or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple to focus on software growth as Samsung warns of shrinking hardware profits
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple to focus on software growth as Samsung warns of shrinking hardware profits - Page 2

post #41 of 87
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post
Nope.

 

Apple is a systems company.  Because so few people (even in other companies) understands this, it makes them hard to compete against.

 

"People who write software should want to do their own hardware."

 

Jobs often said that Apple is a software company, but that's probably just because people demand a distinction. Makes them feel more comfortable. 

 

I'm sure Microsoft is feeling pretty comfortable, watching the cracks slip through the facade… 

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #42 of 87
On the software side, Samsung doesn't own its own primary mobile platform as Apple does.

 

In other words, Samsung doesn't control its own destiny in the smart phone space.  They're at the mercy of Google.  But there's a way out for Samsung.  They can take control of their smartphone and tablet future by doing one of two things,

one easy and one hard:

 

The easy thing: fork Android.  Amazon did that to great effect.  Samsung could do it too, cut out all that Google spyware and spamware, and replace Google's profit layer with their own.  Most importantly, Samsung would have a software platform that they could optimize for their own hardware and modify as they see fit, without depending on Google to add features they want or to fix bugs and performance issues.  Then there's the harder thing...

 

The hard thing: create their own OS.  Samsung is already working on their version of Tizen, which promises to be truly open and free of any Google spyware, spamware, and profit layer.  That would take quite a while to perfect, but it might be worth it for Samsung.  Again because Samsung would no longer be dependent on Google, who obviously have their own agenda independent of Samsung's success.

 


The "new Apple," Chowdhry notes, "is not about new hardware. it's about software attach rates."

 

There are plenty of industries for Apple to disrupt that won't require specific Apple hardware.  Embedded automotive electronics control (as in Eyes Free, and fully Embedded Siri as shown by Ford at CES.)  Home automation, including

environmental / security / entertainment (of which the Apple television may or may not be a component.)  And, of course the television industry, which is an entirely different thread of course.

 

So yes, eventually Apple will need to switch their profit center from their hardware sales to content and services. Hardware costs always come down over time.  A 2 GB hard drive cost $1000 20 years ago.  Now you can buy 10 TB of disk space for that same $1000.  Of course, Apple has already planned for that low-hardware-revenue future.  Their content and services infrastructure is already in place.  Music?  Done.  Video?  Done.  Interactive television?  Ready when you are.

 

But for now, Apple can and will profit from their hardware designs.  And, as we all know by now (right folks?) it's the software that sells the hardware.  Oh wait.  No, Wall Street doesn't quite understand that yet.  And no, Samsung doesn't know it yet either.  Oops.

 

"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware."

- Alan Kay, American computer science pioneer

 

Alan Kay said that 30 years ago.  Still true today.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #43 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Absolutely¡ They need it to keep their APR and profit margins from falling¡

Perhaps you would like to explain how selling a low end phone will protect their profit margins enough to offset the cannibalization that would likely follow, because I just don't see it that way.

See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #44 of 87
Originally Posted by newbee View Post
Perhaps you would like to explain how selling a low end phone will protect their profit margins enough to offset the cannibalization that would likely follow, because I just don't see it that way.

 

Okay, that's three. I'll write up a sticky (that no one will ever read) about the use of "", ¡, and /s to denote sarcasm here.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #45 of 87
this is all just to say again that Apple is an "ecosystem company". aka vertically integrated. hardware + software + services + third party stuff.

only other hardware based company that has tried same thing is Sony. and failed. because the don't control their software and instead rely on Android and Windows. sad. Samsung may try next, but same problem.

MS is coming at it from the software + services side, trying to add hardware. but they totally screw it up due to legacy addiction.

Google is coming at it from the web services side, also trying to add hardware now. but they screw it up with monetizing addiction (ads etc.).

Amazon is trying too, and Facebook can't be far behind.

these all add up to a fragmented mish-mash. techies may love that, but consumers will opt for Apple's Just Works consistency.
post #46 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

CPU net sales? That's a weird way for a tech site to note Mac or PC sales.

