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 2

post #41 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by capasicum View Post

Samsung (currently the largest phone and smartphone vendor) is going for Tizen and/or Bada. They are actually going for vertical integration as well. 

Going is not now. Who knows where Samsung is going? As far as I can tell they still use Android for their newest products.

philip
post #42 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

Wall Street is definitely betting against Apple. Even as high a number of iOS devices there are, the pundits claim that Windows Phone devices will overtake iOS by 2017. That's how poorly they think Apple as a company is. It's really sad that after all these years Apple has not been able to do anything to give Wall Street and investors confidence that it isn't going out of business. Apple always appears to be on the verge of collapse as far as the big money investors are concerned.

Sorry Constable, but this is just too wacky to let slide. Institutions and mutual funds own 62% of Apple. At the current market cap, that amounts to $280 billion. Do you really think they would invest that much if they thought Apple was going under?
post #43 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex101 View Post
 

Interesting read, thanks. One of the reasons I check AI daily.

 

The question I have: If the days of broadly licensed OSes are over, what then? Will every vendor cook up their own OS? Samsung OS? Dell OS? LG OS? HTC OS? Apart from being an expensive task with a high risk of failing (see: Windows Phone, BlackBerry), I'm doubtful they have the human resources and knowledge to pull it off. Maybe with a mobile OS but certainly not with a desktop OS. 

 

Personally, I love Apple and their ecosystem but the idea of Windows/Android isn't bad, it's the execution that's lacking. 

 

You raise an interesting point.

 

IMO the key difference between Apple and Microsoft, Google and other competitors is that Apple is fundamentally motivated by Steve Jobs demand to create "insanely great" devices i.e. they give the highest priority to creating the highest quality user experience. They refuse to cut corners in terms of quality of hardware and finish. They go to great lengths to make their software intuitively easy to learn and use and to work across all their mobile devices. There is little question that Apple made a disruptive, revolutionary breakthrough in smartphones, which was well described recently by an Federal Appeals court judge, in a landmark case which ruled that Apple's touchscreen patent was valid and not "obvious" as Motorola claimed:

 

"The Smartphone has defined modern life. Be it in the workplace, the home, airports, or entertainment venues across America, individuals are tethered to their handheld devices. Not long ago, users primarily spoke into these devices. Today, fingers tapping, grazing, pinching, or scrolling the screen is a ubiquitous image that reflects how we conduct business, work, play, and live. The asserted patent in this case is an invention that has propelled not just technology, but also dramatically altered how humans across the globe interact and communicate. It marks true innovation."

 

Those "fingers tapping, grazing, pinching, or scrolling"    gestures are intrinsically iOS and most are protected by a thicket of patents. Apple have extended these to the iPad and attracted developers to produce Apps first and foremaost for the iPhone and iPad, without the fragmentation problems of Android. Apple, unlike Google, insisted on vetting and testing iOS Apps. As a result survey after survey shows that iOS Apps are of a significantly higher quality than Android, and in fact significantly more numerous because Android Apps contain many duplicate, pirated copies. This difference is greatest in iPad Apps where there are more than ten times as many iPad Apps than Android tablet Apps, many of latter being just smartphone Apps 2x larger.

 

Google's motivation is totally different. Google's real interest is to get as many devices as possible using Android because their real motivation is to get as many clicks on Google adverts as possible. However their strategy is unravelling. They ignored other companies IP rights, infringed patents on a massive  scale belonging to Microsoft, Nokia, Ericcsson, Motorola (until they bought them), Oracle, Apple and others. They originally were copying Blackberry and then changed to copy iOS. They ignored quality in favor of numbers and market share. They did not test or vet Apps, they did not care about carrier bloatware or fragmentation and  resulting negative effect on user experience. Most users ended up with out of date versions of Android with many Apps simply not working or riddled with glitches, along with rampant duplication resulting from pirated copying of Apps. Google also left Android users users vulnerable to over 100,000 malware, viruses and all sorts of criminal scams.  They and Samsung have paid companies like Strategy Analytics to create large fantasy shipping numbers of Android tablets, which just don't appear in any web usage surveys. Developers are highly unlikley to be fooled. They know that by fare the most lucrativer market for Apps is the iPad.

