I do agree almost completely. The only thing I would add is that I believe Apple can make mid-priced phone also profitable. I may be wrong, but let Apple shows us. I still believe most of Android manufacturers haven't got a clue about what makes them profitable or not. Apple is specialist at that.
Anyway, thanks to understand what I was trying to say and thanks for points with arguments.
I think Apple could be profitable at all market segments. All they need to do is make sure all phones/tablets models are good products. Apple can still produce the "best" product for a segment. The goal would be that anyone can buy an Apple product at any price point and always have a good product in there hands. When buying android devices, you could end up with absolute garbage because some components just dont fit with the rest and makes the product a flop. So there is a "risk" associate with going cheap. Apple could take that risk out of the equation, so charge a small premium and keep decent margins.
To me, Apple goal to build the "best" products doesnt mean they always have to be at the high end. They could build the "best" products by segments, to avoid getting corner in a niche. But why? Because an ecosystem needs critical mass or it will die.
a) true
b) true, but this might change to new commodity of usage.
c) true, but very funny. For adult this would be alone the reason to own iPhone, but kids will be kids...
d) true as well
You may have the point here, but let me ask you: if you would have 4.6" iPhone with 9:16 ratio, would you prefer it over iPhone 5? I know I would for practical reasons.
But you might be right about not winning many new users over with it....
Actually... I'm not sure about a larger iPhone. Funny in that I'm closer to an Android type user, in that I don't use my iPhone nearly as much as my 3 iPads (no, not like TechStud! ... one of which is always with me. Because of that, the size of the iPhone 5 fit's better because it's smaller at the moment. I wouldn't stop bringing an iPad with me where ever I go regardless. With that said, I would consider an iPhone 4.6"... but I really like my gadget set up the way it is at the moment.
* I confess: I carry a smaller 13-14" man-bag everywhere. Better than a back-pack or my briefcases of old. For this "Doc's" house-calls though, I still need a pilots bag for everything else. Beastly bugger it is too!
I think Apple could be profitable at all market segments. All they need to do is make sure all phones/tablets models are good products. Apple can still produce the "best" product for a segment. The goal would be that anyone can buy an Apple product at any price point and always have a good product in there hands. When buying android devices, you could end up with absolute garbage because some components just dont fit with the rest and makes the product a flop. So there is a "risk" associate with going cheap. Apple could take that risk out of the equation, so charge a small premium and keep decent margins.
To me, Apple goal to build the "best" products doesnt mean they always have to be at the high end. They could build the "best" products by segments, to avoid getting corner in a niche. But why? Because an ecosystem needs critical mass or it will die.
But if what's left over in that great pie doesn't want to participate in the eco-system... or can't for whatever financial reasons, what good is a "one-way sale" for Apple at this point? Apple already owns well over 60% of the App revenues world-wide. Their devices are designed for first for that very reason.
Let's not forget, Apple tried to this very strategy once upon a time... also without Steve Jobs... and they damn near went into bankruptcy trying to compete in that cut-throat drive to the bottom. It took a long time for Apple to rebuild their brand, and they have done a stellar job. Your strategy would put that all at risk. People "aspire" to own an iPhone some day. Check the statistics. That's called branding, and in my book, counts as doing "something" right.
If I had a say in the matter... I'd like Apple to build another "super iPhone" with once again, future tech that all of the other manufacturers just go, " Oh SH*T! Apple just moved the goal posts again!". Thus causing them to have sleepless nights and fear for their products on the marketplace. That's what Apple "used to do" best. They can then also charge what they want for it, with no regard to "average selling price", discounts, give-aways, BOGOs, or whatever other tricks the other manufacturers are left with to move their "second-tier" flotsam.
That's the Apple I want to see.... and marketshare be damned! 8-)
But if what's left over in that great pie doesn't want to participate in the eco-system... or can't for whatever financial reasons, what good is a "one-way sale" for Apple at this point? Apple already owns well over 60% of the App revenues world-wide. Their devices are designed for first for that very reason.
Let's not forget, Apple tried to this very strategy once upon a time... also without Steve Jobs... and they damn near went into bankruptcy trying to compete in that cut-throat drive to the bottom. It took a long time for Apple to rebuild their brand, and they have done a stellar job. Your strategy would put that all at risk. People "aspire" to own an iPhone some day. Check the statistics. That's called branding, and in my book, counts as doing "something" right.
If I had a say in the matter... I'd like Apple to build another "super iPhone" with once again, future tech that all of the other manufacturers just go, " Oh SH*T! Apple just moved the goal posts again!". Thus causing them to have sleepless nights and fear for their products on the marketplace. That's what Apple "used to do" best. They can then also charge what they want for it, with no regard to "average selling price", discounts, give-aways, BOGOs, or whatever other tricks the other manufacturers are left with to move their "second-tier" flotsam.
That's the Apple I want to see.... and marketshare be damned!
