and it is unclear as to whether or not Apple will remain the forerunner
of electronic excellence.
Apples security regarding information about new products has become more lax under Cook.
Rumors- correct rumors- are regularly released about new products and features. While Apple
continues to be a gigantic company with regular growth, the leadership seems to lack specific
direction and organization. The release of the iPhone 6 did well, but the increase of sales over the
previous model was significantly lower. Lower iPhone sales are indicators of Apples decreasing
stock prices. While the company is not losing profits, it is gaining less profits than it was four

13

years ago. It seems that Apple is regarded as lacking in the breakthrough ideas that it once had
under Steve Jobs (Santariano, 2014).
PART III: ANALYSIS SUMMARY AND APPLES COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
Analysis Summary
The personal computing industry covers all personal computing device manufacturers and
distributors. The personal computer industry has reworked the consumer market into one that
demands new and innovative products that are made well and last a long time. In 2010, the
computer industry had an opportunity to provide products that were ever-changing and upgraded
upon in each generation of product. New entrants in the market were a very low threat, but the
threat of incumbent firms creating new products that would revolutionize the industry was high.
The potentially new products could shift current consumers to other firms. Based on our
research, over half of the buyers of personal computers were in-home users. There was an
opportunity for firms to sell their products to buyers in government, corporate, and educational
institutions.
Suppliers had the unique ability to determine prices and quality of the products they provided in
regards to CPUs and operating systems. Apples OS X was fully developed in-house, and
regardless of the high development costs, it gave Apple a leg-up on competition because it did
not have to outsource the firmware of their products. Software companies maintained the ability
to influence prices and quality in dealing with other computer manufacturers. Hardware and
software companies that create components for personal computers presented a threat of forward
integration. If they decided to develop their own personal computer, they could threaten the
market share of computer manufacturers.

14

In-market rivalries saw advertising campaigns that directly attacked rival firms images. CEOs
would publicly discredit other executives and challenge them to come up with ideas of their own
rather than mimic features that were already developed.
Smartphones, gaming devices and web televisions could have been considered substitutes for
some features of the personal computer, but it was basically impossible for a product to match
the computing power, speed and multi-functionality of the PC.
Apples Sustainable Competitive Advantage
Apple leads the industry in innovation and new product hype. The have a first-mover advantage
in that they constantly develop new software to make their devices run more smoothly and rival
companies are left trying to keep up. The personal computer industry is developing on a daily
basis, and Apple has the advantage in perceived quality, customer service, and ease of use. This
competitive advantage is strong, yet is only sustainable if Apple is able to continuously stay
ahead of other developers. Apples profits have plateaued in the last two years due to competitive
products that have the same capabilities but significantly lower prices, so Apple must begin to
develop more unique or lower-priced products or it is very possible that other firms will take
away the advantage that they maintain.

15

TABLE 1.1
Product

Availability

Avg. Price

Communication

Entertainment

Smartphones

High

$440

Email, webcam,
IM, voice

Video, music,
games

Web TV

High

$700

High

$480

High

$300

Video Gaming
Systems
MP3 Players

IM, voice,
webcam
-

Video, music,
games
Video, music,
games
music

Documents
.rtf, .pdf,
.docx, .pptx,
.jpeg, etc.

Internet

Supported

Supported

Supported

Supported
.rtf, .pdf,
Email, webcam,
Video, music,
Computers/Lap
High
$615
.docx, .pptx, Supported
IM, voice
games
tops
.jpeg, etc.
.rtf, .pdf,
Email, webcam,
Video, music,
High
$600
.docx, .pptx, Supported
Tablets
IM, voice
gaming
.jpeg, etc.
*Average smartphone price is based on the price of android phones in 2010 (Siegal, J., 2014). Web TV prices show
the price range of various products, with the prices reflecting streaming boxes, such as Roku on the cheaper end and
TVs, such as Google TV as the most expensive (Kim, R. 2010). The price for video gaming systems is the mean
price of top-selling gaming consoles in 2010: Nintendo Wii, X-Box 360, and PlayStation 3 (Michael, 2013). The
price range for MP3 Players reflect 2010 prices for the top sellers (Skee, G., 2010). Average price of computers and
laptops in 2010 was about the same (Worthen, B., 2010), (Elitelbach, D., 2012). Average price of tablets in 2010 is
based on Business Insider estimates (Cocotas, A., 2012).