 

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. 

 

However Microsoft have a fatal flaw in their mobile software. It is profoundly fragmented. Buying Nokia will not resolve this. The failure and demise of the Surface RT has left them with just the Surface Pro, which has Intel x86 softare which is not compatible with their ARM based smartphone Windows software. The RT could not compete with the iPad in terms of price, quality of OS and number of available Apps. The Surface Pro is even more expensive, with even worse battery life and is even less competitive against the iPad. Windows/Nokia smartphone  has a tiny market share and its Zune like metro interface seems to have limited appeal.

 

 

This leaves Apple with the only successful OS across all mobile devices, with a huge, unmatched range of quality Apps for the iPhone and especially iPads, along with a huge ecosystem of music, movies, TV programs, books, magazines, and unparrallled range of business, medical and educational software and a rapidly growing base 700,000,000 loyal, affluent credit card iTines account holders.

 

Now Apple is moving into a more affordable 5C smartphone sector, which should help Apple increase its market share, and hopefully coming out with its patented, easy to use, high level fingerprint security which will allow Apple to take a disruptive lead in mobile e-commerce.

post #44 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by politicalslug View Post

This article totally fails to address the reason why Android exists in the first place: to ensure Google's relevance as a service provider.

Remember, in the early iPhone days, Google provided most of the online/cloud services used by iOS. Remember how Steve Jobs felt so betrayed when he realized Google was developing Android?

Google could have saved money and allowed Apple to take the whole smartphone market and in the end Apple may have decided to develop competing services, thus pushing Google completely out of the mobile space. Apple, of course makes their money on hardware, so perhaps they would have been just as happy to retain a mutually beneficial relationship where they used Google's services across their devices and held 99% of the mobile market. Facebook or Microsoft could have later swept in and offered Apple a better deal, thus shoving Google right out of the market. In the end Google couldn't take the risk and so they developed Android to ensure they stay relevant.

Furthermore, Google can afford to lose billions on Android development, botched mergers, and poor hardware sales. None of those represents Google's core business. How can the author fail to see that? Google is a service company and every move they make is to ensure they dominate in services. Goggle is and always will be an advertisement and service company. Plain and simple.

 

Google didn't start Android as a reaction to iPhone. It started it out of fear that Microsoft's Windows Mobile would lock Google out of the mobile space the same way Vista was attempting to lock Google out of the desktop. Vista never did much damage, but it was a threat Google was taking very seriously in 2006. 

 

As things turned out, Windows lost much of its monopoly power and Windows Mobile totally dried up and blew away. So Google took Android and refashioned it as an iPhone clone, which had the result of losing its tight exclusive partnership with Apple and incited the iPhone maker to pull away and develop its own services, from Siri to Maps. 

post #45 of 178
In the absence of clearly defined, universal and flexible definitions of both the hardware-OS and OS-application boundary layers, the business model followed by Microsoft and Google will always be defeated by a carefully controlled, vertically integrated business model followed by Apple.

Perhaps the only way to defeat Apple is to do the really, really, really hard work to come up with those those boundary layer definitions that allow hardware, operating systems and applications to evolve independently while still interacting seamlessly. Good luck with that!
post #46 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmcd View Post


Going is not now. Who knows where Samsung is going? As far as I can tell they still use Android for their newest products.

philip

 

Samsung use a scattergun approach with a wide range of feature phones, smartphones, phablets and tablets using Windows, Tizen as well as Android and possibly other OSs.

 

However, the bad news for Google is that the most successful Android OEM is goings its own way. Samsung have forked Android, encouraging developers to develop Apps specifically for Galaxy phones to make use of their own UI and a number of features not available in other Android devices.

