or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple, Inc. and the pursuit of affordable luxury electronics
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple, Inc. and the pursuit of affordable luxury electronics

post #1 of 254
Thread Starter 
In an industry captivated by cheap commodity components, Apple's ability to command healthy profit margins for "magical," premium priced products designed to delight users--rather than just solve basic problems in a cost effective way--has confounded analysts and pundits for the better part of 40 years. It appears Apple will continue to introduce upscale new products in 2014, rather than following the industry into a race to the bottom in pricing.

iPhone 5s


The cheap iPhone that wasn't



Throughout 2013, a wide variety of analysts were insisting that Apple needed to bring a cheap iPhone to market. Jefferies analyst Peter Misek predicted a cheap iPhone in the range of $200 to $250. Just one month before Apple launched its new iPhones for 2013, Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster expected a new model "priced at $300 without a contract."

However, after refreshing its lineup last fall, Apple's cheapest iPhone remained at around $400, while the middle tier 5c was priced at $550 and its high end 5s started at $650 and went as high as $850. Analysts, who had been stewing fears that a cheap new iPhone would erode Apple's margins, turned around and skewered Apple for not doing what they expected, slashing their stock price expectations even lower on fears Apple couldn't maintain its sales volumes in such a competitive climate replete with a cheap phone.

We can only speculate about whether a cheap new iPhone could have stolen away more sales from the already sickly numbers of Samsung's Galaxy S4, HTC's One, LG's G2, Google's Moto X and Nokia's Lumia line sold over the holiday quarter. All of those models were outsold by even Apple's middle tier iPhone 5c, which in turn was wildly outsold by the iPhone 5s.

A cheaper iPhone quite likely would have eaten into sales of Apple's other iPhones; hurt the Apple brand by cheapening new users' initial experience and dramatically affected Apple's revenues and profits, the same way that Samsung's focus on cheap, low end phones contributed to plummeting average selling prices and its slim profit margins.

Race for the future



We can't run the 2013 experiment over again to find out exactly what would have happened had Apple offered a very low end iPhone. We do know, however, that Apple earned more than everyone else in the mobile industry, giving it more capital to invest in even more sophisticated OS, chip, app and service developments and manufacturing capacity than anyone else. Apple took an astounding 87 percent of the entire industry's global phone profits just in the winter quarter.

Apple is quadrupling its headquarters' office space and plans to build 30 new retail stores this year: substantial projects that indicate long term expectations. All of those massive investments require very significant capital.

Had Apple blown $10-15 billion producing tons of profitless, cheap phones to win IDC's respect as the top volume commodity producer for 2013, it wouldn't have been able to also spend that capital to acquire more talent, technology and production capacity than even Google last year.

Apple Retail


In terms of sales volumes, Apple was outsold by Commodore in the 1980s, by HP & Dell in the 1990s, by Nokia in the 2000s, and it's being outsold by Samsung in the 2010s. What's more remarkable is that Apple is now outselling those old competitors from the past. Apple has consistently won in the future. And that's clearly where Apple expects to win today. It's not wishing it could have won a ribbon for "most smartphones sold" in 2013, because having made the most money will eventually allow it to outpace Samsung the same way.

Samsung is also investing in the future, but it has been giving up half of its margins to "win" in the past in terms of market share. For an example of how to run yourself out of business, just look at what happened to Apple in the early 1990s when it decided to heed the advice of analysts and go for cheap, unprofitable volume sales with Performa Macs designed and sold like the commodity PCs everyone else was making.

Affordable luxury in a sea of cheap commodity



As Apple gears up to expand, it is not (so far at least) focusing on making cheaper devices. Instead, it has released a series of upscale luxury offerings. From the ultra thin iMac to new Retina Display MacBook Pros, the thin and light MacBook Air, high end Mac Pro, slim new iPad Air and 64-bit iPhone 5s, Apple has more luxury class, premium devices for sale than it has in the middle of the market.

Even Apple's entry level models are significantly higher end that the economy class phones, tablets and PCs that make up the bulk of its competitors' sales, as evidenced by the fact that Apple doesn't even have an iPhone cheaper than $400, while the Average Selling Price of smartphones in general is, according to IDC, now at $335. Apple's iPhone ASP for 2013 remained at $650 while Android's dropped down to $276.



This is particularly remarkable because Samsung (and other Android licensees) price their premium phones at or higher than iPhones. The base price of Samsung's 16GB Galaxy S5 Android phone and its 16GB ATIV SE Windows Phone are both $600 through Verizon Wireless, while its baseline 32GB Note 3 starts at $700. That's more than the $550 Verizon charges for Apple's 16GB iPhone 5c, and at or above the full $650 price of the 16 GB iPhone 5s, even before you compare the fact that a 16GB iOS device has more available storage than a 16GB Android device, particularly one from Samsung.

While it would certainly like to earn as much as Apple, Samsung doesn't usually get full price; it is currently offering even its brand new Galaxy S 5 in "buy one get one free" deals. It does however highlight the fact that Android isn't making phones cheaper, it's just making cheaper phones.

Apple's top of the line iPhone 5s is its best selling model. All of Samsung's premium phone models put together only amount to a third of the company's total "smartphone" sales. That's a huge difference in the demographic of customers that Samsung is attracting with its focus on cheap commodity phones.

Broadly available luxury



Throughout its existence, Apple has released a series of products showcasing technological advances that have at times simply embarrassed the rest of the industry, while at the same time creating new, premium-priced product categories and raising the bar of what the public considered to be minimally sufficient going forward. After iPod, a DiscMan or USB 1.0 MP3 player wasn't good enough. After iPhone, a Java button phone wasn't interesting anymore. After iPad, thick Tablet PCs were toast.

Apple's $400 iPod in 2001; the $600 iPhone in 2007 and 2010's $500 iPad and $1000 MacBook Air induced competitors to scramble to make knockoff "MP3 players" and "smartphones" and "tablets" and "ultrabooks," but Apple still hasn't been outmaneuvered in any one of those premium product arenas where it redefined and set new price points for products designed to delight its customers.

MacBook Air


The best that can be said of Apple's competitors is that they are working harder to build greater quantities of lower end, cheaper products that they profit considerably less from as they sell them to customers who report significantly less satisfaction from owning and using them. In the conclusions arrived at by IDC, Gartner and Strategy Analytics, such losing is mysteriously portrayed as winning.

The myth of commodity



The idea that Apple's innovative products are fated to overrun by commodity sales of competitors' duplicates is not reflected in modern reality. Despite many copies of Apple's iPod--most of which were cheaper and supported by large firms ranging from Microsoft to Dell to Samsung and Toshiba--none became even remotely as successful.

And while there are lots of phone companies that make iPhone-like devices that compete with the iPhone, none make Apple-like profits nor do they sell iPhone-like devices in iPhone-like quantities. Samsung, the only company even close to Apple in "smartphone" sales, primarily sells low end devices that it internally calls "carrier friendly good enough" phones. Last year, Samsung sold around 100 million Galaxy S and Note premium-tier phones, compared to 150 million iPhones sold by Apple.

Apple is the only significant luxury goods vendor in the high volume consumer tech industry. Many bloggers and tech industry columnists specialize in generating great quantities of low value content aimed at covering virtually every base and filling every possible niche, a role for which they earn virtually nothing. To them, Samsung and Google are the heroes, simply through a familial affinity. They understand what commodity producers do, but find Apple's business foreign and mystifying, and vent their xenophobia at every opportunity.

In the tech industry, low-end companies appear to be winning the conversation. However, they're losing the war in profits, and there's plenty of historical precedent supporting the idea that they will continue to lose in the future.

Apple's balance of luxury and affordability



Apple hasn't simply raised the price of technology. In many areas, it has aggressively slashed prices to make its premium technology broadly affordable. One obvious example is the $500 iPad, which appeared in 2010, a time when Tablet PC vendors like Samsung were struggling to sell bulky, heavy and anemically slow tablets like the Windows-powered $775 Samsung Q1EX-71G.

Samsung Q1EX-71G


The following year, Google's 2011 Android 3.0 Honeycomb initiative attempted to push tablet buyers to pay at least a 20 percent premium over Apple's iPad for more complicated tablet devices like the Motorola Xoom. Microsoft attempted to do the same thing in 2012 with its Surface RT and its essentially requisite Touch Cover.

However, no amount of lavish press and liberal advertising in either case convinced customers to pay higher prices for either Google or Microsoft's response to Apple's iPad. Android and Surface tablets, along with other knock off iPods, iPhone alternatives and UltraBooks, all continue to struggle to remain viable, even at sharply discounted prices.

It's particularly interesting to note that Apple entered the smartphone area in 2007 with a product so much more expensive than Microsoft's mainstream offerings that Steve Ballmer was driven to mock its pricing with scoffing laughter. However, just a few years later Apple had effectively drained the profitability from all of Microsoft's licensees, while at the same time driving Nokia's Symbian, RIM's Blackberry and Palm from lavish profits into financial ruin.

Apple's future in premium gear



The way Apple plays its cards has allowed it to win hand after hand in virtually every game it chooses to play, despite the outrage and contempt voiced over its style by analysts and pundits who would prefer Apple played like all the market losers have. That suggests that Apple will continue to face intense criticism in 2014.

We don't yet know what Apple will do in 2014, but we do have some hints. Signs point toward luxury-class new wearable products that would, like the iPod and iPhone, introduce a new product category that takes very little from the existing products in the wearables space and instead established an entirely new price tier and product definition, one that can deliver a compelling "use case" that today's "smart watches" haven't been able to do.

The direction Apple is heading with iPhone also appears to have an upscale trajectory. While the rest of the industry is fixated on cheap phones, Apple is catering to customers who want to pay more for innovative, luxurious, high tech features.

Compare Samsung's high end flagships, which over the past two generations have been differentiated largely by app-like software features like hand waving and camera effects, with Apple's introduction of Touch ID, 64-bit A7 processing and M7 motion co-processing, features that helped entice the majority of iPhone buyers to jump for the most expensive model.

We don't have as much public data on the kinds of Macs that Apple is selling, but it appears clear that the company's cheapest Mac mini is not a massive seller, while its pricy MacBook Air and MacBook Pro lines are. Armed with keen insight into what sells in its own retail stores and across the retail partners it closely manages, Apple has invested in making expensive, premium MacBook models from precision crafted aluminum shells and Retina Displays, not plastic netbooks or even low end laptops.

Mac Pro


The last time Apple reinvented a major Mac model, it delivered a pricey, high tech Mac Pro aimed directly at serving the needs of high end customers, rather than revisiting the Mac mini or building a copy of the kind of commodity, volume PC boxes that dominated the market in the 1990s.

Even Apple's iPad, which is effectively a streamlined, low cost computing device that works as an alternative to netbooks or a cheap PC box, has been trending upscale. Apple rapidly introduced a series of faster models with Retina screens, then jumped to an all new iPad Air form factor that was both light and thin, not just "good enough" and cost effective.

Clearly, Apple is paying more attention to its own internal data on what buyers want than the recommendations of analysts who who so strongly believe in cheap commodity that they are blind to the very profitability that drives the capitalism they analyze.
post #2 of 254
Thank you for another excellent article, Mr. Dilger.

I wish more companies were like Apple. Not just in technology but in all walks of life, I so often get the feeling that businesses think that they have to cater for the lowest common denominator. They do this because they see the cheap end of things selling well and think that that is the only way to survive.

Create something loveable, something which has had a lot of thought, care and attention to detail invested in it, and we will buy it.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #3 of 254
Apple has dominated the "affordable luxury electronics" market at every turn but I think a wrist-worn device market ads a lot more complexity than Apple has ever seen. I'm certain they are the company that can pull it off but I'm not sure that time is now (even though I hope it is).

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #4 of 254
Apple does a cheap iPhone is called a second hand device !

I save up and buy the best !

I love this article
post #5 of 254
Another great article by DED!

Paul Thurrott on iPad (2010): "Anyone who believes this thing is a game changer is a tool. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is."

Reply

Paul Thurrott on iPad (2010): "Anyone who believes this thing is a game changer is a tool. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is."

Reply
post #6 of 254
The fact that computing devices are becoming essential, even critical, to the lives of a majority of people should tell us that having the best available device is not simply a luxury. It is a necessity. Apple gear is an affordable necessity, not an affordable luxury.
Cheap, insecure imitations are still popular among the 'wannabes' because they haven't yet figured out why the more expensive gear is essential to their life goals. Look at the numbers: switchers from Android to iOS far outnumber the reverse scenario. People who started with the cheap stuff are starting to realize the difference and the importance to them of the more expensive stuff.
post #7 of 254
So many good points. Excellent article!
post #8 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In an industry captivated by cheap commodity components, Apple's ability to command healthy profit margins for "magical," premium priced products designed to delight users--rather than just solve basic problems in a cost effective way--has confounded analysts and pundits for the better part of 40 years.

