Originally Posted by asdasd
They own 60% of the App revenues for now. They owned more last year. You do the math.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. UTTERLY AND TOTALLY WRONG . And this bugs me. Because the history of Apple is simple. Doing what you
suggest almost killed them, not what you think nearly killed them. You have mixed up cause and consequence.
Apple survived the 80's and went into the 90's as other companies collapsed - Microsoft and IBM excepted of course - with about 12% of the Market. Not much lower than the world iPhone market share now. But profit share was much higher than 12% as they sold the high end stuff. I distinctly remember, as a teenager in a house with Mac equipment, my Dad making your argument. Apple was the most profitable computer company in the world and that was all that mattered. Actually platform size mattered.
It was Apple's decision to hold onto that profit share and high margins - which Steve Jobs acknowledged later on when he accused the company of being run by "salesmen in the 90's -" which continued to reduce market share year on year, although I am sure profits held up for a while. I am sure that usenet fans of Apple were crowing about profit share in 1992. Later in the late
90's after the very declining platform you seem to care less about saw massive developer migration to MS, Apple panicked and licenced the OS. When they were at about 3% of the market. And since nobody is calling for licensing that analogy is utterly bankrupt.
Pure BS! Sorry...because I am your dad's age and lived through it. The one thing you get right in that little re-write of history, is that the developers left the Mac for Windows. Well actually, they didn't leave or migrate, they specifically decided to develop for MS Windows because... THAT'S where the money was in the enterprise software business and games. Businesses at the time were still IBM shops for the most part with IBM compatibles. Apple didn't play so well in that environment, and they never went that route. They also left games on the table as well, concentrating on the graphic arts and printing industry. Which BTW at the time, was a "professional" niche to be sure, but we were willing to pay those "high" prices, considering traditional typesetting machines of the day cost like $50,000. Also don't forget that very few households had a PC until about the turn of the century, relatively speaking.
Most importantly it was the actions of the early 90's, the seeking of profit and margins at the expense of market share which led to the near destruction of the platform and the company. The very stuff you want now.
If I had a say in the matter I'd like Apple to end world poverty, create endless world peace, and end cancer.
Apple tried to go the markeshare route with a wide assortment of Macs... and licensing of the OS... and it almost tanked them. Margins had nothing to do with it. Once again, it was because everybody had jumped on the Windows bandwagon... NOT... because it was better, but because MS did the right thing with pretty decent developer tools. Also don't forget that MS "allowed" Windows to be pirated to gain a lot of that marketshare... similar to drug dealers giving out samples.
This is not the PC "Wars" of the 90's... and is not a mobile "war" today.
If I was to remotely consider anything war-like, it would be what Samsung is doing to the rest of the Android alliance partners. Google is also on the losing side of the battle, since they still make more money from services on iOS than they do from the entire Android platform. Crazy that!
War analogies are something that Americans like to do with everything and anything. I was personally disappointed with SJ's use of "thermonuclear" to tell ya the truth. Coming from a pacifistic Buddhist... that was down-right shocking. Just because you're competitive, does not make you a war-monger. I have to agree though, SJ started the analogy this time
In the non fantasy realm - and nobody doubts there are other products to come in the iOS platform - we need the OS to be the first choice of developers, and that means more iOS devices of what ever sort - yes even for the "poor" in Europe or the 3rd world. That world will be middle income very soon anyway, and its better to get them early.
Middle income soon: you bet. They already aspire to own an iPhone now.... and when the time and financials are right for them, they will own one.
First choice of developers: Apple is and I don't see that changing soon... because it's where they make the money to continue developing. Simple.
Devices for the poor: why? They offer nothing to the developers... and in many cases, a Dev just porting an App to Android is asking for it to be pirated immediately, rather than some poor kid in China doing the dirty work. Android offers some decent stuff on the Google Play Store... HOWEVER... there are 500+ other app stores out there for Android, where Google and the Western developers receive squat! These demographics don't want Apple for the very REASON that you must have an Apple ID. Many of the carrier Androids actually do billing for Apps on the PAYG invoice... if and when someone wants, say WhatsApp. Apple will never allow that, nor should they.
Again... and it's been said here a dozen times: the people you want Apple to pander to DO NOT WANT TO PAY for Apps or anything else, nor do they want the Google Store or the App Store. Some philosophically, others because they can't.... and most because they get everything free somewhere else, most likely a regional pirate site and/or carrier app store.
In reality Apple fans - who actually know the history - should be appalled by the tardiness in getting around to what came naturally to them with iPods, cover all bases once the high end is saturated, reduce prices on the main models as well, leave no price umbrella.
You do realize that iPods were also not the be-all and get-all in the "rest of the world"? They were over-expensive for most people just looking to move their ripped or Napstered collection to a portable MP3 player. People in the rest of the world did not buy their music on iTunes. The vast majority of them still don't.
Let's take Germany as an example. So Apple delivers a kick-ass inexpensive iPhone for only € 300,- carrier unlocked. Do you know I still would have trouble getting people onto it? Specifically those that trade their Apps and content with their friends, not to mention those as I've said above, need replaceable batteries such as students. BTW: a heck of a lot of students running around with SIII's here... so it's not about the price. They are close to if not equal to iPhone prices.
Actually, what I'm trying to get across here, is that it's NOT about price! It's about "features" that Apple will probably never make available on their phones, such as swappable SD cards or batteries. Add the big screen "advantage" and you're asking Apple to put out a device the likes of which they have never offered in the past... that they or the dev's make NO future income on... that is BETTER for some use-case scenarios than the iPhone 5.... and for €300,-???? What are you smoking?!?!
So until Apple makes the device above and also does a 180 on their iOS and product feature strategy... I would say... scratch the idea! They actually would be better off spending their efforts looking for a cure for cancer.
PS. You're really pushing it saying someone doesn't know their history here. I know it quite well, since I've been using Apple devices since the Lisa in HS, the Mac 6 months after it was announced, and have been integrating, troubleshooting and training people on them for well over 30 years. Ya know... just sayin' you should be careful there.....