 

Additionally they have also set up their own version iGoogle Play

post #47 of 178
Great article. Thanks.
post #48 of 178
There is a simpler pre-reason for the Microsoft dominance.

It was the gigantic IT departments that ran the pre-PC IBM mainframes. When they had to go to the PC world they did the easiest thing and bought IBM PCs. It was a god send for IT, that with the Microsoft kluge that none of the PCs worked very well. The IT departments did not have to lay anybody off and all were happy. Everyone used the Apple II in business before IT made the turn to IBM PCs. Once the turn happened it was all downhill for the true believers.
post #49 of 178

Ah, about time. My weekly DED fix

post #50 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by politicalslug View Post


1. 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.

2. Apple may or may not have rescinded their agreement. We will never know. While it seems reasonable to assume they would have stuck by Google in the short-term, the moment Apple's momentum was such that Google had missed their opportunity to launch a competing OS (hypothetical 90% iOS global market penetration) then Apple could, rather should change their minds and create their own competing services, thus increasing their profits by taking all of Google's instead of a fractional licensing fee.

 

 

1) I think you have confused the terms "affluent" and "rich". 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.

 

2) You may be right. However Google took a huge risk by offending by their breach of trust their strongest ally  in mobile computing and they are beginning to pay a heavy price.  Android is already costing them billions and those losses will mount up, especially as Samsung and other Android OEMs increasing fork and fragment Android.

post #51 of 178

I'm sorry, but just because the software actually works well with hardware that is designed well, doesn't require an outspoken "vertical strategy."  And I do not contradict myself.  The sum and substance of my post is simply that the products are better, and each could have stood on their own right.  Even if the iPod was designed at the outset as a Windows only device, it would still have been better than all of the competition.

 

It's impossible to go back in time, but hypothetically, if Apple had designed iOS and got partners to make phones for it in 2007 - perhaps in the same manner as Google had a couple years later - it would still have been a success.  It was that much better than the alternatives. 

 

So - there's nothing particularly strange about my logic.  What I find particularly strange is anyone who can reduce a company's success to just one facet and say that's the reason why everyone else will fail.  I do think Apple's vertical strategy is working at the moment, but I hardly think it's the defining reason for their market prowess.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post
 

 

Strange logic Crimguy.....LOL 

 

You say "vertical strategy of Apple has had little to do with their success." Then you contradict yourself by pointing out the the benefits of Apple's tight integration of software and hardware which makes their devices so much better: 

 

   * "iPod - great interface with revolutionary scroll wheel was miles ahead  of the clunky buttons ...."

 

   * "iPhone - capacitive touch screen and snappy performance coupled with an ingenious interface and the first mobile browser that actually worked."

 

   * "iPad - very much the same benefits of the iPhone but having the added benefit of an established developer community and a way to make apps work across platforms."

post #52 of 178

You're forgetting that Windows' success was built on a hardware platform that was ultimately too easy to clone. IBM designed the PC in the early 1980s, but chose to use off-the-shelf hardware, unlike all of the other computer makers at the time (Apple, Commodore, Atari, etc) and only a small BIOS ROM chip was proprietary. Once the BIOS was reverse engineered, anyone could make PCs, and companies like Compaq, HP, DELL, etc sprung up and quickly took all the profit away from IBM. The only thing Microsoft did was retain the rights to MS-DOS instead of selling DOS to IBM, allowing Microsoft to sell their OS the PC cloners, and the rest became the "Wintel" duopoly. I contend that if IBM hadn't taken the lazy way out, silicon valley computer manufacturers might have continued to design and build proprietary platforms instead of becoming final assemblers of commoditized components.

