decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Apple has a monopoly in tablets... Not! | 555 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple has a monopoly in tablets... Not!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 28 2012 @ 07:58 PM EDT
Really? Apple has true strengths that their competitors
lack - they are good at focusing on user experience for the
average user and actually have taste. They have a secondary
strengths in that they have a developed ecosystem and a
strong brand.

They aren't particularly inventive or good at any sort of
programming.

Thing I don't understand is why they didn't aim for an Ipod-
like market. If they'd wanted to kill Android - all they'd
have needed to do was move to about 20% margins - given
their volumes - everyone else would have lost _a lot_ of
money to sell at enough of a discount to persuade people.
They could easily have ended up with M$-style monopoly in
the tablet/smartphone market.

Instead, they seem focused on maintaining high margins for
as long as possible - and lawsuits are a small part of that
strategy. (Of course, part of their appeal is being a
premium product, so cutting prices might not have helped
their market share that much...there was some Korean
knicknack that sold better at 25 USD than 0.25 USD...)

--Erwin

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )