that's the thing that people don't generally bring up with apple: they area a luxury company, they price things in the same way any other luxury good company does in the vein of supreme or gucci or whatever. it's all about making the product exclusive, or at least feel exclusive, while making the design something that can be considered fashion. the fact they happen to put computers in their fancy cases is hardly the point to the archetypal consumer.
They're in the premium market segment, not the luxury segment. They're analogous to BMW or Audi, whereas the luxury segment of the auto world (for example) is more the Bentleys and Rolls Royces. It's an important distinction because premium markets are very different from luxury markets.
Premium products are more expensive than mass market products, typically with higher margins, but at the same time they tend to have greater value for the price than mass market products, provided the price isn't out of reach. Luxury products are much more exotic than premium, with much lower sales numbers, and their price is often almost entirely based on things like scarcity, manually intensive assembly, use of precious metals, etc.
A well-designed premium product should be as good or better than the equivalent mass market product in terms of getting what you pay for, but in the luxury world there's really no concept of value. It's expensive because it has to be and because the vendor wants it to be, but the value proposition is often nonexistent.
Apple wants to _feel_ like a luxury company. It's just a good bit of marketing.
Rolls Royce is a luxury company. Rolex is a luxury company. Apple sells a product that's in the pocket of every other snot-nosed preteen.
However, they charge a larger-than-normal markup, so people feel like it's luxurious.
EDIT: There seems to be some misunderstandings of what a "luxury" good is. Something isn't luxurious just because it is subjectively a little bit better than the competition. Bosch makes the best dishwashers but they are not a luxury brand. Similarly, the Golf GTI is an absolutely incredible $30K car, but that does not make it luxurious.
A Rolls Royce is a luxury car because it is full of extravagance and opulence. There is absolutely no concern with keeping costs down, and there is no expense spared to make the car as comfortable and luxurious as possible. It also fits the economic definition[1] where spending on luxury cars increases with income. The richer you are, the more money you spend on luxury cars. This isn't true of Apple products because it is a mass produced, mass market good. A billionaire can't buy a better iPhone. That's the opposite of what it means to be a luxury, exclusive brand.
I think the fact that a billionaire can't buy a better iPhone is partly what supports the (now perhaps only slightly) higher price of iPhones versus other non-cheap phones. The same might be said of these headphones (if they turn out to be good) — other than those "billionaires" who happen to be audiophiles wielding headphone amps, it's likely these will be seen as an achievable luxury for people who like well-made objects and want to have (approximately) "the best and best-designed" good.
> wants to _feel_ like a luxury company. It's just a good bit of marketing.
This is fundamentally true of all luxury goods, so this distinction is not meaningful. Which is why it is commonly used as a marketing tool, you can create this distinction at any level you want, to make your customers feel exclusive.
Sure, apple plays at the lower-price-broader-market end of this than say, McClaren automotive, but it's the same game.
For the bourgeoisie, feeling like luxury is the same as true luxury. And there are a lot more bourgeoisie than people who know the difference. So Apple mass-produces them some products like the AirPods Max.
Yet in most of their categories, they _are_ the top of the line. There often aren't better choices (across some reasonable definition of 'better') available for those who want to pay more. I can't think of a Macbook alternative whose manufacturer is primarily competing on quality.
Speaking personally, I have zero interest in brand except as a marque of quality. But for those who are optimizing for quality over price, Apple is a choice that rarely leads to disappointment.
That's a different proposition to most luxury brands, which primarily target aspiration. A Louis Vuitton handbag may not be a higher-quality handbag, but as I understand it, their consumers are buying it for the logo more than the craftsmanship.
> Apple sells a product that's in the pocket of every other snot-nosed preteen.
> However, they charge a larger-than-normal markup, so people feel like it's luxurious.
