or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › The Apple Era begins as Microsoft, Google shift to a hardware centric model
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Apple Era begins as Microsoft, Google shift to a hardware centric model - Page 4

post #121 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Really? Buyers of the only two OS's pre-installed on pc's (for the most part) don't install Linux after-the-fact proves no one would want to use it?

 

I'm saying anyone who wants to run Linux can. There are NO BARRIERS to that. Microsoft is not preventing you from installing Linux. Microsoft only took choice away from OEMs. They didn't take choice away from customers. So the measured customer adoption rate of Linux reflects actual real-world customer demand for it. That statement is practically a tautology. How can you disagree with that?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I think it only shows that users just accept whatever the computer came with as a rule as well as an acknowledgement that no major OEM ever took up the Linux banner.

 

Do you really believe customer don't think about whether their new PC can run Office or their favorite games? Do they just accept it when they can't? People used to buy computers to run specific programs. They know what OS they're getting.  If customers were that accepting of whatever their computer came with, why didn't they accept Windows Vista? Why did they demand Windows XP downgrade rights? OEMs can't trick people into using Linux. That'll never work.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #122 of 178

While I agree that this is a change for MS, I would hardly consider their Monopoly ended and I would certainly not be convinced that the Microsoft strategy failed.   Windows is on 4 out of 5 computers in the world! 

post #123 of 178
Hi there,


I would like to comment but can't write while laughing! sorry ;-)
post #124 of 178
Hi there,


I would like to comment but can't write while laughing! sorry ;-)
post #125 of 178
Excellent article, you could add the Amazon ponzi scheme under the heading of tech writing denialism.
post #126 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by politicalslug View Post


2. You honestly believe that Google made the wrong decision by backing Android at the expense of their relationship with Apple? You mentioned Google is paying a heavy price. Google's market cap around the time they announced Android and pissed off Apple was about 150 billion. Now Google's market cap is 292, virtually double what it was then. So in the time Android has been around Google has doubled in value. How are paying a price. Sure they've made some bad buys (Motorola comes to mind) but none of it holds a candle to the growth attributable to their newfound mobile empire. I think it's a safe bet that not a single Google shareholder regrets Android's inception. Sure, Apple has grown even more in the same time frame, but either way Google played it, that success wouldn't have boosted their own numbers, hence Android was the right move for Google.

As a Google share holder, I assure you I think Android has slowed down their growth and honestly believe the hostilities between Apple and Google has hurt Google's revenue, profit and share price. And Apples's as well but Google's more.
post #127 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I'm saying anyone who wants to run Linux can. There are NO BARRIERS to that. Microsoft is not preventing you from installing Linux. Microsoft only took choice away from OEMs. They didn't take choice away from customers. So the measured customer adoption rate of Linux reflects actual real-world customer demand for it. That statement is practically a tautology. How can you disagree with that?


Do you really believe customer don't think about whether their new PC can run Office or their favorite games? Do they just accept it when they can't? People used to buy computers to run specific programs. They know what OS they're getting.  If customers were that accepting of whatever their computer came with, why didn't they accept Windows Vista? Why did they demand Windows XP downgrade rights? OEMs can't trick people into using Linux. That'll never work.
Absolutely some people care whether what version OS they run. As long as its the newest I don't think MOST folks give it a second thought.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #128 of 178
The Nexus 7, while not a blockbuster, was extremely popular. It sold more than any other Android tablet at the time. I'm not sure it can be accurately called a failure, since it did make a (tiny) profit.

But yes, just like Tim Cook said, even mine is not being used, and it's collecting dust in a cabinet somewhere. Android still hasn't gotten the tablet interface right and there are no apps built for the form factor. Plus, 16:9 is an *awful* resolution for a tablet. Much prefer my iPads.
post #129 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

As a Google share holder, I assure you I think Android has slowed down their growth and honestly believe the hostilities between Apple and Google has hurt Google's revenue, profit and share price. And Apples's as well but Google's more.

True but imagine the world of hurt Google would've found themselves in if Apple decided it no longer needed Google's services because they made their own, or found cheaper alternatives.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #130 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

Whatever happened to the days when Apple insisted and was all in support of saying owning both the hardware and software was evil and gave a company *way* too much market power?  Remember the 'Big Brother' commercial?

 

Apple never insisted and was never in support of saying that owning both the hardware and software was evil.  The "Big Brother" commercial was a response to the DOMINANT market share that IBM had at that time.  IBM was the Microsoft of the early 1980s.  If the "Big Brother" commercial was run in 1996, Microsoft would have been the target.  

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

 I'm okay with it because Apple can be easily avoided.  If they actually had more market share that would be a terrible thing for everyone (except Apple), and Apple would be in a position to abuse their clout much more than they currently do.  Watching that 'Big Brother' commercial is a little creepy now because maybe it was just Apple prophesizing what it would become with its followers =)  Steve was pretty brilliant that way.

 

You are contradicting yourself multiple times in the above paragraph.  If Apple can be avoided then why are you implying that it is similar to the "Big Brother" in the commercial?  The "Big Brother" commercial was directed at IBM precisely because IBM could not be avoided at that time.  A "Big Brother" commercial should have been created in mid-1990s for Microsoft. 

post #131 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

The only real competitor who fell victim to those practices was Novell and DR-DOS. It kept them off the PC. DR-DOS was a MS-DOS clone.

