5 ms·

This is a complete guess ... Apple "does right by users". That's ok. But I'd wager this is only because that type of positioning is now Apple's chosen market d

by ak39 9y ago

This is a complete guess ... Apple "does right by users". That's ok. But I'd wager this is only because that type of positioning is now Apple's chosen market differentiating* strategy. Against Google. Apple seems to want to position itself as the device that guarantees privacy and security. Apple would like to maintain exclusive access to a market segment that values security and privacy above all. It worked for BlackBerry. Strong and almost cult-like loyalist following mostly guaranteed BB's reach in the executive circles. Even after BB became "Veblen", the device was in high demand. In such a market segment, the price per device doesn't really matter. My view is consistent with the apparent "horror" prices seen for the new iPhone. If my guess is right, it's a shame about Apple's chosen direction. I love their products.

sacheendra 9y ago
Why is it a shame about Apple's direction? Apple realised there is a market of privacy minded people who don't want to trade themselves to get a phone at a low price. Apple can be privacy minded for profit and "do right by the users" at the same time. They aren't diametrically opposed to each other. It is sad that we expect that a company trying to stay profitable is trying to screw users over in some way. I'm not saying its not true in many cases, just in this case.
- ak39 9y ago
  > Why is it a shame about Apple's direction? Because it's too easy when you see a company that once dominated this space with Jobs' legacy. It's easy to be the good guy. It's morally reprehensible even to advertise yourself as such. Jobs' legacy of thinking differently has been recently misapplied with idiotic decisions like no headphone jacks, removal of fn keys, removal of magsafe power etc. It would seem that the "innovation department" Apple would rather settle for difference BY DEFAULT. That's the shame.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > It's easy to be the good guy. Then why are Apple the only company even contemplating this?
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >It's easy to be the good guy If that was the case others would be doing it too. For Google though it's extremely hard. And Microsoft caved to advertisers immediately. >It's morally reprehensible even to advertise yourself as such I don't see anything morally reprehensible to advertise yourself as such -- assuming you indeed are such. At worst it can be a little tacky -- and that's for people. Companies are not people, and they do have to advertise their good qualities and what they offer that their competitors don't. Which is what Apple does. >It would seem that the "innovation department" Apple would rather settle for difference BY DEFAULT. Yeah, poor them. They only have the most exciting phone on the planet, with the best hardware (obliterating competitor cpus next and right) and a top-notch software platform.
tonyedgecombe 9y ago
It's much simpler than that, Google's business is advertising, Apple's is hardware. If you make all your profit from selling advertising then it will compromise your approach to privacy. Apple isn't the problem here, Google and Facebook is.
Aaargh20318 9y ago
Wow, even when Apple does something right some asshole has to interpret it in such a way that Apple is the bad guy. Really ?
sjwright 9y ago
> Apple would like to maintain exclusive access to a market segment that values security and privacy above all. You make it sound like Apple has some kid of unfair advantage over competitors. Or that Apple has monopoly power over the ideas of security and privacy. Bullshit. > it's a shame about Apple's chosen direction. I can't believe anyone could say that with a straight face.
- ak39 9y ago
  You misunderstood. Security and privacy should be a given. Security and privacy should never have been an easy opportunity for Apple to differentiate against its competitors. Edit: Would I expect my wife to cook me a lovely welcoming dinner if I phoned her from work to tell her I had been an honest and loyal husband for the whole day? No. (She would, had I had gotten her flowers without saying a word though! But that's another thing.)
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Security and privacy should be a given. Security and privacy should never have been an easy opportunity for Apple to differentiate against its competitors. Even so, that's a shame for the other vendors. It's them who should "give it" to their users, to make it a given. Apple has already done that. >Would I expect my wife to cook me a lovely welcoming dinner if I phoned her from work to tell her I had been an honest and loyal husband for the whole day? No. If you were the only honest husband around, then surely she would appreciate it.
  - Majestic121 9y ago
    Yes, but if security and privacy should be a given, why would you consider it a shame for a company to assert those values while their competitor don't ? I'm sorry, but blaming Apple in this case makes absolutely no sense to me, and I'm definitely not pro Apple usually. In this case, it's the rest of the world that is to blame for not caring about privacy and security as much as Apple/at all, not the other way around
  - criddell 9y ago
    > Security and privacy should be a given I couldn't agree more. The news shouldn't be that Apple is doing something remarkable, it should be how other browsers fail to protect their users in similar ways.
glenndebacker 9y ago
If we could only harvest that negative spin, we would certainly have a working perpetuum mobile in no time. What is wrong with positioning yourself as a device maker that guarantees privacy and security ? In the end it's a choice that they need to make and while it's definitely business driven, I don't see what they could possible do to make it less "shameful"? There is a market for it and it's certainly something that I personally find very valuable. I don't like to be a "product" and rather pay a premium, although my iPhone SE is not that more expensive than a Pixel device for example.
- robin_reala 9y ago
  More expensive? A base spec (32Gb) Pixel is $649, same 32Gb iPhone SE is nearly half the price at $349. The Pixels are many things, but they’re not cheap phones.
  - matwood 9y ago
    Yeah, the Pixels are priced as flagship phones but IMO are not flagship quality. The sweet spot for Android was when Google had the ~$400 Nexus line.
  - nottorp 9y ago
    And remember, the SE is phone sized while all the other decent (specced) phones are tablet sized :)
philfrasty 9y ago
< Insert insult here > "...I love their products..."
redial 9y ago
> Apple seems to want to position itself as the device that guarantees privacy and security. And you have a problem with that because? > Apple would like to maintain exclusive access to a market segment that values security and privacy above all. Apple would like all the market. The fact they identified a currently underserved niche is just part of their game. > In such a market segment, the price per device doesn't really matter. My view is consistent with the apparent "horror" prices seen for the new iPhone. The cheapest iPhone is $350USD, and includes the same security and privacy focus as their most expensive device. Apple charges no premium for security. Your problem should be with Google, Samsung, Facebook, and the Ad companies. That you are trying to shame Apple for recognizing the need for privacy and acting on it makes absolutely no sense.
coldtea 9y ago
>Apple seems to want to position itself as the device that guarantees privacy and security. Apple would like to maintain exclusive access to a market segment that values security and privacy above all. Both sound fine by me.

