Apple only needs to provide phones at the upper mid market and lower end of the top market to favor those "lets now try Apple" people. Apple knows that's once these people are in, there is a more than 50% chance that those switchers won't leave, that's all it takes to built the use base and steal Androids best clients.
Getting the best clients at the high end, and slowly but surely at the higher end of the mid-range (with the likes of the SE) means everybody else is starving in a down market and in house R&D takes a hit forcing everyone to sell essentially small variants of the same phone with no hopes of competing except on price.
This is exactly what myself and @avon b7 are arguing with @tmay for quite some time, i.e. Apple should look for expanding its user base in upper mid-range ($300 to $600, Avon calls this segment as affordable premium) segment instead of just focusing on "Flagship" segment (>$600) alone.
I've had a long running battle with one of AI's non-iphone using members,over a focus on maintaining ASP vs targeting unit growth. Neil's post enlightened me on the value of ASP; if you are in a declining market, generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing. Don't put too much effort in gaining new users that won't use a lot of services, or buy much in the ecosystem. Do more for your user base.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
There will be more growth due to the battery fiasco. More people are realizing that after replacing their battery and erasing their device and setting up as new, their device still isn't as responsive as it was when it was newly purchased and had whatever current OS on it.
Sure some one threaten to go buy a Samsung device but most of those are idle threats.
I would expect to see a rise in iPhone 7, 8 and X sales throughout the spring and summer months.
If they're iPhone 6 / 6+ users then I definitely can see why. The A8 is pretty aged, not to mention that it has only 1GB of RAM, which at this point, isn't enough. With iOS 11, I think an iPhone 7 series is minimum to have a good user experience.
Apple need the notch to distinguish themselves from the opposition, problem is that notch isn't going to look good in the shops in a year or so next to the competition which have full screen bezel less phones. Apple won't be able to charge the premium they do today, phones are moving from luxury to a commodity item, and I believe Apple sales number will inevitably start to slowly decline too.
you do realize how many decades people have been saying that about all of apple’s products, right? yet, decade after decade, here they are, still charging a premium...
Was going to say pretty much the same thing. I mean, I feel like people have been saying this about the iPhone alone since at least 2010.
Apple only needs to provide phones at the upper mid market and lower end of the top market to favor those "lets now try Apple" people. Apple knows that's once these people are in, there is a more than 50% chance that those switchers won't leave, that's all it takes to built the use base and steal Androids best clients.
Getting the best clients at the high end, and slowly but surely at the higher end of the mid-range (with the likes of the SE) means everybody else is starving in a down market and in house R&D takes a hit forcing everyone to sell essentially small variants of the same phone with no hopes of competing except on price.
This is exactly what myself and @avon b7 are arguing with @tmay for quite some time, i.e. Apple should look for expanding its user base in upper mid-range ($300 to $600, Avon calls this segment as affordable premium) segment instead of just focusing on "Flagship" segment (>$600) alone.
I've had a long running battle with one of AI's non-iphone using members,over a focus on maintaining ASP vs targeting unit growth. Neil's post enlightened me on the value of ASP; if you are in a declining market, generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing. Don't put too much effort in gaining new users that won't use a lot of services, or buy much in the ecosystem. Do more for your user base.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
"There is no great thing to be seen for next few years."
I've had a long running battle with one of AI's non-iphone using members,over a focus on maintaining ASP vs targeting unit growth. Neil's post enlightened me on the value of ASP; if you are in a declining market, generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing. Don't put too much effort in gaining new users that won't use a lot of services, or buy much in the ecosystem. Do more for your user base.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
The problem with your argument is you assume what you know about the product pipeline is what is in the product pipeline. We have no idea. Apple execs do.
Apple only needs to provide phones at the upper mid market and lower end of the top market to favor those "lets now try Apple" people. Apple knows that's once these people are in, there is a more than 50% chance that those switchers won't leave, that's all it takes to built the use base and steal Androids best clients.
Getting the best clients at the high end, and slowly but surely at the higher end of the mid-range (with the likes of the SE) means everybody else is starving in a down market and in house R&D takes a hit forcing everyone to sell essentially small variants of the same phone with no hopes of competing except on price.
This is exactly what myself and @avon b7 are arguing with @tmay for quite some time, i.e. Apple should look for expanding its user base in upper mid-range ($300 to $600, Avon calls this segment as affordable premium) segment instead of just focusing on "Flagship" segment (>$600) alone.
I've had a long running battle with one of AI's non-iphone using members,over a focus on maintaining ASP vs targeting unit growth. Neil's post enlightened me on the value of ASP; if you are in a declining market, generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing. Don't put too much effort in gaining new users that won't use a lot of services, or buy much in the ecosystem. Do more for your user base.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
No great thing?
Maybe not the same scale as smartphones, or iPod's, but Apple is already dominating revenues for, notebooks, tablets, wearables, wireless earphones, and likely by next year, smart speakers, not to mention the growth in services. While Samsung and Huawei are fighting over marketshare, at less than a third of the ASP of Apple, Apple is scooping up the bulk of the revenues, and forcing Android OS device makers to fight over what is left. I don't know what the future holds for Apple, and neither do you and Avon b7, but it will likely be much better with massive revenues today, than not.
So, no, it doesn't make sense to "focus" on expanding the upper mid-range segment; it makes financial sense for Apple to focus on keeping its user base happy in the Apple ecosystem. If that strategy includes knocking $50 off the SE in the future, essentially a $299.00 SE, then all of us, Avon b7, and I should be quite happy with the strategy. But I don't expect much more than that, and wrt India, neither you nor I have a clue what Apple will do their specifically, but I'm certain that Apple won't be buying marketshare.
