Apple's marketshare really did go down...

[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

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[AAA1337]

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.

I guess that's fair. I misunderstood you and though you meant it would reduce their overall quality, but you just said it would cheapen the brand.


Sent from my iPhone using iMore Forums

 

[anon(4698833)]

I guess that's fair. I misunderstood you and though you meant it would reduce their overall quality, but you just said it would cheapen the brand.


Sent from my iPhone using iMore Forums

I do think that eventually it would lessen the quality...but I only reflect this based on what other companies have done after getting into entry level products...it's possible that Apple would continue a very high line of quality, even at an entry level pricing point.

 

[Tre Lawrence]

I do think that eventually it would lessen the quality...but I only reflect this based on what other companies have done after getting into entry level products...it's possible that Apple would continue a very high line of quality, even at an entry level pricing point.

I think Apple would.

We might not ever know, but it's fun to speculate.

 

[nj1266]

Nah, if Apple's market share came down to single digits, it IS cause for worry. Let's not fool ourselves...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

No it is not. Apple's share in the PC market is almost single digits and yet it makes more profits from PC sales than any other maker. The same should play out in the smart phone market.


Sent from my 64 gig Retina IPad Mini

 

[anon(4698833)]

No it is not. Apple's share in the PC market is almost single digits and yet it makes more profits from PC sales than any other maker. The same should play out in the smart phone market.


Sent from my 64 gig Retina IPad Mini

He's ignoring the fact that the marketshare Android enjoys is primarily invested in a market that Apple doesn't even touch.