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 2

post #41 of 144

Surprise?  Why is this story needed, pretty obvious if you ask me.

It could have been a lot shorter.


But, true, at least the title and such is, the story was to long for me to read in the 3 minutes I have.

-QAMF

Active on S}A forums.  S|A student level subscriber.  Don't claim to know what is in the articles.

Reply

Active on S}A forums.  S|A student level subscriber.  Don't claim to know what is in the articles.

Reply
post #42 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

Son, I've been working in the tech industry since the beginning of Silicon Valley. Come back when you understand the difference between basic research and products. What Apple does is applied technology, not basic research. Where are the papers? 

 

Let me educate you as to what REAL Research and Development is: http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/journal/index.html

 

Here's another example: http://www.sri.com/

 

Note: it doesn't count if you simply buy the finished tech (ala Siri, which was originated at SRI), as opposed to funding the research yourself with your own employees.

 

If Apple does basic research, why do they get their speech tech from Nuance and their AI from SRI? Google hires researchers, like Ray Kurzweil, gives them resources and grants to work on projects, not products. Apple is a shell company by comparison, going to the supermarket to buy and license the technology developed by others and than prepackaged into a shiny aluminum frame. 

 

I've give them props on design. But they don't invent technology, they package it.

 



And yet for all of that, they still make more money on iOS users than they do off of their own Android user base (which is larger).  The difference in the Android setup now vs Windows in the 90s and early 2000s is that MS was making a ton of money off Windows and subsequently Office sales.  PC makers made money for a while until the race to the bottom wrecked all their financials.  But tons of other vendors made money too, especially software companies.  People gobbled up Windows software and it was profitable for them.

 

With Android you have one hardware maker that is profitable and you have Google which gives away the OS but still makes less money off Android users than they do off of iOS.  App makers are not making money anywhere near the rate that one makes creating content for iOS.  An ecosystem works and has longevity not when hardware is commoditized and one or two players do well but when it creates an environment that is profitable for many.  iOS does this.  Android does not.

 

Again, get your 1990s blinders off and realize you're not set up for a repeat of that era here.

post #43 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Daniel last week:

 

Quote:
Strategy Analytics has to employ "research" to come up with this claim because Samsung doesn't actually report how many phones, smartphones, tablets, cameras or set top boxes it sells (or even the inventory numbers it ships) and doesn't report the profit share of any of these products segments.

 

 

Daniel this week:

 

Quote:
Apple, Inc. iPad is obliterating Samsung, Google's Android in tablet profits

 

 

How can you be certain that Apple is obliterating Samsung's tablet profits when Samsung doesn't report its profits per product segment? It's probably true but it would be great if you could be consistent rather than picking and choosing your side each week depending on whether the report is favorable to Apple.

 

If you had read the article you would not need to ask that question.

post #44 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

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

 

Ha ha, you take one college introductory econ course and you think you can explain everything.  The basic model of competitive markets you are using assumes certain things that aren't true in the smartphone and tablet markets.  Things like no barriers to entry, homogenous products, etc.  But most relevant to the discussion is static technology.  If technology is static and there are no barriers to entry and one firm's product is a perfect substitute for another's than sure prices drive down to marginal cost.  But we're talking about something like the market for construction sand here.

 

You can sustain pricing above marginal cost for extended periods in the tech industry.  Just ask Microsoft to show you their financials for Windows.

post #45 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Gatrorguy, KDarling, rjc999.

Brace yourself, boys.

You're going to have a HORRIBLE decade.

1wink.gif

Actually, it appears they thrive on negative feedback. So, for them it's going to be another banner year.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #46 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

 

But the fruits are already here. The Nexus 7 2 destroys the iPad Mini. Way way better screen. More powerful. Cheaper. The only thing the iPads have going for them are the existing IOS apps market.  Honestly, if there was no iOS native apps, and all you had was a Web browser, iPad would be in deep trouble. Sooner or later the App Store's advantages in content will be eroded.

 

.

 

 

The Nexus 7 should be able to be a tablet that is almost a year old; however, specs are not everything.  I for one think the form factor of the Nexus 7 is horrendous.  the 16x10 ratio is great for watching a video, but not a good experience for web browsing or many apps.  I like the 16x9 for the phone because it is primarily a one handed device so taller and skinnier makes sense, but a tablet isn't a one handed device and the same form factor doesn't make sense.  The iPad mini wins on the user experience front in a big way.  It is small enough and light weight enough to be easily portable, but gives a form factor that is still useful.  As for the screen resolution, when I use my mini I don't really notice anything bad about the screen.  If I put it side by side with my wife's iPad 4 the difference is easy to notice, but when in use the screen functions just fine.

post #47 of 144

@rjc999 

Well done derailing the conversation to irrelevant inaccurate dribble. Samsung is getting their money's worth in paying you to post lol.gif

post #48 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

Son, I've been working in the tech industry since the beginning of Silicon Valley.

LOL. Then you are a "not very bright" one then.
post #49 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

If you ask why I'm here, it's because I love Apple products, but I don't like the way Apple has been running the company, under-investing, over-litigious, and fostering a cult of zealots. They could be better than that. Any company that such huge profits could be acting better. And Apple fans need to grow up and stop acting so childish. 

 

As for Amazon, if you set their prices at the same levels as WalMart, and drop the crazy CapEx spending, their margins go up to 4%. WalMart has 3-4% margins, banks like $16 billion in profit per year. AMZN is deliberating lowering their margins so as to a) avoid taxes b) aggressively expand distribution centers and c) continue to steal customers by undercutting everyone else. They have a lot of wiggle room to restore profitability, but investors believe in what they are doing, and so continue to finance their current strategy.

 

You could argue that if they go back to Walmart price levels, they'll lose customers, but Amazon is more than about having cheap prices, it's also the overall experience of features like Amazon Prime. Often, Amazon doesn't have the absolute cheapest price, but I still buy from them for convenience.

