|
|
|
|
|
|
by wanorris
5308 days ago
|
|
|
I'm not saying that the iPhone is anything other than an unqualified success, but the idea that Apple didn't really want that market share anyway seems a little off. Apple seemed quite happy to have 70% share or whatever it was with iPods. They've also offered cheaper models whenever they needed to to try and address more of the market -- for example, the iPod Shuffle, or the free-with-contract iPhone 3GS. The Apple TV certainly wasn't priced only to appeal to the high-end market. I think the article makes quite clear that it is primarily Nokia and RIM that have been devastated, but I don't think it's all inappropriate to look at the way Android has been successful at pulling share away from these companies as something that they have done better at (from a market share standpoint) than Apple. |
|
|
It's more that they didn't want the damage to their core brand caused by the measures needed to gain that market share.
You will never gain majority market share with a premium device in a market that is essentially "everyone". (Obvious exception is if there is no premium price tag associated with it, but not the case for the iPhone, at least here) There will always be a huge number that go for the budget device. Releasing a budget device will cause a large number of people to judge your product and your brand by that device. How many people judge Android by devices such as the Xperia X8 or Wildfire S? These phones are budget phones compared to the heavyweights like the Xperia Play, and for the manufacturers to be profitable with these budget phones, serious compromises had to be made. Because of this, many people associate Android with the laggy, low res, constantly running out of memory experience of these phones rather than the phones that are actually trying to compete with the iPhone head on, like the Galaxy Nexus. Not something you want to do if your entire brand is based around being a premium item.
Not to mention that if you release a budget item, it is going to take some sales from the premium version as some users settle for "good enough". The continued sales of the 3GS are actually a good example of this. At least that has the stigma of being old at this stage, but if Apple released a new budget device and a new phone in the vein of current iPhones every year, how would that affect the sales of the (more profitable) traditional iPhone?
Of course, the reason it made sense for Google to do so is that they didn't have the expectation from their customers of being a best of brand, premium item. This meant that they couldn't really break straight into the high end market easily, but it also meant they didn't have a reputation to uphold. If the iPhone 5 was a usability disaster, I'd imagine that'd make Apple's customers more skeptical of future Mac purchases for example. A bad Android phone won't hurt Gmail on the other hand. Indeed, customers might blame it on the manufacturer, and still buy a Android phone as their next phone. On top of that, the budget end of the market is a lot more flexible (what's cheapest this week?) than the winner take all nature of many high end markets (This is a lot of money. What do other people already own?), so when you're later to the game, I'd imagine that end of the market is easier to break into.