Apple's marketshare really did go down...

[natasftw]

Nah, I much rather have a product that can compete in every single smartphone category that still has Apple's design and production values but with more competitive prices to drive profits on all levels, not just in the luxury market.

You cannot reasonably chase every market. There isn't a successful business that does this. Why don't we refrain from ideals and focus instead on actual strategy? Ideally, every company would like a strong product in every market. Apple's design and production values come at a cost. They could potentially leverage past R&D for devices to bring down the cost of building lower end devices, but these still wouldn't be as cheap as you'd like to believe.

Putting all the eggs in one basket is not something I'd want. Apple KNOWS putting all the eggs in one basket isn't exactly their main goal. They've tried to go into the 7 inch tablet space and the relatively cheaper phone with the 4s and the 5c. They know what's at stake here. But in China and developing markets, their efforts are continually being thwarted. Very soon, the biggest markets in the world won't be Apple friendly, they will be customers Apple won't likely have. And that means less potential for profit growth. But all of that doesn't matter because Apple prices these phones for the high end, and essentially the postpaid world. Eventually that postpaid world is going to have more competitors.

Again, let's remain with the real world. At what point in time has the iPhone ever been the only egg Apple has? When you ignore most of the picture, the point you make is valid. But, it no longer matters. It's like teaching high school physics students how a car stops in a world without friction.

 

[A895]

You cannot reasonably chase every market. There isn't a successful business that does this. Why don't we refrain from ideals and focus instead on actual strategy? Ideally, every company would like a strong product in every market. Apple's design and production values come at a cost. They could potentially leverage past R&D for devices to bring down the cost of building lower end devices, but these still wouldn't be as cheap as you'd like to believe.



Again, let's remain with the real world. At what point in time has the iPhone ever been the only egg Apple has? When you ignore most of the picture, the point you make is valid. But, it no longer matters. It's like teaching high school physics students how a car stops in a world without friction.

I see analogies and you say they shouldn't chase every market, but how do you expect a company to grow if you stay in the same spot?

Posted via the iMore App for Android

 

[anon(4698833)]

I see analogies and you say they shouldn't chase every market, but how do you expect a company to grow if you stay in the same spot?

Posted via the iMore App for Android

How do you expect a company to grow if they cheapen the brand? Works both ways sweetheart.

 

[A895]

How do you expect a company to grow if they cheapen the brand? Works both ways sweetheart.

Cheapen the brand? Sound spoke you don't want to lose the "iPhones is premium" perception. That does not affect actual profits, if it did, Samsung wouldn't be the behemoth it is.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

 

[warcraftWidow]

Cheapen the brand? Sound spoke you don't want to lose the "iPhones is premium" perception. That does not affect actual profits, if it did, Samsung wouldn't be the behemoth it is.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

Have you seen Samsung's quarterly statements lately?

 

[A895]

Have you seen Samsung's quarterly statements lately?

Yeah, they didn't met expectations because the high end market is getting saturated. They still make billions just like Apple on mobile, Samsung made 37 billion last year off of mobile alone and is driving growth for the entire company they aren't losing their spot as the biggest anytime soon.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

 

[anon(4698833)]

Cheapen the brand? Sound spoke you don't want to lose the "iPhones is premium" perception. That does not affect actual profits, if it did, Samsung wouldn't be the behemoth it is.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

You don't get it man. You simply do not get it at all. Samsung is a behemoth because they already had a giant company with a multitude of products to support their venture into the smart phone world. Looking back through history, you can see that even this doesn't always work out best, but Samsung could fall back on their TV's alone to support them as they developed a smart phone that gained a foot hold and became attractive to consumers. They could not have done this without that safety net...and you can see that based on their first attempts, and how their early cell phones did on the market (in terms of customer satisfaction).

Yes...cheapening the brand is exactly what I don't want, and thankfully, Apple share the same sentiment. You just don't like facing the fact that there are enough people in the market that aren't proponents of cookie cutter crap (like yourself) to keep Apple relevant without diving into the budget bin cell phone market.

 

[warcraftWidow]

Yeah, they didn't met expectations because the high end market is getting saturated. They still make billions just like Apple on mobile, Samsung made 37 billion last year off of mobile alone and is driving growth for the entire company they aren't losing their spot as the biggest anytime soon.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

Samsung's quarterly operating profit (quarter ending June 30) fell 25% year-over-year with that being the third straight quarter of operating profit declines. This was also their worst quarterly to fit in two years. Their newly released S5 was outsold in May by the iPhone 5S which at that point had been on the market for 9 months. Their guidance to investors also cautioned that they were expecting more declines in operating profit in the upcoming quarters. Of their Apr-Jun quarter profits (7.2 trillion won approx $7.03 billion U.S. Dollars), only 4.42 trillion won ($4.316 billion U.S.) came from their mobile division which was down from 6.28 trillion won a year ago.
For the same Apr-June 3014 quarter, Apple reported $7.7 billion in net profit (note that Samsung's figures are for operating profit and Apple is reporting net profit and while I'm not an accountant, operating profit is almost always going to be more than net profit so Samsung's net profit for the quarter is most certainly lower than the operating profit listed above).

