That is a total bullshit statement. Apple doesn't use anything that is any higher quality them most other companies.
I have no issue if people want to say they spend extra for Apple products because they like the experience, ecosystem or that they simply think Apple products are cool.
Its total bullshit to say they last longer or are somehow higher quality. You can go down the list of OEM's that Apple uses and it isn't any different then anyone else.
I know many people with Acer laptops that are just as old as my MBP and working just fine.
I was not really saying anything about the parts they were using, but I can contest the oldest mac I still use us 10 yrs old and I have one that is 6 and 5 and 3 and 3 month old. Macs do last longer and I am not basing that on my experience I am basing it on my direct knowledge of all the testing apple does and the fact they required suppliers to give them the best quality parts.
Do not kid yourself into thinking that all computer companies get the exact same part, totally not true. Those customer who have higher quality requirements get the better parts and those who do not care get what is left over. I can also tell you Apple does not pay the lowest price for parts like Dell and Acer and it has nothing to do with volume is because Dell forgoes quality over prices, they rather have the lower price over anything else.
Because applie is willing to not pay the lowest price, they can demand the higher quality products. Plus the know how to test and design such they do not use parts in a why that would cause them to fail earlier in life.
1) Keep the 3GS ( adding CDMA) and lower the sticker price by $100.
NEVER going to happen. They already completely rebuilt the iPhone 4 and they'll be building the iPhone 5. And how can they lower the price of the 3GS by $100 when it's already $49?
Quote:
2) Keep the iPad 1 and lower its sticker price by $100. iPad2 same price as last year, component supply willing.
NEVER going to happen. They already completely rebuilt the iPhone 4 and they'll be building the iPhone 5. And how can they lower the price of the 3GS by $100 when it's already $49?
Its $49 on a contract. Sticker price is much higher. Also that price reduction does not apply worldwide and I mean this : reduce the worldwide price of the 3GS from last June's sticker price by $100 ( or $50 in the US). That would make the 3GS free on the standard contract.
So, sounds like Apple is overcharging, just a bit, doesn't it?
Overcharging would most likely be indicated by demand not keeping up with supply. Since demand and supply appear to be in balance, I would say that the iPhone is priced right.
Overcharging would most likely be indicated by demand not keeping up with supply. Since deamand and supply appear to be n balance, I would say that the iPhone is priced right.
sigh. Higher prices reduce demand. Lower prices stimulate demand. At any price point demand can equal supply. If they had originally priced the iPhone at $2000 ( sticker) they would have some demand, and would have matched supply by producing less. Or ( since they started at zero) not ramping up production to the levels they now have ramped up to.
a company may want to keep margins high and ( thus) market share low to protect it's brand, or make higher profits from lower sales. Thats fine and indeed successful for cars. And other devices.
For a company which is competing not just as a device maker but an OS platform it isn't good enough.
Apple is a very successful mobile phone manufacturer, the platform is beginning to stagnate.
So go support a company with higher marketshare and lower prices.
Apple's doing just fine as they are and they don't give a crap about anyone else's business model.
Well they sure didnt in the 90's. and look where that got them.
The model I am suggesting for them is the model they follow in the Mp3 market. Control the low end - not the very lowest but low enough - and the high end. Amortise margins over the entire range, so the higher end models subsidise the lower end.
It may be too late in the phone market for that, but not in tablets.
Hard to see what is so controversial about this. If Apple were just margin whores they would never have any low end model, and the 3GS would be discontinued now. I am merely suggesting that they add a lower end price point to the phone ( and not discontinue until next year), and add a lower entry level to iPad line by not discontinuing the iPAd 1. That ones a certainty.
When they do this they are trading some margin for marketshare.
However, there is a type of Apple fan who likes his niche and - so to answer the first point ( really an ad hominem) - I wont "support" another company because I prefer iOS.
I will reluctantly, however, move to Android if there is better and more software for it.
No, You suggested that Apple's added value was a some kind of illusion.
