Last time I checked, Apple IS growing. However, they're growing by continuing to offer industry-leading products that work well together and offer a great user experience.
They are not doing it by growing share with cut-rate products -- nor should they.
Who said anything about cut-rate products? Anything Apple releases will still be of high quality, but it will be in a market segment that they currently don't compete in, like larger phones for example.
I don't understand your analogy. Apple has never did things that only worked 100% of the time. All the iDevices were panned when they were announced.
Apple cares about making the best products with the most profit. It doesn't play the market share game. It plays the profit share game.
Market share doesn't pay the bills. Look at HP and Dell.
You said, "Apple will never please anyone, so why try?" I'm explaining to you why they should attempt to reach more customers by expanding into other markets.
You're right that market share in an of itself doesn't pay bills, but when you have greater market share and good profit margins, your profit is greater than when you have good profit margins and less market share.
I think you're misjudging their recommendations. First, they're calling for a larger iPhone. That larger iPhone would probably be even more expensive than the current iPhone because of a higher resolution screen and a larger battery. Second, when they call for a less expensive model, they're almost always recommending it for markets outside the US where carrier subsidies are not as common. I don't understand why you don't want Apple to market their products to a wider audience, either here in the US with a larger iPhone or overseas with a cheaper one.
I think you're misjudging their recommendations. First, they're calling for a larger iPhone. Second, when they call for a less expensive model, they're almost always recommending it for markets outside the US where carrier subsidies are not as common. I don't understand why you don't want Apple to market their products to a wider audience, either here in the US with a larger iPhone or overseas with a cheaper one.
In this article they're calling for a larger phone. In previous articles, the analysts have been all over themselves whining for Apple to produce a low cost phone for China and other developing countries.
I don't have any problem with Apple appealing to a larger audience. I do, however, object to their introducing crappy products in order to do so or selling products at extremely low margins. And some of the prices given by analysts were so low that it would be impossible to sell a product at a reasonable margin without making a crappy one.
Apple is an experience company. They sell high quality products that offer superior user experience. Better to lose a few users than to give up the things that make them great.
I think you're misjudging their recommendations. First, they're calling for a larger iPhone. That larger iPhone would probably be even more expensive than the current iPhone because of a higher resolution screen and a larger battery. Second, when they call for a less expensive model, they're almost always recommending it for markets outside the US where carrier subsidies are not as common. I don't understand why you don't want Apple to market their products to a wider audience, either here in the US with a larger iPhone or overseas with a cheaper one.
But you're misjudging their legitimacy. Your comment has not been well received because you seem to have accepted the validity of what these "analysts" say. They have no business "calling for" Apple to do anything, especially to follow Samsung's "lead."
If you divorce your point of view from that of these parasites—the poisonous parasites they have shown themselves to be recently—then maybe you could get your point under the door. Giving the "analysts" any respect at all, as a class, is to be on the wrong side of history. They will be marginalized into pariahs, as soon as "journalists" get the idea. They should never appear without "quote marks" here. "Analysts" indeed.
The issue is not Apple's profits, which are doing quite well. The long term issue is the market size for each ecosystem. If Android eventually takes the vast majority of the market, that will effect Apple in many ways, all of them bad. They cannot just sit on their laurels and hope for the best (not that I think they are).
Apple has never cared about gaining marketshare. If they did, Macs would be $500, iPads would be $200 tops and iPhones would be free
But you're misjudging their legitimacy. Your comment has not been well received because you seem to have accepted the validity of what these "analysts" say. They have no business "calling for" Apple to do anything, especially to follow Samsung's "lead."
If you divorce your point of view from that of these parasites—the poisonous parasites they have shown themselves to be recently—then maybe you could get your point under the door. Giving the "analysts" any respect at all, as a class, is to be on the wrong side of history. They will be marginalized into pariahs, as soon as "journalists" get the idea. They should never appear without "quote marks" here. "Analysts" indeed.
Frankly I don't care if anyone accepts my view or not. It's typically contrary to the general sentiment here anyway.
That said, these analysts are not the morons so many here think them to be. They have enormous resources backing their research because their analysis is used by the financial institutions to manage assets in massive portfolios. These analysts specialize in particular industries and learn as much as they can from any source within the industry to make judgments about likely future performance of industry players.
Frankly I don't care if anyone accepts my view or not. It's typically contrary to the general sentiment here anyway.
That said, these analysts are not the morons so many here think them to be. They have enormous resources backing their research because their analysis is used by the financial institutions to manage assets in massive portfolios. These analysts specialize in particular industries and learn as much as they can from any source within the industry to make judgments about likely future performance of industry players.
Then please explain why they're so consistently wrong? Where's the Apple television that most major analysts have been predicting for years, for example?
Frankly I don't care if anyone accepts my view or not. It's typically contrary to the general sentiment here anyway.
That said, these analysts are not the morons so many here think them to be. They have enormous resources backing their research because their analysis is used by the financial institutions to manage assets in massive portfolios. These analysts specialize in particular industries and learn as much as they can from any source within the industry to make judgments about likely future performance of industry players.
Yes but they never admit to being wrong. They say the product must not be ready or it is delayed.
Apple will expand its product line if and only if it can make a damn good product and have oodles of profit. It isn't going to make a cheap or 5" phone because Sammy does. I do predict a 5" as that appears to be a hole in the product line.
Yes but they never admit to being wrong. They say the product must not be ready or it is delayed.
Apple will expand its product line if and only if it can make a damn good product and have oodles of profit. It isn't going to make a cheap or 5" phone because Sammy does.
Absolutely right.
I do predict a 5" as that appears to be a hole in the product line.
There will always be a fabricated hole. If Apple is stupid enough to make a 5" "phone", people will whine there's no 5.2" model.
There will always be a fabricated hole. If Apple is stupid enough to make a 5" "phone", people will whine there's no 5.2" model.
As I've said before, if there's a lot of money to be made, Apple will investigate it. Again, it will release a 5" when Apple feels it's good and ready.
Then please explain why they're so consistently wrong? Where's the Apple television that most major analysts have been predicting for years, for example?
Yes but they never admit to being wrong. They say the product must not be ready or it is delayed.
Apple will expand its product line if and only if it can make a damn good product and have oodles of profit. It isn't going to make a cheap or 5" phone because Sammy does. I do predict a 5" as that appears to be a hole in the product line.
I couldn't tell you why they get it wrong except to say it's hard to predict the future.
And you're right about Apple not making a larger phone simply because Samsung does. No company operates on a principle like that. I think the better way to interpret the analysts' statements is to view them in the context of market pressure. If Samsung, HTC, Motorola, and the rest are changing consumers' impression of what a smartphone should be, then Apple has to respond to the view of consumers. It's quite clear that the iPhone is loved by consumers, which is why analysts are not calling for Apple to abandon the current model. It's also quite clear, however, that Apple can be successful with larger and cheaper models in addition simply due to market demand, not because it's what Samsung does.
Samsung is selling a lot of large screen devices, Galaxy 3 and Note. These are the only devices which can generate anything like iPhone sales numbers. Customers who purchased these devices had nothing in that size range from Apple to even consider. That is over 40 million sales in which Apple is not competitive. And, these are Samsung's high end, high profit devices, their crown jewels. From a marketing standpoint, this does not sound wise to me. The more Sammy sells, the more justification there is for another resolution in the iOS universe, one that can support a 5-5.5 inch screen. Time to cut off Samsung's air supply by making a device in this size range. Watch as Sammy's profits stall.
I couldn't tell you why they get it wrong except to say it's hard to predict the future.
It has nothing to do with predicting the future. It is clearly a matter of them simply making something up and pretending it has a basis in reality.
We've been hearing for years that Apple has a TV already in production and will be shipping it in a matter of months. This is supposedly information from their alleged inside sources who claim to know that it's already underway. Or an iPhone mini that is already in production to ship next quarter. Or Apple has already reached a decision to switch to OLED (which supposedly happened years ago but apparently hasn't come true). Or predictions for years that Apple's NEXT MBA will be based on ARM.
If they had said "I don't know what's happening, but based on my knowledge of the market, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple does xyz", no one would be hard on them. Instead, they pretend inside knowledge and make their pronouncements claiming that something is a done deal and already in production - which turns out to be a complete fabrication.
It has nothing to do with predicting the future. It is clearly a matter of them simply making something up and pretending it has a basis in reality.
We've been hearing for years that Apple has a TV already in production and will be shipping it in a matter of months. This is supposedly information from their alleged inside sources who claim to know that it's already underway. Or an iPhone mini that is already in production to ship next quarter. Or Apple has already reached a decision to switch to OLED (which supposedly happened years ago but apparently hasn't come true). Or predictions for years that Apple's NEXT MBA will be based on ARM.
