It's like listening to the chortles of a couple of adolescents in a drainpipe when one of them farts..
Archi and Blackie, I seldom open you out of the ignore list due to the extremes of your commentary and your own very potent Delusion Fields, but I figured what they heck, even I enjoy really bad humor and commentary - like a good car wreck.
For example, the best shown so far is the Samsung Galaxy Tab. They plan to build 100,000 a month.
I think Apple has a significant advantage in economies of scale -- less-expensive parts and production costs, pre-ordered (reserved) parts and production lines/facilities.
The Pixel Qi people they can manufacture a display for $20 -- but they can't schedule any production as the lines are not available,
There is a lot more to this game then appears to the naked eye -- and Tim Cook is master of the game.
.
Excellent points...especially, "...pre-ordered parts..." As you say, there is a lot more to this than meets the eye! Thanks for the insights.
Me too. If it was not for Apple we would all be working on dusty, creaky, plasticky, beige Windows computers ... a wireless mouse but with a receiver on your desk connected to the tower with a cable, IE 4, Word, etc., etc.
yes, this was true in 1997. what was also true in 1997 was that Microsoft helped save Apple from bankruptcy. if there are two people to thank for us, in 2010, not having "beige Windows computers" and "IE 4", one of them is Bill Gates.
yes, this was true in 1997. what was also true in 1997 was that Microsoft helped save Apple from bankruptcy. if there are two people to thank for us, in 2010, not having "beige Windows computers" and "IE 4", one of them is Bill Gates.
Yep, you're right I do remember that. Thanks for the reminder!
Any SONY MP3 player is far better noise production wise than anything the iPod has ever offered. Heck even the Creative ones are better and the Zune HD is better for noise and picture..
First, there is more to a music player than sound quality or noise production. As evidenced by the freakin market. The simple fact is that the difference in sound quality is negligible to the majority of users.
As far as vertical integration. Usually the main problem posed to companies that incorporate vertical integration policies is updating their supply chains and infrastructure to keep up with advances in technology. Apple has seemed to mitigate that problem pretty deftly. Should they ever stop handling it well, yes they'll fail. For now, there's no reason to think it will beyond your hope.
Did he really use the term distortion field? When did legitimate CEOs start talking like forum members? Strikes me as unprofessional and tantamount to saying that people who like the competitor are stupidheads. It's just a dressed up kind of name calling
Haven't read the whole thread, maybe someone pointed this out, but seems interesting to me that the executive officers of the competition get so distracted by looking at the distortion field that they spend enormous amounts of time responding to Mr. Jobs' comments. Would be also interesting to contemplate their time investment in reading things like this thread. Crazy like a fox that Mr. Jobs. Eh?
yes, this was true in 1997. what was also true in 1997 was that Microsoft helped save Apple from bankruptcy. if there are two people to thank for us, in 2010, not having "beige Windows computers" and "IE 4", one of them is Bill Gates.
That isn't quite what happened. In late 1996 Apple bought NeXT for $429,000,000, but the next year they so regretted that decision and had to get $150,000,000 from Microsoft or they would have boarded up the windows in Cupertino? That wasn't the case.
What happened was Apple had MS by their "micsrosofites" over stolen QuickTime code, but a long litigation wouldn't have helped Apple in the short term. They also needed Office for Mac to help keep the platform viable. So what they did is wipe e slate clean with a deal that would benefit both of them, which included MS investing into Apple for a minimum time frame to help calm investors and potential buyers who may be concerned about the future of Apple, as they surely should have been.
But keep in mind it was a strategic move by Apple, not a desperate grab at cash to keep the lights on for another week. If it was just a grab at some quick cash then why get it from MS who is seen as there greatest competition? If it was MS vying for control of Apple andhaas all the chipsin this agreement then why were the shares non-voting? The only answer I can come with that MS didn't have the power in that deal. You can already see Jobs' startegic maneuvering this early in Apple's resurrection.
Yep, you're right I do remember that. Thanks for the reminder!
- off-topic
i suspect some people here forgot the $150 million investment made by Bill Gates. he could have very easily sat back and watch Apple die in 1997.
- on-topic
it's far too premature to dismiss the RIM PlayBook because it hasn't yet been given a chance in the marketplace. i suspect by mid/late 2012 we'll know of sure whether RIM made a miscalculation is the PlayBook.
i suspect some people here forgot the $150 million investment made by Bill Gates. he could have very easily sat back and watch Apple die in 1997.
Microsoft didn't invest in Apple, they settled with them. Gates couldn't have "sat back and watch Apple die in 1997" - far from it since they had $1.2 billion cash on hand. Granted, they were in rough shape, but Microsoft's money was far from a desperately needed infusion that many like to make it out to be
it's far too premature to dismiss the RIM PlayBook because it hasn't yet been given a chance in the marketplace. i suspect by mid/late 2012 we'll know of sure whether RIM made a miscalculation is the PlayBook.
That isn't quite what happened. In late 1996 Apple bought NeXT for $429,000,000 and the next year they so reverted that investment and had to get $150,000,000 from Microsoft or they would have boarded up the windows in Cupertino? That wasn't the case.
What happened was Apple had MS by their "micsrosofites" over stolen QuickTime code, but a long litigation wouldn't have helped Apple in the short term. They also needed Office for Mac to help keep the platform viable. So what they did is wipe e slate clean with a deal that would benefit both of them, which included MS investing into Apple for a minimum time frame to help calm investors and potential buyers who may be concerned about the future of Apple, as they surely should have been.
But keep in mind it was a strategic move by Apple, not a desperate grab at cash to keep the lights on for another week. If it was MS vying for control of Apple and they had the pole position in this agreement then why were the shares non voting? The only answer I can come with that MS didn't have the power I that deal. I think you can already see Jobs' startegic maneuvering this early in Apple's resurrection.
AIR, it was a strategic move by MS too -- they needed to keep Justice at bay * and the demise of Apple would have led to a flurry of investigations.
* MS nor Apple had, yet, learned the power of Washington lobbyists.
Microsoft didn't invest in Apple, they settled with them. Gates couldn't have "sat back and watch Apple die in 1997" - far from it since they had $1.2 billion cash on hand. Granted, they were in rough shape, but Microsoft's money was far from a desperately needed infusion that many like to make it out to be
Apple is not telling people what to think... they are explaining "the why" to your future dismal sales numbers! Doofus!!
You have never heard of Manufactured Consent have you? Google "Noam Chomsky", when you have a chance, in-between all that productive stuff you do on your Iphone of course.
You have never heard of Manufactured Consent have you? Google "Noam Chomsky", when you have a chance, in-between all that productive stuff you do on your Iphone of course.
Interesting. You apparently have no idea what Noam Chomsky is talking about. And it's "Manufacturing Consent."
Wow... there's a lot of 'love' floating around here.
At the end of the day... it's all in the stock. Everybody else can suck it.
AAPL 300+
There's not one company, that everyone is fighting for in this thread, that can match that. Yeah, Wallstreet is under Steve's 'distortion field' too.
Whatever.
Yup. Well let me clarify, CNBC and BLOOMBERG are under Steves distortion field. Wall street just wants to steal your money, so go ahead go long on Apple. Friendo.
The 10" iPad with its 4:3 aspect screen measures 5.75" x 7.75" with 44.5 square inches of area.
a 7" tablet with a 16:9 aspect screen will measure approximately 3.5" x 6" with 21 square inches of area.
the smaller size has only one big advantage - it will weigh about half as much as the iPad, and the iPad is tiring to hold up with one hand for an extended period. the 7" tab also has a second moderate advantage - at 6" wide, its 16:9 TV/movie display is only 25% smaller than an 8" wide video/movie on the iPad. and it has a third moderate advantage - compared to the iPad, but not other OEM's 10" tablets - it runs Flash content (more or less).
so if the dominant purpose of your tablet is going to be watching movies/video, including lots of website Flash streaming video, you maybe might be happier with the 7" tablet. go for it!