BTW, Avon b7 isn't ever going to buy an iPhone in the future, no matter the price and configuration; that's almost a certainty, so why would I or anyone else want to even consider his failed advice?
I've had a long running battle with one of AI's non-iphone using members,over a focus on maintaining ASP vs targeting unit growth. Neil's post enlightened me on the value of ASP; if you are in a declining market, generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing. Don't put too much effort in gaining new users that won't use a lot of services, or buy much in the ecosystem. Do more for your user base.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
The problem with your argument is you assume what you know about the product pipeline is what is in the product pipeline. We have no idea. Apple execs do.
No problem with the argument.
I can't think of a single great thing (in this context) that has hit the market without needing a few years to hit its stride.
Not the Mac, the iMac, iPod, iPad, Apple Watch or of course iPhone.
So let's say that if Apple announced something groundbreaking tomorrow (some new revolutionary product capable of generating billions), it would be years before the billions actually appeared. Whichever way you look at it, it's difficult to envisage such a product having such an instant success.
I also happen to think such a product isn't exactly just around the corner.
Apple only needs to provide phones at the upper mid market and lower end of the top market to favor those "lets now try Apple" people. Apple knows that's once these people are in, there is a more than 50% chance that those switchers won't leave, that's all it takes to built the use base and steal Androids best clients.
Getting the best clients at the high end, and slowly but surely at the higher end of the mid-range (with the likes of the SE) means everybody else is starving in a down market and in house R&D takes a hit forcing everyone to sell essentially small variants of the same phone with no hopes of competing except on price.
This is exactly what myself and @avon b7 are arguing with @tmay for quite some time, i.e. Apple should look for expanding its user base in upper mid-range ($300 to $600, Avon calls this segment as affordable premium) segment instead of just focusing on "Flagship" segment (>$600) alone.
I've had a long running battle with one of AI's non-iphone using members,over a focus on maintaining ASP vs targeting unit growth. Neil's post enlightened me on the value of ASP; if you are in a declining market, generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing. Don't put too much effort in gaining new users that won't use a lot of services, or buy much in the ecosystem. Do more for your user base.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
No great thing?
Maybe not the same scale as smartphones, or iPod's, but Apple is already dominating revenues for, notebooks, tablets, wearables, wireless earphones, and likely by next year, smart speakers, not to mention the growth in services. While Samsung and Huawei are fighting over marketshare, at less than a third of the ASP of Apple, Apple is scooping up the bulk of the revenues, and forcing Android OS device makers to fight over what is left. I don't know what the future holds for Apple, and neither do you and Avon b7, but it will likely be much better with massive revenues today, than not.
So, no, it doesn't make sense to "focus" on expanding the upper mid-range segment; it makes financial sense for Apple to focus on keeping its user base happy in the Apple ecosystem. If that strategy includes knocking $50 off the SE in the future, essentially a $299.00 SE, then all of us, Avon b7, and I should be quite happy with the strategy. But I don't expect much more than that, and wrt India, neither you nor I have a clue what Apple will do their specifically, but I'm certain that Apple won't be buying marketshare.
BTW, Avon b7 isn't ever going to buy an iPhone in the future, no matter the price and configuration; that's almost a certainty, so why would I or anyone else want to even consider his failed advice?
Apple only needs to provide phones at the upper mid market and lower end of the top market to favor those "lets now try Apple" people. Apple knows that's once these people are in, there is a more than 50% chance that those switchers won't leave, that's all it takes to built the use base and steal Androids best clients.
Getting the best clients at the high end, and slowly but surely at the higher end of the mid-range (with the likes of the SE) means everybody else is starving in a down market and in house R&D takes a hit forcing everyone to sell essentially small variants of the same phone with no hopes of competing except on price.
This is exactly what myself and @avon b7 are arguing with @tmay for quite some time, i.e. Apple should look for expanding its user base in upper mid-range ($300 to $600, Avon calls this segment as affordable premium) segment instead of just focusing on "Flagship" segment (>$600) alone.
I've had a long running battle with one of AI's non-iphone using members,over a focus on maintaining ASP vs targeting unit growth. Neil's post enlightened me on the value of ASP; if you are in a declining market, generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing. Don't put too much effort in gaining new users that won't use a lot of services, or buy much in the ecosystem. Do more for your user base.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
No great thing?
Maybe not the same scale as smartphones, or iPod's, but Apple is already dominating revenues for, notebooks, tablets, wearables, wireless earphones, and likely by next year, smart speakers, not to mention the growth in services. While Samsung and Huawei are fighting over marketshare, at less than a third of the ASP of Apple, Apple is scooping up the bulk of the revenues, and forcing Android OS device makers to fight over what is left. I don't know what the future holds for Apple, and neither do you and Avon b7, but it will likely be much better with massive revenues today, than not.
So, no, it doesn't make sense to "focus" on expanding the upper mid-range segment; it makes financial sense for Apple to focus on keeping its user base happy in the Apple ecosystem. If that strategy includes knocking $50 off the SE in the future, essentially a $299.00 SE, then all of us, Avon b7, and I should be quite happy with the strategy. But I don't expect much more than that, and wrt India, neither you nor I have a clue what Apple will do their specifically, but I'm certain that Apple won't be buying marketshare.
