I dont' think so. It's a blackberry from another company. I don't think anyone considers them to be luxury. I would say this phone is expensive at best but luxury? NO. Again I will say it... just because people can and are willing to afford the luxury doens't mean the item in question is not luxury.
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 Having Trouble Signing New Carriers Because of iPhone Subsidy and Minimum Purchase Requirements
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I dont' think so. It's a blackberry from another company. I don't think anyone considers them to be luxury. I would say this phone is expensive at best but luxury? NO. Again I will say it... just because people can and are willing to afford the luxury doens't mean the item in question is not luxury.
People are more apt to post complaints than praise, obviously.
If you want the real story on Apple's reputation with quality, check JD Power, Consumer Reports, etc.
Indeed, there's luxury, high specification and quality of build ... and I'd say only the 3rd fits Apple.
BMW isn't luxury? Expensive and executive but hardly Rolls Royce or Bentley etc.
But you could consider them as high end for mass market the same as the iPhone.
Your analogy also makes no sense as you know what you are getting when you buy the BMW, yet you wouldn't expect it to have a scratch all down the side when you collect it from the dealers.
It's like stating you don't to pay 3k and not have a DVD drive or ethernet port in the Retina MB Pro.
----------
Are those international though?
Then who needs them? I'd wager that many smaller dealers, especially those in emerging markets, have difficulty paying the pricey subsidies that Ferrari requires.
But you don't see Ferrari for sale at every corner used car lot in Bangalore, do you?
Keep it classy Apple. The last thing we need is for the Apple Brand to mean "sold at smaller carriers, especially those in emerging markets".
I think that most Apple owners want to be known as being in an exclusive little club for rich people, instead of something that just anybody can buy at Wal*Mart.
----------
Great analogy! Apple is like Tiffany! And people who own Apple devices are just like the rich people who wear Tiffany jewelry!
You're right, it's not Rolls Royce or Bentley luxury but it is generally known as a luxury car/brand. My analogy was nothing more than to point out that if BMW is considered a luxury brand with non-luxury items/aspects, why can't Apple be considered a luxury brand?
To me, I don't consider Apple to be a luxury. High-end and/or maybe premium but not luxury. Luxury to me is something like Rolls Royce, very few can afford and is small in number relative to the segment it's in.
Because you are then talking about perception as opposed to fact. For instance you and I would both agree Rolls Royce is a luxurious brand as that is how they market themselves, but I do not agree BMW is and consider their marketing to be high end or executive, not luxurious like Rolls Royce.
The same with Apple, it is not a luxury brand for the arguments I posted, the products are seen as fashionable I think.
Basically the whole thing is Apple is being greedy and can still make money on less margins and requirements.
"Artificially high?" Really? Hmm, and here I always thought pricing went hand-in-hand with market demand and product desirability.
Not always. When you get past Economcis 101, then we'll talk.
She also knows that most people do not end up buying Apple products. Some do, but most decide to get something else.
Apple devices use everyday over the counter items to make their items seemed to be luxury but in reality the devices are just over price that look good.
It USED to be a good place? Why?, because it only consisted of Apple haters? I'm really not getting your post. Part of it is very insulting to say the least. If people aren't seeing Apple the way you do then they're idiots? Gimme a break.
There seems to be considerable confusion about the job that the iPhone is hired to do.
Most consumers don't buy iPhones. They are (generally) bought in bulk by wireless telephone companies because the iPhone is very good at persuading people to sign up for a two-to-three year contract for voice and data services, at a monthly tariff ranging from ~$50 to $150 or more. The $200 you "pay" for the iPhone is simply a way for the telecoms to recapture some of the $600+ subsidy they have invested. Telecoms have discovered that if they don't offer the iPhone, then they are very likely to lose these, their most desirable and profitable customers to competitors that DO offer the iPhone. That is the job the iPhone does.
The Bloomberg article references the 2.8 billion or so wireless customers who currently have prepaid plans, with average monthly bills of $10 - $12. Without going into too much math, one can fairly easily see how even reducing the cost of the iPhone by two or three hundred dollars simply isn't going to make much difference. (A 36 month contract at $10 a month comes to $360 - not enough to cover the cost of the - theoretical - "budget" iPhone.)
Apple is not about to sacrifice its incredibly profitable business model just to put a billion cheap handsets in low-end pre-paid customers' hands.
Most consumers don't buy iPhones. They are (generally) bought in bulk by wireless telephone companies because the iPhone is very good at persuading people to sign up for a two-to-three year contract for voice and data services, at a monthly tariff ranging from ~$50 to $150 or more. The $200 you "pay" for the iPhone is simply a way for the telecoms to recapture some of the $600+ subsidy they have invested. Telecoms have discovered that if they don't offer the iPhone, then they are very likely to lose these, their most desirable and profitable customers to competitors that DO offer the iPhone. That is the job the iPhone does.
