- Last Active
rigormortis said:well first of all, there is no real legitimate reason to include LTE in a watch. all you need is 3G. AT&T says for a watch you do not need more then 50 mb a month! second of all, if they go apple sim, then that means its just going to be like the iPad. and Verizon will want none of that. and no one on verizon will be able to use it. so you will need to have a regular sim card slot. you are free to express your own opinions on your insider website , but lets deal with the facts. and lets be realistic.
No compelling reason for a cellular Apple Watch to support voice - data only would support 90+% of all use cases (supporting voice via VoLTE, FaceTime, Skype, etc...).
Everybody needs to chill out. Go and listen to the Critical Path podcast (latest one), which is hosted by Horace Dediu, who did the work. He provides all of the context around the few snippets that AI has used here in this article.
He is not implying that Apple has a traditional monopoly at all - he clearly states the opposite. He basically talks about the big 5 in tech, and how the reason for the much higher P/E ratios attributed to the others is that they are perceived to be "like" monopolies (none of them are traditional monopolies either). The clear leaders in their field, with no real competition in their core business, and big barriers to entry.
Apple is perceived the opposite - no end of competition. Always under attack. The iPhone killer is right around the corner. Hence discounted to the S&P 500 average, while the others are much higher. But he then looks at pricing power, and notes that Apple has maintained or increased pricing in most products over time. iPhone and Mac at highest levels in recent quarter. That Apple has very strong market power like a monopoly. And that with Facebook and Google their price per unit of advertising is going down (overall revenue still rising of course). So he simply asks the rhetorical question - who is the monopoly. And perhaps, given Apple has been in business for 40 years, perhaps they are not so vulnerable after all.
Anti-fragile is used due to the fact that Apple does face competition all of the time, and thus in order to succeed over the decades they have developed the culture, processes and approach on how to deal with that. Likening it to someone who is exposed to infections all the time and develops resistance. And this might make Apple stronger in the long run than some of the firms who are like de facto monopolies.
But what does he know vs the geniuses on the AI forum...
avon b7 said:maestro64 said:sog35 said:avon b7 said:Herbivore2 said:Avon B7 said, "No manufacturer of low or mid tier phones has even the slightest intention of massive profit. Comparing those profits to those of Apple serves little or no purpose."
If maximizing profits isn't the goal, then it's time for those companies to get out of the business.
The criticism of the points DED made with statements like this are pretty ridiculous.
Apple and Samsung are the only two companies capable of reliably profiting from the smartphone industry. Samsung primarily in components and Apple in the finished product and vertically integrated system.
Samsung is attempting to move to Apple's vertically integrated model much to the consternation of Google. Samsung's plan is to move off of Android all together and over to Tizen. Samsung's Tizen phone sales in India are pretty nice. And it is quite worrisome to Google. Because if Samsung is successful, the only high end players will be Apple and Samsung. And neither will be running on Android.
So it actually be self-fulfilling if the low end Android device manufacturers aren't interested in large profits. Because it won't happen. There will be Apple and Samsung. The others, including Huawei won't be playing at the high end of anything. Samsung's Gear S3 makes the Android wear watches from Huawei and LG look atrocious.
My point is that low to mid tier manufacturers can't get away with 30-40% margins and they know it. That isn't part of the plan.
Huawei hasn't even stretched its legs in the premium segment but has already released a phone well over the $1,000 mark and has units at all the price points down to the entry level. It took such a jump on quality with the P9 that it has allowed itself to take a breather with last week's P10 announcements which were more lifestyle focussed. Expect a bigger jump later in the year with the successor to the Mate 9 and perhaps an attack on the US market.
They missed profit targets in the phone division and massive layoffs are coming:
“Huawei will not pay for those that don’t work hard,” which suggests the company may start cutting back jobs. Huawei employs a total of 170,000 people, with 45% of them working on research and development. A Huawei engineer is quoted by Reuters as saying “everybody is nervous” since they know they are now at risk of being laid off.
Deep SHIT Huawei.
As Apple dominates the top end and cheap POS china phones start under pricing even cheap SHIT Huawei phones.
Huawei will quickly disappear into irrelevance like Xiaomi before it.
You do know that Huawei is a government funded business entity, as long as Huawei is doing things which the China government feels is in the best interest of the country they will be fine and will be around for a while longer. It has nothing to do with whether they are making money or not. As far as I know Xiaomi does not fall into the Huawei category of business in China. I do not know how the Government see them in the big scheme of things.jbdragon said:lwio said:and Apple makes an increasingly large profit from services including the App Store were Android makers have a very hard time making anything at all.
Let's put the manufacturers back in and we see Apple were ignored by 10 billion shoppers.
Should Apple stay premium and ignore those 10 billion users and hope there are enough left to keep buying high margin, premium phones well into the future, or move into a lower tier in the hope of selling much more units?
