Luxury is about buying an inessential, desirable item that is expensive or difficult to obtain. The iPhone is more expensive than other phones (although not that much more when compared to a comparable phone, just like Macs) but is not inessential or difficult to obtain. You might have to wait a little bit to get one but it's not like they're handmade for each purchaser. As for being inessential, you can say the same about any cell phone. It all depends on the person buying one if it's essential or not. I'm tired of hearing all the anti-Apple people criticize Apple for producing very good products and degrading their success as being simply bought by the rich. I see iPhones in the hands of people from all avenues of life.
The typical Chinese person doesn't make anywhere near what the normal American makes, even those on subsidies. Anything from the US is considered a luxury for most Chinese.
correct. a $350 Apple Watch won't be a luxury item. but a $4000 gold one will be.
China is changing. its middle class is growing rapidly. that is Apple's target market.
Luxury is about buying an inessential, desirable item that is expensive or difficult to obtain. The iPhone is more expensive than other phones (although not that much more when compared to a comparable phone, just like Macs) but is not inessential or difficult to obtain. You might have to wait a little bit to get one but it's not like they're handmade for each purchaser. As for being inessential, you can say the same about any cell phone. It all depends on the person buying one if it's essential or not. I'm tired of hearing all the anti-Apple people criticize Apple for producing very good products and degrading their success as being simply bought by the rich. I see iPhones in the hands of people from all avenues of life.
The typical Chinese person doesn't make anywhere near what the normal American makes, even those on subsidies. Anything from the US is considered a luxury for most Chinese.
Look at my example above and post again. Your argument is only valid in developed countries, not in those with average salary less than $5000/year.
Why BMW cars considered luxury car? It's $40k+ with 5 year payment plan where it's around $500/mo payments while average salary of American is $54K.
I read someplace that Microsoft had to pay the NFL to get Surfaces onto the field. As with the Bose contract, nothing else can be used so the coaches and players are using them because that's all that's available on the field. The funny thing is that the waterproof jackets are not available for retail sale and that you always see them plugged in most of the time. They probably can't even last one game without having to be re-charged. Typical Windows laptop. Microsoft even stooped low to get Russell Wilson to hawk (sorry) the Surface on national TV ads when I thought he was previously an Apple-product user. Whatever the NFL demands, the players who want to keep their contracts will do. After all, professional sports has nothing to do with sports and everything to do with advertising and making those old white guys (owners) a lot of money.
I strongly suspect that any featured product on the field was there in exchange for a payment. If Microsoft or another company had not wanted to place tablets on field on the camera and iPads were there instead because that's what the teams actually use, but Apple had not wanted to pay for camera placement, the producers would've made a point of trying not to show them. They don't feature products for free.
The sale price is pretty irrelevant. What Apple really needs to capitalise on the AppStore.
Most other manufacturers don't get a penny once the phone is sold. Ok, they might get some money from Google from Ad's, but Apple makes money on the hardware and the software. They need to keep bringing innovation to the iPhone and other manufacturers just won't be able to afford to keep up.
I think that's why Google bought Motorola. They saw that Apple was making money on hardware and software and wanted a piece, but forgot that it might upset the other manufacturers.
Samsung wants its own market leading OS, it tried it with Bada and has now moved onto Tizen. They know they can't compete until they control their own content on the device.
nope. I get excellent coverage 4G-LTE with Tmobile. My phone is 100% unlocked.
Face it, AT&T/Verizon/Sprint have been riping off people for decades.
You seriously think they would sell a 5C for $0 without recouping $ from the monthly payment? If you think so then trying getting out of the 2 year contract and see what happens.
2GB is mice meat. I go through that in one week.
Plenty here will attest to T-Mobile's lack of coverage. If you get good service then you're lucky.
2GB is not good for me, but great for my sister, and I'm sure her 5c came factory unlocked.
$10 more a month for better service, and hundreds less upfront is a good deal to me.
In the UK you can get an old model iPhone for free on contract. However, you will always have to pay more for the monthly contract than for Android phones that are also free on contract.
if you live in a modern city T-mobile has great coverage. The 5C does not come unlocked. She's under contract.
2GB is puny. Every year websites/apps are taking more data. For lite users I guess its an okay deal. I average over 10GB a month so I'm saving tons of money on tmobile.
The Verizon 5c is indeed GSM unlocked from factory.
Since there are no low end iPhones, but there certainly are low end Android handsets, comparing average selling prices alone doesn't give a very meaningful picture. Yes an approximately comparable iPhone sells for more than its Android counterpart, and yes Apple makes a higher margin on what it sells, but no, Apple doesn't dilute its product mix with basic models.
It is meaningful since if the competition starved of money, and they are, that impacts their ability to compete. Apple doesn't just have the highest sales price, it also has the high margin and of course highest profit.
correct. a $350 Apple Watch won't be a luxury item. but a $4000 gold one will be.
China is changing. its middle class is growing rapidly. that is Apple's target market.
