Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakeinspace | Hacker News Reader

I’m guessing that most of Ferrari’s market value comes from the brand compared to future revenue or IP. Apple is just not that elite of a brand, I don’t see how selling million-dollar vehicles would significantly change their brand (assuming an Apple logo hood ornament).

View on HN

What companies serve the market segments above Apple's offerings in the phone, laptop, tablet and VR categories?

> I’m guessing that most of Ferrari’s market value comes from the brand compared to future revenue or IP

See what Rimac did, it is a good example that starting a luxury sports car company and be successful is possible nowadays, and talking from the ignorance it seems to me easier than the past. If that is what apple wants or needs is a different story.

Building supercars has always been a cottage industry that anyone can get involved in but nobody can dominate in the way Apple has certain classes of electronic product. There's a lot of choice, few buyers and it's not high margin compared with mass produced electronics at industry-leading markup even if engineers at the popular companies aren't more obsessed with beauty and speed than the bottom line.

What Rimac did was partner with big automotive OEMs for research joint ventures and sell a tiny number of cars and a relatively large amount of battery and drivetrain tech to other OEMs. Difficult to imagine anything less like Apple's business model than that.

Most of your cottage automotive manufactures are partners with a big brand. You can do many things on your own, but you want the large partner to supply engines (it is basically impossible for a small industry to build an emissions compliant engine from scratch - expect to spend over a billion $ in the R&D if you try - and you can only get that cheap if a lot of the engineering is done in places like India). You also buy your airbags from their supplier.

Aren't they? Their entire business is pretty much based on brand. Apple products aren't actually better than the competition (often they are worse, like the iPhone not letting you install apps outside the app store). But it doesn't matter because people think Apple is cool. I don't see why that wouldn't translate to cars.

61% marketshare for phones in the US doesn't sound like a luxury brand to me.

They might position themselves as an aspirational brand outside the US, and by keeping retail prices close to the same as in the US, no matter the local purchasing power, I can see how they can be perceived as an upscale brand in some markets.

A luxury car is different to a "luxury" phone, you are fighting for share at the top 10% of the market.

I love how Apple haters don’t understand the phenomenon. Look, I bought Sony headphones, some reference like xixikxixkklkxwx. I now have tinitus. Everyone tells me it’s because I didn’t buy the xixikxixkklkxwii, which were obviously better. The entire PC market is like this. Intel sells i7, but it’s not the same as the i7 of 20 years ago. LG sells screens where you have 90% chances of buying shit and get told “Well they do make good screens, you should have bought the other reference. What did you expect. You noob.” The entire Android market is like this. You buy Samsung and you get OEM preinstalled shit. “Yeah everyone knows you should gave bought the Pixel, not the Samsung.”

So now, instead of buying things twice because the one was shit, I just buy Apple. I don’t buy “the iPhone”. I buy “iPhone”. It could be 99% more expensive, it’s still less than buying things twice.

I don't know why you think one needs to buy Apple in order to get good products. I research and find out what products are good, buy them, and am happy. If you're happy with Apple then good for you, but don't kid yourself that it's because they are just better. They aren't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com