or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple, Inc. iPad is obliterating Samsung, Google's Android in tablet profits
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple, Inc. iPad is obliterating Samsung, Google's Android in tablet profits - Page 4

post #121 of 144
Quote:
Revenue alone does not solve problems. If your expenses exceed revenue, you're not going to be in business very long. If you have low margins, that's not a good thing either because not only are you less capable of weathering a revenue decline but also, you have less money to reinvest in the business. 

 

Things get different when you have 150G$ in bank (i don't know the exact number). If they stopped making/selling devices but continued to pay all their employees, they would will have money left 30 years from now. 

post #122 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

There used to be a number of successful, vertically integrated Unix vendors, in fact, more vertically integrated than Apple, because they actually made their own CPUs, motherboards, storage, everything. They all got crushed by "unprofitable" Linux.

Actually, Microsoft managed to obliterate the UNIX vendors in the 90s with extremely crappy, but vastly more user-friendly solutions (and we all know who they stole the UI/UX from). They just grabbed the corporate world. Where do you think Microsoft gets it's more then $20 billion per quarter? At present they are a total failure in the consumer market, yet they get massive revenues, and since they are a software products company (selling licenses), most of it is profit.

Do not get me wrong, I'm a fan of Linus Torvalds, but a state-of-the-art kernel is not enough for a good OS, never was. Android, for example, is a massive amount of excrements on top of this kernel.

The success of Linux is mainly based on the ASP loophole in the GPL. In short, while a lot of companies like Google tout their love for the Open Source, their significant products (like Google Search, Google Mail servers, etc.) are nowhere to be found as open source projects - exactly what the GPL was trying to prevent in the first place. But they lo-o-o-o-ove Open Source!

A great example of Google's double standards is Big Table - their implementation of the patented Map-Reduce algorithm. There is an open source version, but it is different from their internal implementation. That is not against the GPL, but is obviously against the philosophy behind the Open Source Initiative.

In short, Google dances around the GPL, making use of each and every single one of its weaknesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

Microeconomics 101, the long run in a competitive market is for prices to trend towards marginal cost.

Microeconomics 101 uses (extremely) simplified models in order to be able to explain general trends in economics to beginners. Nor Microeconomics 101, neither Macroeconomics 102 are of any use to describe real world cases.

The competitive market drives prices down for one or more products only when they are pretty much the same. That would be the case with the competitive market for Android tablets. They are almost the same, having insignificant differences (mostly the name of the vendor). So, they compete on price. That is, they are pretty much engaged in a race to the bottom (now, that's a nice example for an ECO 101 course, but Apple has no place in it).
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

Competition is supposed to drive down prices, if you're deliberating cheering for one company to win everything and set monopoly prices, you're a moron.

And I thought that competition should drive innovation ... Who knew we fight to have cheap s**t?!
post #123 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by abazigal View Post

The padfone actually struck me as a pretty innovative product. The only downside is that the phone has a rather short battery life, as you are expected to continuously recharge it from the tablet component.

Whatever. I thought it's a dumb product.  Did you see how thick that thing is?  It's NOT thin at all. Can you use it as a pad and a phone at the same time?  I personally think that ALL mobile devices should have the option of having a voice/data chip set inside to be a phone/cellular data because they are a mobile device.   I know Samsung is starting to add that on their tablets.  The only thing is could they all be tied to the same phone number because sometimes you only want to carry around one device, so I would want them tied to the same phone number and which ever one I answer the others stop ringing.

post #124 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by capasicum View Post




Actually, Microsoft managed to obliterate the UNIX vendors in the 90s with extremely crappy, but vastly more user-friendly solutions (and we all know who they stole the UI/UX from). They just grabbed the corporate world. Where do you think Microsoft gets it's more then $20 billion per quarter? At present they are a total failure in the consumer market, yet they get massive revenues, and since they are a software products company (selling licenses), most of it is profit.

Do not get me wrong, I'm a fan of Linus Torvalds, but a state-of-the-art kernel is not enough for a good OS, never was. Android, for example, is a massive amount of excrements on top of this kernel.

The success of Linux is mainly based on the ASP loophole in the GPL. In short, while a lot of companies like Google tout their love for the Open Source, their significant products (like Google Search, Google Mail servers, etc.) are nowhere to be found as open source projects - exactly what the GPL was trying to prevent in the first place. But they lo-o-o-o-ove Open Source!
 
 
 

Have you read what Miguel de Icaza said about Linux? He's the guy that started GNOME and is a LONG time BIG Linux developer.  He basically trashed Linux because it's too fragmented and incompatible and just a mess. What does he use now?  OS X.  He basically thinks that OS X killed Linux.

