'Price elasticity of demand' has little to do with 'stretching options' (whatever the heck that means). It simply refers to the change in quantity demanded for a product when its price changes: for instance, price-elastic products will see a decline in quantity demanded when price increases; price-inelastic products will see little change. Generally, differentiated products (e.g., Apple) tend to have inelastic demand while commodity products (e.g., PCs) tend to have elastic demand. Price elasticity is determined by the availability of cheaper alternatives. )
Close but not quite.
Price-elastic demand means your total sales revenue goes up when you reduce the price. For practically all products, lowering the price will increase the quantitiy demanded. That is not price elasticity. Price elasticity means when you decrease the price of a product, the increase in units sold more than makes up for the decrease in price so that your total sales revenue (Price X Quantity) goes up even though you decreased the price.
Price-inelastic products face a decrease in total revenue when you lower the sale price. i.e. the increase in quantity sold does not make up for the decrease in price. Or put the other way around, total sales revenue for price-inelastic products go up even with a price increase. The increase in price more than makes up for the decrease in quantity sold. Perfectly inelastic products are things like cigarettes, alcohol and other addictive substances. Think about it.
No point in trying to convince the "cheapskates", or getting them to understand that Apple is more than just a bunch of common-PC components in a pretty package.
If certain people can honestly say with a straight face that Apple should get into the same market as the eeewPC line, then they have issues that a quality-focused company like Apple could not (and should not) help with.
The entire user experience from the hardware to the software is what makes Apple stand out in an arena of generic PC's. It's too bad price is your #1 priority. I for one pay for having a better machine, OS, etc than having to deal with the instabilities of a non-OSX machine.
You want cheap? Stick with Dell and the other low-cost providers. I can see why Apple does not want to "serve" you. Your crowd belongs to that group of high-maintenance folks that can never be satisfied no matter what one does. If Apple really tried to be everything to everyone, they would have been out of business years ago.
It's true, though. People who value price on top of everything else when choosing their computers are not Apple's market.
For one thing, that means that Apple's core values are secondary to them--and why should Apple spend much effort marketing to people who aren't primarily interested in what Apple has to sell?
For another, people who make decisions based on price above all else are fickle and don't have brand loyalty. They're the type of people who buy generic products at the market like no-name "Beer" and "Cola" and "Potato Chips." The ONLY way to keep those people as customers is to ALWAYS have the lowest price products. That's a road Apple will never, ever go down.
Apple's doing just fine without trying to slug it out in the bottom of the barrel market.
Actually thats me with food. I don't care about the brand because I don't think there's a big difference (unless it's organic) I'll grab the cheapest, but these are commodity goods.
Computers, cars, and houses have traditionally not been these kinds of cheap commodities. But I guess it's changing, with the popularity of netbooks and "the race to the bottom" as Sony put it computers might be becoming just another cheap appliance. Consumers already seem to think so.
People often compare Apple to luxury cars, it's the ferrari of computers, the products are definitely a better quality, and apple customers pay a higher price than PC users.
But with the iPhone and Macbooks now targeting a wider range of consumers it seems they are enticing consumers who think of, and expect all apple products to be cheap commodities.
I wouldn't mind if they were cheaper as long as the quality doesn't drop.
usually i like apple's strategy, but in this case i disagree. if apple doesn't know how to make a computer that's not a piece of junk and is priced at $800, i can point steve to a number of companies that can.
the fact is that there are a few PC companies who make fantastic quality value priced PCs with better specs and reliability than many apple models. steve's quote definately falls under the reality distortion field category.
there's no reason why apple can't ship an $800 laptop of reasonable quality that satisfies even apple's profit margins and standards of quality, fashion, and elegance.
why doesn't apple make a celeron machine? or maybe an amd machine (apple doesn't need intel's exclusivity perks anymore and intel seems to care less about apple these days as well) it wouldn't lower the quality of the machine or significantly reduce performance for home users.
the general idea of not catering to all customers is absolutely true. apple is a premium computer outlet. but steve is wrong, a premium machine can be built and sold for $800.
why doesn't apple make a celeron machine? or maybe an amd machine (apple doesn't need intel's exclusivity perks anymore and intel seems to care less about apple these days as well) it wouldn't lower the quality of the machine or significantly reduce performance for home users.
Apple already does that. It's called the Mini. And look at the flak Apple gets from high-maintenance people complaining that they don't use the most cutting-edge technology for it. How would your recommendation to that be any different? For the price point, the Mini is a great little box. Cheap enough to enter Apple crowd but not break your bank account.
