Propaganda is what Samsung engages in, like paying celebrities to tweet about Samsung from their iPhones and creating fake astroturf campaigns. It's all a lie, and some dumb people actually fall for it.
I agree completely but Samsung is just like any company, they're in it for the $$$$. Google, Apple, Samsung, Sony, Microsoft; that's all they see you as $$$.
Apple will never produce the cheapest product on the market and they aren't interested in money losing products just to gain market share. The sooner the analysts understand this, the easier it will be.
PC mfg and Android mfg create market share by producing as many different products as they possibly can to reach as many different price points, but what happens is that none of them really sell that well and they don't all make decent Gross Margin.. The low end models end up losing money and they are already so outdated that they can barely run the most current OS. Samsung just got a head start with the large screen phones, but once Apple focuses in on that market segment, they might end up owning it since Apple is bringing 64 bit OS and apps far sooner than Android, and if you have a choice between two of the same sized phones at roughly the same price, most people will tend to buy apple. Look at the Galaxy 4inch model, they hardly sell any of those, you usually see Samsung phones that are sized larger than what Apple currently makes. I've been anxiously waiting for the larger screen iPhone and stayed away from Android primarily because I don't like the OS. I'm also looking forward to the new version of iOS since the new team will have had some time together and at least a full year to anticipate what they are going to do. IOS7 had a team leader switch suddenly and I think the team was rushed a little to get it out.
I have a funny feeling that Apple is going to have a killer product and they will probably have production issues of trying to keep up with demand.
I can afford almost anything, and I just keep finding Apple products fit my needs and use cases better than anything on the market.
My most recent experiment was at work, I use my unlimited data to stream to a BT speaker in a Radiology dept, guess which of the current flagship phones is the only one that can get a signal? Yep, only the iPhone.
I recently bought a Kindle Fire HDX 8.9 since I use Amazon Prime and got a discount, it has the most god awful software ever flashed on a tablet, I could design a better UI, and I suck at this stuff. Back to my iPad Air and Retina Mini.
I read the "Apple is doomed" articles X's infinity and just shake my head. Every generation of Android the carriers slap on a phone is more and more locked down, I can't clean up the unnecessary apps without voiding the warranty or spending my whole damn life hacking the damn things.
I agree completely but Samsung is just like any company, they're in it for the $$$$. Google, Apple, Samsung, Sony, Microsoft; that's all they see you as $$$.
There's a big difference, though.
Samsung, for example, is a vast conglomerate making primarily commodity items, be they smartphones, TVs, washing machines, or what have you. Then, of course, they also make a great deal of components for all sorts of companies, from Apple to everyone else, in screens, chips, and the like.
Apple has always -- well, let's forget about the time that Jobs was gone for now -- been a company that, yes, was interested in profits. But they were also driven by a vision, a vision that Steve pursued, a vision that meant things like "different" and "better" and "special."
Samsung simply lacks anything like that. In the computer and devices realm, they are no different than anyone else: Dell, HP, Lenovo, LG, whoever. They simply are more successful at marketing their products. But there's no vision, no driving purpose beyond simply making money at Samsung.
At Apple their is a vision and a higher purpose and ideas that the world can be a better place through technology and education and even greater ideals. Does Apple want to make money and be economically successful? Of course. But that's not somehow mutually exclusive with also desiring to be different, and better, and special, and to accomplish things beyond profits. The two can, and have, and will work together.
Every article the DED does stinks of propaganda, editorial or not. It's well-constructed and all but it's the sort of thing that really gives Apple fans and websites like this one a bad name.
Side note, has Mr Dilger ever considered joining an election campaign?
An awesomely good name if you ask me, compared to all the crap on Apple that dominates other sites.
Beats me why people come here to whine, perhaps it's because Daniel hits a nerve among those who know they are living a lie.
Great article. For those who think this is propaganda, I do challenge you to find the lie in it. Propaganda is not necessarily a lie however, it could be the truth sent to the other side.
I've owned Apple stock since 2006 because I've seen the way they lead the industry and the way they run their business. Many companies are only looking for the money and to make cheap, throwaway devices. Apple bucks that trend by making more expensive, but more valuable objects, dare I say... works of art. Sure they may be more expensive, but they work better and last longer in general.
The article has accurately captured the history of Apple and how their strategy works over time.
The real propaganda has been coming from the tech media and analysts who would like you to think Apple is doomed when they clearly are not. Why do they spread this rubbish? Because their very existence depends on being paid by and supported by an industry that isn't dominated by Apple.