 

 

The hardcore Linux fans like it because it's FREEEEEEEEEEE.....  I know some high end animation guys use Linux because they have the apps to do high end animation projects, but maybe that Mari being moved to OS X and the new Mac Pro might change that.   There some visual things Linux might cool at, but it's mostly looks.  Yeah, it's fast and fairly stable. Or at least it's supposed to be. But there are things it just doesn't do and there are too many mainstream apps that just don't run on it.  It's great for servers, but I wouldn't recommend it as a desktop OS unless there was some VERY specific app that was only available on Linux.  But I think this Open Source is mostly for college students having an OS to do specific projects with and it's used for specialty hardware where the mfg builds a hardware product and they specific functionality from an OS that's not a desktop computer, but requires a computer/OS integrated into something that's locked down and only the hardware mfg does modifications, but's VERY specific in what it does.  MIdas Consoles have a high end digital console built around Linux, but they also have an iPad app that works with an iPad.


Edited by drblank - 8/4/13 at 12:18am
post #125 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

For 20 years people shipped PCs with razor thin margins and almost no one made money except for Dell/HP/IBM selling into the enterprise market. You can keep pushing the narrative that profit == success, but eventually computing platforms get commoditized. There used to be a number of successful, vertically integrated Unix vendors, in fact, more vertically integrated than Apple, because they actually made their own CPUs, motherboards, storage, everything. They all got crushed by "unprofitable" Linux.

 

 

In business, profit does equal success. That's the objective of a business. Markets will become saturated, leading to commoditization. Smart, well-run businesses anticipate this trend and plan an exit strategy before commoditization takes hold fully. 

 

But commoditization can be delayed. The Wintel business model was doomed to commoditize PCs from day one. OEMs were buying the OS from the same vendor and the CPU from one of two vendors (Intel or AMD). Those two are the most important elements of the PC. As a result, OEMs were robbed of the ability to differentiate their products. That is a recipe for commoditization. 

 

In short, as long as sufficient avenues exist for differentiating one's product, commoditization is not a risk. 

 

 

Quote:

Microeconomics 101, the long run in a competitive market is for prices to trend towards marginal cost. The writing is on the wall and Wall Street knows it. It's absurd the way people cheerlead overpaying super-high margins to Apple, who then doesn't even reinvest the profits back into innovation, but is sitting on the cash, distributing it to investors, or buying back stock. This might sound great for investors, but it doesn't sound good for consumers.

 

Is this really what you want, to pay a 39% margin? Do you want into a car dealership and negotiate with the sales agent to pay MSRP or above?

 

Competition is supposed to drive down prices, if you're deliberating cheering for one company to win everything and set monopoly prices, you're a moron.

 

How did Apple not reinvest the profits back into innovation? And Apple had no choice but to distribute the cash back to investors. We're not talking $10-20 billion. We're talking $100+ billion in cash. Apple had made every possible effort to make strategic investments with the cash hoard. Their cash hoard grew like an overflowing toilet. Apple simply had to make distributions. 

 

And I have a question for you. Do you think about Microsoft's margins when you buy a Microsoft product? I hope you know that their gross margins are 74% (per Yahoo! Finance). By comparison, Apple's growth margin is 38%. So I ask you again. Do you think about Microsoft's massive margins when you buy their product?

post #126 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by abazigal View Post

The padfone actually struck me as a pretty innovative product. The only downside is that the phone has a rather short battery life, as you are expected to continuously recharge it from the tablet component.

Whatever. I thought it's a dumb product.  Did you see how thick that thing is?  It's NOT thin at all. Can you use it as a pad and a phone at the same time?  I personally think that ALL mobile devices should have the option of having a voice/data chip set inside to be a phone/cellular data because they are a mobile device.   I know Samsung is starting to add that on their tablets.  The only thing is could they all be tied to the same phone number because sometimes you only want to carry around one device, so I would want them tied to the same phone number and which ever one I answer the others stop ringing.


Just so we are clear, I am talking about the padfone (the 3-in-1 phone / tablet / laptop hybrid) and lot the fonepad (the 7inch phablet phone which yes, I find to be absolute rubbish).
post #127 of 144

Excellent analysis of press bias.

post #128 of 144
Dan. Excellent article. This is the sort of journalism that The FT & WSJ should be undertaking, with detailed factual analysis and logical entertaining copy. Rather than the sycophantic drivel that Bloomberg and most of the tech blogs are outputting. Keep up the good work.
post #129 of 144
I really enjoyed your article on a subject that I always suspected. Well researched. Thank's for your efforts. It's nice to see that real journalism is still alive and well! Kudos on a superb article.
Duckfeet
Reply
Duckfeet
Reply
post #130 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post

 

In business, profit does equal success. That's the objective of a business. Markets will become saturated, leading to commoditization. Smart, well-run businesses anticipate this trend and plan an exit strategy before commoditization takes hold fully. 