In the late 90's Apple went all over the place. I am not saying Apple should do that at all. But A FEW models per markets that are "The best" choice for a segment fits into Apple goals on making the best products. Apple is not only selling one model of desktop or laptop, its not selling only one model of ipod either. Hell it even has 2 tablet models now. imo doing this in the smartphone market is obvious imo.
On the tablet side, if they keep the old ipad mini model at a lower price they cover all the market segments. Low end ipad mini 1, best low end with ipad mini 2. Middle end segment with ipad 4 and high end market segment with ipad 5. Why the F*** cant they do that where the $$$ is, with the iphones.
But if what's left over in that great pie doesn't want to participate in the eco-system... or can't for whatever financial reasons, what good is a "one-way sale" for Apple at this point? Apple already owns well over 60% of the App revenues world-wide. Their devices are designed for first for that very reason.
They own 60% of the App revenues for now. They owned more last year. You do the math.
Let's not forget, Apple tried to this very strategy once upon a time... also without Steve Jobs... and they damn near went into bankruptcy trying to compete in that cut-throat drive to the bottom. It took a long time for Apple to rebuild their brand, and they have done a stellar job. Your strategy would put that all at risk. People "aspire" to own an iPhone some day. Check the statistics. That's called branding, and in my book, counts as doing "something" right.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. UTTERLY AND TOTALLY WRONG . And this bugs me. Because the history of Apple is simple. Doing what you suggest almost killed them, not what you think nearly killed them. You have mixed up cause and consequence.
Apple survived the 80's and went into the 90's as other companies collapsed - Microsoft and IBM excepted of course - with about 12% of the Market. Not much lower than the world iPhone market share now. But profit share was much higher than 12% as they sold the high end stuff. I distinctly remember, as a teenager in a house with Mac equipment, my Dad making your argument. Apple was the most profitable computer company in the world and that was all that mattered. Actually platform size mattered.
It was Apple's decision to hold onto that profit share and high margins - which Steve Jobs acknowledged later on when he accused the company of being run by "salesmen in the 90's -" which continued to reduce market share year on year, although I am sure profits held up for a while. I am sure that usenet fans of Apple were crowing about profit share in 1992. Later in the late 90's after the very declining platform you seem to care less about saw massive developer migration to MS, Apple panicked and licenced the OS. When they were at about 3% of the market. And since nobody is calling for licensing that analogy is utterly bankrupt.
Most importantly it was the actions of the early 90's, the seeking of profit and margins at the expense of market share which led to the near destruction of the platform and the company. The very stuff you want now.
If I had a say in the matter... I'd like Apple to build another "super iPhone" with once again, future tech that all of the other manufacturers jus992t go, " Oh SH*T! Apple just moved the goal posts again!". Thus causing them to have sleepless nights and fear for their products on the marketplace. That's what Apple "used to do" best. They can then also charge what they want for it, with no regard to "average selling price", discounts, give-aways, BOGOs, or whatever other tricks the other manufacturers are left with to move their "second-tier" flotsam.
That's the Apple I want to see.... and marketshare be damned! 8-)
If I had a say in the matter I'd like Apple to end world poverty, create endless world peace, and end cancer.
In the non fantasy realm - and nobody doubts there are other products to come in the iOS platform - we need the OS to be the first choice of developers, and that means more iOS devices of what ever sort - yes even for the "poor" in Europe or the 3rd world. That world will be middle income very soon anyway, and its better to get them early.
In reality Apple fans - who actually know the history - should be appalled by the tardiness in getting around to what came naturally to them with iPods, cover all bases once the high end is saturated, reduce prices on the main models as well, leave no price umbrella.
In the late 90's Apple went all over the place. I am not saying Apple should do that at all. But A FEW models per markets that are "The best" choice for a segment fits into Apple goals on making the best products. Apple is not only selling one model of desktop or laptop, its not selling only one model of ipod either. Hell it even has 2 tablet models now. imo doing this in the smartphone market is obvious imo.
On the tablet side, if they keep the old ipad mini model at a lower price they cover all the market segments. Low end ipad mini 1, best low end with ipad mini 2. Middle end segment with ipad 4 and high end market segment with ipad 5. Why the F*** cant they do that where the $$$ is, with the iphones.
It was the early 90s when Apple made a zillion models of Macs.
Again having more models per segment isn't the way to go. Apple won't play in the sub $300 phone market nor should it. Shot gun approach doesn't work. You'll just confuse customers. What's the difference between the GS4 and the GS4 Active. Why not make all GS4s the Active models?
And Apple is doing it with the iPhone. The current one is the premium while the previous two are mid tier. It will release a 5" sooner or later once they work out the trade offs. It may release a $300-400 off contract phone (probably a rejiggered 4).
And on the subject of profit share. Some simple math.
Lets say company A owns 100% of a Market. A high end market. Its profit share is 100%. Rejoice.
Company A drops to 50% of the market over time as the market becomes commoditised. Nevertheless it still has 75% of the profits - that is its profits per device are 3 times the rest. Company A's supporters crow about profit share. Boy are they excited. Platform doesn't matter to these lads.
Still making the same profits it then drops to 10% of the market still demanding 3 times the average profit, and it sells to the same people as the original 100% - the market is 10 times bigger - but no more. Profits are still high then. Profitshare? Not more than 40%. And falling. Company A's supporters crow about relative profits. Boy are they excited. Platform doesn't matter to these lads.
However, and importantly, Company A needs other actors - other rational economic actors - to work for it in a non-zero sum game where these actors produce goods which run on the devices Company A vends. These people are called the D's and they produce added value for the product which Company A produces, which encourages more people to buy these devices in a virtuous loop. However there is a high economic cost to bother to do this, and success is not guaranteed. At about 10% of the market the D's abandon the market for the other 90% of the market, not really caring about Company A's profit or profit share, which causes a vicious cycle as the platform collapses due to lack of support from the D's.
tl'dr - if you don't target the growing lower and middle end of a market eventually your profit share declines anyway even if the same number of people buy your stuff at the same margins. If you do this in a platform war you will lose.
It was the early 90s when Apple made a zillion models of Macs.
No later 90s
Again having more models per segment isn't the way to go. Apple won't play in the sub $300 phone market nor should it. Shot gun approach doesn't work. You'll just confuse customers. What's the difference between the GS4 and the GS4 Active. Why not make all GS4s the Active models?
The logical fallacy here is straw man - nobody is asking for as many models as late 90s Macs just more than one per year. Or whatever confusion about some GS4 you seem to think will happen won't- (there are multiple models of 4S but most countries get one). The other logical fallacy is assuming the conclusion. Apple won't play in the sub $300 phone market nor should it Thats what you have to argue for and prove.
And who knows if they will this year. They will however, some year.
@Asdasd , prove Apple had a high profit share in the early 90s. Sculley was trying to increase market share and profit share. He released numerous Mac models (various performa models, powermac models). He tried to make a price point umbrella but confused consumers. Soon they wereny selling and market share dwindled and profits dwindled. Enter Spindler in the mid 90s who wanted market share and licensed Mac OS failing to realize Apple made more money on its hardware. He failed.
My eldest brother had a PM7200, 2nd oldest had a Mac clone, I had a PM7500, youngest had a performa.
No later 90s
The logical fallacy here is straw man - nobody is asking for as many models as late 90s Macs just more than one per year. Or whatever confusion about some GS4 you seem to think will happen won't- (there are multiple models of 4S but most countries get one). The other logical fallacy is assuming the conclusion. Apple won't play in the sub $300 phone market nor should it Thats what you have to argue for and prove.
And who knows if they will this year. They will however, some year.
Easy. Apple doesn't have a $300 Mac. To paraphrase, it doesn't know how to make a cheap phone that isn't a piece of sh1t.
And I'll say it again, iOS is the platform. Include iPads and iPod touches in your market share mix.
Obviously. He speaks for everyone here (note the "we") and only posts common knowledge that "everyone knows."
And you dare to ask the exalted one for supporting links? Nice try, troll.
Oh so you're another dummy that believes Apple has 95% market share? TS can go suck a duck, he's no longer a moderator.
Great, I had been waiting for TS to be dropped as a moderator. We can look forward to the level of the discussions rising out of the cloaca. Welcome to my blocklist TS :-)
Great, I had been waiting for TS to be dropped as a moderator. We can look forward to the level of the discussions rising out of the cloaca. Welcome to my blocklist TS :-)
Yes...it is safe to post here again...TS is not a moderator....so feel free to put him in his place when he trys to bully you....he has no teeth....
With the amount of cash Apple has I dont think the company will ever be "doomed" in a sense it will go bankrupt. But the way the company is manage, it could quickly move to a niche market and have its shares continu to freefall has EPS continu to tank.
Apple is no longer leading the high end market in smartphone, and its missing all other segments because its completly disconnect to market changes. Apple is on his way to kill its strongest asset: the ecosystem. The solution are obvious for growth...
Apple needs to address all market segments for the sake of the ecosystem, they did it with the ipod, why cant they do it with smartphone and tablets?
Apple needs to take back the control of the high end market. IGZO screens, multiple screen sizes, mobile payments, ... They way they try to force feed one size fits all is pissing me off to the bone.
Apple needs to spread the ecosystem to new markets. Grats for the move in the car business. Grats on iRadio. But WTF are they waiting for to enter the TV, gaming, wearable devices, home appliances (third party hardware than talks to the ecosystem), ... markets. And there cloud services could be improve a lot.
Some markets should have been enter YEARS ago, Apple is SO late its going to offer "me to" products now. The only way they can get away with it now is to truely innovate in those markets.
