Rather Than Arousing Pity by Comprehensively Benchmarking Apple, Lei Jun Should Learn from Web3 Marketing

The narrative of “comprehensively benchmarking Apple” doesn’t come across as arrogant, but instead evokes a deep sense of pity. In the tech world, “benchmarking” is a common term that signifies catching up, learning, and competing. But when Xiaomi escalates this strategy to “comprehensively benchmarking Apple,” especially by skipping generations in product naming to directly compete with the iPhone 17, market sentiment becomes mixed. This is particularly true when Lei Jun repeatedly mentions the word “iPhone” during his press conferences.

Xiaomi’s choice of this marketing strategy might stem from the significant gap between its efforts and market returns. According to data from market research firms, in the second quarter of 2025, Apple’s average selling price (ASP) was about 6,335 yuan, while Xiaomi’s has long hovered around 1,100 yuan. In the global high-end smartphone market, Apple holds over 60% of the share. While Xiaomi’s share has grown, it still doesn’t match the volume of its “comprehensive benchmarking” claims.

The high-end market isn’t just about piling on technology and performance; it’s more about the psychological factors built up by a brand over the long term. Xiaomi’s all-out attack targets Apple’s “specs.” Still, I believe it will be difficult to shake the foundation of Apple’s “value” in the short term.

In fact, Lei Jun could really learn from the marketing perspective of Web3. The core marketing idea of Web3 is about “building consensus” and “community ownership,” not “centralized proclamation.” It doesn’t seek victory on an existing battlefield defined by others. Still, it aims to create a new narrative and value system that brings community members together because they identify with the story. From this perspective, Xiaomi’s “comprehensive benchmarking” is a typical Web2 mindset: the official (centralized) entity defines value (surpassing Apple in specs). Then it instills the conclusion that “we are stronger” from the top down to users.

A Web3 brand, on the other hand, would ask a different question: What do we represent? What do we and our users mutually believe in? It would strive to build a unique culture, an exclusive identity. Users aren’t just buying a product; they are buying a ticket into a particular “tribe.” This sense of belonging and the experience of co-creation are the strongest moats for a brand. In contrast, when Xiaomi ties its entire discourse to the anchor of “being better than Apple,” it is actually reinforcing Apple’s value system, indirectly admitting that Apple is the ultimate “standard of value.”

Interestingly, on the flip side of “comprehensive benchmarking,” Xiaomi’s HyperOS is striving to be the “best secondary phone for iPhone users” by blurring the concept of a primary device through features like notification syncing. This contradiction and coexistence of strategies is the best footnote to this feeling of pity: on one hand, there is a desire to defeat the competitor head-on; on the other, there is the need to acknowledge the competitor’s robust ecosystem and try to find a space to survive within it.

Therefore, the “comprehensive benchmarking Apple” narrative is less of an arrogant challenge and more of a helpless expression of struggle in the red ocean of Web2 competition. What it shows us is not a giant about to overthrow a king, but a runner under the industry’s immense gravity, striving to catch up and longing for recognition.

This struggle is worthy of respect, but this posture of altogether tying oneself to a competitor also evokes a sense of pity alongside that respect. True transcendence may not come from beating the opponent on every single spec, but from bravely starting something new, like the pioneers of Web3, and telling one’s own compelling story that can build a new consensus. Of course, Web3 also has cases of all talk and no action. You have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. If you only talk without action, you’re in trouble.