Business Week wrote with great certainty that Apple stores won't work. David Goldstein "gave them two years before they're turning the lights out on a very painful and expensive mistake." (Source from Fortune)

But today, if people are having breakfast at Tiffany's (US$2,666 anuual sales per square foot in fiscal 2006), then they must be lunching at Apple (US$4,032 anuual sales per square foot in fiscal 2006)

Their secret?

Getting the best people into the business. Mickey Drexler from Gap and Ron Johnson from Target.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

From a consumer's point of view, I wonder what is exactly so fascinating about Apple.

Aesthetics and marketing.

The apple nano is so gorgeous and desirable you just got to have it. The marketing is evil. Beautiful people, models, A listers tout it around like the must have accessory.

I got a Ipod nano red and I am still enamoured with it.

In the Singapore market, despite the Creative Muvo probably having better functions, it is hideously ugly. The shape is bulky, the colour neon puke inducing. It is simply to make it in simpler terms, not desirable.

If I were to ever have a retail line, be it clothing or accessories, product design and quality, and marketing strategies would be high on my mind.

So what if Creative wins the legal tussle in US? I look at Creative products and I look at Apple stuff… there isn’t even nary a fight.