or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by AaronJ

  Can you show me that this is true?  Or that it is true for at least semi-premium phones, at least?   I mean, a lot of things count as "smartphones" these days.  Something could sell for a 10% margin and be a piece of junk and be called a "smartphone."  Do you have numbers on this?
  iPhone unit sales by fiscal year:   2010: 40B   2011: 72B   2012: 125B   2013: 85B (so far, through 2Qs)   I'm not seeing how that's slow growth, really.  Are they supposed to increase sales by 100% every year?  Profits are through the roof.  Sales are enormous.  The ecosystem is thriving.   What am I missing?
  There's no evidence that "a lot" more Android phones (we're talking flagship phones here, not cheap junk) are sold than iPhones.  In the US the top 3 selling phones are all iPhones.  Sure, Android phones are more popular in Asia.  But they also sell at much lower margin in general.  Apple doesn't strike me as about to decide to go for the "high volume, low margin" approach.   And there are "rumors" that these are the high end phone shells?  Rumors from where?  I can...
  From the Q1 2013 report:           Who is being "held back" from buying iPhones?  See, this is what I don't get.  Apple sold nearly 50 MILLION of these things in the first quarter of fiscal 2013.  In fiscal 2012 they sold 125M iPhones alone.
But you're still in one of two situations:   1) It's unsubsidized, and it really isn't cheap -- I mean, unless they just toss some POS together (very un-Apple), it's still going to cost a lot, being unsubsidized.   2) Or, it's subsidized, in which case you're paying $2400 over the next two years anyhow.  So what's the difference what you pay for the phone?
Wow, those look really cheap to me.  Then again, I'm very opposed to plastic, and even more to colored plastic.  I have a very hard time imagining Apple producing something like this, frankly.  But maybe that's just me.   I just don't get where this would fit into their line, what the economics of it would be, or how they would market it.   Possibly, I just lack imagination.  But it all seems very "un-Apple."
  Apple makes decisions based on what will be used by the majority of users, versus the cost (and other effects) of including something.   LTE is the perfect example.  Sure, they could have added LTE earlier.  But it would have added cost, and at the time there was almost no real LTE coverage.  So, it would be added cost without added benefit (for almost everyone).   As to being waterproof, I've never quite understood this.  Why?  How about you just don't drop it in a...
  Oh, yes, because just EVERYONE reads Endgadget.  Honestly, next time you go and get a coffee, ask your barista if she saw the story on Endgadget about xyz.   You can tell me about the blank stare later.   Hell, hardly anyone even follows REAL news!  I would bet that less than 20% (maybe less than 5%, actually) of the US population can tell you what the present situation in Egypt is.  We've had candidates for PRESIDENTIAL level office who didn't know who fought in WWII....
  Actually, no one (well, I shouldn't say no one -- maybe in really poor places, or something) has used silicone implants in a long time.  They are saline.  In Heidi's case, they are GIGANTIC saline implants, but still saline.   Just clarifying. :)
  HAHA!  Well, even Heidi regrets getting those 10 procedures in one day, in order to look like a human Barbie Doll.
New Posts  All Forums: