Let's see if we can make sense of your twisted logic:
You say that you aren't claiming to know more about running Apple than the management team - yet you keep saying that they're doing it wrong and should do something different.
No I didn't. I did suggest that they make the 3GS cheaper, which they already have done and will continue to do. This is the kind of wish list which gets said on Apple Insider, and which the site is here for. Stuff like "I wish the iPhone had NFC", or "I wish the iPhone had a larger screen". It isn't an ex cathedra instruction to management of Apple who probably aren't reading.
Quote:
OTOH, I say that the management team should be left alone to make the decisions that they clearly know how to make - and you accuse me of thinking I can run the place better than Apple.
Nope. There's no way that I can make sense of your twisted logic.
Saying the management should be "left alone to do what they want" is to curtail all discussion on Apple's market strategy. However if they say there are interested in market share it makes no sense to say they are not interested in market share.
The discussion here is on the fact that Apple is getting spanked in the pre-paid market. There are two responses to this.
1) The less popular response ( on AI): Apple needs a lower priced model.
3) The more popular response - Apple doesn't care, its got LOADSAMONEY!
You ( and others) say that Apple are not interested in market share. I post a link from the CEO saying he is very very interested in market share and thinks the 37M is just the beginning, that there is a 2B unit per year market out there. Thats not an instruction to management, it is a reference on what they themselves say, it is a clear refutal of the argument to profit matters above all else.
Apple does care about market share, ( and it also cares about margins), hence we can dicsuss what they have to do to get traction in the pre-paid market which is most of the 90% which Tim Cook is eying.
Who cares about cheap android phones they are cheap. Poor people with cheap phones does not equal vertical sales.
These are people that buy the $5 fake cases on the street, download only free apps with malware, and play pirated media. Why should Apple care.
It could be true that poor people don't buy apps, or are not much use to advertisers, or it could be that the market is commoditizing - and relatively middle class people don't want to pay contract rates to carriers. I was on pre-paid in my time.
Heres a fact, people on pre-paid - prior to the modern smartphone age - used to download £3 ringtones all the time.
We don't know what the market is here. It could be poor, or it could be cheap, or it could be bargin hunters. If smart phones commoditise it doesn't mean that software isn't bought.
No. Consumers do not "pay much less than that". Consumers pay more than that if they go with a contract - they pay much less up front but essentially what they've done is taken out a high-interest loan from their carrier and used it to pay Apple for the phone.
Because Apple is the only smart phone vendor to have a 2 year contract.
No I didn't. I did suggest that they make the 3GS cheaper, which they already have done and will continue to do. This is the kind of wish list which gets said on Apple Insider, and which the site is here for. Stuff like "I wish the iPhone had NFC", or "I wish the iPhone had a larger screen". It isn't an ex cathedra instruction to management of Apple who probably aren't reading.
Saying the management should be "left alone to do what they want" is to curtail all discussion on Apple's market strategy. However if they say there are interested in market share it makes no sense to say they are not interested in market share.
The discussion here is on the fact that Apple is getting spanked in the pre-paid market. There are two responses to this.
1) The less popular response ( on AI): Apple needs a lower priced model.
3) The more popular response - Apple doesn't care, its got LOADSAMONEY!
You ( and others) say that Apple are not interested in market share. I post a link from the CEO saying he is very very interested in market share and thinks the 37M is just the beginning, that there is a 2B unit per year market out there. Thats not an instruction to management, it is a reference on what they themselves say, it is a clear refutal of the argument to profit matters above all else.
Apple does care about market share, ( and it also cares about margins), hence we can dicsuss what they have to do to get traction in the pre-paid market which is most of the 90% which Tim Cook is eying.
And that nicely points out why your posts are useless. You make things up and then argue against your fantasies instead of what people actually said.
No one said that Apple is not interested in market share (or, if someone did, I missed it). I certainly never made such a claim.