This doesn't seem to me to be a complicated "dichotomy" to square/understand where with phone hardware, at least, any markup is sometimes "larger-than-normal". It's very easy to be a phone "luxury" brand when so many phones are sold with thin to no margins. Apple certainly props up their "luxury status"/"luxury image" with much higher margin products in the margins outside of phones, but it is easy to see why the bar for "luxury phone" itself is so low that it can also be a mass produced/mass consumed object.
I consider Apple to be a luxury company for electronics... even if quite a lot of people who are not millionaires can afford buying Apple anyway. My reason is simple: they sell the best quality laptops and phones you can buy (not sure about headphones, but I bet this one is near the top-range for consumer headphones). Do you know of a better phone I could buy than the top-level iPhone?
What makes best for you? Case in point, I have a decent amount of sunk cost in the android ecosystem, my nexus 5x had sufficient performance for me, and I use the headphone jack extensively and am unwilling to give it up. Consequently, for my requirements, most midrange android phones are "better" (high end androids on the other hand have mostly expunged the headphone jack in iPhone envy).
I don't know what you're talking about. A new Rolex is over $5000 for the cheapest model, which is well outside the mass market price range. Never mind the fact that you can't even buy a new Rolex unless you are on a preferred buyers list. That's the opposite of Mass Market.
Of course, unlike Apple, Rolex makes products that last decades. So older, less collectible models become affordable to people. But the fact that the "mass market" is willing to fight over the heavily used, least desirable of all Rolexes proves its exclusivity and "luxury".
This also goes for global warming etc. The military is a really interesting institution when it comes to politics in the US, and undoubtedly anywhere really.
I can’t really say that I disagree with anything on a meta level in recent history that the military has done or that military generals have said that wasn’t a direct result of incompetence, greed, or just wrong headed ideology by the civilian government.
This is exactly how I think about the police issue in the US. If someone has more power, as in, they are allowed to carry guns and arrest people if they need to, then those people also cannot expect it to be a "normal" job where they matter more than who they are working with (the public).
The standards of conduct need to be draconially high, because a police officer has the power to ruin a person's life.
i recently started playing doom online with doomseeker. i was pretty disappointed that it was mostly modded to hell and back and all the good deathmatch servers were in russia with 200+ ping. still fun, you just can't really aim right. . .
I'm not so sure about that. Firearms in those days were custom made by hand one by one by specialized and highly skilled (i.e. expensive) craftsmen. A firearm was a prized possession, and often a work of art.
A pamphlet might be typeset in an hour by the unskilled printer's apprentice.
Not in 18th century. You could get a gun then for about month's wage of a skilled worker. Not exactly cheap, and significantly more expensive than now, but not exactly impossible to have even for a skilled worker or a middle-class person. And there are now firearms in that price range, though many common ones are significantly cheaper. Something like a cheap car - not pocket change, and you won't get one unless you need one, and if you aren't rich you probably won't get more than one - but for most people, not out of reach entirely.
but that isn't really true. google gets ~80% of the searches on the web. that means that if someone who isn't conforming to google's frankly arbitrary ranking system is being censored, to use strong language.
> but that isn't really true. google gets ~80% of the searches on the web.
Not every destination started as a web search.
Case in point, the list of links on this very site that we're all commenting on. This discussion didn't start with a google search. Google was never involed at all. Not everything on the web goes through google search. Nearly all searches go through Google, but there's a hell of a lot more to the web than searches.
As also evidenced by some of the largest & most visited sites driving a ton of non-search traffic - like reddit. And facebook. And twitter. And etc...
Oh, it's anything but arbitrary. It's totally strategic, which is why people pushing back against them being able to dictate web policies is exactly the right thing to do.
I now see people link these "amp" web links, where the domain you are linking to isn't the domain you are trying to reach.
Having just come out of a datastructures class, this is the view that seems the most useful to me. ADTs in general seem to be very well expressed with classes, and I think it is exactly for the reason you mentioned: they are just systems that need to be able to define the ways in which a user is allowed to interact with the data.