What makes you think AI is a tech site? Seems more like a rumor site driven by advertising and the need to fish for eyeballs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

In other words, Samsung doesn't control its own destiny in the smart phone space.  They're at the mercy of Google.  But there's a way out for Samsung.  They can take control of their smartphone and tablet future by doing one of two things,
one easy and one hard:

The easy thing: fork Android.  Amazon did that to great effect.  Samsung could do it too, cut out all that Google spyware and spamware, and replace Google's profit layer with their own.  Most importantly, Samsung would have a software platform that they could optimize for their own hardware and modify as they see fit, without depending on Google to add features they want or to fix bugs and performance issues.  Then there's the harder thing...

The hard thing: create their own OS.  Samsung is already working on their version of Tizen, which promises to be truly open and free of any Google spyware, spamware, and profit layer.  That would take quite a while to perfect, but it might be worth it for Samsung.  Again because Samsung would no longer be dependent on Google, who obviously have their own agenda independent of Samsung's success.

The other easy thing: Buy RIM to get Blackberry. With Blackberry's strong (albeit declining) presence in the corporate market, it would give Samsung a leg up in that market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Okay, that's three. I'll write up a sticky (that no one will ever read) about the use of "", ¡, and /s to denote sarcasm here.

Give it up. No one is going to accept and use your fabricated sarcasm tag. /s is relatively widely known and perfectly acceptable.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #47 of 87

I think this article is well written. Years ago, Microsoft figured out that the money was in software, not hardware. I became a software engineer because you design hardware once. You write software 10 times over, because it always needs updates.

post #48 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

This chart labels each category more explicitly, with results not much different from the other one:

 

Are other breakdowns more readily available which would show a different mix?

 

And more relevant here, as I asked above, has Apple made stats available which would show profits from software vs hardware?

 

I'm not convinced you get it yet. The problem is that only Apple knows its figures. Every other data is either presenting the information Apple has published, or is making guesses as to what Apple's exact product mix is. 

 

So, for example, we know that of iPods, the iPod touch is over half of Apple's iPod sales because the company says that. But we don't know the exact mix of Shuffles, Nanos and Classics because the company doesn't reveal those details for competitive reasons. If you find a breakdown of iPods, it's based on guesses because the real figures are proprietary and secret to Apple.

 

The figures that keep getting reported in these graphs are the business  segments that Apple has reported. What's changing it HOW Apple will break out software in the future. Not how it has broken out some fraction of "software" in the past, a group of shrink wrapped boxes it no longer even sells. 

 

No amount of historical graphs showing Apple's previous performance reports will show you how much software Apple sells, because it never isolated all software together before. 

 

For the same reason, you also can't compare Apple's previous regional data with their new reports on China and Asia/Pacific, because China wasn't broken out on its own before. 

post #49 of 87

Apple is selling not hardware or software but a platform. This is something analysts are ignoring. When you look at things from the perspective of platforms, there are some obvious things to look for:

 

1. What is and isn't part of a given platform. Analyst bundle different types of Android together. But really there's Google's Android, Amazon's Android, and various Chinese flavours of Android. They need to distinguish between platforms. Analysts have been grossly overestimating the size of Google's platform. They also look at iPhone separately from iPad and pay no attention to the iPod touch, but iOS is the platform, not the iPhone.

 

2. The health of the platform. App sales, ecosystem, lock-in, network effects, page views, ad revenues, etc. Apple is the clear winner here. Android is such a mess that it's even difficult to figure out what is and isn't part of a given platform. Windows Phone isn't gaining much traction.

 

3. Installed base in key markets. Emerging markets need to be cultivated, but what's most important is to have the dominant platform in markets where software is made. The US is by far the leading producer of software. Analysts, because they're looking at raw volume of hardware sales, focus too much on trends in global markets. They need to distinguish the importance of different markets. Having the lead in the US is absolutely necessary to winning the mobile platform war. US-based developers will develop first (and often only) for the leading platform in the US, not for the leading platform in China or India.

 

4. People like to compare Android to Windows and the iPhone to the Mac, but Microsoft's success with Windows was as a platform vendor. It's Apple who is in the Microsoft position in the current market. During the Microsoft era, anyone could have replicated Windows and made a Windows-compatible OS. The only reason we did not see this happen is because Microsoft employed a variety of tactics to thwart anyone who tried. That's the story of Microsoft's success. Apple developed a permanent solution to this problem in the App Store. But, more importantly, Google has no protection from copying whatsoever. Anyone can swap out Google's services and still run Android-compatible software. If everyone had been able to sell their own Windows, Microsoft wouldn't have been successful. Arguably, for this reason, Android isn't really a platform at all.

post #50 of 87

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/16/13 at 12:35pm
post #51 of 87
Nice way to hit whore with an erroneous headline that implies Apple officially announced this.

