or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by KPOM

This makes sense and is a good move. The iPad 4 was a good device and is a decent value at $400. Having the iPad Air as the only "high-end" full sized iPad during the holidays undoubtedly boosted sales of the Air. But now that the holidays are over it makes sense for Apple to have a more competitive offering at $400.
The discrepancy to Apple's own published figures is very unusual and calls into question the validity of the Android estimate. That said, it probably is broadly correct that Android tablets have greater market share. But the unit sales for Android are likely coming from the low end. The Kindle Fire and Nexus 7 are arguably the closest to the iPad in terms of quality. Yet (again, taking Gartner's numbers with a grain of salt), they don't appear to be making significant...
Color me skeptical. Maybe Apple would attempt to differentiate the models more, but I'd think that both would get at least the bumps to the A8 and Touch ID.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/apple-and-samsung-took-all-handset-profits-in-fourth-quarter/?_php=true&_type=blogs&partner=yahoofinance&_r=0   Enough said.
 Arguably, if the university developed the technology, it can use royalties to reduce the costs to the taxpayers of operating the research lab.
Interesting. Would this apply to Qualcomm, NVIDIA, and other licensees of ARM, or do they either not use the technology or have licenses? So far, the mainstream press hasn't picked up on this, so there's not much analysis out there.
 A lot of people would have purchased Samsung phones regardless. Not everyone is looking solely for a larger screen. Believe it or not, some people prefer Android. As for the mid-range, it isn't very profitable. Samsung makes most of its profit from the same segment as Apple. Note that Apple still makes more money from mobile than Samsung, even with less than half the market share.
 Co-CEOships rarely work out. Yes, Samsung has "co-CEOs," but most companies need a single person in charge. Otherwise internal politics creates a proble.
The other interpretation is that they should have just made fewer iPhone 5c and more iPhone 5s at the launch date. Not having product in stock seems to have hit US sales. The risk with making a $400 iPhone 5c is that it cannibalizes sales. Apple, unlike Samsung, isn't in a position to seek market share for the sake of market share.
If I understand correctly, the new AI iPad app will require a subscription after the first month, but the iPhone version will not? Why not offer an ad-sponsored version of the iPad app that continues to be free, or let us install the iPhone app on our iPads?
New Posts  All Forums: