[chadash]

Apple clearly positions themselves as a premium product. There is some luxury element to it to (e.g., my friends will look down on me if I have an android), but it's not really the same as a true luxury product where brand is the main thing you are paying for. If you offered to sell me a macbook for 25% cheapr on condition that I remove the branding, I'd be happy to do so. I'm not a watch person, but I suspect that most Rolex buyers would not pay anything close for an identical watch without the crown logo.

[dworks]

My main point can be put a little more clearly: it is not just that we are willing to pay for the brand experience and the marketing that builds it, but we actively want to pay for it.

Macbook Neo customers want Apple to put out creative product marketing videos, they believe it is part of the offer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3SIKAmPXY4

[widowlark]

I have to disagree - I have seen the video, and I also have ordered the product, but the marketing isn't what sold me, and I don't see any evidence that the marketing is what is responsible for people's desire of the product. It's affordable in a world where all prices are increasing everywhere. That's my theory on why people want this product.

[LoganDark]

It's also just a good product for the price. My only real gripe is the non-haptic trackpad.

[majormajor]

Is there data to prove or disprove this?

I haven't given a shit about Apple marketing since I was a teenager, and I have bought many Apple products since then. If they could turn their marketing spend into a discount on the price instead I'd happily pay less. (Of course, this would reduce their sales, so it wouldn't work that way, but I'm not in it for the videos I've never watched.)

Obviously I'm aware they still have their fanatics, but how much of their sales is that really?

[dworks]

The data is Apple's margins on smartphones and other devices, compared to competitors in respective vertical.

[elevatortrim]

Actually most watch collectors do not wear their most expensive watches, they have daily or travel watches to wear that carry less risk.

Also, watches are status symbols to a really narrow niche. Vast majority of people cannot name a non-Rolex expensive watch and would assume Seiko (and maybe Tissot) are the best watches after Rolex, followed by Swatch (and maybe Timex).

[majormajor]

I don't think either of these points change the fact that if you bought a Rolex (or IWC or whatever) that someone slipped you out the side door of the factory, identical in every way except missing the logos, for a substantial discount, it would not be nearly as valuable or prestigious in your collection as a genuine one that other collectors would want. How much would a serious collector splash out on an unofficial - and very unspecial - version of a 100k watch?

I'd do that in a heartbeat for a MacBook, though. Same as with any other consumer good.

Apple is competing in the "premium fit and finish" product space, not the "luxury good" space, so the brand is significantly less of a factor of the value for their devices than it is for Rolex, IWC, etc.

And despite the essay linked here—which seems like a lot of words spilled on a fairly mundane history lesson—I don't think "luxury goods are driven by name value" is anything new. Goes back to the wealthy being patrons of the arts for hundreds, thousands of years... They wanted their name associated with those works, and they wanted those works to be famous. Status all the way down. "When telling the time became ubiquitous, the luxury goods part of the watch market became an increasingly large part of it" is uninteresting.

[elevatortrim]

I’d do that in a heartbeat for IWC!

There are of course people who buy Rolexes or whatever for the brand. There are probably more people who buy Mac Books for the logo.

But most people are rational. Most people would pay that much money for a watch only if it does not impact their finances in a meaningful way, but within that, they would want to buy the highest quality they can. And for some people that means an IWC, Omega, Longines, or whatever. If they could buy the same quality from a less known brand, they would. Lots of people buy Grand Seikos at Rolex prices. I buy normal Seikos at $300. We all pay for the quality we can afford.

Brand is important because it is an insurance that you are not being scammed. Besides that, it is not the main factor let alone “era defining” as the article is trying to make it out.

[davnicwil]

not to tangent off from your point too much but I think in reality one might in fact pay more for a logoless macbook just because it would in itself be a pretty unique and cool artefact, and a good story as to how you acquired it!

[CAPSLOCKSSTUCK]

Thank you for missing the point of the essay.

[widowlark]

Casio is the best watch brand in the world. This is measurable - most features, battery life, versatility, utility, and durability for the lowest possible price. It's an objective truth. Given this, other watch brands have had to differentiate, and since they cannot compete on pure functionality alone, they offer luxury or, as pg points out, brand identity as a differentiatior.

[elevatortrim]

I would argue Garmins are better value for the money for fitness features but I agree. I excluded Casio because they build “brand era” watches as well as extremely cheap watches, not to mention all the other things they do. So I’m not sure where Casio is to average consumer when it comes to watches.

[maguay]

Tudor says they'll pay around a third to a half for something pretty close made by the same parent company but with a different movement and branding.

[chadash]

Yes, but Tudor's brand is "it's built by the same company as Rolex".