Greedy is a perspective one holds on somebody else's behavior. You can't call another wrong because his opinion differs with yours.
Seriously? Your point is correct if the argument is academic but in the real world with in publications, tech blogs even here with Apple users the word "Greedy" is an accepted verb for Apple and has been for YEAR'S.
Quote:
Baloney. The competition got wiped out by iPhone, until iPhone many of these companies where very profitable. As it is Samsung is the only company effectively competing (stealing from) with Apple and they have good margins. The likes of Nokia, RIM and Motorola did not race to the bottom at all, rather they had the rug pulled out from beneath them and landed flat on their faces.
You are arguing pre iPhone and post iPhone together.
Prior to iPhone I believe there was collusion with in the cell phone industry (just my opinion) so profits stood strong. However after the launch of iPhone the industry was no longer clamshells, candy bar and "Black Berry" type phones they were forced to offer truly smart phones with touchscreen. Up to that point there were just a few that had tried to offer this but failed to gain traction (Palm and Windows CS to name a couple). So your right they were not pre paired, but to gain traction on Apples market share (A market they did not create but rather redefined) they absolutely raced to the bottom to get a piece of the low end of the market and still failed.
Nobody is asking Apple to make junk, I'm not sure where this idea comes from. The point here is that Apple doesn't benefit t in the long term from excessively high margins.
The industry is absolutely asking for Apple to make junk, in fact that demand it and predict Apple will lose their market share and go bankrupt (I know that was a little dramatic).
And since when is it so bad for a company to make high profit margins? I have never understood why that is so bad. You make a product that is far superior to the rest of the industry with fit, polish and quality (I disagree with you and for their time the org iPhone, 3G and 3Gs were amazing, thats why everybody wanted one). You decide what you think your time and you product is worth send it to market. It DOSE NOT MATTER what you spend to produce it, if consumers feel that their investment is worth the value they will purchase your product. If they disagree with your MSRP your product will not sell plain and simple.
As far as long term viability, hmmmmm when was the first iPhone released? Who is the most successful and profitable tech company on the planet to date largely from their media players and phones?
I tend to think Apple probably got this figured out and I will trust their road map a little better than a poster that thinks he smarter than them.
Have you seen sales in other countries besides the US? the 520 is selling a ton of phones. especially in china. Apple could have done some changes to the 4s to make it cheaper and sold it for say $150 or $200 OFF contract. Apple still could have made a ton of money.
t is not a joke post. if apple took the 4s and took out say the front camera , use the plastic casing of the 5c , and did some other tweaks it could come up with a quality phone for a cheap off contract price. The thing that is keeping Nokia afloat is their quality heap phones.
*sigh*
Selling lots of product != making profits.
Apple COULD make a "cheap" phone. This would go against their entire philosophy as a corporation, though. It would also seriously harm their stock price. And it would, finally, tarnish their brand.
It's like saying, MG Collection can sell purses for <$20, why can't Coach? Croft and Barrow can sell shoes for <$40, why can't Louboutin or Manolo Blahnik?
Believe me: If Coach wanted to sell something for $15, they could. They just never WOULD.
"High margins should be reserved for flagship models. "
The problem with that is the flagship model will contain higher cost components, thus offer lower margins if they want to stick with their current price points.
Only initially, then the prices start to drop and margins rise.
Have you seen sales in other countries besides the US? the 520 is selling a ton of phones. especially in china. Apple could have done some changes to the 4s to make it cheaper and sold it for say $150 or $200 OFF contract. Apple still could have made a ton of money.
t is not a joke post. if apple took the 4s and took out say the front camera , use the plastic casing of the 5c , and did some other tweaks it could come up with a quality phone for a cheap off contract price. The thing that is keeping Nokia afloat is their quality heap phones.
I think what you are saying is Apple could make a cheap iPhone that isn't junk and still make a profit. Tim's statement assumes that making a cheap phone requires making junk. You seem to be questioning that. Tough call. You may be right.
The culture at Apple is to just attack the high end of the market. If Apple tried to make a cheap iPhone, they might be able to do it. Apple said they couldn't make a netbook that wasn't junk, but then they came out with the iPad and killed the netbook market.
As an Apple shareholder, I hope Tim Cook is trying find a way to address the lower market segment. There may come a day when that is the vast majority of the market.
I think there is still time before the high end market peaks or craters. Selling a $550 phone in 2014 probably makes the most sense (to test the waters).
Just for the record, with all this talk of "Apple Tax" and the cost of phones, etc. ...
I am selling my iPhone5 to Gazelle for a price of $330. It's 32GB. So, I'm actually getting MORE from Gazelle than I originally paid for it. Between getting the $330 from Gazelle, and the $36 "fine" I need to pay ATT to upgrade, I can get a 64GB iPhone5S for $105.
People can talk about "Apple Tax" all they want. But the resale value is amazing. I got something like $550 for my mid-2009 iMac when I upgraded last winter, and that machine was 4 years old!
As long as I keep getting amazing resale values, I will take their "Apple Tax" any day of the week.
Had Apple charged $50 less their margins would likely have been the same as the iPhone 5.
I'm not suggesting that Apple should hit junk pile pricing but increasing already incredibly high margins makes sense in the short term only.
Actually high margins will make it possible to do incredible advertising to build and maintain brand identity. That's smart in the long term.
Low price will create a short term market, but not build a day's worth of customer loyalty. The best example would be the PC market. Nearly all brands are treated like commodity brands, the companies' margins are razor thin and their customers will jump to the next brand for a dime less price. In that cat fight for sales Apple is doing very well with their MBA running under Windows. Why should that be, when other brands cost less? Top customer service due to Apple having the margins to take care of the customers and the guts to not get into the price war.
Have you seen sales in other countries besides the US? the 520 is selling a ton of phones. especially in china. Apple could have done some changes to the 4s to make it cheaper and sold it for say $150 or $200 OFF contract. Apple still could have made a ton of money.
t is not a joke post. if apple took the 4s and took out say the front camera , use the plastic casing of the 5c , and did some other tweaks it could come up with a quality phone for a cheap off contract price. The thing that is keeping Nokia afloat is their quality heap phones.
Nokia just got bought.
Take out the camera? Are you serious? So basically you want to bastardize the iPhone just for market share.
I've spent time with the Gaxlaxy S4 and Note2 and both feel so cheap in my hands. They feel like $200 phones. IMO the $200 Nokia has better build quality then both of those Samsung flagships.
That's your opinion and, of course, you are welcome to it.
Have you seen sales in other countries besides the US? the 520 is selling a ton of phones. especially in china. Apple could have done some changes to the 4s to make it cheaper and sold it for say $150 or $200 OFF contract. Apple still could have made a ton of money.
t is not a joke post. if apple took the 4s and took out say the front camera , use the plastic casing of the 5c , and did some other tweaks it could come up with a quality phone for a cheap off contract price. The thing that is keeping Nokia afloat is their quality heap phones.
Think for a moment, THINK. Apple is selling every single iPhone the factory can make... in fact even selling more iPhones than the factory can make, and doing it at a good margin. And you want them to take part of that profitable manufacturing capacity and debase the Apple brand making a defeatured lower profit phone to address a budget market where the buyer traditionally has no sense of quality or product loyalty??? Why in God's name should Apple do that??
If you haven't heard yet, Nokia may have been afloat but Microsoft threw them a lifeline. They were selling off assets to stay afloat this long. Essentially Nokia's smartphone business was terrible as they were known for making defeatured phones and other low-end phones. There was no high-end brand identity, they had little profits to advertise and market their products, Microsoft had been funding the Nokia smartphone business and still wasn't getting any traction.
“There is nothing in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man's lawful prey.”
-- John Ruskin
I wouldn't call the lumia 520 junk. Its $99 off contract. that's cheap enough for anybody to have one as a second phone. Heck load here maps onto it and you have a gps also (here maps allows you to download the whole USA maps on it for free).