 

But commoditization can be delayed. The Wintel business model was doomed to commoditize PCs from day one. OEMs were buying the OS from the same vendor and the CPU from one of two vendors (Intel or AMD). Those two are the most important elements of the PC. As a result, OEMs were robbed of the ability to differentiate their products. That is a recipe for commoditization. 

 

In short, as long as sufficient avenues exist for differentiating one's product, commoditization is not a risk. 

 

 

 

How did Apple not reinvest the profits back into innovation? And Apple had no choice but to distribute the cash back to investors. We're not talking $10-20 billion. We're talking $100+ billion in cash. Apple had made every possible effort to make strategic investments with the cash hoard. Their cash hoard grew like an overflowing toilet. Apple simply had to make distributions. 

 

And I have a question for you. Do you think about Microsoft's margins when you buy a Microsoft product? I hope you know that their gross margins are 74% (per Yahoo! Finance). By comparison, Apple's growth margin is 38%. So I ask you again. Do you think about Microsoft's massive margins when you buy their product?

 

The Anti-Apple crowd just makes up excuses to hate Apple and it's due to they have some underlying psychological problem.

post #131 of 144

DED is talking about Android market fragmentation, and this article from The Verge shows graphically just how bad it is.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/30/4570582/android-fragmentation-graphics-july-2013
 

Apple user since 1984
Reply
Apple user since 1984
Reply
post #132 of 144

For RJC999:

 

Future history:  I remember that day back in December of 2024 when the women of the world suddenly all realized that a plastic shopping bag that you bring your groceries home in can provide the same utility as a Coach or Gucci bag.  Saved us men a lot of money on holiday gifts after that.  And later, around Valentines Day 2026 I think it was, when women realized that a shiny bubble is a shiny bubble and they all asked for cubic zirconium that year.  Put some smiles on our faces, I can tell you.  And then it was our turn.  Women are usually far ahead of the curve versus men, so it was no surprise that it took us a few more years before we had our own revelations.  It was the 2033 spring new automobile season when we all found ourselves jamming the Honda and Kia dealerships.  No more of those overpriced BMWs and Porches.  What was the sense; the Civic will get you to work and back just like a 3-series.   Why pay all that extra money?  After that it was a quick trip to utility utopia.  We had finally reached enlightenment as a species.

 

Or not!

I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Reply
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Reply
post #133 of 144
Price does not equal Value. Not a principal overlooked by the millions of Apple users.
post #134 of 144
Wow..after a year of hearing noise, nonsense and pure anger at the best run company across the globe (look at the balance sheet, profit margins, market share, halo effect and innovation) someone has finally printed the whole truth and nothing but facts..Daniel I can promise you one thing you will not be invited on CNBC (or other financial media circuses) because it does not fit in with their hype agenda.Nice work..keep spreading the truth it always wins out..
post #135 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post

For RJC999:

Future history:  I remember that day back in December of 2024 when the women of the world suddenly all realized that a plastic shopping bag that you bring your groceries home in can provide the same utility as a Coach or Gucci bag.  Saved us men a lot of money on holiday gifts after that.  And later, around Valentines Day 2026 I think it was, when women realized that a shiny bubble is a shiny bubble and they all asked for cubic zirconium that year.  Put some smiles on our faces, I can tell you.  And then it was our turn.  Women are usually far ahead of the curve versus men, so it was no surprise that it took us a few more years before we had our own revelations.  It was the 2033 spring new automobile season when we all found ourselves jamming the Honda and Kia dealerships.  No more of those overpriced BMWs and Porches.  What was the sense; the Civic will get you to work and back just like a 3-series.   Why pay all that extra money?  After that it was a quick trip to utility utopia.  We had finally reached enlightenment as a species.


Or not!

That was creative and enjoyable read. I was thinking you we're going to say men found a way to replace the need for women with an inexpensive device called the Google Girlfriend for $35 with 2 months free subscription to NetFriend. It combines technologies from Google Glass, Google Android, Google autonomous car, Google Virtual Hangouts and Google Play powered by the Google Services cloud . You don't even need physical input devices anymore, all controls are virtual via your enhanced organic multi-touch screen on a Google Moto XXX Smarter-than uPhone and the Google Chrome-Mirror browser.

In the process, Google fixes the world overpopulation problem. Apple shutters "FaceTime" and "Find My Friends" services. AT&T, Verizon and all other carrier drop all voice services due to lack of demand, dedicating all available bandwidth to "Broad"-band. However, Facebook continues to do just fine, finding that the majority of their user base being female that mostly only socialize with other females (Who knew?). Consumers finally fall in love and show loyalty to Google products, because they believe Googles products LOVE them back.

In the summer of 2034, Google changes their motto to "Making products for profit is evil" and sues Samsung based on two key Motorola patents utilized by Google Girlfriend. The "always listening to you" and "flick your wrist gesture" patent dating back to the 2013 Moto X phone and subsequently finally perfected on the 2032 Moto XXX smart-than uPhone (19 years later).

In the winter of 2035, Amazon, Google and many news organizations merge with partial share ownership by the US Government; creating a new super monopoly called "Buy n Large (BnL)". Shortly after this Apple licks its wounds and moves to Ireland. The BnL DoJ forces Samsung to settles with Google. BnL DoJ settlement results in Samsung promising to build and advertise only smart phone under the Google trademark for exclusive sale via Amazon.

In the fall of 2040, the majority of the human race decides to leave the planet Earth because it has piled up with trash due to the consumers' insatiable need to buy cheaply made "not for profit" disposable electronics goods (with free Amazon shipping!!!* ).

In the winter of 2040, Google finally achieves 90% market share on Earth. Google fans are given one free* month of service for Google Girlfriend for their loyalty. 3 months later Google cancels the Google Girlfriend service on Earth with no explanation. Remaining Earth inhabitants stage protests against Google saying they "got screwed". Google responds back by shutting off the protester's Google Internet service and removing evidence of protests from Google Search engine. Programs the protestor's Google autonomous cars to drive off the nearest bridge next time they want to go for a "Drive". Media continues to be oblivious to any wrong doing. Steve Jobs turns over in his grave in disgust.
Edited by snova - 8/5/13 at 4:11pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #136 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Any company that's stupid enough to sell a product called PADFONE or FONEPAD is a company to stay from....  They can't make up their mind.    That introduction to the PADPHONE was comical.  It was so cheesy...   It's a pad, it's a phone. PADFONE!!!  Totally ridiculous.  They made about 6% net profit.  Probably because of the PADFONE!!!

 

This is hilarious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FdYPgybMQY

 

It's not even hilarious, it's actually embarrassing. In our country we say that what is the smart man shame is an idiots proudness.

post #137 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by poksi View Post

 

It's not even hilarious, it's actually embarrassing. In our country we say that what is the smart man shame is an idiots proudness.

I thought the presentation was hilarious.  The CEO is JOHNNY, instead of Jony.  Did you catch that?    Also his mannerisms and the cheesiness was so freaking priceless. PADFONE!!!! YES!

post #138 of 144
It is also the case that Samsung has been outflowing cash like broken dam in relentless promotion, including saturation advertising and subsidizing in-store Best Buy areas that are four times the size of Apple's. This is a huge gamble in attempting to literally buy a large presence in the marketplace; but this will only work in the long term if the vendor doing it has both compelling products and an ecosphere worth committing to. I think Samsung lives with a morbid fear that if they reduce the outflow, the customer commitment won't be there, such that their whole effort would have been for nothing, depleting their corporate surplus in the process. Like a drug addict, this may lead to more-more-more spending to try to stave off a feared reality.
post #139 of 144
@rjc999 - useful comments but remember a couple of variations:
1. "Sooner or later the App Store's advantages in content will be eroded." It possibly has been already, in terms of titles and overall ability. But Apple's store is curated and Android stores are not. I, for one, do not want AV stuff on my phone killing the battery.

2. reports indicate that Apple's cost-of-manufacturing is better than anyone else. Competitors will have to work hard to compete on price. Since all of them but Samsung are presently losing money, it will be interesting to see how long they keep shoveling money into the hole. As you say, "it is unstoppable".
post #140 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Have you read what Miguel de Icaza said about Linux?

In the country I live in there are two large camps: Microsoft and Linux.

For quite a few years I've worked for both, and that is why I'm pretty well aware who Miguel is.

Now I do iOS and Mac OS development on my own (no decent employer here develops software for Apple). Note, that I write even the network services on Mac OS, so I do not underestimate it as a server-side OS. The Launch Daemon, GCD, etc - they are well thought-out and without competition / analog.

So, I'm pretty well aware of the shortcomings of Linux - all the GUIs are total bullshit - free/open source reincarnations of the crappy Windows. Android is an obvious example with it's crappy and laggy user interface; with time passing the OS clogs exactly like Windows.