Your comical notion is that Apple could become more profitable, by cutting prices and increasing volume. (Even though it's production capacity has been maxed since the launch of the iPhone.)
You think that if Apple cut prices enough, it could sell as many units as the mighty Nokia. What a great strategy that would be. This is Nokia we are talking about. The company that is on track to start making a loss in 2011.
Nokia buys $150 worth of components and sells it for $160.
Apple buys $240 worth of components and sells it for $500. That's the definition of value added.
But I am pleased that in you, Nokia could have found itself a new CEO. You could show them the error of their ways. They could get themselves out of this unfolding financial disaster, and mirror the miracle of Apple, if only they charged twice as much.
If it doesnt happen they will just repeat the mistakes of history. Apparently plenty of Apple fans want them in that niche. Fair enough. These things are vicious circles, however. Less market share, less apps. Less apps, less market share. Its not as if this is a difficult thing to understand.
And then, eventually, profit drops.
Apple have a potential market share at a certain price point, and obviously a larger one at a lower price point. Maintaining market share in a rapidly growing market means lots of profit. It is when the market itself it saturated that you have to grow market share to grow unit sales.
And that larger share likely requires increased support costs even as you lower your own margins. When the smartphone market is saturated (in probably 3 to 4 years), Apple will need to decide on a strategy to deal with this issue.
As for apps being tied to marketshare, that is only partially true. Any reasonable developer will also be looking at profit potential - addressing a market with 80% share but poor software revenues is not an attractive opportunity.
Good man. That has no bearing on my arguments on market share, or the future direction of Apple. I thought I deflected this potential argument when I said they were amongst the most profitable computer manufacturers in the early 90's, a few years before they almost went bankrupt.
( I wonder if Nokia forums are full of denial on the decline in Market share for Nokia? )
You are clueless
Apple already historically has been able to take most of the available profits with a small share of the market. They've done this in laptops, music players, phones, and now they'll do it with tablets too. Let the Dells, Lenovos, and HTC's fight over Apple's leftovers.
No, You suggested that Apple's added value was a some kind of illusion.
Your comical notion is that Apple could become more profitable, by cutting prices and increasing volume. (Even though it's production capacity has been maxed since the launch of the iPhone.)
You think that if Apple cut prices enough, it could sell as many units as the mighty Nokia. What a great strategy that would be. This is Nokia we are talking about. The company that is on track to start making a loss in 2011.
Nokia buys $150 worth of components and sells it for $160.
Apple buys $240 worth of components and sells it for $500. That's the definition of value added.
But I am pleased that in you, Nokia could have found itself a new CEO. You could show them the error of their ways. They could get themselves out of this unfolding financial disaster, and mirror the miracle of Apple, if only they charged twice as much.
Please, you should suggest it to them.
C.
1) I clearly dont advocate Nokia increasing their prices but Apple reducing their prices by adding an additional low end model this year. This should be a totally uncontroversial demand, you would think. It is something they do already to a more limited extent. I never suggested competing with Nokia in the non-smart phone market where the prices are very low indeed.
That should have gone without saying. Unfortunately, it's a bit kindergarten here.
2) I keep mentioning the fact that Apple sells both phones and iOS as a platform ( tightly coupled) and that they also need to compete as a viable platform. Therefore market share needs to be maintained or increased. You are dealing with that argument - my main argument - by ignoring it.
I said that the higher margins lower market-share policy works for cars. It is a valid strategy for some kinds of produce.
There is no point, therefore, pointing to Apple's present day profit - which we are all aware of - as a success if they platform is stagnating. I know they are doing well as a single company, but not so well as a platform ( iOS) in smart phone market share. Having no answer to this you retreat to the only argument you have - their profit is big, innit. Never said it wasnt. You are not the CEO, innit? Never said I was.
3) The 90's argument has also passed you by.
And with that I unsubscribe, since I have made my argument, and you are not capable of taking it onboard.
And that larger share likely requires increased support costs even as you lower your own margins. When the smartphone market is saturated (in probably 3 to 4 years), Apple will need to decide on a strategy to deal with this issue.
