...that, or they're simply a diverse company whose fortunes are well-correlated with the economy, whereas Apple makes several fashionable consumer items.
I think the OP's point is that Apple is not like the fashion industry. Fashion items like Ferrari cars (pointed out by the OP), look nice but actually don't work that well. Whereas Apple products look nice and work well.
Apple is more a fashion company than a tech company. Those who buy and use its products are primarily concerned with advertising the fact that they use Apple products - conspicuous consumption. It's no different from how Gucci or Prada owners make sure to prominently display the brand of their handbag when they are in public. It's a simple form of signaling your identity, that you belong to a particular group.
This is also why Apple's profit margins are sky high. Consumer electronics is an industry with razor thin margins, but with fashion, the sky is the limit (given that you can effectively manipulate the minds of consumers, which Apple is excellent at). An iDevice cannot be commoditized, no matter how hard Apple's competitors try.
I think you're misreading what I'm saying. I'm not saying that Apple is just a fashion company. I'm saying that a lot of folks, especially the silicon valley alpha geek types, who are die hard Apple fans try to rationalize their preferences in a way that excludes the fashion aspect out of a sense of embarrassment or what-have-you.
Others have commented on the tone of the article. Sure, they're right. Doesn't matter.
Sometimes the value of an article or observation is how it flips your view of the world around.
Apple is a fashion brand that makes jewelry that connects to the internet
Huh. I've never seen or heard it expressed so well before. I've read comments about "integrated ecosystem" and all kinds of other babble.
But that, right there? Fashion company? That's the money quote.
Remember how YC tends to invest in teams, not ideas, people, not tech? Tech is fast, tech is cheap, tech is transitory. (Sure fashion is transitory, too - but people are always buying the next one.)
Apple and a few other "tech" companies just use - and in some cases build - incredibly advanced tech. Viewing them from the perspective of the engineer or MBA means one sees a narrow slice of who they are.
But viewed as a fashion brand, Apple is a whole other thing. Those are the terms on which it should be evaluated.
(I offer no evaluation. My head is still spinning from the perspective jolt.)
I don’t really know anything about fashion, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would take Apple seriously as a high-end fashion brand. To me they seem like Target: undoubtedly more fancy than Walmart, but it’s not like that’s a high bar.
And sure, maybe the fashion eites of the world all use Apple products, but that’s more a consequence of the duopolies and a lack of choice for consumers rather than any actual merit of the brand itself.
Nor do I understand why fans of Apple products tout Apple's high profit? Isn't that a form of Stockholm syndrom, too? Being happy that the company you buy from makes a lot of money from you?
> Apple doesn't really sell products; they sell a lifestyle.
Other brands sell products, just products. Apple sells a lifestyle, on top of great products. Many of their products are leading technologically their specific category (e.g., Watch, iPad). Others are amazing products, sure pricier at times, but great nonetheless (e.g., iPhones, computers).
So yes, Apple definitely sells a lifestyle and coolness but that's also backed up by real tech.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=1y&s=%5EGSPC&l=on...
reply