BTW, Avon b7 isn't ever going to buy an iPhone in the future, no matter the price and configuration; that's almost a certainty, so why would I or anyone else want to even consider his failed advice?
Ok. I will give some advice. If you want people to understand the idea you are putting forward, don't link to a DED article to support your stance. Here's why:
Apple only needs to provide phones at the upper mid market and lower end of the top market to favor those "lets now try Apple" people. Apple knows that's once these people are in, there is a more than 50% chance that those switchers won't leave, that's all it takes to built the use base and steal Androids best clients.
Getting the best clients at the high end, and slowly but surely at the higher end of the mid-range (with the likes of the SE) means everybody else is starving in a down market and in house R&D takes a hit forcing everyone to sell essentially small variants of the same phone with no hopes of competing except on price.
This is exactly what myself and @avon b7 are arguing with @tmay for quite some time, i.e. Apple should look for expanding its user base in upper mid-range ($300 to $600, Avon calls this segment as affordable premium) segment instead of just focusing on "Flagship" segment (>$600) alone.
I've had a long running battle with one of AI's non-iphone using members,over a focus on maintaining ASP vs targeting unit growth. Neil's post enlightened me on the value of ASP; if you are in a declining market, generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing. Don't put too much effort in gaining new users that won't use a lot of services, or buy much in the ecosystem. Do more for your user base.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
I'm only advocating offering something at the high end of the middle market. I'm not advocating going into anything under $350 new. At least until Apple's service market is more mature.
Apple though has offered other products that work better on Iphones but are still good value for Android users like the Airpods. Those are the kind of products Apple can accept to cut margins on right now and serve as lure to the ecosystem.
Apple only needs to provide phones at the upper mid market and lower end of the top market to favor those "lets now try Apple" people. Apple knows that's once these people are in, there is a more than 50% chance that those switchers won't leave, that's all it takes to built the use base and steal Androids best clients.
Getting the best clients at the high end, and slowly but surely at the higher end of the mid-range (with the likes of the SE) means everybody else is starving in a down market and in house R&D takes a hit forcing everyone to sell essentially small variants of the same phone with no hopes of competing except on price.
This is exactly what myself and @avon b7 are arguing with @tmay for quite some time, i.e. Apple should look for expanding its user base in upper mid-range ($300 to $600, Avon calls this segment as affordable premium) segment instead of just focusing on "Flagship" segment (>$600) alone.
I've had a long running battle with one of AI's non-iphone using members,over a focus on maintaining ASP vs targeting unit growth. Neil's post enlightened me on the value of ASP; if you are in a declining market, generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing. Don't put too much effort in gaining new users that won't use a lot of services, or buy much in the ecosystem. Do more for your user base.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
No great thing?
Maybe not the same scale as smartphones, or iPod's, but Apple is already dominating revenues for, notebooks, tablets, wearables, wireless earphones, and likely by next year, smart speakers, not to mention the growth in services. While Samsung and Huawei are fighting over marketshare, at less than a third of the ASP of Apple, Apple is scooping up the bulk of the revenues, and forcing Android OS device makers to fight over what is left. I don't know what the future holds for Apple, and neither do you and Avon b7, but it will likely be much better with massive revenues today, than not.
So, no, it doesn't make sense to "focus" on expanding the upper mid-range segment; it makes financial sense for Apple to focus on keeping its user base happy in the Apple ecosystem. If that strategy includes knocking $50 off the SE in the future, essentially a $299.00 SE, then all of us, Avon b7, and I should be quite happy with the strategy. But I don't expect much more than that, and wrt India, neither you nor I have a clue what Apple will do their specifically, but I'm certain that Apple won't be buying marketshare.
BTW, Avon b7 isn't ever going to buy an iPhone in the future, no matter the price and configuration; that's almost a certainty, so why would I or anyone else want to even consider his failed advice?
Ok. I will give some advice. If you want people to understand the idea you are putting forward, don't link to a DED article to support your stance. Here's why:
They are skewed at birth.
So, I'm guessing that you skipped that article because it violated your worldview?
Apple only needs to provide phones at the upper mid market and lower end of the top market to favor those "lets now try Apple" people. Apple knows that's once these people are in, there is a more than 50% chance that those switchers won't leave, that's all it takes to built the use base and steal Androids best clients.
Getting the best clients at the high end, and slowly but surely at the higher end of the mid-range (with the likes of the SE) means everybody else is starving in a down market and in house R&D takes a hit forcing everyone to sell essentially small variants of the same phone with no hopes of competing except on price.
This is exactly what myself and @avon b7 are arguing with @tmay for quite some time, i.e. Apple should look for expanding its user base in upper mid-range ($300 to $600, Avon calls this segment as affordable premium) segment instead of just focusing on "Flagship" segment (>$600) alone.
I've had a long running battle with one of AI's non-iphone using members,over a focus on maintaining ASP vs targeting unit growth. Neil's post enlightened me on the value of ASP; if you are in a declining market, generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing. Don't put too much effort in gaining new users that won't use a lot of services, or buy much in the ecosystem. Do more for your user base.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
No great thing?
Maybe not the same scale as smartphones, or iPod's, but Apple is already dominating revenues for, notebooks, tablets, wearables, wireless earphones, and likely by next year, smart speakers, not to mention the growth in services. While Samsung and Huawei are fighting over marketshare, at less than a third of the ASP of Apple, Apple is scooping up the bulk of the revenues, and forcing Android OS device makers to fight over what is left. I don't know what the future holds for Apple, and neither do you and Avon b7, but it will likely be much better with massive revenues today, than not.
So, no, it doesn't make sense to "focus" on expanding the upper mid-range segment; it makes financial sense for Apple to focus on keeping its user base happy in the Apple ecosystem. If that strategy includes knocking $50 off the SE in the future, essentially a $299.00 SE, then all of us, Avon b7, and I should be quite happy with the strategy. But I don't expect much more than that, and wrt India, neither you nor I have a clue what Apple will do their specifically, but I'm certain that Apple won't be buying marketshare.
BTW, Avon b7 isn't ever going to buy an iPhone in the future, no matter the price and configuration; that's almost a certainty, so why would I or anyone else want to even consider his failed advice?
I haven't given any advice.
Bullshit.
Anytime that you say "Apple needs to" you are advising.
Apple only needs to provide phones at the upper mid market and lower end of the top market to favor those "lets now try Apple" people. Apple knows that's once these people are in, there is a more than 50% chance that those switchers won't leave, that's all it takes to built the use base and steal Androids best clients.
Getting the best clients at the high end, and slowly but surely at the higher end of the mid-range (with the likes of the SE) means everybody else is starving in a down market and in house R&D takes a hit forcing everyone to sell essentially small variants of the same phone with no hopes of competing except on price.
This is exactly what myself and @avon b7 are arguing with @tmay for quite some time, i.e. Apple should look for expanding its user base in upper mid-range ($300 to $600, Avon calls this segment as affordable premium) segment instead of just focusing on "Flagship" segment (>$600) alone.
I've had a long running battle with one of AI's non-iphone using members,over a focus on maintaining ASP vs targeting unit growth. Neil's post enlightened me on the value of ASP; if you are in a declining market, generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing. Don't put too much effort in gaining new users that won't use a lot of services, or buy much in the ecosystem. Do more for your user base.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
No great thing?
Maybe not the same scale as smartphones, or iPod's, but Apple is already dominating revenues for, notebooks, tablets, wearables, wireless earphones, and likely by next year, smart speakers, not to mention the growth in services. While Samsung and Huawei are fighting over marketshare, at less than a third of the ASP of Apple, Apple is scooping up the bulk of the revenues, and forcing Android OS device makers to fight over what is left. I don't know what the future holds for Apple, and neither do you and Avon b7, but it will likely be much better with massive revenues today, than not.
So, no, it doesn't make sense to "focus" on expanding the upper mid-range segment; it makes financial sense for Apple to focus on keeping its user base happy in the Apple ecosystem. If that strategy includes knocking $50 off the SE in the future, essentially a $299.00 SE, then all of us, Avon b7, and I should be quite happy with the strategy. But I don't expect much more than that, and wrt India, neither you nor I have a clue what Apple will do their specifically, but I'm certain that Apple won't be buying marketshare.
BTW, Avon b7 isn't ever going to buy an iPhone in the future, no matter the price and configuration; that's almost a certainty, so why would I or anyone else want to even consider his failed advice?
I haven't given any advice.
Bullshit.
Anytime that you say "Apple needs to" you are advising.
Apple only needs to provide phones at the upper mid market and lower end of the top market to favor those "lets now try Apple" people. Apple knows that's once these people are in, there is a more than 50% chance that those switchers won't leave, that's all it takes to built the use base and steal Androids best clients.
Getting the best clients at the high end, and slowly but surely at the higher end of the mid-range (with the likes of the SE) means everybody else is starving in a down market and in house R&D takes a hit forcing everyone to sell essentially small variants of the same phone with no hopes of competing except on price.
This is exactly what myself and @avon b7 are arguing with @tmay for quite some time, i.e. Apple should look for expanding its user base in upper mid-range ($300 to $600, Avon calls this segment as affordable premium) segment instead of just focusing on "Flagship" segment (>$600) alone.
I've had a long running battle with one of AI's non-iphone using members,over a focus on maintaining ASP vs targeting unit growth. Neil's post enlightened me on the value of ASP; if you are in a declining market, generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing. Don't put too much effort in gaining new users that won't use a lot of services, or buy much in the ecosystem. Do more for your user base.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
No great thing?
Maybe not the same scale as smartphones, or iPod's, but Apple is already dominating revenues for, notebooks, tablets, wearables, wireless earphones, and likely by next year, smart speakers, not to mention the growth in services. While Samsung and Huawei are fighting over marketshare, at less than a third of the ASP of Apple, Apple is scooping up the bulk of the revenues, and forcing Android OS device makers to fight over what is left. I don't know what the future holds for Apple, and neither do you and Avon b7, but it will likely be much better with massive revenues today, than not.
So, no, it doesn't make sense to "focus" on expanding the upper mid-range segment; it makes financial sense for Apple to focus on keeping its user base happy in the Apple ecosystem. If that strategy includes knocking $50 off the SE in the future, essentially a $299.00 SE, then all of us, Avon b7, and I should be quite happy with the strategy. But I don't expect much more than that, and wrt India, neither you nor I have a clue what Apple will do their specifically, but I'm certain that Apple won't be buying marketshare.
BTW, Avon b7 isn't ever going to buy an iPhone in the future, no matter the price and configuration; that's almost a certainty, so why would I or anyone else want to even consider his failed advice?
I haven't given any advice.
Bullshit.
Anytime that you say "Apple needs to" you are advising.
No. I am opining.
BTW;
Article on Chinas' smartphone manufacturing consolidation;
Apple only needs to provide phones at the upper mid market and lower end of the top market to favor those "lets now try Apple" people. Apple knows that's once these people are in, there is a more than 50% chance that those switchers won't leave, that's all it takes to built the use base and steal Androids best clients.
