Really? I mean, really?

That's not what planned obsolescence means. 

Maybe the question is whether Apple produced a New iPad (3) that was as up to date technically as they could while staying within their normal/established price point to the consumer and maintained their profit margin?

I suspect that this is what the court case is most likely to revolve around. If the prosecution could establish that Apple had held back features specifically to change it's refresh cycle and increased it's profit margin substantially over the 6 month period then they might have something to argue about.

I bet that Apple could easily prove that they built the best machine they could at the time and offered the update in November last year as they were in the position to offer the new chip at a price point that matched their profit margins. Maybe the chip just wasn't ready for showtime last march.

The downside for Apple is that every time they fight a case like this they run the risk of having to disclose more of their company policy, how decisions are made within the company and more financial and operational intelligence than they would normally choose to. 

This certainly sounds like another speculative case dreamed up by a firm of solicitors who have found enough poor mugs to pay for them to try and make something out of nothing. I have friends who have dedicated their lives to protect the weak from flawed, costly legal systems throughout the world, I have friends who are corporate lawyers who protect their clients by giving sensible advice as to what course of action is in the clients best interests and have benefited from that advice. Just like any profession there seem to plenty of lawyers who are more interested in doing what is right for themselves, not the people who are paying for their services.    

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob53 

I wonder if they'll also sue Samsung, HTC, and all the other phone manufacturers who come out with a new model every month.

Except these guys aren't in the high-end market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM 


New processor and new connector. I doubt they can show the A6 was ready. I think it would have been fine with the old connector, but I agree they needed to get their flagship models on Lightning. iPad mini /w lightning next to a Retina iPad w/ 30 pin dock connector looks pretty silly.
You might find that your idea of logic is not widely accepted. Your suggestion is highly disproportionate reaction to a single lawsuit by an organization that doesn't necessarily represent Brazil or its people. Is losing billions of dollars in sales a logical reaction to a lawsuit that probably will fail?
I could have sworn my dad's 1st gen installed iOS 6 fine. There might be something wrong with your device, you can probably restore the device and try again, or bring it to Apple.

1st gen ipads... can not be upgraded to iOS 6... i believe the ipad 2 can...  (ipad one is forever stuck on google maps... )

i own the first iPad ... and When iOS 6 was released I checked my iPad 1 for upgrades  and I couldn't upgrade... I'm stuck on 5.1 but it is moot point, Because the iPad 3 is superior to the original iPad...

The I switched because of the high-resolution screen  and the fact that on the original iPad my eyes were  bugging out due to the antialiasing. (the 1024x768) ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

No, that's what an Apple employee told me once when I was there a while ago. 

 

But I did find this link from a couple of years ago, where it says that the Fifth Avenue store grosses $35,000 per square foot. I was in that store a few weeks ago to pick something up, and there are always plenty of tourists and foreigners always picking up Apple devices on their visit to the US.

 

 

Fifth Avenue Apple store said to gross $35,000 per square foot. Can it be true?

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/08/24/apples-reported-35-000-per-square-foot-gross-on-fifth-ave-can/

Let's not get carried away by the high revenue per square foot from the Apple store in Fifth Avenue. The average rent on this stretch is $2000 per square foot per year - so even if Apple is paying average rents, they are getting revenues of 18x rent. So, the rent works out at about 6% of revenue for this store.

And I don't think anyone would be surprised if Apple is paying a lot higher than average, for their prime spot.

When you look at the numbers like that, the number is not anywhere near as phenomenal. There are several stores around the world, whose rental costs are sub 5% of their revenues.

When you look at it like that, what is phenomenal is that Apple is able to have such a huge store in such an expensive location! Even if the store size was reduced, the revenue would probably not reduce by much!

Quote:

Originally Posted by macarena 

 

 

Let's not get carried away by the high revenue per square foot from the Apple store in Fifth Avenue. The average rent on this stretch is $2000 per square foot per year - so even if Apple is paying average rents, they are getting revenues of 18x rent. So, the rent works out at about 6% of revenue for this store.

 

And I don't think anyone would be surprised if Apple is paying a lot higher than average, for their prime spot.

 

When you look at the numbers like that, the number is not anywhere near as phenomenal. There are several stores around the world, whose rental costs are sub 5% of their revenues.

 

 

Just to explain what I mean - a 2 square foot vending machine in any crowded railway station probably sells more than 70,000 sodas a year at $1 a piece - that works out to just 12 sodas an hour over a 16-hour day. That vending machine probably has a better revenue per square foot than Apple!

 

When you look at it like that, what is phenomenal is that Apple is able to have such a huge store in such an expensive location! Even if the store size was reduced, the revenue would probably not reduce by much!

I'm sorry, but I think this is silly.

Wasn't there a big deal about Apple getting rent leverage in the GCS store? If Apple could achieve that, why wouldn't they be able to do the same in other spots. Second, you're comparing percent values of costs without taking into account the increased dollar amount revenue coming in because of its location.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nobodyy 

 

I'm sorry, but I think this is silly.

Wasn't there a big deal about Apple getting rent leverage in the GCS store? If Apple could achieve that, why wouldn't they be able to do the same in other spots. Second, you're comparing percent values of costs without taking into account the increased dollar amount revenue coming in because of its location.

Dude - read your own link before you post it.... nowhere does it say that Apple got a low rent deal on their Grand Central store. On the contrary, not only did Apple pay $5M upfront, they also paid $1.1M per year, which was 4 times the rate paid by the previous tenant. And another prospective tenant clearly said it made no sense to pay $5M upfront for the property.

From even a casual reading of the story, it is apparent that Apple grossly overpaid for the space. It is clear that they wanted the space for its profile, and were willing to pay Mercatur whatever was required to get the space. This story is spun as if Mercatur was in a tough spot, locked into a long term lease they could not afford - and needed Apple to save them. But clearly, the way this played out, Mercatur probably realized that they could probably make more money by getting out of the lease than by continuing it, and they milked this for the maximum they possibly could - and Apple was perfectly fine with this, because the money is quite meaningless to Apple anyway!

$5M is less than the interest Apple earns in a single day on its cash hoard, assuming only half of the cash hoard is invested in the US, and assuming it earns a conservative 3% on the money. For others however, $5M probably made zero sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marokero 

Don't they have better things to do? Like finish construction BEFORE 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics? Or social issues like poverty, crime, drug abuse/trafficking, corruption at every level of society, transportation, really bad traffic congestion in the largest cities, etc. I was born there, I know how bad it is. Fix those social issues before taking on frivolous lawsuits like this.

You talk as if this was a decision of the Brazilian government - if you were born there, you should at least have any idea what you're talking about instead of spouting self-harming xenophobia. AGAIN: ANYONE can file a frivolous lawsuit anywhere. If in doubt, go take a look at Stella Awards for some wonderful examples right there in the US.

As for all the problems listed above, many of them are also in your beloved second country - just check homicide rates in large cities such as D.C., New Orleans, Detroit and many others and compare them with São Paulo and Rio...poverty? You haven't been to the Deep South of the US, have you? Drug abuse/trafficking? The world's largest consumer of drugs is talking about what?

Corruption at every level? Go check Transparency International's index and see how many countries are WORSE than Brazil on that topic...and on and on and on - the Brazilian mongrel dog complex really upsets me, because the only reason we're not even BETTER nowadays is solely because of that ridiculous "nothing is good" attitude.

and USA was Colony either?