Apple is not a 'luxury' brand.
These are 'luxury' brands.. Apple is consumer grade, not luxury
http://www.vertu.com
http://www.bang-olufsen.com/en-GB
http://www.loewe.tv/uk/products.html
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
Apple is not a 'luxury' brand.
These are 'luxury' brands.. Apple is consumer grade, not luxury
http://www.vertu.com
http://www.bang-olufsen.com/en-GB
http://www.loewe.tv/uk/products.html
So what do you think of Apple? We can agree Apple = computer company that sells overpriced gadgets and behaves like a cheap company?
As an ex-owner of a Vertu Ascent handset my05 (bought used of course), I am astounded at the ignorance towards the brand ... I honestly thought they were renowned the world over since they have flagship stores in many countries and stocked in quite a few higher end jewellers.
Apple is high end.
Apple is definitely not luxury.
Luxury phones are most definitely not the staple devices across generations nor would you expect to see many in the 'wild'
Apple is high end.
Apple is definitely not luxury.
Luxury phones are most definitely not the staple devices across generations nor would you expect to see many in the 'wild'
The problem is not that the iPhone is too costly for the carriers.
The problem is the carriers.
The carriers hate Apple, and are constantly trying to undermine the company. They prefer to sell competitor products and bitch and moan in the press. Because that way, they hope to regain the control over the people that use their network.
Apple should release a new category of device - a numberless phone.
Something akin to an iPod touch with 3G. And sell it, unlocked and without contract, at retail outlets.
Like an iPad, it wouldn't have a telephone number, and would not be able to place or receive conventional calls. It would however, work with Skype, What's App. iMessage, Facetime and other internet based services. Customers would not be tied to the cellphone number, and could switch networks whenever they want.
Consumers would just buy a 3G data SIM from any carrier, and the device would start working. Apple might celebrate the event by launching a new app; A voice only version of Facetime.
Such a product would shake-up the low-end handset market. And would strengthen Apple where they are weakest.
The problem is the carriers.
The carriers hate Apple, and are constantly trying to undermine the company. They prefer to sell competitor products and bitch and moan in the press. Because that way, they hope to regain the control over the people that use their network.
Apple should release a new category of device - a numberless phone.
Something akin to an iPod touch with 3G. And sell it, unlocked and without contract, at retail outlets.
Like an iPad, it wouldn't have a telephone number, and would not be able to place or receive conventional calls. It would however, work with Skype, What's App. iMessage, Facetime and other internet based services. Customers would not be tied to the cellphone number, and could switch networks whenever they want.
Consumers would just buy a 3G data SIM from any carrier, and the device would start working. Apple might celebrate the event by launching a new app; A voice only version of Facetime.
Such a product would shake-up the low-end handset market. And would strengthen Apple where they are weakest.
It's hard to tell what Apple will do in June (or the 2nd half of 2013) with the iPhone. If I was to bet I'd say Apple will release the iPhone 5s later this year and a new bigger screen iPhone 6 in 2014 but it is possible with the increased competition they could skip the 5s and go strait to a new design/model this year, along with maybe a 'cheap' 4" model.
Either way I plan on getting the next iPhone this year, my 3Gs is getting tired.
Either way I plan on getting the next iPhone this year, my 3Gs is getting tired.
Continuing to play hard ball with the carriers could come back and bite Apple in the ass one day. If the carriers decide on mass to cut their iPhone subsidies it will mean higher prices and lower sales. The iPhone is not the only game in town any more.
I went into several phone shops locally and the sales people were all heavily pushing the S4. All the iPhone promo's seemed to be around the iPhone 4 and 4s, presumably because the carrier subsidy is lower on those models. Not one tried to sell me the iPhone 5.
I went into several phone shops locally and the sales people were all heavily pushing the S4. All the iPhone promo's seemed to be around the iPhone 4 and 4s, presumably because the carrier subsidy is lower on those models. Not one tried to sell me the iPhone 5.
So let me get this straight. The analyst say Apple should make a cheap iPhone so they can penetrate the 3rd world markets for which china and India are the largest. Yet this report says Apple's stringent requirement policy is keeping damn near 40% of the world's population from getting the current, EXPENSIVE iPhone. LOL.
So according to these findings it ain't about cheap but policy.
God help us all!!
So according to these findings it ain't about cheap but policy.
God help us all!!
This is funny, we all keep hearing about how Apple's market share is based on actual sales and every one else's is based on shipments. As it turns out, the only difference is that Apple consider their shipments to the carriers as final sales and refuse to take back any units.
Apart from the fact that carriers are now increasingly reluctant to make that commitment, yeah sure.
Apart from the fact that carriers are now increasingly reluctant to make that commitment, yeah sure.
This is so true. Apple is the luxury brand of the IT world. Price does not dictate this. It's product quality, brand recognition and yuppieness, product reputation etc etc. Heck even look at the brick Apple Store. It screams luxury and yuppie.Really!?
In the field of phones, laptops, tablets,etc., if Apple isn't a luxury brand, who is?
The Apple tax is always there. But the different to other luxury brand prices it that (Mac pro excepted) Apple's products are reasonably priced with total ownership over time factored in.