The Bloomberg article references the 2.8 billion or so wireless customers who currently have prepaid plans, with average monthly bills of $10 - $12. Without going into too much math, one can fairly easily see how even reducing the cost of the iPhone by two or three hundred dollars simply isn't going to make much difference. (A 36 month contract at $10 a month comes to $360 - not enough to cover the cost of the - theoretical - "budget" iPhone.)
Apple is not about to sacrifice its incredibly profitable business model just to put a billion cheap handsets in low-end pre-paid customers' hands.
Thats what apple wants their customers to think about their products.. I dont buy that for a second. lol
LMAO, this a funny post. If Apple can make money on higher margins (which they do) then why would they lessen margins? If you will, please don't come back with the usual "They'll make it up in Volume" argument because that would require more sales to make the same money they do now. With over $150 billion in the bank the only people that are concerned about Apple's raking in more customers is you or whomever agrees with you.
Do I agree that Apple is greedy? Very much so, but your logic flawed. If they were a company that had trouble with customer retention, had trouble getting customers interested in their products, can't seem to make a profit in any which way but lowering customer-level costs then you would have a point.
Just be honest about it, ask yourself, would you drop margins if your company was raking in the type of cash Apple does and you had the the amount of customers as they do standing in hordes of lines waiting to buy your product? I think not.
Google for "Stuart Hughes". Or check this link:
http://www.anorak.co.uk/300043/keyp...ig-media-laps-up-one-mans-solid-gold-pr.html/
I don't understand the problem. They seem to be saying we need to sell the iPhone, because its what customers want to buy while at the same time we can't sell the iPhone because customers aren't willing to pay what it costs.
Actually i think i do understand. Seems to me that's not a case of the iPhone being overpriced, it's a case of some carries distorting the market with subsides that other carriers can't afford. It's kinda like distorting the market by giving your OS away for free, but opposite. Kinda. OK, not very.
Actually i think i do understand. Seems to me that's not a case of the iPhone being overpriced, it's a case of some carries distorting the market with subsides that other carriers can't afford. It's kinda like distorting the market by giving your OS away for free, but opposite. Kinda. OK, not very.
I can tell you've never once been inside of an Apple store because that's far from how Apple represents their products. The whole customer experience at the Apple store is very much down to earth and unfortunately has turned into nothing but an annoying and frustrating internet cafe. If Apple wanted their customers to see them and their products as luxury boutique items they wouldn't allow a bunch of internet loitering in their store and it certainly would be whisper quiet as it's ridiculously noisy in there as it is.
Their employees wouldn't be wearing T-shirts, they'd be wearing suits and the store wouldn't look like The Gap, it would resemble more like Nordstrom.
The PC industry has made Apple's products look like luxury boutique items because these companies have spent more time on "CHEAP CRAP" Windows machines rather than making upper quality products. When you sit Trash subsidized Windows products next to a nicely built and designed Apple products it will "appear" that Apple's stuff is a luxury item. Don't blame Apple, the blame lies on the other PC tech companies that make junk because low price and grabbing the customer is the bottom line for them and not quality.
I stated that it was my opinion, that's all. And I personally don't see an item that is carried by every other teen and pre teen as a luxury item. Or maybe I should say an exclusive item instead. I personally don't see calling something a luxury item when just about everyone has one. Again, that's my take on it.
@everyone suggesting Vertu is the luxury phone brand - nu uh! For starters, you can't have a luxury phone running Androird, the two just don't fit together. Also, ten years in development, handmade by a single craftsman? So, old technology in an overdesigned case.
Being a luxury brand isn't about how much it costs, or how rare it is - its about being luxurious. Ferrari wouldn't be a luxury brand if they were crap cars.
Being a luxury brand isn't about how much it costs, or how rare it is - its about being luxurious. Ferrari wouldn't be a luxury brand if they were crap cars.
Nor would Ferrari be a luxury brand if there were as many of them on the road as Toyota's.
Huh, thanks, opens your eye's about tech media doesn't it? As they said the storys are certainly presented as hard facts across the media.
It USED to be a good place? Why?, because it only consisted of Apple haters? I'm really not getting your post. Part of it is very insulting to say the least. If people aren't seeing Apple the way you do then they're idiots? Gimme a break.
Erm no? Please don't take what I said out of context to suit your post eh
but when I'm on a site where these day's it's proclaimed time and time again by posters here, that Apple will simply 'buy' ITV to use it's name or steal it for some vapourware product that doesn't exist, then I think it sums up what this place has now become? Don't you?In fact 9to5mac is less biased and that's saying something!
When was the last time you read a story like this one on Mac Rumors?:
http://9to5mac.com/2013/03/20/macbook-pro-with-retina-display-problems-in-every-dimension/
Last edited: