or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Inside Apple's shareholder meeting and Q&A with Tim Cook
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Inside Apple's shareholder meeting and Q&A with Tim Cook - Page 2

post #41 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by allmypeople View Post

Okay, where are all the idiots who claimed:

"APPLE ISN"T HOSTING ANYTHING!!" Implying the cost of the App Store was nothing and Apple was just sticking it to the publishers...:

In the blogosphere, how many care about facts when it is more fun, easier and "self-satisfying" to create realities from our perceptions. And many people cannot distinguish the two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonSn0w View Post

Since your statement is so vague, I wonder what exactly you're disagreeing with him over. Eldar Murtazin has a nice piece on the history of the iPhone that I read just the other day that backs up his comment. http://www.mobile-review.com/article-en.shtml

A review is a perspective of what transpired, not necessarily the facts; just like historians bring their perspective in interpreting historical events. There is a book entitled "The Winner Names the Age". The essence is that what we know as the truth of the past, or that which prevails is the perspective (via historians) of the "winners", not the vanquished.

That aside, I agree that it is difficult to counter a blanket rejection of one's proposition when the critic does not offer any explanation. Basically, the other party (the critic) places the onus on you to "prove" your propositions to be incorrect. But, this is very difficult to do because we sincerely believe in what we perceived to be the truth, and I hope the reason why each is impassioned to share their views here.

It is the role of propagandists to obfuscate facts, and attempt to promote their perception to be the alternative for what is factual and real.


CGC
post #42 of 54
Could you imagine what the sales figures would have been if Wall Street hadn't screwed everyone into a Recession?

Bastards!
post #43 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I wish we would get more clarity as to exactly what this means. It reads as though if you get your sub from the publisher in the first place, you never give a cut to Apple as long as you subscribe, or re-up that sub. But, does it? If it does, then what some are complaining about really doesn't exist there. The only thing I'd like to see changed is to put the link back to the store's site for buying books.

I agree that the response seems to suggest that re-upping a subscription previously purchased from the publisher has no revenue share with Apple. Unfortunately, I believe that Apple will get their cut if you purchase in-app. I think what they are suggesting is that an app can provide its own authentication for use with publisher subscriptions.

The wording was very vague and I do not think it was meant to truly clarify Apple's position which I suspect is still being sorted out based on the response from its partners.
post #44 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBreen View Post

"Cook answered that the split Apple shares only applies to new customers"

Actually, Cook answered that the 70/30 split only applies to customers who subscribe through in-app purchasing. Apple gets no revenue from subscribers (existing or new) who sign up through the publication's web site. It's a small distinction, but I think an important one.

But what happens when a customer who previously subscribed at the publisher site uses the in-app feature to "renew" his subscription. How would Apple even know that he was an existing customer of the publisher?
post #45 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by vjo,npd View Post

I hope the first question or statement from the shareholders was... "how is SJ doing and can you please let him know we are all pulling for him to make a full recovery"!

I wish I had said that. You've got a good heart, vjo!
post #46 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonSn0w View Post

I guess some people don't know what a vacuum tube is? Lol

They are what the Internet is made out of right?
post #47 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonSn0w View Post

Since your statement is so vague, I wonder what exactly you're disagreeing with him over. Eldar Murtazin has a nice piece on the history of the iPhone that I read just the other day that backs up his comment. http://www.mobile-review.com/article-en.shtml

Vague? The facts are -- or so I assumed -- very well-known. Here are some relevant excerpts from the article (Part 2) that you linked to above:

"In early June 2004, there exists just a preliminary cooperation agreement between the companies. The first meeting of the company representatives reveals differences in cultures, business approaches, and as a consequence – to products. Apple is aware of the RAZR model, but it is not a music solution and Motorola refuses to integrate iTunes in it. Jeffrey Frost on the Motorola side gets to understand that a separate product line for music models is called for in order to utilize Apple's resources and brand power. Later, that lineup becomes known as the ROKR. The work starts with Motorola's first music phone, the E398, which has dual speakers, an unusual feature on the market at the time, situational lightning, decent stock headphones, and a huge market potential. An excellent, however already unveiled model, which Apple dislikes. Jobs needs something new to present with the product in order to astonish the public; an existing product won't create a commotion, and everyone understands that."