Decent computers in 1983 were luxury items, the C64 in todays money would be around $1000 I think. Buying a complete C64 system (screen + floppy disk), $3000 in todays money. And people now complain about paying $500 for a tablet or laptop that does 10000 times more.... Oh my!!!
Reasoning for a cheaper iPhone in other countries where incomes are a lot lower makes a lot of logical sense. You want to capture a certain percentage of the market, not really all of it (like Android, LOL).
Back to margins, Apple has it's margins, net and gross, and they stick to that. They would not be able to sell a 5C for $250. Not if they want to keep the margins, and they will.
Market share seems to be pretty meaningless. It would work if all things were equal, but they aren't. I see zero reason for Apple to get involved in any market where they devalue the iPhone to gain sales in a market that can't pay normal iPhone prices.
This is Samsung and them selling more cheap and midrange phones then anything else. It's make their high end phones seem cheap, and sure the plastic doesn't help. Just cheap all around. No one wants to pay an premium price for their phones. Prices drop like a rock.
Personally, I consider my Apple iPhone 6 with 128 GB storage to be well worth is $1K price. It's the best iPhone ever, the best camera, the best iOS, etc.
I use it every day, and can't imagine life without it.
It's also hard to imagine howApple will blow away the iPhone 6 when they come out with the next model 7 in only a year and nine months.
Samsung wants its own market leading OS, it tried it with Bada and has now moved onto Tizen. They know they can't compete until they control their own content on the device.
It's too late now to try out a new phone OS. Microsoft sales can attest to that.
Windows may have been around for decades, but even then people pass by the MS mess.
A winner needs well-made fashionable hardware, an easy to use UI, and an ecosystem of top-level customer support, a top-flight app store, and a world-wide infrastructure of stores. Apple is a fast-mover, anyone starting out today will be behind Apple and start falling further behind with each tick of the clock.
I read someplace that Microsoft had to pay the NFL to get Surfaces onto the field. As with the Bose contract, nothing else can be used so the coaches and players are using them because that's all that's available on the field. The funny thing is that the waterproof jackets are not available for retail sale and that you always see them plugged in most of the time. They probably can't even last one game without having to be re-charged. Typical Windows laptop. Microsoft even stooped low to get Russell Wilson to hawk (sorry) the Surface on national TV ads when I thought he was previously an Apple-product user. Whatever the NFL demands, the players who want to keep their contracts will do. After all, professional sports has nothing to do with sports and everything to do with advertising and making those old white guys (owners) a lot of money.
I strongly suspect that any featured product on the field was there in exchange for a payment. If Microsoft or another company had not wanted to place tablets on field on the camera and iPads were there instead because that's what the teams actually use, but Apple had not wanted to pay for camera placement, the producers would've made a point of trying not to show them. They don't feature products for free.
Microsoft paid big money to get those Surface tablets out there... and then the announcers referred to them as "iPads" anyway... That's gotta chap the MS* cheeks something awful.
*MS... the only company that had a disease named after them.
Only time will tell if I end up keeping this one (iPhone) as long as the last one, my iPhone 4 that I had for over 4 years and in the end sold it to T-mobile a month after having my iPhone 6 from them for $202. Can you even get anything for a Android phone that's over 4 years old?
Well... you can buy a brand new Android phone and the OS can be over four years old, It comes pre-unsupported.
No surprises there. Android operates in a situation of internal competition and consumers can take full advantage of lower prices for a given technology level.
This gain is called Consumer Surplus and is equal to the red area in the picture below.
Apple, on the opposite, operates in a situation of internal monopoly, as it has no competitors on its ecosystems and can set the price it pleases. Therefore, Consumer Surplus shrinks from the Pc line to the Pm line, as the price set from Apple is higher than its market price (defined as the equilibrium point between demand and supply curves). What happens is Apple stealing a piece of the Consumer Surplus to make it its own:
Comments
correct. a $350 Apple Watch won't be a luxury item. but a $4000 gold one will be.
China is changing. its middle class is growing rapidly. that is Apple's target market.
Luxury is about buying an inessential, desirable item that is expensive or difficult to obtain. The iPhone is more expensive than other phones (although not that much more when compared to a comparable phone, just like Macs) but is not inessential or difficult to obtain. You might have to wait a little bit to get one but it's not like they're handmade for each purchaser. As for being inessential, you can say the same about any cell phone. It all depends on the person buying one if it's essential or not. I'm tired of hearing all the anti-Apple people criticize Apple for producing very good products and degrading their success as being simply bought by the rich. I see iPhones in the hands of people from all avenues of life.
The typical Chinese person doesn't make anywhere near what the normal American makes, even those on subsidies. Anything from the US is considered a luxury for most Chinese.
Look at my example above and post again. Your argument is only valid in developed countries, not in those with average salary less than $5000/year.
Why BMW cars considered luxury car? It's $40k+ with 5 year payment plan where it's around $500/mo payments while average salary of American is $54K.
Yes kind of like the people who were saying what horrid mistake and failure it would be for Apple to make a phone bigger than 4".....
