And what makes those companies so successful in those areas is that it is very difficult to replicate what they do. It is not as difficult to replicate what Dropbox does, as noted by what your parent poster said.
Is it that difficult to replicate what Apple does, provided that you have enough resources? I don't think so. But, still, companies fail to do so.
Yes, what Dropbox does right now does not add up to much, but if they keep expanding their usefulness they could end up reaching a critical mass. Dropbox' business is not a niche: everyone needs effortless backups and file sharing. Everyone. Tomorrow they could be a major cloud storage company indeed.
> Is it that difficult to replicate what Apple does, provided that you have enough resources? I don't think so. But, still, companies fail to do so.
Replicating Apple's brand/image is what's hard. That brand has taken years of focusing on Apple's/Steve Jobs's particular style of doing business and building products. We see people trying now to replicate that, but it took Apple all of the 2000s to get its brand to where it is.
I agree. But how many companies do you see really focusing on their image and consumer experience? I used to be a fan of Nokia mobile phones and their ease of use, but as I upgraded to a Nokia 5800 I was disappointed, and lost my faith in that brand.
> But how many companies do you see really focusing on their image and consumer experience?
Not many, because it's hard and risky and - drum roll - difficult to replicate! Which brings us back to why I feel a direct comparison between Dropbox and Apple/Google is flawed: Dropbox presents comparatively little consumer value that is difficult to replicate. Hell, they don't even handle their own storage, Amazon does.
> Not many, because it's hard and risky and - drum roll - difficult to replicate!
I don't think so. IMO, companies do not focus on their image and consumer experience because most CEOs are not entrepreneurs, and lack vision. They have risen to the top not only because of their performance, but mostly because they have been very good at office politics. Think about companies who have a strong personality instead: don't you realize they are run - have been run - by entrepreneurs (Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, etc.)? OTOH, for CEOs who do not own their company, focus is most exclusively either on their company's stockholders or their company's board of directors.
> Hell, they don't even handle their own storage, Amazon does.
It's called "outsourcing". The most successful fashion companies do not own any factories (Nike, etc.).
EDIT: Actually, it has just occurred to me that some companies which have a strong personality without having an entrepreneur as their CEO are companies which do not own their assets, that is companies whose main product is marketing.
What does Google do? Web search. Someone else is doing it, but they just do it better.