Apple doesn't like that you have old computers.
There was a comment I've avoided commenting on from the recent Apple event, I feel I've let stew enough now.
Apple apparently thinks it is icky that we hold onto the PC's for so long (paraphrasing). I'm not sure if I see this as a simply ludicrous statement coming from this particular company or if it is yet another sign of a shift in strategy.
This comment is really only specifically bad coming from a company like Apple. And the reason is that Apple, historically, delivers premium, luxury (or boutique) hardware. This stuff is pretty much intentionally priced out of the range of being a renewable resource to consumers. Thanks to phone subsidies and rapid evolution they enjoyed frequent upgrades on iPhones and iPads for a while. But a premium device manufacturer should (and Apple does) position their product as a superior product which can stand the test of time.
So which is Mr. Cook? Should my Apple (and other premium products) be viable for years to come? Or should are they outdated crap which I should update frequently? You see the contradiction, I hope.
The functional allure of a premium product is twofold; it is superior when new, and as such it can double as a longer term investment.
The functional allure of a luxury product is as a status symbol and is, by design, priced and marketed out of the hands of the vast majority.
It would be insanity if Cook felt that Apple was a true luxury brand but still felt a majority of the population should both be buying their products and buying them regularly. If the latter is true, they aren't a luxury brand because their product would be proven to be widely attainable making them worthless as status symbols.
Similarly, if Apple devices are not luxury but instead premium products, why should we be embarrassed to keep them around for years to come? The expectation SHOULD be that people will hold onto Apple products longer than any others.
This is why it is either lunacy, or as I mentioned in an earlier post, Apple has surrendered those titles (effectively, if not admittedly).
Honestly, I'm still not sure which it is. The way they are spinning things is that Apple is still at the very least a premium brand, if not a luxury one. But, at the same time, they are conceding on many fronts and converting into a fairly standard device maker as they lower prices on product lines and introduce more SKUs at more price points.
It feels like they are moving down market more and more. But their prices are still not in the realm where their discomfort with people holding onto old hardware is ever actually going to translate into increased sales. Thus my uncertainty.
Apple apparently thinks it is icky that we hold onto the PC's for so long (paraphrasing). I'm not sure if I see this as a simply ludicrous statement coming from this particular company or if it is yet another sign of a shift in strategy.
This comment is really only specifically bad coming from a company like Apple. And the reason is that Apple, historically, delivers premium, luxury (or boutique) hardware. This stuff is pretty much intentionally priced out of the range of being a renewable resource to consumers. Thanks to phone subsidies and rapid evolution they enjoyed frequent upgrades on iPhones and iPads for a while. But a premium device manufacturer should (and Apple does) position their product as a superior product which can stand the test of time.
So which is Mr. Cook? Should my Apple (and other premium products) be viable for years to come? Or should are they outdated crap which I should update frequently? You see the contradiction, I hope.
The functional allure of a premium product is twofold; it is superior when new, and as such it can double as a longer term investment.
The functional allure of a luxury product is as a status symbol and is, by design, priced and marketed out of the hands of the vast majority.
It would be insanity if Cook felt that Apple was a true luxury brand but still felt a majority of the population should both be buying their products and buying them regularly. If the latter is true, they aren't a luxury brand because their product would be proven to be widely attainable making them worthless as status symbols.
Similarly, if Apple devices are not luxury but instead premium products, why should we be embarrassed to keep them around for years to come? The expectation SHOULD be that people will hold onto Apple products longer than any others.
This is why it is either lunacy, or as I mentioned in an earlier post, Apple has surrendered those titles (effectively, if not admittedly).
Honestly, I'm still not sure which it is. The way they are spinning things is that Apple is still at the very least a premium brand, if not a luxury one. But, at the same time, they are conceding on many fronts and converting into a fairly standard device maker as they lower prices on product lines and introduce more SKUs at more price points.
It feels like they are moving down market more and more. But their prices are still not in the realm where their discomfort with people holding onto old hardware is ever actually going to translate into increased sales. Thus my uncertainty.
Comments
Post a Comment