Under investing?  How SHOULD they invest?  What should they invest in that they aren't doing?   Over litigious?  Well, Apple came out and they have and are spending lots of money on their iOS products which was a big departure from way smartphones and tablets were being designed.  They worked with Samsung and Google for that matter, and they are supposed to be TRUSTED business partners and then to find out that they backstab them by coming out with directly competing products to the point where a large number of consumers think that their products are the same thing and that they think they have the right to copy cat their patents?  How did Apple and Microsoft and HTC resolve their issues?  They didn't go to court, they sat down and resolved the issue like adults and as a result, they have a technology swap deal between Apple and Microsoft and HTC.  Apple TRIED to do that with Samsung, but acting like the backstabbers that they are, they didn't want to settle this dispute like professionals.  Samsung knows they are in violation and all they are trying to do is pay as little as possible.  I read an article where Samsung attorneys almost admitted they knew they were wrong.  They were making products that were about as close as one could get to copying the product and Apple's just protecting their design patents.  Yeah, it's a mess, and the legal system seems to allow these kinds of cases to drag on longer than they should and the media does their little overhyping the situation.  But Apple has a legal right, just anyone else does to take legal action against another. Sure, Apple has been sued and they have lost and won cases in the past, but if Apple is caught in violation and they can't reach an agreement with the other party, they pay what the court tells them to pay and they move on. They don't drag it out.  Personally, the eBook case is a bunch of BS. I read Jobs email they posted and Apple shouldn't be held accountable for suggesting a way to get all resellers of books in a fair playing field.  The book publishers were dumb from the get go.  They should know better.  But Amazon has a different way of pricing the products sold than Apple.

 

But Samsung acted like a bunch of immature, controlling, self indulgent idiots, as did Google.  Samsung, being a big component supplier, should not be selling components to companies and then turning around and competing with their component customers.  I guess the TV industry set that business practice a long time ago when TV mfg would make TVs with their own name on it and then supply monitors to other companies.  It's a way these components mfg control the entire industry.  to me, that's called conflict of interest.  Samsung has been caught several times with price fixing and what they are doing IS conflict of interest in my book and should be shunned.  Apple lost a lot of business to Samsung when they started to market products that looked almost identical to Apple's products.  And you are calling Apple childish?  Sorry, Samsung is in the wrong.

 

4%?  I don't know how Amazon does business with any detail, but they are working on a 27% gross margin, at least according to their financials. But they spend ZERO on R&D.  It's kind of funny how a company can have an electronic devices with an OS and software that they sell and spend NOTHING on R&D for that product.  So, who's doing the actual development?  

post #50 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post


This post is full of shift it stinks. Comes back when you understand tech *much* better. If Samsung is so great, why they didn't make an iPad before an iPad? Remember, the first Galaxy Tab only used a phone OS. Why did they need Apple to show the way? (The first Galaxy phone was also more than 2 years after an iPhone..)
In fact, why did everyone need Apple to show them the way?

Son, I've been working in the tech industry since the beginning of Silicon Valley. Come back when you understand the difference between basic research and products. What Apple does is applied technology, not basic research. Where are the papers? 

 

Let me educate you as to what REAL Research and Development is: http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/journal/index.html

 

Here's another example: http://www.sri.com/

 

Note: it doesn't count if you simply buy the finished tech (ala Siri, which was originated at SRI), as opposed to funding the research yourself with your own employees.

 

If Apple does basic research, why do they get their speech tech from Nuance and their AI from SRI? Google hires researchers, like Ray Kurzweil, gives them resources and grants to work on projects, not products. Apple is a shell company by comparison, going to the supermarket to buy and license the technology developed by others and than prepackaged into a shiny aluminum frame. 

 

I've give them props on design. But they don't invent technology, they package it.

 

It's not clear from your posts that you really understand how basic research leads to finished products.

 

The breadth of the technological challenges that enables the manufacture of devices such as the iPhone and iPad is huge - far greater than in the traditional computer industry where the design constraints were relatively minimal. Some of those technologies are well established, such as chip development and fabrication, and are ticking along just fine. Others are less mature. None of the companies that I'm aware of are active in all those areas, and it would make little sense for them to spread themselves that thin. Apple appears to focus its R&D efforts on those areas that are not already being driven by others, or where it is being driven in the wrong direction.

 

Are you really citing Apple's lack of publications as an indication that they are not doing R&D? With some notable exceptions, commercial manufacturing entities rarely publish since there is no commercial advantage in doing so. The basic research often comes out of Universities and other research institutions, whose metric for success (and continued funding) is publications. The manufacturing companies are mostly working in directed R&D, and instead they patent when they develop something useful. Apple has arrived at a blend of in-house R&D (hardware design, software, UI, chip/board design, thermal transport, material science to name a few) combined with highly effective integration with cutting-edge components (chips, screens, batteries) from the big players and new technologies that they buy or partner with.

 

It is demonstrably an effective strategy - one that, for example, allowed them to redefine the smartphone market from scratch while the existing cell phone heavyweights looked on in complete incomprehension. That other companies have followed their lead is not surprising, but with all the resources and expertise out there the results have been spectacularly poor. Sure - they started building smartphones that either resembled iPhones or looked like cheap copies, and they tweaked around with Android to add the odd feature that iOS lacked and then made a big deal of it, but basically they displayed zero imagination.

 

Which leads to the first fundamental problem with your position - if research is all that matters and if Apple were not doing enough - how did they manage to redefine and dominate the smartphone market for as long as they have? They had already done it before remember, with the iPod, and now they have done it again with the iPad. Blind luck again? Or just being better than everyone else at figuring out how to use existing technology, develop what they need, and design better products? Just how much of Apple's cash it should invest in R&D to maximise efficiency is probably a tough question that Apple management spend much time deliberating, and I'm puzzled that you would imagine that you know better than they do. It continues to baffle me that those who continually predict Apple's imminent demise don't learn from repeatedly being wrong.