If people are rich enough to buy a second phone (for what purpose exactly?) why make it cheap?
If nokia can make a quality cheap phone I do not understand why apple cant either.
There's a difference between automobiles and computers, however. As I said earlier, Apple shouldn't become a seller of commodity products.
Huh? We're talking about a company's image. Ford was selling junk in the 70s and 80s. Ford's image got tarnished. The build quality has improved vastly over the last 20 years. The image has greatly improved. Ford still builds affordable vehicles and not so affordable vehicles (so does Mercedes). I believe Apple could do the same thing... and I'm not talking $99 off contract. Hell, $350-$400 is a very reasonable expectation and still get a quality phone with decent margins.
Depending on how the fiscal 1st and 2nd quarters add up, Apple may or may not change its strategy.
Huh? We're talking about a company's image. Ford was selling junk in the 70s and 80s. Ford's image got tarnished. The build quality has improved vastly over the last 20 years. The image has greatly improved. Ford still builds affordable vehicles and not so affordable vehicles (so does Mercedes). I believe Apple could do the same thing... and I'm not talking $99 off contract. Hell, $350-$400 is a very reasonable expectation and still get a quality phone with decent margins.
Depending on how the fiscal 1st and 2nd quarters add up, Apple may or may not change its strategy.
Ford is Ford. Believe me, I live in (near) Detroit. I'm about as familiar with Ford as anyone.
Let me ask you this: Do you think Apple will have a problem selling the iPhone5C? Because if not, then why in the world would they sell something cheaper?
When Apple made a partnership with a fashion house, they did so with Burberry. That should give you some idea where their thinking is. They didn't partner with GAP or Target (not that there's anything wrong with either -- heck, major designers design clothes for both). But Burberry is upper-tier. I mean, the next time you want a calfskin trench coat for your wife/girlfriend, you can get a Burberry one for $13,000. Or a python-skin skirt for $6000.
There's a REASON Apple sidled up with Burberry: Image. And of course, the same goes for Burberry. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement. Burberry represents a classic, upper-class British style that will always remain in style. Apple represents the top of the food chain when it comes not only to electronics, but to an image in the technology world. That glowing Apple symbol on the back of a MacBook Pro MEANS something -- at least to people who understand the fashion of it all.
Apple racing toward the bottom, even in the modest terms you propose, makes no sense. And, as I said, they will sell the 5C as quickly as they can make them. Why make something cheaper?
Ford is Ford. Believe me, I live in (near) Detroit. I'm about as familiar with Ford as anyone.
Let me ask you this: Do you think Apple will have a problem selling the iPhone5C? Because if not, then why in the world would they sell something cheaper?
When Apple made a partnership with a fashion house, they did so with Burberry. That should give you some idea where their thinking is. They didn't partner with GAP or Target (not that there's anything wrong with either -- heck, major designers design clothes for both). But Burberry is upper-tier. I mean, the next time you want a calfskin trench coat for your wife/girlfriend, you can get a Burberry one for $13,000. Or a python-skin skirt for $6000.
There's a REASON Apple sidled up with Burberry: Image. And of course, the same goes for Burberry. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement. Burberry represents a classic, upper-class British style that will always remain in style. Apple represents the top of the food chain when it comes not only to electronics, but to an image in the technology world. That glowing Apple symbol on the back of a MacBook Pro MEANS something -- at least to people who understand the fashion of it all.
Apple racing toward the bottom, even in the modest terms you propose, makes no sense. And, as I said, they will sell the 5C as quickly as they can make them. Why make something cheaper?
You must have read some other post because you sure as hell didn't read mine.
Comments
Greedy is a perspective one holds on somebody else's behavior. You can't call another wrong because his opinion differs with yours.
Seriously? Your point is correct if the argument is academic but in the real world with in publications, tech blogs even here with Apple users the word "Greedy" is an accepted verb for Apple and has been for YEAR'S.
You are arguing pre iPhone and post iPhone together.