Should be 'analysts think Apple should focus . . .'

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #52 of 87
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
Give it up. No one is going to accept and use your fabricated sarcasm tag. /s is relatively widely known and perfectly acceptable.


Not my fabrication, not a fabrication, and since /s is also ignored or confused, an actual explanation seems relatively in order.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #53 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

If you are in the music industry, iOS dominates.  NAMM is going on this weekend and every demonstration is basically iOS.   Hardware, iPads and iPhones are all over the place. You can turn an iPad into a 6 or 16 channel mixing board that individual musicians or bands can use.   They are used in conjunction with keyboards.

 

Pretty much no one is developing for Android or WIndows tablets/smartphones.  It's embarrassing. All of the major application developers are ALL OVER iOS, but NOTHING for Android or Windows devices.  Even on the desktop side, there are less Windows apps.  Some companies are actually starting to drop Windows support altogether.  It's pretty scary for anyone using Windows.

That cannot be true, because someone who knows of these things has already pointed out that:

 

 

Quote:
... it can't be many of the professionals or content creator types because the iPad just isn't very good at those tasks.

Cheers

post #54 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by WisdomSeed View Post

Well they definitely need to step it up on the software side of their business. iOS is looking dated and tired, the same screens everywhere you look. Its time they make a leap in software design and its not just about Siri (which is a leap) or Maps (which is a stumble forward)). It may be better under the hood, as it were, but its not old enough to be considered classic. It is just dated.

Maybe dated to you, but a la 'a computer for the rest of us' ... many people are just getting into the ecosystem. They LIKE the familiarity.

Me, I'd just as soon redesign an interface repeatedly, but I learned firsthand how upsetting that is to most users. One of the first rules of designing interfaces is don't go changing everything around!
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
post #55 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

this is all just to say again that Apple is an "ecosystem company". aka vertically integrated. hardware + software + services + third party stuff.

only other hardware based company that has tried same thing is Sony. and failed. because the don't control their software and instead rely on Android and Windows. sad. Samsung may try next, but same problem.

MS is coming at it from the software + services side, trying to add hardware. but they totally screw it up due to legacy addiction.

Google is coming at it from the web services side, also trying to add hardware now. but they screw it up with monetizing addiction (ads etc.).

Amazon is trying too, and Facebook can't be far behind.

these all add up to a fragmented mish-mash. techies may love that, but consumers will opt for Apple's Just Works consistency.

Great post!
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
post #56 of 87
Originally Posted by palomine View Post
One of the first rules of designing interfaces is don't go changing everything around!

 

If you have to go changing it around, don't do it unless EVERY aspect you change is better for it, or if the total effect becomes worth more than the sum of the changes.

 

Like Classic OS to OS X.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #57 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke View Post

Apple is selling not hardware or software but a platform. This is something analysts are ignoring. When you look at things from the perspective of platforms, there are some obvious things to look for:

1. What is and isn't part of a given platform. Analyst bundle different types of Android together. But really there's Google's Android, Amazon's Android, and various Chinese flavours of Android. They need to distinguish between platforms. Analysts have been grossly overestimating the size of Google's platform. They also look at iPhone separately from iPad and pay no attention to the iPod touch, but iOS is the platform, not the iPhone.

2. The health of the platform. App sales, ecosystem, lock-in, network effects, page views, ad revenues, etc. Apple is the clear winner here. Android is such a mess that it's even difficult to figure out what is and isn't part of a given platform. Windows Phone isn't gaining much traction.

3. Installed base in key markets. Emerging markets need to be cultivated, but what's most important is to have the dominant platform in markets where software is made. The US is by far the leading producer of software. Analysts, because they're looking at raw volume of hardware sales, focus too much on trends in global markets. They need to distinguish the importance of different markets. Having the lead in the US is absolutely necessary to winning the mobile platform war. US-based developers will develop first (and often only) for the leading platform in the US, not for the leading platform in China or India.