If they had said "I don't know what's happening, but based on my knowledge of the market, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple does xyz", no one would be hard on them. Instead, they pretend inside knowledge and make their pronouncements claiming that something is a done deal and already in production - which turns out to be a complete fabrication.
That certainly would be better phrasing. Perhaps that is the way they phrase their results. Here on AI, I've never seen an actual report linked in the articles. The authors seem to pick the most controversial points when they write articles referencing analysis of Apple and paraphrase the original report.
Frankly I don't care if anyone accepts my view or not. It's typically contrary to the general sentiment here anyway.
That said, these analysts are not the morons so many here think them to be. They have enormous resources backing their research because their analysis is used by the financial institutions to manage assets in massive portfolios. These analysts specialize in particular industries and learn as much as they can from any source within the industry to make judgments about likely future performance of industry players.
No, they're not morons.
But two questions:
1. Are they smarter than Apple's leadership?
2. Are these recommendations what's best for Apple, or what's best for them?
That certainly would be better phrasing. Perhaps that is the way they phrase their results. Here on AI, I've never seen an actual report linked in the articles. The authors seem to pick the most controversial points when they write articles referencing analysis of Apple and paraphrase the original report.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Last time I checked, Apple IS growing. However, they're growing by continuing to offer industry-leading products that work well together and offer a great user experience.
They are not doing it by growing share with cut-rate products -- nor should they.
Who said anything about cut-rate products? Anything Apple releases will still be of high quality, but it will be in a market segment that they currently don't compete in, like larger phones for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
I don't understand your analogy. Apple has never did things that only worked 100% of the time. All the iDevices were panned when they were announced.
Apple cares about making the best products with the most profit. It doesn't play the market share game. It plays the profit share game.
Market share doesn't pay the bills. Look at HP and Dell.
You said, "Apple will never please anyone, so why try?" I'm explaining to you why they should attempt to reach more customers by expanding into other markets.
You're right that market share in an of itself doesn't pay bills, but when you have greater market share and good profit margins, your profit is greater than when you have good profit margins and less market share.
Every analyst on the planet.
Next question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Every analyst on the planet.
Next question?
I think you're misjudging their recommendations. First, they're calling for a larger iPhone. That larger iPhone would probably be even more expensive than the current iPhone because of a higher resolution screen and a larger battery. Second, when they call for a less expensive model, they're almost always recommending it for markets outside the US where carrier subsidies are not as common. I don't understand why you don't want Apple to market their products to a wider audience, either here in the US with a larger iPhone or overseas with a cheaper one.
In this article they're calling for a larger phone. In previous articles, the analysts have been all over themselves whining for Apple to produce a low cost phone for China and other developing countries.
I don't have any problem with Apple appealing to a larger audience. I do, however, object to their introducing crappy products in order to do so or selling products at extremely low margins. And some of the prices given by analysts were so low that it would be impossible to sell a product at a reasonable margin without making a crappy one.
Apple is an experience company. They sell high quality products that offer superior user experience. Better to lose a few users than to give up the things that make them great.
But you're misjudging their legitimacy. Your comment has not been well received because you seem to have accepted the validity of what these "analysts" say. They have no business "calling for" Apple to do anything, especially to follow Samsung's "lead."
If you divorce your point of view from that of these parasites—the poisonous parasites they have shown themselves to be recently—then maybe you could get your point under the door. Giving the "analysts" any respect at all, as a class, is to be on the wrong side of history. They will be marginalized into pariahs, as soon as "journalists" get the idea. They should never appear without "quote marks" here. "Analysts" indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain J
The issue is not Apple's profits, which are doing quite well. The long term issue is the market size for each ecosystem. If Android eventually takes the vast majority of the market, that will effect Apple in many ways, all of them bad. They cannot just sit on their laurels and hope for the best (not that I think they are).
Apple has never cared about gaining marketshare. If they did, Macs would be $500, iPads would be $200 tops and iPhones would be free
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
But you're misjudging their legitimacy. Your comment has not been well received because you seem to have accepted the validity of what these "analysts" say. They have no business "calling for" Apple to do anything, especially to follow Samsung's "lead."
If you divorce your point of view from that of these parasites—the poisonous parasites they have shown themselves to be recently—then maybe you could get your point under the door. Giving the "analysts" any respect at all, as a class, is to be on the wrong side of history. They will be marginalized into pariahs, as soon as "journalists" get the idea. They should never appear without "quote marks" here. "Analysts" indeed.
Frankly I don't care if anyone accepts my view or not. It's typically contrary to the general sentiment here anyway.
That said, these analysts are not the morons so many here think them to be. They have enormous resources backing their research because their analysis is used by the financial institutions to manage assets in massive portfolios. These analysts specialize in particular industries and learn as much as they can from any source within the industry to make judgments about likely future performance of industry players.
Then please explain why they're so consistently wrong? Where's the Apple television that most major analysts have been predicting for years, for example?
Yes but they never admit to being wrong. They say the product must not be ready or it is delayed.
Apple will expand its product line if and only if it can make a damn good product and have oodles of profit. It isn't going to make a cheap or 5" phone because Sammy does. I do predict a 5" as that appears to be a hole in the product line.
Originally Posted by jungmark
Yes but they never admit to being wrong. They say the product must not be ready or it is delayed.
Apple will expand its product line if and only if it can make a damn good product and have oodles of profit. It isn't going to make a cheap or 5" phone because Sammy does.
Absolutely right.
I do predict a 5" as that appears to be a hole in the product line.
There will always be a fabricated hole. If Apple is stupid enough to make a 5" "phone", people will whine there's no 5.2" model.
As I've said before, if there's a lot of money to be made, Apple will investigate it. Again, it will release a 5" when Apple feels it's good and ready.
I couldn't tell you why they get it wrong except to say it's hard to predict the future.
And you're right about Apple not making a larger phone simply because Samsung does. No company operates on a principle like that. I think the better way to interpret the analysts' statements is to view them in the context of market pressure. If Samsung, HTC, Motorola, and the rest are changing consumers' impression of what a smartphone should be, then Apple has to respond to the view of consumers. It's quite clear that the iPhone is loved by consumers, which is why analysts are not calling for Apple to abandon the current model. It's also quite clear, however, that Apple can be successful with larger and cheaper models in addition simply due to market demand, not because it's what Samsung does.
From a marketing standpoint, this does not sound wise to me. The more Sammy sells, the more justification there is for another resolution in the iOS universe, one that can support a 5-5.5 inch screen. Time to cut off Samsung's air supply by making a device in this size range. Watch as Sammy's profits stall.
Originally Posted by jungmark
As I've said before, if there's a lot of money to be made, Apple will investigate it.
Yep!
Again, it will release a 5" when Apple feels it's good and ready.
If at all. Right on the mark.
It has nothing to do with predicting the future. It is clearly a matter of them simply making something up and pretending it has a basis in reality.
We've been hearing for years that Apple has a TV already in production and will be shipping it in a matter of months. This is supposedly information from their alleged inside sources who claim to know that it's already underway. Or an iPhone mini that is already in production to ship next quarter. Or Apple has already reached a decision to switch to OLED (which supposedly happened years ago but apparently hasn't come true). Or predictions for years that Apple's NEXT MBA will be based on ARM.
If they had said "I don't know what's happening, but based on my knowledge of the market, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple does xyz", no one would be hard on them. Instead, they pretend inside knowledge and make their pronouncements claiming that something is a done deal and already in production - which turns out to be a complete fabrication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
It has nothing to do with predicting the future. It is clearly a matter of them simply making something up and pretending it has a basis in reality.
We've been hearing for years that Apple has a TV already in production and will be shipping it in a matter of months. This is supposedly information from their alleged inside sources who claim to know that it's already underway. Or an iPhone mini that is already in production to ship next quarter. Or Apple has already reached a decision to switch to OLED (which supposedly happened years ago but apparently hasn't come true). Or predictions for years that Apple's NEXT MBA will be based on ARM.
If they had said "I don't know what's happening, but based on my knowledge of the market, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple does xyz", no one would be hard on them. Instead, they pretend inside knowledge and make their pronouncements claiming that something is a done deal and already in production - which turns out to be a complete fabrication.
That certainly would be better phrasing. Perhaps that is the way they phrase their results. Here on AI, I've never seen an actual report linked in the articles. The authors seem to pick the most controversial points when they write articles referencing analysis of Apple and paraphrase the original report.
No, they're not morons.
But two questions:
1. Are they smarter than Apple's leadership?
2. Are these recommendations what's best for Apple, or what's best for them?
You haven't been paying attention, then.