Getting the best clients at the high end, and slowly but surely at the higher end of the mid-range (with the likes of the SE) means everybody else is starving in a down market and in house R&D takes a hit forcing everyone to sell essentially small variants of the same phone with no hopes of competing except on price.
This is exactly what myself and @avon b7 are arguing with @tmay for quite some time, i.e. Apple should look for expanding its user base in upper mid-range ($300 to $600, Avon calls this segment as affordable premium) segment instead of just focusing on "Flagship" segment (>$600) alone.
I've had a long running battle with one of AI's non-iphone using members,over a focus on maintaining ASP vs targeting unit growth. Neil's post enlightened me on the value of ASP; if you are in a declining market, generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing. Don't put too much effort in gaining new users that won't use a lot of services, or buy much in the ecosystem. Do more for your user base.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
No great thing?
Maybe not the same scale as smartphones, or iPod's, but Apple is already dominating revenues for, notebooks, tablets, wearables, wireless earphones, and likely by next year, smart speakers, not to mention the growth in services. While Samsung and Huawei are fighting over marketshare, at less than a third of the ASP of Apple, Apple is scooping up the bulk of the revenues, and forcing Android OS device makers to fight over what is left. I don't know what the future holds for Apple, and neither do you and Avon b7, but it will likely be much better with massive revenues today, than not.
So, no, it doesn't make sense to "focus" on expanding the upper mid-range segment; it makes financial sense for Apple to focus on keeping its user base happy in the Apple ecosystem. If that strategy includes knocking $50 off the SE in the future, essentially a $299.00 SE, then all of us, Avon b7, and I should be quite happy with the strategy. But I don't expect much more than that, and wrt India, neither you nor I have a clue what Apple will do their specifically, but I'm certain that Apple won't be buying marketshare.
BTW, Avon b7 isn't ever going to buy an iPhone in the future, no matter the price and configuration; that's almost a certainty, so why would I or anyone else want to even consider his failed advice?
Ok. I will give some advice. If you want people to understand the idea you are putting forward, don't link to a DED article to support your stance. Here's why:
They are skewed at birth.
So, I'm guessing that you skipped that article because it violated your worldview?
Facts are biased.
No. I skipped it because I knew it would be skewed.
Facts are biased? Isn't it the people that use them that are biased? Doesn't bias in this context involve judgement and reasoning? How can a fact judge or reason anything?
Apple only needs to provide phones at the upper mid market and lower end of the top market to favor those "lets now try Apple" people. Apple knows that's once these people are in, there is a more than 50% chance that those switchers won't leave, that's all it takes to built the use base and steal Androids best clients.
Getting the best clients at the high end, and slowly but surely at the higher end of the mid-range (with the likes of the SE) means everybody else is starving in a down market and in house R&D takes a hit forcing everyone to sell essentially small variants of the same phone with no hopes of competing except on price.
This is exactly what myself and @avon b7 are arguing with @tmay for quite some time, i.e. Apple should look for expanding its user base in upper mid-range ($300 to $600, Avon calls this segment as affordable premium) segment instead of just focusing on "Flagship" segment (>$600) alone.
I've had a long running battle with one of AI's non-iphone using members,over a focus on maintaining ASP vs targeting unit growth. Neil's post enlightened me on the value of ASP; if you are in a declining market, generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing. Don't put too much effort in gaining new users that won't use a lot of services, or buy much in the ecosystem. Do more for your user base.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
No great thing?
Maybe not the same scale as smartphones, or iPod's, but Apple is already dominating revenues for, notebooks, tablets, wearables, wireless earphones, and likely by next year, smart speakers, not to mention the growth in services. While Samsung and Huawei are fighting over marketshare, at less than a third of the ASP of Apple, Apple is scooping up the bulk of the revenues, and forcing Android OS device makers to fight over what is left. I don't know what the future holds for Apple, and neither do you and Avon b7, but it will likely be much better with massive revenues today, than not.
So, no, it doesn't make sense to "focus" on expanding the upper mid-range segment; it makes financial sense for Apple to focus on keeping its user base happy in the Apple ecosystem. If that strategy includes knocking $50 off the SE in the future, essentially a $299.00 SE, then all of us, Avon b7, and I should be quite happy with the strategy. But I don't expect much more than that, and wrt India, neither you nor I have a clue what Apple will do their specifically, but I'm certain that Apple won't be buying marketshare.
BTW, Avon b7 isn't ever going to buy an iPhone in the future, no matter the price and configuration; that's almost a certainty, so why would I or anyone else want to even consider his failed advice?
Ok. I will give some advice. If you want people to understand the idea you are putting forward, don't link to a DED article to support your stance. Here's why:
They are skewed at birth.
So, I'm guessing that you skipped that article because it violated your worldview?
Facts are biased.
No. I skipped it because I knew it would be skewed.
Facts are biased? Isn't it the people that use them that are biased? Doesn't bias in this context involve judgement and reasoning? How can a fact judge or reason anything?
You are notably afraid to look at this data for the collapse of the global smartphone market, which has the appearance of being greatly accelerated for Android OS device manufacturers. Not a great start to gaining support for your "opinions". Apple over the next 5 years looks to be golden, compared to Samsung and Huawei, who will likely be a few of the survivors, but at a heavy price.
I only go after you because you purvey disinformation, over and over again, about Apple, and specifically, the iPhone.
