"Our analysis indicates that the Mac is the exception, not the rule," Wolf wrote. "Against a background of progressively rising prices compared to the prices of PCs, the Mac has consistently gained share in the personal computer industry as a result of an outward shift in its demand curve. The only explanation that we see for the shifting demand curve is the now-mythical halo effect."
Apple's so-called "halo effect" refers to the belief that sales of devices like the iPod, and later the iPhone, have helped to tie customers into the company's ecosystem of devices. That, in turn, has helped to boost Mac sales.
Wolf is ignorant. "Halo effect" is something different from "ecosystem effect." Halo effect refers to the high reputation of a brand's product favorably influencing the purchase of another product carrying the same brand name. Interoperability has nothing to do with the halo effect. Interoperability is the guts of the ecosystem. And although the ecosystem is a valuable incentive for Apple device users to purchase Macs, but is only partially responsible for the Mac's success.
Putting it as plainly as possible ... the iMac ... Simply ... Works ... Better.
It's pretty clear that Wolf does his desktop work on a PC. Wolf doesn't know any better from personal experience with Macs, so he doesn't know what he's talking about.
You people might as well face the facts that the iPhone is always going to be compared to the lowest common denominator of Android or Windows Phone. Wall Street is only interested in how many smartphones are being sold/shipped in unit numbers and they've already decided Apple isn't selling enough iPhones. Investors are no longer happy with Apple's sales numbers and nothing is going to change that. Most investors feel that Apple should be selling at least 10 million more iPhones every quarter. Samsung is frankly making Apple look pathetic in terms of units being moved. It doesn't matter that most of those smartphones are slightly above feature-phones. It's all in the numbers being moved that impresses investors. Investors simply will not put money into a company that doesn't have major market share and certainly not a company that has shrinking market share. Apple appears to be barely trying to sell iPhones compared to Samsung, it's main rival.
Although I don't think it's a bad idea for Apple to be selling older smartphones as long as they're still functional and useful but Wall Street thinks everything is wrong with that method. Wall Street believes Apple should be selling newer, big, cheap smartphones just like Samsung is. Wall Street views smartphones as disposable objects that have very short lifespans. They hate the idea that Apple is still selling two-year old smartphones to consumers. In their eyes, new is good and old is bad. All I know is Apple is going to continue to come up short in investor's eyes and Apple's stock value will continue to languish. Unless Apple can sell around 60 to 65 million iPhones in each of the last couple of quarters, Apple's stock won't be worth spit. Forget iWatches and AppleTVs because they're not going to impress investors at all.
iPhone dominates smartphone profits. By a large margin.
What else is there to say?
I'd say you'd need to convince Wall Street investors that profits are more important than market share. But I think what you'd say would certainly fall on deaf ears. Investors are certain Apple's iPhone growth has peaked and can go nowhere but down. What's worse is that they believe Android which has already has 80% or so market share will continue to climb. That's the breaks.
If Apple is still selling the iPhone 4 or 4S in 5 months something is seriously wrong in Cupertino. They need to finally be done with 30-pin connector devices. And that includes the iPod Classic. Either get rid of it once and for all or update it to something audiophiles with large music collections would want.
When you're running a company with $40 B+ in profits, then I’ll heed your advice. Until then: suck it.
And happy with the very pocketable Moto X I bought. Phones are my least valued computing platform anyway. I just keep chafing for more screen real estate and targets I can reliably hit. So getting all I expect and need for a very nice price.
I will be adding an iPad to my stable of devices (including a Mac notebook and a PC Desktop) with the next iteration this fall, though. No comparison in the tab segment yet.
Forget the tech religious wars and focus on value delivered for price. Once you understand modern computing metaphors and aren't thrown by the diff's between OS's, platform agnostic's the way to go....
Fair dos. I guess if you're fat-fingered, then a phat-fone may be the way to go.
One of the secrets to the iPhone%u2019s success has been its premium pricing. Apple should not compete on price, but the price of those higher margins needs to be found in innovation, features and larger size options. I blogged on this topic a few moments ago and wrote about how %u201Cgetting what you pay for%u201D is one of the reasons Apple needs to stay premium priced. You can read the blog here http://www.stealingshare.com/blog/index.php/apple-lower-price-iphone-take-market-share/
Comments
"Our analysis indicates that the Mac is the exception, not the rule," Wolf wrote. "Against a background of progressively rising prices compared to the prices of PCs, the Mac has consistently gained share in the personal computer industry as a result of an outward shift in its demand curve. The only explanation that we see for the shifting demand curve is the now-mythical halo effect."
Apple's so-called "halo effect" refers to the belief that sales of devices like the iPod, and later the iPhone, have helped to tie customers into the company's ecosystem of devices. That, in turn, has helped to boost Mac sales.
Wolf is ignorant. "Halo effect" is something different from "ecosystem effect." Halo effect refers to the high reputation of a brand's product favorably influencing the purchase of another product carrying the same brand name. Interoperability has nothing to do with the halo effect. Interoperability is the guts of the ecosystem. And although the ecosystem is a valuable incentive for Apple device users to purchase Macs, but is only partially responsible for the Mac's success.
Putting it as plainly as possible ... the iMac ... Simply ... Works ... Better.
It's pretty clear that Wolf does his desktop work on a PC. Wolf doesn't know any better from personal experience with Macs, so he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Seven. You missed me.
I'm pretty sure TS counted you as well!
.....Or ditched the Matte screen.
...Blu-ray, you can't leave out the essential Blu-ray.
You people might as well face the facts that the iPhone is always going to be compared to the lowest common denominator of Android or Windows Phone. Wall Street is only interested in how many smartphones are being sold/shipped in unit numbers and they've already decided Apple isn't selling enough iPhones. Investors are no longer happy with Apple's sales numbers and nothing is going to change that. Most investors feel that Apple should be selling at least 10 million more iPhones every quarter. Samsung is frankly making Apple look pathetic in terms of units being moved. It doesn't matter that most of those smartphones are slightly above feature-phones. It's all in the numbers being moved that impresses investors. Investors simply will not put money into a company that doesn't have major market share and certainly not a company that has shrinking market share. Apple appears to be barely trying to sell iPhones compared to Samsung, it's main rival.
Although I don't think it's a bad idea for Apple to be selling older smartphones as long as they're still functional and useful but Wall Street thinks everything is wrong with that method. Wall Street believes Apple should be selling newer, big, cheap smartphones just like Samsung is. Wall Street views smartphones as disposable objects that have very short lifespans. They hate the idea that Apple is still selling two-year old smartphones to consumers. In their eyes, new is good and old is bad. All I know is Apple is going to continue to come up short in investor's eyes and Apple's stock value will continue to languish. Unless Apple can sell around 60 to 65 million iPhones in each of the last couple of quarters, Apple's stock won't be worth spit. Forget iWatches and AppleTVs because they're not going to impress investors at all.
iPhone dominates smartphone profits. By a large margin.
What else is there to say?
I'd say you'd need to convince Wall Street investors that profits are more important than market share. But I think what you'd say would certainly fall on deaf ears. Investors are certain Apple's iPhone growth has peaked and can go nowhere but down. What's worse is that they believe Android which has already has 80% or so market share will continue to climb. That's the breaks.
When you're running a company with $40 B+ in profits, then I’ll heed your advice. Until then: suck it.
Where the sun shineth not.
Fair dos. I guess if you're fat-fingered, then a phat-fone may be the way to go.