Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple is not a luxury brand

blog.yafla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: Apple is not a luxury brand

#41

Post by baguasquirrel »

jey wrote: post #12

> Apple is no more exclusive than the GAP or Target or eating at Red Lobster. Definitely true, but he also undermines his own argument here: Yes, Red Lobster is not Chez Panisse and Apple is not Rolex, but to large parts of society Red Lobster is considered expensive and not worth it. It's not "exclusive", but it's still at the top of the "normal" bracket. There's a lot of middle class people who'd rather shop at Koh…

There is a concept of a sub-luxury brand, a product that is not exclusive to the rich, but still markets itself as a quality, high-end, status-worthy product, and that is what I think the author is getting at.

An example of this could be Lincolns and Toyota Avalons, from the car world, except Lincolns aren't designed to be simple and sexy and Toyota really didn't know what they were doing with the Avalon. Say what you will about the engineering and cost, but that is what Joe Schmoe thinks of Apple.

Re: Apple is not a luxury brand

#42

Post by Anechoic »

He talks about "myths that somehow bear truth only through repeated assertion" and then he goes ahead and repeats such a myth: "At one point in Steve Jobs' reign they were effectively bailed out by Microsoft."

It wasn't a bailout (especially since the amount MS paid was negligible compared to the couple of billion dollars Apple had in the bank at the time) so much as it was a settlement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company

Re: Apple is not a luxury brand

#43

Post by brudgers »

jey wrote: post #12

> Apple is no more exclusive than the GAP or Target or eating at Red Lobster. Definitely true, but he also undermines his own argument here: Yes, Red Lobster is not Chez Panisse and Apple is not Rolex, but to large parts of society Red Lobster is considered expensive and not worth it. It's not "exclusive", but it's still at the top of the "normal" bracket. There's a lot of middle class people who'd rather shop at Koh…

Hmm...The Mac is to computing as Red Lobster is to seafood?

The RDF is cracking.

Re: Apple is not a luxury brand

#44

Post by beoba »

matwood wrote: post #21
Tichy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I am concerned the iPod has become completely superfluous. I am surprised that people still buy them - what for? Also I am not sure I follow the logic: because Walmart has a MP3 player section, suddenly iPods are must-have items?

I am surprised that people still buy them - what for? I really like the matchbook, clip type shuffles for working out. They are super light, pretty much indestructible and have a built in clip.

Try the Sansa clip. Literally half the price, or quadruple the capacity for the same price. And you even get the most premium of luxuries: a display.

Re: Apple is not a luxury brand

#45

Post by matwood »

beoba wrote: post #44
matwood wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am surprised that people still buy them - what for? I really like the matchbook, clip type shuffles for working out. They are super light, pretty much indestructible and have a built in clip.

Try the Sansa clip. Literally half the price, or quadruple the capacity for the same price. And you even get the most premium of luxuries: a display.

Thing is, I don't want a display. My current shuffle (2 gens old) is completely beat to hell (visible scratches and gashes) but still works great at the gym, running, hiking, in the sauna, actually playing basketball with it on, etc... I'm pretty sure any display would have been cracked or destroyed by this point. The Sansa clip is also bigger than the shuffle.

I know I'm a very specific case, but for me the shuffle is exactly what I need.

Post reply on HN