In this article he recounts how Steve Jobs wanted the Mac to be affordable for everyone, and felt betrayed by John Sculley's idea to raise the price significantly. There was even a scene of this in the Jobs movie with Ashton Kutcher.
Back then, Steve had little choice but to go along with the price increase. But when Steve came back to Apple, he had all the power to do what he believed in. Instead of doing something about it, he ended up defending Apple's premium prices, as if he believed in it all along.
So all the Apple fans who vilify Sculley now owe him a debt of gratitude for having the wisdom and vision to sell Macs with premium pricing. I guess even Steve came around to Sculley's vision, so he also owes Sculley.
So all the Apple fans who vilify Sculley now owe him a debt of gratitude for having the wisdom and vision to sell Macs with premium pricing. I guess even Steve came around to Sculley's vision, so he also owes Sculley.
No we don't. In Scully's era Macs weren't nearly as valuable for a given price points. Today's Macs are more valuable than every other product in their category.
I guess even Steve came around to Sculley's vision, so he also owes Sculley.
Did you?
The design team was horrified. One of the main reasons that we were so passionate about the Macintosh was that we thought we were working on something that we would use ourselves, along with our friends and relatives. It was crucial that it be affordable to ordinary people. $2500 felt like a betrayal of everything that we were trying to accomplish. We worked very hard to keep the price down in every aspect of the design, and now it was being artificially inflated for reasons that didn't make sense to us.
I rather think that Young Steve caving was part of the run up to him being driven out, not him realizing anything about Scully’s artificial price inflation. Apple’s current philosophy matches the original Macintosh design team’s, and does so without artificially inflating prices.
I rather think that Young Steve caving was part of the run up to him being driven out, not him realizing anything about Scully’s artificial price inflation. Apple’s current philosophy matches the original Macintosh design team’s, and does so without artificially inflating prices.
And the cheapest Mac comes in under the original $666 price at $599, and they offer a notebook under $1000. So much for that $2500 floor.
but Sculley is insisting that we charge $2495 for the Mac instead of $1995, and use the extra money for a bigger marketing budget. He figures that the early adopters will buy it no matter what the price.
Those were the reasons given by Sculley. Seems perfectly reasonable, not "artificial". Do you dispute those reasons? Do you expect Sculley to admit that he was "artificially inflating prices" for no sensible reason? Was the 1984 commercial and all other marketing since then all done for free? What about all the time, creativity and research that went into the Mac design? Isn't that the same argument that people on this site give when companies like iSuppli publish price breakdowns of various components in Apple products? Since every defense that people offer for Apple's prices today can be applied just as easily in Sculley's defense, I guess it means Sculley was right all along.
By the way, if you are going to bold Hertzfeld's words about artificially inflating prices, why not bold his last sentence also?
Quote:
Apple continued to overcharge for the Macintosh, preferring huge profit margins to growing their market share, which eventually led to big problems when it caught up with them in the nineties.
Do you agree with that statement also? But I suppose now that the person whose words you bold in Steve's defense and Sculley's vilification, you would say it's a good thing Hertzfeld no longer works at Apple because he is the one betraying Apple?
Those were the reasons given by Sculley. Seems perfectly reasonable, not "artificial". Do you dispute those reasons? Do you expect Sculley to admit that he was "artificially inflating prices" for no sensible reason? Was the 1984 commercial and all other marketing since then all done for free? What about all the time, creativity and research that went into the Mac design? Isn't that the same argument that people on this site give when companies like iSuppli publish price breakdowns of various components in Apple products? Since every defense that people offer for Apple's prices today can be applied just as easily in Sculley's defense, I guess it means Sculley was right all along.
So your assertion is that having any marketing budget, even if it's smaller than all your competitors and a considerably smaller percentage than in the Sculley era, means that Apple is some evil, hypocritical company that doesn't make valuable products. Got it!
No we don't. In Scully's era Macs weren't nearly as valuable for a given price points. Today's Macs are more valuable than every other product in their category.
And Apple fans back in the day were defending the pricing just as Apple fans defend Apple's pricing today. Are you saying the Apple defenders were being disingenuous back then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So your assertion is that having any marketing budget, even if it's smaller than all your competitors and a considerably smaller percentage than in the Sculley era, means that Apple is some evil, hypocritical company that doesn't make valuable products. Got it!
And so your assertion is that the selling price of a Mac does not include anything other than the cost to build the hardware. Got it! But wait, what about all the backlash from Apple fans whenever someone compares Mac prices with PC prices? Or when companies like iSuppli publish articles about how much each component in various Apple products cost, and deriving Apple's margins based on that?