 

My point is: Microsoft lucked out because IBM was lazy, and their laziness created a hardware platform that got away from IBM's control. You can't even have a viable business licensing an OS to other hardware manufacturers if the hardware platform isn't common or easy to clone. One stipulation: the first OS to establish a beachhead on a new, cloneable hardware platform basically owns it forever: another challenger OS will have a hard time wrestling away that monopoly position on the same hardware. NeXTStep, BeOS, Linux, and other x86 OSes were not going to unseat Windows on the PC, then, now, or ever. Aside from the fact that circumstances have to be perfect to apply Microsoft's OS licensing model, there's nothing wrong with that model; it's just very, very impractical to execute.

 

Pundits in the 1990s telling Apple to copy that model were idiots. John C. Dvorak was the most annoying of them. No imagination, no real vision, other than hindsight.

 

What made Apple successful again wasn't that Apple's model is now "the right one." Apple has been vertically integrating hardware and OSes since 1976. They don't know how to make a profit any other way. What's changed is the Internet. While Microsoft was busy fighting the defensive "embrace, extend, extinguish" wars against the Web, Apple was successfully leveraging the Internet. The success of iTunes + iPod is the most visible expression of that. iPod wasn't born with the Internet in mind, but Apple quickly figured out that it was the second half of the iTunes equation, because people don't just listen to music on their computers. PlaysForSure was a solution to the wrong problem. Wrong problem: how can I rip CDs and play it on any brand of MP3 player? Right problem: how can I easily find and purchase music legally over the Internet and play it anywhere? Apple learned that by solving the right problem, they would come to own a platform (iTunes-licensed content delivery and iPod), without having to copy the Windows licensing model. People would beat a path to their door to buy an iPod. Not that the iPod wasn't a desirable piece of hardware all by its lonesome. But iPod + iTunes (+ Internet), was just brilliant.

 

The Internet is also the key difference that has made it possible for Apple to pounce on Microsoft's Windows hegemony with iOS devices. What I mean is that the Internet changed what consumers do with computing devices. Before the World Wide Web, people bought computers to mostly run programs like Office or play games. And yes, there were dial-up services and Usenet, but most people who owned a PC used it to create and print documents, and store information. Now, most people surf the web, email, skype, download porn, shop online, watch cat videos, FaceBook each other. For many people, consuming Internet services is ALL they do. Windows OS doesn't have a monopoly on the Internet. Apple's support for WebKit, HTML5, and saying "No" to Flash helped Apple level the playing field, and push us beyond the days when websites were designed for IE6 + Flash and nothing else. Like iTunes, the iPhone and iPad are successful (and only possible) because of the Internet.

 

I think the Microsoft's OS licensing model isn't broken or wrong. It just can't be successful in very commonly found circumstances. In any case, in an Internet-dominated computing world, where Windows OS doesn't have a monopoly on what people use technology for, Microsoft has to adopt a different strategy to play. Because Apple is the single dominant successful company doing this, everyone is copying them. I don't think they'll succeed the way Apple has, because Apple's strategy is best suited for, and takes full advantage of, Apple's traditional strengths: the so-called intersection of technology and liberal arts. In other words, Apple's model is the best model for Apple. Like Microsoft, Apple doesn't know how to do it any other way.

 

(Edited for clarity)


Edited by Suddenly Newton - 9/7/13 at 5:07pm

"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 #53 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

...How does DED create a sentence like that?...

 

Because DED remembers those days and is articulate in framing a response to the crap metered out to Apple faithful at the time. 