I suppose I can see Sony pulling it off w/ their experience with the PS but HP at this point I think would just be pushing money down a rabbit hole. If they feel like wasting money I'll be more than happy to give them my checking account number
HP has been making a server OS for years (HP-AIX), and Sony has experience with BSD (the PSP and PS3), as well as selling a version of Linux for the PS2.
In all reality, what they would likely do, is make a customized Linux distro (my guess is Debian-based, as that has a lot of momentum because of Ubuntu), and make it for opportunities a user wants a basic OS to quick boot into (< 30 secs).
I once overheard the owner of a very successful multimillion dollar food company in Ann Arbor tell an employee who was relaying to the owner how a customer was complaining about the price to an item one of his stores sold. The owner's answer was to raise the price because the price must have been too low if the customer felt it was warranted to complain about the price.
usually i like apple's strategy, but in this case i disagree. if apple doesn't know how to make a computer that's not a piece of junk and is priced at $800, i can point steve to a number of companies that can.
the fact is that there are a few PC companies who make fantastic quality value priced PCs with better specs and reliability than many apple models. steve's quote definately falls under the reality distortion field category.
there's no reason why apple can't ship an $800 laptop of reasonable quality that satisfies even apple's profit margins and standards of quality, fashion, and elegance.
why doesn't apple make a celeron machine? or maybe an amd machine (apple doesn't need intel's exclusivity perks anymore and intel seems to care less about apple these days as well) it wouldn't lower the quality of the machine or significantly reduce performance for home users.
the general idea of not catering to all customers is absolutely true. apple is a premium computer outlet. but steve is wrong, a premium machine can be built and sold for $800.
Jobs said $500, not $800. $800 is some price target some knucklehead analysts came up with as a target. He also said they choose not to compete in the $800 market. There's two different concepts at play here.
Apple doesn't make a celeron machine because the company chooses not to serve the market where products than run them operates. As a small business owner, I can see his perspective on this.
A premium product loses its perceived value if it is sold too cheaply.
The gap is between a netbook style computer and a cheaper laptop. Lowering the price of a Macbook to $800 wouldn't do anything for Apple, but producing a bridge computer in a netbook form factor could be a great thing for Apple long term.
Jobs also remarked once that Apple only makes products they themselves would be proud of to own and use. So forget about the $500 underwhelming notebook.
It's funny that many from the PC side don't understand Apple's DNA. If we apply this cheap logic to cars, we would demand that Lexus makes a Lexus for $9,999. It's not going to happen. And if it did, it certainly wouldn't be a Lexus.
I'm glad Jobs verbalized that there are markets Apple doesn't want to serve. Stop moaning about Apple's premium products that are awesome values and work on the other side of the equation. Make a little more money (or save) and join the club when you want to step up.
Price-elastic demand means your total sales revenue goes up when you reduce the price. For practically all products, lowering the price will increase the quantitiy demanded. That is not price elasticity. Price elasticity means when you decrease the price of a product, the increase in units sold more than makes up for the decrease in price so that your total sales revenue (Price X Quantity) goes up even though you decreased the price.
Price-inelastic products face a decrease in total revenue when you lower the sale price. i.e. the increase in quantity sold does not make up for the decrease in price. Or put the other way around, total sales revenue for price-inelastic products go up even with a price increase. The increase in price more than makes up for the decrease in quantity sold. Perfectly inelastic products are things like cigarettes, alcohol and other addictive substances. Think about it.
Actually, what anantksundaram said is right. Price-elasticity of demand is a measure of the percentage change in quantity demanded based on the percentage change in price. It is true that for almost all products that lowering the price will increase the quantity demanded. The reverse is also true. But, different products react differently in quantity demanded when there is a change in price. Some have drastic increases in quantity demanded when price decreases, some have little change. Products that have more drastic change are elastic, products with little change are inelastic.
What you said is correct though, but is not the definition of price elasticity. Total Revenue is affected by price elasticity.
It's funny that many from the PC side don't understand Apple's DNA. If we apply this cheap logic to cars, we would demand that Lexus makes a Lexus for $9,999. It's not going to happen. And if it did, it certainly wouldn't be a Lexus.