4. People like to compare Android to Windows and the iPhone to the Mac, but Microsoft's success with Windows was as a platform vendor. It's Apple who is in the Microsoft position in the current market. During the Microsoft era, anyone could have replicated Windows and made a Windows-compatible OS. The only reason we did not see this happen is because Microsoft employed a variety of tactics to thwart anyone who tried. That's the story of Microsoft's success. Apple developed a permanent solution to this problem in the App Store. But, more importantly, Google has no protection from copying whatsoever. Anyone can swap out Google's services and still run Android-compatible software. If everyone had been able to sell their own Windows, Microsoft wouldn't have been successful. Arguably, for this reason, Android isn't really a platform at all.

Really interesting viewpoint, thanks
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
post #58 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Okay, that's three. I'll write up a sticky (that no one will ever read) about the use of "", ¡, and /s to denote sarcasm here.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
...
Give it up. No one is going to accept and use your fabricated sarcasm tag. /s is relatively widely known and perfectly acceptable.

TS as moderator intentionally does things as he sees fit, because he can. His sarcasm is often stated without the standard sarcasm notation to stir the pot, so to speak, to get responses pure and simple. You have been on AI long enough to know that you'll never convince TS to use the /s tag on his posts.

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply
post #59 of 87

I bought the new iPod Touch and I've been impressed with apps like Djay, Vjay, iMovie and others. I have noticed that iOS has tremendous selection of creative apps for video, pictures, and music that don't exist on Android (I own a Galaxy S2 phone too). It was actually iMovie that drew me to wanting an iMac.

 

I've been using Sony Vegas pro for years now and while it's powerful and popular, it's not easy to use like iMovie and while it's possible to make transparent lower thirds on Sony Vegas (title bars), it's made far easier on iMovie.

 

I ordered an iMac (I'm waiting for it) and I already have parallels software to run Win 7 on it so it can be a two-fer. I have been to two weddings where they used Macs for the slideshow software and I am so impressed with the quality. Macs really do have the best software in some cases. For many video enthusiasts Final Cut Pro is the standard and Macs are extremely popular with desktop publishing as well.

 

If I could pick one or the other, Pages would be my choice as Word has become too complicated and intimidating. Keynote has better built in templates and pictures than Powerpoint so it gets the nod there in my book (I've used Powerpoint for many a school presentation). It's close, but many photo veterans give the nod to Aperture over Lightroom for slightly better layout and algorithms. Obviously Garage Band is the standard for music creation so no competition there.

 

Funny thing about iPads and even iPhones, many DJ's are using them now. With professional apps like DJay, you really can do all your DJ'ing on your iPad. It certainly cuts down on the equipment they have to shlep around.

 

I see iPads used in restaurants for point of sale transactions and conventions where they are used to display photo and/or video promotions. Some hospital just ordered a boatload of iPads so doctors could use them. iPads are used in flight school now. Someone came out with a slew of great apps for flying and iPads are now standard in many a class curriculum.

 

I guess when you create a great beautiful looking product, it inspires people to do things with it. That's one of the negative aspects of Android that brings it down. Their devices are cheap, plasticky things. If you want to use Google Play store to download a metronome, a scientific calculator, a fractal maker, or something to calculate electrical resistance Android's got you covered and then some.

 

It's with creative apps that Android fails. I have looked at and even downloaded some of their picture editing apps to use with my camera and I don't feel inclined to use any of them. It's very much an eco-system by geeks for geeks. I guess that's what you get when you have a company where engineers run the show as opposed to Apple where designers (like Jony) run the show first and foremost.


Edited by White Lotus - 1/27/13 at 3:17am
post #60 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

If you have to go changing it around, don't do it unless EVERY aspect you change is better for it, or if the total effect becomes worth more than the sum of the changes.

Good. So you're going to drop your silly sarcasm tag since it offers no advantage over the conventional one and the total effect is actually worse (since most people don't recognize it).

Right?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #61 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicapt View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

If you are in the music industry, iOS dominates.  NAMM is going on this weekend and every demonstration is basically iOS.   Hardware, iPads and iPhones are all over the place. You can turn an iPad into a 6 or 16 channel mixing board that individual musicians or bands can use.   They are used in conjunction with keyboards.

 

Pretty much no one is developing for Android or WIndows tablets/smartphones.  It's embarrassing. All of the major application developers are ALL OVER iOS, but NOTHING for Android or Windows devices.  Even on the desktop side, there are less Windows apps.  Some companies are actually starting to drop Windows support altogether.  It's pretty scary for anyone using Windows.