Apple only needs to provide phones at the upper mid market and lower end of the top market to favor those "lets now try Apple" people. Apple knows that's once these people are in, there is a more than 50% chance that those switchers won't leave, that's all it takes to built the use base and steal Androids best clients.
Getting the best clients at the high end, and slowly but surely at the higher end of the mid-range (with the likes of the SE) means everybody else is starving in a down market and in house R&D takes a hit forcing everyone to sell essentially small variants of the same phone with no hopes of competing except on price.
This is exactly what myself and @avon b7 are arguing with @tmay for quite some time, i.e. Apple should look for expanding its user base in upper mid-range ($300 to $600, Avon calls this segment as affordable premium) segment instead of just focusing on "Flagship" segment (>$600) alone.
I've had a long running battle with one of AI's non-iphone using members,over a focus on maintaining ASP vs targeting unit growth. Neil's post enlightened me on the value of ASP; if you are in a declining market, generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing. Don't put too much effort in gaining new users that won't use a lot of services, or buy much in the ecosystem. Do more for your user base.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
No great thing?
Maybe not the same scale as smartphones, or iPod's, but Apple is already dominating revenues for, notebooks, tablets, wearables, wireless earphones, and likely by next year, smart speakers, not to mention the growth in services. While Samsung and Huawei are fighting over marketshare, at less than a third of the ASP of Apple, Apple is scooping up the bulk of the revenues, and forcing Android OS device makers to fight over what is left. I don't know what the future holds for Apple, and neither do you and Avon b7, but it will likely be much better with massive revenues today, than not.
So, no, it doesn't make sense to "focus" on expanding the upper mid-range segment; it makes financial sense for Apple to focus on keeping its user base happy in the Apple ecosystem. If that strategy includes knocking $50 off the SE in the future, essentially a $299.00 SE, then all of us, Avon b7, and I should be quite happy with the strategy. But I don't expect much more than that, and wrt India, neither you nor I have a clue what Apple will do their specifically, but I'm certain that Apple won't be buying marketshare.
BTW, Avon b7 isn't ever going to buy an iPhone in the future, no matter the price and configuration; that's almost a certainty, so why would I or anyone else want to even consider his failed advice?
Ok. I will give some advice. If you want people to understand the idea you are putting forward, don't link to a DED article to support your stance. Here's why:
They are skewed at birth.
So, I'm guessing that you skipped that article because it violated your worldview?
Facts are biased.
No. I skipped it because I knew it would be skewed.
Facts are biased? Isn't it the people that use them that are biased? Doesn't bias in this context involve judgement and reasoning? How can a fact judge or reason anything?
You are notably afraid to look at this data for the collapse of the global smartphone market, which has the appearance of being greatly accelerated for Android OS device manufacturers. Not a great start to gaining support for your "opinions". Apple over the next 5 years looks to be golden, compared to Samsung and Huawei, who will likely be a few of the survivors, but at a heavy price.
I only go after you because you purvey disinformation, over and over again, about Apple, and specifically, the iPhone.
Protecting your worldview I expect is the reason.
I am not afraid of anything. If I were I wouldn't even post my opinion.
You don't need to 'go after anyone', just give your opinion and defend it.
There has been no collapse of the global smartphone market. Anyone who needs a smartphone will have one. There will be consolidation. Huawei has been saying for a while now that very few brands will remain after consolidation. I'm surprised you didn't already know that.
You haven't heard me say where Huawei will be in five years. I don't know. You have heard me give an opinion and state where Huawei says it wants to be.
I don't need 'support' for my opinions. They are reasoned, supported (links, quotes etc) and defended. Readers can take them or leave them. Isn't that the whole point of a discussion forum?
Apple only needs to provide phones at the upper mid market and lower end of the top market to favor those "lets now try Apple" people. Apple knows that's once these people are in, there is a more than 50% chance that those switchers won't leave, that's all it takes to built the use base and steal Androids best clients.
Getting the best clients at the high end, and slowly but surely at the higher end of the mid-range (with the likes of the SE) means everybody else is starving in a down market and in house R&D takes a hit forcing everyone to sell essentially small variants of the same phone with no hopes of competing except on price.
This is exactly what myself and @avon b7 are arguing with @tmay for quite some time, i.e. Apple should look for expanding its user base in upper mid-range ($300 to $600, Avon calls this segment as affordable premium) segment instead of just focusing on "Flagship" segment (>$600) alone.
I've had a long running battle with one of AI's non-iphone using members,over a focus on maintaining ASP vs targeting unit growth. Neil's post enlightened me on the value of ASP; if you are in a declining market, generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing. Don't put too much effort in gaining new users that won't use a lot of services, or buy much in the ecosystem. Do more for your user base.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
No great thing?
Maybe not the same scale as smartphones, or iPod's, but Apple is already dominating revenues for, notebooks, tablets, wearables, wireless earphones, and likely by next year, smart speakers, not to mention the growth in services. While Samsung and Huawei are fighting over marketshare, at less than a third of the ASP of Apple, Apple is scooping up the bulk of the revenues, and forcing Android OS device makers to fight over what is left. I don't know what the future holds for Apple, and neither do you and Avon b7, but it will likely be much better with massive revenues today, than not.
So, no, it doesn't make sense to "focus" on expanding the upper mid-range segment; it makes financial sense for Apple to focus on keeping its user base happy in the Apple ecosystem. If that strategy includes knocking $50 off the SE in the future, essentially a $299.00 SE, then all of us, Avon b7, and I should be quite happy with the strategy. But I don't expect much more than that, and wrt India, neither you nor I have a clue what Apple will do their specifically, but I'm certain that Apple won't be buying marketshare.