Nevertheless, I'm fan of Linus Torvalds, especially of the way he treats idiots. And Miguel has been on Linuses radar quite a few times. GNOME itself is a total crap. They had Qt which is a pretty decent, object-oriented GUI framework. Obviously, Cocoa is the best framework out there; second place - maybe far behind, but nevertheless second - is for Qt. But they decided to go write GNOME. So, Miguel is an obvious idiot.

Now, stating the obvious, that Mac OS X obliterates every other OS in the consumer market, being the friendliest, easiest to use and technologically superior in many respects, doesn't make him (Miguel) any more smarter. Well, at least he is not a total idiot.

What Miguel states does not change the fact, that Linux is on 95% of the top 500 supercomputers. And that by itself is a significant success. Don't make the mistake to underestimate the success of others just because you don't like them. I try not to.

I fully agree with you that 90+% of the Open Source fans only understand and like the FREE part of it. If they understood the concepts of the Open Source Initiative, they would hate companies like Google who rarely contribute anything of a significance, and disguise payments for services (Google search being default in Firefox) as sponsoring Open Source projects.

Last, but not least, I don't like GPL exactly because it binds Open Source with Freeware.
post #141 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by capasicum View Post


In the country I live in there are two large camps: Microsoft and Linux.

For quite a few years I've worked for both, and that is why I'm pretty well aware who Miguel is.

Now I do iOS and Mac OS development on my own (no decent employer here develops software for Apple). Note, that I write even the network services on Mac OS, so I do not underestimate it as a server-side OS. The Launch Daemon, GCD, etc - they are well thought-out and without competition / analog.

So, I'm pretty well aware of the shortcomings of Linux - all the GUIs are total bullshit - free/open source reincarnations of the crappy Windows. Android is an obvious example with it's crappy and laggy user interface; with time passing the OS clogs exactly like Windows.

Nevertheless, I'm fan of Linus Torvalds, especially of the way he treats idiots. And Miguel has been on Linuses radar quite a few times. GNOME itself is a total crap. They had Qt which is a pretty decent, object-oriented GUI framework. Obviously, Cocoa is the best framework out there; second place - maybe far behind, but nevertheless second - is for Qt. But they decided to go write GNOME. So, Miguel is an obvious idiot.

Now, stating the obvious, that Mac OS X obliterates every other OS in the consumer market, being the friendliest, easiest to use and technologically superior in many respects, doesn't make him (Miguel) any more smarter. Well, at least he is not a total idiot.

What Miguel states does not change the fact, that Linux is on 95% of the top 500 supercomputers. And that by itself is a significant success. Don't make the mistake to underestimate the success of others just because you don't like them. I try not to.

I fully agree with you that 90+% of the Open Source fans only understand and like the FREE part of it. If they understood the concepts of the Open Source Initiative, they would hate companies like Google who rarely contribute anything of a significance, and disguise payments for services (Google search being default in Firefox) as sponsoring Open Source projects.

Last, but not least, I don't like GPL exactly because it binds Open Source with Freeware.

I never said that Linux wasn't good for a server environment.  Obviously Red Hat is fairly successful, but financially, they've been limping along at making $150 Mil a year in Net Profits, which compared to others, that's the equivalent of a gnat's ass.  For the desktop average consumer, Linux isn't a good solution.  I know the Linux is great for a company developing a specialized hardware system that's focused on a specific market where they need a free Open Source OS that they can deploy in a specific application that is locked down and controlled by the mfg of that product. Midas Consoles, and a variety of other companies make/design specific need products with Linux.  It's great for that.  It's great for college students working on college projects where they need to get access to the source code.  But to try to attempt to displace Windows, OS X, iOS?  Nope.  That's not going to happen.  Android has lots of faults and primarily because of the how it's OEM licensing is modeled and that the OEMs basically don't do a very good job with updating all of their products as soon as an update is released.  To me, Open Source OSs like LInux is running more like an Open Loop OS, with no one taking charge with enough money to dump into it and make it a viable alternative for a desktop/laptop OS.  They would basically have to create another OS in the same manner as Apple did with Open Source Kernel where it's locked down and controlled with tight integration with hardware and mobile device siblings, or how Microsoft does their OS where it's the same thing just made to run on whomever's hardware, but is consistent from OEM to OEM with consistent updates to prevent fragmentation.

