Not to wax on about theory of constraints, but Apple really learned its lessons from the Sculley/Amelio years. I ask, in lieu of the development of the Nano and the evolution of iPod technology, where was the Mini brand to go? At what point would Nano and Mini R&D, not to mention parts procurement and manufacturing, going to be redundant, considering that they likely would ultimately compete in the same market?

When understanding Apple, I try to separate their aggregate brand value from their subordinate brands. Why not excise the MacBook from the lineup, when Apple established it could offer better machines at the same price point? They've established their rhythm; the entry level MacBook could only nip at sales of the Airs and 13" Pro. It may be viscerally appealing from the units moved, but say you could move the same volume of your other product, why incur the overhead of maintaining both in the marketplace?

That said, I don't know that the move imparts as much moxie as it does at first blush, or if its indicative of organizational hubris. There's no axiom like "the good is the enemy of the better" or Buddhist philosophy at work here...I really think Apple is an organization that has learned a few lessons form the 1980s forward, particularly the excesses in R&D and the channel stuffing of the Sculley years. This is extremely calculated business. Will it come at a cost of brand loyalty? Quite possibly.