Hacker News Reader

Comment by TomOfTTB | Hacker News Reader

To me this article boils down to one main point: Apple is a premium brand that's decided to sell its product for a less than premium price.

People almost always prefer the premium brands. It's a rare person who would pick a Honda Civic over a BMW 5 Series if both were the same price. The difference here is Apple's selling the low end iPad for a price companies like Samsung can barely match. You're constantly hearing stories of how Apple has an unbeatable advantage because they're already selling in such bulk.

So that's the problem. Other companies can't undercut Apple on price and lack Apple's brand prestige.

View on HN

It's also Apple's direct and retail sales infrastructure hurting non-iPad prices.

It'd be like Honda trying to sell their cars through a bunch of third-party car dealers like "Bob's Auto Mart" while BMW sold all of theirs through their own BMW-owned dealerships.

That analogy doesn't hold up against the dominance of Windows vs Mac.

Actually, it kind of does.

Why, ultimately, did Windows initially achieve market dominance? Because it evolved from MS-DOS.

Why did MS-DOS have market dominance? Because it ran on PC compatibles.

Why did PC compatibles have market dominance? Because they were drop-in replacements for the IBM PC.

And why, despite being relatively late to the market, despite having a relatively high price tag and a really ugly grey boxy look, did the IBM PC have market dominance? Because IBM put their product into the hands of their well-established and reputable corporate sales network dedicated to selling IBM hardware, and they sold it all over.

Of course, this argument is incomplete and flawed because I haven't used the words Lotus 1-2-3 yet. Unfortunately, the fact that killer apps also sell hardware comes as little relief for Android. The closest thing to a killer app that Android has come up with so far is Flash support. Unfortunately, with mobile Flash it's still not clear who is doing the killing and who is doing the dying.

So Windows and MS-DOS which ran on third party "dealer" imitations beat IBM originals sold through an in-house sales network. I don't see how you are refuting my argument.

Your argument is a total non sequitur to begin with.

If you were a large business buying computers in the mid 80's you bought them directly from manufacturer (Compaq, Apple, whoever).

If you were a small business you bought your computer(s) from a third party (computer store, Sears, wherever).

The Mac lost because most businesses bought for price and compatibility.

In computers Apple are not competing on price. In fact they maintain atypically high prices there. In tablets they are.

Except that Apple stores didn't come about until Apple had lost that war.

Of course, now that they lost that war, they have an awesome prize. They are the most profitable computer maker today.

Didn't Apple have stores a long time ago too? I vaguely recall going to one 25 or so years ago. It wasn't like the beautiful ones we see now, but more just like a typical strip mall computer store, but all Apple stuff.

There have always been third-party Apple-centric stores. SmallDog in VT, TekServe in NYC -- they still exist. Could it have just been an Apple authorized retailer?

Before Apple stores, you could go to CompUSA, and there was an Apple section staffed with Apple employees -- they even existed before the Apple stores became more ubiquitous.

Mark this attitude well: it is the difference between success and failure in consumerland.

It's an easy trap to fall into: Well, gosh, the specs are the same. It's shaped basically the same. Huh. But they don't like it. Fuck, it must just be some ineffable brand thing.

Which it is. But it has absolutely nothing to do with "luxury."

Instead, the brand signals something important that other tablet competitors aren't strategically configured to match:

It works really well.

The screen size, carefully balanced against the needs of the tasks performed, along with the fingers necessary to perform them, comes in a specifically determined size. Not a size determined for differentiation, or a size necessitated by commodity supply constraints.

The size that works best.

There is a processor with an integrated GPU. Nothing special. But what does that processor do? It drives a mature collection of software libaries that are well calibrated for performance, visual appeal and flexible use. Making it easy to build software that solves problems while being transparent, even enjoyable, to the user.

It's software that works really well.

There is a retail network that makes it very easy not only to experiment with the device, but also get questions answered. And if something goes wrong, they can repair or replace it. Often for free. Even if it's your own fault.

There is an ongoing software development effort, incentivized by ongoing hardware sales, that ensures the continued maintenance, improvement and evolution of both the underlying developer-facing software platform and the outward user experience of the device.

There is a content delivery and monetization ecosystem that rewards users with ease of use and content developers with boatloads of money.

I can go on and on.

But the point here is this: the brand has nothing to do with luxury. It's about shitty – and not being shitty. About mediocrity – and higher aspiration. About short-term thinking – and long-term vision. Incentives based on owning the experience as a whole, versus owning a small subset that's cut off from the rest.

Apple's goal, as a business, is the same as any other: make a shitload of money. They go about it differently than almost everyone else. I'd love it if it were possible for another company to take a similar approach. But, for whatever reason, this attitude is very difficult to replicate. Apple isn't preferred because they're Apple. Apple is preferred because they're the only ones who are.

And that's how they get so many consumers who prefer their stuff, especially when the prices are equal.

>But it has absolutely nothing to do with "luxury."

And then you proceed to describe exactly what I'd expect from a "luxury" device. Polished experience and excellent customer service. Heck, that's precisely what luxury is - not-crap and others standing by to meet your desires.

>About mediocrity – and higher aspiration.

And not mediocrity - and luxury? Seriously, what's the difference? Any smart phone / supplemental computer is very strictly a "luxury", because it's not necessary. Or does it need to be made of gold to be luxury?

>Apple is preferred because they're the only ones who are.

Does it need competition to be luxury? If I make a fromjab, spend billions developing it, sell it for millions of dollars, and polish the heck out of it, is it somehow not a luxury item if I'm the only fromjab maker in the world? What does this say about Picasso artwork? There's only one producer there.

Except "luxury" carries a very specific connotation around price and social status.

This isn't a fur coat, a diamond ring, a Tiffany lamp or a gold plated cigarette case.

This is a product that costs the same as its competitors. But is nonetheless better in almost every respect.

That's not a luxury brand. That's just a making better shit than everyone else brand.

That's true today but may not be for long. Compared to things like the new Honeycomb task switcher and the resizable widgets iOS is starting to look stale. iOS 5 is in many ways just catching up to where Android was a year ago.

Aaah, you're claiming luxury requires artificial value inflation, especially due to being under-produced. I can see that, and it's a usable definition. Apologies for not catching it earlier.

How many people subscribe to either of our uses of the term, I have no idea. But under that (or a similar) definition, you're entirely correct, Apple isn't luxury. Different only in the lack of (significant?) artificial inflation, and therefore less social prestige?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com