Far too late.
Quote:
As for apps being tied to marketshare, that is only partially true. Any reasonable developer will also be looking at profit potential - addressing a market with 80% share but poor software revenues is not an attractive opportunity.
Yeah? The revenues would clearly have to be 4 times larger on the iPhone to justify the investment.
Apps are moving out of the bedroom. The decision will not be made by "developers" but by the people who hire developers. If they see 80%, they will spend money on designers and developers for that 80%.
In any case I see we have accepted 80% market share for the competition. Back to our happy clappy niche. Feeling special at the 20% level or less. Just bog all software.
I call bullshit on your bullshit. I bought an HP laptop for my daughter. It broke down so much best buy gave us a new one. That one lasted 13 months. I said screw this, and bought a MacBook. Year and a half later still waiting for the first repair.
Indeed. Quality is not about who assembles the product. It's much more about how it's been designed and the standards and quality assurance execution and enforcement all along the way.
Comments
That is a total bullshit statement. Apple doesn't use anything that is any higher quality them most other companies.
I have no issue if people want to say they spend extra for Apple products because they like the experience, ecosystem or that they simply think Apple products are cool.
Its total bullshit to say they last longer or are somehow higher quality. You can go down the list of OEM's that Apple uses and it isn't any different then anyone else.
I know many people with Acer laptops that are just as old as my MBP and working just fine.
I was not really saying anything about the parts they were using, but I can contest the oldest mac I still use us 10 yrs old and I have one that is 6 and 5 and 3 and 3 month old. Macs do last longer and I am not basing that on my experience I am basing it on my direct knowledge of all the testing apple does and the fact they required suppliers to give them the best quality parts.
Do not kid yourself into thinking that all computer companies get the exact same part, totally not true. Those customer who have higher quality requirements get the better parts and those who do not care get what is left over. I can also tell you Apple does not pay the lowest price for parts like Dell and Acer and it has nothing to do with volume is because Dell forgoes quality over prices, they rather have the lower price over anything else.
Because applie is willing to not pay the lowest price, they can demand the higher quality products. Plus the know how to test and design such they do not use parts in a why that would cause them to fail earlier in life.
1) Keep the 3GS ( adding CDMA) and lower the sticker price by $100.
NEVER going to happen. They already completely rebuilt the iPhone 4 and they'll be building the iPhone 5. And how can they lower the price of the 3GS by $100 when it's already $49?
2) Keep the iPad 1 and lower its sticker price by $100. iPad2 same price as last year, component supply willing.
This I believe wholeheartedly.
He is not obliged to anything.
Of course he is. He's obliged to maximise overall profits. Which requires picking the precise price that maximises that. The price set by the market.
Anything else would be a criminal abandonment of what shareholders demand.
Nevertheless Nokia's market share is declining.
Nokia has no problems with volume. It's got volume coming out of its wazoo.
Nokia's problem is that they only make 8 Euros per handset.
Why? - Because they are incapable of adding value.
C.
NEVER going to happen. They already completely rebuilt the iPhone 4 and they'll be building the iPhone 5. And how can they lower the price of the 3GS by $100 when it's already $49?
Its $49 on a contract. Sticker price is much higher. Also that price reduction does not apply worldwide and I mean this : reduce the worldwide price of the 3GS from last June's sticker price by $100 ( or $50 in the US). That would make the 3GS free on the standard contract.
So, sounds like Apple is overcharging, just a bit, doesn't it?
Overcharging would most likely be indicated by demand not keeping up with supply. Since demand and supply appear to be in balance, I would say that the iPhone is priced right.
Of course he is. He's obliged to maximise overall profits. Which requires picking the precise price that maximises that. The price set by the market.
Anything else would be a criminal abandonment of what shareholders demand.
Nokia has no problems with volume. It's got volume coming out of its wazoo.
Nokia's problem is that they only make 8 Euros per handset.
Why? - Because they are incapable of adding value.
C.