True, but Apple is a software company first, according to Steve Jobs a couple of years ago, and needs a cheap computer to draw people into OS X. That's why the Mac mini is so brilliant. Most switchers have a screen and keyboard laying around... That also why Apple needs a sub 1000 dollar notebook. To get people hooked on OS X. If it wasn't for this, there wouldn't be a Mac mini or an entry level MacBook..
Of course, lately the iPhone also drew people into OS X, so I wouldn't be surprised if Apple axed the mini and a cheap MacBook.
usually i like apple's strategy, but in this case i disagree. if apple doesn't know how to make a computer that's not a piece of junk and is priced at $800, i can point steve to a number of companies that can.
the fact is that there are a few PC companies who make fantastic quality value priced PCs with better specs and reliability than many apple models. steve's quote definately falls under the reality distortion field category.
there's no reason why apple can't ship an $800 laptop of reasonable quality that satisfies even apple's profit margins and standards of quality, fashion, and elegance.
why doesn't apple make a celeron machine? or maybe an amd machine (apple doesn't need intel's exclusivity perks anymore and intel seems to care less about apple these days as well) it wouldn't lower the quality of the machine or significantly reduce performance for home users.
the general idea of not catering to all customers is absolutely true. apple is a premium computer outlet. but steve is wrong, a premium machine can be built and sold for $800.
2 points.
1) of course a "premium" machine can be built and sold for $800. but there would probably be only marginal profits that would be completely wiped out by R&D.
2) most of these $800 machines piggyback on someone else's crap OS. When you buy a mac, you are paying for the privilege of OSX. That's the so-called "mac tax". You're paying for a better OS and a better UI. If all you care about is hardware, go somewhere else... apple isn't catering to you.
1) of course a "premium" machine can be built and sold for $800. but there would probably be only marginal profits that would be completely wiped out by R&D.
2) most of these $800 machines piggyback on someone else's crap OS. When you buy a mac, you are paying for the privilege of OSX. That's the so-called "mac tax". You're paying for a better OS and a better UI. If all you care about is hardware, go somewhere else... apple isn't catering to you.
To further add to your point, non-Mac PCs come filled with trialware that offset that is paid for the by the program developers to the OEM which helps make the machine's initial price cheaper for the consumer. Apple no longer packages MS Office for Mac Test Drive or, oddly, an iWork demo. The only app that is not fully functioning in OS X in Quicktime's Pro features, but sense Leopard it has the ability to do full screen, so the higher-end features aren't really necessary for most people.
I agree totally. Apple's perceived brand value would suffer. It isn't in their DNA and the company would lose more than it gained. Remember John Scully? Someone above said Apple is a software company. That's not why they started making their own software. Apple sells "an experience." They make software to make that experience unique and pleasurable. They are the Lexus of computers and I hope they stay that way.
If you want to play, you've got to pay. Brand loyalty proves Apple is smarter than the cheapos.
It's reassuring to me that there are folks like all of you--anantksundaram, tundraboy, Maynardjames--who have knowledge in special fields and are willing to share it. Your contributions (and others who contribute in different areas of expertise) are what make this forum so valuable.
... If we apply this cheap logic to cars, we would demand that Lexus makes a Lexus for $9,999. It's not going to happen. And if it did, it certainly wouldn't be a Lexus.
True that, but it WOULD be a Toyota. There's a reason the car-makers who manufacturer cars that are closer to commodities--Nissan, Toyota, Honda, VW--all have luxury (think apple-level) brands (think Infiniti, Lexus, Acura, Audi). Talk of Apple entering a lower price point market is just the same business philosophy in reverse. Maybe it's right for apple, maybe it's wrong, I'm not smart enough to make that judgement.
But there's a difference between entering a product market, and a price market: IMHO, there is a market for several Apple products--designed and priced as only Apple would price them--between the iPhone and Macbook.
The "bigger iPhone" for want of a better name, would be an example of apple creating a new market. The apple netbook would be an example of apple entering a market that is no longer nascent (see Amazon's top 25 seller list) , as it did with mp3 players and cellphones.
Had Apple succumb to calls from industry watchers to release a new MacBook at or below the $800 price point, it would have amounted to "a value-destroying event of epic proportions," according to a newly published analysis.
In a report released Wednesday, Needham & Co's Conor Irvine and Charles Wolf, one of the more colorful analysts covering Apple today...
Like journalists, analysts are supposed to be objective. I thought Wolf's comments during the apple give-and-take were embarrassing to his profession. I can't find the transcript, but he fawned to jobs, complimenting him in at least one instance on the fine job he'd done. Can you imagine a CNN's Wolf Blitzer interviewing Obama or McCain and then telling him (substitute Wolf's words to Jobs here) what a great job he'd been doing with his economic policies? I was surprised by Wolf. He sounded like one of us fanboys here.
