Originally Posted by Avon B7
I'm not going to take your post apart chunk by chunk as this bit of thread will just veer even more off topic. Let me take a wander through your reply.
First off I wasn't only referring to the 'Switch' campaign.
Except that is what you linked to. Which is why I asked for a link.
You Know that perfectly well as I said 'over the last eight years' and you simply chose to ignore the fact.
Then provide a link that better illustrates your point.
When Apple completed the intel switch Jobs spouted off the same argument but this time almost seemed serious about it. The problem was I couldn't find the quote.
Perhaps you again misinterpreted it beyond the desire to get more folks exposed to OSX and switch vs taking over 95% of the market.
When Apple says 'and now for the other ninety per cent' in a $50 million TV and printed press campaign we should all put on our Apple designed RDF glasses and instantly realise that they have no intention of actually putting machines onto the market that are anywhere near suitable enough to achieve the stated goal.
It's RDF if you BELIEVE that they're going to grab 90% of the total market share. Apple can not and intelligently does not want to.
However Apple does have a very healthy market share in the consumer market and wants to grow that.
That's because the stated goal is poppycock. Yes, we're all aware that just getting out of single digit market share figures would chuff everyone at Cupertino but - and please remove your glasses now - it has nothing to do with the goals they are advertising, so take it for what it is: nonsense.
Right. Because you misinterpret their goal means that Apple's strategy and advertising is nonsense.
I made it clear the initial iPhone sales should have ridden on the crest of a wave for around three months and of course there was an explosion the first few weeks. I said it was pent up demand and it was. Knowing that, why did you choose to repeat the same information with figures? Do you really think that if sales had continued that way they would have reduced the price - just 60 days after release? And that's you're only defence? The only way to interpret that situation is how I described it: very grim indeed.
Or maybe they wanted to do what they said: lower the price for Christmas. You have less than ZERO evidence to back up that sales were "grim".
"The moves by Apple today offer a mixed message on the current and future success of the relationship with AT&T (NYSE: T). From the wireless company's perspective, a lower price for the iPhone will broaden the audience for the device, and was probably necessary in a U.S. market that is conditioned to pay next to nothing for a cell phone, regardless of the features it has. On the other hand, the new iTouch may dampen this upside, as it eliminates that segment of prospective buyers who were always more interested in the iPod and browser features than they were in becoming AT&T subscribers. From Apple's perspective, the iPhone was selling well (a recent report by iSuppli said it was the most popular Smartphone in the U.S. in July), but perhaps not quite well enough to hit Apple's previously stated goal of hitting a million sales by the end of the quarter. The reduced price and the introduction of the iTouch, at an even lower price point, should drive a good amount of volume this holiday season."http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/0...ght-on-iphone/
"FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Apple Inc's (AAPL.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) iPhone outsold all smartphones in the United States in July, its first full month on sale, accounting for 1.8 percent of all U.S. mobile handset sales, research group iSuppli said on Tuesday.
ISuppli reiterated its forecast that Apple would sell 4.5 million iPhones this year, rising to more than 30 million in 2011."http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMos...32369320070904
Not selling enough to hit 1M sales in a qtr is not grim. On track for 4.5M sales in half a year is not grim. Dropping price a little earlier in the quarter to hit it out of the ballpark is a far more accurate depliction. One that Jobs in fact used.
You counter that saying that Apple just kicked RIMs ass? Why are you mixing iPhone 3G with the iPhone launch. Why jump a year into the future? The point is about the launch, not the re-launch.
And it kicked in June of 2007 as well.
"The two models of the iPhone on the market sold more than Research in Motion's (RIM.TO: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) Blackberry series, the entire Palm (PALM.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) portfolio and any individual smartphone model from Motorola (MOT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), Nokia (NOK1V.HE: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) or Samsung (005930.KS: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).
Sales equaled those of LG Electronics' (066570.KS: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) Chocolate, the most popular feature phone on the U.S. market, iSuppli said."http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMos...32369320070904
Find me anywhere that indicates that Apple iPhone sales were "grim".