But we all know what Apple fans say in response to these comparisons. It just means that Apple fans are being arbitrary in trashing Sculley over Mac prices while defending Steve when he basically does the same thing - despite having originally opposed it. Somehow Apple fans have the idea that "premium pricing for premium product" is Steve idea, even though it was really Sculley's, as Andy Hertzfeld wrote. Every argument that Apple fans give today in defense of Apple's higher Mac prices compared to PC's could just as easily be used to defend Sculley at the time. The only difference is that Sculley is not Steve, which by definition makes Sculley wrong. Only Steve makes a good decision, even when Sculley already made it years earlier. It's like Apple fans want to blame someone for Apple's higher prices, while defending it at the same time.
Comments
No genius.
Propaganda is what Samsung engages in, like paying celebrities to tweet about Samsung from their iPhones and creating fake astroturf campaigns. It's all a lie, and some dumb people actually fall for it.
I agree completely but Samsung is just like any company, they're in it for the $$$$. Google, Apple, Samsung, Sony, Microsoft; that's all they see you as $$$.
PC mfg and Android mfg create market share by producing as many different products as they possibly can to reach as many different price points, but what happens is that none of them really sell that well and they don't all make decent Gross Margin.. The low end models end up losing money and they are already so outdated that they can barely run the most current OS. Samsung just got a head start with the large screen phones, but once Apple focuses in on that market segment, they might end up owning it since Apple is bringing 64 bit OS and apps far sooner than Android, and if you have a choice between two of the same sized phones at roughly the same price, most people will tend to buy apple. Look at the Galaxy 4inch model, they hardly sell any of those, you usually see Samsung phones that are sized larger than what Apple currently makes. I've been anxiously waiting for the larger screen iPhone and stayed away from Android primarily because I don't like the OS. I'm also looking forward to the new version of iOS since the new team will have had some time together and at least a full year to anticipate what they are going to do. IOS7 had a team leader switch suddenly and I think the team was rushed a little to get it out.
I have a funny feeling that Apple is going to have a killer product and they will probably have production issues of trying to keep up with demand.
(sorry, just had to get that out of the way)
I can afford almost anything, and I just keep finding Apple products fit my needs and use cases better than anything on the market.
My most recent experiment was at work, I use my unlimited data to stream to a BT speaker in a Radiology dept, guess which of the current flagship phones is the only one that can get a signal? Yep, only the iPhone.
I recently bought a Kindle Fire HDX 8.9 since I use Amazon Prime and got a discount, it has the most god awful software ever flashed on a tablet, I could design a better UI, and I suck at this stuff. Back to my iPad Air and Retina Mini.
I read the "Apple is doomed" articles X's infinity and just shake my head. Every generation of Android the carriers slap on a phone is more and more locked down, I can't clean up the unnecessary apps without voiding the warranty or spending my whole damn life hacking the damn things.
I agree completely but Samsung is just like any company, they're in it for the $$$$. Google, Apple, Samsung, Sony, Microsoft; that's all they see you as $$$.
There's a big difference, though.
Samsung, for example, is a vast conglomerate making primarily commodity items, be they smartphones, TVs, washing machines, or what have you. Then, of course, they also make a great deal of components for all sorts of companies, from Apple to everyone else, in screens, chips, and the like.
Apple has always -- well, let's forget about the time that Jobs was gone for now -- been a company that, yes, was interested in profits. But they were also driven by a vision, a vision that Steve pursued, a vision that meant things like "different" and "better" and "special."
Samsung simply lacks anything like that. In the computer and devices realm, they are no different than anyone else: Dell, HP, Lenovo, LG, whoever. They simply are more successful at marketing their products. But there's no vision, no driving purpose beyond simply making money at Samsung.
At Apple their is a vision and a higher purpose and ideas that the world can be a better place through technology and education and even greater ideals. Does Apple want to make money and be economically successful? Of course. But that's not somehow mutually exclusive with also desiring to be different, and better, and special, and to accomplish things beyond profits. The two can, and have, and will work together.
Another great article, I love the pictures of the Apple stores, Apple is making a major contribution to cityscapes around the world.
Samsung contributes garish neon signs and billboards everywhere.
But no one rocks a kiosk like Dell¡
Every article the DED does stinks of propaganda, editorial or not. It's well-constructed and all but it's the sort of thing that really gives Apple fans and websites like this one a bad name.
Side note, has Mr Dilger ever considered joining an election campaign?
An awesomely good name if you ask me, compared to all the crap on Apple that dominates other sites.
Beats me why people come here to whine, perhaps it's because Daniel hits a nerve among those who know they are living a lie.