The added value is in your head. You just repeat it like a mantra. Its an excuse for justifying lower market share and higher prices.
The added value is in your head. You just repeat it like a mantra. Its an excuse for justifying lower market share and higher prices.
So go support a company with higher marketshare and lower prices.
Apple's doing just fine as they are and they don't give a crap about anyone else's business model.
The added value is in your head. You just repeat it like a mantra. Its an excuse for justifying lower market share and higher prices.
Oh right. This one.
I think you should suggest to Nokia, that they could emulate Apples success by increasing prices.
Let's see how that works out eh?
C.
Overcharging would most likely be indicated by demand not keeping up with supply. Since deamand and supply appear to be n balance, I would say that the iPhone is priced right.
sigh. Higher prices reduce demand. Lower prices stimulate demand. At any price point demand can equal supply. If they had originally priced the iPhone at $2000 ( sticker) they would have some demand, and would have matched supply by producing less. Or ( since they started at zero) not ramping up production to the levels they now have ramped up to.
a company may want to keep margins high and ( thus) market share low to protect it's brand, or make higher profits from lower sales. Thats fine and indeed successful for cars. And other devices.
For a company which is competing not just as a device maker but an OS platform it isn't good enough.
Apple is a very successful mobile phone manufacturer, the platform is beginning to stagnate.
Oh right. This one.
I think you should suggest to Nokia, that they could emulate Apples success by increasing prices.
Let's see how that works out eh?
C.
I am advocating reducing prices. Keep up.
So go support a company with higher marketshare and lower prices.
Apple's doing just fine as they are and they don't give a crap about anyone else's business model.
Well they sure didnt in the 90's. and look where that got them.
The model I am suggesting for them is the model they follow in the Mp3 market. Control the low end - not the very lowest but low enough - and the high end. Amortise margins over the entire range, so the higher end models subsidise the lower end.
It may be too late in the phone market for that, but not in tablets.
Hard to see what is so controversial about this. If Apple were just margin whores they would never have any low end model, and the 3GS would be discontinued now. I am merely suggesting that they add a lower end price point to the phone ( and not discontinue until next year), and add a lower entry level to iPad line by not discontinuing the iPAd 1. That ones a certainty.
When they do this they are trading some margin for marketshare.
However, there is a type of Apple fan who likes his niche and - so to answer the first point ( really an ad hominem) - I wont "support" another company because I prefer iOS.
I will reluctantly, however, move to Android if there is better and more software for it.
I am hoping they avoid that by reducing margins.
I am advocating reducing prices. Keep up.
No, You suggested that Apple's added value was a some kind of illusion.
Your comical notion is that Apple could become more profitable, by cutting prices and increasing volume. (Even though it's production capacity has been maxed since the launch of the iPhone.)
You think that if Apple cut prices enough, it could sell as many units as the mighty Nokia. What a great strategy that would be. This is Nokia we are talking about. The company that is on track to start making a loss in 2011.
Nokia buys $150 worth of components and sells it for $160.
Apple buys $240 worth of components and sells it for $500. That's the definition of value added.
But I am pleased that in you, Nokia could have found itself a new CEO. You could show them the error of their ways. They could get themselves out of this unfolding financial disaster, and mirror the miracle of Apple, if only they charged twice as much.
Please, you should suggest it to them.
C.
If it doesnt happen they will just repeat the mistakes of history. Apparently plenty of Apple fans want them in that niche. Fair enough. These things are vicious circles, however. Less market share, less apps. Less apps, less market share. Its not as if this is a difficult thing to understand.
And then, eventually, profit drops.
Apple have a potential market share at a certain price point, and obviously a larger one at a lower price point. Maintaining market share in a rapidly growing market means lots of profit. It is when the market itself it saturated that you have to grow market share to grow unit sales.
And that larger share likely requires increased support costs even as you lower your own margins. When the smartphone market is saturated (in probably 3 to 4 years), Apple will need to decide on a strategy to deal with this issue.