If the only things in the pipeline are the iphone 5s, a retina mini and a thinner ipad, I am afraid things are going to get pretty ugly.
Apple definitively still leads high end market and they haven't disconnect to market changes. There is perhaps only one characteristic or functionality, where they most probably don't have product portfolio that would completely fit the market needs at the time. I think other companies are making much more nonsense in that sense, however I am displeased with believing Apple lost some opportunities.
TV, gaming and wearable devices will be a game changer when Apple releases product in those areas. Everything I have seen up to now makes no sense of whatsoever and sales confirms it.
Things on Wall Street can get ugly, of course, because WS is at the edge of being criminal enterprise. What they are doing right now is deliberately downplaying Apple despite of tremendous results in existing areas that will not vane in the future as well, while waiting for "next big thing" to inflate AAPL bubble again. In the mean time the pour the money to GOOG. Where do you think they will take money from and pour it to AAPL, when Apple releases for example iTV?
So, I know Apple wasn't able to address market with proper product line for undisclosed reasons. THey know it as well. However, WS crap has nothing to do with it. They are above everybody, they will do what they want, they run the world....
They own 60% of the App revenues for now. They owned more last year. You do the math.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. UTTERLY AND TOTALLY WRONG . And this bugs me. Because the history of Apple is simple. Doing what you suggest almost killed them, not what you think nearly killed them. You have mixed up cause and consequence.
Apple survived the 80's and went into the 90's as other companies collapsed - Microsoft and IBM excepted of course - with about 12% of the Market. Not much lower than the world iPhone market share now. But profit share was much higher than 12% as they sold the high end stuff. I distinctly remember, as a teenager in a house with Mac equipment, my Dad making your argument. Apple was the most profitable computer company in the world and that was all that mattered. Actually platform size mattered.
It was Apple's decision to hold onto that profit share and high margins - which Steve Jobs acknowledged later on when he accused the company of being run by "salesmen in the 90's -" which continued to reduce market share year on year, although I am sure profits held up for a while. I am sure that usenet fans of Apple were crowing about profit share in 1992. Later in the late 90's after the very declining platform you seem to care less about saw massive developer migration to MS, Apple panicked and licenced the OS. When they were at about 3% of the market. And since nobody is calling for licensing that analogy is utterly bankrupt.
Pure BS! Sorry...because I am your dad's age and lived through it. The one thing you get right in that little re-write of history, is that the developers left the Mac for Windows. Well actually, they didn't leave or migrate, they specifically decided to develop for MS Windows because... THAT'S where the money was in the enterprise software business and games. Businesses at the time were still IBM shops for the most part with IBM compatibles. Apple didn't play so well in that environment, and they never went that route. They also left games on the table as well, concentrating on the graphic arts and printing industry. Which BTW at the time, was a "professional" niche to be sure, but we were willing to pay those "high" prices, considering traditional typesetting machines of the day cost like $50,000. Also don't forget that very few households had a PC until about the turn of the century, relatively speaking.
Most importantly it was the actions of the early 90's, the seeking of profit and margins at the expense of market share which led to the near destruction of the platform and the company. The very stuff you want now.
If I had a say in the matter I'd like Apple to end world poverty, create endless world peace, and end cancer.
Apple tried to go the markeshare route with a wide assortment of Macs... and licensing of the OS... and it almost tanked them. Margins had nothing to do with it. Once again, it was because everybody had jumped on the Windows bandwagon... NOT... because it was better, but because MS did the right thing with pretty decent developer tools. Also don't forget that MS "allowed" Windows to be pirated to gain a lot of that marketshare... similar to drug dealers giving out samples.
This is not the PC "Wars" of the 90's... and is not a mobile "war" today.
If I was to remotely consider anything war-like, it would be what Samsung is doing to the rest of the Android alliance partners. Google is also on the losing side of the battle, since they still make more money from services on iOS than they do from the entire Android platform. Crazy that!
War analogies are something that Americans like to do with everything and anything. I was personally disappointed with SJ's use of "thermonuclear" to tell ya the truth. Coming from a pacifistic Buddhist... that was down-right shocking. Just because you're competitive, does not make you a war-monger. I have to agree though, SJ started the analogy this time :embarrass
In the non fantasy realm - and nobody doubts there are other products to come in the iOS platform - we need the OS to be the first choice of developers, and that means more iOS devices of what ever sort - yes even for the "poor" in Europe or the 3rd world. That world will be middle income very soon anyway, and its better to get them early.
Middle income soon: you bet. They already aspire to own an iPhone now.... and when the time and financials are right for them, they will own one.
First choice of developers: Apple is and I don't see that changing soon... because it's where they make the money to continue developing. Simple.