but i can't think of any other advantage of the in-between form factor of a 7" tab (unless you have cargo pants pockets it will fit, maybe, and cargo pants are what you wear everywhere). either something is pocket-sized, or it ain't. and if it ain't, it's going into some kind of carry bag where size of this scale is not an issue at all. most carry things are still designed to hold letter paper size stuff, good ol' 8.5" x 11".
the iPad's bigger size, besides all the obvious advantages of more than twice the viewable/usable screen area, allows it to contain a proportionally larger battery (because the size of the electronics are almost the same whatever the screen size), which means longer battery life - which is a very big advantage in real life (and also why it is heavier).
and as many have noted, the narrower aspect ratio of a 16:9 tab combined with a smaller 7" size makes many uses impractical in portrait mode, while its compressed height in landscape mode likewise constrains others (notably, web page and map display). the iPad's 4:3 aspect is much more adaptable to the full range of potential tablet uses.
perhaps one reason we are seeing 16:9 Android tabs is because Google intends to establish that new form factor for Google TV apps, and so those apps would also work great on such an Android tablet. whereas Apple's 4:3 iPad apps would work ok on a TV screen via Apple TV, but not great (probably why Apple has not yet enabled Apple TV to run apps, until it has a new generation of 16:9 iOS apps ready).
by the way, few have mentioned it, but the iPod touch is in fact Apple's mini-tab. and (do the math) Apple sold about 7 million of those last quarter!! and we might see its screen size creep up a little in the future to 4" or so. but it will always be pocket sized.
so adding the touch to the iPad, that's 11 million tablets Apple sold in the last 3 months. and for the peak holiday quarter, usually that number doubles or even triples ... you can see Apple is flooding the market with new iPad retailers, and even Verizon, so they're going for it.
finally, why did Jobs come down so hard on the 7" tab, calling it "DOA," instead of just hyping the iPad's 2X bigger screen as "best"? well, i guess he's putting a big chunk of FUD out there to undercut the competition. but he does happen to be right ... these 7" tabs just ain't gonna sell. even the fandroids will wait for 10" models coming next year.
Actually, the regular consumers does not give a damn about trade-offs and sweet spots, only techies and geeks care about that . Does it work consistently as promised and can I use the damn thing right now are what appeals to the average consumers.
The 10" iPad with its 4:3 aspect screen measures 5.75" x 7.75" with 44.5 square inches of area.
a 7" tablet with a 16:9 aspect screen will measure approximately 3.5" x 6" with 21 square inches of area.
the smaller size has only one big advantage - it will weigh about half as much as the iPad
Cost is a significant driver behind the 7" size adopted by RIM and others. Significant. I can't stress that enough.
Apple is so vertically integrated when it comes to design that they can piece together a device at an extremely competitive cost. Others wouldn't be able to produce a 9.7" tablet and be cost competitive with Apple. Instead, they've chosen to reduce the size of the device so that costs are lower and supplies of the display are more readily available. With a 7" screen RIM and Samsung can compete at a lower price point than Apple is likely willing to do with its 9.7" iPad.
it's far too premature to dismiss the RIM PlayBook because it hasn't yet been given a chance in the marketplace. i suspect by mid/late 2012 we'll know of sure whether RIM made a miscalculation is the PlayBook.
but it's not too premature to hype it up and refer to it as an actual competitor when it doesn't even exist?
Premature is rim talking about their experience in the tablet market and what the consumer buys
Comments
It's like listening to the chortles of a couple of adolescents in a drainpipe when one of them farts..
Archi and Blackie, I seldom open you out of the ignore list due to the extremes of your commentary and your own very potent Delusion Fields, but I figured what they heck, even I enjoy really bad humor and commentary - like a good car wreck.
Always glad to be of service.
I don't know if that is true.
For example, the best shown so far is the Samsung Galaxy Tab. They plan to build 100,000 a month.
I think Apple has a significant advantage in economies of scale -- less-expensive parts and production costs, pre-ordered (reserved) parts and production lines/facilities.
The Pixel Qi people they can manufacture a display for $20 -- but they can't schedule any production as the lines are not available,
There is a lot more to this game then appears to the naked eye -- and Tim Cook is master of the game.
.
Excellent points...especially, "...pre-ordered parts..." As you say, there is a lot more to this than meets the eye! Thanks for the insights.
Best
Me too. If it was not for Apple we would all be working on dusty, creaky, plasticky, beige Windows computers ... a wireless mouse but with a receiver on your desk connected to the tower with a cable, IE 4, Word, etc., etc.
yes, this was true in 1997. what was also true in 1997 was that Microsoft helped save Apple from bankruptcy. if there are two people to thank for us, in 2010, not having "beige Windows computers" and "IE 4", one of them is Bill Gates.
yes, this was true in 1997. what was also true in 1997 was that Microsoft helped save Apple from bankruptcy. if there are two people to thank for us, in 2010, not having "beige Windows computers" and "IE 4", one of them is Bill Gates.
Yep, you're right I do remember that. Thanks for the reminder!
PS. I'm glad he did!
Best
Any SONY MP3 player is far better noise production wise than anything the iPod has ever offered. Heck even the Creative ones are better and the Zune HD is better for noise and picture..
Vertical integration always fails.....always will.
First, there is more to a music player than sound quality or noise production. As evidenced by the freakin market. The simple fact is that the difference in sound quality is negligible to the majority of users.
As far as vertical integration. Usually the main problem posed to companies that incorporate vertical integration policies is updating their supply chains and infrastructure to keep up with advances in technology. Apple has seemed to mitigate that problem pretty deftly. Should they ever stop handling it well, yes they'll fail. For now, there's no reason to think it will beyond your hope.
He doesn't know what it will cost.
He doesn't know when it will be available.
He doesn't know it's battery life.
He can't show you one because, it doesn't exist.
Now, that's a reality distortion field!
LOL - excellent points. Sadly logic is wasted on the haters...
Did he really use the term distortion field? When did legitimate CEOs start talking like forum members? Strikes me as unprofessional and tantamount to saying that people who like the competitor are stupidheads. It's just a dressed up kind of name calling
Haven't read the whole thread, maybe someone pointed this out, but seems interesting to me that the executive officers of the competition get so distracted by looking at the distortion field that they spend enormous amounts of time responding to Mr. Jobs' comments. Would be also interesting to contemplate their time investment in reading things like this thread. Crazy like a fox that Mr. Jobs. Eh?
Wow... there's a lot of 'love' floating around here.
At the end of the day... it's all in the stock. Everybody else can suck it.
AAPL 300+
There's not one company, that everyone is fighting for in this thread, that can match that. Yeah, Wallstreet is under Steve's 'distortion field' too.
Whatever.
The company I work for can match that.
Apple (APPL) @ Mar 6, '09 $85.03, today $309.50 an increase of 264%
CNH Global (CNH) @ Mar 6, '09 $6.57, today $39.72 an increase of 505%
Apple stock is doing well but so are other companies. So your point is?
yes, this was true in 1997. what was also true in 1997 was that Microsoft helped save Apple from bankruptcy. if there are two people to thank for us, in 2010, not having "beige Windows computers" and "IE 4", one of them is Bill Gates.
That isn't quite what happened. In late 1996 Apple bought NeXT for $429,000,000, but the next year they so regretted that decision and had to get $150,000,000 from Microsoft or they would have boarded up the windows in Cupertino? That wasn't the case.
What happened was Apple had MS by their "micsrosofites" over stolen QuickTime code, but a long litigation wouldn't have helped Apple in the short term. They also needed Office for Mac to help keep the platform viable. So what they did is wipe e slate clean with a deal that would benefit both of them, which included MS investing into Apple for a minimum time frame to help calm investors and potential buyers who may be concerned about the future of Apple, as they surely should have been.