What I have said agrees completely with what Apple's stated position is - that market share is nice, but not if you have to sacrifice profits or quality to get it. And selling a phone that would compete with a $190 unsubsidized phone would do both.
And that nicely points out why your posts are useless. You make things up and then argue against your fantasies instead of what people actually said.
No one said that Apple is not interested in market share (or, if someone did, I missed it). I certainly never made such a claim.
What I have said agrees completely with what Apple's stated position is - that market share is nice, but not if you have to sacrifice profits or quality to get it. And selling a phone that would compete with a $190 unsubsidized phone would do both.
To be fair, "Apple is not interested in marketshare" is a common post on many boards.
Apple, force all carriers to drop the forced data plans. Simple.
I remember your irritation with this in the past. They should let you do this if they're not subsidizing the phone or it's out of contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Apple needs to remain a premium brand, selling premium products to customers who appreciate it.
There's also a rumor going around today about the iPad 3 being priced at $579! Awesome! All that extra technology and the amazing screen comes at a price! Apple is not for cheapskates!
You are just so biased. It doesn't really matter what they cost. Phones in general are not what I'd consider a premium product. They're high volume items, and the iphone doesn't cost that much more than many of the others. As for the really cheap ones, those people wouldn't have purchased iphones if the other option didn't exist, so I'm not sure of the point of this article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
Cheap product = users get a poor device and the company gets little profit. I?d rather be ?crushed!?
(As for $250 Windows laptops... I recommended one to an out-of-work friend. Never again. It?s Russian Roulette just how bag the experience will be... does it run slow and have a bad viewing angle, but at least last you a while? Or does it just die, one part after another, almost immediately so you spend your warranty period losing data and fighting to get service... until it dies again after the warranty ends? My friend has a doorstop?complete with viruses?and $250 down the drain. She?d rather use a rock as a doorstop and file the $250 away for a MacBook Air. And how many of those $250 units do you have to buy in 10 years, vs. how many $999+ MacBook Airs? And what?s the resale value like on them vs. the Airs? And the support costs? Almost everyone I know who uses Windows pays $100 plus at least once a year to get their system working again or cleaned of malware. They?re not tech-savvy like us, but we?re not the majority. They pay MORE in the end with their cheap PCs that need frequent replacement and can?t be sold. And then they have a machine they?re afraid of and hate. But would they consider Apple? Many never would. Go figure.)
Malware is typically quite avoidable on either side. As for things breaking, Apple things break too. The mistake isn't buying something that isn't Apple. The mistake is buying junk. I'd at least check on reviews before making a purchase.
I'm still not sure why this is an article if it talks about sales to people who would not be likely to purchase an iphone even if the other options were removed. I guess they could purchase an early model iphone, but is anything prior to the 3GS even still supported (asking as I can't find any indication)?
If US no contract carriers would carry the any of the iPhones I would have bought one. I settled regrettably on a Android powered LG till I can get an iPhone on a no contract carrier.
If US no contract carriers would carry the any of the iPhones I would have bought one. I settled regrettably on a Android powered LG till I can get an iPhone on a no contract carrier.
So all you need to do is get 50,000,000 of your closest friends to tell Apple the same thing.
The number of people who refuse to buy a contract phone is insignificant - in the U.S., at least. AFAIK, Apple does sell phones in other countries that are not locked to a carrier.
If heading toward half a trillion dollars in market capitalization and gobbling up the majority of profits in the mobile market, Mac sales soaring, iPads becoming ubiquitous is being "crushed" then let's have some more "crushing" please. You trolls have never accepted the fact that Apple doesn't seem to notice or care that it is doomed.
The WSJ is the troll in question.
But, as a consumer, do I want to be providing more profit for each product I purchase?
Because Apple is the only smart phone vendor to have a 2 year contract.
/s
No need for sarcasm. In many markets, Apple's monthly contract is a few dollars/euros/quids higher. Even if it is €5/mo, that is €180 extra on a three year contract (without allowing for time value of money, of course).