 

If someone wants to play games or screw around with some DIY computer and be a hobbyist, fine.  I'm sure they'll have a ball.  I know certain high end apps that certain niche groups have been using Linux like in the animation and engineering markets, but I'm sure some of the app developers might start looking at OS X depending on the market acceptance of their new MacPros.  Yeah, I think it's a bold move of a hardware platform, but it's hard for Apple to play the tower game and compete when they have to ensure a decent profit and sell enough units to make it worthwhile.  Apple doesn't want to fall into the commodity PC trap which is causing practically every PC mfg to have little to no profits.  Look at all of the PC mfg and see who is making anything more than 10% Net Profits.  None of them are, they are barely breaking even.  HP has already indicated they tried to sell off the PC unit, but no one is interested.  Dell isn't doing all that well, Lenovo either.  No one in the PC box industry knows what they are doing to survive.  

 

To throw this free OS like its going to solve everyone's problem is completely arrogant and delusional to think it's going to displace Microsoft or Apple in the desktop world.   Obviously there are a lot of applications trying to vie for market leader and what happens is only the best survive and continue to make a profit.

 

How many DAW software apps will the audio recording industry support? Off the bat, I can think of about 6 or so that are on both Windows and OS X, maybe one or two that runs on one or the other, but the LInux world, that I've seen, doesn't have anything that competes with the top 2 or 3 players.  If there is a DAW app, it's not even in the same league as being able to topple ProTools, Logic, and the next 2 or 3 top players.  The same goes with Video editing.  Eventually, the bottom half of those apps will go bye bye due to lack of sales.  this happens in every market.


The FREE apps like Open Office, Star Office?  they provide free software, but the Office apps is going to go through the same thing.  Free apps come and go, especially when the developers aren't making money.  Apple has the right approach in making their Office apps run on all devices and then coming out with a nicely done browser version.  As long as they hit all of the buttons, it will continue to be a nice product and it sells.  I know Microsoft is supposed to be releasing a Linux version of Office, but I don't know if they'll make any money on it, and it wouldn't surprise me if it fails to produce enough profit.  Personally I think Microsoft is desperate.

 

Either way, what I dispise about Linus is the BS hype around it.  I usually hear kids that put their own computer together strictly to play video games on a DIY computer and act like its the best thing since sliced bread and think that EVERYONE has to use their model because they think that everyone else is wasting money on a Mac or Windows computer.  Face it, there is a lot of people that have no money to spend and instead of just admitting it, they should be respectful towards companies that design, support and sell products to make a profit and to offer decent paying jobs rather than supporting platform that doesn't make much money. How do people survive with a Free app and basically a free OS? Donations?  Please, I'm sure a company can go public with that model and attract stockholders.

 

There is obviously fragmentation in the Linux camp and it's just something for a limited number of users and there aren't 20 Million people running LInux on the desktop as a replacement for OS X or Windows. I don't buy that.  I think that most of those 20 Million deployments are servers. Heck, even Ubuntu got their site hacked and someone made off with 1.82 registered users email addresses and passwords, so if that all they have registered and they are the largest version of Linux on the desktop?  I just am not buying there are 20 million users.  I think a lot of them are kids playing games. Kids don't have any money, if they do, it isn't much.  I don't listen to kids playing games because they don't use business apps until they grow up and get a job in the real world.  Computer geeks typically don't have very good business sense and business minded people don't always have technical expertise that the geeks have, but someone with a business sense and MONEY has to be able to get Linux to compete against Microsoft and Apple, which I don't see happening.  Google may try, but they''ll only get so many people to buy into it but from my perspective, Android is a pile of garbage being sold to the consumers not to corporate accounts, etc.  Google's answer is the Chromebook product line.  A complete failure.

 

Ubuntu seems to be getting some money, but I don't see them as being successful.  I'm sure it has its little niche fanbase, but they won't get serious traction.  Not enough money behind it.

 

Apple contributes to the Open Standards with Open CL.


Open Source to me is still more for college kids, specialized projects and maybe servers, but Red Hat is going to have to make a heck of lot more than $150 Mil a year in net profits to impress me.  Apple does that much in less than 2 weeks.  Red Hat could be snapped up by HP, Oracle, IBM, Dell, etc. at a moments notice.  The company is only worth about $1.5 Bil, which is chump change.

 

I wonder what would happen if all of the Linux desktop OS orgs charged $200 a copy, how many REAL users would there be?  That's what a software only company would probably have to charge for a desktop OS.  That's what Microsoft charges for their upper end version.  But again, they can sell 100 Million licenses between $100 and $200 for upgrades and home version licenses to OEMs in 6 months.  Could Linux?  NOPE.  They might sell a couple of thousand at $200 a pop.  That would be an interesting study, how much would all of the current users of Linux for the desktop actually be willing to PAY to keep on using Linux, how much money would that generate and could these businesses run profitable.  20 Million people paying $0 equals $0.


Edited by drblank - 8/6/13 at 2:15am
post #142 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by capasicum View Post


In the country I live in there are two large camps: Microsoft and Linux.

For quite a few years I've worked for both, and that is why I'm pretty well aware who Miguel is.

Now I do iOS and Mac OS development on my own (no decent employer here develops software for Apple). Note, that I write even the network services on Mac OS, so I do not underestimate it as a server-side OS. The Launch Daemon, GCD, etc - they are well thought-out and without competition / analog.

So, I'm pretty well aware of the shortcomings of Linux - all the GUIs are total bullshit - free/open source reincarnations of the crappy Windows. Android is an obvious example with it's crappy and laggy user interface; with time passing the OS clogs exactly like Windows.

Nevertheless, I'm fan of Linus Torvalds, especially of the way he treats idiots. And Miguel has been on Linuses radar quite a few times. GNOME itself is a total crap. They had Qt which is a pretty decent, object-oriented GUI framework. Obviously, Cocoa is the best framework out there; second place - maybe far behind, but nevertheless second - is for Qt. But they decided to go write GNOME. So, Miguel is an obvious idiot.

Now, stating the obvious, that Mac OS X obliterates every other OS in the consumer market, being the friendliest, easiest to use and technologically superior in many respects, doesn't make him (Miguel) any more smarter. Well, at least he is not a total idiot.

What Miguel states does not change the fact, that Linux is on 95% of the top 500 supercomputers. And that by itself is a significant success. Don't make the mistake to underestimate the success of others just because you don't like them. I try not to.

I fully agree with you that 90+% of the Open Source fans only understand and like the FREE part of it. If they understood the concepts of the Open Source Initiative, they would hate companies like Google who rarely contribute anything of a significance, and disguise payments for services (Google search being default in Firefox) as sponsoring Open Source projects.

Last, but not least, I don't like GPL exactly because it binds Open Source with Freeware.

What country do you live in?  I'm curious.

post #143 of 144
@drblank: To be honest, I don't see any contradiction between my opinion and yours.

I'm in Bulgaria, Eastern Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Apple contributes to the Open Standards with Open CL.

Actually, Apple contributes to a lot of standards and technologies:

- Open CL - you've already mentioned it
- LLVM / Clang - now everybody jumped on the wagon, but 5 years ago only Apple saw the potential in the project and supported it.
- The HTML5 Canvas - all Apple patents related to it are free.
- nanoSIM - Again, royalty-free standard thanks to Apple
- MPEG - They provided the Quicktime container, again royalty-free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Open Source to me is still more for college kids ...

When I was in college I did assemble my PCs personally. And it was in no way cheaper than a preassembled computer, since I always went for the best (and priciest) components - CPUs, GPUs, RAM, HDD, Water Cooling, etc. But it took large part of my free time always measuring parameters, tuning the system ... Simply put, I had time on my hands. Those machines always had some issues.

Nowadays I find Apple's products to have the lowest cost-of-ownership. Yes, the initial price is significant, but Macs don't break (none of my 3 Mac computers, nor any of the iPhones, iPads broke even once). The OS does not get clogged like Windows and Linuxes GUI do. So, no additional support is required.

The time I save not dealing with crappy OSes, the money I make in that time, is enough for me to pay for a brand new top of the line MacBook Pro every 2-3 years. Or, I can just sit and relax, write in forums, go see friends, etc.
post #144 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by capasicum View Post

@drblank: To be honest, I don't see any contradiction between my opinion and yours.

I'm in Bulgaria, Eastern Europe.
Actually, Apple contributes to a lot of standards and technologies:

- Open CL - you've already mentioned it
- LLVM / Clang - now everybody jumped on the wagon, but 5 years ago only Apple saw the potential in the project and supported it.
- The HTML5 Canvas - all Apple patents related to it are free.
- nanoSIM - Again, royalty-free standard thanks to Apple
- MPEG - They provided the Quicktime container, again royalty-free.
When I was in college I did assemble my PCs personally. And it was in no way cheaper than a preassembled computer, since I always went for the best (and priciest) components - CPUs, GPUs, RAM, HDD, Water Cooling, etc. But it took large part of my free time always measuring parameters, tuning the system ... Simply put, I had time on my hands. Those machines always had some issues.

Nowadays I find Apple's products to have the lowest cost-of-ownership. Yes, the initial price is significant, but Macs don't break (none of my 3 Mac computers, nor any of the iPhones, iPads broke even once). The OS does not get clogged like Windows and Linuxes GUI do. So, no additional support is required.

