Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 13, 2019 3:07:42 GMT -8
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 13, 2019 6:43:46 GMT -8
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 13, 2019 9:43:37 GMT -8
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 13, 2019 9:44:19 GMT -8
Quiet here today...
|
|
|
Post by gtrplyr on Feb 13, 2019 9:47:27 GMT -8
If Apple is going to emphasize services from here on out, I think a cheaper iPhone for markets like India and China would be a wonderful idea. I don't think they need to beat others on price but if they just make it closer I still think they could sell at a premium. The trick is finding that sweet price point so they don't cannibalize their more expensive phones but I believe it can and should be done at this point.
Cheers to the longs.
|
|
|
Post by incorrigible on Feb 13, 2019 11:04:45 GMT -8
From Reuters via SA:
|
|
|
Post by incorrigible on Feb 13, 2019 11:08:57 GMT -8
If Apple is going to emphasize services from here on out, I think a cheaper iPhone for markets like India and China would be a wonderful idea. I don't think they need to beat others on price but if they just make it closer I still think they could sell at a premium. The trick is finding that sweet price point so they don't cannibalize their more expensive phones but I believe it can and should be done at this point. Cheers to the longs. I don't see why everyone thinks Apple should make a cheap(er) phone. Why? Increased market share among the cheapskates who most likely won't add much to the ecosystem anyway? Should Ferrari make a cheap "sporty" car? Should Rolex make a cheap watch anyone can afford? I say stay a premium brand people aspire to and keep the "lower sales/higher margin" thing going. Just my $0.02.
|
|
|
Post by silkstone on Feb 13, 2019 11:13:57 GMT -8
I’m with you, no cheap phone. Over time it would drag the brand down. Instead.....continue to improve services and use it to make the hardware more compelling.
|
|
|
Post by zzmac on Feb 13, 2019 11:28:54 GMT -8
Make the ecosystem so attractive that they'll abandon their cheap phones. Slowly over time.
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 13, 2019 11:58:21 GMT -8
I'm not suggesting Apple make a cheap phone. I'm suggesting Apple would be well advised to hold the line on phone prices.
There is a difference.
|
|
Ted
fire starter
Posts: 882
|
Post by Ted on Feb 13, 2019 12:39:29 GMT -8
Apple tried the cheap phone concept with the 5c, and it didn't go over very well or they would've stuck with it. Right about now though, an updated SE might be the best approach for a cheaper on-ramp to the ApplEcosystem... but give it a slightly bigger screen to make it more competitive.
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Feb 13, 2019 12:40:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by incorrigible on Feb 13, 2019 13:26:05 GMT -8
IMHO this has disaster written all over it.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,632
|
Post by 4aapl on Feb 13, 2019 20:53:34 GMT -8
If Apple is going to emphasize services from here on out, I think a cheaper iPhone for markets like India and China would be a wonderful idea. I don't think they need to beat others on price but if they just make it closer I still think they could sell at a premium. The trick is finding that sweet price point so they don't cannibalize their more expensive phones but I believe it can and should be done at this point. Cheers to the longs. I don't see why everyone thinks Apple should make a cheap(er) phone. Why? Increased market share among the cheapskates who most likely won't add much to the ecosystem anyway? Should Ferrari make a cheap "sporty" car? Should Rolex make a cheap watch anyone can afford? I say stay a premium brand people aspire to and keep the "lower sales/higher margin" thing going. Just my $0.02. Yes, if Rolex or Ferrari was trying to increase marketshare, particularly if they has reoccurring income associated with such devices, then it would make sense to make a "lower end" option, which is different than a "low end" option. This would be similar to Mercedes adding a lower end option around 15 years ago (was it the e class?). Truthfully I don't know the ins and outs of it, but I remember it. It was more like they were adding a high end Camry equivalent ($30k or $35k) than a Corolla equivalent. But it was a feeder, getting people into the ecosystem. Like any higher end product, including most of Apple's lineup, the idea is that once they switch to that, they would never go back to a lesser option. For Apple its tough since they are in multiple markets with multiple dynamics. But I could see them adding a lower end device that's not available in the higher end markets, or that is only available online (via Apple, so they keep more of the price). Differentiation is tough, and I understand not wanting to canibalize their high end sales. But if there is at least some differentiation, and there is still a positive profit margin, then I think it would be a good thing in the long run even if it canibalized some high end sales in the short term. Like anything, it depends on where you draw the line. But IMO subscriptions, marketshare in developing (and developed) markets, and future sales would make it a worthwhile venture.