16

References
Brodkin, J. (2011, January 13). Windows on verge of dropping below 90% market share.
Network World. Retrieved October 5, 2014, from
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2198795/windows/windows-on-verge-ofdropping-below-90--market-share.html
Cocotas, A. (2012, August 17). CHART: There's Been A Huge Drop In The Average Selling
Price Of Tablets. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/theres-been-a-hugedrop-in-the-average-selling-price-of-tablets-2012-8
Copeland, M. (2015, August 12). An Empire Strikes Back: Intel Muscles Into the Mobile Market
| WIRED. Wired.com. Retrieved October 5, 2014, from
http://www.wired.com/2012/08/ff_intel/all/
Elitelbach, D. (2012, January 30). Average Windows Laptop Costs $456, Down 14 Percent in
24 Months. Retrieved from http://blog.laptopmag.com/average-windows-laptop-costs456-down-14-percent-in-24-months
Essers, Loek. (2012). Computer-related patents now top worldwide applications. PC World.
Retrieved from http://www.pcworld.com/article/2020603/computer-related-patents-nowtop-worldwide-applications.html
Goldsborough, R. (2012). The Tenacity of the Desktop PC. Tech Directions, 72(2), 10.
Gross, D. (2010, December 27). The top 10 tech trends of 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/12/27/top.tech.trends.year/
Jobs, S. "Live from Macworld 2007: Steve Jobs keynote". 2007. Archived from the original on
2012-06-24. Retrieved October 4th, 2014.

17

Kane, Y. (2014, February 28). The Job After Steve Jobs: Tim Cook and Apple. Retrieved
September 28, 2014, from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527
0230461040457940542061757825
Kim,R. (2010, October 12). Sony Prices Google TV to Sell; Will People Buy? Retrieved from
https://gigaom.com/2010/10/12/sony-prices-google-tv-to-sell-will-people-buy/
Luo, B. (2013, September 12). Ronald Wayne: On Co-founding Apple and Working with Steve
Jobs. Retrieved October 2, 2014, from http://nextshark.com/ronald-wayne-interview/
May, R. (n.d.). Strategic Leadership for Executives. BusinessDictionary.com - Online Business
Dictionary. Retrieved October 15, 2013, from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/article/682/strategic-leadership-for-executives
McGlaun, S. (2011, March 25). DailyTech - 2010 Processor Market Share Details Unveiled.
DailyTech - 2010 Processor Market Share Details Unveiled. Retrieved October 5, 2014,
from http://www.dailytech.com/2010+Processor+Market+Share+Details+Unveiled/
article21226.htm
Medlyn, E. (2013, May 29). Apple CEO and Fuqua Alum Tim Cook Talks Leadership at Duke.
Retrieved October 2, 2014, from http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/news_events/
feature_stories/tim-cook-talks-leadership/#.VDL4d2fwuUk
Michael. (2013, July 12). The thousand dollar consoles you forgot. Retrieved from
http://www.younghipandconservative.com/2013/07/the-thousand-dollar-consoles-youforgot.html
Mind Tools. (n.d.). The Johari Window - Team Communication Skills Training From
MindTools.com. Retrieved from http://www.mindtools.com/
CommSkll/JohariWindow.htm

18

Pica,T. (2013, June 27). History of 4G LTE: Here and Abroad. Retrieved from
http://www.verizonwireless.com/news/article/2013/06/the-history-of-4G-LTE.html
Ramstad, E. (2012, January 7). Fading memory saps chip makers. The Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved October 6, 2014, from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001
42405297020347100457714464274939039
Satariano, A. (2014, April 23). Apples Slowing IPhone, IPad Sales Test Investor Resolve.
Retrieved October 3, 2014, from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-23/apple-sslowing-iphone-ipad-sales-test-investor-resolve.html
Schoemaker, P., Krupp, S., & Howland, S. (2013, January 1). Strategic Leadership: The
Essential Skills. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2013/01/strategic-leadership-the-esssentialskills/ar/1
Seitz, P. (2010, April 30). Top 10 Tech Rivalries: Computer Industry Competition Kicks Up
Hatfield-McCoy Fights. Retrieved October 1, 2014, from
http://news.investors.com/technology/043010-531755-top-10-tech-rivalries-computerindustry-competition-kicks-up-hatfield-mccoy-fights.htm
Seitz, P. (2010, April 30). Apple Vs. Google: Weren't We Just Friends? Retrieved October 1,
2014,from http://news.investors.com/043010-531764-apple-vs-google-werent-justfriends-.htm
Siegal, J. (2014, February 18). Android, iPhone price comparison: Android now half as
expensive. Retrieved from http://bgr.com/2014/02/18/android-iphone-price-comparison/
Skee, G. (2010, December 31). Top 5 MP3 Players of 2010. Retrieved from
http://anythingbutipod.com/2010/12/top-5-mp3-players-of-2010/
Stevenson, S. (2006, June 6). Mac Attack - Apple's mean-spirited new ad campaign. Retrieved

19

September 30, 2014, from

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ad_report_card/2006/06/mac_attack.html
Tyrangiel, Josh (December 6, 2012). "Tim Cook's Freshman Year: The Apple CEO Speaks".
Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved October 1, 2014.
United States. United Sates Census Bureau. (2012). 2012 NAICS Definition 334111 Electronic
Computer Manufacturing. Retrieved October 4, 2014 from http://www.census.gov/cgibin/sssd/naics/naicsrch
United States. United Sates Census Bureau. (2012). 2012 3571 Electronic Computers. Retrieved
October 4, 2014 from http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97sic/def/D3571.TXT
Worthen, B. (2010, December 13). Rising PC Prices Buck the Trend. Retrieved from
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704681804576017883787191962
Yoffie, D., & Kim, R. (2011). Harvard Business School. Apple Inc. in 2010.