TR Forums

Damn impressive: http://bit.ly/dwUatW

"Apple, Dell and HP have 80% of the operating profit share on 40% of the revenue share."


On a side note: http://bit.ly/bT9exR

I'm no Mac hater by any stretch, but such high profits, compared to such modest revenue....would that not be a clear indication of Macs price gouging their customers?

The other way of looking at it is that they make a product good enough that people are willing to pay the "apple tax"/price gouging and even become repeat customers.

For all the hate that Apple gets, they obviously have a compelling product line that people are willing to pay a premium to get ahold of. I don't see it as price gouging their customers--if the customers felt that was enough of an issue, Apple's record sales would drop off and they'd be forced to be more competitive on price. That hasn't happened ergo it's not enough of an issue for customers to care. They are willing participants in paying the extra money--it's not like Apple's forcing them to buy their products.

I'm not suggesting that it's bad of apple to do so. They are in the business of making money, and getting the best profit margin is the goal.
I'm merely pointing out that customers of their product should ask themselves why they are paying as much as they do. It is strange to think that a group of people would accept paying more than they should have to based on the profit margins a company posts.
The price of Apple products is a major factor in why I don't own more than one Apple home computer right now, while I have 7 Windows/Linux based machines.
Bravo to Apple for getting away with it, but people...c'mon. Demand lower prices of them. They aren't hurting for profit.
I'm not bashing here. I stopped buying Asus products when I found that I could get about the same thing for less from another company.
I really do wonder if it's a design of Apple though. They will always charge more to get more from their customer base, because they accept that their slice of sales numbers aren't going to jump to the levels where they can get those profits through increased sales numbers.
It's an interesting business model...it's just not one I personally buy into.

MaxTheLimit wrote:

I'm merely pointing out that customers of their product should ask themselves why they are paying as much as they do. It is strange to think that a group of people would accept paying more than they should have to based on the profit margins a company posts.

Apple spends more on R&D per-product than anybody else in the business, is why they keep getting "extra" money. There was a report going around comparing Sony, Apple, and Microsoft recently -- and while Apple spends less on R&D than Sony and Microsoft, its smaller product line means that its per-product R&D costs are something like 7 times higher.

That wouldn't effect profit though. In fact high R&D would lower their profits, as some of the profit would be business expenditure to R&D. Profit is revenue minus costs, correct?

MaxTheLimit wrote:

I'm merely pointing out that customers of their product should ask themselves why they are paying as much as they do. It is strange to think that a group of people would accept paying more than they should have to based on the profit margins a company posts.

For many people, myself included, Apple products are good value for the money.

Maybe, but it doesn't bother you that signs point to the products still being overpriced? Would you not rather have the same service and products for a lower price? It seems clear that they definitely should be able to deliver exactly that. I think they make quality products that are supported well. That doesn't mean that they aren't still overpriced. I would pay 30 bucks for a small pack of beef jerky, and would say it was worth the money, but that doesn't mean it's not overpriced.

MaxTheLimit wrote:

Maybe, but it doesn't bother you that signs point to the products still being overpriced?

It does not bother me. I don't think their core products are overpriced.

They're the only company with a real margin. If Apple sells a computer for $800, then it cost $400 to make. If Dell sells a computer for $800, then it cost $700 to make.

Apple also has the benefit of not having to pay Microsoft for Windows. That's probably just icing on the cake though.

MaxTheLimit wrote:

That wouldn't effect profit though. In fact high R&D would lower their profits, as some of the profit would be business expenditure to R&D. Profit is revenue minus costs, correct?

I think the take-away idea from his response is supposed to be that they have better products or products that "speak" to more people because Apple's done so much R&D on each product they sell. Yes, you can pick it apart with the non-success of some of their products in the past (and present, AppleTV?) but I think that's the general point the bloke was trying to make.

MaxTheLimit wrote:

Maybe, but it doesn't bother you that signs point to the products still being overpriced? Would you not rather have the same service and products for a lower price? It seems clear that they definitely should be able to deliver exactly that. I think they make quality products that are supported well. That doesn't mean that they aren't still overpriced. I would pay 30 bucks for a small pack of beef jerky, and would say it was worth the money, but that doesn't mean it's not overpriced.