 

[anon(4698833)]

Exactly this...when you're the Walmart of the consumer electronics world, attempting to cover every single base of product and consumer that exists in the market, you're going to make money one way or another...doesn't mean your numbers translate to jack squat when you compare them to a more niche based company's numbers. This was the point my other thread was making...since you obviously missed it.

It's a simple quality vs. quantity thing. I'm just glad we still have companies that can tell (and prefer) the difference.

 

[Flow39]

Exactly this...when you're the Walmart of the consumer electronics world, attempting to cover every single base of product and consumer that exists in the market, you're going to make money one way or another...doesn't mean your numbers translate to jack squat when you compare them to a more niche based company's numbers. This was the point my other thread was making...since you obviously missed it.

It's a simple quality vs. quantity thing. I'm just glad we still have companies that can tell (and prefer) the difference.

This was exactly what I was trying to explain in a post earlier when I was talking about quality vs. quantity and brand image. I don't want Apple to become the Walmart of the smartphone world, that's what Samsung is here for.

 

[Tre Lawrence]

But why is it that the idea of Apple concurrently offering devices in different price points synonymous with cheapening the brand?

 

[warcraftWidow]

But why is it that the idea of Apple concurrently offering devices in different price points synonymous with cheapening the brand?

For the same reason that It would cheapen the Mercedes brand if they started offering at $15K car.
Also the same reason (but in reverse) that about 20 years ago Honda, Toyota and Nissan created Acura, Lexus, and Infiniti luxury brands because they knew in the public's eye, Honda, Toyota, and Nissan were the cheap "commoner's" brand and the luxury vehicles would not do as well if they shared branding with their cheaper counterparts.

 

[anon(4698833)]

But why is it that the idea of Apple concurrently offering devices in different price points synonymous with cheapening the brand?

You are being intentionally vague with your question...the actual question would actual give you your answer within itself...

"Why is the idea of Apple concurrently offering entry level devices synonymous with cheapening the brand?"

 

[Just_Me_D]

I see analogies and you say they shouldn't chase every market, but how do you expect a company to grow if you stay in the same spot?

Posted via the iMore App for Android

If you start a business that sells a certain product, one of the first things you have to do is define your target market. In other words, determine the segment of the population who is likely to buy your product. Once you've done that, you focus your attention on attracting that segment so that they'd buy your product. Once you've gotten that segment to purchase your product, you find out from them how to improve it and what other products you could make that could further enhance their user experience. So, to your question how can a company grow if it stays in the same spot, Apple struck big time gold with the introduction of the iPod. That was a quality built and expensive device, and yet, they sold millions upon millions of them to those who would likely buy it. Then came the iPhone. Many of the people who initially purchased the iPod, also bought the iPhone. After that, Apple introduced the iPad. Many of those who bought the aforementioned items also bought the iPad. Many went on to buy the MacBook, too. Not only that, a good deal of those people bought their children some of those Apple products. Same target market with increased growth in sales. Got it?...

 

[Tre Lawrence]

You are being intentionally vague with your question...the actual question would actual give you your answer within itself...

"Why is the idea of Apple concurrently offering entry level devices synonymous with cheapening the brand?"

Nope. Different price points.

But then again, Apple already does. I don't think it cheapens the brand.

 

[anon(4698833)]

Nope. Different price points.

But then again, Apple already does. I don't think it cheapens the brand.

The 5c received undeserved negative attention when released because it DIDN'T fall in the lower spectrum group of phones...something that half the reporters assumed it would before it's release. The 5c was nothing like what people are suggesting Apple do with an entry level device...it was a "cheaper" option...not a "cheap" option, like Android capitalizing with.

The bottom line is...you offer a sub $200 "smart phone", you cheapen the brand by denying the kind of quality, features, function and development people expect with Apple products. The only positive side would be that a person buying that product would get the top tier customer service without the investment...something that should speak worlds as to another reason this kind of entry level device would degrade the Apple brand.

 

[Tre Lawrence]

The 5c received undeserved negative attention when released because it DIDN'T fall in the lower spectrum group of phones...something that half the reporters assumed it would before it's release. The 5c was nothing like what people are suggesting Apple do with an entry level device...it was a "cheaper" option...not a "cheap" option, like Android capitalizing with.