 

Let's not forget IBM's OS/2.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

What you're arguing is that "if only Microsoft wasn't anticompetitive in the past, they wouldn't be on some 95% of x86 PCs today." The flaw in that argument is that Microsoft's practices only prevented OEMs from pre-installing Linux on PCs; nothing stopped customers who wanted Linux (or BSD or NextStep) from installing them onto PCs. That has always been the case (I installed my first distro from floppy disks borrowed from a friend). So the actual adoption rate of Linux on the PC reflects true consumer demand
 

You apparently don't understand Microsoft's anticompetitive practices.  Of course nothing stopped consumers from installing Linux or OS/2 or PC-DOS or any other IBM clone OS on their computers.  The key difference you failed to appreciate was that Microsoft ALREADY GOT ITS MONEY when the computer was sold to the consumer.  This is called the MICROSOFT TOLL BRIDGE: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1012_3-5175536.html

 

So the consumer not only paid Microsoft for an operating system that the consumer did not want, the consumer also had to pay a different OS vendor (OS/2, Novell, PC-DOS, etc.) to install a different OS on their computer.  Linux didn't exist in the public consciousness in 1995; at that time, the only viable operating systems that could be loaded on a PC was Novell, OS/2 and PC-DOS all of which weren't free.

 

So why would a consumer pay TWICE to get a different operating system?  That how the PC clone market became a Wintel market.  If Microsoft hadn't prevented OEMs from pre-installing different operating systems, the competitive landscape in the PC clone operating system would have been very different.  

post #132 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macboy Pro View Post
 

While I agree that this is a change for MS, I would hardly consider their Monopoly ended and I would certainly not be convinced that the Microsoft strategy failed.   Windows is on 4 out of 5 computers in the world! 

It could be in every computer in the world besides the one used by Steve Jobs and still be a failure if that particular computer had a stronger ecosystem, superior quality, superior UI and was more lucrative than all others combined.

 

Like the Mac.

post #133 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natsuru View Post

If the business models of microsoft and other companies have been "Proven" to fail time and time again, how do you justify the lack of marketshare on the part of Apple?

You are making a common mistake. You are comparing Apple computers to Windows computers. Apple does not, and never has, competed with Microsoft. They have targeted them in their ads, but it's not who they are competing against. Their competition is Dell. And HP. And even, back in the day, IBM (now Lenovo, of course).

 

Now, marketing against Microsoft is easier than trying to go after every two bit PC maker, since the key thing all those PC makers have in common is that they sell Windows PCs. The "superiority" of the Mac OS over Windows is a convenient selling point, nothing more. The actual competition for market share is against the hardware manufacturers.

 

The same applies now, where the iPhone is really competing against Samsung and HTC, not Google, but the key marketing factor is iOS versus Android.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


The anticompetitive practices you are referring to ended years ago.
The lack of widespread adoption is not for a lack of choice. It's a lack of demand.
That is what is going to keep Windows king of the PC until the platform dies.

That's kind of like saying "Sure he killed his brother and became king, but he only did it the once." The anti-competitive practices got MS to where they are, and they only stopped them when forced to by a number of legal actions by consumers who didn't want to pay for Windows when they were going to put Linux on the box anyway. The damage had already been done, though, and now Microsoft doesn't need to use it's anticompetitive practices to maintain its position.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post
 

 

Apple's lack of market share can be attributed to the fact that they never bothered selling there products at a mid ranged price point.

Not at all true. Back in the 90s, they sold a range of computers at a variety of pricepoints, from really expensive top end workstations, down to entry-level. And they nearly went bankrupt around the same time.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


The only real competitor who fell victim to those practices was Novell and DR-DOS. It kept them off the PC. DR-DOS was a MS-DOS clone.

What you're arguing is that "if only Microsoft wasn't anticompetitive in the past, they wouldn't be on some 95% of x86 PCs today." The flaw in that argument is that Microsoft's practices only prevented OEMs from pre-installing Linux on PCs; nothing stopped customers who wanted Linux (or BSD or NextStep) from installing them onto PCs. That has always been the case (I installed my first distro from floppy disks borrowed from a friend). So the actual adoption rate of Linux on the PC reflects true consumer demand. It's a fantasy to believe that Linux would be everywhere if Microsoft wasn't evil. Installing it is not a barrier to adoption. And if it sounds like I'm defending Microsoft, I am not. I have Yellow Dog Linux installed on my first PS3 and I refuse to upgrade the firmware because Sony turned their back on Linux for PS3. I ended up buying a second PS3 for games. I don't hate Linux. I'm just saying that Linux fans overstate the effect of anticompetitive behavior and don't accept how little real demand there is for Linux.

There was no demand for Linux because most users didn't even know it existed. The ones that did, thought it was a really technical thing that you needed a degree in Computer Science to understand.

 

How many big department stores had Linux running on the PCs on display? How many TV ads did PC manufacturers do demonstrating the advantages of Linux on their platform? No, they advertised Windows PCs, because all their PCs came with Windows.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

 

I'm saying anyone who wants to run Linux can. There are NO BARRIERS to that. Microsoft is not preventing you from installing Linux. Microsoft only took choice away from OEMs. They didn't take choice away from customers. So the measured customer adoption rate of Linux reflects actual real-world customer demand for it. That statement is practically a tautology. How can you disagree with that?

Easy, like this: The average PC buyer wants to buy a computer with as little hassle as possible. They have no idea that they have a choice to install a different OS to the one it comes with, and if they did they'd wonder why they should bother, since they've already paid for Windows.

 

The average PC buyer is not making an informed choice of OS, they are making a mildly informed choice of hardware. They are relying on someone else to tell them what OS to go with, and usually that person is the one trying to sell them the PC. If department stores sold computers running Linux, more people would be running Linux at home.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

 

Do you really believe customer don't think about whether their new PC can run Office or their favorite games? Do they just accept it when they can't? People used to buy computers to run specific programs. They know what OS they're getting. If customers were that accepting of whatever their computer came with, why didn't they accept Windows Vista? Why did they demand Windows XP downgrade rights? OEMs can't trick people into using Linux. That'll never work.

Customers do think about that. But, then again, they rely on other people to tell them what is possible, and even  what is desirable. Vista was a special case, since it was so horrible. Even so, a large number of users didn't downgrade to XP. There are machines out there, still running Vista in some form, because the people who bought them didn't notice any problems, or didn't care.

 

Your basic problem seems to be that you think that everyone knows the same things you do. That is not so. People can't make an informed choice if they don't have all the information. And most people don't even know where to start getting all this information from.

post #134 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by politicalslug View Post


Think thread got lost a while ago. The original response I made was to a comment made to the effect that all iTunes (not iDevice) account holders were affluent. That's just not true. On the other hand Apple users in general (according to every study I've ever seen published) are more affluent, educated, travel more, etc. I don't disagree with that at all. I simply disagreed with an earlier post about there being 700 million affluent people in the world. If you look at the global distribution of wealth and compare it to iTunes account holders, you'll find far more iTunes patrons than affluent people, assuming reasonable standard for what's to be considered affluent. That was all. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

You were previously advised by other posters to improve on your reading and comprehension skills and that you had confused causal effects. You do it again here.

 

Firstly, you have totally misquoted me. I never said "all" iTunes account holders were affluent. What I actually said was " with the advantage of Apple having over 700 million loyal, affluent iOS users locked into their eco-system." "ALL" is YOUR INVENTION AND MISREPRESENTATION. It goes without saying (except in your case) that amongst the 700 million iOS users there would be a huge rage of actual wealth or disposable income.

 

In your reply you said "700 million affluent iOS users? There aren't 700 million affluent people on the planet Earth, using this, that, or the other. That one blew my mind."

 

mhiki in post #37 explained to you how you had misunderstood and misinterpreted what I had said "1. 700 million is roughly 1/10 the worlds population. Affluence is a relative word. At least 1/10 of the world could afford a top line mobile device. (1/10 would include breadwinner(s) spouse & children with at least 1 quality device.)"

 

The key point is that in this context "Affluent" is a relative term, not an absolute term as you are misinterpreting it.

 

In my post #50 I also confirmed that I was using "Affluent" as a relative term when I replied to you saying: "Every survey I have seen seen has found that iOS users are better educated, more affluent, travel more, user the internet more and buy more on the internet than Android users." You actually say you agree with my statement clarifying what I said, but you also misquote by inserting the word "ALL" into what I originally said, which gives a totally different meaning to what I originally said.

 

Regarding the relative affluence of Apple users it  is interesting to read a cnbc report  about one of these surveys profiling Apple users: 

 

"Apples Are Growing in American Homes"

 

"That’s more than 55 million homes with at least one iPhone, iPad, iPod or Mac computer. And one-in-10 homes that aren’t currently in that group plan to join it in the next year.

 

But Apple doesn’t have to worry about brand saturation any time soon. Americans don’t stop with just one device. Homes that own least one Apple, own an average of three. Overall, the average household has 1.6 Apple devices, with almost one-quarter planning to buy at least one more in the next year.

 

“It's a fantastic business model — the more of our products you own, the more likely you are to buy more,” says Jay Campbell, a vice president of Hart Research Associates, which conducts the CNBC survey along with Bill McInturff. “Planned obsolescence has always been a part of the technology industries sales model, but Apple has taken it to a whole new level.”

 

Our survey shows Apple buyers tend to be male, college-educated, and younger. They’re just as likely to own a home as not. Not surprisingly, the more money you earn, the more Apple products you’re likely to own.

 

Just 28 percent of those making less than $30,000 a year own at least one, compared with 77 percent of those making more than $75,000. Those on the higher end of the income scale own an average of about three Apple devices, compared with 0.6 for lower-income homes."


Edited by Secular Investor - 9/8/13 at 3:00pm
post #135 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natsuru View Post

If the business models of microsoft and other companies have been "Proven" to fail time and time again, how do you justify the lack of marketshare on the part of Apple?

I would also be interested in how you're justifying locked down operating systems with no compatibility to similar hardware?

I suppose GNU/Linux is the devil to you, what with it being made to work on just about anything...

