Well they all do trade ins and you could find them then selling that competing brand. Ive seen Honda selling a corvette and ford selling a cadillac srx.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Ceases Selling Jawbone UP, Nike Fuelband as Apple Watch Launch Approaches
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well they all do trade ins and you could find them then selling that competing brand. Ive seen Honda selling a corvette and ford selling a cadillac srx.
It's exactly the same thing that's going on here. Your hatred of Apple just prevents you from seeing that.
Curious... do you think they should carry windows laptops and android phones, also?
- 1) Space is at a premium. Apple stores are not that large (at least the ones I know around here). The many variants of the Apple watch and their physical display will take a LOT of space.
- 2) Apple makes much more profit from their own product (so, greatly improving the sales per square footage).
- 3) Not selling a product that directly competes with a function of a product you sell.
----------
They're used cars though... I don't think Apple accepts Android trade ins? Or do they.
They aren't 13y/o girls here
Something from the stores had to go, There are a LOT of straps that need to be displayed lol. They need the space imo.
If Apple is truly looking to focus more on the Apple brand, I might expect them to pull the third party cases in the future.
Main products as in flagship products, not accessories. Apple's more open to competing accessories as they don't make as much money from them.
Apple is going to find a lot less will be wearing their watch as they think. I like Apple products and have an iPhone and don't need another product to wear.
Right, because nobody can go on the internet in 7.3 seconds and look up the specs of the other products...or go two storefronts down and try them out.
Should they also start selling Windows Phones and Dell laptops in their store too? Or is that pure fear as well?
I swear, the tinfoil hatting around here is shocking sometimes.
Oh. So open and honest competition requires selling your competitor's products in your own branded store? That's a bit strange.
----------
Okay, so they sell non-Apple accessories and software for Apple products. But how about:
- competing tablets?
- competing cellphones?
- competing MP3 players?
- competing laptops?
- competing PCs?
That is also why they stopped selling non-iPhone smartphones in their stores probably.
Apple's decision to remove products is their decision. So what? It's not like those products can't be purchased elsewhere; often cheaper. The saddest part of this thread is the amount of logical fallacies being thrown up and seconded by people, who I will have to assume have no idea what a logical fallacy is. Especially the absolutely stupid car company comparisons. I've got news for those who presented that dumb ass argument. To be clear, I'm saying the argument is dumb, not the people presenting them.
Go to any dealership, be it Ford, Toyota, Lexus, BMW, or whomever. They all sell car brands from other manufacturers. Most dealerships of decent size sell their CPO (used cars) trade ins on the same car lot. So yes, you can buy a Toyota at a Ford dealership or a Lexus at a BMW shop.
I don't agree with spectrumfox's reasoning for Apple removing items, but he is right that the comparisons being made in this thread are not appropriate. Logical fallacies:
Microsoft not selling iPads (never sold iPads), Nike not selling Reebok (never sold Reebok), Gap not selling Banana Republic (never sold BR)... yeah, none of that is even remotely "the same" or even slightly similar to Apple removing product from it's shelves that they previously sold (for years). That's simply internet forum logic with these: all around the word logic. How does one's mind even form the thought that Take Product Off Shelves = Company X doesn't sell Company Y's product? I blame Common Core.
Personally, I think Apple just wanted the space to highlight their own products with no distractions.
Go to any dealership, be it Ford, Toyota, Lexus, BMW, or whomever. They all sell car brands from other manufacturers. Most dealerships of decent size sell their CPO (used cars) trade ins on the same car lot. So yes, you can buy a Toyota at a Ford dealership or a Lexus at a BMW shop.
I don't agree with spectrumfox's reasoning for Apple removing items, but he is right that the comparisons being made in this thread are not appropriate. Logical fallacies:
Microsoft not selling iPads (never sold iPads), Nike not selling Reebok (never sold Reebok), Gap not selling Banana Republic (never sold BR)... yeah, none of that is even remotely "the same" or even slightly similar to Apple removing product from it's shelves that they previously sold (for years). That's simply internet forum logic with these:
all around the word logic. How does one's mind even form the thought that Take Product Off Shelves = Company X doesn't sell Company Y's product? I blame Common Core.Personally, I think Apple just wanted the space to highlight their own products with no distractions.
Last edited:
Because fairness and sharing is what EVERYONE needs to do.
Kidding, Apple has the right to say what's a go and a no-go.
Apple's decision to remove products is their decision. So what? It's not like those products can't be purchased elsewhere; often cheaper. The saddest part of this thread is the amount of strawman arguments being thrown up and seconded by people, who I will have to assume have no idea what a strawman argument is. Especially the absolutely stupid car company comparisons. I've got news for those who presented that dumb ass argument. To be clear, I'm saying the argument is dumb, not the people presenting them.