Prior to iPhone I believe there was collusion with in the cell phone industry (just my opinion) so profits stood strong. However after the launch of iPhone the industry was no longer clamshells, candy bar and "Black Berry" type phones they were forced to offer truly smart phones with touchscreen. Up to that point there were just a few that had tried to offer this but failed to gain traction (Palm and Windows CS to name a couple). So your right they were not pre paired, but to gain traction on Apples market share (A market they did not create but rather redefined) they absolutely raced to the bottom to get a piece of the low end of the market and still failed.
The industry is absolutely asking for Apple to make junk, in fact that demand it and predict Apple will lose their market share and go bankrupt (I know that was a little dramatic).
And since when is it so bad for a company to make high profit margins? I have never understood why that is so bad. You make a product that is far superior to the rest of the industry with fit, polish and quality (I disagree with you and for their time the org iPhone, 3G and 3Gs were amazing, thats why everybody wanted one). You decide what you think your time and you product is worth send it to market. It DOSE NOT MATTER what you spend to produce it, if consumers feel that their investment is worth the value they will purchase your product. If they disagree with your MSRP your product will not sell plain and simple.
As far as long term viability, hmmmmm when was the first iPhone released? Who is the most successful and profitable tech company on the planet to date largely from their media players and phones?
I tend to think Apple probably got this figured out and I will trust their road map a little better than a poster that thinks he smarter than them.
Have you seen sales in other countries besides the US? the 520 is selling a ton of phones. especially in china. Apple could have done some changes to the 4s to make it cheaper and sold it for say $150 or $200 OFF contract. Apple still could have made a ton of money.
t is not a joke post. if apple took the 4s and took out say the front camera , use the plastic casing of the 5c , and did some other tweaks it could come up with a quality phone for a cheap off contract price. The thing that is keeping Nokia afloat is their quality heap phones.
*sigh*
Only initially, then the prices start to drop and margins rise.
Have you seen sales in other countries besides the US? the 520 is selling a ton of phones. especially in china. Apple could have done some changes to the 4s to make it cheaper and sold it for say $150 or $200 OFF contract. Apple still could have made a ton of money.
t is not a joke post. if apple took the 4s and took out say the front camera , use the plastic casing of the 5c , and did some other tweaks it could come up with a quality phone for a cheap off contract price. The thing that is keeping Nokia afloat is their quality heap phones.
I think what you are saying is Apple could make a cheap iPhone that isn't junk and still make a profit. Tim's statement assumes that making a cheap phone requires making junk. You seem to be questioning that. Tough call. You may be right.
The culture at Apple is to just attack the high end of the market. If Apple tried to make a cheap iPhone, they might be able to do it. Apple said they couldn't make a netbook that wasn't junk, but then they came out with the iPad and killed the netbook market.
As an Apple shareholder, I hope Tim Cook is trying find a way to address the lower market segment. There may come a day when that is the vast majority of the market.
I think there is still time before the high end market peaks or craters. Selling a $550 phone in 2014 probably makes the most sense (to test the waters).
Just for the record, with all this talk of "Apple Tax" and the cost of phones, etc. ...
I am selling my iPhone5 to Gazelle for a price of $330. It's 32GB. So, I'm actually getting MORE from Gazelle than I originally paid for it. Between getting the $330 from Gazelle, and the $36 "fine" I need to pay ATT to upgrade, I can get a 64GB iPhone5S for $105.
People can talk about "Apple Tax" all they want. But the resale value is amazing. I got something like $550 for my mid-2009 iMac when I upgraded last winter, and that machine was 4 years old!
As long as I keep getting amazing resale values, I will take their "Apple Tax" any day of the week.
Actually high margins will make it possible to do incredible advertising to build and maintain brand identity. That's smart in the long term.
Low price will create a short term market, but not build a day's worth of customer loyalty. The best example would be the PC market. Nearly all brands are treated like commodity brands, the companies' margins are razor thin and their customers will jump to the next brand for a dime less price. In that cat fight for sales Apple is doing very well with their MBA running under Windows. Why should that be, when other brands cost less? Top customer service due to Apple having the margins to take care of the customers and the guts to not get into the price war.