An awesomely good name if you ask me…
I like his use of “the DED” here. True, there’s only one, but the definite article isn’t really necessary.
But no one rocks a kiosk like Dell¡
Mother of god. *eek*
I've owned Apple stock since 2006 because I've seen the way they lead the industry and the way they run their business. Many companies are only looking for the money and to make cheap, throwaway devices. Apple bucks that trend by making more expensive, but more valuable objects, dare I say... works of art. Sure they may be more expensive, but they work better and last longer in general.
The article has accurately captured the history of Apple and how their strategy works over time.
The real propaganda has been coming from the tech media and analysts who would like you to think Apple is doomed when they clearly are not. Why do they spread this rubbish? Because their very existence depends on being paid by and supported by an industry that isn't dominated by Apple.
Everyone should take a look at this article by Andy Hertzfeld from the original Macintosh team:
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Price_Fight.txt
In this article he recounts how Steve Jobs wanted the Mac to be affordable for everyone, and felt betrayed by John Sculley's idea to raise the price significantly. There was even a scene of this in the Jobs movie with Ashton Kutcher.
Back then, Steve had little choice but to go along with the price increase. But when Steve came back to Apple, he had all the power to do what he believed in. Instead of doing something about it, he ended up defending Apple's premium prices, as if he believed in it all along.
So all the Apple fans who vilify Sculley now owe him a debt of gratitude for having the wisdom and vision to sell Macs with premium pricing. I guess even Steve came around to Sculley's vision, so he also owes Sculley.
No we don't. In Scully's era Macs weren't nearly as valuable for a given price points. Today's Macs are more valuable than every other product in their category.
I guess even Steve came around to Sculley's vision, so he also owes Sculley.
Did you?
I rather think that Young Steve caving was part of the run up to him being driven out, not him realizing anything about Scully’s artificial price inflation. Apple’s current philosophy matches the original Macintosh design team’s, and does so without artificially inflating prices.
And the cheapest Mac comes in under the original $666 price at $599, and they offer a notebook under $1000. So much for that $2500 floor.
Did you?
Did you?
Those were the reasons given by Sculley. Seems perfectly reasonable, not "artificial". Do you dispute those reasons? Do you expect Sculley to admit that he was "artificially inflating prices" for no sensible reason? Was the 1984 commercial and all other marketing since then all done for free? What about all the time, creativity and research that went into the Mac design? Isn't that the same argument that people on this site give when companies like iSuppli publish price breakdowns of various components in Apple products? Since every defense that people offer for Apple's prices today can be applied just as easily in Sculley's defense, I guess it means Sculley was right all along.
By the way, if you are going to bold Hertzfeld's words about artificially inflating prices, why not bold his last sentence also?
Do you agree with that statement also? But I suppose now that the person whose words you bold in Steve's defense and Sculley's vilification, you would say it's a good thing Hertzfeld no longer works at Apple because he is the one betraying Apple?
So your assertion is that having any marketing budget, even if it's smaller than all your competitors and a considerably smaller percentage than in the Sculley era, means that Apple is some evil, hypocritical company that doesn't make valuable products. Got it!
No we don't. In Scully's era Macs weren't nearly as valuable for a given price points. Today's Macs are more valuable than every other product in their category.
And Apple fans back in the day were defending the pricing just as Apple fans defend Apple's pricing today. Are you saying the Apple defenders were being disingenuous back then?
So your assertion is that having any marketing budget, even if it's smaller than all your competitors and a considerably smaller percentage than in the Sculley era, means that Apple is some evil, hypocritical company that doesn't make valuable products. Got it!
And so your assertion is that the selling price of a Mac does not include anything other than the cost to build the hardware. Got it! But wait, what about all the backlash from Apple fans whenever someone compares Mac prices with PC prices? Or when companies like iSuppli publish articles about how much each component in various Apple products cost, and deriving Apple's margins based on that?
But we all know what Apple fans say in response to these comparisons. It just means that Apple fans are being arbitrary in trashing Sculley over Mac prices while defending Steve when he basically does the same thing - despite having originally opposed it. Somehow Apple fans have the idea that "premium pricing for premium product" is Steve idea, even though it was really Sculley's, as Andy Hertzfeld wrote. Every argument that Apple fans give today in defense of Apple's higher Mac prices compared to PC's could just as easily be used to defend Sculley at the time. The only difference is that Sculley is not Steve, which by definition makes Sculley wrong. Only Steve makes a good decision, even when Sculley already made it years earlier. It's like Apple fans want to blame someone for Apple's higher prices, while defending it at the same time.