"The tension between the companies can hardly be noticed during the presentation. Apple is not picking on the partner as opposed to Motorola's conduct earlier that year. However, Jobs has prepared a surprise for the Motorola management and personally for Ron Garriques who had presented the player with iTunes at CES in January. Not only does Jobs announce the ROKR, he also unveils the iPod Nano and sets its price to USD 199 and 249, respectively. This is an explicit take on Motorola that does not expect such move from its partner. Against the iPod Nano announcement, the phone image fades away, it doesn't receive much feedback, and that received turns out to be purely negative; it suffices to recall a few titles back then: "The ROKR is a failure", "Motorola ROKR: Instant failure" and so on. A Google search for the word "failure" in the context of the phone would reveal over 50,000 results in October 2005. An exceptional figure. If I may, here is a quote from Slashdot:

"The companies are pitching the phone as a Shuffle combined with a Motorola phone, which makes it a big, expensive Shuffle packed in an unattractive body surrounded by a user interface that's notoriously bad. It appears that Motorola licensed iTunes, but forgot to license the cool that goes with it."


The bottom line is, unlike Google's first version which was pretty much all Google, Apple had little, if anything, to do with the ROKR.
post #48 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleConvertNJRob View Post


2005: The Moto Rokr in all its glory!

In 2oo5 Motorola collaborated with Apple to create the Moto Rokr. Although this candy barstyled device certainly got its looks from Motorola, this beauty does have the Apple signature-white backing, like the iPods of the day. This was the first phone with iTunes, but it was short-lived. Its almost comical that, since then, Motorola and Apple have been competitors especially recently, with the Motorola Droid and the soon-to-launch Droid X. I almost find it hard to believe that this was a top phone in 2005. Its a good thing Apple opted for a different style.

If you think that has Apple design signature then you know nothing at all about design.

My suggestion to you: quit talking about design. You don't have a clue.
post #49 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonSn0w View Post

Since your statement is so vague, I wonder what exactly you're disagreeing with him over. Eldar Murtazin has a nice piece on the history of the iPhone that I read just the other day that backs up his comment. http://www.mobile-review.com/article-en.shtml

Where does it say that Apple design or help design Motorola phone?
post #50 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Where does it say that Apple design or help design Motorola phone?

Indeed. Apple basically contributed a bit of iTunes software and got their feet wet in the mobile phone business (probably any design suggestions they made were met with chuckles and a condescending explanation of how, "it's not done that way with phones.") One only need recall Steve's introduction of the Rockr to know he detested it. I believe he damned it with faint praise, something like, "That's the Rockr, and it's pretty cool." I think that was the moment when the iPhone sperm and egg met each other. Steve had to be thinking to himself, "I hate having to present this POS in association with Apple. We'll just have to design a real phone people will want. That will show these morons how objects of desire are created!"
post #51 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by vjo,npd View Post

I hope the first question or statement from the shareholders was... "how is SJ doing and can you please let him know we are all pulling for him to make a full recovery"!

Reminds me of Ferris Bueller... "Hey tell your son that everyone at the station is pulling for him"

Lets all get "SAVE STEVE" shirts!
post #52 of 54
Cook is damn right on not seeing some fictional play about Steve Job and China. He's got no time for fiction: he's got a frickin' company to run and real issues to deal with.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #53 of 54
Thanks for the info.
It's good to hear Apple on the subjects at hand.

J.
post #54 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Could you imagine what the sales figures would have been if Wall Street hadn't screwed everyone into a Recession?

Bastards!

Wall Street didn't create the mess, government loan programs and laws favoring people who could not afford homes created the mess. Those who create the rules are responsible for the results of those rules.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Inside Apple's shareholder meeting and Q&A with Tim Cook