Hacker News Reader

Comment by jackgavigan | Hacker News Reader

> Apple wants to own the entire music chain from beginning to end.

No, they don't. They want to own the pieces of the chain where they can make greater profits than anyone else.

Apple products aren't successful because celebrities wear them. They're successful because they're the best.

Apple doesn't buy other companies for their services or products. It buys technology, which it then uses to build better products and services.

View on HN

> They're successful because they're the best.

lol. If that were the case, then I don't understand what kind of technology they're gonna benefit from buying Beats. I mean, the internet is full of reviews stating that Beats headphones suck.

*They're successful because the end consumers believe the marketing propagation that they are the best.

And yet, Apple has a very low marketing budget with respect to their competitors...

Is this actually true? I've heard Galaxy marketing is fairly saturated in the US, but in Australia I see at least twice as many Apple commercials than any competing OEM.

This is quite well known, just a quick google will do:

http://www.tuaw.com/2013/11/04/apples-advertising-budget-dwa...

I think Apple recently doubling their marketing budget to $1b was taken with great fanfare, but still puts them far behind their competitors.

However, it is an open question whether Apple stores should be counted as marketing or some other kind of expense. It definitely helps promote their products, but the direct channel also helps with profits.

Are you also saying, like I was, that apple are Good At Marketing?

Well, they don't put a lot of resources into it, but they direct their resources very well. Their biggest marketing boon has been curating a really good reputation (not releasing products that suck), building a rabid fan base, and so on.

Right, and because they don't suck, most consumers never investigate their claims of being the best by researching alternatives, and simply settle with products that don't suck.

Did Apple ever claim to be the "best"? Of course, superlatives without qualification are legally vacuous in the English speak world, but I would be surprised if they actually used this in an ad without qualification, where qualification is something like "the best battery life as determined by ..."

https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+superlatives

Nothing from Apple.

Sure, if you ignore things like - as just one example of the plethora of marketing statements propagated by their senior staff - apple routinely referring to OSX as the "most advanced operating system" simply because it doesn't use the word 'best' (and even then ignore several statements which do use the exact word because their phrasing or origin disagree with your bias), which would be missing the whole point for the minutiae.

I see. You know, when you make an argument, you should (a) present the exact phrase said, and provide a link to where it was said. It is obvious with the right search term ("most advanced" site:apple.com), but not with the one you gave me previously. Just spell it out.

I provided you with a google search that presented plenty of confirming results, quit being a pedantic jackass.

When you say best you mean better then anything else? I find it hard to find many BEST that are Apple products.

Interesting, but this is a $3.2b acquisition, which is clearly not just a technology buy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com