or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iPhone takes 80 percent of China's booming premium phone market
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's iPhone takes 80 percent of China's booming premium phone market - Page 2

post #41 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post
 

You people really haven't been keeping track of Apple's share price, have you? 

 

 

Yes I do keep track of Apple's share price -- probably a lot closer than you do.  In my portfolio, I have 400 shares of AAPL and have made about $125K profit on it since my investment (exclusive of dividends).  In the last five years, Microsoft's share price is up 126%, Google's is up 261%, IBM's is up 102%, and Apple's is up 447%.

 

I'm an investor, not a stock trader.  I'm interested in long-term growth, not quarterly, or even yearly, fluctuations in the stock price.  My confidence in Apple is based on the products and technologies that they bring to the market.  With over 30 years as an engineering professional, I have insights that stock traders (and kids on the Internet) do not.  I understand, at an architectural level, the advantages that Apple's iOS and OS X operating systems have.  I understand just why Apple's curated app stores are so important for their long-term growth and why consumers will come to value them over the petri-dish model used by the competition.  I understand why, as security becomes a bigger concern, Apple's OS architectures will continue to hold significant advantages, both in preventing security breaches and in limiting the exposure when flaws are found.

 

I'm not quite 53 and, through my investments, I'm financially ready to retire.  You do not have more insight than I do.

post #42 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post
 

"Apple is doomed" is a popular line used when good news about Apple and their devices is released.

 

"Apple is doomed" is a popular knee-jerk vacuous comment made by people who want to be part of the conversation but can't construct anything actually humorous or intelligent. Very much like people who write "first" or people who comment on crashed cars with "it'll polish out".

post #43 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

The branding doesn't change the fact that Mercedes Benz builds that car.

 

No, Mercedes Benz does not build that car.  The smart fortwo is built in the dedicated "Smartville" factory in Hambach, France at which no brands other than smart, are built.  The smart brand, like brands Mercedes, Western Star (buses), Freightliner (trucks), and Thomas Built Buses, is owned by Daimler AG.  I own two smart fortwo convertibles, so I know of what I write.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

It all depends on how you word it. Not having a logo on it only means it doesn't have that branding but that doesn't mean it wasn't designed or built by another brand or part of the larger umbrella. If VW owns Bugatti I'd have no problem saying that all modern Bugatti's are VWs but I wouldn't call a Jetta a Bugatti.

 

Daimler owns both the Mercedes and smart brands; the smart fortwo is no more a Mercedes than a Thomas Built Buses school bus is a Mercedes.  Most consumers don't share your view that Bugattis, Ducati motorcycles, Porsches, Scania buses, and Lamborghinis are all "VWs" just because they are owned by the same parent company.  ​

 

Daimler understands that it would do horrible damage Mercedes brand were they to release the smart fortwo as a Mercedes fortwo.  Apple similarly understands that it would face the same problems were it to release a bunch of cheap, low-spec products with the Apple name. And, unlike in the auto industry where the concept of divisions is so entrenched, Apple could not so easily divorce their name from a line of low-end products.  Every corner cut in the design, materials, construction, warranty, or support would immediately be picked up by the anti-Apple trolls as raw material for the anti-Apple venom they spew.

 

Apple's area of expertise is producing premium products with premium support.  They are doing fine with that approach while avoiding the low-profit, cutthroat, bargain-product market.

post #44 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Maxwell View Post
 

 

Daimler owns both the Mercedes and smart brands; the smart fortwo is no more a Mercedes than a Thomas Built Buses school bus is a Mercedes.  Most consumers don't share your view that Bugattis, Ducati motorcycles, Porsches, Scania buses, and Lamborghinis are all "VWs" just because they are owned by the same parent company.  ​

 

Daimler understands that it would do horrible damage Mercedes brand were they to release the smart fortwo as a Mercedes fortwo.  Apple similarly understands that it would face the same problems were it to release a bunch of cheap, low-spec products with the Apple name. And, unlike in the auto industry where the concept of divisions is so entrenched, Apple could not so easily divorce their name from a line of low-end products.  Every corner cut in the design, materials, construction, warranty, or support would immediately be picked up by the anti-Apple trolls as raw material for the anti-Apple venom they spew.

 

Apple's area of expertise is producing premium products with premium support.  They are doing fine with that approach while avoiding the low-profit, cutthroat, bargain-product market.

You raise an interesting point about branding, which has also been alluded to by other posters.

 

I think there is a blurring that is taking place with branding of cars. As companies become incorporated, people are starting to question the differentiation and therefore whether it is worth paying extra for a badge, when very often a lot of the parts are shared between brands. I think it is potentially damaging to brands and will degrade value over time because of this crossover. 

