Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday February 10 2015, @09:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the being-successful-at-success dept.

Jean-Louis Gassée writes at Monday note that Apple’s most recent quarterly numbers broke a number of laws:

Law 1: Larger size makes growth increasingly difficult. The Law of Large Numbers predicts the eventual flattening of extraordinary growth. "And yet, last quarter, Apple revenue grew 30%, breaking the Law and any precedent," writes Gassée. "iPhone revenue, which grew 57%, exceeded $51B in one quarter — close to what Google achieved in its entire Fiscal 2014 year." Apple’s recent numbers show, the iPhone seems immune to modularity threats.

Law 2: Everything becomes a commodity. As products are standardized, margins suffer as competitors frantically cut prices in a race to the bottom with the PC clone market serving as a good example. "At the risk of belaboring the obvious, a rising Average Selling Price (ASP) means customers are freely deciding to give more money to Apple," says Gassée. "We’re told that this is just a form of Stockholm Syndrome, the powerless customer held prisoner inside Apple’s Walled Garden." Yet according to Tim Cook “…fewer than 15% of older iPhone owners upgraded to the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus. The majority of switchers to iPhone came from smartphones running Google Inc.’s Android operating system.” Apple’s recent numbers show, the iPhone seems immune to modularity threats.

Law 3: Market share always wins. With a bigger market share comes economies of scale and network effects leaving minority players condemned to irrelevance and starvation. Yet despite its small unit share (around 7% worldwide, higher in the US), Apple takes home about half of all PC industry profits, thanks to its significant ASP ($1,250 vs $417 industry-wide in 2014, trending down to $379 this year).

Law 4: Modularity Always Wins. In the end, modularity always defeats integration. Clayton Christensen points out that in the PC clone market, modularity allowed competitors to undercut one another by improving layer after layer, smarter graphic cards, better/faster/cheaper processing, storage, and peripheral modules. Yet, as Apple’s recent numbers show, the iPhone seems immune to modularity threats.

"I have no trouble with the Law of Large Numbers, it only underlines Apple’s truly stupendous growth and, in the end, it always wins. No business can grow by 20%, or even 10% for ever. But, for the other three, Market Share, Commoditization, and Modularity, how can we ignore the sea of contradicting facts?" concludes Gassée. "As Apple continues to “break the law”, perhaps we’ll see a new body of scholarship that provides alternatives to the discredited refrains. As Rob Majteles tweeted: “Apple: where many, all?, management theories go to die?"

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 10 2015, @03:22PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 10 2015, @03:22PM (#143159)

    Economics has long since learned to not make that distinction due both to the subjectivity of the meaning of need and because it introduces extraneous issues

    What you guys are describing is monopoly pricing.

    There is only one company you can buy an iPhone from. There are many you can buy a smartphone from.

    http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=6030&cid=142721 [soylentnews.org]

    To add to my point of my prev post. Apple has managed to make themselves they only maker of a desirable item. In economic terms that is 'utility' (one of the many voodoo things economics comes up with to describe demand that you can not measure very well). Apple has very carefully not called themselves a smartphone. Thru their use of marketing they make sure they are very clear it is an iPhone. This is what many companies strive for in the 'high end' segments. To not be a commodity but to be the 'only one to buy'.

    Given that they are a monopoly in their segment. They can build at marginal cost but sell at price points well above others. Because they can jump to the demand curve for pricing.

    Now with that artificial creation of smoke and mirrors they have created. They will have to be very careful. The reason for their current boost was the upgrade of the phone to better specs. That was seen as a reason to upgrade from the latest shiny android everyone was using (galaxy s3/s4 mostly which were pretty cool phones).

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 11 2015, @04:06AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 11 2015, @04:06AM (#143437) Journal
    It's called branding not monopoly pricing.Yes, Apple has a monopoly on the brand, but they don't magically get monopoly pricing as a result. Their pricing power instead is an intermediate value between the monopoly pricing extreme and the brand having no value at all. After all, there are plenty of substitute goods for an iPhone. And some people will choose the cheap alternative over an iPhone as the price goes up.