 

How is Microsoft anything but a "locked down operating system?"

 

And with Microsoft's business model, the only company making money is Microsoft. The OEMs have been robbed of the ability to differentiate their system in any way other than price, forcing them to fight over table scraps. 

 

In the business world, success or failure is measured by profits. That's what helps a business pay its employees, fund R&D on the next product, and most importantly, keep the lights on at the office. The OEMs are part of the huge marketshare for Windows, but they don't have much to show for it. Profit is important for customers too. If a product line is profitable, the business is likely to continue to support that particular product line with solid investments in R&D and the like. IMO, you don't want to be buying products from a manufacturer that doesn't care about the products it is making. 

 

You get what you pay for. GNU/Linux if open source and free, but you're on your own when you download the software. If you have a problem, you have to read through pages and pages of comments on a forum. A business user will likely not be interested in that stuff. What you call a "locked down closed operating system" is an out-of-box solution that is ready for use. It's all a matter of values. 

 

As for having no compatibility to similar hardware, can you give me an example?  

post #136 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post

You were previously advised by other posters to improve on your reading and comprehension skills and that you had confused causal effects. You do it again here.

Firstly, you have totally misquoted me. I never said "all" iTunes account holders were affluent. What I actually said was " with the advantage of Apple having over 700 million loyal, affluent iOS users locked into their eco-system." "ALL" is YOUR INVENTION AND MISREPRESENTATION. It goes without saying (except in your case) that amongst the 700 million iOS users there would be a huge rage of actual wealth or disposable income.

In your reply you said "700 million affluent iOS users? There aren't 700 million affluent people on the planet Earth, using this, that, or the other. That one blew my mind."

mhiki in post #37 explained to you how you had misunderstood and misinterpreted what I had said "1. 700 million is roughly 1/10 the worlds population. Affluence is a relative word. At least 1/10 of the world could afford a top line mobile device. (1/10 would include breadwinner(s) spouse & children with at least 1 quality device.)"

The key point is that in this context "Affluent" is a relative term, not an absolute term as you are misinterpreting it.

In my post #50 I also confirmed that I was using "Affluent" as a relative term when I replied to you saying: "Every survey I have seen seen has found that iOS users are better educated, more affluent, travel more, user the internet more and buy more on the internet than Android users." You actually say you agree with my statement clarifying what I said, but you also misquote by inserting the word "ALL" into what I originally said, which gives a totally different meaning to what I originally said.

Regarding the relative affluence of Apple users it  is interesting to read a cnbc report  about one of these surveys profiling Apple users: 

"Apples Are Growing in American Homes"

"That’s more than 55 million homes with at least one iPhone, iPad, iPod or Mac computer. And one-in-10 homes that aren’t currently in that group plan to join it in the next year.


But Apple doesn’t have to worry about brand saturation any time soon. Americans don’t stop with just one device. Homes that own least one Apple, own an average of three. Overall, the average [URL=]household has 1.6 Apple devices[/URL], with almost one-quarter planning to buy at least one more in the next year.

“It's a fantastic business model — the more of our products you own, the more likely you are to buy more,” says Jay Campbell, a vice president of Hart Research Associates, which conducts the CNBC survey along with Bill McInturff. “Planned obsolescence has always been a part of the technology industries sales model, but Apple has taken it to a whole new level.”



Our survey shows Apple buyers tend to be male, college-educated, and younger. They’re just as likely to own a home as not. Not surprisingly, the more money you earn, the more Apple products you’re likely to own.

Just 28 percent of those making less than $30,000 a year own at least one, compared with 77 percent of those making more than $75,000. Those on the higher end of the income scale own an average of about three Apple devices, compared with 0.6 for lower-income homes."

You didn't have to say ALL since as of June 2013, the iTunes Store possesses 575 million active user accounts, and serves over 315 million mobile devices, including iPods, iPhones and iPads, so over 700 million is ALL and then some.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #137 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post
 

You apparently don't understand Microsoft's anticompetitive practices.  Of course nothing stopped consumers from installing Linux or OS/2 or PC-DOS or any other IBM clone OS on their computers.  The key difference you failed to appreciate was that Microsoft ALREADY GOT ITS MONEY when the computer was sold to the consumer.  This is called the MICROSOFT TOLL BRIDGE: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1012_3-5175536.html

 

So the consumer not only paid Microsoft for an operating system that the consumer did not want, the consumer also had to pay a different OS vendor (OS/2, Novell, PC-DOS, etc.) to install a different OS on their computer.  Linux didn't exist in the public consciousness in 1995; at that time, the only viable operating systems that could be loaded on a PC was Novell, OS/2 and PC-DOS all of which weren't free.

 

So why would a consumer pay TWICE to get a different operating system?  That how the PC clone market became a Wintel market.  If Microsoft hadn't prevented OEMs from pre-installing different operating systems, the competitive landscape in the PC clone operating system would have been very different.  

 

I am not disputing that Microsoft's licensing practices were anticompetitive.

I am disputing the claim that (and I am quoting your previous post): "If it wasn't for these illegal Microsoft business practices, we would be seeing successful OSes on the market such as OS/2, BeOS, NEXTStep, etc."

 

The problem to adoption isn't this Microsoft "toll bridge". The problem is lack of broad consumer demand. Remember: OS/2, BeOS, and NextStep were preloaded on machines that weren't subject to Microsoft's "toll bridge": IBM-branded PCs could be purchased with OS/2, BeOS preloaded on every Be box, and NextStep preloaded on the NeXT workstations. These operating systems failed to reach critical mass without Microsoft's help.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #138 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


You didn't have to say ALL since as of June 2013, the iTunes Store possesses 575 million active user accounts, and serves over 315 million mobile devices, including iPods, iPhones and iPads, so over 700 million is ALL and then some.

 

I  was referring to "all" which  politicalslug  inserted  incorrectly claiming that I had said "ALL" Tune account holders were affluent, which he then disputed.

 

However, you are probably right when you say "June 2013, the iTunes Store possesses 575 million active user accounts"., although I seem to recall that the number has exceeded over 600 million since then and is growing rapidly.

 

In fact there are far more than 315 million Apple mobile devices which you state. Apple have sold 356.3 million iPhones, 143.5 million iPads and, since FY2009*, 182.2 million iPods, which makes a total of 469.2 million mobile devices. However, according to  Asymco "Apple sold around 650 to 700 million iOS and is expected to be the fourth to a billion sometime next year." First to a billion users was Windows, second Facebook  and third Android - see  www.asymco(dot)com/2013/09/06/third-to-a-billion/

 

* I don't have the data for iPod sales before FY2009.

post #139 of 178
Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post

First to a billion users was Windows, second Facebook  and third Android

 

Facebook isn't an OS. Since we're not counting OS', I guess Apple is even further down the scale, since hydrogen atoms were first to a billion. Then helium, then stars, then bacteria, then shrubs, then trees, then fish, then…

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 #140 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post

I  was referring to "all" which  politicalslug  inserted  incorrectly claiming that I had said "ALL" Tune account holders were affluent, which he then disputed.

However, you are probably right when you say "June 2013, the iTunes Store possesses 575 million active user accounts"., although I seem to recall that the number has exceeded over 600 million since then and is growing rapidly.

In fact there are far more than 315 million Apple mobile devices which you state. Apple have sold 356.3 million iPhones, 143.5 million iPads and, since FY2009*, 182.2 million iPods, which makes a total of 469.2 million mobile devices. However, according to  Asymco "Apple sold around 650 to 700 million iOS and is expected to be the fourth to a billion sometime next year." First to a billion users was Windows, second Facebook  and third Android - see  [URL=http:/2013/09/06/third-to-a-billion/]www.asymco(dot)com/2013/09/06/third-to-a-billion/[/URL]

* I don't have the data for iPod sales before FY2009.

All of the iPhones sold are not active. The majority of that 356 million were bought by repeat buyers as we're iPads and iPods.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #141 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

 

On the contrary, one of my gripes was precisely that apps in 10.7+ will autosave changes that I *don't* want saved - such as rotating a pdf in Preview for viewing purposes - and that discarding changes is now an expensive process thanks to how OS X autosave is implemented. 

 

I agree that autosave is supposed to act as a safety net and not as the primary means of version control. My issue was that apple's implementation of the safety net is rather frustrating to deal with at times. It's better in OS X 10.8 than it was in 10.7, but it's not optimal.

 

How often do you rotate PDF documents anyway? If you need to rotate it, aren't you done once, you have to repeat it over and over? If that is what you need to do, make a copy, one original, one rotated. If you know its slow to save, don't work against it.

 

To be honest, I don't even think about Versions and autosave, I only care that when accidents happen like how I turned off the wall socket to my iMac by mistake once (duh), or power outages, when I boot up the Mac again, I lose nothing, I think I lost a sentence that one time, but wasn't such an issue that I'd remember to take precautions. In this sense it is optimal, what's not optimal in daily use is to have to type a change comment and issue a commit command all the time for everything


Edited by murman - 9/8/13 at 6:21pm
post #142 of 178

Daniel - What a classic summation of an amazing bit of recent tech history. Clearly you have not lost your mojo. A new fan.

post #143 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Facebook isn't an OS. Since we're not counting OS', I guess Apple is even further down the scale, since hydrogen atoms were first to a billion. Then helium, then stars, then bacteria, then shrubs, then trees, then fish, then…

 

Wakey, Wakey!!!   We were talking about users, not OSs. ....LOL

post #144 of 178
Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post

Wakey, Wakey!!!   We were talking about users, not OSs. ....LOL

 

Indeed. It remains equally stupid a list.

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 #145 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


All of the iPhones sold are not active. The majority of that 356 million were bought by repeat buyers as we're iPads and iPods.

 

Yes, iPhones have far the highest loyalty and retention rates. It is a well known fact that Apple devices also have the highest residual prices, which helps reduce the total cost of ownership of iPhones because of the high trade in values.

 

Consequently most iPhones are still active, many beining shipped to developing economies.

 

On the other hand most Android phones have little or no residual value. Most seem to get dumped in the garbage can by dissatisfied users because Android web usage numbers are far below shipment claims.