 

Amen brother Dan. Amen.

post #9 of 254
Apple is winning. Everyone else, not so much. The media/analysts are desperately trying to convince everyone otherwise, by using deception and irrelevant and manufactured stats.
post #10 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Powell View Post

this screams propaganda:no:
No it's an editorial.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #11 of 254

Samsung must be "really feeling it" now--time to spend another couple billion dollars on advertising!

 

Like most people, I don't do video editing, so I can build a linux compute server that's twice as fast for my purposes as the 2013 Mac Pro (and configurable with 4X the memory) for less $$.

post #12 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Apple is winning. Everyone else, not so much. The media/analysts are desperately trying to convince everyone otherwise, by using deception and irrelevant and manufactured stats.

Samsung is definitely winning, too. Whether that win is honest or not, or if it's good for the industry when other Android-based vendors with quality products continually stay in the red is another matter entirely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

No it's an editorial.

That may not be enough information.

editorial |ˌediˈtôrēəl|
noun
- a newspaper article written by or on behalf of an editor that gives an opinion on a topical issue.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #13 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Thank you for another excellent article, Mr. Dilger.

I wish more companies were like Apple. Not just in technology but in all walks of life, I so often get the feeling that businesses think that they have to cater for the lowest common denominator. They do this because they see the cheap end of things selling well and think that that is the only way to survive.

Create something loveable, something which has had a lot of thought, care and attention to detail invested in it, and we will buy it.

 

While I agree, it is important to point out that there are companies that do exactly that.  Obviously there are luxury auto companies, like Mercedes, Audi, and newcomers like Tesla.  You have media companies like, say, Criterion who charge more, but produce a product with much more value than your typical releases.

 

But some products are doomed to be commodity products no matter which way you cut it.  Televisions, for example.  Sure, you can go and buy a 3D or a 4K -- but there isn't a huge difference between HDTVs.

post #14 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Samsung is definitely winning, too. Whether that win is honest or not, or if it's good for the industry when other Android-based vendors with quality products continually stay in the red is another matter entirely.
That may not be enough information.

editorial |ˌediˈtôrēəl|
noun
- a newspaper article written by or on behalf of an editor that gives an opinion on a topical issue.

I made the assumption the OP was educated enough to know what one is and if not look up the definition. I know, that can sometimes be a reach.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #15 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


No it's an editorial.

Sorry for my gross ignorance :rolleyes:

post #16 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by ytsethunder View Post


Every article the DED does stinks of propaganda, editorial or not. It's well-constructed and all but it's the sort of thing that really gives Apple fans and websites like this one a bad name.

Side note, has Mr Dilger ever considered joining an election campaign?

 

You sound quite confused by the the purpose of both editorials and this site.

post #17 of 254
New commentator already talking about circle jerks. 1hmm.gif I'm sure he has worthwhile comments to add¡
Edited by SolipsismX - 4/19/14 at 4:43pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #18 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by ytsethunder View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

You sound quite confused by the the purpose of both editorials and this site.

I was under the illusion that it wasn't a circle jerk.

It isn't, but it isn't remedial reading either.
post #19 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Powell View Post
 

this screams propaganda:no:

 

propaganda |prɒpəˈgandə| noun
1 [ mass noun ] information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view: he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda.

 

Then feel free to enlighten us and start disputing some facts from the article.

Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
post #20 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Powell View Post
 

this screams propaganda:no:

Then don't go to sites that are obviously biased towards one platform other another?  Every site that is platform centric is going to have a certain degree of bias towards that platform, it all depends on the source of information and what conclusions they derive, but we have the ability to question it.  He does have some data that obtained by reputable sources to lead to his conclusions.  

Consider this one man's think piece about the smartphone industry.  

post #21 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Powell View Post

Sorry for my gross ignorance 1rolleyes.gif

On the Homepage the article is labeled as an editorial. The forum version is not so it's forgivable that you might not have recognized the intent of the writer.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #22 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Samsung must be "really feeling it" now--time to spend another couple billion dollars on advertising!

