-hh
Steve Carroll <trollkil...@TK.com>wrote:

Steve Carroll
Outcomes, like computers, are what they are, regardless of what you or I think is the "best".

-hh
Fair enough.

Steve Carroll
The fact is that Apple doesn't serve well the portion of the market where the average system price lives and they pay for it in a number of ways.

-hh
Unfortunately, this statement contradicts the above, as it quacks a lot like a personal judgement call on what specific product strategy is "best" for Apple, particularly in the second half that claims that Apple "pays" for the one that they currently have.

The simple facts are that some markets consist of commoditites that compete almost entirely on price (eg, grains, refined fuels, base chemicals), and there's other markets that effectively don't compete strongly on price because there is stronger product differentiation. And then the broader market reality is that there's no simple black and white borders between commodity and differentiated products.

What is clear is that Apple does probably sell fewer total units than they would otherwise be able to do, had it not been for the fact that their success in differentiating their product allows them to avoid the risks inherent in the typically razor-thin profit margins of commodity markets. This is clearly a trade-off, but to suggest that it is a bad trade off ("paying") does question the perspective by which that claim is being made. Afterall, competing in a commodity market isn't a risk-free enterprise: just go ask Dell...or BASF.

For example, selling fewer units in total at a higher unit profit margin generally results in a higher (more favorable) rate of return on investment. How is this a "bad thing"?

How is Apple not merely following a strategy that has already been proven to be successful by DuPont?

Similarly, while growth is generally considered to be a good thing for Enterprise, all change (including growth) much be managed, which reveals that growth can be bad when it cannot be effectively managed...the cliche is "too much of a good thing". As such, with Apple currently growing at IIRC around 30%, if they know, believe, or have reason to believe that they can't effectively manage any faster rate of growth, then their management team needs to respond, and one approach can be to take steps to limit and control their growth. One way to do this is through RAISING PRICES to reduce the demand for their product(s), or other steps that generally reduce commodity-based 'value added' metrics.

Claim what you will about Apple's current approach being "bad", but please do better than merely waiving one's hands around as the basis of the claim: afterall, any idiot can cut a price, as well as make the bad decisions that drive a company into the ground.