 

The second problem is your conviction that profit is not the ultimate goal. It's a free market, and the primary commercial goal is to maximize profit, so one prices accordingly. If Apple estimated that lower prices would raise their profits do you think that they would not lower prices? If other companies produce competitive products then that will drive down the price of Apple products, just like we see Microsoft, HP and others cut their prices when their products don't sell in the face of competition from Apple. 

post #51 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

You can talk all you want about Microsoft's margins, but Microsoft was selling Windows for less than 10% of the cost of a PC.

Yeah, see, about that… When you're building an evil monopolistic empire more powerful than cocaine laced with heroin, you tend to be okay with selling things cheaply.
Quote:
The massive progress in GPUs and CPUs was the result of hyper-competition in the PC market

So where is that today?
Quote:
…Apple is now benefitting from, standing on the shoulders of all of that progress.

Oh, shut up. You know they make their own chips, right?
Quote:
If you walked into a PC shop in the 90s or early 00s, you'd see the same bewildering array of name and no-name PCs, from big brands and from uber-cheap Asian manufacturers. They'd all have roughly similar specs, and they'd all be dirt cheap, and they'd all be obsolete in a few months or a year. What's happening in Android is no different than what happened with the PC.  

That's comforting: knowing Android will soon be a no-name product. It's already rendering devices worthless three months after purchase!
Quote:
But the fruits are already here. The Nexus 7 2 destroys the iPad Mini. Way way better screen. More powerful. Cheaper.

What's this? A product eleven months after the launch of another has… better specs? Holy frick. Note that the Nexus 7 2 doesn't hold a candle in actual usability speed, by the way. Also, this same thing happened with the iPad and iPhone. Note that no one cares about those "killer" models anymore, either.
Quote:
The only thing the iPads have going for them are the existing IOS apps market.  Honestly, if there was no iOS native apps, and all you had was a Web browser, iPad would be in deep trouble. Sooner or later the App Store's advantages in content will be eroded.

Good thing that this is the stupidest supposition we've seen on this website in several years, huh? Takes something of a genius to create something so mind-numbingly idiotic, I'd guess.
Quote:
Remember how people used to whine about buying a Mac because it couldn't run their favorite Windows application?

No, because people weren't idiots back then. They're not idiots now, either.
Quote:
It is unstoppable.

Wanna bet.

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 #52 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

The way I look at it, every year, PC capabilities went up, and prices stayed the same or got lower.  You can talk all you want about Microsoft's margins, but Microsoft was selling Windows for less than 10% of the cost of a PC. The massive progress in GPUs and CPUs was the result of hyper-competition in the PC market and the legacy of that was billions plowed into semiconductor processes that Apple is now benefitting from, standing on the shoulders of all of that progress. The PowerVR GPUs in Ax chips are derived from desktop GPUs that went up against the heavy hitters of NVidia and ATI and failed, and so they pivoted to mobile where the tile-based-deferred-renderer architecture works much better from an efficiency standpoint.

If you walked into a PC shop in the 90s or early 00s, you'd see the same bewildering array of name and no-name PCs, from big brands and from uber-cheap Asian manufacturers. They'd all have roughly similar specs, and they'd all be dirt cheap, and they'd all be obsolete in a few months or a year. What's happening in Android is no different than what happened with the PC.  

The PC got commodified and vendors could only compete on price and specs. You see the same with Android, except they're also trying to "skin" things to differentiate, which Microsoft limited or prohibited for Windows. 

But the fruits are already here. The Nexus 7 2 destroys the iPad Mini. Way way better screen. More powerful. Cheaper. The only thing the iPads have going for them are the existing IOS apps market.  Honestly, if there was no iOS native apps, and all you had was a Web browser, iPad would be in deep trouble. Sooner or later the App Store's advantages in content will be eroded.

It's pretty simple. Apple has little competitive differentiation when it comes to hardware technology. Everything they use is bought and licensed from the same Asian manufacturers -- screens, ARM cores, GPUs, sensors, et al.  They have only two defenses against the pressures to commoditize: 1) iOS and 2) try to sue competitors.

As Microsoft proved in the 90s, path dependency in operating systems is a powerful factor in maintaining market share. The first mover advantage and existing apps provide powerful consumer incentives to "opt in" to where the greatest number of apps are. Remember how people used to whine about buying a Mac because it couldn't run their favorite Windows application? Apple had to fight tremendously against that to convince people they could find alternatives on OSX. 

Now Apple is in the boat that Microsoft was. A familiar whine is people discussing Android is "I can't find my app on Google Play", and Google will have to continue to work to showing there are indeed alternatives. 

What the downfall of Microsoft has shown is that, although it is difficult to unseat competitor with a large software ecosystem, it can be done. 


The reality is, mobile computing is going to be commoditized just like PCs were, just like TVs were, just like cars were. It is unstoppable.
Yes the PC has commoditized but you forgot one key thing. Apple is dominating profits in the PC business as well while HP and Dell are looking to get out of the business. Apple makes more in the PC business than the next 5 competitors combined!!!

cut the tech garbage and check me out at

www.appletechspot.com

Reply

cut the tech garbage and check me out at

www.appletechspot.com

Reply
post #53 of 144
It all seems very interesting, however... I have yet to hear one hedge fund manager say that Apple has some sort of advantage over other smartphone companies. In fact, they claim the reason why they all dumped Apple is because Apple seems weak and vulnerable as a company. Most claim that the competition is too great for Apple to overcome and any cheap Android smartphone is just as good as a high-end iPhone. I've heard them repeat this mantra over and over again. Now they're claiming that Apple's market cap is far too high and that the company has reached its limit so the share price will not rise much higher than it is now. The hedge fund managers believe that Apple should have been able to crush its rivals but missed its chance and now it's too late. Wall Street never considers things such as high-quality or customer service being worth anything and only bulk sales matters. Bulk sales matters because it's the chief factor behind gaining market share.