Like most people, I don't do video editing, so I can build a linux compute server that's twice as fast for my purposes as the 2013 Mac Pro (and configurable with 4X the memory) for less $$.
Feel free to build some and start selling them to the masses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

On the Homepage the article is labeled as an editorial. The forum version is not so it's forgivable that you might not have recognized the intent of the writer.
It shouldn't be forgivable. Any thread started on AI by a "regular" member should be treated as an editorial until the content of the post proves otherwise. Go to "SamsungInsidersDotCom" and you'll see Samsung editorials in their forums. Go to "PatriotsInsiderDotCom" and you'll find editorials about how great Tom Brady is. That should be expected and it's so surprising when people come here not expecting that.
You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
post #23 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcstarheel View Post

Feel free to build some and start selling them to the masses.
It shouldn't be forgivable. Any thread started on AI by a "regular" member should be treated as an editorial until the content of the post proves otherwise. Go to "SamsungInsidersDotCom" and you'll see Samsung editorials in their forums. Go to "PatriotsInsiderDotCom" and you'll find editorials about how great Tom Brady is. That should be expected and it's so surprising when people come here not expecting that.

What if there was a site called Objective Insider? Would they have opinion pieces on objectivity? 1tongue.gif
Edited by SolipsismX - 4/19/14 at 5:07pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #24 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

What if there was a site called Objective Insider? 1tongue.gif

...using Vanilla as the forum software of course.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #25 of 254
Wow!

It did not take long for the trolls to lite.

To paraphrase Mr. Twain

"I would rather have DED's editorial,
than another man's kiss the Bible."

So keep waving that editorial smoke screen,
you can lead a man to truth,
but you can't make him believe
especially if he has his blinder$ on.
post #26 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

What if there was a site called Objective Insider? Would they have opinion pieces on objectivity? 1tongue.gif
Haha..I was implying sites created around brands 1smile.gif
You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
post #27 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

What if there was a site called Objective Insider? Would they have opinion pieces on objectivity? 1tongue.gif

Who knows?

 

For sure, they would post whatever generates page views.

 

Welcome to the Internet.

post #28 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Apple has dominated the "affordable luxury electronics" market at every turn but I think a wrist-worn device market ads a lot more complexity than Apple has ever seen. I'm certain they are the company that can pull it off but I'm not sure that time is now (even though I hope it is).

We'll see if Apple has really changed as pundits say. If they release something when they should have waited, that would be a bad sign. Not sure the tech is even ready.
post #29 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

We'll see if Apple has really changed as pundits say. If they release something when they should have waited, that would be a bad sign. Not sure the tech is even ready.

The pundits will likely do their usual dance like they've done with the Mac, iPod, iPhone and iPad. They'll claim that Apple isn't moving fast enough and should just release something but no matter how revolutionary the product is they'll say that it's not good enough even as it becomes the de facto standard as the only viable solution moving forward.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #30 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post
 

 

propaganda |prɒpəˈgandə| noun
1 [ mass noun ] information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view: he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda.

 

Then feel free to enlighten us and start disputing some facts from the article.

What most irritating is when someone posts a comment and doesn't state anything specific, some other viewpoint with examples and proof, etc.

 

To just say "this screams propaganda" and nothing else, just seems like propaganda from other bias perspective towards another platform.  I think maybe Brandon is trying to promote Samsung, Android, etc. without just coming forth and telling everyone he doesn't like Apple.  At we'll know where he's coming from.  At least that's my viewpoint based on the comment that he made thinking that an editorial piece is propaganda, when it's just someone's opinion/viewpoint based on observations and market research from reputable organizations.

post #31 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcstarheel View Post


Feel free to build some and start selling them to the masses.
It shouldn't be forgivable. Any thread started on AI by a "regular" member should be treated as an editorial until the content of the post proves otherwise. Go to "SamsungInsidersDotCom" and you'll see Samsung editorials in their forums. Go to "PatriotsInsiderDotCom" and you'll find editorials about how great Tom Brady is. That should be expected and it's so surprising when people come here not expecting that.

 

Well, to be fair, Tom Brady does rule. :)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


The pundits will likely do their usual dance like they've done with the Mac, iPod, iPhone and iPad. They'll claim that Apple isn't moving fast enough and should just release something but no matter how revolutionary the product is they'll say that it's not good enough even as it becomes the de facto standard as the only viable solution moving forward.