Your JD reference is also a current reference (Nov 2008). Nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
It counters your assertion that Apple is weak wrt to buisness even with the 3G and 2.0. Which did not occur until July of 2008.
iPhone 3G and iPhone OS 2 are inseparable.
Except that iPhone OS2 runs on the iPhone 2G doesn't it? That makes it pretty seperable.
Your RIM 778 reference is also current. Not valid as I'm talking about the iPhone original launch.
Given that the iPhone outsold the entire Blackberry line I would say that would be false. In any case, if the iPhone 1.0-1.1.5 sucked for a year then it would not have won the JD Powers award in 2008 because the 2.0 software was not released until July 2008.
So your contention is that Apple managed to win over business users enough to be #1 on JD Powers in just 4 months? That JD Powers did not start its survey until the very last moment in late October? That there were not millions of iPhone 2G business users that could have trashed the iPhone in that survey?
I didn't say you had said fat margins were necessary. I made an observation.
You stated: "Since when do you need fat margins to fuel new product design?"
Gee, I wonder what that wording implies.
Why do you think Apple reducing margins equates to Dell? Apple can reduce margins and still have far better margins than Dell.
Your response is incorrect in addressing what I wrote. The statement was in response to your suggestion that going the low margin and high volumes was an equal or better business model. The difference between Dell and Apple today shows this is not always true and that low volume, high margin can be more successful.
I spoke about Apple as a company and their 95% share claims and you counter that they've just wiped the floor with MS, Palm etc but, wait for it, in smartphones.
AGAIN incorrect. You stated that Apple would lose credibility. The fact that they decisively beat the incumbents in a competive market that folks said they could not means they can say any bloody thing they want and be taken seriously.
Jobs could walk out tomorrow and declare he was going to kick Nintendo's butt next Christmas (2009) and there'd be some seriously perturbed folks at Sony, Nintendo and MS. They would have no clue how he was going to do that but they'd all be worried that he could based on the asskicking he gave RIM and Palm.
Hell, Nintendo is probably already mildly worried given Jobs keeps downplaying aTV and the number of game developers that is now familiar with ObjectiveC and Cocoa. Apple would target the same casual market that Nintendo does. The next Mini/aTV could be one hell of a game box.
Apple has ZERO credibility problems as a result of their marketing or what Jobs says. Your assertion that Apple has some potential issue with credibility because of that 95% marketing thing (which I think you misunderstand ANYWAY) has zero basis in reality.
Great, you counter with something that has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's Mac business. So little in fact that Apple's stated goal for the phone market is 1%.
You know, if you're actually going to dissect every line it would actually be helpful to do so next to the line in question because I have no idea what this is in reference to.
That 1% is actually like 15-20% of the smartphone market. They want more of that market because that's where the margins are.
What was 'special' about the special event? New MB and MBPs which everybody was well prepared for because of the leaks. 28% YOY? I need a special event for that?
So you're saying that the new design isn't worthy of a special event? It should have just been a press release like a speed bump because of the leaks.
You don't think that MS/DELL/HP is the Great White of the PC world? Who is then? You say the iPhone is already cheap. Why then did you say:
Cheap is relative. $35,000 is cheap for a BMW. $199 is cheap for an iPhone. You won't be able to buy a BMW for $12,000 nor will you ever get an iPhone as a free phone. Is this concept hard to follow?
As far as Great White analogy goes, yes, MS/Dell/HP are the dominant players for computers but Apple is not their prey. Apple has been more successful at taking share from them than vice versa.
In the smartphone arena, it will not be Apple eaten by Symbian but Symbian eaten by Apple, Android, Linux and Windows. Just like Dell is getting eaten by HP, Apple and others.
It seems you are clutching at straws.
Right. I'm not the one proclaiming that iPhone sales were "grim" in summer of 2007 and that Symbian is going to eat the iPhone for lunch in the coming year.