I'm not trying to dispute Dediu's numbers as he seems to work very hard at what he does. I'm only saying his view of Apple is almost the exact opposite of how Wall Street and the tech industry at large, views Apple. I don't really understand the discrepancy of Apple's valuation on Wall Street to the reality of profits and margins, but I certainly know that the discrepancy does exist. Apple is not valued as a Tesla, Netflix or LinkedIn-style company. Not even close. Dediu puts a lot of emphasis on the iOS ecosystem and services as being some sort of deep and strong moat. The hedge fund managers say the iOS moat is extremely shallow and pretty much ineffective. So, who should I believe? I would think the big money guys would be the ones to know the best or are they really just too stupid to understand what Apple has because they're minds are too simplistic.

I realize that Apple is again the most valuable company by market cap even after an absolutely horrible nine months or so and Apple has supposedly been written off as a top tech company by nearly everyone. I honestly can't explain it but it just seems as though something isn't adding up. It isn't likely that a company is failing with a more than $400 billion market cap and $145 billion in reserve cash. So many things I read and hear just don't make a lot of sense.

One thing I don't like about those hedge fund managers is that they usually favor companies that make cheap, low-quality products and I don't get that at all. Why would they want to push that sort of stuff on consumers. I'm sure they're only out to make quick money and don't care about the consequences of their choices. The SEC really needs to regulate hedge funds to keep them in check.
post #54 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

 

Ok, that new Mac Pro is fscking sweet and I want one, but really, this is not what I'd call R&D. It's design and product development. You know who's doing R&D? Samsung. They're figuring out how to manufacture flexible displays.  IBM is dropping huge sums in Lithium-Air batteries. 

 

If we're going to have radically breakthroughs in the next generation of devices, we need radically better battery, or radically more durable, or radically more powerful, or with much faster networks. There are companies dumping tons of money into researching these things.

 

Apple isn't. Apple is a buyer. They buy the fruits of the raw R&D done by other players, and design a pleasant case to fit it into. The idea of Apple being a chip fab is something that appeals to me. Intel, TSMC, et al, need competition. The idea of Apple researching battery chemistry appeals to me, because they have a concrete application for it that should drive it.

 

Here's the question: Since Apple is so dependent on Samsung and Sharp, and Japan Display, and others,  but they have a huge arsenal at their command, which they could use to develop technology that no one else has or could buy, why aren't they?

Apple does have several display related patents BTW.   Some types of research is beyond their core competencies.  It's all about managing resources.  For MOST companies, they usually set a specific percentage of their revenue stream towards R&D, and with that money they have to spend it on what's going to yield worthwhile technology.  Apple tends to focus on the meat and guts of what they do and need and if they don't have the expertise and that expertise is found elsewhere then they will either work with that company and try to improve the technology together or maybe coming up with their own patents in the process, OR they will buy the company, much like they've done with small companies like Anobit.  Apple doesn't want to spread themselves too thin, they can't afford to do that. They have to figure out what makes the most sense.  Apple has the money to buy their own chip mfg plants, but does it' make sense to find the talent to run it, and to continually dumping money into that as they have to constantly update mfg equipment every so often and the plants have get shut down during the upgrading process.  If Apple wanted to make their processors, they would probably have to make several plants.  One to ramp up for production, and then another to take over with the latest process, etc.  Does Apple want to spend the money doing that when it's not their core competency or do they want to partner with someone that does have that core competency.  It's easy to say just build mfg plants when they have buckets of cash, but to put it into action when they don't have chip mfg experts on staff, that whole thing is a VERY different line of business than what they are used to.  First they have to attract the talent to manage that endeavor and that alone could take years to get the personnel involved before they press the button to start building a fab plant.  Seriously, it's not so easy to do.  So why not rely on others where that is their core competency.  


They already have several thousand engineering positions with very little physical space to put these people already for the things they already have in development. They are already experiencing growing pains.  Plus, bringing all of the money from Ireland costs them a LOT of money in taxes to do that.  They'd lose about 35% in paying taxes to move that money into the US.  How would you like to sell a bunch of products in one country, pay the appropriate taxes in that country and then have to pay another 35% of that money to just simply move it into the US?  Have you ever travelled to Europe? How much cash do you bring with you going back and forth to Europe and the US?  How would you like it if you had to pay 35% of all of money you have in the bank just because you crossed from one country to another?  That would suck. That's why most traveller's don't bring that much cash in their pocket.  That's why Apple is trying to have the Feds lower the amount of money they would have to pay just to move profits they made in another country into the US.  They aren't the only ones that have this same problem that put money in Ireland.  It's a common and legal way of managing money.

 

Currently right now, Apple has about $110 Billion in short term and long term investments.  Plus they just racked up some debt so they can pay shareholders some more dividends, buyback stock.

post #55 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleTechSpot View Post


Yes the PC has commoditized but you forgot one key thing. Apple is dominating profits in the PC business as well while HP and Dell are looking to get out of the business. Apple makes more in the PC business than the next 5 competitors combined!!!

That's because they know what they are doing when it comes to managing their business.  Apple can't help it if other companies are complete idiots and make too many products and waste their money buying other companies that don't pan out.  That's why Apple didn't buy Palm, Autonomy, Wyse and other companies that were too expensive with little chance for a return on their investment.    I would rather buy some little hole in the wall company like Anobit than Palm.  Palm was a HUGE mistake for HP, so was Autonomy.  But they wasted their money anyway.  Not Apple's fault.

post #56 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Ha ha, you take one college introductory econ course and you think you can explain everything.  The basic model of competitive markets you are using assumes certain things that aren't true in the smartphone and tablet markets.  Things like no barriers to entry, homogenous products, etc.  But most relevant to the discussion is static technology.  If technology is static and there are no barriers to entry and one firm's product is a perfect substitute for another's than sure prices drive down to marginal cost.  But we're talking about something like the market for construction sand here.

You can sustain pricing above marginal cost for extended periods in the tech industry.  Just ask Microsoft to show you their financials for Windows.

He is right in one respect.... Android phone makers will compete by lowering prices towards marginal cost and no profit. Samsung is enjoying the ride for now but...
post #57 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.

 

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.

