3 ms·

Apple is the 4th largest computer maker by market share [0]. Lenovo is more than 2 1/2 times their size. Your argument is akin to "Porsche should lower their

by MR4D 3y ago

Apple is the 4th largest computer maker by market share [0]. Lenovo is more than 2 1/2 times their size. Your argument is akin to "Porsche should lower their prices. They could do better. Competition should force that." Apple has a particular niche in the market similar to Porsche. Steve Jobs even tells the story of that (sorry, don't have a link handy for that story at the moment). Apple is a premium company. They have premium prices. I can complain about their prices all day long just like for Porsche, but I'm still going to buy their products if I think they're worth it. I just make sure to keep them for a long time - iphones for 4 years, and computers for 6 - which makes it worth it to me to spend on larger ram and storage. Side note: Take a look at Louis Vuitton handbags [1]. They're way overpriced. But there are tons of them out there if you look for them. Most of the bags on that page are more expensive than most Apple computers. That tells me that Apple knows what they are doing, and the rest of the PC market does not. [0] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/269703/global-market-share-held-by-pc-vendors-since-the-1st-quarter-2009/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/269703/global-market-sha... [1] - https://us.louisvuitton.com/eng-us/women/handbags/all-handbags/_/N-tfr7qdp https://us.louisvuitton.com/eng-us/women/handbags/all-handba...

seec 3y ago
That's a nonsense argument with a false equivalency. If you buy a Porsche once in your life you will not be forced to buy Porsches for the rest of your life and you won't have to change your whole wardrobe or something stupid like that. You can use the same gas as anyone else. And even though they are specialized dealers, your Porsche could be fixed by any competent mechanic. There is a lock-in with computer technology around software/data that doesn't have an equivalent in the analog world. Because of this I believe tech companies have a responsibility and should make their stuff available at a competitive price or we need to force them. Apple locked in their software to their hardware in order to increase their profit. Now that they have a lot of people tied to their software and that the switching cost are extremely high (require lot of time, knowledge, and skill) they go and abuse their position by overcharging for stuff that are much cheaper in the competitive market (RAM/storage). Defending this behavior, coming out of a company worth trillions of dollars and making about 100 billion in PROFIT per year not only makes no sense (whether you like them or not) but also makes you look very suspicious. I'll add that we are collectively paying for this milking, since ressource are not infinite, and Apple collecting so much surplus money is a problem for society, it points to an extreme inefficiency that needs to be solved. On top of that you seem to be confused between premium and luxury. Premium is fine, you can have premium tools/technology that are basically the same as cheaper products but simply better built, nicer and all that. Nobody would argue against that, and premium prices reflect the needs for better manufacturing and everything related. But then there is luxury, where the price is largely disconnected from what the item cost to make. Unlike premium, that is just a small markup allowing better manufacturing and slightly better margins, luxury is just a random number to convey exclusivity. The price is whatever number seems to work to limit the amount of customers so that the products become uncommon enough to be notable. It creates rarity out of nothing and is largely a game that should only be played by the most well-off of any society, but it sadly also attracts many who cannot really afford it. Luxury is for the most part undesirable; because human psychology makes it so that the ones who could the least afford it are the ones most likely to want it. A Louis Vuitton handbag is a dumb purchase to anyone who isn't a multimillionaire already, and even then, it doesn't make a lot of sense since you could basically pay a skilled craft person for a month and have them do multiple items for cheaper than the price of one bag. It is an extremely poor allocation of ressource and mostly preys off the most basic desires of peoples (to look a particular way). It just is an inefficiency you have to accept in an economy but shouldn't be encouraged and revered in any way. And this is precisely what is reproached to current Apple. They pretend to be a premium technology company; yet they price their stuff like luxury fashion. Even though it feels wrong, it's ok to do that with secondary items that are close to fashion, like accessories (their headphones line, I would argue even the watch, many other things). It is not ok to overcharge for a computer system that many people have to rely on for their work, the fact that there is not an equivalent is PRECISELY the problem. If they keep up that way, I think they should be judged for bundling and forced to sell the OS separately of their hardware if they are unwilling to sell hardware at a competitive price. The choice argument is very weak when switching is an expensive and sometimes impossible option. It is like a supplier raising their price 500% and saying eat shit, it shouldn't be allowed especially if there is no actual alternative to the supplier because of various market dynamics or technical incompatibility/limitations. It is basically like the Shkreli case.
kcb 3y ago
They've got all the Premium Prices. They've got $19.99 for sale for $200.00.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by MR4D 3y ago

seec 3y ago

That's a nonsense argument with a false equivalency. If you buy a Porsche once in your life you will not be forced to buy Porsches for the rest of your life and you won't have to change your whole wardrobe or something stupid like that. You can use the same gas as anyone else. And even though they are specialized dealers, your Porsche could be fixed by any competent mechanic. There is a lock-in with computer technology around software/data that doesn't have an equivalent in the analog world. Because of this I believe tech companies have a responsibility and should make their stuff available at a competitive price or we need to force them. Apple locked in their software to their hardware in order to increase their profit. Now that they have a lot of people tied to their software and that the switching cost are extremely high (require lot of time, knowledge, and skill) they go and abuse their position by overcharging for stuff that are much cheaper in the competitive market (RAM/storage). Defending this behavior, coming out of a company worth trillions of dollars and making about 100 billion in PROFIT per year not only makes no sense (whether you like them or not) but also makes you look very suspicious. I'll add that we are collectively paying for this milking, since ressource are not infinite, and Apple collecting so much surplus money is a problem for society, it points to an extreme inefficiency that needs to be solved. On top of that you seem to be confused between premium and luxury. Premium is fine, you can have premium tools/technology that are basically the same as cheaper products but simply better built, nicer and all that. Nobody would argue against that, and premium prices reflect the needs for better manufacturing and everything related. But then there is luxury, where the price is largely disconnected from what the item cost to make. Unlike premium, that is just a small markup allowing better manufacturing and slightly better margins, luxury is just a random number to convey exclusivity. The price is whatever number seems to work to limit the amount of customers so that the products become uncommon enough to be notable. It creates rarity out of nothing and is largely a game that should only be played by the most well-off of any society, but it sadly also attracts many who cannot really afford it. Luxury is for the most part undesirable; because human psychology makes it so that the ones who could the least afford it are the ones most likely to want it. A Louis Vuitton handbag is a dumb purchase to anyone who isn't a multimillionaire already, and even then, it doesn't make a lot of sense since you could basically pay a skilled craft person for a month and have them do multiple items for cheaper than the price of one bag. It is an extremely poor allocation of ressource and mostly preys off the most basic desires of peoples (to look a particular way). It just is an inefficiency you have to accept in an economy but shouldn't be encouraged and revered in any way. And this is precisely what is reproached to current Apple. They pretend to be a premium technology company; yet they price their stuff like luxury fashion. Even though it feels wrong, it's ok to do that with secondary items that are close to fashion, like accessories (their headphones line, I would argue even the watch, many other things). It is not ok to overcharge for a computer system that many people have to rely on for their work, the fact that there is not an equivalent is PRECISELY the problem. If they keep up that way, I think they should be judged for bundling and forced to sell the OS separately of their hardware if they are unwilling to sell hardware at a competitive price. The choice argument is very weak when switching is an expensive and sometimes impossible option. It is like a supplier raising their price 500% and saying eat shit, it shouldn't be allowed especially if there is no actual alternative to the supplier because of various market dynamics or technical incompatibility/limitations. It is basically like the Shkreli case.

kcb 3y ago

They've got all the Premium Prices. They've got $19.99 for sale for $200.00.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]