3 ms·

iPhone showed that most consumers don't value those features over a sleek integrated lifestyle product. Consumers have no acess to bid on the incremental value

by 001sky 13y ago

iPhone showed that most consumers don't value those features over a sleek integrated lifestyle product. Consumers have no acess to bid on the incremental value of features. There is no supply side market for these. There is no market because apple is playing monopolist (legal). Lets not use sloppy language !!

cowsandmilk 13y ago
> apple is playing monopolist what? how does apple have a monopoly?
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  You're going down the road into a philosophical argument. Defining a monopoly requires you to define a market, which is a huge can of worms. If you make the market "computing devices" then nobody has a monopoly. If you make the market "Win32 API PCs" then Microsoft has a monopoly. If you make the market "devices that run iOS apps" then Apple has a monopoly. And so on. The larger point is that consumer choice isn't there. You can't get an iOS device with a removable battery. That doesn't prove that current Apple customers don't want a removable battery, it just proves they value some other characteristics more, and the market may not be offering any single product that satisfies their optimal set of preferences. When that happens it means there is room for a newcomer to disrupt the market. If someone started selling iPhones (or something sufficiently equivalent) with removable batteries, some people would buy them -- if only because it would double the resale value since the phone wouldn't become landfill after the non-replaceable battery goes flat.
mason240 13y ago
>There is no market because apple is playing monopolist (legal). Lets not use sloppy language !! Are you going for satire?
- 001sky 13y ago
  Patents and trademarks are legal monopolies. Because of these protections, there are no non-apple "iphones". As a result, there are no ipohones with features not offered by apple. There are no a-la-carte prices for the features discussed. plain and simple. nothing nefarious, its their right by law. that being said, you cant infer/measure market values in non-existent markets. that's what the previous poster was trying to do.
ant512 13y ago
> Consumers have no acess to bid on the incremental value of features. They could have kept buying Nokia 3310s instead of iPhones if they thought that a replaceable battery was more important than everything else they got with the Apple product. People made the same argument about physical keyboards, and look at what happened to RIM.
- thedufer 13y ago
  The fact that the Droid line sells despite it being basically a keyboard bolted onto a 2-3 year old phone shows that there is a market there. RIMs problem was one of software - only Android and iOS smartphones are really doing well these days, since nothing else has the app ecosystem. Which comes back to the incremental value of features thing.

by 001sky 13y ago

cowsandmilk 13y ago

> apple is playing monopolist what? how does apple have a monopoly?

AnthonyMouse 13y ago
You're going down the road into a philosophical argument. Defining a monopoly requires you to define a market, which is a huge can of worms. If you make the market "computing devices" then nobody has a monopoly. If you make the market "Win32 API PCs" then Microsoft has a monopoly. If you make the market "devices that run iOS apps" then Apple has a monopoly. And so on. The larger point is that consumer choice isn't there. You can't get an iOS device with a removable battery. That doesn't prove that current Apple customers don't want a removable battery, it just proves they value some other characteristics more, and the market may not be offering any single product that satisfies their optimal set of preferences. When that happens it means there is room for a newcomer to disrupt the market. If someone started selling iPhones (or something sufficiently equivalent) with removable batteries, some people would buy them -- if only because it would double the resale value since the phone wouldn't become landfill after the non-replaceable battery goes flat.

mason240 13y ago

>There is no market because apple is playing monopolist (legal). Lets not use sloppy language !! Are you going for satire?

001sky 13y ago
Patents and trademarks are legal monopolies. Because of these protections, there are no non-apple "iphones". As a result, there are no ipohones with features not offered by apple. There are no a-la-carte prices for the features discussed. plain and simple. nothing nefarious, its their right by law. that being said, you cant infer/measure market values in non-existent markets. that's what the previous poster was trying to do.

ant512 13y ago

> Consumers have no acess to bid on the incremental value of features. They could have kept buying Nokia 3310s instead of iPhones if they thought that a replaceable battery was more important than everything else they got with the Apple product. People made the same argument about physical keyboards, and look at what happened to RIM.

thedufer 13y ago
The fact that the Droid line sells despite it being basically a keyboard bolted onto a 2-3 year old phone shows that there is a market there. RIMs problem was one of software - only Android and iOS smartphones are really doing well these days, since nothing else has the app ecosystem. Which comes back to the incremental value of features thing.