That cannot be true, because someone who knows of these things has already pointed out that:

 

 

Quote:
... it can't be many of the professionals or content creator types because the iPad just isn't very good at those tasks.

Cheers

Have you seen the freaks at NAMM? Not exactly what I would call a cross section of professionals. And, the content they create well...let's just say it is a small niche at best. I seriously doubt Apple would ever align themselves with that sort of subculture as an example of how people use the iPad.

 

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/heardmentality/2013/01/the_people_at_namm_weirder_tha.php

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #62 of 87
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post
His sarcasm is often stated without the standard sarcasm notation to stir the pot, so to speak, to get responses pure and simple.

 

Enjoy your fantasy world.


Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
Good. So you're going to drop your silly sarcasm tag since it offers no advantage over the conventional one and the total effect is actually worse (since most people don't recognize it).

 

Once again, not mine, not non-standard, and no. When even the standard one is ignored, it doesn't really matter.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #63 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Good. So you're going to drop your silly sarcasm tag since it offers no advantage over the conventional one and the total effect is actually worse (since most people don't recognize it).

Right?

I started the experiment 5 years ago so lay off him. Just as the inefficient and sloppy /s was invented to deal with the shortcomings of multiple casual conversations in a text forum so was the everything else in language. In fact, the ¡ to denote irony is far older than the /s you are claiming is the only irony mark we need and will apparently ever need. I disagree for reasons already stated.

Do you recognize that a colon+capital-D means a smiley face? Surely at some point that had to be invented and at some point you had to see it for the first time. Did you then say it was more effective just to say you're smiling as opposed to the more efficient double-letter option? Of course you did and you probably adopted those right away, and if not have surely accepted them even if you don't personally use them.

That's language! It might even evolve more frequently than consumer electronics. Whether you accept the use of a sarcmark or not is up to you but the odds are high there will eventually be a single character to denote irony. Someone will likely adopt an existing character and use it and it all catch on and if you are around when that happens you adopt it to just as you have with other changes in language throughout your life.


PS: Nazis!

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #64 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Have you seen the freaks at NAMM? Not exactly what I would call a cross section of professionals. And, the content they create well...let's just say it is a small niche at best. I seriously doubt Apple would ever align themselves with that sort of subculture as an example of how people use the iPad.

 

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/heardmentality/2013/01/the_people_at_namm_weirder_tha.php

Your Google-fu is quite adequate for your limited experiences, ...

 

Cheers

post #65 of 87
Hardware? Software? Both can do the job. Solutions work better. The bigger the problem that Apple solves, the better it does financially: Can't buy tunes the way you wish, get iTunes and an iPod. Can't use your phone as a fully fledged communicator, with email, messaging, voice? Get iOS and an iPhone. Can't buy magical apps and games cheaply? Get iOS and an iPad. Can't have TV shows cheaply and ala carte? ...

Both hardware and software are getting cheaper, which will be a problem for Apple and Samsung both. As Dilger says, it's a bigger problem for Samsung 'cus Apple has already figured out how to make money off of games, apps, tunes ... and later books and shows ... at a buck a title. It already makes money on volume. Samsung, on the other hand, has zero developer allied with it; they are allied to Android and Google. And Apple has ten of thousands hooked up. All of Samsung billions of dollars of marketing money can't buy it developer love; it does kill their margins.
post #66 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post
 

This chart labels each category more explicitly, with results not much different from the other one:

 

Are other breakdowns more readily available which would show a different mix?

 

And more relevant here, as I asked above, has Apple made stats available which would show profits from software vs hardware?

 

I'm not convinced you get it yet. The problem is that only Apple knows its figures. Every other data is either presenting the information Apple has published, or is making guesses as to what Apple's exact product mix is.

You may well be right.  it may be that neither Digler, nor Chowdhry, nor anyone else gets it.  Except yourself, of course.  Bravo.

 

But if you can pull your eyes away from the pretty picture, you'll find that I also included some text there.  Not much, just two questions.  I had thought the question marks at the end of each line might have helped distinguish them as questions, but perhaps I was too assuming.  My bad.  Let me try this again here:

 

I don't claim to have any of the specifics so many others here and in this article claim to have.  I just have questions.  And these are questions precisely for the reasons you noted, that Apple is not forthcoming with the details which might answer them.

 

So while I'm cool with acknowledging that no one has enough specific data to answer them, I'm apparently in a small minority, as others write with great certainty about what Apple should or should not do.

