[dahfizz]

Apple wants to _feel_ like a luxury company. It's just a good bit of marketing.

Rolls Royce is a luxury company. Rolex is a luxury company. Apple sells a product that's in the pocket of every other snot-nosed preteen.

However, they charge a larger-than-normal markup, so people feel like it's luxurious.

EDIT: There seems to be some misunderstandings of what a "luxury" good is. Something isn't luxurious just because it is subjectively a little bit better than the competition. Bosch makes the best dishwashers but they are not a luxury brand. Similarly, the Golf GTI is an absolutely incredible $30K car, but that does not make it luxurious.

A Rolls Royce is a luxury car because it is full of extravagance and opulence. There is absolutely no concern with keeping costs down, and there is no expense spared to make the car as comfortable and luxurious as possible. It also fits the economic definition[1] where spending on luxury cars increases with income. The richer you are, the more money you spend on luxury cars. This isn't true of Apple products because it is a mass produced, mass market good. A billionaire can't buy a better iPhone. That's the opposite of what it means to be a luxury, exclusive brand.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods

[redler]

I think the fact that a billionaire can't buy a better iPhone is partly what supports the (now perhaps only slightly) higher price of iPhones versus other non-cheap phones. The same might be said of these headphones (if they turn out to be good) — other than those "billionaires" who happen to be audiophiles wielding headphone amps, it's likely these will be seen as an achievable luxury for people who like well-made objects and want to have (approximately) "the best and best-designed" good.

[ska]

> wants to _feel_ like a luxury company. It's just a good bit of marketing.

This is fundamentally true of all luxury goods, so this distinction is not meaningful. Which is why it is commonly used as a marketing tool, you can create this distinction at any level you want, to make your customers feel exclusive.

Sure, apple plays at the lower-price-broader-market end of this than say, McClaren automotive, but it's the same game.

[labster]

For the bourgeoisie, feeling like luxury is the same as true luxury. And there are a lot more bourgeoisie than people who know the difference. So Apple mass-produces them some products like the AirPods Max.

[timsneath]

Yet in most of their categories, they _are_ the top of the line. There often aren't better choices (across some reasonable definition of 'better') available for those who want to pay more. I can't think of a Macbook alternative whose manufacturer is primarily competing on quality.

Speaking personally, I have zero interest in brand except as a marque of quality. But for those who are optimizing for quality over price, Apple is a choice that rarely leads to disappointment.

That's a different proposition to most luxury brands, which primarily target aspiration. A Louis Vuitton handbag may not be a higher-quality handbag, but as I understand it, their consumers are buying it for the logo more than the craftsmanship.

[WorldMaker]

> Apple sells a product that's in the pocket of every other snot-nosed preteen.

> However, they charge a larger-than-normal markup, so people feel like it's luxurious.

This doesn't seem to me to be a complicated "dichotomy" to square/understand where with phone hardware, at least, any markup is sometimes "larger-than-normal". It's very easy to be a phone "luxury" brand when so many phones are sold with thin to no margins. Apple certainly props up their "luxury status"/"luxury image" with much higher margin products in the margins outside of phones, but it is easy to see why the bar for "luxury phone" itself is so low that it can also be a mass produced/mass consumed object.

[brabel]

I consider Apple to be a luxury company for electronics... even if quite a lot of people who are not millionaires can afford buying Apple anyway. My reason is simple: they sell the best quality laptops and phones you can buy (not sure about headphones, but I bet this one is near the top-range for consumer headphones). Do you know of a better phone I could buy than the top-level iPhone?

[Macha]

What makes best for you? Case in point, I have a decent amount of sunk cost in the android ecosystem, my nexus 5x had sufficient performance for me, and I use the headphone jack extensively and am unwilling to give it up. Consequently, for my requirements, most midrange android phones are "better" (high end androids on the other hand have mostly expunged the headphone jack in iPhone envy).

[namdnay]

Interestingly enough for your example, Rolex is closer to Apple than you think : Mass-markey Luxury. Like LV bags or Apple

[dahfizz]

I don't know what you're talking about. A new Rolex is over $5000 for the cheapest model, which is well outside the mass market price range. Never mind the fact that you can't even buy a new Rolex unless you are on a preferred buyers list. That's the opposite of Mass Market.

Of course, unlike Apple, Rolex makes products that last decades. So older, less collectible models become affordable to people. But the fact that the "mass market" is willing to fight over the heavily used, least desirable of all Rolexes proves its exclusivity and "luxury".

[gowld]

Apple is a premium brand, not a luxury brand. That's what people are missing in the "Rolls Royce vs Honda" analogy.