5 ms·

The day I notice them doing this is the day I sell any shares I own in Apple. Maybe it works in the short term, but going into "100s of products" dilutes not ju

by gareim 11y ago

The day I notice them doing this is the day I sell any shares I own in Apple. Maybe it works in the short term, but going into "100s of products" dilutes not just the brand, but the attention to detail as well. When I walk into an Apple store, I see the three main product lines and I see a few others scattered. I see a great staff (35 floor employees on a Thursday afternoon!) helping people with new purchases, teaching people how to use their Macs, and occasionally a tutorial on a specific subject. In your vision, I would be walking into a Walmart.

sytelus 11y ago
You will be very likely forced to sell your shares in their current model much more faster :). The rules of economics detects that fat margins are not protectable over long run. Eventually competitors will meet minimum bar and start eating away your market share. That is exactly what's happening. The iPhone sales are on declining trajectory and iPad sales are already 25% down. Tablet market is actually booming but people are just buying cheaper ones that are good enough instead of twice expensive and better than good enough. The market for luxury goods have never been large and often ends up becoming niche. Your assertion about brand dilution and attention to detail are incorrect. Good brands have been able to scale historically. GE - in their heydays - was worshipped for its ability to deliver countless appliances designed with very high quality, innovations and care. HP in its heyday had 100s of products known for its innovation and quality. Microsoft in its heyday had dozens of products that were either in top or close second in their category. Pepsi Co currently produces 100s of products under different brand names, many of them huge market leaders. Google has dozens of products (Email, maps, news, book search, scholar, docs etc etc) - all of which are pretty high quality and either in top or close. Eventually companies don't sell product, they sell their philosophy and culture. Only anti-fragile way for long term survival is ability to scale and embed this philosophy without single braking point and by creating a long tail. Apple's strength is to apply design to make superior products. They need to scale this strength to work on every aspect of life instead of just 3 devices. You should also read Talib's book on anti-fragility. Apple's (and Jobs) strategy is anti-thesis of that philosophy. Businesses are rewarded because others can't copy them easily. Apple will be rewarded if they can scale their design philosophy and process precisely because others have failed to do so. PS: it's pretty bad form to down-vote because you don't agree with opinion.
- scarface74 11y ago
  But there are two companies that have been able to charge a premium for decades even when there were lower cost alternatives - Apple and Microsoft. Apple has been selling computers for almost 40 years that cost more than their competitors. The average selling cost of Macs are still much higher than the industry average. The fact that Microsoft can sell any of their products at all when most people could easily use free open source alternatives means that MS must have some type of competitive advantage. For both companies, good enough is not good enough for their customer base. For me personally, the integration of their products is a reason I choose them.
- gareim 11y ago
  >Good brands have been able to scale historically. GE has countless appliances designed with quality and care. I might be able to concede GE; I don't know enough about GE to make an informed opinion. >HP in its heyday had 100s of products known for its innovation and quality. Right. In their heyday. Then what happened? They tried to do so much that each product became shitty. So shitty that they ended up having to rethink their business and split. And then continued to do poorly. HP is like the poster child of doing so much that they ended up fucking themselves over. They even bought webOS at one point (did nothing substantial with it and sold it for a big loss years later). >Microsoft in its heyday had dozens of products that were either in top or close second in their category. Again, in their heyday they had a lot of stuff.. then promptly lost their darling factor. Now that they've shed a lot of the dead weight and are focused on more of a singular experience, they have been receiving more critical acclaim than at any other time in the past decade. It's actually that reason that most of my tech stocks are in MSFT these days. >Pepsi Co produces 100s of products under different brand names, many of them huge market leaders. Sure, but they sell essentially the same type of drink but in different flavors. The jump from one drink to another is different from a Mac to a microwave. >Google has dozens of products (Email, maps, news, book search, scholar, docs etc etc) - all of which are pretty high quality and either in top or close. Google has a terrible reputation for reliability in most of their products. They have search, email, maps, and docs. That's about it. The others are either limping along (Google+) or not widely used (Scholar). They have a notorious reputation for shuttering projects. I will not pick Google Compute over AWS or Azure. >The rules of economics detects that fat margins are not protectable over long run. All companies die in the long run too, if you wait long enough. For a reasonable span of time, I'm not too worried about Apple. They have the best mobile SoCs. Qualcomm even shit their pants for an entire year (look at the 810 and 615) just trying to catch up. Samsung just had miserable results and dropped 40%. They won't even release units sold for the S6 line; that's how bad it was. Considering that Qualcomm also dropped 19%, and market news in general the past two months, I think we need to expect most companies to report a negative change compared to the previous year. Currency headwinds are certainly not helping. The fact that Apple even grew shipments on an S year when every other company is contracting is pretty good. >iPad sales are already 25% down. Tablet market is actually booming but people are just buying cheaper ones I agree that the iPad needs to be rethought. At the moment, they just aren't useful enough to justify upgrading so often. I haven't seen any numbers that point to the tablet market booming (source please. This is interesting), but Apple don't give a shit about market share. It's about the profits. I don't care about market share either.