Will the main future earnings drivers be unit sales or services?
If services are going to make up an ever increasing part of revenues, doesn't it make sense to have the largest possible pool to feed off? Surely that pool implies getting a lot of the 10 billion onto your platform or should Apple open up its platform to Android users?
There are lots of possible scenarios but most of the ones that involve services require the highest possible share to feed off. The same logic applies to 'home kit' style devices.
I'm in the camp that says smartphones have hit the comfort zone and shoppers can get far more than they ever could out of a mid tier phone and that premium prices will be a harder sell in a saturated market with a decent spread of top class phones. Past the iPhone 8/7s I see Apple having a harder time shifting units in the premium segment.
- Android has been outselling Apple in units sold for the last 7 years. In any year of the last 4 there has been no stop commentary that Apple will soon be commoditized. Yet Apple has managed to grow both their iPhone h/w sales and services sales. Services have been growing ~18% YoY over last few years.
- You assume that every smartphone buyer is the same w.r.t. services potential. History and the real world have shown that to be false. Those with more disposable income tend to purchase more expensive devices, and also are more willing to spend on s/w, content, and services. Those who seek out lower cost devices often don't want to pay for the extras. Hence why Apple continues to lead (after 9 years) still with revenue from App Store vs. the much larger Android installed base.
- You assume that in a market which becomes saturated all that matters is price. That is true if no differentiation, but Apple continues to differentiate in many ways (h/w itself, longevity & reliability, s/w, content & ecosystem, payments, security, and increasingly differentiated accessories). In a case study of how a company can grow revenue in a commodity / saturated market, I present you with Apple and the Mac.
- You ignore the present and historical data regarding Apple's customer satisfaction ratings and retention. Simply put, most iPhone users will upgrade to a new iPhone (of some variety) - not move to a different vendor. Sure, there are some, just as Apple gets Android switchers (many estimate this 2nd number is much higher than first). While the upgrade cycle lengthens, it doesn't alter what most of that installed base will upgrade to - and it is not likely to be Huawei, Samsung, or Oppy.
- You believe that people will only ever purchase "what they need". That there is no brand value, or desire for something better, or customer satisfaction, or resale value, or ease-of-use value,.... Perhaps that is how you and your friends think. You buy all of your clothes at the lowest price location, most of them looking the same, as there is no need for anything else. I can tell you though that others don't think this way.
stevo-nz said:I've had nothing but problems with Apple's new GPS. The Nike app is crap. The GPS seems to stop on its own when you hit anything above 17km. I have a feeling whenever Apple's Activities alerts happen, GPS automatically switches off. Either that, or the crown is the problem in that whenever you're climbing, your hand bends back and pushes it accidentally. This has happened on both Nike and RunKeeper apps. I'm now trialling Strava's new update. Using Strava is good as runs can link back into their platform which then gives you elevation information. Pity we can't get that on-the-fly. So my experience so far is they are still behind Garmin when it comes to hard core sports enthusiasts.
I have actually had it dial 911 erroneously once - my gloves pushed in the side button enough to bring up the "power off & SOS call" screen, and there must have been enough moisture and a movement that slide that SOS button. Next thing I knew my phone was dialing 911 (found out the watch makes a different alert for this:). I cancelled the call, but they still called me back to understand what was going on.
This "Part 2" article was much better than the first. Much more clear and concise, and I think does a very good job of explaining the "why" approach of Apple to the market.
I see, from a lot of the comments on the previous article and this one, that many are either ignorantly or deliberately missing the point (I am not even sure many are reading the article...). Apple is not selling or talking about selling 2-in-1's because they "can't make it work | don't know how", but as a deliberate strategy. They have a clear vision about how the iPad is a simpler UI device that can also "do more" in computing in different ways, and in being simpler can appeal to a market that finds the "PC interface" (whether Windows or Mac) too complicated, or prefer the UI from the smartphone, or other reason. Not providing a file system is by design. Not developing the UI around a mouse + finger + keyboard is by design. Not offering general USB connectivity is by design.
It isn't for everyone. The article points out to Jobs' comment that *he* would feel uneasy about it. For millions of very dedicated "PC people", they will have no use for an iPad for anything beyond consumption. It isn't for you!!! It is for your children, your parents, the guy next door that is a cop and couldn't give 2 sh*ts about multiple windows/coding/file systems, the nurse that needs very portable/light data entry on the go without using a keyboard or mouse, ...
It isn't for me either (at least right now) as it pertains to my work. I have an iPad and use it all the time at home, on the road, and on vacation - but not yet for work much - but with some HWR and a few other features, it might become a solid device for work too. The difference is that I can see beyond my own personal situation into how smartphones are changing the nature of computing, how new workflows are developing, how the young are working with this technology, and how PC's might have been the only tool in the past for some occupations but tablets are now a better option.