6 ms·
> Apple is no more exclusive than the GAP or Target or eating at Red Lobster. Definitely true, but he also undermines his own argument here: Yes, Red Lobster i
by jey 16y ago
> Apple is no more exclusive than the GAP or Target or eating at Red Lobster.
Definitely true, but he also undermines his own argument here: Yes, Red Lobster is not Chez Panisse and Apple is not Rolex, but to large parts of society Red Lobster is considered expensive and not worth it. It's not "exclusive", but it's still at the top of the "normal" bracket. There's a lot of middle class people who'd rather shop at Kohl's than Gap and buy the cheaper and equivalent-seeming Android device over the fancy expensive iDevice.
Disclosure: I wrote this on a Mac.
- baguasquirrel 16y agoThere is a concept of a sub-luxury brand, a product that is not exclusive to the rich, but still markets itself as a quality, high-end, status-worthy product, and that is what I think the author is getting at. An example of this could be Lincolns and Toyota Avalons, from the car world, except Lincolns aren't designed to be simple and sexy and Toyota really didn't know what they were doing with the Avalon. Say what you will about the engineering and cost, but that is what Joe Schmoe thinks of Apple.
- nickpinkston 16y agoYea, I agree. Just because a Corvette Z06 is a bargain compared to a Ferrari 430, doesn't mean most people won't still think it's too expensive.
- brudgers 16y agoHmm...The Mac is to computing as Red Lobster is to seafood? The RDF is cracking.