3 ms·

That is the question of the ages, many cheap things or fewer expensive things. Problem is the cheap things get better and better until the only reason you stay

by mavhc 4y ago

That is the question of the ages, many cheap things or fewer expensive things. Problem is the cheap things get better and better until the only reason you stay on the expensive thing is they're actively trying to lock you in in a desperate attempt to keep their marketshare

scarface74 4y ago
Well, you’re not the first person to get this wrong. Clay Christenson, the author of “The Innovator’s Dilemna” and the person who came up with the entire theory of “low end disruption” said the same thing about the iPhone in 2007. But Apple has been selling electronics that cost more than its competitors since 1980.
- mavhc 4y ago
  And they only almost went bankrupt a few times. Rolex has been doing the same thing. If they don't want to sell to everyone, that's fine, but if most people can't afford your product, you're not going to win the market by definition. They could sell their phones for way cheaper, but they don't want to, why? Because less profit. Guess we should define what Winning means
  - scarface74 4y ago
    > Guess we should define what Winning means For a for profit company, profit is winning. “Market share” never paid a bill. There is a reason that Apple has been one of the three most valuable companies in the US since 2011. They almost went bankrupt once because: - supply chain issues: they thought that users wanted low end Macs and they manufactured too many of them and not enough high end Macs. Everyone agrees that Apple now is the best in the world when it comes to managing their supply chain - the processors they were using were behind performance wise. It was hard to compete when Apple was only selling a few million Macs and Intel could throw money at performance thanks to having the entire PC market. Now Apple sells about as many ARM based devices as the entire personal computer market (not including servers) and has higher margins to invest. Again no one is saying that Apple doesn’t have the best processors. - the operating system was far behind the competition. That’s definitely not the case now. Apple has shown to be far more nimble than its competitors. - there was a dearth of software for its platform. Now that’s definitely not the case except for computer games . The PC gaming market is small and declining. - They didn’t have any cash on hand. Apple has $200 billion in cash now and it’s doing all it can to throw off cash via stock buybacks and dividends. It could easily have more if it saw that it needed it down the road https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/sectors/sp500-companies-stockpile-1-trillion-cash-investors-want-it/ https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/sectors/sp500-compa...
    - mavhc 4y ago
      But did they win the smartphone war? The question behind the question is can a closed ecosystem survive? Will the open competitor replace it over time? The closed ecosystem company always has to invest more money because it's not shared between multiple other companies. If the latest iPhone doesn't have the feature you need, you have to leave the ecosystem Amused to see that Microsoft is releasing a new product to cache Microsoft updates for Windows users, that runs in Linux on Docker
      - scarface74 4y ago
        > But did they win the smartphone war? Having 70% of the profits in the phone market, with Samsung being a distance second and the rest of the manufacturers scraping by, I would say yes. > The question behind the question is can a closed ecosystem survive? You realize that Macs have survived along side Microsoft based PCs for 40 years? For 26 of those years (1984 -2006 and 2020- present) even using a different processor? > Will the open competitor replace it over time? The closed ecosystem company always has to invest more money because it's not shared between multiple other companies. You realize that Apple has more money than all of the other “multiple companies” combined? Who has the money to invest in processor research and manufacturing (Apple invest billions in TSMC for its manufacturing capacity). Apple has been ahead processor wise in mobile for over decade and now is ahead in personal computers.

by mavhc 4y ago

scarface74 4y ago

Well, you’re not the first person to get this wrong. Clay Christenson, the author of “The Innovator’s Dilemna” and the person who came up with the entire theory of “low end disruption” said the same thing about the iPhone in 2007. But Apple has been selling electronics that cost more than its competitors since 1980.

mavhc 4y ago
And they only almost went bankrupt a few times. Rolex has been doing the same thing. If they don't want to sell to everyone, that's fine, but if most people can't afford your product, you're not going to win the market by definition. They could sell their phones for way cheaper, but they don't want to, why? Because less profit. Guess we should define what Winning means
- scarface74 4y ago
  > Guess we should define what Winning means For a for profit company, profit is winning. “Market share” never paid a bill. There is a reason that Apple has been one of the three most valuable companies in the US since 2011. They almost went bankrupt once because: - supply chain issues: they thought that users wanted low end Macs and they manufactured too many of them and not enough high end Macs. Everyone agrees that Apple now is the best in the world when it comes to managing their supply chain - the processors they were using were behind performance wise. It was hard to compete when Apple was only selling a few million Macs and Intel could throw money at performance thanks to having the entire PC market. Now Apple sells about as many ARM based devices as the entire personal computer market (not including servers) and has higher margins to invest. Again no one is saying that Apple doesn’t have the best processors. - the operating system was far behind the competition. That’s definitely not the case now. Apple has shown to be far more nimble than its competitors. - there was a dearth of software for its platform. Now that’s definitely not the case except for computer games . The PC gaming market is small and declining. - They didn’t have any cash on hand. Apple has $200 billion in cash now and it’s doing all it can to throw off cash via stock buybacks and dividends. It could easily have more if it saw that it needed it down the road https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/sectors/sp500-companies-stockpile-1-trillion-cash-investors-want-it/ https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/sectors/sp500-compa...
  - mavhc 4y ago
    But did they win the smartphone war? The question behind the question is can a closed ecosystem survive? Will the open competitor replace it over time? The closed ecosystem company always has to invest more money because it's not shared between multiple other companies. If the latest iPhone doesn't have the feature you need, you have to leave the ecosystem Amused to see that Microsoft is releasing a new product to cache Microsoft updates for Windows users, that runs in Linux on Docker
    - scarface74 4y ago
      > But did they win the smartphone war? Having 70% of the profits in the phone market, with Samsung being a distance second and the rest of the manufacturers scraping by, I would say yes. > The question behind the question is can a closed ecosystem survive? You realize that Macs have survived along side Microsoft based PCs for 40 years? For 26 of those years (1984 -2006 and 2020- present) even using a different processor? > Will the open competitor replace it over time? The closed ecosystem company always has to invest more money because it's not shared between multiple other companies. You realize that Apple has more money than all of the other “multiple companies” combined? Who has the money to invest in processor research and manufacturing (Apple invest billions in TSMC for its manufacturing capacity). Apple has been ahead processor wise in mobile for over decade and now is ahead in personal computers.