3 ms·

There are a few things about this article that I must not be following correctly: - Apple's core business is something 'everyone can do'. If so then why aren't

There are a few things about this article that I must not be following correctly: - Apple's core business is something 'everyone can do'. If so then why aren't there more people chasing down their position as 'most profitable tech company'? - 'Practically nobody wants to' do what Amazon do? I get the premise: Amazon are playing a long game but will be entrenched, whereas Apple's products tend to have a far shorter lifespan, therefore Amazon isn't being chased as furiously as Apple. However, it still seems a bit... wrong?

pavanky 14y ago
I think it means building phones and tablets is easier than building warehouses, developing partnerships and affiliates. Keep in mind that Apple has been doing this (building touch screen devices) for about 6 years, while Amazon has been doing this (e-retail) for more than twice that time. Apple already has serious competitors, while Amazon maintains a near monopoly. I think this is the essence of what the article was getting at.
rednukleus 14y ago
You misinterpret what "core business" means. Apple's core business is making phones and tablets. There is now fierce global competition in these sectors. I can't think of any other company that competes with Amazon at anywhere near the scale they are operating at.
sliverstorm 14y ago
If so then why aren't there more people chasing down their position as 'most profitable tech company'? Competitors are not yet successful at giving Apple's profitability a run for its money, but you'd have to be willfully blind to think they weren't trying. LG, Samsung, Nokia, RIM, HTC, Huawei, Acer, Asus, Motorola, Sony...
lumberjack 14y ago
I think he means to say that there are already various smartphone and laptop manufactures whereas there are few (none?) who have Amazon's worldwide logistics infrastructure. So in effect, the hurdles to be tackled by a promising competitor are more easily monitor in Amazon's case than in Apple's and therefore Amazon is a potentially safer investment. I myself think the view a bit too simplistic and as a counterpoint I would say that Apple's continuous influential presence within the market despite the hostility imposed by the numerous competitors is a testament to Apple's ability to navigate treacherous waters.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  Amazon is very far from being world-wide. Amazon is patchy, here and there in some countries in the world, which is much bigger than that. Apple can cross borders much more easily, which it does.
  - lostlogin 14y ago
    Thank you. If anyone thinks they can beat Apples infrastructure, good luck to them. Buying components by the 10s of millions, and getting completed products to customers from the factory to the end user at the other end of the world in a day or 3, whilst managing to have low inventory. Brand new iPhone models excluded...
rohamg 14y ago
it's very wrong. take a look at the latest batch of 500.co or YC or AngelList. compare # of companies gunning for AMZN and ecommerce compared to those gearing up to build phones and tablets. if i was apple i'd rather compete against HTC armed with margin than the hordes of YC. the article implies Amazon's scorched earth approach is preferable to Apple's continuing innovation. braindead if u ask me.

pavanky 14y ago

I think it means building phones and tablets is easier than building warehouses, developing partnerships and affiliates. Keep in mind that Apple has been doing this (building touch screen devices) for about 6 years, while Amazon has been doing this (e-retail) for more than twice that time. Apple already has serious competitors, while Amazon maintains a near monopoly. I think this is the essence of what the article was getting at.

rednukleus 14y ago

You misinterpret what "core business" means. Apple's core business is making phones and tablets. There is now fierce global competition in these sectors. I can't think of any other company that competes with Amazon at anywhere near the scale they are operating at.

sliverstorm 14y ago

If so then why aren't there more people chasing down their position as 'most profitable tech company'? Competitors are not yet successful at giving Apple's profitability a run for its money, but you'd have to be willfully blind to think they weren't trying. LG, Samsung, Nokia, RIM, HTC, Huawei, Acer, Asus, Motorola, Sony...

lumberjack 14y ago

I think he means to say that there are already various smartphone and laptop manufactures whereas there are few (none?) who have Amazon's worldwide logistics infrastructure. So in effect, the hurdles to be tackled by a promising competitor are more easily monitor in Amazon's case than in Apple's and therefore Amazon is a potentially safer investment. I myself think the view a bit too simplistic and as a counterpoint I would say that Apple's continuous influential presence within the market despite the hostility imposed by the numerous competitors is a testament to Apple's ability to navigate treacherous waters.

guard-of-terra 14y ago
Amazon is very far from being world-wide. Amazon is patchy, here and there in some countries in the world, which is much bigger than that. Apple can cross borders much more easily, which it does.
- lostlogin 14y ago
  Thank you. If anyone thinks they can beat Apples infrastructure, good luck to them. Buying components by the 10s of millions, and getting completed products to customers from the factory to the end user at the other end of the world in a day or 3, whilst managing to have low inventory. Brand new iPhone models excluded...

rohamg 14y ago

it's very wrong. take a look at the latest batch of 500.co or YC or AngelList. compare # of companies gunning for AMZN and ecommerce compared to those gearing up to build phones and tablets. if i was apple i'd rather compete against HTC armed with margin than the hordes of YC. the article implies Amazon's scorched earth approach is preferable to Apple's continuing innovation. braindead if u ask me.