The profit of the actual product may be thin, the butterfly effect of the purchase multiples, especially for Google for reasons out outlined in my previous post.
Think outside of just profit margins.
Yes. Naive: (1)Apple would like to be the best seller (2) Apple wants to sell as many units as possible. (3) Apple is a consumer company.
Think outside of just profit margins.
Yes. Naive: (1)Apple would like to be the best seller (2) Apple wants to sell as many units as possible. (3) Apple is a consumer company.
Naive? They are profit leaders in every major category they compete in (as far as physical products go) while having nowhere near a dominant market share. They do this by excluding razor thin margin sectors explicitly. It’s clearly a winning strategy, so why would they bother competing with something like an echo dot when they can target the higher end where *there is actually money to be made*?
This is what I don’t get about people (explicitly not talking about the poster I quoted) whom compare Apple to Google or Amazon. Sure if you’re just a “market watcher” you can compare financials. But if you examine the *business strategy* of these companies it’s clear that the success of Google or Amazon is directly built on ubiquity models at low margin. Apple runs the complete opposite where the aim is not to have a device in every hand, but to get way more profit from a much smaller number of devices. Both of these are clearly winning models for each company, but they’re successful because of entirely different approaches to how they operate their businesses.