Partly, yeah. You can't argue that Apple haven't created themselves an image of being cool, and for some people, that is enough of a reason to purchase their products. That's why I said the biggest test will be when Apple falls out of fashion; will they still be the largest company in the world by market-cap?
It's that fad for oil which has kept Exxon up there for all those years.
Perhaps Wall Mart's fine clothing lines meet all your apparel requirements too?
As opposed to what? Other apparel shops where all their products are billboards advertising the store they were purchased from?
In general, I haven't seen where more expensive clothing is necessarily any better, except for maybe the more formal stuff. Trendier, yes, but that shortens the useful life vs. something more conservative.
Sorry, mine is just an off-topic aside. It just seems there's a classist vibe going on here. Walmart also sells Apple products. Between 30 and 33 items according to their web site.
I remember about a zillion years ago when I sold stereos for a failing company. It was a Washington's Birthday Sale, which was, at the time, a big deal in the CE world. Our store was nearly empty. The competitor down the street was packed.
I listened as one of the salesmen, who used to hold a mid-level position at the competitor, tell us all about how the competitor was losing money and that their strategy could never work. He had complex reasons why they could never make any money doing what they were doing.
The guys I worked for went belly up. The competitor became a national chain.
You remind me of the bitter former mid-level guy with his complex theories about how those guys could not possibly be making any money.
I sound like a bitter person? No don't think so but you sure sound like an old fart who does not have enough brain cells left to think.
Does your reply actually contribute much to the discussion of my thread?
first can you refute my 'complex theories' instead of quoting 'personal experiences' which count for little. I can also quote personal stories that people who didn't watch trends or calculate finances fell flat on their faces or point to news examples (Apple's rivals are full of them)
Also did you know I'm replying to all those people who gave 'complex theories' about how Android is making more money than Apple ("every Android unit sold gives revenue to Google, "Google will be pretty far ahead, income wise." etc") and that Apple's phone strategy is doomed. Like I said you guys spout without following the thread. So these Droid fans giving their complex financial theories are also like " the bitter former mid-level guy with his complex theories about how those guys could not possibly be making any money"? -- sort of cancels out your criticisms huh? lol.
Lastly as I have pointed out (you probably haven't read... )
When Android was announced in 2007 Google was a larger company than Apple. In 2009 Apple passed Google. Today after 3 years of Android Apple is about 100 Billion LARGER than Google in market cap (approx 270 to 169 b) and in the last few weeks the gap widened more. It seems that reality is actually trending to the reverse of what you believe.
I own both Google and Apple stocks and if you follow stocks in recent times Apple has outperformed google by a wide margin.
I believe I've added to the knowledge base for example my quoting the recent market cap growth of Apple vs Google during Android's rise is something which many are not aware but is really striking, what did your post contribute?
In general, I haven't seen where more expensive clothing is necessarily any better.
There's a useful analogy in fashion.
The lines in the cheapest stores are good value, but many are derivative of the catwalk fashions from the previous year.
The fashion industry has vigorous competition from multiple designers each trying to set trends. All the interesting activity happens at the high end.
The low end market benefits by taking these trends and making them accessible.
That's a pretty healthy state of affairs. You get plenty of choice and quality, even if you never leave Wall Mart.
Now imagine a word without that vigorous top end competition. Where there is only Wall Mart. Rapidy, you'd end up with a stagnation and lack of imagination. Because a single vendor has too much control, and there are no rewards for innovation and change.
You end up with a Soviet style car-showroom, where you can have any model of car, as long as it is a Trabant.
That's the problem of outsourcing software development to Microsoft and Google.
Think of it this way... if the Mac share is increasing yet it is more expensive then what does that tell you. To me it says that people really do see a difference, for the better, in the Mac operating system.
You have no way of knowing whether it it the OS that is causing purchases or whether it is other factors that are causing purchases. For all you know, people buy a Mac despite it not having the "regular" OS they have always used in the past.
My guess is that lots of different people buy Macs for lots of different reasons.
Let see so we have iPad and iOS record sales and we have Android record sales which promotes Flash as a benefit over iOS. So it appears to me that Apple has done nothing to slow down Flash or help move to HTML5 or any other alternative.
Are you stupid? Every major video site has switched to HTML5, and almost every major site supports iOS.
But consumers are not stupid. They know that what can be done on one Android phone can be done on another with the same sort of spec. If the HTC is a few dollars cheaper than the Samsung, people will switch.
C.
IMO, very few consumers buy due to specs. Some do, but if that were true in general, the iPhone and the iPad would not sell nearly as well as they do.
Instead, I think people buy what they like. A cellphone is not a spec-dependent beige box. There is plenty to differentiate any HTC from any Samsung, despite one of the aspects of them, the OS, being the same.
Don't these guys have special overlays, similar to MotoBlur? Or do they differentiate with big screens, or small form factor, or lots of chrome? Special "this phone only" software? Plain-vanilla Froyo with lots of cool apps preinstalled?
ISTM that Android phones are anything but commodity devices.
You have no way of knowing whether it it the OS that is causing purchases or whether it is other factors that are causing purchases. For all you know, people buy a Mac despite it not having the "regular" OS they have always used in the past.
My guess is that lots of different people buy Macs for lots of different reasons.
Still works for what I was saying. Mac share is increasing even though they are more expensive... OS, style... who knows... it still shows that the Mac has an allure that is not diminished by the availability of a cheaper alternative.
My own experience shows that most people that I know that have switched actually wonder why they didn't switch sooner.
Totally unrelated but something I found interesting...
Someone I know owned BMWs for years. Last year they bought a Lexus and later cursed the day they switched. I asked why. They said that all the recalls from Toyota (2) and having to take the vehicle into the shop for said recalls was an awful experience. I then asked if they had any problems with the Lexus other than that and they said, "oh, no, it's a wonderful car to drive". Hmmmm...
Are you stupid? Every major video site has switched to HTML5, and almost every major site supports iOS.
Are you joking every major video site has switch over. You are living in a dream world. When Apple has to put a a list if iPad friendly websites clearly everything hasn't switched over to HTML5 not even close.
Instead, I think people buy what they like. A cellphone is not a spec-dependent beige box. There is plenty to differentiate any HTC from any Samsung, despite one of the aspects of them, the OS, being the same.
I am sure the manufacturers would argue that there's plenty to differentiate a Dell laptop from an HP laptop.
Except there isn't. Consumers understand that they are all essentially the same thing. So nowadays they look for the best deal on the spec they want. So it boils down to price. And a race to the bottom begins.
With phones it's even worse. They are all virtually identical slabs with big touchscreens. Many are sold without the consumer even seeing them running.
Yes, Android handsets makers are scrabbling to distinguish their particular flavor of Android, but that's a double-edged sword. The more they differentiate their product, the more fragmentation they risk.
Remember PC makers who strayed too far from the Microsoft path left users with all manner of incompatibilities and limited support.
Like I said earlier, this can be good news for consumers. We are already seeing devices with very high specifications and very low prices. But that trend is very bad for the manufacturers who need to narrow profit margins year on year if they want to stay in the game.
Somehow, I think consumers can see somewhat of a difference among Samsung and HTC Android phones:
And I am sure that consumers can tell the difference between a Dell and a Vaio laptop.
The problem is that the differentiations are moot. Adding on a webcam here, or a fancy case design there don't add value. Consumers are not persuaded to pay a premium for the added features.
It remains to be seen whether I am right - but my prediction is that the same narrowing of margins that happened in the PC clone market will come to haunt the Android handset market.
I think HP understands this phenomenon all too well. Which is why it bought Palm.
It remains to be seen whether I am right - but my prediction is that the same narrowing of margins that happened in the PC clone market will come to haunt the Android handset market.
C.
I think that someday, you will be right. But as of now, Android offers customization and is not homogenious. It is nothing like a beige clone sporting a white C:> prompt.
Once cellphones become a commodity, they will be a commodity. But as of now, they are bursting with indiviuality. Including Android phones.
It pointed out that complex explanations of why obviously successful companies will fail are usually incorrect.
you're still saying nothing and still not reading my posts clearly
did I EVER said that "obviously successful companies(i.e I believe you're referring to Google) will fail", did I ever in my entire thread say Google will fail? Can you copy and paste where I said that? I didn't even say Android will fail.
I only pointed out that the Droideks who gave the idea that Android is cruising trouble free and making money off EVERY droid phone is false (as droid phones are being loaded with bing, yahoo etc and the other reasons I cited) and that their belief that the Google money making method is so vastly superior to Apple is not necessarily true. That does NOT equate me thinking Google will fail. Google will survive with or without Android.. shoot even Apple devices have Google search as default.
See why I need to be lengthy? (and you criticize me for it " you give complex reasons"), I'm lengthy and give detail reasons because you are following some of the others in being so dense, misreading posts and reading stuff which isn't there. When I gave simple explanations (why Google doesn't make profit on every Android phone) people didn't get it so I had to be lenghty', now you show yourself to require the same nursemaiding.
Lastly your "complex explanations of why obviously successful companies will fail are usually incorrect." is just an supposition supported by you Solely on your personal observation of your work experience (WTF is that?) Can you quote some studies to support you hypothesis? On the other hand I've read complex explanations like 10 years or so ago that Msft an 'obviously successful company ' which was valued at 600 billion will have problems in the future (Windows saturated, oracle etc rising in enterprise etc) , Msft is now worth 211 b (which is 50b smaller than Apple). Were these complex explanations part of your "usually incorrect"? I was using PCs at that time but reading those complex explanations I dumped my mutual fund of primarily Msft and Dell stock, some time later I bought Aapl and Google. (when Palm Pre came out I advised in talkbacks like this that buying the Pre acclaimed as a big hit by the tech press was a bad idea, not because WebOS is bad but that the Pre's profit was not covering Palm's cash burn and debt financing and that Palm will go under. Sometimes complex financial explanations underlying tech companies is useful)
Comments
Is there some sort of award or citation for being able to get someone to name you directly in an AI reply?
lol
Yeah it means I put you in the same catagory as Quadra. Which isn't a citation you want.
Partly, yeah. You can't argue that Apple haven't created themselves an image of being cool, and for some people, that is enough of a reason to purchase their products. That's why I said the biggest test will be when Apple falls out of fashion; will they still be the largest company in the world by market-cap?
It's that fad for oil which has kept Exxon up there for all those years.
All the kids are using it (daddio)
C.
Not the issue.
Over here in UK, the picture is pretty similar and iPhone is on all networks.
problem for Apple is their greed and the total cost of ownership compared to a similar Android phone is far higher.
Same Carrier, same tariff, same data allowance.
Galaxy S = 24mths x £20 & free phone = TCO £480
iPhone 4 = 24mths x £30 plus £99 for phone = TCO £819
the S is arguably a better piece of hardware, certainly a better phone so why would people pay 70 or 80% for the inferior product?
this isn't a big mystery.
Could you supply a reference?
Could you supply a reference?
The only one I have says that the Free Galaxy S lists at £30 a month.
Am I to gather that you are still looking? Unless you are jus BS'ing us.
I am leaning towards the latter.
It's that fad for oil which has kept Exxon up there for all those years.
All the kids are using it (daddio)
C.
Yep, popular or not, they can stand on the credibility of their product.
Perhaps Wall Mart's fine clothing lines meet all your apparel requirements too?
As opposed to what? Other apparel shops where all their products are billboards advertising the store they were purchased from?
In general, I haven't seen where more expensive clothing is necessarily any better, except for maybe the more formal stuff. Trendier, yes, but that shortens the useful life vs. something more conservative.
Sorry, mine is just an off-topic aside. It just seems there's a classist vibe going on here. Walmart also sells Apple products. Between 30 and 33 items according to their web site.
I remember about a zillion years ago when I sold stereos for a failing company. It was a Washington's Birthday Sale, which was, at the time, a big deal in the CE world. Our store was nearly empty. The competitor down the street was packed.
I listened as one of the salesmen, who used to hold a mid-level position at the competitor, tell us all about how the competitor was losing money and that their strategy could never work. He had complex reasons why they could never make any money doing what they were doing.
The guys I worked for went belly up. The competitor became a national chain.
You remind me of the bitter former mid-level guy with his complex theories about how those guys could not possibly be making any money.
I sound like a bitter person? No don't think so but you sure sound like an old fart who does not have enough brain cells left to think.
Does your reply actually contribute much to the discussion of my thread?
first can you refute my 'complex theories' instead of quoting 'personal experiences' which count for little. I can also quote personal stories that people who didn't watch trends or calculate finances fell flat on their faces or point to news examples (Apple's rivals are full of them)
Also did you know I'm replying to all those people who gave 'complex theories' about how Android is making more money than Apple ("every Android unit sold gives revenue to Google, "Google will be pretty far ahead, income wise." etc") and that Apple's phone strategy is doomed. Like I said you guys spout without following the thread. So these Droid fans giving their complex financial theories are also like " the bitter former mid-level guy with his complex theories about how those guys could not possibly be making any money"? -- sort of cancels out your criticisms huh? lol.