|
|
|
Post by redinaustin on Feb 14, 2019 9:13:45 GMT -8
I have one burning question:
What the hell ever happened to FOCUS?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2019 16:20:26 GMT -8
Yes, if Rolex or Ferrari was trying to increase marketshare, particularly if they has reoccurring income associated with such devices, then it would make sense to make a "lower end" option, which is different than a "low end" option. This would be similar to Mercedes adding a lower end option around 15 years ago (was it the e class?). Truthfully I don't know the ins and outs of it, but I remember it. It was more like they were adding a high end Camry equivalent ($30k or $35k) than a Corolla equivalent. But it was a feeder, getting people into the ecosystem. Like any higher end product, including most of Apple's lineup, the idea is that once they switch to that, they would never go back to a lesser option. For Apple its tough since they are in multiple markets with multiple dynamics. But I could see them adding a lower end device that's not available in the higher end markets, or that is only available online (via Apple, so they keep more of the price). Differentiation is tough, and I understand not wanting to canibalize their high end sales. But if there is at least some differentiation, and there is still a positive profit margin, then I think it would be a good thing in the long run even if it canibalized some high end sales in the short term. Like anything, it depends on where you draw the line. But IMO subscriptions, marketshare in developing (and developed) markets, and future sales would make it a worthwhile venture. Yeah 4AAPL, differentiation is the riddle of branding. It takes differentiation from your competitors to make a brand, strong differentiation to make a strong brand. And except for pure luxury brands, which I suppose have strong affinities to price (exclusivity), it is desirable to expand market share by bringing in those with less income. That is if possible, where possibility hinges on differentiation within the brand. It's a tough nut to crack. Aside from higher-end models, Mercedes has an E-class, a C-class, and an A-class. I believe BMW has a similar differentiation. I don't actually know how successful they've been in not watering down the brand as they've differentiated the models from each other. From appearances it seems they've had some success in it. That is the trick though. For Apple to succeed in this I think would require a similar trick, though it need not necessarily be explicit as it is with cars (E-class, etc). Even here though, de-badging luxury cars to remove numbering is a common thing. After all, if you can't tell the difference between models except by numbering, they're too similar to support the distinction to begin with. Since government regs make the 2 liter turbo virtually a universal standard across all cars, today fancy wheels and especially LED accent lights–driving lights and turn signals–have become one of the primary ways luxury brands distinguish their models. You can tell which one is coming at you–which is the whole point from a beauty and distinction point of view–from the lights. It's why low-end models still have incandescent turn signals even thought it makes no sense to have them. I suppose that's not going to hold up over time since LED lights are actually cheap to produce. So there's every reason to suppose the economy brands will soon have lights just as sweet so that can't be the differentiator across brands, even if it is maintained within brands. I suppose Apple's vertical integration and eventual separation from the machinations of Qualcomm's naked attempts to protect its Snapdragon SoC, and of course it's proprietary software, will allow it to keep it's technical differentiation from other brands. If so, it opens up the possibility of differentiating their models from each other on non-trivial distinctions. So that there are enough functional advantages to the high end models that those with money will gravitate to them, and not to the low end ones that are still better and more attractive than the competition. It's a delicate needle to thread. Contrary to the belief of many, I really think it would offend Apple's sensibilities to come up with trivial distinctions as differentiators, and I think it would also fail as well. That is the crux of it. But I think we'll see Apple give it a go in the future to expand their installed base. If they do succeed in distancing on non-trivial–and thus functional–distinctions, it will be a first and further inflame the nerd-boy crowd that thinks this would be antithetical to everything they know about computers and further evidence of how Apple is an evil force with voodoo mind control over its customers. It will be interesting to watch. One thing is for sure, Apple under Jobs got the branding thing. After all, this was the guy that "out Japanned Japan". www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/How-Steve-Jobs-out-Japanned-Japan-2382279.phpYou can't get branding if you don't get some fundamental things about human nature. It's no accident that Peter Thiel, an early investor in Facebook, was a student of the Stanford philosopher René Girard, who had deeply insightful ideas about the most fundamental aspects of human nature. Some great companies have fallen by the wayside by failing to understand not their products, but the universal nature of humanity who they need to be their customers. Apple has a shot at this, because as I see it they're not blind to these realities. The intersection of technology and the liberal arts indeed.