 

That said, it may be worth noting AI's coverage of the conference call:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/01/23/notes-of-interest-from-apples-q1-2013-conference-call

 

In those notes it appears that Apple has included all App Store revenues in the category of "iTunes/Software/Services", as Apple themselves calls it in their PDF summary.

 

Now I can't say with certainty that Apple meant to say "software" when perhaps they really didn't mean to write that at all.  Maybe they, as was suggested earlier in this thread, actually included all of the software people use on their iOS devices under "iPod sales" and "iPad sales", and somehow Digler, Chowdry, and Apple's own investor notes got it wrong.

 

More importantly, as I noted above, revenue, however modest it may seem for software relative to hardware, tells us nothing of profits.  Which is why I included that as a question.

 

And thus far, it seems neither Digler, nor Chowdry, nor anyone here in this forum has yet produced those profit numbers.

 

So while this has been good fun and all, the only relevant question which might help anyone understand if Chowdry's making any sense or is just another armchair quarterback has not been answered.

 

Perhaps you can answer it.

 

Feel free to continue offering explanations for questions no one's asking, but if you happen to have the answer for the only relevant question, the one about profits, your taking a break to share that would be much appreciated.  Thanks.

 

@MacRulez...  You do realize that:

 

Prince McLean == DED == Daniel Eran Dilger == Corrections...

"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #67 of 87

 

Here's the meat of the chart below vis a vis this thread:

 

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/1268196664x0x630364/ad8fe602-72bb-4a3a-bcaf-0e4d2a300fb2/Reclassified_Summary_Data.pdf

 

Click image to enlarge:


Edited by Dick Applebaum - 1/27/13 at 12:36pm
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #68 of 87
I hope this encouraging re-emphasis by Apple on software isn't just word play. Because it really is that important to their future. As already mentioned here, their current first party apps are generally inferior to the Google equivalents and their cloud services still too patchy. It should be within their capabilities to do this as they used to be very good at it in the recent past. Here's hoping because without really good in-house software and Internet services they're going to be in big trouble down the line.
post #69 of 87
  • Apple == System
  • Apple == Hardware
  • Apple == Software
  • Apple == Platform
  • Apple == Computer
  • Apple == Content
  • Apple == Apps
  • Apple == Productivity
  • Apple == Solutions
  • Apple == Source of 3rd-party provider Opportunity and income
  • Apple == Killer -- any of the above
  • Apple == Ecosystem
  • Apple == Appliance Computing
  • Apple == Enablement

 

So, which is it?

  • None of the above
  • One of the above
  • Some of the above
  • Any of the above
  • Many of the above
  • All of the above

 

 

 

Maybe... Just maybe... the i in iMac, iPhone, iPod, iPad, iCloud... stands for individual...  Whatever the individual wants it to be!


Edited by Dick Applebaum - 1/27/13 at 12:40pm
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #70 of 87

As someone who has used Apple software almost daily since Apple started making software I have to strongly disagree with the (biased) assumption underneath this article.  

 

With very few exceptions, Apple does not make "the best software" or anything close to it IMO.  Based on decades of experience I would say rather that they make: 

 

- excellent firmware or underlying systems software (the background stuff that no one sees)

- good and sometimes great system software (OS X)

- not very good anything else.  (Almost all their application software is "OK" at best) *

 

They also have a long sad history of "abandon ware" because of the fact that the only reason they create a lot of their stuff, is to sell a piece of hardware.  

 

Thus you get iChat, Pages, Numbers, etc. which all start off with great fanfare and then are left in the dust for multiple years.  iChat was eventually updated by turning it into "Messages" and now it's been abandoned again.  Since iWork hasn't been updated in many years now, I can hardly wait for the "all-NEW!" "Completely Different!" iWork to come out (we know it will be soon), which will then be left in the dust without updates for another five years.  

 

* - The only exception to this rule is when they buy something wholesale and just put their brand on it (i.e. - application software actually made by someone else)

post #71 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

It means Apple has a distant lead in creating a real mobile software platform and is apparently the only company that understands the value in building one.

 

Yeah but there is no such thing as a "distant lead."  It's made up nonsense words, but hey ... maybe it will catch on.  

post #72 of 87

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/16/13 at 12:35pm
post #73 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

"People who write software should want to do their own hardware."

