is an "Apple" just a computer, or is it also a phone and a music service, etc.?

You may recall that when Apple Computer came into existence, there was already a company called Apple Records, which sued the computer company for trademark infringement.

The conflict was resolved by Apple Computer agreeing to never enter into the music business, eliminating any confusion among consumers about which was which.

When Apple subsequently added sound to the Apple II, they were sued again because this appeared to be in violation of their agreement with Apple Corps. This may account for why the Mac initially lacked any real sound capabilities.

Apple Computer persisted and had deeper pockets, until eventually they defeated Apple Records in court, paving the way for iTunes.

No real point to be made here, just an interesting footnote.

quote:

is an "Apple" just a computer, or is it also a phone and a music service, etc.?

You may recall that when Apple Computer came into existence, there was already a company called Apple Records, which sued the computer company for trademark infringement.

The conflict was resolved by Apple Computer agreeing to never enter into the music business, eliminating any confusion among consumers about which was which.

When Apple subsequently added sound to the Apple II, they were sued again because this appeared to be in violation of their agreement with Apple Corps. This may account for why the Mac initially lacked any real sound capabilities.

Apple Computer persisted and had deeper pockets, until eventually they defeated Apple Records in court, paving the way for iTunes.

No real point to be made here, just an interesting footnote.

This was the dispute I had in mind in posing my rhetorical question. Two companies that both strike me as decent players, using the idea of an "Apple" to brand their products, and finding themsleves in a turf war.

OK, so I thought I'd share my most recent Monster Cable story with ya'll. I stopped off at a local music shop (nope, not Guitar Center, but a regional chain here in the Central Valley of Cali) the other day to pick up a S/PDIF cable. The 20-yr old pro audio sales kid comes over and asks me what I'm looking for and I tell him I just need a decent cable that's not longer than a few feet. He shows me a 1-meter Monster Cable S/PDIF for $70. I said "Whoa...no thanks, I avoid Monster Cable at all cost. What else ya got?" The kid replies in a very condescending tone "That's all we stock. If you're looking for something cheap, try Best Buy, but your sound is gonna suck", to which I replied "I don't really care how much it costs, I just refuse to do give that company my money because their business practices suck and I'd gladly pay twice as much for a good quality cable from a different manufacturer. Besides, there are a lot of pros out there getting excellent sounds using cables that don't say 'Monster' on them." The kid replies in an even more condescending tone "Well, just go to Best Buy or Radio Shack - they may have something you can afford."

Unbelievable. Does Monster have the sales staff in stores that carry their products brainwashed, or what? Maybe the sales staff get spiffs or something in return for selling X number of their overpriced cables.

i would inform the child's manager that with customer service like that i'd probably not be returning to his store to buy anything, let alone cables. i've found that even with billion dollar companies, once you move up the food chain a bit the people are usually pretty eager to please.

Yeah. Regardless of what Muenster Kables does/did to encourage scenarios like that, some responsibility must lie with the store -- as in, somebody made a bad hiring decision.

ORIGINAL: cryophonik ~ Unbelievable. Does Monster have the sales staff in stores that carry their products brainwashed, or what?

Opinion only here but chances are probable that:

A: The kid doesn't use the products he's selling.
B: It's easier and more "sale probable" for him to suggest a well known brand since... (see A)

Jacks right about the food chain and that is where the changes must occur.

The clerks are, for the most part, just mimicking what they have heard, been told or been trained to do and say.

Unlikely they are going to wage war on the only brand they have to sell.

His career would be pretty short lived.

ORIGINAL: cryophonik

Unbelievable. Does Monster have the sales staff in stores that carry their products brainwashed, or what? Maybe the sales staff get spiffs or something in return for selling X number of their overpriced cables.

Do the math. You make more money selling a $70 cable than a $5.

Doesn't make it right but ...

Brett

I agree Brett, but given the options, I'd rather spend my money on something like Mogami who makes quality cables AND they don't shake down small businesses for alleged copyright infringement. and mogami costs typically about the same as monster.

ORIGINAL: Brett

ORIGINAL: cryophonik

Unbelievable. Does Monster have the sales staff in stores that carry their products brainwashed, or what? Maybe the sales staff get spiffs or something in return for selling X number of their overpriced cables.

Do the math. You make more money selling a $70 cable than a $5.

Doesn't make it right but ...

Brett

It's even worse than you might think actually (unless you have as remarkably little faith in the ethics of retailers as I do).

I, in my younger and more annoyed with the lack of any real technical jobs in the local job market days, worked for Radioshack at the time when they started stocking that overpriced junk.

The somewhat unique thing (as far as I can tell from talking to people who have worked in other retailers) about Radioshack is that the back room computer, which we all had access to, will give you all the information available at the store level about a product when you do a stock check. The margin on their regular "gold series" cables was what I would call huge. The margin on Monster Cables was what I would call obscene. On a store level they only cost us slightly more than those gold series cables. Keep in mind that RS has a built in two layer profit system as well. That "cost" which I was privy to was the cost for the store, which had to purchase it from the warehouse at a small mark up from what it actually cost the corporation to begin with.

IIRC, the $25-ish set of gold series A/V cables cost us like $6 while the $60 Monster Cable version cost us like $8. Amazing.

Another weird little quirk in the system is that the nickel plated cables actually cost us more than the gold series cables, despite their much lower retail cost. As you might imagine, we were strongly discouraged from ever selling that stuff.

As a technical aside, it's interesting to note that the conductivity of gold is really not all that great. Gold's big strong point is that it resists corrosion, it does not conduct better. Gold's electrical conductivity is 22.14 n Ω·m. Compare that to 16.78 nΩ·m for copper, or 15.87 n Ω·m for silver. Both metals are cheaper and would be a better coating (or in the case of copper simply not need a coating) if it wasn't for their tendency to tarnish and corrode. No real point in this, other than to clear up the common perception that I run in to that gold conducts better than the stuff we make the wires out of (if it did then what would the point of a couple mils of gold plating after a few feet of more poorly conducting wire be?).

Well, in fairness to Radio Shack, they are a running something of a niche business in terms of their connectors and adaptors and cables and such. That kind of stuff is the kind of thing that you typically have to make substantial margins on in order to justify keeping on hand.

They stock a "cheap" version in order to appear to be price-competitive, and to avoid the perception of being a grossly expensive place to shop, and they make an effort to sell the expensiver version because, let's face it-- how many layers of cost go into selling an adapter in terms of purchasing and display design and inventory management and opportunity cost from retail shelf space in busy shopping malls and so forth?

The typical business model for retail is to shave margin to the bone on expensive stuff that people comparison-shop for, like DVD players and TVs and cell phones, and to make up for it on smaller-ticket accessories where a big markup translates into a lower dollar expenditure for the customer.

Same way that a supermarket might sell milk or potatoes or steaks at a very competitive price and then charge $4 for seasoned salt to go with it, or get the customer to impulse-buy a $1.50 pack of gum at the checkout when they could have got a 5-pack in the candy aisle for $1.59.

The customer will read the sales flyers and drive an extra ten minutes to get the $600 TV for $590, but they won't usually bother to do that for every little add-on, so the idea is to make you money back on those.

In fairness to monster, they are certainly not the first company and won't be the last to sell hype and fluff over substance, nor to push the limits of what can be charged for marginally increased quality. High profit margins alone are not a sure sign of despicable or even dishonest business practices.

Cheers.