|
|
|
Post by incorrigible on Feb 18, 2019 7:32:45 GMT -8
Thanks for the link. The statement that jumped out at me was: IMO, sort of like why Apple should *not* be in the movie making/content creation business.
|
|
|
Post by hledgard on Feb 18, 2019 13:37:56 GMT -8
I'm with incorrigible. Do not know what kind of edge Apple has in making content, and fear it is a deep 6 for $.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Feb 18, 2019 16:02:10 GMT -8
I disagree with everyone. 😂 1) If Mercedes had 95% of auto industry profits (as Apple does phone profits), they would have never introduced the C-class. Now everyone has a Benz and they are no longer an exclusive brand. Bad analogy. Why kill your brand for the remaining 5% of "losers and haters?" 2) The “problem” is, everyone has an iPhone. So services revenue is where the growth is at. I’m not saying Netflix is a sustainable biz model, but there has to be some content tethered to the Apple devices. IMO, Apple should have bought Disney instead of starting from scratch. BTW, Netflix spent $8B on content in 2018. That's 3% of Apple's annual revenues. And services is supposedly going to account for 60% of Apple's growth over the next 5 years. Sorry guys, Apple is running out of humans to sell iPhones to, so they need to further monetize the ones already within the garden walls... 3) Sony’s colossal misstep wasn’t doing too much; it was the result of the fight between what was essentially two different companies, Sony electronics and Sony entertainment that led to the epic fuckup of letting Apple walk in and steal what should have been theirs. Sony entertainment was afraid of digital and didn’t want to license their golden goose, so it made horseshit compromises like the DRM-crippled MiniDisc players. I had one and they were totally fucked up. They could have owned the mobile consumer electronics world, but decided to hoard their content - just like the music industry did with their little silver discs. Why is there no Monday thread?
|
|
bud777
fire starter
Posts: 1,352
|
Post by bud777 on Feb 18, 2019 18:18:18 GMT -8
I disagree with everyone. 😂 Which is exactly why I miss your posts I don't follow the logic here. Having 95% of the profits doesn't mean there is no room for growth. Apple's market share in devices is not even 25%. That looks to me like an astonishing opportunity for growth. The problem is to find a way to bring those users into Apple. Remember the "I'm a MAC, and I'm a PC" commercials? Those were moving Apple up even before the iPod. I don't know enough about services to really comment on them, but I did appreciate the recent comments on focus. The proliferation of phones, iPads, and watches feels more to me like a company that has so much money that everyone's idea gets out the door. I am not against innovation, but sometimes I wonder is Apple is saying no enough. Apple laptops is another example of marketing that looks confused. Don't get me wrong, I love the company and the products and principles Apple has always stood for, but it doesn't feel as tight as it once did. Other areas where I am concerned are China and 5G. I take it as a given that China will build out their 5G infrastructure faster than the US. It is simply an advantage of a central government that they can make things happen faster. I am not advocating for that, but if that is the case, Apple could be late to the worldwide 5G party and have a tough time catching up. I see this as the biggest existential threat to Apple over the next 5 years. Not cars, not services, not AR or VR. I guess what I am trying to say is that I feel we are on the cusp of the largest growth spurt that the communications industry will see for 10 years, and I am not sure how well Apple is positioned for it.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Feb 18, 2019 19:55:37 GMT -8
I don't follow the logic here. Having 95% of the profits doesn't mean there is no room for growth. Apple's market share in devices is not even 25%. That looks to me like an astonishing opportunity for growth. The problem is to find a way to bring those users into Apple. Remember the "I'm a MAC, and I'm a PC" commercials? Those were moving Apple up even before the iPod. I don't know enough about services to really comment on them, but I did appreciate the recent comments on focus. I'm surprised this is even up for debate in 2019. Profit share is all that matters. Bud, I think you're suffering from the old, "I don't know how Nixon won, nobody I know voted for him" syndrome. Everyone you associate with might have $1000 of disposable income, but I read somewhere over half of Americans cannot handle a $500 emergency. To recap, Android users (the 75%) are roughly broken down into: 1) the poor; 2) The cheap; 3) Open source nerds who would never use iOS even if Apple gave phones away like Samsung (also cheap, they think software should be free!); 4) The opposite end of the tech spectrum, total technophobes who only call and maybe text on their phones so they want a cheap shit phone and can't even figure out iTunes. Why on earth would we want to tarnish our brand and decimate our ASP's to chase these undesirables? They can't afford $10/mo music subscriptions, let alone $200 wireless earbuds. Let Samsung and Huawei and the 1000 other Chinese cell companies fight over people who will never buy $1000 phones, let alone the value added accoutrements and services that accompany them. Why would Apple want them? Just to say our market share has increased? Why does that matter if revenues don't increase?
