8 ms·

That's surprising that IKEA partnered with Apple. IKEA's concept is, to quote them, "providing a range of home furnishing products that are affordable to the m

That's surprising that IKEA partnered with Apple. IKEA's concept is, to quote them, "providing a range of home furnishing products that are affordable to the many people, not just the few." while Apple is about premium end. I fail to see how Apple's walled garden lock-in approach melds with the IKEA Concept.

lowtolerance 9y ago
Apple has sold iPhones to how many people? IKEA would be foolish to turn down such a potentially huge audience.
santaclaus 9y ago
> Apple is about premium end Apple certainly has premium priced products, but they have been directly targeting mass market consumers since at least the original crazy colored iMac G3s.
acdha 9y ago
It's an inherently loose comparison but they're both about solid value for the money – good design without luxury glitz. People like to parrot the trope about Apple being super high-end and overpriced but that's about reaffirming tribal loyalty rather than the product of rigorous analysis, just as some people like to joke about IKEA furniture being hard to assemble or crappy but they have millions of satisfied customers and their main challenge is keeping things in stock.
- the_duke 9y ago
  Sarcasm, right?
- davidy123 9y ago
  If you spend time with people who really have to make decisions before spending money, you'll find they don't use Apple gear because they can't afford it and to them it would be a luxury. I'd also disagree about luxury glitz. Apple has continued to make devices with shiny aluminum shells. It's not importantly more robust (in fact it dents quite easily) and it's a lot heavier than other choices, whether plastic or magnesium and carbon fibre. It's all part of their image. There are many other ways Apple conveys a luxury image.
  - acdha 9y ago
    Genuine poverty is a problem but it's not like we're talking about Bentleys here - an iPhone isn't free but anyone middle class can afford one, and they're about the same as comparable Android devices. The difference is that people on a budget buy the previous generation iPhone rather than a new but low-end Android device. On the subject of materials, Apple makes quality devices which look nice but that doesn't make them high-end luxury devices any more than IKEA is selling luxury furniture because they have good designers make their products. For what the actual luxury market looks like, check out: https://www.vertu.com/us/en/home/ https://www.vertu.com/us/en/home/ https://gresso.com/smartphone-collection/ https://gresso.com/smartphone-collection/ https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/5/7498785/88-tauri-tonino-lamborghini-hands-on https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/5/7498785/88-tauri-tonino-la... The contrast is obvious: most of that is showing expense for expense's sake, whereas Apple's designs are primarily focused on being functional rather than showing off your wealth.
    - davidy123 9y ago
      You're talking as if there are only a few categories and we only care about "middle class." There are spectrums. I guess you don't see it, but I see many people; those who drive taxis, work in variety stores, are low income retired, etc who would definitely consider an iPhone a luxury item. There is a very low chance that anyone from those groups who needs basic smartphone features is going to buy an iPhone unless someone offers them a used one. Especially when you consider how much Apple wants to be an ecosystem, a device for every category that is expensive for every category. If you really want to compare phones to cars, the iPhone is a BMW, it's still affordable to the middle class but that's about it. But the market is quite different than cars, by proportion and features the others you mentioned aren't luxury, they are exotic. Along with the inappropriate image-conscious choice of materials, there is also the glowing Apple logo. It's a beacon to club members. Apple just doesn't cater to the cost conscious consumer. Ikea does. They have $19 tables. There's absolutely no comparison in the Apple world, they don't even want to try to address that kind of market.
      - dagw 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mandude 9y ago
"Just the few"? I would say there are significantly fewer people with Tango enabled Android tablets than iPhones/iPads that ARKit can be run on.
- npunt 9y ago
  Yep, there are probably several thousand ARKit-compatible iPhones to every 1 Tango tablet in use out there. Tango's basically not a launched product, just a bunch of developer kits.
Tanegashima 9y ago
Premium now means “not incredibly crap to the point it’s unusable?”
lathiat 9y ago
I may be skewed slightly because in Australia, Apple/iOS is overwhelmingly popular and is part of why we get first run of nearly every product even when the rest of that run is mostly only the USA. But phone plans made otherwise expensive devices very affordable to even the average consumer, because the payments are deferred. That is also a model that was quite popular here in Australia before the iPhone, but I believe was a bit less common in the USA before the iPhone launch based on some other articles I read about that model basically being genius for launching the iPhone.
bhouston 9y ago
Ikea's AR catalog, which was released years ago, was based on metaio. So in a way Apple bought Ikea as a collaborator when they bought Metaio.
taneq 9y ago
> IKEA's concept is, to quote them, "providing a range of home furnishing products that are affordable to the many people, not just the few." while Apple is about premium end. No, no. You've bought in to Apple's marketing (as they want you to). Apple sells nice enough devices at high enough prices that they feel premium, but are still accessible to practically everyone. Their pitch isn't "we sell premium devices", it's "if you stretch a little more, and buy this phone, then you too could feel like you're premium".
- gutnor 9y ago
  Apple devices are decently priced when they are refreshed. The premium marketing pitch or more precisely the focus on the premium experience however allows Apple to keep the release day price for the whole life of the product. That alone is serious money. Up to 1 month before releasing a new version, an Apple product still has the same margin or more than on day 1.
  - ballenf 9y ago
    All true, but if you factor in average usable life, Apple devices are cheaper than any competitor. In my opinion and experience -- thinking about phones and tablets in particular. Laptops might be a closer call. All this assumes that the purchaser takes care of their stuff. Other people seem to actually want disposable gear and treat it as such.
- doikor 9y ago
  > but are still accessible to practically everyone. Unless one is going for a used device I highly doubt this. I know a lot of people who truly can only afford the 50€ to 100€ phone that usually lasts them 2 to 3 years.

