look basically wall street looks at all companies that it funds and manages along with it's partner the SEC as rent extraction companies.
the entire consumer visible us economy is massively manipulated to basically just extract rent from the rest of the country to pay for manhattan and london's bad habits.
No, they're a lifestyle company. They're aligned with 'living' and want to penetrate every corner and aspect of that. From your ears to your eyes to your heart to your feet. From the TV you watch to the run you take. To how well you sleep.
Humbly disagree with this whole argument. Bloomberg got this one right:
> Apple’s new revenue strategy isn’t a bad one. It’s, basically, sell the customer an iPhone every three to five years, and make a bunch of money in the years between by selling them a new Apple Watch or AirPods (which only last about three years tops before you need a new pair -- batteries!) and services. If a user subscribes to all of Apple’s services for two years straight, that’s about equal to revenue from a new iPhone. So in those cases, if that user doesn’t buy a new iPhone for a couple years, it’s not a big deal.
Really, what seems more likely: services like AppleTV will bust out and become bigger than Netflix (smaller than AirPods), or in five years they'll follow up iPad, Apple Watch, and AirPods with another hit piece of hardware?
Yeah, the basic strategy seems to be increasing the average value of a customer that buys an iPhone. Some of that is similar to what they've done in the past with software integration between their hardware products (AirPods, Watch), and now they're expanding into services probably because those are simply easier and more cost effective to build than new hardware products. It's also easier to get people to pay for a monthly software subscription than it is to buy hardware (even with 0% APR on credit)
15 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 44.8 ms ] threadThe profit margin for selling a MacBook Pro or Mac Pro ranges from thousands to tens of thousands.
So it is always going to be more profitable for them to sell hardware than software or internet services.
But it's irrelevant because they can just do both. Hence why there are both a products and services company not one or the other.
What a sleazy, slimeball argument.
> But we firmly believe the opposite.
Who is "we" exactly?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/anuhariharan
I disagree with her argument but I don’t think her argument is sleazy or slimeball.
> Apple’s new revenue strategy isn’t a bad one. It’s, basically, sell the customer an iPhone every three to five years, and make a bunch of money in the years between by selling them a new Apple Watch or AirPods (which only last about three years tops before you need a new pair -- batteries!) and services. If a user subscribes to all of Apple’s services for two years straight, that’s about equal to revenue from a new iPhone. So in those cases, if that user doesn’t buy a new iPhone for a couple years, it’s not a big deal.
Really, what seems more likely: services like AppleTV will bust out and become bigger than Netflix (smaller than AirPods), or in five years they'll follow up iPad, Apple Watch, and AirPods with another hit piece of hardware?
Which one of their services has a web client?
All of their services require an iOS or MacOS device in a walled garden.
Or try https://beta.music.apple.com/us/browse