Go to any dealership, be it Ford, Toyota, Lexus, BMW, or whomever. They all sell car brands from other manufacturers. Most dealerships of decent size sell their CPO (used cars) trade ins on the same car lot. So yes, you can buy a Toyota at a Ford dealership or a Lexus at a BMW shop.
I don't agree with spectrumfox's reasoning for Apple removing items, but he is right that the comparisons being made in this thread are not appropriate.
Microsoft not selling iPads (never sold iPads), Nike not selling Reebok (never sold Reebok), Gap not selling Banana Republic (never sold BR)... yeah, none of that is even remotely "the same" or even slightly similar to Apple removing product from it's shelves that they previously sold (for years). That's simply internet forum logic with these:
Personally, I think Apple just wanted the space to highlight their own products with no distractions.
Straw man is too strong a word for this car thingy, more a misfitting analogy, a small straw hat on a big head. At least, I redeemed myself later in the thread with a more cogent and less metaphoric argument... ;-)
This is different. I personally think Apple removed Bose because Bose sued Beats over a noise cancelling patent. There was no way Apple would sell the products of a company that was suing them. Once the suit was settled and court avoided, Bose was back on the shelves.
Or does he have three friends who are purchasing the cheaper option that he linked to, the $1000 gold plated watch.
The examples are meant to show that most other companies do not sell competitors' products. They are not perfectly analogous to this case for the reason you state, but nor are they irrelevant; they do illustrate that many other companies follow the principle that presumably guided apple to this decision.
Apple's previous decision to carry fitness bands was not guided by this principle because those bands were not competitors to anything apple was itself making. Now they are, so the principle illustrated by the examples (MS/ipad, nike/reebok, etc.) comes into play.
We will see about that. I had the Fitbit Charge HR and it never tracked my HR effectively. It was solid until I started to work out with it and then it was ineffective. I'm hoping Apple has it figured out. That is one of the weakness of this technology.
This is a textbook business decision. I can't understand why some of you are unable to see it.
It's an Apple Store, it's their home field advantage. The watch is their newest flagship product and it needs to succeed. Every customer walking into their store Interested in wearable tech needs to walkout with an apple watch on their wrist or the plan to order one. Any other outcome is a lost sale and a mark against their new product. selling products that are not apple and compete for the same critical real estate (the wrist) would be absolutely idiotic.
Speculate on the timing all you want, it's a waste of time. We'll never know why they chose now to do it. The sooner the better. They need people to wait for the watch, not settle for jawbone.
It's an Apple Store, it's their home field advantage. The watch is their newest flagship product and it needs to succeed. Every customer walking into their store Interested in wearable tech needs to walkout with an apple watch on their wrist or the plan to order one. Any other outcome is a lost sale and a mark against their new product. selling products that are not apple and compete for the same critical real estate (the wrist) would be absolutely idiotic.
Speculate on the timing all you want, it's a waste of time. We'll never know why they chose now to do it. The sooner the better. They need people to wait for the watch, not settle for jawbone.
All things that strengthen their position to sell their actual product, the ipad or iphone. Accessories vary widely depending on the person, someone may want a fun design, some want sleek, etc. Apple can't provide all of the accessories people want so they stock more. Ultimately they would rather sell an ipad with a third party accessory than have someone not buy an ipad because they didn't have any cool accessories.
When it comes to their flagship products apple doesn't need to sell third party products because they have those bases covered. Need a laptop? Got it, a desktop? Also got it, a professional computer? Got that too. Tablet, phone, mp3 player? Yep yep and yep.
Accessories are supplemental to apple's products and promote the sale of the product in the first place. Promoting a different product doesn't help apple sell their products or their accessories and would make no sense.
That makes no sense at all. There has never been a question of Apple selling competitors products. Whether or not most other companies do is immaterial. Apple deciding to discontinue carrying products has nothing to do with other companies never carrying their competitors products. If Apple was following that principle then it would apply to their entire inventory, just as it applies to MS, Nike, etc. Apple still sells plenty of products that compete with their own. So Apple is in fact not following that principle. It's just a bad comparison, especially since you can still buy Nike product from Apple.
Last edited:
If they're wealthy, their purchase would be no different than me buying the SS watch and upgrading it every 2-3 years.
And upgrading a watch every few years will become second nature; just like people upgrade their wardrobes, phones, laptops and cars.
I think there is merit to both your arguments. With the launch of the Apple Watch There is a new flagship product that doesn't need distractions. I think that is the reason why they removed it and the Flagship part is important here. That is why for example other headphones are still being sold and third party iPad cases etc. I also think it doesn't make sense to try to find a pattern in Apple's store policies. This is a new product and a new situation, so comparing it to previous situations or other kinds of stores is a recipe for failure.
The shelf space argument is not really strong. Apple stores are so large that an extra display would not matter. In addition I doubt that the watch bands will be on a simple display such as the iPhone cases considering their prices.