3 ms·
No, it's not. There are always counterexamples, but in your argument you completely ignore margins in the PC and laptop market. Just to digress for a minute, a
by ergo98 16y ago
No, it's not. There are always counterexamples, but in your argument you completely ignore margins in the PC and laptop market.
Just to digress for a minute, a related memes that I keep reading is "Apple is comfortable in their very profitable niche".
Through most of Apple's history, their niche was remarkably unprofitable. In 2001 Apple lost $52 million dollars, while Dell made $3.19 billion. How does that play into your theory? In 1997 Apple lost $1.08 billion dollars, while Dell made $747 million.
I could find counter-example after counter-example.
The smartphone market is relatively small and new, as is Android. The race to the bottom has just started.
Competitiveness is indeed just kicking off in earnest. No company is immune to it, and pointing to Apple's tremendous success at leveraging iTunes and their iPod franchise into a lucrative smartphone initiative in no way can be applied to anyone else. Again, there are endless counter-examples (how's Amiga doing these days? Atari? The ST was a pretty great machine, so they must be storming the margins), yet you demonstrated a perfect and remarkably myopic confirmation bias to demonstrate a competitive lesson.
- danieldk 16y agoThrough most of Apple's history, their niche was remarkably unprofitable. Yes. And it is common knowledge that Apple was notably mismanaged company during the nineties. Explain Apple's popularity, taking OS X and iOS completely out of the equation. Now think why Jobs refuses to set up licensing contracts with other vendors. Those iMacs and iPhones don't look so interesting anymore if you can get a HP computer/phone with OS X/iOS two third of the price, one and a half times the performance. I am pretty sure the majority of the Mac users that I know would've bought HP.
- redrobot5050 16y ago>I am pretty sure the majority of the Mac users that I know would've bought HP. Its funny you say that. Apple Cinema displays used to be the exact same LCD display as HP displays, except they had a FireWire and USB hub built into them. They also cost $400 more. Even if Apple licensed to clone vendors again, it's unlikely HP would produce third third the price and one and a half times the performance. Apple's Pro lines remain competitive with the market. Apple also led the way in doing things like putting accelerometers in laptops and swivel/tilt controls, Etc. HP could have done that with their hardware on the windows side (and written/loaded drivers for the hw) but choose instead to sell a bland box. Perhaps this is why Apple's hardware offerings continue to look interesting in light of cheaper alternatives.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- nl 16y agoExplain Apple's popularity, taking OS X and iOS completely out of the equation. Steve Jobs and his quest for perfection. Now think why Jobs refuses to set up licensing contracts with other vendors. Those iMacs and iPhones don't look so interesting anymore if you can get a HP computer/phone with OS X/iOS two third of the price, one and a half times the performance. I am pretty sure the majority of the Mac users that I know would've bought HP. Apple can easily compete on price with anyone nowdays. They choose not to in (low to mid range) computing, but the iPod/iPhone/iPad are ultra-competitive price-wise with anyone out there. The real reason is because Jobs believes controlling the entire experience (both the hardware and the software) gives the best experience for the user. He may well be right, so long as he is in charge of the experience (cite: any other company that tried the same strategy). Steve Jobs is a genius, but he's also 55. He's a once-in-a-generation leader, and Apple is lucky to have him.