The time I save not dealing with crappy OSes, the money I make in that time, is enough for me to pay for a brand new top of the line MacBook Pro every 2-3 years. Or, I can just sit and relax, write in forums, go see friends, etc.

 

Bulgaria.  Does Apple have any Apple Stores in that Country?  If it doesn't, then I could see why they wouldn't have much presence.  Oh, I know if someone is going to throw together a high end DIY, they can get rather pricey, but that's not the norm. Most of the people I run into are throwing together computers for $800 and they are pretty much playing games.

 

TCO is a concept only thought about by people that have a brain.  Most people don't have the time, energy, technical background or interest in a DIY computer and since one can't call a 800 to get ALL of their support questions answered and a technician that will fix it, one has a spend a lot time doing the research in the component selection process, gathering all of the components and then assembly.  People don't realize how many additional hours it takes to do that research.. But it's more of a hobby to them and its fun, which I can understand, but after a while, it's doesn't become fun, it becomes more like a job that doesn't pay even minimum wage.  The DIY crowd, whether they are installing Windows, Linux, or Hackintosh systems become so arrogant sometimes because they act like they just split an atom or created free source of energy in their bedroom.  And all they end up doing is playing video games or playing around with software, but don't really make any money.  But they seem to be a loud group of individuals that refuse to discuss or understand TCO or admit that it's not for the mainstream population.  I could certainly put together my own computer having technical training and having been in the reseller industry for many years.  But I'm long past that age where I want to screw around. I understand the concept of paying for what you get and understanding that the rules companies have are there so they can make a profit.  I've been on the other end and there is nothing worse than trying to make a living providing a service but people just want everything at such low margins, one can't make any money.  Being a corporate reseller account rep is NOT an easy job.  I had to learn not one brand of products, I had to learn EVERY thing that I had in my catalog of h/w and s/w.  Which means, I'm configuring CIsco switches and routers one minute, configuring (for quoting purposes)  HP, or Compaq, or IBM desktops/laptops/servers for a project, etc.  This was either before we had the on-line configuration tools or right when it was just starting to emerge.   If you notice, a lot of high end products are on the on-line web sites to configure and it's not an easy proposition to configure a high end application server.  I configured a quote for a HP server for a customer one time for an imaging project and it ended up being a 3 page quote that took several days to configure. The amount of commission on a server deal isn't that much money because we had extremely low margins and account reps can't charge consulting fees for doing a quotation.  Believe me, I should have charged 20 hour @ $150 an hour for my time and added it as consulting services in order to make it worth my time.

 

I had a customer that was buying lots of different server and workstations from Sun (Solaris) and HP (HP-UX) and those quotations were a pain in the rear because we had to list 3 part numbers per item.  We had to list each part separately. You had to list the part number of the memory itself, but then an installation part number and then a warranty part number, PER ITEM.  The memory took three part numbers, the CD drive, hard drives, monitor, processor, monitor card, keyboard kit, etc. etc. would all require 3 part numbers per part listed.  What should take only 4 part numbers if I was to quote a regular PC or Mac turned into a Federal Case where the quotation was 2 pages long of a laundry list of items and if you messed up, they order would get kicked back into your lap because you forgot some stupid item like a drive cage.  It was just a mess.  and there's no room for screw ups.  Cisco switches were a REAL difficult process unless you had everything memorized as to what works and doesn't work and to return a badly configured switch takes an act of two Gods to get things resolved.  And a high end Cisco switch isn't some tiny little box you buy at your local Best Buy or computer superstore. These can cost upwards of $150K a piece. There was just no room for errors.  Even the Cisco technical people would screw up from time to time and leave a critical component out.

 

 

I actually was going to start charging to put together quote for customers, especially one of them in particular because he would always ask me to give him quotes on high end workstations and servers because I never made any mistakes, but he would go to another company because his account rep was a very attractive woman and she sold the exact same equipment by $50 or $100 less, since she already knew my pricing.  Yet, I do all of the work, but rarely got the actual deal.  Trust me, in every industry we have our "special customers' that seem to work us to death for no money.  It's frustrating.  It's a tough racket and the reseller industry has gone through it's weeding out period.  In the 80's, it was a lot of fun since it was exciting, but it ceased to be exciting unless you work for a good company that pays well, has good products and is well managed, but those kinds of companies are far and few between.

 

I can appreciate someone wanting to save some money or do something technical to put their own system together, but when they have an attitude like it's better than a Mac because it's cheaper, I just have a low tolerance for that.  


Edited by drblank - 8/6/13 at 7:47am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple, Inc. iPad is obliterating Samsung, Google's Android in tablet profits
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple, Inc. iPad is obliterating Samsung, Google's Android in tablet profits