 

This also seems to be the fate of most Android tablets even when new....LOL.. The huge shipping numbers of Android tablets claimed by Strategy Analytics and other Samsung/Google PR outfits, just don't appear in any web usage data....LOL

post #146 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Indeed. It remains equally stupid a list.

 

If its so stupid why has the Asymco article with charts showing the race to a billion users already got 138 comments.?

post #147 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post

 

If its so stupid why has the Asymco article with charts showing the race to a billion users already got 138 comments.?



I rest my case.

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 #148 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post

Consequently most iPhones are still active, many beining shipped to developing economies.

Is this a guess or do you have concrete numbers to back it up? And if all these used iPhones are being shipped to developing economies then they're being bought by people that are not affluent and most likely don't have a iTunes account.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #149 of 178
The problem for Google and Microsoft is that they don't aim for what the consumer wants.

M$ makes their money from ludicrous licensing schemes in Windows Server therefore are aimed at businesses. Ironically businesses aren't keen to adopt new things and so Microsoft can't push new technologies until they grow some balls and kill off support for operating systems. For example no businesses left Windows 2000 for XP until just before Microsoft killed off support for Win2K. The same currently happening with businesses making a mad dash to get their software up to date to support Windows 7 because M$ is finally killing off support for XP. M$ can't make money looking after businesses.

The only ones willing to accept new technologies is consumers and this is where Google has a problem with Android. Android is not aimed at consumers per se it's aimed at geeks. Most consumers don't care how many features a phone has. They also don't give a toss about looking like a Parkinson's sufferer with seemingly uncontrollable hand gestures just to answer the phone. They want simple. They want features to be useable and reliable. Geeks want gimmicks and aren't afraid to look like idiots because the world makes fun of them anyway.

And this is why Apple is winning. Apple makes products for the masses. Yes many geeks have a lot of money but combine it with the money of the people BUYING Apple products and you've got far bigger pockets than a narrow subset of humanity.

Until M$ and Google understand that the money is with the tech illiterate they will not make the money Apple does.
post #150 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
 

 

I am not disputing that Microsoft's licensing practices were anticompetitive.

I am disputing the claim that (and I am quoting your previous post): "If it wasn't for these illegal Microsoft business practices, we would be seeing successful OSes on the market such as OS/2, BeOS, NEXTStep, etc."

 

The problem to adoption isn't this Microsoft "toll bridge". The problem is lack of broad consumer demand. Remember: OS/2, BeOS, and NextStep were preloaded on machines that weren't subject to Microsoft's "toll bridge": IBM-branded PCs could be purchased with OS/2, BeOS preloaded on every Be box, and NextStep preloaded on the NeXT workstations. These operating systems failed to reach critical mass without Microsoft's help.

 

Your disputation of my claim has no standing.  You cited examples of computers that could be purchased with OS/2, BeOS, and NextSTEP loaded.  However, your examples contradict the very argument you are attempting to make.  BeOS is a Be Inc. product available on Be, Inc. computers ONLY and Be doesn't sell Wintel computers.  NextSTEP is a Next Inc. product available on Next workstations ONLY and Next doesn't sell Wintel computers.  The MacOS is an Apple product available on Apple computers ONLY and Apple doesn't sell Wintel computers.  Do you see where I am going with this?   OS/2 was an IBM product available on IBM-branded PCs ONLY but because IBM also sold Wintel PCs, it was forced to drop OS/2 due to pressure from Microsoft.  Not because of any lack of consumer demand.  

 

You need to provide a single example of ONE PC CLONE MAKER in the 1990s offering PC Clones with non-Microsoft operating system that was NOT of its own creation.  No one dared to defy Microsoft by selling PC clones loaded with other companies' operating systems (unless, of course, they never sold Wintel PCs to begin with like Be, Next, Apple, etc.) and that is the reason why these operating systems failed to reach critical mass.  In other words, it was Microsoft's anticompetitive tactics that caused these operating systems to die, not because of the lack of any consumer demand.

post #151 of 178
DED, your sarcasm and bombast have reached record highs. You've gone and done it now. Microsoft will never again invite you to another of their legendary funeral parades.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/10/microsoft_employees_hold_funeral_parade_for_iphone_blackberry

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #152 of 178

In know what I would do to fix Microsoft.  I would buy Blackberry for pennies on the dollar and then convert both Nokia and Blackberry to Android.  It could be done overnight and Microsoft could be competing with Samsung in a heart beat.   Microsoft could create tight integration between its Android line and its Windows desktop platform.  It would have a better Android product than anyone else and could ensure it's dominance in Windows desktop for beyond the foreseeable future.   Success would be contingent on MS allowing Nokia to do the integration.  If MS touches anything it is doomed.

 

We've seen the windows phone and tablet's fail.  The market has clearly voted it wants iOS and Android.  Nothing Microsoft can do will change that.  There is ZERO change that windows mobile will succeed. Rather than fight it, MS should join the party.  

post #153 of 178
This is one of my favourite articles now.
post #154 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdx View Post

Plus, 16:9 is an *awful* resolution for a tablet. Much prefer my iPads.

I totally agree. This whole wide screen fad has been terrible for slate users. Makes using them in portrait mode silly. 16:10 is a bit better but still not ideal. It was a shame when Apple went widescreen with the iPad and iPhone. Hopefully they don't do that with the iPad.