BTW, Avon b7 isn't ever going to buy an iPhone in the future, no matter the price and configuration; that's almost a certainty, so why would I or anyone else want to even consider his failed advice?
Ok. I will give some advice. If you want people to understand the idea you are putting forward, don't link to a DED article to support your stance. Here's why:
They are skewed at birth.
So, I'm guessing that you skipped that article because it violated your worldview?
Facts are biased.
No. I skipped it because I knew it would be skewed.
Facts are biased? Isn't it the people that use them that are biased? Doesn't bias in this context involve judgement and reasoning? How can a fact judge or reason anything?
I posted the source material, untainted by DED, and you still refuse to look at it.
Apple only needs to provide phones at the upper mid market and lower end of the top market to favor those "lets now try Apple" people. Apple knows that's once these people are in, there is a more than 50% chance that those switchers won't leave, that's all it takes to built the use base and steal Androids best clients.
Getting the best clients at the high end, and slowly but surely at the higher end of the mid-range (with the likes of the SE) means everybody else is starving in a down market and in house R&D takes a hit forcing everyone to sell essentially small variants of the same phone with no hopes of competing except on price.
This is exactly what myself and @avon b7 are arguing with @tmay for quite some time, i.e. Apple should look for expanding its user base in upper mid-range ($300 to $600, Avon calls this segment as affordable premium) segment instead of just focusing on "Flagship" segment (>$600) alone.
I've had a long running battle with one of AI's non-iphone using members,over a focus on maintaining ASP vs targeting unit growth. Neil's post enlightened me on the value of ASP; if you are in a declining market, generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing. Don't put too much effort in gaining new users that won't use a lot of services, or buy much in the ecosystem. Do more for your user base.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
No great thing?
Maybe not the same scale as smartphones, or iPod's, but Apple is already dominating revenues for, notebooks, tablets, wearables, wireless earphones, and likely by next year, smart speakers, not to mention the growth in services. While Samsung and Huawei are fighting over marketshare, at less than a third of the ASP of Apple, Apple is scooping up the bulk of the revenues, and forcing Android OS device makers to fight over what is left. I don't know what the future holds for Apple, and neither do you and Avon b7, but it will likely be much better with massive revenues today, than not.
So, no, it doesn't make sense to "focus" on expanding the upper mid-range segment; it makes financial sense for Apple to focus on keeping its user base happy in the Apple ecosystem. If that strategy includes knocking $50 off the SE in the future, essentially a $299.00 SE, then all of us, Avon b7, and I should be quite happy with the strategy. But I don't expect much more than that, and wrt India, neither you nor I have a clue what Apple will do their specifically, but I'm certain that Apple won't be buying marketshare.
BTW, Avon b7 isn't ever going to buy an iPhone in the future, no matter the price and configuration; that's almost a certainty, so why would I or anyone else want to even consider his failed advice?
Ok. I will give some advice. If you want people to understand the idea you are putting forward, don't link to a DED article to support your stance. Here's why:
They are skewed at birth.
So, I'm guessing that you skipped that article because it violated your worldview?
Facts are biased.
No. I skipped it because I knew it would be skewed.
Facts are biased? Isn't it the people that use them that are biased? Doesn't bias in this context involve judgement and reasoning? How can a fact judge or reason anything?
I posted the source material, untainted by DED, and you still refuse to look at it.
That's your bias against the facts.
Sorry. I'm not seeing it. The only links I'm seeing are the DED one, save for a South China Morning Post article you linked to after I had already replied to you a few times. You threw it in with a 'BTW'. Was that the source of the DED article? He must be struggling, LOL.
I read the article, what am I supposed to be seeing with regards to anything I've posted.
Apple only needs to provide phones at the upper mid market and lower end of the top market to favor those "lets now try Apple" people. Apple knows that's once these people are in, there is a more than 50% chance that those switchers won't leave, that's all it takes to built the use base and steal Androids best clients.
Getting the best clients at the high end, and slowly but surely at the higher end of the mid-range (with the likes of the SE) means everybody else is starving in a down market and in house R&D takes a hit forcing everyone to sell essentially small variants of the same phone with no hopes of competing except on price.
This is exactly what myself and @avon b7 are arguing with @tmay for quite some time, i.e. Apple should look for expanding its user base in upper mid-range ($300 to $600, Avon calls this segment as affordable premium) segment instead of just focusing on "Flagship" segment (>$600) alone.
I've had a long running battle with one of AI's non-iphone using members,over a focus on maintaining ASP vs targeting unit growth. Neil's post enlightened me on the value of ASP; if you are in a declining market, generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing. Don't put too much effort in gaining new users that won't use a lot of services, or buy much in the ecosystem. Do more for your user base.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
No great thing?
Maybe not the same scale as smartphones, or iPod's, but Apple is already dominating revenues for, notebooks, tablets, wearables, wireless earphones, and likely by next year, smart speakers, not to mention the growth in services. While Samsung and Huawei are fighting over marketshare, at less than a third of the ASP of Apple, Apple is scooping up the bulk of the revenues, and forcing Android OS device makers to fight over what is left. I don't know what the future holds for Apple, and neither do you and Avon b7, but it will likely be much better with massive revenues today, than not.
