4 ms·

Of course the Android sales dominate the cheaper end of the market. Apple dominates the expensive end of the market, as I said (lower market share, high margin)

by shingen 15y ago

Of course the Android sales dominate the cheaper end of the market. Apple dominates the expensive end of the market, as I said (lower market share, high margin). I always find it fascinating how the Apple arguments now center almost exclusively on who's making the most money. It's a fine argument to make, but it sure sounds shallow when you stack it up against the supposed Apple ethos. You'll notice I didn't say Apple wouldn't dominate the profit center, much like they do in PCs. I said they'll lose their market dominance. Their market share will erode until it finds a balancing point based on the iPad being at the high end of the product category. Apple has no interest in positioning the iPad anywhere else, so they will absolutely hold their pricing high.

gnaffle 15y ago
The iPod disproves your assertion that Apple will hold their pricing high. They will rather sell high-priced devices than crap, but if they can they will compete on price. Look at the iPhones, where the iPhone 4 sells for $99 and the iPhone 3GS sells for $0. And now, they're selling the iPad 2 for $399.
batista 15y ago
I always find it fascinating how the Apple arguments now center almost exclusively on who's making the most money. It's a fine argument to make, but it sure sounds shallow when you stack it up against the supposed Apple ethos. Apple is a company, it's out to make money. What "Apple ethos"? If anything, the Apple ethos is about designing highly usable, uncomplicated and beautiful devices and software. Which they kinda do --and has nothing to do with what part of the market they target.
- shingen 15y ago
  Because the traditional arguments, going back 30 years now, have strictly been in favor of Apple's design and product purity, not that they could get the most cash out of their customers with the highest prices.
  - krschultz 15y ago
    Aren't they legally required as a public company to try and make the most money for their shareholders?
  - shingen 15y ago
    krschultz - We're talking about the arguments coming out of the people championing Apple products, not what the company has a responsibility to do. Who ever said Apple wasn't going to try to maximize profit? I certainly didn't say that. So I'm not sure what your point is.
  - batista 15y ago
    Because the traditional arguments, going back 30 years now, have strictly been in favor of Apple's design and product purity, not that they could get the most cash out of their customers with the highest prices. Actually this thread is about the inverse: how Apple gets the most cash out of their customers providing some of the BEST prices for the device category. To quote the article: = = Let’s go back to pretending you’re one of Apple’s competitors. How can you possibly beat the iPad? Well, not on price. Even before the new iPad, rivals were having a hard time matching Apple’s prices while still making a profit. Now that the cheapest iPad cost $399, they face an even tougher road. Because Apple has used its plentiful cash to corner the market on key tablet components—like touch-screen displays—many competitors will find that the only way to make a tablet with comparable features but a lower price is to sell it at a loss. = = Big profit margin != highest prices. It's because of the streamlined design and product purity that they get to do so. Fewer models instead of confusion multitude of options means huge savings in economy of scale. Insisting on quality vs quantity, translates to people wanting to buy their stuff despite them being on the high end of the market. Not to mention that given they cater the high end of the market, they do offer the best prices, or near. Can you find a cheaper touch tablet or phone? Yes. Can you find a cheaper tablet or phone that you feel it belongs in the same league? Hardly. Except if you explain the iPad's success and Apple's 12 year rise with "sheep" and "fanboys" [], no company built something like the iPad, that a large number of people wanted to buy, UNTIL the iPad. And even after, judging from the mediocre sales of competitors. [] which doesn't even explain how they went from 1-2 million customers and a company close to extinction to 80 million fanboys, much less how 1/4 of the US population can be an "Apple fanboy", or how a "fad" builds up and lasts for 12 years, which is an eternity in tech terms
- laacz 15y ago
  > If anything, the Apple ethos is about designing highly usable, uncomplicated and beautiful devices and software. Which they kinda do --and has nothing to do with what part of the market they target. I'd gladly agree, if that only was true. As an iPhone user, I tend to think, that "highly usable and beautiful devices and software" is on decline. They are more interested in keeping the market share, and more profit than giving people what they want. The most annoying thing is that Apple is thinking that it does know better what their customers want. And after few weeks of whining, people usually agree. Since there is no point in disagreeing - nobody is listening.

by shingen 15y ago

gnaffle 15y ago

The iPod disproves your assertion that Apple will hold their pricing high. They will rather sell high-priced devices than crap, but if they can they will compete on price. Look at the iPhones, where the iPhone 4 sells for $99 and the iPhone 3GS sells for $0. And now, they're selling the iPad 2 for $399.

batista 15y ago

I always find it fascinating how the Apple arguments now center almost exclusively on who's making the most money. It's a fine argument to make, but it sure sounds shallow when you stack it up against the supposed Apple ethos. Apple is a company, it's out to make money. What "Apple ethos"? If anything, the Apple ethos is about designing highly usable, uncomplicated and beautiful devices and software. Which they kinda do --and has nothing to do with what part of the market they target.

shingen 15y ago
Because the traditional arguments, going back 30 years now, have strictly been in favor of Apple's design and product purity, not that they could get the most cash out of their customers with the highest prices.
- krschultz 15y ago
  Aren't they legally required as a public company to try and make the most money for their shareholders?
- shingen 15y ago
  krschultz - We're talking about the arguments coming out of the people championing Apple products, not what the company has a responsibility to do. Who ever said Apple wasn't going to try to maximize profit? I certainly didn't say that. So I'm not sure what your point is.
- batista 15y ago
  Because the traditional arguments, going back 30 years now, have strictly been in favor of Apple's design and product purity, not that they could get the most cash out of their customers with the highest prices. Actually this thread is about the inverse: how Apple gets the most cash out of their customers providing some of the BEST prices for the device category. To quote the article: = = Let’s go back to pretending you’re one of Apple’s competitors. How can you possibly beat the iPad? Well, not on price. Even before the new iPad, rivals were having a hard time matching Apple’s prices while still making a profit. Now that the cheapest iPad cost $399, they face an even tougher road. Because Apple has used its plentiful cash to corner the market on key tablet components—like touch-screen displays—many competitors will find that the only way to make a tablet with comparable features but a lower price is to sell it at a loss. = = Big profit margin != highest prices. It's because of the streamlined design and product purity that they get to do so. Fewer models instead of confusion multitude of options means huge savings in economy of scale. Insisting on quality vs quantity, translates to people wanting to buy their stuff despite them being on the high end of the market. Not to mention that given they cater the high end of the market, they do offer the best prices, or near. Can you find a cheaper touch tablet or phone? Yes. Can you find a cheaper tablet or phone that you feel it belongs in the same league? Hardly. Except if you explain the iPad's success and Apple's 12 year rise with "sheep" and "fanboys" [], no company built something like the iPad, that a large number of people wanted to buy, UNTIL the iPad. And even after, judging from the mediocre sales of competitors. [] which doesn't even explain how they went from 1-2 million customers and a company close to extinction to 80 million fanboys, much less how 1/4 of the US population can be an "Apple fanboy", or how a "fad" builds up and lasts for 12 years, which is an eternity in tech terms
laacz 15y ago
> If anything, the Apple ethos is about designing highly usable, uncomplicated and beautiful devices and software. Which they kinda do --and has nothing to do with what part of the market they target. I'd gladly agree, if that only was true. As an iPhone user, I tend to think, that "highly usable and beautiful devices and software" is on decline. They are more interested in keeping the market share, and more profit than giving people what they want. The most annoying thing is that Apple is thinking that it does know better what their customers want. And after few weeks of whining, people usually agree. Since there is no point in disagreeing - nobody is listening.