The price refers to an unlocked iPhone without plan our subsidy.
True but $60 is a great price for a subsidized plan
I read someplace that Microsoft had to pay the NFL to get Surfaces onto the field. As with the Bose contract, nothing else can be used so the coaches and players are using them because that's all that's available on the field. The funny thing is that the waterproof jackets are not available for retail sale and that you always see them plugged in most of the time. They probably can't even last one game without having to be re-charged. Typical Windows laptop. Microsoft even stooped low to get Russell Wilson to hawk (sorry) the Surface on national TV ads when I thought he was previously an Apple-product user. Whatever the NFL demands, the players who want to keep their contracts will do. After all, professional sports has nothing to do with sports and everything to do with advertising and making those old white guys (owners) a lot of money.
I strongly suspect that any featured product on the field was there in exchange for a payment. If Microsoft or another company had not wanted to place tablets on field on the camera and iPads were there instead because that's what the teams actually use, but Apple had not wanted to pay for camera placement, the producers would've made a point of trying not to show them. They don't feature products for free.
And crappy coverage
Most other manufacturers don't get a penny once the phone is sold. Ok, they might get some money from Google from Ad's, but Apple makes money on the hardware and the software. They need to keep bringing innovation to the iPhone and other manufacturers just won't be able to afford to keep up.
I think that's why Google bought Motorola. They saw that Apple was making money on hardware and software and wanted a piece, but forgot that it might upset the other manufacturers.
Samsung wants its own market leading OS, it tried it with Bada and has now moved onto Tizen. They know they can't compete until they control their own content on the device.
Plenty here will attest to T-Mobile's lack of coverage. If you get good service then you're lucky.
2GB is not good for me, but great for my sister, and I'm sure her 5c came factory unlocked.
$10 more a month for better service, and hundreds less upfront is a good deal to me.
[URL=http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/cellphones.html]http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/cellphones.html[/URL]
[/quote]
In the UK you can get an old model iPhone for free on contract. However, you will always have to pay more for the monthly contract than for Android phones that are also free on contract.
The Verizon 5c is indeed GSM unlocked from factory.
Since there are no low end iPhones, but there certainly are low end Android handsets, comparing average selling prices alone doesn't give a very meaningful picture. Yes an approximately comparable iPhone sells for more than its Android counterpart, and yes Apple makes a higher margin on what it sells, but no, Apple doesn't dilute its product mix with basic models.
It is meaningful since if the competition starved of money, and they are, that impacts their ability to compete. Apple doesn't just have the highest sales price, it also has the high margin and of course highest profit.
correct. a $350 Apple Watch won't be a luxury item. but a $4000 gold one will be.
China is changing. its middle class is growing rapidly. that is Apple's target market.
Decent computers in 1983 were luxury items, the C64 in todays money would be around $1000 I think. Buying a complete C64 system (screen + floppy disk), $3000 in todays money. And people now complain about paying $500 for a tablet or laptop that does 10000 times more.... Oh my!!!
Market share seems to be pretty meaningless. It would work if all things were equal, but they aren't. I see zero reason for Apple to get involved in any market where they devalue the iPhone to gain sales in a market that can't pay normal iPhone prices.
This is Samsung and them selling more cheap and midrange phones then anything else. It's make their high end phones seem cheap, and sure the plastic doesn't help. Just cheap all around. No one wants to pay an premium price for their phones. Prices drop like a rock.
It's also hard to imagine how Apple will blow away the iPhone 6 when they come out with the next model 7 in only a year and nine months.
It's too late now to try out a new phone OS. Microsoft sales can attest to that.
Windows may have been around for decades, but even then people pass by the MS mess.
A winner needs well-made fashionable hardware, an easy to use UI, and an ecosystem of top-level customer support, a top-flight app store, and a world-wide infrastructure of stores. Apple is a fast-mover, anyone starting out today will be behind Apple and start falling further behind with each tick of the clock.
Microsoft paid big money to get those Surface tablets out there... and then the announcers referred to them as "iPads" anyway...
That's gotta chap the MS* cheeks something awful.
*MS... the only company that had a disease named after them.
Well... you can buy a brand new Android phone and the OS can be over four years old, It comes pre-unsupported.
This gain is called Consumer Surplus and is equal to the red area in the picture below.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Economic-surpluses.svg/2000px-Economic-surpluses.svg.png[/IMG]
Apple, on the opposite, operates in a situation of internal monopoly, as it has no competitors on its ecosystems and can set the price it pleases. Therefore, Consumer Surplus shrinks from the Pc line to the Pm line, as the price set from Apple is higher than its market price (defined as the equilibrium point between demand and supply curves).
What happens is Apple stealing a piece of the Consumer Surplus to make it its own:
[IMG]https://apecon2.wikispaces.com/file/view/monopolies.png/48972621/monopolies.png[/IMG]
In the end, consumers are better off in a situation of perfect competition rather than in a situation of monopoly.