Twitter | Search | |
Steven Sinofsky
1/ Much analysis: Apple has long known it is missing the boat on providing low priced phones—strategic mistake to cede “low end” to Android. Or raised prices too much/soon. Then it must be an easy answer to just lower prices or make low priced phones. Ack! Harder than it looks.
Reply Retweet Like More
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
2/ Pricing is much more sophisticated than this. Pricing not only says who can afford your product but also establishes a brand, determines channel, & more. Many say Apple is a luxury brand; certainly they focused on that. Clearly more recently prices have gone up in real terms.
Reply Retweet Like
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
3/ PC v Mac really showed the weakness in appealing to luxury brand in a volume driven market. High prices were the undoing of the Mac from the very early days. Going back to 1990, height of Apple, PCs sold at 10X the Mac run rate. But Macs had much higher margins per device.
Reply Retweet Like
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
4/ While available software was a big part of that 10X, reality was that a Mac computer also cost substantially more than a PC, and depending on configuration was often 2X the price. Everyone knew. Apple/Jobs refused to license Mac System enabling cheaper Macs (one approach).
Reply Retweet Like
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
5/ PC strategy was low everyday prices for PCs. BUT there was a catch or three—really important to think about relative to iPhones pricing. PCs were made up of hardware, OS, chips. To have low prices Intel and Microsoft benefited from an ecosystem that “raced to the bottom”.
Reply Retweet Like
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
6/ Intel and Microsoft held on to most of the profits in selling PCs (and MS w/Office). The retailers and PC makers had very slim (to zero) margins—for two decades. Often PC hardware seemed like a suckers bet.
Reply Retweet Like
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
7/ The first key to having low priced offerings is that you have to have a set of partners who are willing to compete on thin margins in order to bring the product to market. Very tough for one player to be the high margin and low margin players. Race yourself to the bottom?
Reply Retweet Like
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
8/ The second key thing PCs benefitted from was a channel that allowed distribution by price maintaining price walls—biz PCs could be expensive/sold direct (ThinkPad) Consumer PCs sold as bundles with high margin components useless as biz PCs. Think Dell Inspiron, Optiplex, etc.
Reply Retweet Like
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
9/ Buying a PC was a complex navigation through model line selected by segment (Big Biz direct, SMB, Individual, Education, Gov). Then each form factor was “good, better, best”. Byzantine. That’s how you offer low prices and avoid everyone paying and have some margin.
Reply Retweet Like
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
10/ Plus that is where crapware comes from—those partners need some way to make margin. Adding software, selling screen real-estate, and so on are the only tools remain that allow for partners to make something when hardware, OS are fixed.
Reply Retweet Like
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
11/ This is how biz always does premium+low priced offers, eg clothing where brands stand for luxury but aspire to mass market. Brands like Calvin Klein, Ralph Laruen, Armani w/ top tier labels (like Purple) at select channels or direct. BUT also have mass market/discount.
Reply Retweet Like
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
12/ Each of those distribution points is a different label, different quality, and so on. No retailer that carries Purple will carry Sport or RL. They might want to but they won’t be allowed to—distribution constraint that is carefully managed.
Reply Retweet Like
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
13/ So when people say Apple needs a cheaper phone there are many questions to answer beyond the get over yourself luxury brand issue. What is distribution constraint? What partner absorbs some cost to leave margin? What is the branding?
Reply Retweet Like
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
14/ Easy question — would a cheap phone be sold and supported in Apple stores side by side? How would the rest of the customers feel about more crowds and tougher appointments competing with people who paid half as much? Sell one phone against another—how?
Reply Retweet Like
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
15/ This doesn’t even have to be a product question which most people jump to—sure remove fancy camera, memory, storage, etc. But these are all h/w items that competitive products will simply add and market against—“buy our android phone with portrait mode”.
Reply Retweet Like
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
16/ Apple is constrained by software because apps need to work on all devices—something that Apple has stretched further than Windows ever did (watch to phone to tablet, and soon Mac). ISVs/devs will never embrace API differences at different price points.
Reply Retweet Like
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
17/ Consumers bemoan Windows 10 Home, Pro, Enterprise. Insane energy goes into trying to have features that don’t fragment developers and OEMs (drivers, etc.) and can be deployed efficiently while also maintaining price differentiation. That’s literally the entire Windows biz.
Reply Retweet Like
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
18/ The levers available to do cheaper products are not all available to Apple. Those that simply say they have a pricing problem need to solve for the product, the distribution, the branding, and more.
Reply Retweet Like
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
19/ Big companies become *enormously* consternated over brand value props, channel conflicts, and so on. Where Apple avoided all of these was owning them all. Downside of owning them all is this limits responding to the challenges.
Reply Retweet Like
Steven Sinofsky Jan 4
Replying to @stevesi
20/ At MS we always reminded ourselves that you don’t sell 300M of something at one every day low price. Most all energy was to maintain price floor. *AMAZINGLY* Apple managed to sell over 200M of something per year at pretty much one every day high price, then increased price.
Reply Retweet Like