 

Yeah, and it will be many of the same people who were talking about how the iPhone (and later the iPad) would be total failures/spell Apple's doom/etc.

post #32 of 254

Excelent article DED! as always

 

 

Reply

 

 

Reply
post #33 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by ytsethunder View Post

Every article the DED does stinks of propaganda, editorial or not. It's well-constructed and all but it's the sort of thing that really gives Apple fans and websites like this one a bad name.

Side note, has Mr Dilger ever considered joining an election campaign?

The question shouldn't be whether the author has a goal of propagandizing. The question should be, is the information basically correct? Having said that, I'm sure I've just opened the door to those who will dig through every article written by DED and pull out tiny bits they feel aren't 100% accurate. But that's not the point either. Is this basically an accurate portrayal of the last 40 years of Apple versus its competition? Seems to me it is, given what I have seen myself and given the facts of how business has gone for those in the markets in which Apple participates. Maybe there's another theory of why Apple's competition has so often bitten the dust, one that has nothing at all to do with Apple. But that's not even the point. Apple is still standing and showing good health in each of these markets; PCs, music sales and players, smartphones, tablets. The record stands by itself.
Edited by RadarTheKat - 4/19/14 at 6:35pm
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
post #34 of 254

Excellent article!  The Analysts show so little understanding of the "luxury brand" concept.  When Apple introduced the 5C and it sold way less than the premium 5S, that said so much about Apple's strong premium/luxury brand.

 

And yet we'll still have all the Analysts comparing Apples to oranges, by holding up Apple's marketshare against every single entry level Android phone in inventory on the planet.

 

The proof of this article's wisdom, is the fact that Apple's competitors are visibly eager to copy Apple's formula of minting money, by creating their own copies of Apple's system.

post #35 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Powell View Post
 

this screams propaganda:no:

No genius.

 

Propaganda is what Samsung engages in, like paying celebrities to tweet about Samsung from their iPhones and creating fake astroturf campaigns. It's all a lie, and some dumb people actually fall for it.

post #36 of 254

As for the article, good article!

 

Everybody else has been engaged in a race to the bottom for a long time now. That's no business to be proud of. Selling crap for cheap is a sign of desperation, it's hardly innovative. 

 

Anybody who thinks that Apple should follow in that path is clueless about Apple, because that's simply not what Apple is or what Apple does.

post #37 of 254

I don't see Apple as a luxury brand. More expensive (upfront) than some competition, but not luxury.

 

Even then, the cost Apple charges at least for the iPhone is only a part of the cost of using the device. The iPhone cost needs to be compared to the expense of monthly phone charges. 

 

In the past, there have been several comparisons between the upfront cost of out-of-the-box Apple products, with few configuration choices, versus the cost of competitor devices with many choices and tradeoffs. Most comparisons show that the "premium" for an Apple machine vs a comparable competitor machine is not that different -- perhaps $150. 

 

With Apple, it is easy to make a choice among the offerings: one need use only a few criteria for determining functionality, then take into account the cost (not negotiable), and you have made your choice (really, Apple has made that choice for you). 

 

With competitors, you have significant variability of brand name, substantial mix of components, stores, store support, current sales, bundled software. Unless one were quite knowledgeable about what you needed, it is not an easy task to decide what device/bundle to choose, and from whom. And, of course, the salespersons will have many opinions on which of the myriad of choices would fit your needs, much of which might be driven by store policy to push one device or another, and salesperson commission. Determining the functionality/price balance is none too simple. 

 

There is probably little possibility of making a decision you will regret, after already chosen to buy an Apple product. With a competitor, "did I buy the right configuration?, could I have done better?" will often be a nagging concern. 

post #38 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by ytsethunder View Post

Every article the DED does stinks of propaganda, editorial or not. It's well-constructed and all but it's the sort of thing that really gives Apple fans and websites like this one a bad name.

Side note, has Mr Dilger ever considered joining an election campaign?
Side note, have you ever considered a home away from under a bridge?

Curious how someone who just joined knows so much about DED and his article history. I wonder, what was your previous troll account username?
post #39 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

No genius.

 

Propaganda is what Samsung engages in, like paying celebrities to tweet about Samsung from their iPhones and creating fake astroturf campaigns. It's all a lie, and some dumb people actually fall for it.

I agree completely but Samsung is just like any company, they're in it for the $$$$. Google, Apple, Samsung, Sony, Microsoft; that's all they see you as $$$.

post #40 of 254
And it's spot on! Thank you Daniel!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple, Inc. and the pursuit of affordable luxury electronics