But keep in mind it was a strategic move by Apple, not a desperate grab at cash to keep the lights on for another week. If it was just a grab at some quick cash then why get it from MS who is seen as there greatest competition? If it was MS vying for control of Apple andhaas all the chipsin this agreement then why were the shares non-voting? The only answer I can come with that MS didn't have the power in that deal. You can already see Jobs' startegic maneuvering this early in Apple's resurrection.
Yep, you're right I do remember that. Thanks for the reminder!
- off-topic
i suspect some people here forgot the $150 million investment made by Bill Gates. he could have very easily sat back and watch Apple die in 1997.
- on-topic
it's far too premature to dismiss the RIM PlayBook because it hasn't yet been given a chance in the marketplace. i suspect by mid/late 2012 we'll know of sure whether RIM made a miscalculation is the PlayBook.
i suspect some people here forgot the $150 million investment made by Bill Gates. he could have very easily sat back and watch Apple die in 1997.
Microsoft didn't invest in Apple, they settled with them. Gates couldn't have "sat back and watch Apple die in 1997" - far from it since they had $1.2 billion cash on hand. Granted, they were in rough shape, but Microsoft's money was far from a desperately needed infusion that many like to make it out to be
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...362B533B9.html
it's far too premature to dismiss the RIM PlayBook because it hasn't yet been given a chance in the marketplace. i suspect by mid/late 2012 we'll know of sure whether RIM made a miscalculation is the PlayBook.
Assuming it ships any time soon
That isn't quite what happened. In late 1996 Apple bought NeXT for $429,000,000 and the next year they so reverted that investment and had to get $150,000,000 from Microsoft or they would have boarded up the windows in Cupertino? That wasn't the case.
What happened was Apple had MS by their "micsrosofites" over stolen QuickTime code, but a long litigation wouldn't have helped Apple in the short term. They also needed Office for Mac to help keep the platform viable. So what they did is wipe e slate clean with a deal that would benefit both of them, which included MS investing into Apple for a minimum time frame to help calm investors and potential buyers who may be concerned about the future of Apple, as they surely should have been.
But keep in mind it was a strategic move by Apple, not a desperate grab at cash to keep the lights on for another week. If it was MS vying for control of Apple and they had the pole position in this agreement then why were the shares non voting? The only answer I can come with that MS didn't have the power I that deal. I think you can already see Jobs' startegic maneuvering this early in Apple's resurrection.
AIR, it was a strategic move by MS too -- they needed to keep Justice at bay * and the demise of Apple would have led to a flurry of investigations.
* MS nor Apple had, yet, learned the power of Washington lobbyists.
... Apple had MS by their "micsrosofites"
.
Microsoft didn't invest in Apple, they settled with them. Gates couldn't have "sat back and watch Apple die in 1997" - far from it since they had $1.2 billion cash on hand. Granted, they were in rough shape, but Microsoft's money was far from a desperately needed infusion that many like to make it out to be
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...362B533B9.html
Assuming it ships any time soon
You must be careful citing DED
MS did invest in Apple and received non-voting stock. It sold the stock some years later -- at a profit, AIR.
Too tired to look up links.
.
Apple is not telling people what to think... they are explaining "the why" to your future dismal sales numbers! Doofus!!
You have never heard of Manufactured Consent have you? Google "Noam Chomsky", when you have a chance, in-between all that productive stuff you do on your Iphone of course.
You have never heard of Manufactured Consent have you? Google "Noam Chomsky", when you have a chance, in-between all that productive stuff you do on your Iphone of course.
Interesting. You apparently have no idea what Noam Chomsky is talking about. And it's "Manufacturing Consent."
Wow... there's a lot of 'love' floating around here.
At the end of the day... it's all in the stock. Everybody else can suck it.
AAPL 300+
There's not one company, that everyone is fighting for in this thread, that can match that. Yeah, Wallstreet is under Steve's 'distortion field' too.
Whatever.