The bottom line is...you offer a sub $200 "smart phone", you cheapen the brand by denying the kind of quality, features, function and development people expect with Apple products. The only positive side would be that a person buying that product would get the top tier customer service without the investment...something that should speak worlds as to another reason this kind of entry level device would degrade the Apple brand.

Fair points.

I agree that the media did prematurely subvert 5C's fortunes, but only temporarily.

If a company could do it, it would be Apple. It has made a living with premium-priced products, and frankly, the whole "marketshare lost" thingie is a red herring IMHO.

I do feel the 5C was a successful experiment, and shows that Apple can adjust without losing its identity.

 

[anon(4698833)]

Fair points.

I agree that the media did prematurely subvert 5C's fortunes, but only temporarily.

If a company could do it, it would be Apple. It has made a living with premium-priced products, and frankly, the whole "marketshare lost" thingie is a red herring IMHO.

I do feel the 5C was a successful experiment, and shows that Apple can adjust without losing its identity.

I still stand by the idea that the 5c was the Macbook Air of the smart phone world...adjusted, but not entry level.

 

[AAA1337]

The 5c received undeserved negative attention when released because it DIDN'T fall in the lower spectrum group of phones...something that half the reporters assumed it would before it's release. The 5c was nothing like what people are suggesting Apple do with an entry level device...it was a "cheaper" option...not a "cheap" option, like Android capitalizing with.

The bottom line is...you offer a sub $200 "smart phone", you cheapen the brand by denying the kind of quality, features, function and development people expect with Apple products. The only positive side would be that a person buying that product would get the top tier customer service without the investment...something that should speak worlds as to another reason this kind of entry level device would degrade the Apple brand.

I'm curious as to why you think having a cheaper phone would degrade the Apple brand. No one's forcing you to buy the $200 iPhone, you can stick with the $700-900 ones. I know I would. Even if I were to switch to Android I wouldn't buy some random $200 phone, I'd buy an HTC or LG. Worst case scenario, I'd buy a Nexus, which is cheaper with many of the same features. Either way, many of us buy premium phones for a reason.

Say Apple were to introduce a $200 iPhone next month along with the $700-900 iPhone 6 and 6L (I know they won't, but suppose they did) how would that reduce the quality of Apple products, and "cheapen" the brand as you say? I couldn't care less whether Apple actually follows into the entry-level market or not, that's their decision, but I am curious as to why you think their choice would affect your products.

 

[anon(4698833)]

I never said it would affect my products as a consumer (yet), and never said it would affect their products in terms of what the upper tier devices bring to the table (yet). Not sure where you deduced that, but for clarities sake, I don't think Apple's products would suffer if they brought an entry level device (at least not immediately...I do feel that over time, a cheaper product would, in turn, bring cheaper workmanship to the upper tier by exposing cheaper ways of manufacturing things that most consumers wouldn't notice. It's almost a given when a cheap product is made...just look at the nightmare GM is going through right now across the lineup of their cars from going with cheaper parts, even in the luxury line vehicles).

I feel it cheapens the brand by putting the devices in the spectrum of consumers from bottom to top, where as right now, the device exists in what can be considered the top (by standards of smart phones and their pricing). Does it really bother me that a person who is in a lower financial situation could have an iPhone of some sort? Not really...it isn't as "personal" as you'd like to think in that regard. Where I start to get irked is what follows such movement...you can see it everywhere in consumer electronics.

A great example would be Sony. Sony, at one time, was considered a very luxury tier electronics manufacturer. They made the more expensive product, and people bought it because of the quality and confidence the name instilled...and then they moved to a more general approach, releasing mid grade products (from receivers to tape players and everything in between)...then they wanted a piece of the less tech savvy consumer market, targeting the store brand products pricing point, and offering bare bones devices at just a slight increase over generic brand product cost.

Now...Sony is just another brand you see in a sea of electronics. Frankly, you probably wouldn't know a Sony receiver from a Harman Kardon (another generalized market casualty) or a bottom barrel Jensen. It's lost in the ocean of generic, money first products. Half the time they could probably rebrand some knock off product with similar specs as Sony, and you'd never know. This goes for TV's, radios, computers, etc.

In the end, I don't think that would happen to Apple in the same way, and the Sony example was an extreme case (to prove a point)...image degradation isn't all about a personal desire to have something nicer than another person...to that end I really couldn't care less...there are ripples that follow though, and they turn into waves and then into full out tsunamis at times. In the fickle world of consumer electronics...a companies image can make or break their future. Apple has such a solid and truly enviable image right now, venturing into the cheap phone market just compete with market share with Android just seems like the best idea of a person who doesn't really consider the bigger picture.