by ak39 9y ago

sacheendra 9y ago

Why is it a shame about Apple's direction? Apple realised there is a market of privacy minded people who don't want to trade themselves to get a phone at a low price. Apple can be privacy minded for profit and "do right by the users" at the same time. They aren't diametrically opposed to each other. It is sad that we expect that a company trying to stay profitable is trying to screw users over in some way. I'm not saying its not true in many cases, just in this case.

ak39 9y ago
> Why is it a shame about Apple's direction? Because it's too easy when you see a company that once dominated this space with Jobs' legacy. It's easy to be the good guy. It's morally reprehensible even to advertise yourself as such. Jobs' legacy of thinking differently has been recently misapplied with idiotic decisions like no headphone jacks, removal of fn keys, removal of magsafe power etc. It would seem that the "innovation department" Apple would rather settle for difference BY DEFAULT. That's the shame.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > It's easy to be the good guy. Then why are Apple the only company even contemplating this?
- coldtea 9y ago
  >It's easy to be the good guy If that was the case others would be doing it too. For Google though it's extremely hard. And Microsoft caved to advertisers immediately. >It's morally reprehensible even to advertise yourself as such I don't see anything morally reprehensible to advertise yourself as such -- assuming you indeed are such. At worst it can be a little tacky -- and that's for people. Companies are not people, and they do have to advertise their good qualities and what they offer that their competitors don't. Which is what Apple does. >It would seem that the "innovation department" Apple would rather settle for difference BY DEFAULT. Yeah, poor them. They only have the most exciting phone on the planet, with the best hardware (obliterating competitor cpus next and right) and a top-notch software platform.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago

It's much simpler than that, Google's business is advertising, Apple's is hardware. If you make all your profit from selling advertising then it will compromise your approach to privacy. Apple isn't the problem here, Google and Facebook is.