When I first bought my iPhone 3GS three years ago, my brother-in-law chastised me for buying such an expensive phone. I spent $300, and that was the last phone I bought.
Three years later that same brother-in-law has gone through 6, count'em SIX Android phones, totaling about $1,000.
So with Apple, you may be spending more in the short term, but you're paying for life-span and quality.
let's see
1. Your bil purchases lots of cheap phones (nothing to do with Android, your bil is just cheap)
2. Your bil likes to update his phone a lot
3. Your bil is careless with his phones
No of this has anything to do with Android and its quality, it is purely your bil
I remember your irritation with this in the past. They should let you do this if they're not subsidizing the phone or it's out of contract.
Exactly. I don't have a problem paying $600 ONCE for my phone. I have a problem paying thousands of dollars over two years for crap that I'll never use and which they don't even WANT me to use at all.
THAT is the argument here. NOT the cost of the phone. NOT the subsidized price. NOT the fact that there are cheaper, older models.
No need for sarcasm. In many markets, Apple's monthly contract is a few dollars/euros/quids higher. Even if it is ?5/mo, that is ?180 extra on a three year contract (without allowing for time value of money, of course).
Here in Australia an iPhone 4S cost less than a Galaxy Nexus, well it used to before the mandatory Android phone price slump.
You'd be crazy to get an Android handset when it's released they always drop in price.
Huawei and ZTE are coming into dominance.
I wonder what conditions are like for workers churning out cheap phones.
A person who cannot afford an iPhone (or even if they simply dislike Apple) was not going to be an iPhone customer anyway. There is no lost revenue. There is no competition "crushing" the iPhone.
To a certain, significant segment of the market, Apple can't touch that.
The question is whether or not Apple can suck so much profit out of these segments that no one can be bothered to produce them. Something similar is happening in the LCD TV market as we speak. It would normally be a "race to the bottom", but I don't think this particular instance of one company racing up (their margins were up this quarter) while everyone else sinks is very common.
Comments
Let's see if we can make sense of your twisted logic:
You say that you aren't claiming to know more about running Apple than the management team - yet you keep saying that they're doing it wrong and should do something different.
No I didn't. I did suggest that they make the 3GS cheaper, which they already have done and will continue to do. This is the kind of wish list which gets said on Apple Insider, and which the site is here for. Stuff like "I wish the iPhone had NFC", or "I wish the iPhone had a larger screen". It isn't an ex cathedra instruction to management of Apple who probably aren't reading.
OTOH, I say that the management team should be left alone to make the decisions that they clearly know how to make - and you accuse me of thinking I can run the place better than Apple.
Nope. There's no way that I can make sense of your twisted logic.
Saying the management should be "left alone to do what they want" is to curtail all discussion on Apple's market strategy. However if they say there are interested in market share it makes no sense to say they are not interested in market share.
The discussion here is on the fact that Apple is getting spanked in the pre-paid market. There are two responses to this.
1) The less popular response ( on AI): Apple needs a lower priced model.
3) The more popular response - Apple doesn't care, its got LOADSAMONEY!
You ( and others) say that Apple are not interested in market share. I post a link from the CEO saying he is very very interested in market share and thinks the 37M is just the beginning, that there is a 2B unit per year market out there. Thats not an instruction to management, it is a reference on what they themselves say, it is a clear refutal of the argument to profit matters above all else.
Apple does care about market share, ( and it also cares about margins), hence we can dicsuss what they have to do to get traction in the pre-paid market which is most of the 90% which Tim Cook is eying.
These are people that buy the $5 fake cases on the street, download only free apps with malware, and play pirated media. Why should Apple care.
Who cares about cheap android phones they are cheap. Poor people with cheap phones does not equal vertical sales.
These are people that buy the $5 fake cases on the street, download only free apps with malware, and play pirated media. Why should Apple care.
It could be true that poor people don't buy apps, or are not much use to advertisers, or it could be that the market is commoditizing - and relatively middle class people don't want to pay contract rates to carriers. I was on pre-paid in my time.
Heres a fact, people on pre-paid - prior to the modern smartphone age - used to download £3 ringtones all the time.
We don't know what the market is here. It could be poor, or it could be cheap, or it could be bargin hunters. If smart phones commoditise it doesn't mean that software isn't bought.
No. Consumers do not "pay much less than that". Consumers pay more than that if they go with a contract - they pay much less up front but essentially what they've done is taken out a high-interest loan from their carrier and used it to pay Apple for the phone.
Because Apple is the only smart phone vendor to have a 2 year contract.
/s
No I didn't. I did suggest that they make the 3GS cheaper, which they already have done and will continue to do. This is the kind of wish list which gets said on Apple Insider, and which the site is here for. Stuff like "I wish the iPhone had NFC", or "I wish the iPhone had a larger screen". It isn't an ex cathedra instruction to management of Apple who probably aren't reading.
Saying the management should be "left alone to do what they want" is to curtail all discussion on Apple's market strategy. However if they say there are interested in market share it makes no sense to say they are not interested in market share.
The discussion here is on the fact that Apple is getting spanked in the pre-paid market. There are two responses to this.
1) The less popular response ( on AI): Apple needs a lower priced model.
3) The more popular response - Apple doesn't care, its got LOADSAMONEY!
You ( and others) say that Apple are not interested in market share. I post a link from the CEO saying he is very very interested in market share and thinks the 37M is just the beginning, that there is a 2B unit per year market out there. Thats not an instruction to management, it is a reference on what they themselves say, it is a clear refutal of the argument to profit matters above all else.
Apple does care about market share, ( and it also cares about margins), hence we can dicsuss what they have to do to get traction in the pre-paid market which is most of the 90% which Tim Cook is eying.
And that nicely points out why your posts are useless. You make things up and then argue against your fantasies instead of what people actually said.
No one said that Apple is not interested in market share (or, if someone did, I missed it). I certainly never made such a claim.
What I have said agrees completely with what Apple's stated position is - that market share is nice, but not if you have to sacrifice profits or quality to get it. And selling a phone that would compete with a $190 unsubsidized phone would do both.
And that nicely points out why your posts are useless. You make things up and then argue against your fantasies instead of what people actually said.
No one said that Apple is not interested in market share (or, if someone did, I missed it). I certainly never made such a claim.
What I have said agrees completely with what Apple's stated position is - that market share is nice, but not if you have to sacrifice profits or quality to get it. And selling a phone that would compete with a $190 unsubsidized phone would do both.
To be fair, "Apple is not interested in marketshare" is a common post on many boards.
Apple, force all carriers to drop the forced data plans. Simple.
I remember your irritation with this in the past. They should let you do this if they're not subsidizing the phone or it's out of contract.
Apple needs to remain a premium brand, selling premium products to customers who appreciate it.
There's also a rumor going around today about the iPad 3 being priced at $579! Awesome! All that extra technology and the amazing screen comes at a price! Apple is not for cheapskates!
You are just so biased. It doesn't really matter what they cost. Phones in general are not what I'd consider a premium product. They're high volume items, and the iphone doesn't cost that much more than many of the others. As for the really cheap ones, those people wouldn't have purchased iphones if the other option didn't exist, so I'm not sure of the point of this article.
Cheap product = users get a poor device and the company gets little profit. I?d rather be ?crushed!?
(As for $250 Windows laptops... I recommended one to an out-of-work friend. Never again. It?s Russian Roulette just how bag the experience will be... does it run slow and have a bad viewing angle, but at least last you a while? Or does it just die, one part after another, almost immediately so you spend your warranty period losing data and fighting to get service... until it dies again after the warranty ends? My friend has a doorstop?complete with viruses?and $250 down the drain. She?d rather use a rock as a doorstop and file the $250 away for a MacBook Air. And how many of those $250 units do you have to buy in 10 years, vs. how many $999+ MacBook Airs? And what?s the resale value like on them vs. the Airs? And the support costs? Almost everyone I know who uses Windows pays $100 plus at least once a year to get their system working again or cleaned of malware. They?re not tech-savvy like us, but we?re not the majority. They pay MORE in the end with their cheap PCs that need frequent replacement and can?t be sold. And then they have a machine they?re afraid of and hate. But would they consider Apple? Many never would. Go figure.)
Malware is typically quite avoidable on either side. As for things breaking, Apple things break too. The mistake isn't buying something that isn't Apple. The mistake is buying junk. I'd at least check on reviews before making a purchase.
I'm still not sure why this is an article if it talks about sales to people who would not be likely to purchase an iphone even if the other options were removed. I guess they could purchase an early model iphone, but is anything prior to the 3GS even still supported (asking as I can't find any indication)?
News at 11:00 </yawn>
If US no contract carriers would carry the any of the iPhones I would have bought one. I settled regrettably on a Android powered LG till I can get an iPhone on a no contract carrier.
So all you need to do is get 50,000,000 of your closest friends to tell Apple the same thing.
The number of people who refuse to buy a contract phone is insignificant - in the U.S., at least. AFAIK, Apple does sell phones in other countries that are not locked to a carrier.
If Apple doesn't care, I don't care.
If heading toward half a trillion dollars in market capitalization and gobbling up the majority of profits in the mobile market, Mac sales soaring, iPads becoming ubiquitous is being "crushed" then let's have some more "crushing" please. You trolls have never accepted the fact that Apple doesn't seem to notice or care that it is doomed.
The WSJ is the troll in question.
But, as a consumer, do I want to be providing more profit for each product I purchase?
Because Apple is the only smart phone vendor to have a 2 year contract.
/s
No need for sarcasm. In many markets, Apple's monthly contract is a few dollars/euros/quids higher. Even if it is €5/mo, that is €180 extra on a three year contract (without allowing for time value of money, of course).
When I first bought my iPhone 3GS three years ago, my brother-in-law chastised me for buying such an expensive phone. I spent $300, and that was the last phone I bought.
Three years later that same brother-in-law has gone through 6, count'em SIX Android phones, totaling about $1,000.
So with Apple, you may be spending more in the short term, but you're paying for life-span and quality.
let's see
1. Your bil purchases lots of cheap phones (nothing to do with Android, your bil is just cheap)
2. Your bil likes to update his phone a lot
3. Your bil is careless with his phones
No of this has anything to do with Android and its quality, it is purely your bil
I remember your irritation with this in the past. They should let you do this if they're not subsidizing the phone or it's out of contract.
Exactly. I don't have a problem paying $600 ONCE for my phone. I have a problem paying thousands of dollars over two years for crap that I'll never use and which they don't even WANT me to use at all.
THAT is the argument here. NOT the cost of the phone. NOT the subsidized price. NOT the fact that there are cheaper, older models.
No need for sarcasm. In many markets, Apple's monthly contract is a few dollars/euros/quids higher. Even if it is ?5/mo, that is ?180 extra on a three year contract (without allowing for time value of money, of course).
Here in Australia an iPhone 4S cost less than a Galaxy Nexus, well it used to before the mandatory Android phone price slump.
You'd be crazy to get an Android handset when it's released they always drop in price.
Huawei and ZTE are coming into dominance.
I wonder what conditions are like for workers churning out cheap phones.
The title of this story is link baiting.
To a certain, significant segment of the market, Apple can't touch that.
The question is whether or not Apple can suck so much profit out of these segments that no one can be bothered to produce them. Something similar is happening in the LCD TV market as we speak. It would normally be a "race to the bottom", but I don't think this particular instance of one company racing up (their margins were up this quarter) while everyone else sinks is very common.