 

Jobs often said that Apple is a software company, but that's probably just because people demand a distinction. Makes them feel more comfortable. 

 

I'm sure Microsoft is feeling pretty comfortable, watching the cracks slip through the facade… 

 

Jobs was not infallible either.  I think on the balance of evidence, Apple is actually a hardware company that makes it's own integrated software.  I know Jobs said different and Apple's position whenever I hear it mentioned by any Apple employees is close to what Jobs said, but I don't see that there is any reason to really believe them (or him).  Apple is f*cking obsessed with hardware.  Apple sells hardware.  All their major money comes from hardware. The software is arguably just the bit of the product that makes the hardware work.  

 

I'm not saying you can't argue the opposite as well, but everything Jobs ever said on stage or in person leads me to think his main interest is the hardware.  Jony Ive is also the single most important designer and he is the hardware guy.  Remember too, Apple doesn't even tell you (except in a few rare circumstances) who designed the software.  It's just "that stuff" that they put into the hardware to make it work and look cool.

 

They are always constantly happy to shuck off the software task to third parties also.  They would absolutely *love* it for example, if a company designed a good, working Office suite for iOS, it would mean they could put the pretence that is iWork out to pasture and not have to worry about it again.  They created iWork/Appleworks specifically because there was no good alternative at the time and supported it spottily ever since. 

 

People who just quote Jobs' dogma on the matter are not thinking clearly in my view. 

Sure they say they are a software company (mostly), but judge them by what they do not by what they say

post #74 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

"People who write software should want to do their own hardware."

 

Jobs often said that Apple is a software company, but that's probably just because people demand a distinction. Makes them feel more comfortable. 

 

I'm sure Microsoft is feeling pretty comfortable, watching the cracks slip through the facade… 

 

Jobs was not infallible either.  I think on the balance of evidence, Apple is actually a hardware company that makes it's own integrated software.  I know Jobs said different and Apple's position whenever I hear it mentioned by any Apple employees is close to what Jobs said, but I don't see that there is any reason to really believe them (or him).  Apple is f*cking obsessed with hardware.  Apple sells hardware.  All their major money comes from hardware. The software is arguably just the bit of the product that makes the hardware work.  

 

I'm not saying you can't argue the opposite as well, but everything Jobs ever said on stage or in person leads me to think his main interest is the hardware.  Jony Ive is also the single most important designer and he is the hardware guy.  Remember too, Apple doesn't even tell you (except in a few rare circumstances) who designed the software.  It's just "that stuff" that they put into the hardware to make it work and look cool.

 

They are always constantly happy to shuck off the software task to third parties also.  They would absolutely *love* it for example, if a company designed a good, working Office suite for iOS, it would mean they could put the pretence that is iWork out to pasture and not have to worry about it again.  They created iWork/Appleworks specifically because there was no good alternative at the time and supported it spottily ever since. 

 

People who just quote Jobs' dogma on the matter are not thinking clearly in my view. 

Sure they say they are a software company (mostly), but judge them by what they do not by what they say

 

No sure Shitlock...

 

At best Apple's history with Application Software is uneven.  They pretty much treat apps as a challenge to be conquered -- then jilted to twist in the wind. Component software like QuickTime is alternately embraced then ignored -- like an abused spouse.

 

I would have responded sooner, but I misplaced my CyberDog disk.

 

Edit:  IMO, Apple is missing a major opportunity with iWork:

a) update the apps to current state-of-the art

b) implement the 20% of features that 80% of the people need

c) bring parity among OSX and iOS implementions

d) commit to supporting the apps

 

Done right, they could satisfy 80% of the people who need an office suite on the desktop and mobile.


Edited by Dick Applebaum - 1/27/13 at 1:49pm
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #75 of 87
Steve may have said Apple was a software company but I think it was sleek hardware he was most passionate about. Arguably ther most important guy at Apple (besides Cook) is a hardware guy. Of course he's being thrown in to software now because I think Cook realizes more focus needs to be put in to software.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/the-wilderness-19851997-10062011.html#p4
Quote:
NeXT wasn’t performing any better. With money rapidly disappearing, Jobs had announced in early 1993 that NeXT would get out of the costly hardware business. Instead it would license its NeXTStep software, a variant of the powerful UNIX operating system that could work with many processors and more effectively handle sound and graphics. The move was long overdue, but according to Tevanian, Jobs lost interest once there were no more sleek machines to make. By 1995, Jobs told a family friend that he was prepared to let NeXT go bankrupt
post #76 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicapt View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Have you seen the freaks at NAMM? Not exactly what I would call a cross section of professionals. And, the content they create well...let's just say it is a small niche at best. I seriously doubt Apple would ever align themselves with that sort of subculture as an example of how people use the iPad.