 

As long as a brand is seen to have enough of a differentiation to pay a premium, then it won't suffer. But it's a very different situation to mobile phones. There, Apple is the equivalent of Ferrari, yet enjoys a far larger marketshare due to its affordability. In the realm of cars, only a tiny percentage of people can afford Ferraris, so they go with the Android of cars, where differentiation is getting less and less. Therefore, the car manufacturers have consolidated in a defensive move; the problem with that, is that it encourages the slippery slope to commodification.

Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
post #45 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post
 

You raise an interesting point about branding, which has also been alluded to by other posters.

 

I think there is a blurring that is taking place with branding of cars. As companies become incorporated, people are starting to question the differentiation and therefore whether it is worth paying extra for a badge, when very often a lot of the parts are shared between brands. I think it is potentially damaging to brands and will degrade value over time because of this crossover. 

 

As long as a brand is seen to have enough of a differentiation to pay a premium, then it won't suffer. 

 

Thanks for your thoughtful reply and insight.  As you point out, one must look at the differentiation.  Some companies, like Volkswagen, do it very well and others do not. GM has traditionally been poor in this respect, using their GM name freely, leading many consumers to view various Buick and Cadillac models as just expensive versions of Chevrolets.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post
 

But it's a very different situation to mobile phones. There, Apple is the equivalent of Ferrari, yet enjoys a far larger marketshare due to its affordability. In the realm of cars, only a tiny percentage of people can afford Ferraris, so they go with the Android of cars, where differentiation is getting less and less. Therefore, the car manufacturers have consolidated in a defensive move; the problem with that, is that it encourages the slippery slope to commodification.

 

Can you imagine the difficulty that Apple would face in setting up separate distribution, support, developer tools, app stores, etc. for a low-end brand, which I'll call "Raisin" (for reasons which will be obvious)?  For their Raisin brand smartphones to really be viewed as separate, non-Apple products, Apple would have to go to tremendous lengths to build a firewall between the two product lines.  

 

That "slippery slope" would become a problem if the Raisin brand smartphones ran iOS and the same apps that worked on the Apple iPhones.  Yet they could not reasonably be expected to use a commodity OS, like Android.  So Apple would have to develop a separate, slimmed-down OS for a line of phones that would have low margins to start with.  Then you'd need to have apps that were Raisin brand-specific with their own App Store.  So how do you convince developers, used to dealing with well-heeled Apple consumers, to develop apps for a line of new Raisin Brand phones aimed at the kind of people who don't want to spend much money?

 

They couldn't sell Raisin brand smartphones in Apple stores, as that would immediately result in them being seen as Apple products by consumers.  So that means they would need to have a totally separate distribution chain, but how do you convince Best Buy, Verizon, AT&T, and overseas carriers to take on an unknown Raisin brand line of phones that they are not allowed to identify as Apple products?  

 

I think that Apple is being wise to leave the low-end market alone; there have been enough bankruptcies and near-bankruptcies in that arena that Apple would be foolish to enter it.


Edited by Fred Maxwell - 3/15/14 at 11:48am
post #46 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

Nope, you're right: It's pretty huge news.

And pretty much anyone should have seen this coming a mile away.  China has a middle class that grows by leaps and bounds every day.  Sure, there are a lot of poor people China -- because there are a lot of PEOPLE in China.  But there are also a lot of people who have the money to spend on premium items.  

I mean, the women's tennis tour (WTA) has something like NINE tournaments in China this year.  And for those who don't really follow tennis, they tend not to play tournaments -- let alone nine of them -- in places that can't economically support both the tournament itself and tennis in general.  Li Na, one of the best players in the world, and Aussie Open champ this year is a like a mega-star in China.  Tennis is huge now.

There's a lot of money flowing around in China.

People may also be surprised to learn that some of the finest golf courses in the world are located in China. Until you see the "real China" it's difficult for Americans to understand the amount of propaganda we are exposed to from our own government. We live in a bubble.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #47 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


People may also be surprised to learn that some of the finest golf courses in the world are located in China. Until you see the "real China" it's difficult for Americans to understand the amount of propaganda we are exposed to from our own government. We live in a bubble.

 

Yes, there are some amazing golf courses in China, definitely.

 

I would argue that most of the propaganda concerning China comes from the media, as opposed to from the government, though.  But that's really neither here nor there.

post #48 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Oak View Post

Apple is doomed. Especially in China

This type of comments is too old. Move on.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iPhone takes 80 percent of China's booming premium phone market