You assume incorrectly that Apple's high margins means low value to the customer.  You assume wrong.  Apple can provide more value and have a higher margin than its competitors by having a better design and by controlling costs.  There are many ways to do this, but the most obvious way is by having higher volume. The cost per part goes down but the value per part stays the same.  

When the iPad came out, everyone was shocked that it was only $500.  In fact I bought a bunch of Apple stock the month after the iPad announcement because I trusted that Apple was confident it could make a good margin while still providing such great value.  Here we are 3 years later and you're bitching that a $500 iPad is a rip off for customers?  

You missed the point of the article.  The point of the article is that Samsung is not making money on its tablets.  Companies that don't make money on a product eventually stop selling it.

post #58 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by CustomTB View Post


He is right in one respect.... Android phone makers will compete by lowering prices towards marginal cost and no profit. Samsung is enjoying the ride for now but...

In a healthy market, the margin continually decreases, but the market leaders continue to make a profit because volumes are increasing.  Commodities are low margin because they are high volume.  

Samsung is not "enjoying this ride" because they are not profitable.  The data for Samsung looks horrible.  If Apple only has half of the tablet market, then the other half of the tablet market has as much volume as Apple......but they aren't making any money.  The idea behind lowering your price to take market is that when you do get the market you'll be as profitable as the market leader.  That doesn't appear to be the case.  The only way any of these Android manufacturers are going to get to profitability is by consolidation in the non-Apple market.  That means there are going to be some losers amongst Samsung, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc.

My bet is Amazon will win.  They can sell their device at break even or a loss because they make money from selling content.  Microsoft is in the worst position.  I don't even know why they tried. MS isn't in a position to win no matter what they do or how good their device is.

post #59 of 144
I hate reading stupid comments. Bye bye Rjc999.
post #60 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleTechSpot View Post


Yes the PC has commoditized but you forgot one key thing. Apple is dominating profits in the PC business as well while HP and Dell are looking to get out of the business. Apple makes more in the PC business than the next 5 competitors combined!!!

Nice argument!

The technology pundits seem to have a problem with conflating units sold and profitability. Or as this article points out, it's even worse with tablets; the pundits are conflating channel inventory and profitability.

post #61 of 144
Dan,

Us old timers have seen this before.

You can't see the forest through the trees.
Profits or not, if you are selling less units from market share loss, you are making less money (than you would have).

What I am watching is, Apple has always (seemed) to not value market share as a primary goal and has been very profitable as a niche. But now that Steve is gone, will they now more aggressively pursue market share (lost opportunity in my opinion) and go for the whole enchilada? Why not?

I'm disappointed and frustrated to see they are fiddling while Rome is burning. Hello??? The clock is ticking.

They may be too late to offer a bigger iPhone screen (IMHO that's why they are losing share). That may stop the hemorrhaging though and may prevent them being marginalized like Windows did to Mac in the 80's and 90s.

They better move fast and not with "marginal" improvements. Momentum is changing quickly. Public perception is King and it is changing too. They CAN change momentum, but they better do it fast.
post #62 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8thman View Post

Dan,

Us old timers have seen this before.

You can't see the forest through the trees.
Profits or not, if you are selling less units from market share loss, you are making less money (than you would have).

What I am watching is, Apple has always (seemed) to not value market share as a primary goal and has been very profitable as a niche. But now that Steve is gone, will they now more aggressively pursue market share (lost opportunity in my opinion) and go for the whole enchilada? Why not?

I'm disappointed and frustrated to see they are fiddling while Rome is burning. Hello??? The clock is ticking.

They may be too late to offer a bigger iPhone screen (IMHO that's why they are losing share). That may stop the hemorrhaging though and may prevent them being marginalized like Windows did to Mac in the 80's and 90s.

They better move fast and not with "marginal" improvements. Momentum is changing quickly. Public perception is King and it is changing too. They CAN change momentum, but they better do it fast.

 

After waiting 9 years to make a first post that's a spectacularly dismal effort. Aside from the simple observation that the results from Samsung show this not to be the case, how can the amount of money made (profit) be independent of profit?

post #63 of 144

I actually think that rjc999 makes a lot of great points - but I think they're missing the bigger picture about Apple.

 

1- Comparing Apple to the vertical UNIX players of old (SGI, DEC, Sun, HP, etc) before they were commoditized by Linux/x86

 

None of these companies played in the consumer market. They built specialty hardware to solve specific scientific, business, visualization problems. Things like 3d hardware acceleration and 64 bit architectures were far beyond the practical needs of the home computer user. On the other hand, Apple's current competitors are often building more powerful hardware. There is a completely different dynamic taking place.

 

The razor-thin margins enjoyed by consumers in the PC era was due to the open specification of the PC architecture (allowing for commoditization) and one OS to rule it all. Make no mistake, plenty of margins were made in the PC era. By Microsoft.

 

2- Microeconomics 101, all products go to zero margin, eventually.

 

No. This is does not work for products that can be differentiated. How long have hand bags been around? Hundreds of years, with plenty of competition. Yet somehow there are $50,000 Hermès bags being sold today. How about something as simple as sugar water? Why do we continue to pay more for Coca-Cola compared to the no-name store brands?

 

Something else I should note is Apple's insane economies of scale. Consider the possibility that Apple can profitably manufacture and sell products equal or lower MSRP than competitors who are near 0% margin.

 

3- Developers moving to Android after "maxing out" iOS.

 

First of all, this implies that apps will generally come out first for iOS to test whether they'll be successful in the first place. This makes the iOS ecosystem a breeding ground for new, innovative apps.

 

I run an app business. I didn't bother with Android until, as you said, my app was proven to succeed on iOS. It took me over one year to reach that point.

 

4- Apple does not do R&D.

 

You're focusing a lot on purely science and hardware based R&D, of which Apple does plenty. Just look at their patent library for a hint of what they're doing in terms of semiconductors, display technologies, battery technologies, low-power consumption computing, etc.

 

What you're missing is the work and expertise Apple does in human computer interaction. This is Apple's trump card. Things like bouncing, simulated inertia scrolling seem so obvious after the fact, don't they? Thing is, they're not obvious at all before they were ever conceived. It takes a great deal of reseach in human psychology, capacitive multitouch research, and other topics of human computer interaction to come up with this stuff.