Devices for the poor: why? They offer nothing to the developers... and in many cases, a Dev just porting an App to Android is asking for it to be pirated immediately, rather than some poor kid in China doing the dirty work. Android offers some decent stuff on the Google Play Store... HOWEVER... there are 500+ other app stores out there for Android, where Google and the Western developers receive squat! These demographics don't want Apple for the very REASON that you must have an Apple ID. Many of the carrier Androids actually do billing for Apps on the PAYG invoice... if and when someone wants, say WhatsApp. Apple will never allow that, nor should they.
Again... and it's been said here a dozen times: the people you want Apple to pander to DO NOT WANT TO PAY for Apps or anything else, nor do they want the Google Store or the App Store. Some philosophically, others because they can't.... and most because they get everything free somewhere else, most likely a regional pirate site and/or carrier app store.
In reality Apple fans - who actually know the history - should be appalled by the tardiness in getting around to what came naturally to them with iPods, cover all bases once the high end is saturated, reduce prices on the main models as well, leave no price umbrella.
You do realize that iPods were also not the be-all and get-all in the "rest of the world"? They were over-expensive for most people just looking to move their ripped or Napstered collection to a portable MP3 player. People in the rest of the world did not buy their music on iTunes. The vast majority of them still don't.
Let's take Germany as an example. So Apple delivers a kick-ass inexpensive iPhone for only € 300,- carrier unlocked. Do you know I still would have trouble getting people onto it? Specifically those that trade their Apps and content with their friends, not to mention those as I've said above, need replaceable batteries such as students. BTW: a heck of a lot of students running around with SIII's here... so it's not about the price. They are close to if not equal to iPhone prices.
Actually, what I'm trying to get across here, is that it's NOT about price! It's about "features" that Apple will probably never make available on their phones, such as swappable SD cards or batteries. Add the big screen "advantage" and you're asking Apple to put out a device the likes of which they have never offered in the past... that they or the dev's make NO future income on... that is BETTER for some use-case scenarios than the iPhone 5.... and for €300,-???? What are you smoking?!?!
So until Apple makes the device above and also does a 180 on their iOS and product feature strategy... I would say... scratch the idea! They actually would be better off spending their efforts looking for a cure for cancer.
PS. You're really pushing it saying someone doesn't know their history here. I know it quite well, since I've been using Apple devices since the Lisa in HS, the Mac 6 months after it was announced, and have been integrating, troubleshooting and training people on them for well over 30 years. Ya know... just sayin' you should be careful there.....:smokey:
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi
IDC reports what they are paid to report. They are a PR firm, not independent analysts. (Though they pretend to be objective)
Since no android makers report their sales, but Apple does, we know how many iphones are sold but not how many androids.
There's no proof android has more than %5 of the market.
It's time for AppleInsider and all non-apple-hating media to stop reporting these press releases as if they were relevant.
They have two faces.
1) present day stats. Which are as accurate as any where else.
2) future projections. They sell those to the highest bidder - probably MS.
Do we have to remind you every single post not to do this? :no:
Quote:
Originally Posted by poksi
I do agree almost completely. The only thing I would add is that I believe Apple can make mid-priced phone also profitable. I may be wrong, but let Apple shows us. I still believe most of Android manufacturers haven't got a clue about what makes them profitable or not. Apple is specialist at that.
Anyway, thanks to understand what I was trying to say and thanks for points with arguments.
I think Apple could be profitable at all market segments. All they need to do is make sure all phones/tablets models are good products. Apple can still produce the "best" product for a segment. The goal would be that anyone can buy an Apple product at any price point and always have a good product in there hands. When buying android devices, you could end up with absolute garbage because some components just dont fit with the rest and makes the product a flop. So there is a "risk" associate with going cheap. Apple could take that risk out of the equation, so charge a small premium and keep decent margins.
To me, Apple goal to build the "best" products doesnt mean they always have to be at the high end. They could build the "best" products by segments, to avoid getting corner in a niche. But why? Because an ecosystem needs critical mass or it will die.
Actually... I'm not sure about a larger iPhone. Funny in that I'm closer to an Android type user, in that I don't use my iPhone nearly as much as my 3 iPads (no, not like TechStud!
* I confess: I carry a smaller 13-14" man-bag everywhere. Better than a back-pack or my briefcases of old. For this "Doc's" house-calls though, I still need a pilots bag for everything else. Beastly bugger it is too!
But if what's left over in that great pie doesn't want to participate in the eco-system... or can't for whatever financial reasons, what good is a "one-way sale" for Apple at this point? Apple already owns well over 60% of the App revenues world-wide. Their devices are designed for first for that very reason.
Let's not forget, Apple tried to this very strategy once upon a time... also without Steve Jobs... and they damn near went into bankruptcy trying to compete in that cut-throat drive to the bottom. It took a long time for Apple to rebuild their brand, and they have done a stellar job. Your strategy would put that all at risk. People "aspire" to own an iPhone some day. Check the statistics. That's called branding, and in my book, counts as doing "something" right.
If I had a say in the matter... I'd like Apple to build another "super iPhone" with once again, future tech that all of the other manufacturers just go, " Oh SH*T! Apple just moved the goal posts again!". Thus causing them to have sleepless nights and fear for their products on the marketplace. That's what Apple "used to do" best. They can then also charge what they want for it, with no regard to "average selling price", discounts, give-aways, BOGOs, or whatever other tricks the other manufacturers are left with to move their "second-tier" flotsam.
That's the Apple I want to see.... and marketshare be damned! 8-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
But if what's left over in that great pie doesn't want to participate in the eco-system... or can't for whatever financial reasons, what good is a "one-way sale" for Apple at this point? Apple already owns well over 60% of the App revenues world-wide. Their devices are designed for first for that very reason.
Let's not forget, Apple tried to this very strategy once upon a time... also without Steve Jobs... and they damn near went into bankruptcy trying to compete in that cut-throat drive to the bottom. It took a long time for Apple to rebuild their brand, and they have done a stellar job. Your strategy would put that all at risk. People "aspire" to own an iPhone some day. Check the statistics. That's called branding, and in my book, counts as doing "something" right.
If I had a say in the matter... I'd like Apple to build another "super iPhone" with once again, future tech that all of the other manufacturers just go, " Oh SH*T! Apple just moved the goal posts again!". Thus causing them to have sleepless nights and fear for their products on the marketplace. That's what Apple "used to do" best. They can then also charge what they want for it, with no regard to "average selling price", discounts, give-aways, BOGOs, or whatever other tricks the other manufacturers are left with to move their "second-tier" flotsam.
That's the Apple I want to see.... and marketshare be damned!
In the late 90's Apple went all over the place. I am not saying Apple should do that at all. But A FEW models per markets that are "The best" choice for a segment fits into Apple goals on making the best products. Apple is not only selling one model of desktop or laptop, its not selling only one model of ipod either. Hell it even has 2 tablet models now. imo doing this in the smartphone market is obvious imo.
On the tablet side, if they keep the old ipad mini model at a lower price they cover all the market segments. Low end ipad mini 1, best low end with ipad mini 2. Middle end segment with ipad 4 and high end market segment with ipad 5. Why the F*** cant they do that where the $$$ is, with the iphones.
Why? Are you the only one that can ask for a citation? That was a ludicrous claim and you know it.
They own 60% of the App revenues for now. They owned more last year. You do the math.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. UTTERLY AND TOTALLY WRONG . And this bugs me. Because the history of Apple is simple. Doing what you suggest almost killed them, not what you think nearly killed them. You have mixed up cause and consequence.
Apple survived the 80's and went into the 90's as other companies collapsed - Microsoft and IBM excepted of course - with about 12% of the Market. Not much lower than the world iPhone market share now. But profit share was much higher than 12% as they sold the high end stuff. I distinctly remember, as a teenager in a house with Mac equipment, my Dad making your argument. Apple was the most profitable computer company in the world and that was all that mattered. Actually platform size mattered.
It was Apple's decision to hold onto that profit share and high margins - which Steve Jobs acknowledged later on when he accused the company of being run by "salesmen in the 90's -" which continued to reduce market share year on year, although I am sure profits held up for a while. I am sure that usenet fans of Apple were crowing about profit share in 1992. Later in the late 90's after the very declining platform you seem to care less about saw massive developer migration to MS, Apple panicked and licenced the OS. When they were at about 3% of the market. And since nobody is calling for licensing that analogy is utterly bankrupt.
Most importantly it was the actions of the early 90's, the seeking of profit and margins at the expense of market share which led to the near destruction of the platform and the company. The very stuff you want now.
If I had a say in the matter I'd like Apple to end world poverty, create endless world peace, and end cancer.
In the non fantasy realm - and nobody doubts there are other products to come in the iOS platform - we need the OS to be the first choice of developers, and that means more iOS devices of what ever sort - yes even for the "poor" in Europe or the 3rd world. That world will be middle income very soon anyway, and its better to get them early.
In reality Apple fans - who actually know the history - should be appalled by the tardiness in getting around to what came naturally to them with iPods, cover all bases once the high end is saturated, reduce prices on the main models as well, leave no price umbrella.
It was the early 90s when Apple made a zillion models of Macs.
Again having more models per segment isn't the way to go. Apple won't play in the sub $300 phone market nor should it. Shot gun approach doesn't work. You'll just confuse customers. What's the difference between the GS4 and the GS4 Active. Why not make all GS4s the Active models?
And Apple is doing it with the iPhone. The current one is the premium while the previous two are mid tier. It will release a 5" sooner or later once they work out the trade offs. It may release a $300-400 off contract phone (probably a rejiggered 4).
Lets say company A owns 100% of a Market. A high end market. Its profit share is 100%. Rejoice.
Company A drops to 50% of the market over time as the market becomes commoditised. Nevertheless it still has 75% of the profits - that is its profits per device are 3 times the rest. Company A's supporters crow about profit share. Boy are they excited. Platform doesn't matter to these lads.