Yeah Wall Street! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
I'm a Ford stockholder too, and I don't consider the Fiesta "junk." And by the way, my Ford is up more than my Apple stock.
You will not find the Ford CEO calling a competitor's product junk.
Nokia just got bought.
Take out the camera? Are you serious? So basically you want to bastardize the iPhone just for market share.
I'm a Ford stockholder too, and I don't consider the Fiesta "junk." And by the way, my Ford is up more than my Apple stock.
You will not find the Ford CEO calling a competitor's product junk.
There's a difference between automobiles and computers, however. As I said earlier, Apple shouldn't become a seller of commodity products.
I've spent time with the Gaxlaxy S4 and Note2 and both feel so cheap in my hands. They feel like $200 phones. IMO the $200 Nokia has better build quality then both of those Samsung flagships.
That's your opinion and, of course, you are welcome to it.
Think for a moment, THINK. Apple is selling every single iPhone the factory can make... in fact even selling more iPhones than the factory can make, and doing it at a good margin. And you want them to take part of that profitable manufacturing capacity and debase the Apple brand making a defeatured lower profit phone to address a budget market where the buyer traditionally has no sense of quality or product loyalty??? Why in God's name should Apple do that??
If you haven't heard yet, Nokia may have been afloat but Microsoft threw them a lifeline. They were selling off assets to stay afloat this long. Essentially Nokia's smartphone business was terrible as they were known for making defeatured phones and other low-end phones. There was no high-end brand identity, they had little profits to advertise and market their products, Microsoft had been funding the Nokia smartphone business and still wasn't getting any traction.
“There is nothing in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man's lawful prey.”
-- John Ruskin
I'm a Ford stockholder too, and I don't consider the Fiesta "junk." And by the way, my Ford is up more than my Apple stock.
You will not find the Ford CEO calling a competitor's product junk.
Not sure where you're going with this... Surely you're not suggesting Ford is the Apple of the auto industry.
If people are rich enough to buy a second phone (for what purpose exactly?) why make it cheap?
Then you'll never will understand Apple.
There's a difference between automobiles and computers, however. As I said earlier, Apple shouldn't become a seller of commodity products.
Huh? We're talking about a company's image. Ford was selling junk in the 70s and 80s. Ford's image got tarnished. The build quality has improved vastly over the last 20 years. The image has greatly improved. Ford still builds affordable vehicles and not so affordable vehicles (so does Mercedes). I believe Apple could do the same thing... and I'm not talking $99 off contract. Hell, $350-$400 is a very reasonable expectation and still get a quality phone with decent margins.
Depending on how the fiscal 1st and 2nd quarters add up, Apple may or may not change its strategy.
Huh? We're talking about a company's image. Ford was selling junk in the 70s and 80s. Ford's image got tarnished. The build quality has improved vastly over the last 20 years. The image has greatly improved. Ford still builds affordable vehicles and not so affordable vehicles (so does Mercedes). I believe Apple could do the same thing... and I'm not talking $99 off contract. Hell, $350-$400 is a very reasonable expectation and still get a quality phone with decent margins.
Depending on how the fiscal 1st and 2nd quarters add up, Apple may or may not change its strategy.
Ford is Ford. Believe me, I live in (near) Detroit. I'm about as familiar with Ford as anyone.
Here's what I think Apple should do to cater 95% of the people:
1. iPhone, 4" screen
2. iPhone mini, 3,5" screen
3. iPod = iPod touch, 4" screen
4. iPod mini, 3,5" screen
5. iPod nano = iWatch
6. iPod shuffle
7. iPad, 9,7" screen
8. iPad mini, 7,9" screen
Ford is Ford. Believe me, I live in (near) Detroit. I'm about as familiar with Ford as anyone.
You must have read some other post because you sure as hell didn't read mine.