by gareim 11y ago

sytelus 11y ago

You will be very likely forced to sell your shares in their current model much more faster :). The rules of economics detects that fat margins are not protectable over long run. Eventually competitors will meet minimum bar and start eating away your market share. That is exactly what's happening. The iPhone sales are on declining trajectory and iPad sales are already 25% down. Tablet market is actually booming but people are just buying cheaper ones that are good enough instead of twice expensive and better than good enough. The market for luxury goods have never been large and often ends up becoming niche. Your assertion about brand dilution and attention to detail are incorrect. Good brands have been able to scale historically. GE - in their heydays - was worshipped for its ability to deliver countless appliances designed with very high quality, innovations and care. HP in its heyday had 100s of products known for its innovation and quality. Microsoft in its heyday had dozens of products that were either in top or close second in their category. Pepsi Co currently produces 100s of products under different brand names, many of them huge market leaders. Google has dozens of products (Email, maps, news, book search, scholar, docs etc etc) - all of which are pretty high quality and either in top or close. Eventually companies don't sell product, they sell their philosophy and culture. Only anti-fragile way for long term survival is ability to scale and embed this philosophy without single braking point and by creating a long tail. Apple's strength is to apply design to make superior products. They need to scale this strength to work on every aspect of life instead of just 3 devices. You should also read Talib's book on anti-fragility. Apple's (and Jobs) strategy is anti-thesis of that philosophy. Businesses are rewarded because others can't copy them easily. Apple will be rewarded if they can scale their design philosophy and process precisely because others have failed to do so. PS: it's pretty bad form to down-vote because you don't agree with opinion.

scarface74 11y ago
But there are two companies that have been able to charge a premium for decades even when there were lower cost alternatives - Apple and Microsoft. Apple has been selling computers for almost 40 years that cost more than their competitors. The average selling cost of Macs are still much higher than the industry average. The fact that Microsoft can sell any of their products at all when most people could easily use free open source alternatives means that MS must have some type of competitive advantage. For both companies, good enough is not good enough for their customer base. For me personally, the integration of their products is a reason I choose them.
gareim 11y ago
>Good brands have been able to scale historically. GE has countless appliances designed with quality and care. I might be able to concede GE; I don't know enough about GE to make an informed opinion. >HP in its heyday had 100s of products known for its innovation and quality. Right. In their heyday. Then what happened? They tried to do so much that each product became shitty. So shitty that they ended up having to rethink their business and split. And then continued to do poorly. HP is like the poster child of doing so much that they ended up fucking themselves over. They even bought webOS at one point (did nothing substantial with it and sold it for a big loss years later). >Microsoft in its heyday had dozens of products that were either in top or close second in their category. Again, in their heyday they had a lot of stuff.. then promptly lost their darling factor. Now that they've shed a lot of the dead weight and are focused on more of a singular experience, they have been receiving more critical acclaim than at any other time in the past decade. It's actually that reason that most of my tech stocks are in MSFT these days. >Pepsi Co produces 100s of products under different brand names, many of them huge market leaders. Sure, but they sell essentially the same type of drink but in different flavors. The jump from one drink to another is different from a Mac to a microwave. >Google has dozens of products (Email, maps, news, book search, scholar, docs etc etc) - all of which are pretty high quality and either in top or close. Google has a terrible reputation for reliability in most of their products. They have search, email, maps, and docs. That's about it. The others are either limping along (Google+) or not widely used (Scholar). They have a notorious reputation for shuttering projects. I will not pick Google Compute over AWS or Azure. >The rules of economics detects that fat margins are not protectable over long run. All companies die in the long run too, if you wait long enough. For a reasonable span of time, I'm not too worried about Apple. They have the best mobile SoCs. Qualcomm even shit their pants for an entire year (look at the 810 and 615) just trying to catch up. Samsung just had miserable results and dropped 40%. They won't even release units sold for the S6 line; that's how bad it was. Considering that Qualcomm also dropped 19%, and market news in general the past two months, I think we need to expect most companies to report a negative change compared to the previous year. Currency headwinds are certainly not helping. The fact that Apple even grew shipments on an S year when every other company is contracting is pretty good. >iPad sales are already 25% down. Tablet market is actually booming but people are just buying cheaper ones I agree that the iPad needs to be rethought. At the moment, they just aren't useful enough to justify upgrading so often. I haven't seen any numbers that point to the tablet market booming (source please. This is interesting), but Apple don't give a shit about market share. It's about the profits. I don't care about market share either.