Still making the same profits it then drops to 10% of the market still demanding 3 times the average profit, and it sells to the same people as the original 100% - the market is 10 times bigger - but no more. Profits are still high then. Profitshare? Not more than 40%. And falling. Company A's supporters crow about relative profits. Boy are they excited. Platform doesn't matter to these lads.
However, and importantly, Company A needs other actors - other rational economic actors - to work for it in a non-zero sum game where these actors produce goods which run on the devices Company A vends. These people are called the D's and they produce added value for the product which Company A produces, which encourages more people to buy these devices in a virtuous loop. However there is a high economic cost to bother to do this, and success is not guaranteed. At about 10% of the market the D's abandon the market for the other 90% of the market, not really caring about Company A's profit or profit share, which causes a vicious cycle as the platform collapses due to lack of support from the D's.
tl'dr - if you don't target the growing lower and middle end of a market eventually your profit share declines anyway even if the same number of people buy your stuff at the same margins. If you do this in a platform war you will lose.
No later 90s
The logical fallacy here is straw man - nobody is asking for as many models as late 90s Macs just more than one per year. Or whatever confusion about some GS4 you seem to think will happen won't- (there are multiple models of 4S but most countries get one). The other logical fallacy is assuming the conclusion. Apple won't play in the sub $300 phone market nor should it Thats what you have to argue for and prove.
And who knows if they will this year. They will however, some year.
dasanman69
Tallest Skil
Do we have to remind you every single post not to do this?
Why? Are you the only one that can ask for a citation?
Obviously. He speaks for everyone here (note the "we") and only posts common knowledge that "everyone knows."
And you dare to ask the exalted one for supporting links? Nice try, troll.
Oh so you're another dummy that believes Apple has 95% market share? TS can go suck a duck, he's no longer a moderator.
My eldest brother had a PM7200, 2nd oldest had a Mac clone, I had a PM7500, youngest had a performa.
iOS is the platform and that includes iPads.
Easy. Apple doesn't have a $300 Mac. To paraphrase, it doesn't know how to make a cheap phone that isn't a piece of sh1t.
And I'll say it again, iOS is the platform. Include iPads and iPod touches in your market share mix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorsos
Obviously. He speaks for everyone here (note the "we") and only posts common knowledge that "everyone knows."
And you dare to ask the exalted one for supporting links? Nice try, troll.
Oh so you're another dummy that believes Apple has 95% market share? TS can go suck a duck, he's no longer a moderator.
Great, I had been waiting for TS to be dropped as a moderator. We can look forward to the level of the discussions rising out of the cloaca. Welcome to my blocklist TS :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
Great, I had been waiting for TS to be dropped as a moderator. We can look forward to the level of the discussions rising out of the cloaca. Welcome to my blocklist TS :-)
Yes...it is safe to post here again...TS is not a moderator....so feel free to put him in his place when he trys to bully you....he has no teeth....
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
With the amount of cash Apple has I dont think the company will ever be "doomed" in a sense it will go bankrupt. But the way the company is manage, it could quickly move to a niche market and have its shares continu to freefall has EPS continu to tank.
Apple is no longer leading the high end market in smartphone, and its missing all other segments because its completly disconnect to market changes. Apple is on his way to kill its strongest asset: the ecosystem. The solution are obvious for growth...
Apple needs to address all market segments for the sake of the ecosystem, they did it with the ipod, why cant they do it with smartphone and tablets?
Apple needs to take back the control of the high end market. IGZO screens, multiple screen sizes, mobile payments, ... They way they try to force feed one size fits all is pissing me off to the bone.
Apple needs to spread the ecosystem to new markets. Grats for the move in the car business. Grats on iRadio. But WTF are they waiting for to enter the TV, gaming, wearable devices, home appliances (third party hardware than talks to the ecosystem), ... markets. And there cloud services could be improve a lot.
Some markets should have been enter YEARS ago, Apple is SO late its going to offer "me to" products now. The only way they can get away with it now is to truely innovate in those markets.
If the only things in the pipeline are the iphone 5s, a retina mini and a thinner ipad, I am afraid things are going to get pretty ugly.
Apple definitively still leads high end market and they haven't disconnect to market changes. There is perhaps only one characteristic or functionality, where they most probably don't have product portfolio that would completely fit the market needs at the time. I think other companies are making much more nonsense in that sense, however I am displeased with believing Apple lost some opportunities.
TV, gaming and wearable devices will be a game changer when Apple releases product in those areas. Everything I have seen up to now makes no sense of whatsoever and sales confirms it.
Things on Wall Street can get ugly, of course, because WS is at the edge of being criminal enterprise. What they are doing right now is deliberately downplaying Apple despite of tremendous results in existing areas that will not vane in the future as well, while waiting for "next big thing" to inflate AAPL bubble again. In the mean time the pour the money to GOOG. Where do you think they will take money from and pour it to AAPL, when Apple releases for example iTV?
So, I know Apple wasn't able to address market with proper product line for undisclosed reasons. THey know it as well. However, WS crap has nothing to do with it. They are above everybody, they will do what they want, they run the world....
Pure BS! Sorry...because I am your dad's age and lived through it. The one thing you get right in that little re-write of history, is that the developers left the Mac for Windows. Well actually, they didn't leave or migrate, they specifically decided to develop for MS Windows because... THAT'S where the money was in the enterprise software business and games. Businesses at the time were still IBM shops for the most part with IBM compatibles. Apple didn't play so well in that environment, and they never went that route. They also left games on the table as well, concentrating on the graphic arts and printing industry. Which BTW at the time, was a "professional" niche to be sure, but we were willing to pay those "high" prices, considering traditional typesetting machines of the day cost like $50,000. Also don't forget that very few households had a PC until about the turn of the century, relatively speaking.
Apple tried to go the markeshare route with a wide assortment of Macs... and licensing of the OS... and it almost tanked them. Margins had nothing to do with it. Once again, it was because everybody had jumped on the Windows bandwagon... NOT... because it was better, but because MS did the right thing with pretty decent developer tools. Also don't forget that MS "allowed" Windows to be pirated to gain a lot of that marketshare... similar to drug dealers giving out samples.
This is not the PC "Wars" of the 90's... and is not a mobile "war" today.
If I was to remotely consider anything war-like, it would be what Samsung is doing to the rest of the Android alliance partners. Google is also on the losing side of the battle, since they still make more money from services on iOS than they do from the entire Android platform. Crazy that!
War analogies are something that Americans like to do with everything and anything. I was personally disappointed with SJ's use of "thermonuclear" to tell ya the truth. Coming from a pacifistic Buddhist... that was down-right shocking. Just because you're competitive, does not make you a war-monger. I have to agree though, SJ started the analogy this time :embarrass
Middle income soon: you bet. They already aspire to own an iPhone now.... and when the time and financials are right for them, they will own one.
First choice of developers: Apple is and I don't see that changing soon... because it's where they make the money to continue developing. Simple.
Devices for the poor: why? They offer nothing to the developers... and in many cases, a Dev just porting an App to Android is asking for it to be pirated immediately, rather than some poor kid in China doing the dirty work. Android offers some decent stuff on the Google Play Store... HOWEVER... there are 500+ other app stores out there for Android, where Google and the Western developers receive squat! These demographics don't want Apple for the very REASON that you must have an Apple ID. Many of the carrier Androids actually do billing for Apps on the PAYG invoice... if and when someone wants, say WhatsApp. Apple will never allow that, nor should they.
Again... and it's been said here a dozen times: the people you want Apple to pander to DO NOT WANT TO PAY for Apps or anything else, nor do they want the Google Store or the App Store. Some philosophically, others because they can't.... and most because they get everything free somewhere else, most likely a regional pirate site and/or carrier app store.
You do realize that iPods were also not the be-all and get-all in the "rest of the world"? They were over-expensive for most people just looking to move their ripped or Napstered collection to a portable MP3 player. People in the rest of the world did not buy their music on iTunes. The vast majority of them still don't.
Let's take Germany as an example. So Apple delivers a kick-ass inexpensive iPhone for only € 300,- carrier unlocked. Do you know I still would have trouble getting people onto it? Specifically those that trade their Apps and content with their friends, not to mention those as I've said above, need replaceable batteries such as students. BTW: a heck of a lot of students running around with SIII's here... so it's not about the price. They are close to if not equal to iPhone prices.
Actually, what I'm trying to get across here, is that it's NOT about price! It's about "features" that Apple will probably never make available on their phones, such as swappable SD cards or batteries. Add the big screen "advantage" and you're asking Apple to put out a device the likes of which they have never offered in the past... that they or the dev's make NO future income on... that is BETTER for some use-case scenarios than the iPhone 5.... and for €300,-???? What are you smoking?!?!
So until Apple makes the device above and also does a 180 on their iOS and product feature strategy... I would say... scratch the idea! They actually would be better off spending their efforts looking for a cure for cancer.
PS. You're really pushing it saying someone doesn't know their history here. I know it quite well, since I've been using Apple devices since the Lisa in HS, the Mac 6 months after it was announced, and have been integrating, troubleshooting and training people on them for well over 30 years. Ya know... just sayin' you should be careful there.....:smokey:
dasanman69
Vorsos
Obviously. He speaks for everyone here (note the "we") and only posts common knowledge that "everyone knows."
And you dare to ask the exalted one for supporting links? Nice try, troll.
Oh so you're another dummy that believes Apple has 95% market share? TS can go suck a duck, he's no longer a moderator.
[insert oblique reference to needing a sarcasm tag]