Aaargh20318 9y ago

Wow, even when Apple does something right some asshole has to interpret it in such a way that Apple is the bad guy. Really ?

sjwright 9y ago

> Apple would like to maintain exclusive access to a market segment that values security and privacy above all. You make it sound like Apple has some kid of unfair advantage over competitors. Or that Apple has monopoly power over the ideas of security and privacy. Bullshit. > it's a shame about Apple's chosen direction. I can't believe anyone could say that with a straight face.

ak39 9y ago
You misunderstood. Security and privacy should be a given. Security and privacy should never have been an easy opportunity for Apple to differentiate against its competitors. Edit: Would I expect my wife to cook me a lovely welcoming dinner if I phoned her from work to tell her I had been an honest and loyal husband for the whole day? No. (She would, had I had gotten her flowers without saying a word though! But that's another thing.)
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Security and privacy should be a given. Security and privacy should never have been an easy opportunity for Apple to differentiate against its competitors. Even so, that's a shame for the other vendors. It's them who should "give it" to their users, to make it a given. Apple has already done that. >Would I expect my wife to cook me a lovely welcoming dinner if I phoned her from work to tell her I had been an honest and loyal husband for the whole day? No. If you were the only honest husband around, then surely she would appreciate it.
- Majestic121 9y ago
  Yes, but if security and privacy should be a given, why would you consider it a shame for a company to assert those values while their competitor don't ? I'm sorry, but blaming Apple in this case makes absolutely no sense to me, and I'm definitely not pro Apple usually. In this case, it's the rest of the world that is to blame for not caring about privacy and security as much as Apple/at all, not the other way around
- criddell 9y ago
  > Security and privacy should be a given I couldn't agree more. The news shouldn't be that Apple is doing something remarkable, it should be how other browsers fail to protect their users in similar ways.

glenndebacker 9y ago

If we could only harvest that negative spin, we would certainly have a working perpetuum mobile in no time. What is wrong with positioning yourself as a device maker that guarantees privacy and security ? In the end it's a choice that they need to make and while it's definitely business driven, I don't see what they could possible do to make it less "shameful"? There is a market for it and it's certainly something that I personally find very valuable. I don't like to be a "product" and rather pay a premium, although my iPhone SE is not that more expensive than a Pixel device for example.

robin_reala 9y ago
More expensive? A base spec (32Gb) Pixel is $649, same 32Gb iPhone SE is nearly half the price at $349. The Pixels are many things, but they’re not cheap phones.
- matwood 9y ago
  Yeah, the Pixels are priced as flagship phones but IMO are not flagship quality. The sweet spot for Android was when Google had the ~$400 Nexus line.
- nottorp 9y ago
  And remember, the SE is phone sized while all the other decent (specced) phones are tablet sized :)

philfrasty 9y ago

< Insert insult here > "...I love their products..."

redial 9y ago

> Apple seems to want to position itself as the device that guarantees privacy and security. And you have a problem with that because? > Apple would like to maintain exclusive access to a market segment that values security and privacy above all. Apple would like all the market. The fact they identified a currently underserved niche is just part of their game. > In such a market segment, the price per device doesn't really matter. My view is consistent with the apparent "horror" prices seen for the new iPhone. The cheapest iPhone is $350USD, and includes the same security and privacy focus as their most expensive device. Apple charges no premium for security. Your problem should be with Google, Samsung, Facebook, and the Ad companies. That you are trying to shame Apple for recognizing the need for privacy and acting on it makes absolutely no sense.

coldtea 9y ago

>Apple seems to want to position itself as the device that guarantees privacy and security. Apple would like to maintain exclusive access to a market segment that values security and privacy above all. Both sound fine by me.