Yup. Well let me clarify, CNBC and BLOOMBERG are under Steves distortion field. Wall street just wants to steal your money, so go ahead go long on Apple. Friendo.
a 7" tablet with a 16:9 aspect screen will measure approximately 3.5" x 6" with 21 square inches of area.
the smaller size has only one big advantage - it will weigh about half as much as the iPad, and the iPad is tiring to hold up with one hand for an extended period. the 7" tab also has a second moderate advantage - at 6" wide, its 16:9 TV/movie display is only 25% smaller than an 8" wide video/movie on the iPad. and it has a third moderate advantage - compared to the iPad, but not other OEM's 10" tablets - it runs Flash content (more or less).
so if the dominant purpose of your tablet is going to be watching movies/video, including lots of website Flash streaming video, you maybe might be happier with the 7" tablet. go for it!
but i can't think of any other advantage of the in-between form factor of a 7" tab (unless you have cargo pants pockets it will fit, maybe, and cargo pants are what you wear everywhere). either something is pocket-sized, or it ain't. and if it ain't, it's going into some kind of carry bag where size of this scale is not an issue at all. most carry things are still designed to hold letter paper size stuff, good ol' 8.5" x 11".
the iPad's bigger size, besides all the obvious advantages of more than twice the viewable/usable screen area, allows it to contain a proportionally larger battery (because the size of the electronics are almost the same whatever the screen size), which means longer battery life - which is a very big advantage in real life (and also why it is heavier).
and as many have noted, the narrower aspect ratio of a 16:9 tab combined with a smaller 7" size makes many uses impractical in portrait mode, while its compressed height in landscape mode likewise constrains others (notably, web page and map display). the iPad's 4:3 aspect is much more adaptable to the full range of potential tablet uses.
perhaps one reason we are seeing 16:9 Android tabs is because Google intends to establish that new form factor for Google TV apps, and so those apps would also work great on such an Android tablet. whereas Apple's 4:3 iPad apps would work ok on a TV screen via Apple TV, but not great (probably why Apple has not yet enabled Apple TV to run apps, until it has a new generation of 16:9 iOS apps ready).
by the way, few have mentioned it, but the iPod touch is in fact Apple's mini-tab. and (do the math) Apple sold about 7 million of those last quarter!! and we might see its screen size creep up a little in the future to 4" or so. but it will always be pocket sized.
so adding the touch to the iPad, that's 11 million tablets Apple sold in the last 3 months. and for the peak holiday quarter, usually that number doubles or even triples ... you can see Apple is flooding the market with new iPad retailers, and even Verizon, so they're going for it.
finally, why did Jobs come down so hard on the 7" tab, calling it "DOA," instead of just hyping the iPad's 2X bigger screen as "best"? well, i guess he's putting a big chunk of FUD out there to undercut the competition. but he does happen to be right ... these 7" tabs just ain't gonna sell. even the fandroids will wait for 10" models coming next year.
Actually, the regular consumers does not give a damn about trade-offs and sweet spots, only techies and geeks care about that . Does it work consistently as promised and can I use the damn thing right now are what appeals to the average consumers.
Good point.
The 10" iPad with its 4:3 aspect screen measures 5.75" x 7.75" with 44.5 square inches of area.
a 7" tablet with a 16:9 aspect screen will measure approximately 3.5" x 6" with 21 square inches of area.
the smaller size has only one big advantage - it will weigh about half as much as the iPad
Cost is a significant driver behind the 7" size adopted by RIM and others. Significant. I can't stress that enough.
Apple is so vertically integrated when it comes to design that they can piece together a device at an extremely competitive cost. Others wouldn't be able to produce a 9.7" tablet and be cost competitive with Apple. Instead, they've chosen to reduce the size of the device so that costs are lower and supplies of the display are more readily available. With a 7" screen RIM and Samsung can compete at a lower price point than Apple is likely willing to do with its 9.7" iPad.
it's far too premature to dismiss the RIM PlayBook because it hasn't yet been given a chance in the marketplace. i suspect by mid/late 2012 we'll know of sure whether RIM made a miscalculation is the PlayBook.
but it's not too premature to hype it up and refer to it as an actual competitor when it doesn't even exist?
Premature is rim talking about their experience in the tablet market and what the consumer buys