Philip
post #155 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

In know what I would do to fix Microsoft.  I would buy Blackberry for pennies on the dollar and then convert both Nokia and Blackberry to Android.  It could be done overnight and Microsoft could be competing with Samsung in a heart beat.   Microsoft could create tight integration between its Android line and its Windows desktop platform.  It would have a better Android product than anyone else and could ensure it's dominance in Windows desktop for beyond the foreseeable future.   Success would be contingent on MS allowing Nokia to do the integration.  If MS touches anything it is doomed.

We've seen the windows phone and tablet's fail.  The market has clearly voted it wants iOS and Android.  Nothing Microsoft can do will change that.  There is ZERO change that windows mobile will succeed. Rather than fight it, MS should join the party.  

It is way to early to count Microsoft out. Android is a bit of a mess and seems chaotic. Windows 8 is actually pretty nice and they just have to deal with Intel being late to the power saving club. Put in a low cost Intel system with long battery life, lower the price of a Surface, bring out 4:3 or if not then 16:10 tablets with writing capabilities at iPad or lower prices and you will see a very different landscape.

Most computers continue to run Windows, MS Word and Excel are still must have software for most businesses. This is not a minor advantage. Unless people abandon Office it's not hard to see how Microsoft could play to that advantage.

If anything is at risk it is Android. The only thing they have going for them is low cost hardware which is mostly unappealing. Phones are tricky markets. Things could change rapidly. I can imagine a scenario with iOS and Windows as the dominant foundations.

Microsoft took ages to deal with Netscape. They can certainly keep plugging away at mobile devices and unless someone weans people off Office anything is possible.

Philip
post #156 of 178
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post
 

 

Apple's lack of market share can be attributed to the fact that they never bothered selling there products at a mid ranged price point.

 

 

Originally Posted by Anome View Post

Not at all true. Back in the 90s, they sold a range of computers at a variety of pricepoints, from really expensive top end workstations, down to entry-level. And they nearly went bankrupt around the same time.

 

Yes that was the period, Apple's product line was confusing and had little to almost no innovation in them. It's a very different Apple today.

 

post #157 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Is this a guess or do you have concrete numbers to back it up? And if all these used iPhones are being shipped to developing economies then they're being bought by people that are not affluent and most likely don't have a iTunes account.

 

No, I don't have concrete numbers. But you don't have to be a genius to join the dots: if there is strong demand for used iPhones it is an obvious conclusion that people are buying them in order to use them....!  Are you seriously contending that people are buying used iPhones but then don't use them?

 

There have also been numerous references in the media to trade in iPhones being shipped internationally. For example cnet reported ""the service would give customers a trade-in value for the handset estimated at $125 for an iPhone 4, $200 for an iPhone 4S, and $250 for an iPhone 5 -- with a fresh contract. An unnamed source told The Wall Street Journal that the most Apple would be willing to credit customers would be about $280. ABC reported a figure closer to $300, also according to an unnamed source." With Apple on the sidelines of the iPhone aftermarket for years, other trade-in options have cropped up to meet the need -- sometimes at values much higher than those being reported for an Apple program. People who want to ditch their phone when a new one comes along, without eating the full cost, found other companies willing to welcome them with open arms. Devices traded in on sites like Gazelle and NextWorth are sold internationally in places where iPhones are very expensive. Right now, a 64GB iPhone 5 can snag a customer $370 on NextWorth."

 

As for your contentions  "if all these used iPhones are being shipped to developing economies then they're being bought by people that are not affluent and most likely don't have a iTunes account", you confuse affluence as an absolute rather than relative term.

 

Have you any evidence that people in underdeveloped countries are not relatively affluent compared to the average in their societies?  Consider that they are paying a premium price for a used iPhone compared to a cheap Android.

 

The trade-in values quoted in the cnet article indicate that buyers are paying almost as much or even more than the US carriers subsidised price for a new iPhone.

 

And what evidence have you for you illogical conclusion that buyers who pay a premium price in their home market to buy a used iPhone, then cannot afford to buy Apps and other iTunes media?

 

In fact there is evidence of huge global demand for iOS Apps, including in developing countries. china.org reported "Apple CEO Tim Cook said on Monday that Apple has more than 6 million registered developers globally, with 1.5 million added in just the last year.....According to UMeng, a Beijing-based startup focusing on serving app developers with detailed apps-usage data, the total number of Chinese iOS developers has increased 9.3 times from 2011 to 2013."   

post #158 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post

You were previously advised by other posters to improve on your reading and comprehension skills and that you had confused causal effects. You do it again here.

Firstly, you have totally misquoted me. I never said "all" iTunes account holders were affluent. What I actually said was " with the advantage of Apple having over 700 million loyal, affluent iOS users locked into their eco-system." "ALL" is YOUR INVENTION AND MISREPRESENTATION. It goes without saying (except in your case) that amongst the 700 million iOS users there would be a huge rage of actual wealth or disposable income.