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,632
|
Post by 4aapl on Feb 18, 2019 20:55:38 GMT -8
I don't follow the logic here. Having 95% of the profits doesn't mean there is no room for growth. Apple's market share in devices is not even 25%. That looks to me like an astonishing opportunity for growth. The problem is to find a way to bring those users into Apple. Remember the "I'm a MAC, and I'm a PC" commercials? Those were moving Apple up even before the iPod. I don't know enough about services to really comment on them, but I did appreciate the recent comments on focus. I'm surprised this is even up for debate in 2019. Profit share is all that matters. Bud, I think you're suffering from the old, "I don't know how Nixon won, nobody I know voted for him" syndrome. Everyone you associate with might have $1000 of disposable income, but I read somewhere over half of Americans cannot handle a $500 emergency. To recap, Android users (the 75%) are roughly broken down into: 1) the poor; 2) The cheap; 3) Open source nerds who would never use iOS even if Apple gave phones away like Samsung (also cheap, they think software should be free!); 4) The opposite end of the tech spectrum, total technophobes who only call and maybe text on their phones so they want a cheap shit phone and can't even figure out iTunes. Why on earth would we want to tarnish our brand and decimate our ASP's to chase these undesirables? They can't afford $10/mo music subscriptions, let alone $200 wireless earbuds. Let Samsung and Huawei and the 1000 other Chinese cell companies fight over people who will never buy $1000 phones, let alone the value added accoutrements and services that accompany them. Why would Apple want them? Just to say our market share has increased? Why does that matter if revenues don't increase?
No Monday thread since the market wasn't open. One theory around profits is that instead of only aiming at getting most all of the HW profits, it could make sense to have some lower end (but still profitable) options that expand the marketshare in order to get more non-HW profits. Namely services. I'm not looking for loss-leaders. But I could see the advantage, when looking at it over the longer term, of selling more devices even if it directly brought in very little or even no extra profit. Like Jesse Livermore (Memoirs of a stock operator.....thanks BlueHerring), there are times you go for it and try to corner the market. Went up the lift today with another guy from Apple. He was in low level audio drivers, saying when he was hired on 5 years ago that the weekly new-hire meetings were 100 people, as they were hiring like mad. It's ski-skate week for our kids, and many other schools have it off too. It's going to be a busy week, but with the massive amount of snow this year, it's good that people get up here and enjoy it, even if it makes things a little busier. As for AAPL, after being in a +/- $.75 range for 7 trading days, it seems like it's time for things to change. While to the upside would be nice, my coffee grounds aren't giving a clear reading on the direction. Oh well...time to set up the skis for the cousins.
|
|
|
Post by hledgard on Feb 19, 2019 7:26:31 GMT -8
JD's posts are wonderful. His insight is deep. He keeps this board alive. He is a blessing to us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2019 7:47:49 GMT -8
I disagree with everyone. 😂 1) If Mercedes had 95% of auto industry profits (as Apple does phone profits), they would have never introduced the C-class. Now everyone has a Benz and they are no longer an exclusive brand. Bad analogy. Why kill your brand for the remaining 5% of "losers and haters?" 2) The “problem” is, everyone has an iPhone. So services revenue is where the growth is at. I’m not saying Netflix is a sustainable biz model, but there has to be some content tethered to the Apple devices. IMO, Apple should have bought Disney instead of starting from scratch. BTW, Netflix spent $8B on content in 2018. That's 3% of Apple's annual revenues. And services is supposedly going to account for 60% of Apple's growth over the next 5 years. Sorry guys, Apple is running out of humans to sell iPhones to, so they need to further monetize the ones already within the garden walls... 3) Sony’s colossal misstep wasn’t doing too much; it was the result of the fight between what was essentially two different companies, Sony electronics and Sony entertainment that led to the epic fuckup of letting Apple walk in and steal what should have been theirs. Sony entertainment was afraid of digital and didn’t want to license their golden goose, so it made horseshit compromises like the DRM-crippled MiniDisc players. I had one and they were totally fucked up. They could have owned the mobile consumer electronics world, but decided to hoard their content - just like the music industry did with their little silver discs. JDSoCal, these are great counterpoints. I admit the Mercedes analogy isn't a slam dunk because I can't judge how far they've succeeded. Some do think they've destroyed their brand, but I think that's overly harsh and probably comes from judging by exclusivity only. If that is the only thing that matters, then making more will destroy a brand by definition. The pure sports cars are examples of that. They're not trying to appeal to everyone. If they did it would be a total fail. That's differentiation that requires a strict exclusivity. If that was MB's task, then yeah, they failed in chasing market share. But I think that is to see it wrong. With computers and sedans and crossovers, things that have and need to have mass-market appeal, the trick is expanding your base without reducing what it is that makes the product desirable. And I'd say that it desirable whenever it is attainable, and that can never be easy. An intentionally limited utilitarian machine is a contradiction. On Sony, I think it's a mistake to see their decline in terms of marketing. Everyone knows that Japanese programmers can't compete with American programmers. That was enough to kill Sony's chances no matter what marketing they did. Merika.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2019 12:47:41 GMT -8
I'm surprised this is even up for debate in 2019. Profit share is all that matters. Bud, I think you're suffering from the old, "I don't know how Nixon won, nobody I know voted for him" syndrome. Everyone you associate with might have $1000 of disposable income, but I read somewhere over half of Americans cannot handle a $500 emergency. To recap, Android users (the 75%) are roughly broken down into: 1) the poor; 2) The cheap; 3) Open source nerds who would never use iOS even if Apple gave phones away like Samsung (also cheap, they think software should be free!); 4) The opposite end of the tech spectrum, total technophobes who only call and maybe text on their phones so they want a cheap shit phone and can't even figure out iTunes. Why on earth would we want to tarnish our brand and decimate our ASP's to chase these undesirables? They can't afford $10/mo music subscriptions, let alone $200 wireless earbuds. Let Samsung and Huawei and the 1000 other Chinese cell companies fight over people who will never buy $1000 phones, let alone the value added accoutrements and services that accompany them. Why would Apple want them? Just to say our market share has increased? Why does that matter if revenues don't increase?
JDSoCal, Aristotle believed in a Golden Mean, a widely misunderstood concept, but basically it means there are always two extremes to be avoided, and not merely one as people seem to think. So I think you’re conflating what I call the “church of marketshare” argument with an entirely separate and modest argument that market share matters, certainly to computers where network effects provide much of the benefit for having the device to begin with. The brand is what matters. What the product does for it's users, and there are many aspects to it. I like the Mercedes analogy because of the aspect of differentiation they've carefully maintained, but the analogy has limits. The fact is that a great many people–perhaps a majority–don't care how their luxury cars work, or whether or in what ways they may be "better", just that it is parked in their garage and what that says about them. A computer can never in the long-term be divorced as much from it's function in comparison to competitors as other products might be. It's just not possible, nor desirable. That was the genius of SJobs. You have to walk and chew gum at the same time. A strong brand in computers–Apple is really the only one–represents function to a large degree and that can't be changed. If there is a beauty and elegance to it's function, you can only add to it with the beauty and elegance of its non-utilitarian aspects. But for Apple both are required with a general purpose computer, and it all rests on engineering and design, and the network effects of ... well, networks. All that is in the brand, or image in the public mind. A shrinking brand is a brand in decline. The brand is what matters. If you can maintain the brand and expand the market share, then I think it should be done if possible, and if not, not. I also think you may be buying into the idea that Apple is a "luxury brand". IMHO that is also an extreme, and very different from believing, as I do, that Apple isn't afraid of incorporating some elements in the past generally associated with luxury into their products to distinguish them from what can be ugly pure utilitarian boxes that are aggravating to normal humans. So I don't think 75% of Android users are quite as satisfied with their devices as you're implying. Just my $.02
|
|
|
Post by incorrigible on Feb 19, 2019 13:03:29 GMT -8
|
|