A Company's Character Shapes Its Audience
Over the years, I’ve increasingly come to believe in one idea: a company’s core identity determines the kind of users it ultimately attracts.
Many people discussing cars or phones like to attribute brand preference to product strength, specifications, price, or even marketing prowess. But for me, what truly influences consumer decisions has never been a specific generation of products, but rather the product philosophy a company has cultivated over decades, and the values it represents.
I’ve always believed that in a consumerist society, every consumption choice is a vote for the part of the world you wish to see.
Buying a car or a phone isn’t just acquiring a tool; it’s also deciding which companies receive more resources, which product philosophies continue to evolve, and which R&D directions deserve market reward. The money I spend doesn’t just get me a commodity; it’s a vote for a world I endorse.
For this reason, I never evaluate a single generation of products in isolation. What I care more about is why this company made such a product, how it thinks about products, and what kind of company it aspires to be.
What’s Truly Hard for a Company to Change is Its Core Identity
Can a company, by continuously improving, eventually become anything it wants to be? I don’t think so. What’s truly hardest for a company to change is never a specific technology, but rather its long-accumulated organizational capabilities and product philosophy.
A company’s experiences over decades determine how it defines products, allocates R&D resources, evaluates success, and confronts competition. These collectively form the company’s core identity.
Business performance can fluctuate, products can succeed or fail, CEOs can change, but what truly determines a company’s long-term character often transcends many eras.
Apple and Microsoft are excellent examples.
Apple in the nineties was very chaotic operationally, but this was a management issue, not a product philosophy issue. From the Macintosh to the Newton, and later the iMac and iPhone, what Apple has truly adhered to for decades is the same mindset: product definition first, experience first, hardware-software integration, and industrial design serving the overall experience. This underlying logic has barely changed.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is completely different. Decades of accumulation have led Microsoft to cultivate a different skill tree: platforms, developer ecosystems, enterprise software, and global cloud infrastructure. This is why I’ve always believed that Microsoft couldn’t make an iPhone, and Apple likewise couldn’t make Azure. It’s not about one company being more capable than the other, but because they developed in different directions from their inception, ultimately forming distinct organizational capabilities.
The Same Goes for Car Brands
Regarding car manufacturers, I’ve long resonated with Nio, not because every generation of its products is leading, nor because of specific selling points like service or battery swapping, but because I identify with the development path it represents.
In my view, Nio has consistently focused on building systemic capabilities. From vehicle platforms, electrical and electronic architecture, and software systems, to its battery swap network, charging infrastructure, user services, and brand expression, it aims to construct a complete, integrated capability system, rather than just a single point of advantage. This kind of capability building often requires massive investment and yields slow returns, sometimes failing to directly translate into sales for a considerable period, yet it forms truly long-term competitive barriers. I particularly appreciate its restraint and consistency in design, and its persistent international product aesthetic, rather than deliberately catering to market sentiment.
In contrast, Li Auto and Xiaomi represent a different corporate philosophy. They are more adept at adapting to trends, quickly integrating resources with extremely high execution efficiency after market demand has been validated, and refining existing mature solutions to better meet mass market needs. This is a typical efficiency-driven competition, pursuing faster product iterations, more precise market judgment, and higher business efficiency. From a business perspective, this is undoubtedly a very successful development model and a key reason for their rapid rise.
But if I had to choose, I would still prefer the former.
I consistently admire companies willing to spend a decade building systems, establishing standards, and cultivating long-term capabilities, rather than constantly optimizing efficiency within existing tracks. I prefer systemic innovation from 0 to 1 over efficiency-driven competition from 1 to N. The former creates a new capability, while the latter optimizes an existing one; the former defines the future, the latter adapts to the present. Both are worthy of respect, but my values consistently lean towards the former.
Therefore, even if Li Auto’s chassis becomes industry-leading in the future, or Xiaomi builds the electric car with the strongest overall qualities, I might still not become their user. Because what truly matters to me has never been a specific product capability, but rather the long-term character demonstrated by the company.
This character is reflected in its product language, its brand expression, and even more so in how the company handles competition, faces the market, and communicates with users.
Some companies consistently maintain restraint, while others are always keen on generating buzz; some are willing to slowly accumulate through long-term R&D, while others emphasize quickly responding to market demands; some hope their products become the expression itself, while others are more accustomed to letting marketing lead the product.
These things don’t suddenly disappear just because one generation of products succeeds.
Products May Change, But Product Definition May Not
This is also why I’ve always believed that what’s truly hard for a company to change isn’t technology, but its method of defining products.
Taking the phone industry as an example, I’ve often said in the past that Xiaomi’s product definition always revolves around cost and price point. This isn’t a criticism, but an observation. When a company is long accustomed to first determining cost and then figuring out how to allocate specifications, the capability it cultivates naturally becomes how to make the on-paper specs look best.
Apple’s approach, conversely, tends to first answer “What should this product be?” and then decide what hardware is needed to achieve it.
Consequently, when both companies set out to make a compact flagship, the resulting products will be entirely different.
In my view, the greatest value of a compact product lies in portability and balance, not in cramming all flagship specifications into it. Therefore, when a small-screen phone, in pursuit of stronger specs, continuously increases in weight, expands its camera module, and sacrifices the grip experience, I feel it has begun to deviate from its own product definition. This isn’t a lack of engineering capability, but a clash of product philosophies.
A Company’s Core Identity Filters Its Users
Thus, I increasingly agree with the statement: a company’s core identity determines the kind of people it ultimately attracts.
Brands and consumers are, in fact, engaged in a two-way selection. The values a company consistently upholds will gradually attract people who resonate with those values, and these users, in turn, further reinforce the brand culture.
Of course, this doesn’t mean every user possesses the same character. Any brand with millions of users will certainly have a diverse range of people. However, the core users who truly stay long-term often develop similar value orientations, because they identify not just with the product itself, but with the methodology the company adheres to.
This is also why I find it increasingly difficult to change my overall assessment of a company simply because one generation of its products performs well.
Products can be improved, technology can be caught up, design can be reshaped, but a company’s long-established organizational culture, product philosophy, and brand identity are not things that can be changed in just a year or two.
Therefore, what I consume has never been just the product itself.
What I choose and purchase is a company’s long-held methodology, a product philosophy I wish to see continue, and an industry direction that can sustain future development.
Because I consistently believe that a company’s core identity determines its products, products determine their audience, and every act of consumption is ultimately a choice for the part of the world you wish to see.