Lastly as I have pointed out (you probably haven't read... )
When Android was announced in 2007 Google was a larger company than Apple. In 2009 Apple passed Google. Today after 3 years of Android Apple is about 100 Billion LARGER than Google in market cap (approx 270 to 169 b) and in the last few weeks the gap widened more. It seems that reality is actually trending to the reverse of what you believe.
I own both Google and Apple stocks and if you follow stocks in recent times Apple has outperformed google by a wide margin.
I believe I've added to the knowledge base for example my quoting the recent market cap growth of Apple vs Google during Android's rise is something which many are not aware but is really striking, what did your post contribute?
In general, I haven't seen where more expensive clothing is necessarily any better.
There's a useful analogy in fashion.
The lines in the cheapest stores are good value, but many are derivative of the catwalk fashions from the previous year.
The fashion industry has vigorous competition from multiple designers each trying to set trends. All the interesting activity happens at the high end.
The low end market benefits by taking these trends and making them accessible.
That's a pretty healthy state of affairs. You get plenty of choice and quality, even if you never leave Wall Mart.
Now imagine a word without that vigorous top end competition. Where there is only Wall Mart. Rapidy, you'd end up with a stagnation and lack of imagination. Because a single vendor has too much control, and there are no rewards for innovation and change.
You end up with a Soviet style car-showroom, where you can have any model of car, as long as it is a Trabant.
That's the problem of outsourcing software development to Microsoft and Google.
C.
Apple on path to surpass Exxon as world?s most valuable company
Does Apple care about market cap?
Think of it this way... if the Mac share is increasing yet it is more expensive then what does that tell you. To me it says that people really do see a difference, for the better, in the Mac operating system.
You have no way of knowing whether it it the OS that is causing purchases or whether it is other factors that are causing purchases. For all you know, people buy a Mac despite it not having the "regular" OS they have always used in the past.
My guess is that lots of different people buy Macs for lots of different reasons.
Let see so we have iPad and iOS record sales and we have Android record sales which promotes Flash as a benefit over iOS. So it appears to me that Apple has done nothing to slow down Flash or help move to HTML5 or any other alternative.
Are you stupid? Every major video site has switched to HTML5, and almost every major site supports iOS.
But consumers are not stupid. They know that what can be done on one Android phone can be done on another with the same sort of spec. If the HTC is a few dollars cheaper than the Samsung, people will switch.
C.
IMO, very few consumers buy due to specs. Some do, but if that were true in general, the iPhone and the iPad would not sell nearly as well as they do.
Instead, I think people buy what they like. A cellphone is not a spec-dependent beige box. There is plenty to differentiate any HTC from any Samsung, despite one of the aspects of them, the OS, being the same.
Don't these guys have special overlays, similar to MotoBlur? Or do they differentiate with big screens, or small form factor, or lots of chrome? Special "this phone only" software? Plain-vanilla Froyo with lots of cool apps preinstalled?
ISTM that Android phones are anything but commodity devices.
You have no way of knowing whether it it the OS that is causing purchases or whether it is other factors that are causing purchases. For all you know, people buy a Mac despite it not having the "regular" OS they have always used in the past.
My guess is that lots of different people buy Macs for lots of different reasons.
Still works for what I was saying. Mac share is increasing even though they are more expensive... OS, style... who knows... it still shows that the Mac has an allure that is not diminished by the availability of a cheaper alternative.
My own experience shows that most people that I know that have switched actually wonder why they didn't switch sooner.
Totally unrelated but something I found interesting...
Someone I know owned BMWs for years. Last year they bought a Lexus and later cursed the day they switched. I asked why. They said that all the recalls from Toyota (2) and having to take the vehicle into the shop for said recalls was an awful experience. I then asked if they had any problems with the Lexus other than that and they said, "oh, no, it's a wonderful car to drive". Hmmmm...
Let's see those real results! Let's see those claims!
I think you must made that stuff up from ill-formed memories. I don't think Apple made any such claims.
Got some cites?
I mentioned the last conference call. Google it.
Are you stupid? Every major video site has switched to HTML5, and almost every major site supports iOS.
Are you joking every major video site has switch over. You are living in a dream world. When Apple has to put a a list if iPad friendly websites clearly everything hasn't switched over to HTML5 not even close.
