- Last Active
GeorgeBMac said:blastdoor said:At least for me, much of the value of Apple's products depends on the ecosystem.
I wonder if many Chinese are not yet in a position to appreciate the value of that ecosystem, or if perhaps the ecosystem isn't as fully developed in China.
Both Apple and Android fan bases tend to compare devices based on their latest glitz feature as it comes out of the box. Using that as the criteria for comparison insures that the Apple product will always lose... The low cost manufacturers need only copy what Apple did six months earlier and release a 'new & improved' version.
Apple has a marketing dilemma because a large part of what they sell cannot be seen as the gadget comes out of the box. And, most people do not seem to even know that it exists... No matter how much Apple tries to produce a lower cost option, it will always need to charge a premium in order to pay for the infrastructure that goes around that gadget and makes it an outstanding product that "just works".
I saw the same thing transpiring in the battle between the mainframe world and the PC world back in the 90's. The PC applications were always cheaper -- not because PCs were invariably cheaper or the software was inherently cheaper -- but because they omitted features that made the mainframe versions secure, dependable and stable. I fear that Apple may go the way of the mainframe if it does not find a way to market its infrastructure effectively.
1. The Android fan base does as you say. I'm not so sure about the iPhone base, at least not in the US. Maybe it's different in China.
2. There are a lot of features of the iPhone that cannot just be copied 6 months later. The best example is the SOC -- the competition is literally years behind Apple in basic performance.
3. When you talk about the mainframe vs the PC, what you're really talking about is IBM vs Microsoft. IBM had grown fat and lazy. Their pace of innovation had slowed dramatically, yet they continued to charge very high prices. It's not that customers failed to appreciate the value of mainframes -- it's that IBM overcharged and under-delivered. If Apple follows that model (and frankly, when it comes to the Mac Pro, they have) then that's why they'll go the way of IBM. But while I think there are very legitimate gripes about how Apple has been doing with the Mac, it seems to me that Apple continues to add value to the iPhone year after year. I might not always agree with every decision, but they definitely keep the product moving forward.
so... I don't think there is any inevitable slide towards IBM. So long as Apple continues to innovate and charge a price commensurate with the value of that innovation, they'll be fine. It's not a foregone conclusion that Apple will do that, but it's certainly not a foregone conclusion that they won't.
ATV 4 was a missed opportunity.
If they really are pushing services, then they should view the ATV hardware as break-even, and put the best SOC in there they can to support not just 4k video but also better games. The ATV 4 should have had the A9X.
This next one ought to have the A10X.
The games don't have to run at 4k -- fine for them to be mostly 1080p -- but with an A10X (and other more game friendly specs -- more RAM, more local storage) the AppleTV could be a pretty decent game console at a low price, in addition to all the other functions it can serve.