Comment by ksec | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ksec | Hacker News Reader

Roger McNamee seems to get it, the iPhone was probably the most successful technology product in history, and arguably the "most" successful in anything. It leads to a sea of other innovation across multiple spectrum.

On the Notes of Retail, Apple had ~430 Stores in 2014, ~460 in 2015. As of end 2018 it is ~510, all the stores opened in 2015 were planned before Angela's arrival, so effectively she has slowed down the opening of new Apple Store under her tenure. During that time, Apple grew from ~800M Active Devices to 1.4B, that is 600M Devices increase, but less than 60 new Stores opened, if you are wondering why it is so crowed you cant even breath in Apple Store, that is why.

In 2015 I made a prediction that Apple could be aiming at 1B iPhone users by 2020. It seems crazy at the time, and a lot of people did call me so. But as of 2019 Apple has 900M iPhone users, so the 1B iPhone users doesn't seems to far off. I also thought Apple should be aiming at 1000 Apple Stores world wide. Apple Retail were growing at approximately 10+% before 2015, it was possible to reach ~750 by 2020, now not only have they not accelerated, they slowed down.

From reading all the latest Interview, it finally seems to me this luxury Apple idea didn't came from Angela herself. It came from Tim Cook ( or may be even Jonny Ive ), he wanted Apple to be more luxurious ( Apple Watch Gold Edition in 2016 ), and get Angela on board to try and help shaping the Retail part. Angela never wanted the job in the first place, but Tim Cook talked her into it. And one reason why her salary package were the highest in Apple.

I hope having Deirdre O'Brien meant Tim Cook gave up this idea of luxurious Apple. At least not luxurious in the normal sense, Apple is an affordable luxury in tech world, and that is drastically different to clothing or Jewelry industry. iPhone needs After sales services, and you cant rely on a small number of Apple store to provide adequate services to its customers and loyal users.

Apple is not just chasing luxury, they’re chasing tech as fashion.

They realized that when people carry their tech with them all the time it becomes fashion. That’s why they bought Beats, because it became a huge tech-fashion brand that threatened Apple.

And with fashion people are willing to pay much higher prices.

Which was not a clever idea, because Apple already owned the tech-as-fashion brand just by being themselves.

In fact the fashion market is all about ridiculous virtue signalling at absolutely ridiculous prices - like the Vertu range, which takes an average phone and wraps it in some leather and chrome bling, dresses up the marketing copy with "craftsmanship" "exclusive" etc etc etc and charges five figures for it.

The key point is ridiculous pricing. Not just the very high end of affordable, like Apple. But the kind of ridiculous that only works for the 0.1%.

So Apple was never going to be Gucci-of-tech, or LV, or H. Or even Vertu. Because Apple is never going to charge $20k for its main iPhone range. And unless it does, it can't be a serious fashion brand.

In fact Apple's strong point was always its appeal to the exclusivity of the creative market - talent, intelligence, inventiveness, and art. It's a completely different exclusivity - more accessible but also sexier - than the mass market appeal of the expensive-but-trying-too-hard mid-market brands that Apple has ended up in.

Cook has done an excellent job of destroying that creative entrepreneurial foundation. This has made a lot of money for Apple in the medium term, but at the cost of the good will and loyalty of its core fans.

That won't seem like a problem if you're a bean counter, but it's a huge vulnerability for the brand. It means Apple has shaved off more and more of its USP, and now it's vulnerable to imitators in some of its key territories.

ugh, the old "Apple is trendy/fashionable" argument.

Apple is like Nike.

Fashion and design are elevated as first-class concerns along - and rarely conflicting - with functionality and ubiquity. Yes, they cost more than the bargain basement, but actually span a wide range of price, otherwise they'd be as rare and exclusive as Hermès bags - yet everyone seems to have an iPhone, just like everyone seems to have a pair of Nikes.

Apple is not "chasing tech as fashion" - they make holistic products that a very small segment of the population perceives strictly as "trendy fashion." Millionaires wear Nikes to fashion shows, and your dad mows the lawn in Nikes.

They haven't done anything with Beats though aside from rebranding the streaming service as Apple Music.

I rarely see Beats headphones out in the wild, and they used to be very common 5-6 years ago. Airpods are more common now as a status symbol.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com