lowtolerance 9y ago

Apple has sold iPhones to how many people? IKEA would be foolish to turn down such a potentially huge audience.

santaclaus 9y ago

> Apple is about premium end Apple certainly has premium priced products, but they have been directly targeting mass market consumers since at least the original crazy colored iMac G3s.

acdha 9y ago

It's an inherently loose comparison but they're both about solid value for the money – good design without luxury glitz. People like to parrot the trope about Apple being super high-end and overpriced but that's about reaffirming tribal loyalty rather than the product of rigorous analysis, just as some people like to joke about IKEA furniture being hard to assemble or crappy but they have millions of satisfied customers and their main challenge is keeping things in stock.

the_duke 9y ago
Sarcasm, right?
davidy123 9y ago
If you spend time with people who really have to make decisions before spending money, you'll find they don't use Apple gear because they can't afford it and to them it would be a luxury. I'd also disagree about luxury glitz. Apple has continued to make devices with shiny aluminum shells. It's not importantly more robust (in fact it dents quite easily) and it's a lot heavier than other choices, whether plastic or magnesium and carbon fibre. It's all part of their image. There are many other ways Apple conveys a luxury image.
- acdha 9y ago
  Genuine poverty is a problem but it's not like we're talking about Bentleys here - an iPhone isn't free but anyone middle class can afford one, and they're about the same as comparable Android devices. The difference is that people on a budget buy the previous generation iPhone rather than a new but low-end Android device. On the subject of materials, Apple makes quality devices which look nice but that doesn't make them high-end luxury devices any more than IKEA is selling luxury furniture because they have good designers make their products. For what the actual luxury market looks like, check out: https://www.vertu.com/us/en/home/ https://www.vertu.com/us/en/home/ https://gresso.com/smartphone-collection/ https://gresso.com/smartphone-collection/ https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/5/7498785/88-tauri-tonino-lamborghini-hands-on https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/5/7498785/88-tauri-tonino-la... The contrast is obvious: most of that is showing expense for expense's sake, whereas Apple's designs are primarily focused on being functional rather than showing off your wealth.
  - davidy123 9y ago
    You're talking as if there are only a few categories and we only care about "middle class." There are spectrums. I guess you don't see it, but I see many people; those who drive taxis, work in variety stores, are low income retired, etc who would definitely consider an iPhone a luxury item. There is a very low chance that anyone from those groups who needs basic smartphone features is going to buy an iPhone unless someone offers them a used one. Especially when you consider how much Apple wants to be an ecosystem, a device for every category that is expensive for every category. If you really want to compare phones to cars, the iPhone is a BMW, it's still affordable to the middle class but that's about it. But the market is quite different than cars, by proportion and features the others you mentioned aren't luxury, they are exotic. Along with the inappropriate image-conscious choice of materials, there is also the glowing Apple logo. It's a beacon to club members. Apple just doesn't cater to the cost conscious consumer. Ikea does. They have $19 tables. There's absolutely no comparison in the Apple world, they don't even want to try to address that kind of market.
    - dagw 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mandude 9y ago

"Just the few"? I would say there are significantly fewer people with Tango enabled Android tablets than iPhones/iPads that ARKit can be run on.

npunt 9y ago
Yep, there are probably several thousand ARKit-compatible iPhones to every 1 Tango tablet in use out there. Tango's basically not a launched product, just a bunch of developer kits.

Tanegashima 9y ago

Premium now means “not incredibly crap to the point it’s unusable?”

lathiat 9y ago

I may be skewed slightly because in Australia, Apple/iOS is overwhelmingly popular and is part of why we get first run of nearly every product even when the rest of that run is mostly only the USA. But phone plans made otherwise expensive devices very affordable to even the average consumer, because the payments are deferred. That is also a model that was quite popular here in Australia before the iPhone, but I believe was a bit less common in the USA before the iPhone launch based on some other articles I read about that model basically being genius for launching the iPhone.

bhouston 9y ago

Ikea's AR catalog, which was released years ago, was based on metaio. So in a way Apple bought Ikea as a collaborator when they bought Metaio.

taneq 9y ago

> IKEA's concept is, to quote them, "providing a range of home furnishing products that are affordable to the many people, not just the few." while Apple is about premium end. No, no. You've bought in to Apple's marketing (as they want you to). Apple sells nice enough devices at high enough prices that they feel premium, but are still accessible to practically everyone. Their pitch isn't "we sell premium devices", it's "if you stretch a little more, and buy this phone, then you too could feel like you're premium".

gutnor 9y ago
Apple devices are decently priced when they are refreshed. The premium marketing pitch or more precisely the focus on the premium experience however allows Apple to keep the release day price for the whole life of the product. That alone is serious money. Up to 1 month before releasing a new version, an Apple product still has the same margin or more than on day 1.
- ballenf 9y ago
  All true, but if you factor in average usable life, Apple devices are cheaper than any competitor. In my opinion and experience -- thinking about phones and tablets in particular. Laptops might be a closer call. All this assumes that the purchaser takes care of their stuff. Other people seem to actually want disposable gear and treat it as such.
doikor 9y ago
> but are still accessible to practically everyone. Unless one is going for a used device I highly doubt this. I know a lot of people who truly can only afford the 50€ to 100€ phone that usually lasts them 2 to 3 years.