So, no, it doesn't make sense to "focus" on expanding the upper mid-range segment; it makes financial sense for Apple to focus on keeping its user base happy in the Apple ecosystem. If that strategy includes knocking $50 off the SE in the future, essentially a $299.00 SE, then all of us, Avon b7, and I should be quite happy with the strategy. But I don't expect much more than that, and wrt India, neither you nor I have a clue what Apple will do their specifically, but I'm certain that Apple won't be buying marketshare.
BTW, Avon b7 isn't ever going to buy an iPhone in the future, no matter the price and configuration; that's almost a certainty, so why would I or anyone else want to even consider his failed advice?
Ok. I will give some advice. If you want people to understand the idea you are putting forward, don't link to a DED article to support your stance. Here's why:
They are skewed at birth.
So, I'm guessing that you skipped that article because it violated your worldview?
Facts are biased.
No. I skipped it because I knew it would be skewed.
Facts are biased? Isn't it the people that use them that are biased? Doesn't bias in this context involve judgement and reasoning? How can a fact judge or reason anything?
I posted the source material, untainted by DED, and you still refuse to look at it.
That's your bias against the facts.
Sorry. I'm not seeing it. The only links I'm seeing are the DED one, save for a South China Morning Post article you linked to after I had already replied to you a few times. You threw it in with a 'BTW'. Was that the source of the DED article? He must be struggling, LOL.
I read the article, what am I supposed to be seeing with regards to anything I've posted.
Good for you
So I'm guessing that you would agree that the worldwide market for smartphones sales is diminishing, and Chinese manufacturers will be consolidating/going out of the business.
Comments
This is exactly what myself and @avon b7 are arguing with @tmay for quite some time, i.e. Apple should look for expanding its user base in upper mid-range ($300 to $600, Avon calls this segment as affordable premium) segment instead of just focusing on "Flagship" segment (>$600) alone.
Make it two, including me, apart from @Avon b7. The problem with the argument "generate a lot of revenue and pump it into the next great thing" is - There is no great thing to be seen for next few years. Until that happens, Apple should focus on expanding in the upper mid-range segment as well.
Not as a single product but as a category there is => wearables. i think this article makes a good case for that: https://www.computerworld.com/article/3257684/apple-ios/i-cant-wait-to-use-a-virtual-imac.html
Maybe not the same scale as smartphones, or iPod's, but Apple is already dominating revenues for, notebooks, tablets, wearables, wireless earphones, and likely by next year, smart speakers, not to mention the growth in services. While Samsung and Huawei are fighting over marketshare, at less than a third of the ASP of Apple, Apple is scooping up the bulk of the revenues, and forcing Android OS device makers to fight over what is left. I don't know what the future holds for Apple, and neither do you and Avon b7, but it will likely be much better with massive revenues today, than not.
See this AI link;
http://appleinsider.com/articles/18/02/23/chinese-discount-phone-makers-were-supposed-to-rival-apples-iphone-globally-instead-theyre-dying-off-within-china
So, no, it doesn't make sense to "focus" on expanding the upper mid-range segment; it makes financial sense for Apple to focus on keeping its user base happy in the Apple ecosystem. If that strategy includes knocking $50 off the SE in the future, essentially a $299.00 SE, then all of us, Avon b7, and I should be quite happy with the strategy. But I don't expect much more than that, and wrt India, neither you nor I have a clue what Apple will do their specifically, but I'm certain that Apple won't be buying marketshare.
BTW, Avon b7 isn't ever going to buy an iPhone in the future, no matter the price and configuration; that's almost a certainty, so why would I or anyone else want to even consider his failed advice?
I can't think of a single great thing (in this context) that has hit the market without needing a few years to hit its stride.
Not the Mac, the iMac, iPod, iPad, Apple Watch or of course iPhone.
So let's say that if Apple announced something groundbreaking tomorrow (some new revolutionary product capable of generating billions), it would be years before the billions actually appeared. Whichever way you look at it, it's difficult to envisage such a product having such an instant success.
I also happen to think such a product isn't exactly just around the corner.
They are skewed at birth.
I'm not advocating going into anything under $350 new. At least until Apple's service market is more mature.
Apple though has offered other products that work better on Iphones but are still good value for Android users like the Airpods.
Those are the kind of products Apple can accept to cut margins on right now and serve as lure to the ecosystem.
Facts are biased.
Anytime that you say "Apple needs to" you are advising.
Article on Chinas' smartphone manufacturing consolidation;
http://www.scmp.com/tech/china-tech/article/2134355/chinas-cutthroat-smartphone-market-coming-down-handful-major-brands
Facts are biased? Isn't it the people that use them that are biased? Doesn't bias in this context involve judgement and reasoning? How can a fact judge or reason anything?
I only go after you because you purvey disinformation, over and over again, about Apple, and specifically, the iPhone.
Protecting your worldview I expect is the reason.
You don't need to 'go after anyone', just give your opinion and defend it.
There has been no collapse of the global smartphone market. Anyone who needs a smartphone will have one. There will be consolidation. Huawei has been saying for a while now that very few brands will remain after consolidation. I'm surprised you didn't already know that.
You haven't heard me say where Huawei will be in five years. I don't know. You have heard me give an opinion and state where Huawei says it wants to be.
I don't need 'support' for my opinions. They are reasoned, supported (links, quotes etc) and defended. Readers can take them or leave them. Isn't that the whole point of a discussion forum?
That's your bias against the facts.
I read the article, what am I supposed to be seeing with regards to anything I've posted.
So I'm guessing that you would agree that the worldwide market for smartphones sales is diminishing, and Chinese manufacturers will be consolidating/going out of the business.