 

You can go ahead and dismiss this type of research as not "real science" but this stance will do you a great disservice in understanding why Apple went from near bankruptcy to becoming the largest market cap on the planet.

post #64 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Ha ha, you take one college introductory econ course and you think you can explain everything.  The basic model of competitive markets you are using assumes certain things that aren't true in the smartphone and tablet markets.  Things like no barriers to entry, homogenous products, etc.  But most relevant to the discussion is static technology.  If technology is static and there are no barriers to entry and one firm's product is a perfect substitute for another's than sure prices drive down to marginal cost.  But we're talking about something like the market for construction sand here.

You can sustain pricing above marginal cost for extended periods in the tech industry.  Just ask Microsoft to show you their financials for Windows.

Hedge fund managers are trying to beat the market and therefore looking for growth companies. Apple as a growth company has slowed making it less attractive to hedge funds. That doesn't mean they are expecting Apple to whither away over the next few years, just that its not what they are looking for. On the other hand, with its increasing dividend and stock repurchasing plans, apple us becoming more attractive to longer term investors.
post #65 of 144

I read the following comment by a reader called Googler in a phone arena article about problem of build quality of the new Nexus 7.  It made me laugh. Because it reminds me about the comments to every new Windows OS when it comes out.  The comments all praise it is more reliable.  For Apple users this is a completely different.  I frequently see people still using iPhone 3GS or iPad 2.  You know their answers if you are truly an Apple user yourself.  

 

"Couple of hours here and I'm fully impressed. I have the old one as well and it's no comparison. Not only is the newer one amazingly fast, the screen is beautiful and the build quality is really solid. The battery was round 50% out of the box so I haven't charged it fully to test how 4.3 performs. Probably load the same Netflix movie on both tomorrow and do a side by side test to see how the battery holds up.


And 4.3 says Jelly Bean in the settings, it's not Key Lime Pie. And as for performance, if anyone says this thing lags, they are nothing but trolls, this is the smoothest I've seen Android yet.

First impression, impressed."

post #66 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I'm sure Apple pays more for components than Samsung in the BOM listed since Apple buys them from Samsung and Samsung mfg them for cheaper than what they sell them to Apple for. Plus the Apple aluminum case isn't cheap to fabricate.

 

The iSuppli figures build in higher component costs for iPad than for Samsung along that reasoning. 

 

However, while Samsung (and anyone else in its position) would love to charge Apple much more than its own costs, the profits of System LSI and its memory and LCD units indicate that it runs pretty lean. Also, economies of scale are pretty powerful. 

 

Samsung might be making its own parts, but if it can only ship 7 million of its own tablets at very minimal profit vs. Apple selling at least twice as many, its going to take that business. Particularly since Apple is the only customer that can show up with several billion and offer a stable contract price for a guaranteed huge volume of ongoing sales. Turn down that deal and your factory sits idle or operates under capacity, and that would result in far greater costs than holding out for a higher component price could deliver.

 

So despite the iSuppli prediction last year that Samsung would be making higher margins, the reality is that Samsung has very little to show for its tablet sales, while Apple is making billions of dollars directly, and from related sales like iTunes, AppleCare, etc.  

post #67 of 144
The prices shown for Android Tablets near the top of the article are real as of today. The screen shot is from Walmart's web page:
http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?ic=16_0&Find=Find&search_query=android tablet&Find=Find&search_constraint=0

Two of the three shown are 4.3 inch "tablets". The amazing thing is how little desire I have to own one of these no-name Android tablets even at less than $50. They will likely never get an OS upgrade. They don't even have the Google Play store. By allowing these questionable products into the market it greatly reduces confidence in the entire Android tablet platform. The entire product line from these $50 tablets to Google's Nexus 7 are just different shades of crap.
post #68 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndirishfan1975 View Post

The Nexus 7 should be able to be a tablet that is almost a year old; however, specs are not everything.  I for one think the form factor of the Nexus 7 is horrendous.  the 16x10 ratio is great for watching a video, but not a good experience for web browsing or many apps.  I like the 16x9 for the phone because it is primarily a one handed device so taller and skinnier makes sense, but a tablet isn't a one handed device and the same form factor doesn't make sense.  The iPad mini wins on the user experience front in a big way.  It is small enough and light weight enough to be easily portable, but gives a form factor that is still useful.  As for the screen resolution, when I use my mini I don't really notice anything bad about the screen.  If I put it side by side with my wife's iPad 4 the difference is easy to notice, but when in use the screen functions just fine.

 

Also useful to note that Google's decisions on the new Nexus 7 are not just additive but subtractive. The retina-like screen certainly is a nice feature, but it also means that the new model gets just (via WSJ review) 6 hrs of battery, or less than 60% of the iPad mini. That's a reversal, because the first one promised (at least) greater battery than the mini (and still didn't sell the way Google expected).

 

The Nexus 7 has also suffered through a year of defective software that frequently rendered it unusable, even to techy reviewers who had the spare time to try fixes over and over. While Google has now addressed one major, central problem in the new model's software, it's hard to erase a reputation, particularly among mainstream users who don't follow tech news on a daily basis. 

 

If you buy a Ford and have a terrible lemon experience with it, you don't spend the rest of your life trying to make excuses for Ford. You spend the rest of your days with a negative impression of the brand that is hard to erase because you're that much less likely to even give Ford a chance again. 

post #69 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8thman View Post

Dan,

Us old timers have seen this before.

You can't see the forest through the trees.