As for apps being tied to marketshare, that is only partially true. Any reasonable developer will also be looking at profit potential - addressing a market with 80% share but poor software revenues is not an attractive opportunity.
Well they sure didnt in the 90's. and look where that got them.
Oh, no! You're right! Apple's exactly the same company that it was in the 90s and has exactly the same product matrix!
When they do this they are trading some margin for marketshare.
But they don't CARE.
And they'll tell you that an app on the iOS platform generates about five times the revenue of the next best platform.
C.
Good man. That has no bearing on my arguments on market share, or the future direction of Apple. I thought I deflected this potential argument when I said they were amongst the most profitable computer manufacturers in the early 90's, a few years before they almost went bankrupt.
( I wonder if Nokia forums are full of denial on the decline in Market share for Nokia? )
You are clueless
Apple already historically has been able to take most of the available profits with a small share of the market. They've done this in laptops, music players, phones, and now they'll do it with tablets too. Let the Dells, Lenovos, and HTC's fight over Apple's leftovers.
No, You suggested that Apple's added value was a some kind of illusion.
Your comical notion is that Apple could become more profitable, by cutting prices and increasing volume. (Even though it's production capacity has been maxed since the launch of the iPhone.)
You think that if Apple cut prices enough, it could sell as many units as the mighty Nokia. What a great strategy that would be. This is Nokia we are talking about. The company that is on track to start making a loss in 2011.
Nokia buys $150 worth of components and sells it for $160.
Apple buys $240 worth of components and sells it for $500. That's the definition of value added.
But I am pleased that in you, Nokia could have found itself a new CEO. You could show them the error of their ways. They could get themselves out of this unfolding financial disaster, and mirror the miracle of Apple, if only they charged twice as much.
Please, you should suggest it to them.
C.
1) I clearly dont advocate Nokia increasing their prices but Apple reducing their prices by adding an additional low end model this year. This should be a totally uncontroversial demand, you would think. It is something they do already to a more limited extent. I never suggested competing with Nokia in the non-smart phone market where the prices are very low indeed.
That should have gone without saying. Unfortunately, it's a bit kindergarten here.
2) I keep mentioning the fact that Apple sells both phones and iOS as a platform ( tightly coupled) and that they also need to compete as a viable platform. Therefore market share needs to be maintained or increased. You are dealing with that argument - my main argument - by ignoring it.
I said that the higher margins lower market-share policy works for cars. It is a valid strategy for some kinds of produce.
There is no point, therefore, pointing to Apple's present day profit - which we are all aware of - as a success if they platform is stagnating. I know they are doing well as a single company, but not so well as a platform ( iOS) in smart phone market share. Having no answer to this you retreat to the only argument you have - their profit is big, innit. Never said it wasnt. You are not the CEO, innit? Never said I was.
3) The 90's argument has also passed you by.
And with that I unsubscribe, since I have made my argument, and you are not capable of taking it onboard.
And that larger share likely requires increased support costs even as you lower your own margins. When the smartphone market is saturated (in probably 3 to 4 years), Apple will need to decide on a strategy to deal with this issue.
Far too late.
As for apps being tied to marketshare, that is only partially true. Any reasonable developer will also be looking at profit potential - addressing a market with 80% share but poor software revenues is not an attractive opportunity.
Yeah? The revenues would clearly have to be 4 times larger on the iPhone to justify the investment.
Apps are moving out of the bedroom. The decision will not be made by "developers" but by the people who hire developers. If they see 80%, they will spend money on designers and developers for that 80%.
In any case I see we have accepted 80% market share for the competition. Back to our happy clappy niche. Feeling special at the 20% level or less. Just bog all software.
I call bullshit on your bullshit. I bought an HP laptop for my daughter. It broke down so much best buy gave us a new one. That one lasted 13 months. I said screw this, and bought a MacBook. Year and a half later still waiting for the first repair.
Indeed. Quality is not about who assembles the product. It's much more about how it's been designed and the standards and quality assurance execution and enforcement all along the way.