But isn't the fact that so many people DO pay the higher costs mean that the same service and products do NOT exist at a lower price? Sure, maybe there are millions of idiots out there but even idiots have to care about money, especially in a global recession over the last 2 years.

Yeah, I'd rather pay $500 for a quad-core desktop with decent graphics than put down $2000 for a Mac Pro. But that still don't make it a Mac.

I think the take-away idea from his response is supposed to be that they have better products or products that "speak" to more people because Apple's done so much R&D on each product they sell. Yes, you can pick it apart with the non-success of some of their products in the past (and present, AppleTV?) but I think that's the general point the bloke was trying to make.

Well no company bats a thousand with their products. However that still doesn't really address the point I'm making. Their revenue is on par with several other manufacturers on the list mentioned in the initial post, yet their profits exceed all others mentioned on the list by a huge margin. Not having to pay anything to Microsoft is a big boost, but that being said it's still a little odd to see one company not really getting the total revenue higher than other companies, but to have their profits through the roof. There is a lot of data not included, but either Apple is one o f the most cost efficient businesses in history, or they are selling at much higher margins. This is fantastic for Apple. Margins like that are great for a company. Unfortunately it kinda means consumers are getting less than what they are paying for because, hypothetically, you could be getting the exact same thing for less money and the only thing that would change for apple is their profit margins would go down. It's just interesting that this anomaly occurs. Most companies with greatly higher margins eventually crash because another company sees their model and duplicates it for a lesser price. Apple is very cunning in carving out a niche where it is difficult to replicate, while undercutting them.

But isn't the fact that so many people DO pay the higher costs mean that the same service and products do NOT exist at a lower price?

Well no, not really. Lack of acceptance doesn't necessarily mean lack of existence. Apple is big and established, which is tough to overcome. Not many companies could do what they are doing. Fewer still could simply jump in and try and duplicate it from scratch. Apple has a radically different ( so far as I can tell ) approach to home computers when compared to other companies. I would really root for a company to jump in and offer a Mac at a lower price, similar to what that little Psystar ( or whatever it was called ) tried to do. If these Mac clones gained popularity, and tried to create competition from within the Apple home computing approach, maybe we would see some cheaper Macs, and I would love this! Probably unrealistic, but I would like all the benefits of owning a Mac...but not ave to pay so much for it. Looking at those numbers indicates that it might be possible for Apple to pull this off, while still having a profit margin better than almost everyone on that list...That's astounding.

It seems that MaxTheLimit's sole argument here is "they charge too much" and as a result they're making too much money. Well, welcome to 1998. For the last 12 years Apple's been riding high and this has been their MO.

Not really an argument. More of an observation.
It just strikes me as odd that it is ( fairly obviously ) not priced as low as it could while still remaining very profitable.
I just think it's interesting that Apple is able to get away with it. Few companies do.

MaxTheLimit wrote:

Not having to pay anything to Microsoft is a big boost, but that being said it's still a little odd to see one company not really getting the total revenue higher than other companies, but to have their profits through the roof.

But they do pay a full time team to write and support their own operating system, as well as develop drivers.

MaxTheLimit wrote:

I just think it's interesting that Apple is able to get away with it. Few companies do.

Have you heard of capitalism?

MaxTheLimit wrote:

I would really root for a company to jump in and offer a Mac at a lower price, similar to what that little Psystar ( or whatever it was called ) tried to do. If these Mac clones gained popularity, and tried to create competition from within the Apple home computing approach, maybe we would see some cheaper Macs, and I would love this! Probably unrealistic, but I would like all the benefits of owning a Mac...but not ave to pay so much for it. Looking at those numbers indicates that it might be possible for Apple to pull this off, while still having a profit margin better than almost everyone on that list...That's astounding.

Clones are not going to happen again - http://bit.ly/bIEnq3. Apple makes its money from hardware sales, not by licensing its OS.

What is your ideal price range?

Corrado wrote:

But they do pay a full time team to write and support their own operating system, as well as develop drivers.

True, but that just goes to further make their profit margins seem impressively high.

SNM wrote:

Have you heard of capitalism?

Yes. And Apple seems to exist outside of the typical model of competitive business. Few companies get away with pricing their products higher, when there is competing products. Amongst Apple customers, there doesn't seem to be that competition. That is rare in capitalism. I'm really not sure what point you are getting at.