Instead, I think people buy what they like. A cellphone is not a spec-dependent beige box. There is plenty to differentiate any HTC from any Samsung, despite one of the aspects of them, the OS, being the same.
I am sure the manufacturers would argue that there's plenty to differentiate a Dell laptop from an HP laptop.
Except there isn't. Consumers understand that they are all essentially the same thing. So nowadays they look for the best deal on the spec they want. So it boils down to price. And a race to the bottom begins.
With phones it's even worse. They are all virtually identical slabs with big touchscreens. Many are sold without the consumer even seeing them running.
Yes, Android handsets makers are scrabbling to distinguish their particular flavor of Android, but that's a double-edged sword. The more they differentiate their product, the more fragmentation they risk.
Remember PC makers who strayed too far from the Microsoft path left users with all manner of incompatibilities and limited support.
Like I said earlier, this can be good news for consumers. We are already seeing devices with very high specifications and very low prices. But that trend is very bad for the manufacturers who need to narrow profit margins year on year if they want to stay in the game.
C.
I am sure the manufacturers would argue that there's plenty to differentiate a Dell laptop from an HP laptop.
...
With phones it's even worse. They are all virtually identical slabs with big touchscreens.
.
Somehow, I think consumers can see somewhat of a difference among Samsung and HTC Android phones:
Somehow, I think consumers can see somewhat of a difference among Samsung and HTC Android phones:
And I am sure that consumers can tell the difference between a Dell and a Vaio laptop.
The problem is that the differentiations are moot. Adding on a webcam here, or a fancy case design there don't add value. Consumers are not persuaded to pay a premium for the added features.
It remains to be seen whether I am right - but my prediction is that the same narrowing of margins that happened in the PC clone market will come to haunt the Android handset market.
I think HP understands this phenomenon all too well. Which is why it bought Palm.
C.
what did your post contribute?
It pointed out that complex explanations of why obviously successful companies will fail are usually incorrect.
It remains to be seen whether I am right - but my prediction is that the same narrowing of margins that happened in the PC clone market will come to haunt the Android handset market.
C.
I think that someday, you will be right. But as of now, Android offers customization and is not homogenious. It is nothing like a beige clone sporting a white C:> prompt.
Once cellphones become a commodity, they will be a commodity. But as of now, they are bursting with indiviuality. Including Android phones.
It pointed out that complex explanations of why obviously successful companies will fail are usually incorrect.
you're still saying nothing and still not reading my posts clearly
did I EVER said that "obviously successful companies(i.e I believe you're referring to Google) will fail", did I ever in my entire thread say Google will fail? Can you copy and paste where I said that? I didn't even say Android will fail.
I only pointed out that the Droideks who gave the idea that Android is cruising trouble free and making money off EVERY droid phone is false (as droid phones are being loaded with bing, yahoo etc and the other reasons I cited) and that their belief that the Google money making method is so vastly superior to Apple is not necessarily true. That does NOT equate me thinking Google will fail. Google will survive with or without Android.. shoot even Apple devices have Google search as default.
See why I need to be lengthy? (and you criticize me for it " you give complex reasons"), I'm lengthy and give detail reasons because you are following some of the others in being so dense, misreading posts and reading stuff which isn't there. When I gave simple explanations (why Google doesn't make profit on every Android phone) people didn't get it so I had to be lenghty', now you show yourself to require the same nursemaiding.
Lastly your "complex explanations of why obviously successful companies will fail are usually incorrect." is just an supposition supported by you Solely on your personal observation of your work experience (WTF is that?) Can you quote some studies to support you hypothesis? On the other hand I've read complex explanations like 10 years or so ago that Msft an 'obviously successful company ' which was valued at 600 billion will have problems in the future (Windows saturated, oracle etc rising in enterprise etc) , Msft is now worth 211 b (which is 50b smaller than Apple). Were these complex explanations part of your "usually incorrect"? I was using PCs at that time but reading those complex explanations I dumped my mutual fund of primarily Msft and Dell stock, some time later I bought Aapl and Google. (when Palm Pre came out I advised in talkbacks like this that buying the Pre acclaimed as a big hit by the tech press was a bad idea, not because WebOS is bad but that the Pre's profit was not covering Palm's cash burn and debt financing and that Palm will go under. Sometimes complex financial explanations underlying tech companies is useful)