It depends on your definition of luxury. I would say that Apple is a high end brand rather than a consumer brand simply because Apple products tend to be the most expensive on the market.
I would put them in the same bracket as Bang&Olufsen. B&O is not a luxury brand because you can other buy HiFi systems that cost up to a hundred grand. Luxury brands to me would be Rolex or Rolls Royce.
Aside from getting royally, and correctly, slaughtered for my stupid statement, the cost of the Vertu phone keeps going up every time I get hit.
First poster to properly smack me for my dopiness said $5,000 - $10,000. Now it's $20,000!!
If I wait long enough, that damn phone will cost more than a Rolls Royce!!
So, you can buy Ferrari and Tiffany products al Wal Marts and department stores starting at 99 dollars?
Aside from getting royally, and correctly, slaughtered for my stupid statement, the cost of the Vertu phone keeps going up every time I get hit.
First poster to properly smack me for my dopiness said $5,000 - $10,000. Now it's $20,000!!
If I wait long enough, that damn phone will cost more than a Rolls Royce!!
Well it really depends on which version you get AND how you sign up for their Concierge service. So it might cost a barebones of 5K - but it could go up to much higher. So partial truth in the skewing of numbers
Ah...the concierge service!
I completely forgot about that!
confusedWell, only a plebeian low life would abjure retaining that service.
I, being a person of quality and class would, of course, engage the concierge service.
I'll figure that into my cost allocation for the phone.
Of course, if you have to ask what it costs...
So by this logic, does that mean the Microsoft Surface is considered "luxury" bcause it has the smallest market share? Perhaps the iPhone, and iPad have the largest share because they were first in their respective markets.
You people and your non-sensical analogies
King Lear is to Shakespeare as your post is to:
a) kid who re-uses other people's memes from 5 years ago
b) grown man from US who doesn't know the population of the earth
c) person who actually buys mass produced Tiffany jewelry located in a shopping mall
d) all of the above
Answer:
d
I used 200 billion to be a non-sensical extreme to show that I'm kidding. I'm sorry that it wasn't understood. Of course, 200 billion people can't buy jewelry, only 7 billion people have wallets, the other 193 billion are zombies ready to come out of the ground for the apocalypse, and don't have wallets to buy jewelry with.
It's just laughable to me that because Apple only wants to sign with certain carriers, an analyst reports that they are having 'trouble' signing with the other carriers. It would be the same as saying that Tiffany & Co. is having 'trouble' signing with Walmart, Target and K-Mart. Completely non-sensical.
No, that's not the difference. It is a gross misrepresentation. One, I bet that you can't just receive a million Samsung phones, sell 10,000, and return the rest without paying. Second, when Apple says "sold" they are indeed sold to end users, which makes a huge difference because shipping a million phones to carriers on the first day is a lot easier than selling a million phones to end users on the first day.
I was unfortunate enough to have to visit an Apple Store yesterday. I say unfortunate, because I hate going in there- always too hectic. It was rammed full of 'chavs', not yuppies. Every man and his dog has an iPhone, whether they be posh or not. It's not luxury. It's common as muck (but I still love mine)!
----------
I agree with you. High end, perhaps. Luxury, definitely not.
Yeah well, Apple has something like that.. It's called iPad Mini
The cheapest 16GB WiFi is $329 while iPod Touch started from $299. Granted the iPod is 32GB but for only $30 more you get bigger screen and full iPad experience.
An iPod Touch with 3G would costs $130 more like their iPad variants. And that way it also raises the argument.. Why would I get a tiny iPod Touch over iPad Mini for only $30 more?
You could get either or both.
But rumor has it that the best selling phones on the planet are actually smaller than 7".
IMO the iPhone is more comparable to the Camry than a luxury brand. Well designed. Not bleeding edge on technology. Reliable. Well made of quality materials. Dependable. Solid customer service. Higher resale value than their competitors. Precisely what I want in my phone.
The Samsungs are more like Chevys or Fords. Not quite up to snuff build wise (no matter what they want you to think). More techie gizmos (gimmicks?) inside. A little gaudier.
While no analogy is going to be 100% on point, I believe this one is pretty close.
I don't think the Surface is luxury product either regardless of how it sells. As I said before, IMO, if you sell 100 million of something a year, it's not a luxury product.
----------
Good analogy. I agree.
Well if you think paid people from Apple's competitors come on here then I think you live in cloud cookoo land.
I'm touched you read my previous posts, seems to be something you do regularly reading your history. How far back did you go? I am not a troll, I just see it as it is, of course I'm negative about ANY company as well as positive, I'm not the sort of Apple fan that treated the passing of Jobs like the passing of Jesus Christ so I will be negative towards them.
I've had some poor experiences with Apple including their genius bars, they repaired an older MB Pro I had when the power board failed yet they didn't put the case back together properly. But I love the simplicity and reliability of OSX, in fact the only thing that seems to crash it is my beta Chrome. And bar the iOS bugs that crop up now and then, I only want Apple to make another 3.5" iPhone.
But when it comes to patents and abusing them to stifle competition, Apple is fully guilty.