In your reply you said "700 million affluent iOS users? There aren't 700 million affluent people on the planet Earth, using this, that, or the other. That one blew my mind."

mhiki in post #37 explained to you how you had misunderstood and misinterpreted what I had said "1. 700 million is roughly 1/10 the worlds population. Affluence is a relative word. At least 1/10 of the world could afford a top line mobile device. (1/10 would include breadwinner(s) spouse & children with at least 1 quality device.)"

The key point is that in this context "Affluent" is a relative term, not an absolute term as you are misinterpreting it.

In my post #50 I also confirmed that I was using "Affluent" as a relative term when I replied to you saying: "Every survey I have seen seen has found that iOS users are better educated, more affluent, travel more, user the internet more and buy more on the internet than Android users." You actually say you agree with my statement clarifying what I said, but you also misquote by inserting the word "ALL" into what I originally said, which gives a totally different meaning to what I originally said.

Regarding the relative affluence of Apple users it  is interesting to read a cnbc report  about one of these surveys profiling Apple users: 

"Apples Are Growing in American Homes"

"That’s more than 55 million homes with at least one iPhone, iPad, iPod or Mac computer. And one-in-10 homes that aren’t currently in that group plan to join it in the next year.


But Apple doesn’t have to worry about brand saturation any time soon. Americans don’t stop with just one device. Homes that own least one Apple, own an average of three. Overall, the average [URL=]household has 1.6 Apple devices[/URL], with almost one-quarter planning to buy at least one more in the next year.

“It's a fantastic business model — the more of our products you own, the more likely you are to buy more,” says Jay Campbell, a vice president of Hart Research Associates, which conducts the CNBC survey along with Bill McInturff. “Planned obsolescence has always been a part of the technology industries sales model, but Apple has taken it to a whole new level.”



Our survey shows Apple buyers tend to be male, college-educated, and younger. They’re just as likely to own a home as not. Not surprisingly, the more money you earn, the more Apple products you’re likely to own.

Just 28 percent of those making less than $30,000 a year own at least one, compared with 77 percent of those making more than $75,000. Those on the higher end of the income scale own an average of about three Apple devices, compared with 0.6 for lower-income homes."

I really tried to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. This has nothing to do with causality. You really like that word a lot, don't you? Also, why get insulting in your post and exclude me from your 700 million figure just because I think you're full of it? Causality, eh? If you got the impression I was asserting owning an iDevice either denotes or connotes affluence then you clearly misunderstood what I read. That doesn't surprise me though. According to the WHO 80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day. According to you the rest of the planet can afford an iPhone (the cheapest of which is $629) including one for spouses and kids. Just how naive are you? Apple's sales are limited because the world is comprised predominantly of people who can't afford iPhones. And let me tell you guy, I don't mean 9 in 10.
post #159 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post
 

 

<snip>

Microsoft's motivation is to sell software. Windows never offered users as good an experience as Apple. As somebody who uses both all the time I am constantly amazed and frustrated  at how many  faults and glitches there are in Windows, even after 30 years. Windows was succesful for one main reason, they successfully attracted developers so that most useful applications were on Windows. However, in mobile computing this advanatage is held by Apple, especially with the iPad and to a lesser extent Android smartphones. Microsoft tried unsuccessfully to pay and  bribe developers to make Apps for Windows mobile, but this has failed. 

<snip?

 Hi there,  by and large I agree with your post, however I would suggest that Microsoft's primary motivation is to prop up the share price.  Microsoft don't SELL software, it is licensed, that's what the very small print states.  The license restricts how and on what devices you can use the software.

 

I had a debate at work over software licensing - and numerous iOS developers would agree - better to make 10,000 sales at $5, or 1,000,000 sales at $1.49 than one sale at $1000...   Microsoft have got themselves into a position where their O/S and Application suite are considered by the majority of businesses to be 'good enough' - which is why there is so little appetite for upgrading to Windows 8, 8.1 or Windows X, [sorry, the urge to pay homage to OS X was just too great ;-)].

 

The haemmorhaging of Windows PC sales under the combination of iPad, a recession and a product that is 'good enough' means that MS has had to find a new way of generating revenue - piloted by Xbox, the Xbox live account is a license to print money,  in the UK the annual 'right to use' is about £40, that's about $60, roughly - multiply by the number of Xbox 360 sales because an Xbox is pretty useless without a live account and there you have a tidy revenue stream - $4.7bn at 78.2 million sales total (thanks Google and Wikipedia for providing the answer!) - in 2011 the actual online number was 30,000,000  - so the revenue drops to only $1.8bn, for running a few servers.

 

Microsoft have copied Google Docs by offering Office 365, online, on a subscription basis - this is the revenue stream that will prop up the share price indefinitely - ongoing, annual, repeatable licence fees delivered on a develop once, sell to millions.   Its the model that is already active in the Gaming World, as my work colleague pointed out, its a model that solves loads of problems for software developers!, why not Microsoft...


Edited by cubefan - 9/9/13 at 3:39am
post #160 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

True but imagine the world of hurt Google would've found themselves in if Apple decided it no longer needed Google's services because they made their own, or found cheaper alternatives.
"Cheaper alternatives"? Google was/is paying good money to Apple to have their services defaulted on iOS.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • The Apple Era begins as Microsoft, Google shift to a hardware centric model
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › The Apple Era begins as Microsoft, Google shift to a hardware centric model