 

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/heardmentality/2013/01/the_people_at_namm_weirder_tha.php

Your Google-fu is quite adequate for your limited experiences, ...

 

Cheers

Whatever...Insults aside as well as you taking my original comments out of context, I don't consider a 16 channel mixing application for iPad as a must have for the the broader business user or anywhere close to the same category as MS Office was during the 90s. What is the iPad good for? It seems to me to be a horrible compromise in every aspect except portability. Does a recording studio really benefit from miniaturization or portability? Same question as in a previous thread where medical imaging applications were discussed. I don't see the traditional business sectors really benefiting from the iPad's portability alone. Every other aspect of the user experience is decreased. I use my iPad as a casual browsing device and a traditional computer for everything related to business and professional content creation. I simply asked the question who can totally ditch real computers and work exclusively on an iPad? Serious question because I just don't see it as anything other than a consumer device for browsing and email. But then that is what Apple is targeting their marketing towards so I guess I would be mistaken to expect any other outcome.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #77 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by minicapt View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Have you seen the freaks at NAMM? Not exactly what I would call a cross section of professionals. And, the content they create well...let's just say it is a small niche at best. I seriously doubt Apple would ever align themselves with that sort of subculture as an example of how people use the iPad.

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/heardmentality/2013/01/the_people_at_namm_weirder_tha.php
Your Google-fu is quite adequate for your limited experiences, ...

Cheers
Whatever...Insults aside as well as you taking my original comments out of context, I don't consider a 16 channel mixing application for iPad as a must have for the the broader business user or anywhere close to the same category as MS Office was during the 90s. What is the iPad good for? It seems to me to be a horrible compromise in every aspect except portability. Does a recording studio really benefit from miniaturization or portability? Same question as in a previous thread where medical imaging applications were discussed. I don't see the traditional business sectors really benefiting from the iPad's portability alone. Every other aspect of the user experience is decreased. I use my iPad as a casual browsing device and a traditional computer for everything related to business and professional content creation. I simply asked the question who can totally ditch real computers and work exclusively on an iPad? Serious question because I just don't see it as anything other than a consumer device for browsing and email. But then that is what Apple is targeting their marketing towards so I guess I would be mistaken to expect any other outcome.

I think that Apple promotes/considers the iPad as a companion device, for some uses, for people who already own a computer.

For people who do not own a computer the iPad is promoted as the only device.

Give an iPad Mini voice/text capability and it will satisfy both computer and phone needs for many people.
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 1/27/13 at 3:15pm
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #78 of 87
@mstone. Have you ever used KeyNote on an iPad, WiFi connected to an AppleTV, to give a preso -- possibly switching to other apps during the preso to demonstrate something or other? Being retired, I no-longer have need for these capabilities -- but I would have died for it when I worked for IBM, and later owned my own businesses.

I can see this as a natural productivity use (along with other iWork and iLife apps) to teach, demonstrate, sell in the classroom, boardroom, meetingroom, lecture hall, etc. Sure you can do the same things using Macs and Projectors -- but I believe you could be much more productive and agile with the iPad/ATV combo.

I have used a similar setup to do a preso at the grandkids' team party at the end of the soccer season -- showing season highlights, Final Cut Pro X and iMovie... I even created an ad hoc slide show of the trophy presentations stills and videos captured during the partty.


Edited by Dick Applebaum - 1/27/13 at 4:04pm
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #79 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

@mstone. Have you ever used KeyNote on an iPad, WiFi connected to an AppleTV, to give a preso --

Actually no. Most of the time I am required to put together a section of my work in PPT for someone else's presentation. I have used Keynote on my Mac mostly although I have it on my iPad as well. I export stuff as PPT from Keynote. Lately the trend for our corporation is super wide panoramic dual projector presentations from the AV dept at trade shows which is not iPad type stuff. All Windows PC.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #80 of 87

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/16/13 at 12:34pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple to focus on software growth as Samsung warns of shrinking hardware profits