sacto joe

antoniofonseca said:

I'm sorry, but given Apple's direction in recent years, anything, including names and nomenclatures, lends themselves to justifying the increasingly expensive pricing.

Apple's current business model is that of luxury brands. There is no difference here whether the product is a computer, phone or a watch band.

Here's how it works: the luxury-brand companies sell a leather purse for the price of a car to people who want to imitate the rich and give the same purse to really wealthy people to consolidate status.

We saw this clearly happening at the time of the Apple Watch release. And we see today, with each product release, Apple giving influencers units for free so they can use and evangelize about the wonders and status that these products provide.

The watch was the test balloon. Bringing this expertise to Apple was the role given to Angela. And the instrumentation was done by Jony, turning the products into decorative objects (see the Butterfly keyboard and end of the utility product lines, like routers and monitors).

The next step was to stop advertising the sales volume of any product to focus solely on profit. Then we had an average 30% price increase for just about everything from products to AppleCare services. The stores have also been converted into high-end boutiques.

The transition from product company to luxury product company has been achieved. The current administration assumes this status openly and without any embarrassment.

Therefore it is important to understand that any action within Apple, including the adoption of nomenclature for products and services, nowadays will always be to reinforce and refine the luxury brand perception.

That's one person's opinion, and I don't share it. First of all, it's the wrong word. The correct word is "quality". Note that the whole connotation changes when you use "quality" rather than "luxury".

Second, you've left out "sum of the parts" (SOTP). Apple products are a combination of hardware, software, and service. For Apple, these are integrated. Far less so for Apple's competitors. The net result is that the user pays about the same for the combination regardless of whether it's Apple or one of its competitors. And that assumes the combination is even available to Apple's competitors (a classic example where it isn't available is personal privacy).

Third, Apple not only makes a range of hardware devices with fewer components and thus lower prices, they support a vibrant refurbished market which offers products with even lower prices. And because Apple spends a great deal on SOTP, older products have far more software and support than Apple's competitors. If all they cared about were the wealthy, why even bother?

Bottom line: You've written a screed, a polemic with precious little to back you up.

Still, you did start by apologizing, so apology accepted.

spice-boy said:

sacto joe said:

spice-boy said:

I think "iPhone Robber Baron" seems appropriate. 

Silly. If you have alternatives, you are not being “robbed”.

Luxury new iPhone designed for the 1%, or this explanation from Wikipedia.... Robber baron" is a derogatory metaphor of social criticism originally applied to certain late 19th-century American businessmen who were accused of using unscrupulous methods to get rich, or expand their wealth, for example Cornelius Vanderbilt taking money from government-subsidized shippers, in order to not compete on their routes.

Gee, you can define your terms. Too bad you don’t know how to make them relevant....

spice-boy said:

I think "iPhone Robber Baron" seems appropriate. 

Silly. If you have alternatives, you are not being “robbed”.

BTW, Apple cleared $64 B over the last year. Here’s the last 4 fiscal years’ net income:

59.531 B – fy ‘18
48.351 B – fy ‘17
45.687 B – fy ‘16
53.394 B – fy ‘ 15

Just imagine what it would have made absent the Trump Trade War....

bohler said:

what a stupid waste of money instead of doing something big and changing the world. This lack of courage and ideas is sickening ! buying tesla and investing billions into the car industry would be a real game changer..nobody would be able to compete with an Apple-Tesla juggernaut- instead we get buybacks, boring iphones, unimpressive laptops, and the same old sucking butterfly keyboard

Have you ever invested in anything, let alone AAPL? If you invest for any other reason than to make money, you'd better be made out of money.

As a long-time AAPL investor who has a big chunk of their retirement in the stock, I can tell you that buying back their incredibly undervalued shares with big gobs of the massive amounts of cash they generate is far, far from "a stupid waste". And how easy it is to shoot your mouth off about "lack of courage and ideas"! You literally defined your state of ignorance when you wrote that.

In fact, are you even a human? Your negative rundown could have just been copied and pasted from any of a number of anti-Apple troll sites.