End User wrote:

What is your ideal price range?

I'm lucky enough to have a reasonably high tech toy budget. That doesn't mean I don't understand value, and it doesn't take a genius to see that Apple products are pricey.
My point is that it doesn't look like they NEED to be as pricey. I wish there was competition to drive down the price. That's pretty much all there is to my point.

MaxTheLimit wrote:

SNM wrote:

Have you heard of capitalism?

Yes. And Apple seems to exist outside of the typical model of competitive business. Few companies get away with pricing their products higher, when there is competing products. Amongst Apple customers, there doesn't seem to be that competition. That is rare in capitalism. I'm really not sure what point you are getting at.

So Apple doesn't have any competitors. There are lots of companies that make products in the same field, but Apple has carved out a niche as a premium provider, and unlike most other "luxury brands" there's actually something to back up Apple's claims of quality: they invest much more R&D into each product than other companies are willing to. This results in a noticeably better product, and meanwhile the mass in which they produce each product means that they can keep per-product costs down in a way that nobody else can. (Apple sells a lot less computers than some other companies, but their product line is a lot smaller, so they make more of each. The iMac was the best-selling desktop last year.)

MaxTheLimit wrote:

Few companies get away with pricing their products higher, when there is competing products.

We're talking about market segmentation here. BMW prices their products higher than Kia even though they both make a mid-size 4 door V6 sedan. They target a different market segment however based upon things like "quality" (perceived or actual) and, yes, brand recognition/reputation. I can't seem to find any information on car company profit margins, but I'd expect the luxury nameplates have higher margins...

MaxTheLimit wrote:

Yes. And Apple seems to exist outside of the typical model of competitive business. Few companies get away with pricing their products higher, when there is competing products. Amongst Apple customers, there doesn't seem to be that competition. That is rare in capitalism. I'm really not sure what point you are getting at.

it's weird how people tend to forget that in every industry there are luxury items that cost way more than no frills products, and the computer industry is no different. I don't see anyone asking why Mercedes Benz does what they do, or BMW, or Prada, or Grey Goose, or Bose, etc. etc.

you're paying for the BRAND. Part of paying for a premium brand means better quality, but that quality NEVER scales to justify the full amount of the cost.

so for all you shlubs who can't afford it, stick with your dells, your hondas, your smirnoff, and old navy stuff and stop yer whining!

[edit] turkina beat me to my point.

Turkina wrote:

MaxTheLimit wrote:

Few companies get away with pricing their products higher, when there is competing products.

We're talking about market segmentation here. BMW prices their products higher than Kia even though they both make a mid-size 4 door V6 sedan. They target a different market segment however based upon things like "quality" (perceived or actual) and, yes, brand recognition/reputation. I can't seem to find any information on car company profit margins, but I'd expect the luxury nameplates have higher margins...

Well that's the thing. BMW still has direct competition. There doesn't seem to be that direct comparative product for many of the apple products, but especially their home computer products. This leads to an odd, highly profitable it seems, business model.

Also SNM, it seems like you aren't actually reading my posts. I'm not much for repeating myself, so just back back to me about anything that is still unclear about the posts a little further up the page. Maybe you did, but I'm pretty sure what you are saying is unrelated to anything I've said.

MaxTheLimit wrote:

Turkina wrote:

MaxTheLimit wrote:

Few companies get away with pricing their products higher, when there is competing products.

We're talking about market segmentation here. BMW prices their products higher than Kia even though they both make a mid-size 4 door V6 sedan. They target a different market segment however based upon things like "quality" (perceived or actual) and, yes, brand recognition/reputation. I can't seem to find any information on car company profit margins, but I'd expect the luxury nameplates have higher margins...

Well that's the thing. BMW still has direct competition. There doesn't seem to be that direct comparative product for many of the apple products, but especially their home computer products. This leads to an odd, highly profitable it seems, business model.

Also SNM, it seems like you aren't actually reading my posts. I'm not much for repeating myself, so just back back to me about anything that is still unclear about the posts a little further up the page. Maybe you did, but I'm pretty sure what you are saying is unrelated to anything I've said.

