I was extremely surprised to read that the guy in charge of a company that almost exclusively produces highly expensive 1st-world gadgetry was himself disdainful of conspicuous consumption.
True, but Apple products have strong aspects of both. They make some great and highly useful stuff, but there is truth in the jokes about people not buying the 4GS because other people can't tell it's better the new model. Look also at the Apple commercials, which are chock full the message that Apple products are high status. Hell, the word chosen from the dictionary to advertise the iPad is "erudite" while classical music plays in the background.
What Apple has done has brought technology into the realm of mainstream consumption, not conspicuous consumption. People have said the same thing about Macs since forever. "People buy Apple products to be noticed." When you're selling hundreds of thousands of phones each day, you no longer become conspicuous.
Jobs has said himself (I'm referencing his 1997 WWDC keynote) that it's not necessarily better to "think different". He said he didn't care about being different, he wanted to be better. And if being better was being different, then so be it.
> When you're selling hundreds of thousands of phones each day, you no longer become conspicuous.
No true. Increased availability of a product certain reduces the status associated with it, but products serving the purpose of conspicuous consumption exist at almost every level of affordability. There are some product which only the top 0.1% can afford and others which 90% of the population can afford. (Even the homeless community has a hierarchy partially defined by possessions.) Further, the degree to which a product exists to be conspicuously consumed is a continuum, in which the iPhone sits around the middle (although falling, due to it's sales).
Do you really think people, when deciding whether to buy an iPad, don't factor in the fact that all of their friends will ooh and ahh over it when they first see it?
Aw c'mon, Apple products don't count as "conspicuous consumption". They're fairly small and unobtrusive. Sure, they're a bit self-marketing (white earphones and big illuminated Apple logos on the back of your laptop) but that's not conspicuous consumption.
Gucci is conspicuous consumption. Bugatti is conspicuous consumption. Diamonds in your teeth is conspicuous consumption. Personal electronics are just plain ol' regular consumption.
The same arguments about how apple products are not conspicuous consumption can be applied to gucci and bugatti.
If you get a real pair of gucci shoes from the store (not from the department stores), you really feel like you are walking on air, and you can walk for miles in these dress shoes without forming boils on your feet.
I don't have a bugatti yet :P But BMW and porsches drive effortlessly and brake effectively, which really help when a taxi cab tries to cut you off.
Now, tying this back to apple, the macbook airs are lighter than most netbooks yet still perform better than many monster dell laptops. It's somewhat nonsensical to try to argue that apple products aren't as lavish as gucci or bugatti.
I refuse to take lectures on conspicuous consumption from somebody called "Veyron".
Seriously though, I concede that there's a gradient from "sensible consumption" to "conspicuous consumption". I'd classify a Mercedes as "sensible" rather than "conspicuous", unless you plate it in gold like this guy:
I also concede that Gucci shoes (which aren't that expensive or that ostentatious) aren't the best example. I was thinking more of a Gucci t-shirt. But I probably should have chosen a different brand.
Whether they are or not (and that's a very boring debate I don't wanna get into)... no, not unless the premium is huge and obvious.
Wikipedia sez: "Conspicuous consumption is spending on goods and services acquired mainly for the purpose of displaying income or wealth." That's not a very good description of why people buy Apple products. They're just not expensive enough or pointless enough to make a good target for your conspicuous-consumption dollars.
This is what conspicuous consumption in the consumer electronics field looks like:
We really don't know how much Apple charges for their hardware because they bundle their software with it, and they don't tell us how much the software costs either.
If we assume Windows and OS X took similar developer efforts, the smaller market for OS X means it is going to cost a lot more than Windows in order to recoup the costs of development. That is simple economics. Looking to iOS, it has a much larger market and Apple's mobile devices are quite competitive price wise, which supports the software cost factor.
You might find a higher sticker price on a Mac, but it is a pretty safe assumption that the added cost is to get you into OS X. Which just so happens to be the only reason why you would consider purchasing a Mac in the first place.
You might find a higher sticker price on a Mac, but it is a pretty safe assumption that the added cost is to get you into OS X. Which just so happens to be the only reason why you would consider purchasing a Mac in the first place.
You might find a higher sticker price on a Gucci, but it is a pretty safe assumption that the added cost is to get you into Gucci. Which just so happens to be the only reason why you would consider purchasing a Gucci in the first place.
Hey, why even buy a luxurious PC? Just throw some parts together and install Linux. There couldn't possibly be any reason to choose a difference operating systems except status, right?
There is no hefty premium over COMPARABLE counterparts. People just compare any junk say Dell with the same hardware specs (memory, processor, disk, chipset, etc) to a MBP.
Open a Dell and a MBP though, and take a peek.
Have the same money been spend on the Dells internal case design? Is the Dell assembled with the same attention to detail? Does the Dell sport various small and big innovations, from the mag safe adapter to auto-inverted Ethernet port, non protruding camera, lid magnets, etc? Does the Dell have a unique in industry machined aluminum "concrete" case design? Is it as light? Is it as thin? Is is as sturdy? Was even the industrial designer designing the Dell as well paid and respected by his peers as Ives? Oh, and does the Dell hold its resale value just as well?
Now, if you take a high-end Sony or Lenovo laptop, with comparable construction, it's often the case that the Apple laptop is cheaper or same price.
Oh, and regarding tablets, media players and phones, Apple completely smoked the competition in pricing. Wasn't the Samsung tablet for example like $799 for a version competing (badly) with the $499 iPad?
It isn't just a status symbol. That cheapens what Apple offers.
My father was a mechanic who bought tools from a specific supplier that was regularly 3-5x more expensive than generic tools. The reason? They would last 10x longer and work twice as well.
I see my MBP as a tool. It is worth the premium for quality.
I really think you need to look up what "conspicuous consumption" means. It isn't just about buying a slightly better, slightly more expensive version of a product. It's about spending money purely for the sake of showing off how much money you can afford to spend.
Appreciating a product for being well-made doesn't make it a status symbol. People can like quality products themselves, not just the showing-off of them.
I think he's making a point about components and the laptop's manufacturing: even if you do find a Dell with components that compare to a MBP, that Dell is made of cheap plastic with a WiFi antenna that works intermittently, comes with bloatware, etc.
A "status symbol" means I use it to increase my social status. Which I do not, or don't even care about. I do, however, care about the small (and large) details though, because they make my life better.
Is wanting a less heavy laptop wanting a "status symbol"? Or thinking that a magnetic lid is better than an ugly protruding prone-to-break piece of plastic? Or wanting a laptop with a nice case design? By your logic, anyone wanting a beautiful spouse is because he wants to use him/her as a status symbol. How about appreciating beauty for what it is and how it makes US feel?
"Commodity" does not mean that you are equally satisfied with anything as long as it does the basics of what you want. Food is a commodity too, but I prefer a nice restaurant to a fast food joint, because it is better there, even if both can equally take care of my hunger.