Comments
'Price elasticity of demand' has little to do with 'stretching options' (whatever the heck that means). It simply refers to the change in quantity demanded for a product when its price changes: for instance, price-elastic products will see a decline in quantity demanded when price increases; price-inelastic products will see little change. Generally, differentiated products (e.g., Apple) tend to have inelastic demand while commodity products (e.g., PCs) tend to have elastic demand. Price elasticity is determined by the availability of cheaper alternatives. )
Close but not quite.
Price-elastic demand means your total sales revenue goes up when you reduce the price. For practically all products, lowering the price will increase the quantitiy demanded. That is not price elasticity. Price elasticity means when you decrease the price of a product, the increase in units sold more than makes up for the decrease in price so that your total sales revenue (Price X Quantity) goes up even though you decreased the price.
Price-inelastic products face a decrease in total revenue when you lower the sale price. i.e. the increase in quantity sold does not make up for the decrease in price. Or put the other way around, total sales revenue for price-inelastic products go up even with a price increase. The increase in price more than makes up for the decrease in quantity sold. Perfectly inelastic products are things like cigarettes, alcohol and other addictive substances. Think about it.
If certain people can honestly say with a straight face that Apple should get into the same market as the eeewPC line, then they have issues that a quality-focused company like Apple could not (and should not) help with.
The entire user experience from the hardware to the software is what makes Apple stand out in an arena of generic PC's. It's too bad price is your #1 priority. I for one pay for having a better machine, OS, etc than having to deal with the instabilities of a non-OSX machine.
You want cheap? Stick with Dell and the other low-cost providers. I can see why Apple does not want to "serve" you. Your crowd belongs to that group of high-maintenance folks that can never be satisfied no matter what one does. If Apple really tried to be everything to everyone, they would have been out of business years ago.
It's true, though. People who value price on top of everything else when choosing their computers are not Apple's market.
For one thing, that means that Apple's core values are secondary to them--and why should Apple spend much effort marketing to people who aren't primarily interested in what Apple has to sell?
For another, people who make decisions based on price above all else are fickle and don't have brand loyalty. They're the type of people who buy generic products at the market like no-name "Beer" and "Cola" and "Potato Chips." The ONLY way to keep those people as customers is to ALWAYS have the lowest price products. That's a road Apple will never, ever go down.
Apple's doing just fine without trying to slug it out in the bottom of the barrel market.
Actually thats me with food. I don't care about the brand because I don't think there's a big difference (unless it's organic) I'll grab the cheapest, but these are commodity goods.
Computers, cars, and houses have traditionally not been these kinds of cheap commodities. But I guess it's changing, with the popularity of netbooks and "the race to the bottom" as Sony put it computers might be becoming just another cheap appliance. Consumers already seem to think so.
People often compare Apple to luxury cars, it's the ferrari of computers, the products are definitely a better quality, and apple customers pay a higher price than PC users.
But with the iPhone and Macbooks now targeting a wider range of consumers it seems they are enticing consumers who think of, and expect all apple products to be cheap commodities.
I wouldn't mind if they were cheaper as long as the quality doesn't drop.
the fact is that there are a few PC companies who make fantastic quality value priced PCs with better specs and reliability than many apple models. steve's quote definately falls under the reality distortion field category.
there's no reason why apple can't ship an $800 laptop of reasonable quality that satisfies even apple's profit margins and standards of quality, fashion, and elegance.
why doesn't apple make a celeron machine? or maybe an amd machine (apple doesn't need intel's exclusivity perks anymore and intel seems to care less about apple these days as well) it wouldn't lower the quality of the machine or significantly reduce performance for home users.
the general idea of not catering to all customers is absolutely true. apple is a premium computer outlet. but steve is wrong, a premium machine can be built and sold for $800.
why doesn't apple make a celeron machine? or maybe an amd machine (apple doesn't need intel's exclusivity perks anymore and intel seems to care less about apple these days as well) it wouldn't lower the quality of the machine or significantly reduce performance for home users.
Apple already does that. It's called the Mini. And look at the flak Apple gets from high-maintenance people complaining that they don't use the most cutting-edge technology for it. How would your recommendation to that be any different? For the price point, the Mini is a great little box. Cheap enough to enter Apple crowd but not break your bank account.
I suppose I can see Sony pulling it off w/ their experience with the PS but HP at this point I think would just be pushing money down a rabbit hole. If they feel like wasting money I'll be more than happy to give them my checking account number
HP has been making a server OS for years (HP-AIX), and Sony has experience with BSD (the PSP and PS3), as well as selling a version of Linux for the PS2.
In all reality, what they would likely do, is make a customized Linux distro (my guess is Debian-based, as that has a lot of momentum because of Ubuntu), and make it for opportunities a user wants a basic OS to quick boot into (< 30 secs).
I once overheard the owner of a very successful multimillion dollar food company in Ann Arbor tell an employee who was relaying to the owner how a customer was complaining about the price to an item one of his stores sold. The owner's answer was to raise the price because the price must have been too low if the customer felt it was warranted to complain about the price.
That post needs more periods.
usually i like apple's strategy, but in this case i disagree. if apple doesn't know how to make a computer that's not a piece of junk and is priced at $800, i can point steve to a number of companies that can.
the fact is that there are a few PC companies who make fantastic quality value priced PCs with better specs and reliability than many apple models. steve's quote definately falls under the reality distortion field category.
there's no reason why apple can't ship an $800 laptop of reasonable quality that satisfies even apple's profit margins and standards of quality, fashion, and elegance.
why doesn't apple make a celeron machine? or maybe an amd machine (apple doesn't need intel's exclusivity perks anymore and intel seems to care less about apple these days as well) it wouldn't lower the quality of the machine or significantly reduce performance for home users.
the general idea of not catering to all customers is absolutely true. apple is a premium computer outlet. but steve is wrong, a premium machine can be built and sold for $800.
Jobs said $500, not $800. $800 is some price target some knucklehead analysts came up with as a target. He also said they choose not to compete in the $800 market. There's two different concepts at play here.
Apple doesn't make a celeron machine because the company chooses not to serve the market where products than run them operates. As a small business owner, I can see his perspective on this.
A premium product loses its perceived value if it is sold too cheaply.
It's funny that many from the PC side don't understand Apple's DNA. If we apply this cheap logic to cars, we would demand that Lexus makes a Lexus for $9,999. It's not going to happen. And if it did, it certainly wouldn't be a Lexus.
I'm glad Jobs verbalized that there are markets Apple doesn't want to serve. Stop moaning about Apple's premium products that are awesome values and work on the other side of the equation. Make a little more money (or save) and join the club when you want to step up.
Close but not quite.
Price-elastic demand means your total sales revenue goes up when you reduce the price. For practically all products, lowering the price will increase the quantitiy demanded. That is not price elasticity. Price elasticity means when you decrease the price of a product, the increase in units sold more than makes up for the decrease in price so that your total sales revenue (Price X Quantity) goes up even though you decreased the price.
Price-inelastic products face a decrease in total revenue when you lower the sale price. i.e. the increase in quantity sold does not make up for the decrease in price. Or put the other way around, total sales revenue for price-inelastic products go up even with a price increase. The increase in price more than makes up for the decrease in quantity sold. Perfectly inelastic products are things like cigarettes, alcohol and other addictive substances. Think about it.
Actually, what anantksundaram said is right. Price-elasticity of demand is a measure of the percentage change in quantity demanded based on the percentage change in price. It is true that for almost all products that lowering the price will increase the quantity demanded. The reverse is also true. But, different products react differently in quantity demanded when there is a change in price. Some have drastic increases in quantity demanded when price decreases, some have little change. Products that have more drastic change are elastic, products with little change are inelastic.
What you said is correct though, but is not the definition of price elasticity. Total Revenue is affected by price elasticity.
It's funny that many from the PC side don't understand Apple's DNA. If we apply this cheap logic to cars, we would demand that Lexus makes a Lexus for $9,999. It's not going to happen. And if it did, it certainly wouldn't be a Lexus.
True, but Apple is a software company first, according to Steve Jobs a couple of years ago, and needs a cheap computer to draw people into OS X. That's why the Mac mini is so brilliant. Most switchers have a screen and keyboard laying around... That also why Apple needs a sub 1000 dollar notebook. To get people hooked on OS X. If it wasn't for this, there wouldn't be a Mac mini or an entry level MacBook..
Of course, lately the iPhone also drew people into OS X, so I wouldn't be surprised if Apple axed the mini and a cheap MacBook.
usually i like apple's strategy, but in this case i disagree. if apple doesn't know how to make a computer that's not a piece of junk and is priced at $800, i can point steve to a number of companies that can.
the fact is that there are a few PC companies who make fantastic quality value priced PCs with better specs and reliability than many apple models. steve's quote definately falls under the reality distortion field category.
there's no reason why apple can't ship an $800 laptop of reasonable quality that satisfies even apple's profit margins and standards of quality, fashion, and elegance.
why doesn't apple make a celeron machine? or maybe an amd machine (apple doesn't need intel's exclusivity perks anymore and intel seems to care less about apple these days as well) it wouldn't lower the quality of the machine or significantly reduce performance for home users.
the general idea of not catering to all customers is absolutely true. apple is a premium computer outlet. but steve is wrong, a premium machine can be built and sold for $800.
2 points.
1) of course a "premium" machine can be built and sold for $800. but there would probably be only marginal profits that would be completely wiped out by R&D.
2) most of these $800 machines piggyback on someone else's crap OS. When you buy a mac, you are paying for the privilege of OSX. That's the so-called "mac tax". You're paying for a better OS and a better UI. If all you care about is hardware, go somewhere else... apple isn't catering to you.
That post needs more periods.
I'd prefer semicolons, colons, comas, etc. Grammar nazi to the rescue!
2 points.
1) of course a "premium" machine can be built and sold for $800. but there would probably be only marginal profits that would be completely wiped out by R&D.
2) most of these $800 machines piggyback on someone else's crap OS. When you buy a mac, you are paying for the privilege of OSX. That's the so-called "mac tax". You're paying for a better OS and a better UI. If all you care about is hardware, go somewhere else... apple isn't catering to you.
To further add to your point, non-Mac PCs come filled with trialware that offset that is paid for the by the program developers to the OEM which helps make the machine's initial price cheaper for the consumer. Apple no longer packages MS Office for Mac Test Drive or, oddly, an iWork demo. The only app that is not fully functioning in OS X in Quicktime's Pro features, but sense Leopard it has the ability to do full screen, so the higher-end features aren't really necessary for most people.
I agree totally. Apple's perceived brand value would suffer. It isn't in their DNA and the company would lose more than it gained. Remember John Scully? Someone above said Apple is a software company. That's not why they started making their own software. Apple sells "an experience." They make software to make that experience unique and pleasurable. They are the Lexus of computers and I hope they stay that way.
If you want to play, you've got to pay. Brand loyalty proves Apple is smarter than the cheapos.
It's reassuring to me that there are folks like all of you--anantksundaram, tundraboy, Maynardjames--who have knowledge in special fields and are willing to share it. Your contributions (and others who contribute in different areas of expertise) are what make this forum so valuable.
Thanks.
... If we apply this cheap logic to cars, we would demand that Lexus makes a Lexus for $9,999. It's not going to happen. And if it did, it certainly wouldn't be a Lexus.
True that, but it WOULD be a Toyota. There's a reason the car-makers who manufacturer cars that are closer to commodities--Nissan, Toyota, Honda, VW--all have luxury (think apple-level) brands (think Infiniti, Lexus, Acura, Audi). Talk of Apple entering a lower price point market is just the same business philosophy in reverse. Maybe it's right for apple, maybe it's wrong, I'm not smart enough to make that judgement.
But there's a difference between entering a product market, and a price market: IMHO, there is a market for several Apple products--designed and priced as only Apple would price them--between the iPhone and Macbook.
The "bigger iPhone" for want of a better name, would be an example of apple creating a new market. The apple netbook would be an example of apple entering a market that is no longer nascent (see Amazon's top 25 seller list) , as it did with mp3 players and cellphones.
Had Apple succumb to calls from industry watchers to release a new MacBook at or below the $800 price point, it would have amounted to "a value-destroying event of epic proportions," according to a newly published analysis.
In a report released Wednesday, Needham & Co's Conor Irvine and Charles Wolf, one of the more colorful analysts covering Apple today...
Like journalists, analysts are supposed to be objective. I thought Wolf's comments during the apple give-and-take were embarrassing to his profession. I can't find the transcript, but he fawned to jobs, complimenting him in at least one instance on the fine job he'd done. Can you imagine a CNN's Wolf Blitzer interviewing Obama or McCain and then telling him (substitute Wolf's words to Jobs here) what a great job he'd been doing with his economic policies? I was surprised by Wolf. He sounded like one of us fanboys here.