It's "can't see the forest for the trees" not through. The forest isn't through the trees. The forest is the trees. And you're looking at a close up view of bark.
post #70 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

It all seems very interesting, however... I have yet to hear one hedge fund manager say that Apple has some sort of advantage over other smartphone companies. In fact, they claim the reason why they all dumped Apple is because Apple seems weak and vulnerable as a company. Most claim that the competition is too great for Apple to overcome and any cheap Android smartphone is just as good as a high-end iPhone. I've heard them repeat this mantra over and over again. Now they're claiming that Apple's market cap is far too high and that the company has reached its limit so the share price will not rise much higher than it is now. The hedge fund managers believe that Apple should have been able to crush its rivals but missed its chance and now it's too late. Wall Street never considers things such as high-quality or customer service being worth anything and only bulk sales matters. Bulk sales matters because it's the chief factor behind gaining market share.

I'm not trying to dispute Dediu's numbers as he seems to work very hard at what he does. I'm only saying his view of Apple is almost the exact opposite of how Wall Street and the tech industry at large, views Apple. I don't really understand the discrepancy of Apple's valuation on Wall Street to the reality of profits and margins, but I certainly know that the discrepancy does exist. Apple is not valued as a Tesla, Netflix or LinkedIn-style company. Not even close. Dediu puts a lot of emphasis on the iOS ecosystem and services as being some sort of deep and strong moat. The hedge fund managers say the iOS moat is extremely shallow and pretty much ineffective. So, who should I believe? I would think the big money guys would be the ones to know the best or are they really just too stupid to understand what Apple has because they're minds are too simplistic.

I realize that Apple is again the most valuable company by market cap even after an absolutely horrible nine months or so and Apple has supposedly been written off as a top tech company by nearly everyone. I honestly can't explain it but it just seems as though something isn't adding up. It isn't likely that a company is failing with a more than $400 billion market cap and $145 billion in reserve cash. So many things I read and hear just don't make a lot of sense.

One thing I don't like about those hedge fund managers is that they usually favor companies that make cheap, low-quality products and I don't get that at all. Why would they want to push that sort of stuff on consumers. I'm sure they're only out to make quick money and don't care about the consequences of their choices. The SEC really needs to regulate hedge funds to keep them in check.

 

Never bet on hunches based on simple thinking over the analysis of a guy who brings data to the table. Asymco has regularly depicted models that turn out to be correct and inline with observable facts.

 

The hedge funds are the same people who couldn't decide if Apple was worth $700 billion or $380 billion within the space of ~six months, after similarly betting against Apple back and forth in 2008 (insanely doubling and halving Apple's market cap) with similar reasoning of "macroeconomic can't compete" blustering that in retrospect was clearly wrong.  

 

Their speculative efforts to move cash in and out of Apple securities is based on shell game numerology. They are not investing in fundamentals. They are highbrow check kiters.

post #71 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Also useful to note that Google's decisions on the new Nexus 7 are not just additive but subtractive. The retina-like screen certainly is a nice feature, but it also means that the new model gets just (via WSJ review) 6 hrs of battery, or less than 60% of the iPad mini. That's a reversal, because the first one promised (at least) greater battery than the mini (and still didn't sell the way Google expected).

The Nexus 7 has also suffered through a year of defective software that frequently rendered it unusable, even to techy reviewers who had the spare time to try fixes over and over. While Google has now addressed one major, central problem in the new model's software, it's hard to erase a reputation, particularly among mainstream users who don't follow tech news on a daily basis. 

If you buy a Ford and have a terrible lemon experience with it, you don't spend the rest of your life trying to make excuses for Ford. You spend the rest of your days with a negative impression of the brand that is hard to erase because you're that much less likely to even give Ford a chance again. 

Do we know how well the first Nexus 7 sold over the last year? I'm just curious.

I don't recall hearing anything from Google... nor do I remember seeing ASUS in the list of top 5 tablet manufacturers.

Or maybe they're lumped into "Other" ?

My point is... we spent a lot of time talking about the first Nexus 7... and it seems to be starting again with the new model. I was just wondering if the Nexus 7 is actually worthy of all this talk.

There was talk that the original Nexus 7 was the "iPad mini killer"

Don't you have to outsell the iPad mini first? And then get people to stop buying the iPad mini altogether in order to kill it?

Yeah that didn't happen.

Maybe the Nexus 7 is a "Kindle Fire killer" 1tongue.gif
post #72 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8thman View Post

Dan,

Us old timers have seen this before.

You can't see the forest through the trees.
Profits or not, if you are selling less units from market share loss, you are making less money (than you would have).

What I am watching is, Apple has always (seemed) to not value market share as a primary goal and has been very profitable as a niche. But now that Steve is gone, will they now more aggressively pursue market share (lost opportunity in my opinion) and go for the whole enchilada? Why not?

I'm disappointed and frustrated to see they are fiddling while Rome is burning. Hello??? The clock is ticking.

They may be too late to offer a bigger iPhone screen (IMHO that's why they are losing share). That may stop the hemorrhaging though and may prevent them being marginalized like Windows did to Mac in the 80's and 90s.

They better move fast and not with "marginal" improvements. Momentum is changing quickly. Public perception is King and it is changing too. They CAN change momentum, but they better do it fast.

It's easy to say Apple "needs more market share," but what about everyone else: does Samsung? Does Amazon, Microsoft, Google Nexus Motorola? Why does just Apple "need market share"? Quite obviously, everyone wants as big of a share of the market as possible, including Apple. The questions is: how?

 

Samsung's focus on market share uber alles (shared by Google and Android in general) is not beating Apple's focus on making products people want. You can look at it as if Apple "lost market share" on the iPad as tons of android devices ship, but the reality is that Samsung was in the tablet market first, rapidly lost its lead  to iPad, and is now only winning back worthless share that isn't generating profits. 

 

It's critical to see the market as not just how much inventory companies can create, but how many devices they can sell.

 

Additionally, the "market" for tablets is not one huge equivalent commodity bin where consumers pick between identical devices. People interested in iPads (consumers, education, enterprise) are buying iPads and not considering any of these low end tablets at all. People who want $35 tablets were never in the "market" to buy an iPad. You are making the logical leap that any tablet shipped is a lost sale for Apple. That's not remotely true. 

 

Throwing tablets sales all together and smirking at Apple for "only" selling 14 million iPads at a sustainable profit while Samsung increases its inventory of Galaxy Tabs by 7 million and is forced to give them away, and Microsoft builds up an inventory of millions of Surfaces it is losing a billion on at fire sale, and as everyone else ships tablets that nobody wants -- that's not one market with "share" accorded equally in proportion to shipments. 

 

It was a very different situation in the early/mid 1990s when Apple itself was sitting on huge inventories of Performas nobody wanted and not making enough PowerBooks that people did want, while the rest of the industry was making a functional profit selling low cost, lower end PCs that people actually did buy and use, creating a powerful alternative platform that eventually ate up most of the differentiating value Apple could offer with the Mac. Completely different!

 

Every Windows PC sold was essentially a lost Mac opportunity, if (!) Apple had been able to develop a low end Mac of similar value. Remember that Apple actually maintained a large share of notebooks for years. Meanwhile, there weren't fractions of the Windows platform stuck in the past. Virtually any PC could run Win16, and when Win32 was delivered, it was a software upgrade to run that too. Android is not progressively updating its installed base.  

 

Had Google built Android into a good enough platform for apps and driven Android tablets into the enterprise while Apple just sold iPads to schools and artists, we might have seen another Windows Emprise played out by Google's Android. But Google didn't do that. It has no business standing with Android anything, its consumer platform is weak and doesn't even run games that well, and the time is up for Google because Samsung is taking over Android with its own Hub ads, IAP,  and proprietary APIs designed to convert Android into its own proprietary platform. This year!

 

Samsung might become an iOS threat, but so far, it hasn't shown much software and platform competency. In any case, even if it can pull off slitting Google's Android throat and shake down the body for some change, it is still far behind Apple in building an ecosystem, and after doing to Google what it tried to do to Apple, I'm thinking the Android community is not going to be very receptive about continuing to volunteer as Samsung's free labor, any more than Apple could sit back and ask a bunch of volunteers to maintain OS X and iOS for it at no cost. 

post #73 of 144

Great to see a lot of thoughtful replies to this article!

post #74 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8thman View Post

They may be too late to offer a bigger iPhone screen (IMHO that's why they are losing share). That may stop the hemorrhaging though and may prevent them being marginalized like Windows did to Mac in the 80's and 90s..

They are losing share because the market is expanding faster. An increase of iPhones yoy is not hemmoraging.

While I do thing Apple will release a 5", it isn't imperative they do so.
post #75 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Great to see a lot of thoughtful replies to this article!

 

Good to see you participating too. Nice article, by the way.

post #76 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.

 

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.

 

First post! I think you are the moron, as long as Apple produces a first class OS on the desktop or in mobile they control their fate, Moron!

post #77 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

The way I look at it, every year, PC capabilities went up, and prices stayed the same or got lower.  You can talk all you want about Microsoft's margins, but Microsoft was selling Windows for less than 10% of the cost of a PC. The massive progress in GPUs and CPUs was the result of hyper-competition in the PC market and the legacy of that was billions plowed into semiconductor processes that Apple is now benefitting from, standing on the shoulders of all of that progress. The PowerVR GPUs in Ax chips are derived from desktop GPUs that went up against the heavy hitters of NVidia and ATI and failed, and so they pivoted to mobile where the tile-based-deferred-renderer architecture works much better from an efficiency standpoint.

 

If you walked into a PC shop in the 90s or early 00s, you'd see the same bewildering array of name and no-name PCs, from big brands and from uber-cheap Asian manufacturers. They'd all have roughly similar specs, and they'd all be dirt cheap, and they'd all be obsolete in a few months or a year. What's happening in Android is no different than what happened with the PC.  

 

The PC got commodified and vendors could only compete on price and specs. You see the same with Android, except they're also trying to "skin" things to differentiate, which Microsoft limited or prohibited for Windows. 

 

But the fruits are already here. The Nexus 7 2 destroys the iPad Mini. Way way better screen. More powerful. Cheaper. The only thing the iPads have going for them are the existing IOS apps market.  Honestly, if there was no iOS native apps, and all you had was a Web browser, iPad would be in deep trouble. Sooner or later the App Store's advantages in content will be eroded.

 

It's pretty simple. Apple has little competitive differentiation when it comes to hardware technology. Everything they use is bought and licensed from the same Asian manufacturers -- screens, ARM cores, GPUs, sensors, et al.  They have only two defenses against the pressures to commoditize: 1) iOS and 2) try to sue competitors.

 

As Microsoft proved in the 90s, path dependency in operating systems is a powerful factor in maintaining market share. The first mover advantage and existing apps provide powerful consumer incentives to "opt in" to where the greatest number of apps are. Remember how people used to whine about buying a Mac because it couldn't run their favorite Windows application? Apple had to fight tremendously against that to convince people they could find alternatives on OSX. 

 

Now Apple is in the boat that Microsoft was. A familiar whine is people discussing Android is "I can't find my app on Google Play", and Google will have to continue to work to showing there are indeed alternatives. 

 

What the downfall of Microsoft has shown is that, although it is difficult to unseat competitor with a large software ecosystem, it can be done. 

 

 

The reality is, mobile computing is going to be commoditized just like PCs were, just like TVs were, just like cars were. It is unstoppable.

 

Give up!

post #78 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

 Apple is a buyer. They buy the fruits of the raw R&D done by other players, and design a pleasant case to fit it into. 

Well everyone has their niche. The important part is to do it well. Apple integrates hardware and software beautifully.

 

Why should a master carpenter grow his own trees?  Jack of all trades master of none is not in the Apple culture.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #79 of 144
It is likely that Samsung's success with the phablet has hurt its own tablet sales as well as cut into Apple's phone and tablet sales a bit.
post #80 of 144
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.

I would say the moron is the one who doesn't understand the words he uses - like 'monopoly'.

Apple offers a superior product that people are willing to pay a premium for. That's what competition is about. If and when someone else offers a product that people want as much as they want idevices, then the competition will bring the price down. Until then, you should be complaining that none of your Googledroid devices are good enough to provide competition for Apple.
"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
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