You're complaining that their products are overpriced, and this is evidenced by their business model. But in capitalism, if a product is selling it is not overpriced.
You're saying they could cut prices and still maintain large margins, and I agree with you, but why would they? Their competition is about zero as is, they have a ridiculously healthy business, and the features in their products (at least, the ones I buy) are more than worth the price premium to me -- and, apparently, a lot of other people. If some other company introduced an actually comparable product at a lower price point I would definitely consider it, but so far the only thing that's even reported to have come close in, well, any area at all is the Zune HD compared to the iTouch -- and that died quickly and without a fight, especially when you consider the app selection.

So Apple is competing in an area in which there are no competitors, and apparently it's a high-margin business. Most businesses that have little enough competition or rich enough clientele are; Apple competes in a business with no competition and a (reasonably) rich clientele.

And for the record, you could say the same thing about Microsoft. I'm sure it's making much higher margins than 30% on a retail copy of Windows, considering OEM copies go for less than half retail.

Yes, that's exactly it. I wouldn't say I'm complaining about it, but rather a bit fascinated by the situation. It is VERY rare in a capitalist society that a company manages to be without peer, or without competition. It's interesting that Apple has managed to perform this feat in the home computing market. The lack of competition means that products can be priced higher than they would otherwise. This is unfortunate for me and anyone else who would benefit from competition, but for Apple as a company, I would say they have accomplished quite a feat.

As for the Microsoft comparison, I would agree fully with that. Seeing what we pay at work for the MSDN license it obscene. The margins on Office, and Windows software must be through the roof. But I don't think you will find too many people who think that Microsoft is a company that doesn't make enough money. Hell I would also love to see OS prices drop. I could use a dozen more Windows 7 licenses, and I could sure use them for 30 bucks a pop. Microsoft could get away with this and still be profitable, I'm sure. But when their OS is all but unchallenged on non Mac machines, that's not going to happen. It's a pity, because look what competition did to the priced of GPUs for the 4800/GTX200(and lower nvidia cards as well ) times. Everyone and their grandma could afford an enthusiast level GPU.

Imagine a world where Windows 7 Ultimate x64 costs 30 bucks retail, and the mac book pro is priced more in line to what it's hardware is worth. I would be in geek ecstasy. Unfortunately for fans of using their product that isn't going to happen because of the unique position those two companies find themselves in. Bravo for them. But, you wouldn't hear me complain if competition allowed me to pay less.

MaxTheLimit wrote:

Yes, that's exactly it. I wouldn't say I'm complaining about it, but rather a bit fascinated by the situation. It is VERY rare in a capitalist society that a company manages to be without peer, or without competition. It's interesting that Apple has managed to perform this feat in the home computing market. The lack of competition means that products can be priced higher than they would otherwise. This is unfortunate for me and anyone else who would benefit from competition, but for Apple as a company, I would say they have accomplished quite a feat.

I see tons of competition/options out there. When it was time to replace my Dual 2.7 G5 I built a quad core tower and installed Ubuntu 9.04.

End User wrote:

MaxTheLimit wrote:

Yes, that's exactly it. I wouldn't say I'm complaining about it, but rather a bit fascinated by the situation. It is VERY rare in a capitalist society that a company manages to be without peer, or without competition. It's interesting that Apple has managed to perform this feat in the home computing market. The lack of competition means that products can be priced higher than they would otherwise. This is unfortunate for me and anyone else who would benefit from competition, but for Apple as a company, I would say they have accomplished quite a feat.

I see tons of competition/options out there. When it was time to replace my Dual 2.7 G5 I built a quad core tower and installed Ubuntu 9.04.

It's nice that Ubuntu works for you but it doesn't exactly do all the things that OS X and a Mac do.

Lest you fear I'm just incompetent I use X11 for 8 hours a day off of my Debian dev server.

SNM wrote:

It's nice that Ubuntu works for you but it doesn't exactly do all the things that OS X and a Mac do.

That is a topic for another thread.

Maybe, but it doesn't bother you that signs point to the products still being overpriced?

They're not overpriced; if they were, Apple wouldn't be able to sell them. It's the fundamentals of market behavior in action.

If someone perceives the value of an Apple product to be worth that premium, they'll pay that premium. I'm not an Apple user, but I also don't buy Armani suits--there's no value in that premium pricing for me.