4 ms·

I find both viewpoints laughable: That Google thinks it has any shade to throw at Apple over privacy, and that Apple doesn't think it has become a purveyor of l

I find both viewpoints laughable: That Google thinks it has any shade to throw at Apple over privacy, and that Apple doesn't think it has become a purveyor of luxury goods.

Despegar 7y ago
Apple's installed base is 1.4 billion devices. 1.4 billion of any consumer product isn't "luxury". Words mean things and "luxury goods" are from brands like Hermes, Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Gucci, Rolex, and Ferrari. Scarcity is an actual strategy for those companies. And if you actually consider the total cost of ownership rather than the upfront price, Apple products will either be equivalent or even cheaper than the competition. Pichai and Zuckerberg have both tried this deflection now, and it just isn't a very good line of attack for the above reason. Apple products are too ubiquitous that everyone intuitively understands it's nonsense.
- hyperbovine 7y ago
  Right, that’s exactly the brilliant insight that made Steve Jobs the genius he was: offer a product that is unquestionably luxurious, yet somehow also widely attainable. Result: the richest, most successful people in the world are sporting the exact same iPhone as my mom.
  - alexis_fr 7y ago
    There is something eerie walking in malls in Dubai, looking at diamond-covered iPhone cases, and thinking they also struggle with entering text in an inpuy box, the tongue stuck between the lips.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- threatofrain 7y ago
  Perhaps the term is premium.
  - krustyburger 7y ago
    But that word doesn't have the implication of wastefulness they're hoping to attach to Apple.
- aaronbrethorst 7y ago
  Gruber has a great quote from Andy Warhol on the subject some years ago: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/01/03/warhole-coke https://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/01/03/warhole-coke
- smallbigfish 7y ago
  Hehe. Apple _is_ the Gucci equivalent for phones. There are no better products. And while it's an affordable product for many US citizens this is not case for some EU citizens.
  - jsgyx 7y ago
    Until we get rid of the EU and Apple can lower their prices in poorer countries.
- clairity 7y ago
  > 'Apple's installed base is 1.4 billion devices. 1.4 billion of any consumer product isn't "luxury".' it's reasonable to argue that apple isn't a luxury brand ("upmarket" maybe), but citing global sales here isn't very compelling. for instance, 1 device per person would be less than 20% of the world's population, and probably heavily skewed to the richest 20%, so it's hard to accept that on its face. global median income is on the order of $1,000/year, so most people around the world consider apple a luxury brand, out of reach of the common person. i'd suggest refining your argument, rather than essentially resting on your perception of "everyone's intuitive understanding".
- mwfunk 7y ago
  I think a very coarse but useful way (for me at least) to think of consumer goods is that they tend to sort out into 3 markets: mass market, premium, luxury. In general, mass market is the 80-90% solution for most people, in which products are commodities and the big players tend to compete on price. Mass market products tend to have very low margins but make up for it with high volume. The premium market is almost all of the remaining 10-20%. Premium should (ideally, but not always in practice) mean that nothing about the product is compromised or half-assed, while still costing not-insane amounts of money compared to the mass market alternatives. A consumer pays a premium price because they like the thing and/or they like being able to assume that it's premium quality even with respect to things they don't know enough to care about. Premium products tend to have fatter margins and lower volume than mass market products, but generally have the greatest success if they can justify themselves to premium consumers. Competitive advantage within a premium market is often value, ironically- best bang for the buck overall, there's just an assumed higher cost of entry vs mass market. The luxury market is exactly as Despegar wrote. Tiny companies selling very small quantities of tremendously expensive baubles. Value is almost meaningless here. It's the opposite of mass market- it's the other extreme of trying to maximize (margin * volume). I think the three tiers of mass market/premium/luxury represent local maxima that companies naturally gravitate towards by applied market forces, with perhaps a global maximum somewhere in the premium range. These sweet spots represent healthy places for businesses to be, for the companies, their customers, and their shareholders. For example, the auto industry: Toyota and VW are mass market, Lexus and Audi are premium, and Bugatti and Ferrari are luxury. Steak places: Sizzler and Black Angus are mass market, Ruth's Chris and Flemings are premium, and some place in Hong Kong that doesn't advertise or even have a name and that I will sadly never learn about or be invited to is luxury. All of which is a very long-winded way for me to say that yep, 1.4bil devices is definitely not luxury. Mostly premium (in the higher-cost-of-entry-but-better-long-term-value sense) but still a huge number. Vertu was luxury, and they completely sucked on top of that.

I find both viewpoints laughable: That Google thinks it has any shade to throw at Apple over privacy, and that Apple doesn't think it has become a purveyor of luxury goods.

Despegar 7y ago

Apple's installed base is 1.4 billion devices. 1.4 billion of any consumer product isn't "luxury". Words mean things and "luxury goods" are from brands like Hermes, Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Gucci, Rolex, and Ferrari. Scarcity is an actual strategy for those companies. And if you actually consider the total cost of ownership rather than the upfront price, Apple products will either be equivalent or even cheaper than the competition. Pichai and Zuckerberg have both tried this deflection now, and it just isn't a very good line of attack for the above reason. Apple products are too ubiquitous that everyone intuitively understands it's nonsense.

hyperbovine 7y ago
Right, that’s exactly the brilliant insight that made Steve Jobs the genius he was: offer a product that is unquestionably luxurious, yet somehow also widely attainable. Result: the richest, most successful people in the world are sporting the exact same iPhone as my mom.
- alexis_fr 7y ago
  There is something eerie walking in malls in Dubai, looking at diamond-covered iPhone cases, and thinking they also struggle with entering text in an inpuy box, the tongue stuck between the lips.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
threatofrain 7y ago
Perhaps the term is premium.
- krustyburger 7y ago
  But that word doesn't have the implication of wastefulness they're hoping to attach to Apple.
aaronbrethorst 7y ago
Gruber has a great quote from Andy Warhol on the subject some years ago: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/01/03/warhole-coke https://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/01/03/warhole-coke
smallbigfish 7y ago
Hehe. Apple _is_ the Gucci equivalent for phones. There are no better products. And while it's an affordable product for many US citizens this is not case for some EU citizens.
- jsgyx 7y ago
  Until we get rid of the EU and Apple can lower their prices in poorer countries.
clairity 7y ago
> 'Apple's installed base is 1.4 billion devices. 1.4 billion of any consumer product isn't "luxury".' it's reasonable to argue that apple isn't a luxury brand ("upmarket" maybe), but citing global sales here isn't very compelling. for instance, 1 device per person would be less than 20% of the world's population, and probably heavily skewed to the richest 20%, so it's hard to accept that on its face. global median income is on the order of $1,000/year, so most people around the world consider apple a luxury brand, out of reach of the common person. i'd suggest refining your argument, rather than essentially resting on your perception of "everyone's intuitive understanding".
mwfunk 7y ago
I think a very coarse but useful way (for me at least) to think of consumer goods is that they tend to sort out into 3 markets: mass market, premium, luxury. In general, mass market is the 80-90% solution for most people, in which products are commodities and the big players tend to compete on price. Mass market products tend to have very low margins but make up for it with high volume. The premium market is almost all of the remaining 10-20%. Premium should (ideally, but not always in practice) mean that nothing about the product is compromised or half-assed, while still costing not-insane amounts of money compared to the mass market alternatives. A consumer pays a premium price because they like the thing and/or they like being able to assume that it's premium quality even with respect to things they don't know enough to care about. Premium products tend to have fatter margins and lower volume than mass market products, but generally have the greatest success if they can justify themselves to premium consumers. Competitive advantage within a premium market is often value, ironically- best bang for the buck overall, there's just an assumed higher cost of entry vs mass market. The luxury market is exactly as Despegar wrote. Tiny companies selling very small quantities of tremendously expensive baubles. Value is almost meaningless here. It's the opposite of mass market- it's the other extreme of trying to maximize (margin * volume). I think the three tiers of mass market/premium/luxury represent local maxima that companies naturally gravitate towards by applied market forces, with perhaps a global maximum somewhere in the premium range. These sweet spots represent healthy places for businesses to be, for the companies, their customers, and their shareholders. For example, the auto industry: Toyota and VW are mass market, Lexus and Audi are premium, and Bugatti and Ferrari are luxury. Steak places: Sizzler and Black Angus are mass market, Ruth's Chris and Flemings are premium, and some place in Hong Kong that doesn't advertise or even have a name and that I will sadly never learn about or be invited to is luxury. All of which is a very long-winded way for me to say that yep, 1.4bil devices is definitely not luxury. Mostly premium (in the higher-cost-of-entry-but-better-long-term-value sense) but still a huge number. Vertu was luxury, and they completely sucked on top of that.