 

Still, we had our fun, this post from around the beginning of Apple's renaissance (heading to mobile) in 2003 (with a few edits):

 

The Trojan War began when prince Paris of Troy (Gates of Microsoft) abducted the beautiful Helen (GUI experience), wife of Menelaus (Jobs) of Sparta (the enlightened ones). Menelaus persuaded his brother Agamemnon (Apple) to lead an army against Troy. Great Greek heroes including Achilles (John Sculley) and Odysseus (Mike Markulla) took to the field of battle but to no avail. After years of fighting (an epic) and appearing to give up thoughts of winning (%), the Greeks sailed away (Opendoc, Taligent etc) leaving a parting gift for the Trojans (and the free world) to enjoy as testament to their skill as craftsmen and as a token of their good sportsmanship, a beautifully crafted horse (iPod). However, hidden within the Trojan Horse was one of their greatest, most skilful warriors (Jonathan Ive) and his companions (the Apple design team). After the Trojans had accepted the gift (iPod for Windows), had become drowsy (Windows XP etc) and nodded off (Longhorn), the brave Greeks quietly opened the city gates, allowing Greece (the free world) to enter and overcomeTroy.

 

Now, Apple is everywhere one looks - enjoy the victory!

 

All the best.

Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #54 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharliePotatoes View Post

There is a simpler pre-reason for the Microsoft dominance.

It was the gigantic IT departments that ran the pre-PC IBM mainframes. When they had to go to the PC world they did the easiest thing and bought IBM PCs. It was a god send for IT, that with the Microsoft kluge that none of the PCs worked very well. The IT departments did not have to lay anybody off and all were happy. Everyone used the Apple II in business before IT made the turn to IBM PCs. Once the turn happened it was all downhill for the true believers.

 

You make a very good point.

 

IBM made a huge mistake not buying MS-Dos or obtaining an exclusive license and by not buying an exclusive licence for x86 processor or not using one of their own chips. The problem was that IBM saw the PC as a high risk, very low priority (they had around 70% of the global mainframe computer market) and Bill Gates ran rings round them and kept the IP of MS-Dos. The rest is history.

 

There used to be a saying "Nobody gets fired for buying IBM" So when they brought out the IBM PC corporate IT departments overwhelmingly opted for them, even though there were a number of better PCs around at the time. I had a 16-Bit machine called Sirius which was far faster and better built than the IBM PC.

 

Shortly after the IBM PC clones began to come on the market. IT departments tried them and found them cheaper and often a lot better built.

 

Shortly after IBM PCs and clones came out, most software developers began to develop for MS-Dos.  I found it increasingly  difficult to find good software for the Sirius so began to buy IBM clones.

 

Incidentally, my Sirius had amazingly efficient software called "Smart. The Sirus had two floppy disks each of 720k and no hard disk. The Smart software suite consisting of a Word Processor, a Spread Sheet, a Diary and Data Base and the Sirius OS which was all on one floppy. The other floppy held the documents. 

 

When I upgraded to my first IBM clone it had a 20 megabite hard disk. I thought I would never fill it....LOL

post #55 of 178

Some stream-of-consciousness musings about Daniel's interesting and provocative post.


While his apparent feelings about the inclination of Tech Journalists to "go with the flow", "write about the current winner", "do the least possible research and thinking about where the tech sector is going" mirror my own thoughts, I'll concentrate on something else.


The MS business model has always seemed to be: "See what's out there, evaluate it, copy the design, and then spin the idea" that "We, MS, bring you this (OS, application, product) for the very first time - all you have to do to achieve its manifest benefits is to sign this license agreement, in perpetuity".  Nothing new - everyone corporation copies in some sense (cultural vibes, the latest meme) - anyone remember Japanese producers blatantly reverse engineering German camera and car designs?

 

MS achieved desktop dominance because "it became IBM" when the PC era got under way (and the mainframe one languished) - MS largely stepped into IBM's shoes in the corporate world.  MS thrived when their systems became entrenched in the business world, because, just as in the earlier IBM mainframe times, the corporate mantra became - "no-one gets fired for buying MS products".  Nothing wrong here either - all corporations try to lock their clients in somehow.

 

However, as MS has learned, a business model that focuses on copying, being first to market with products that may be sub-standard, flooding the media with soap-style advertising, and using licensing to lock-in clients -  while successful in the short term, cannot win forever.  Sooner or later, you have to innovate or stagnate.

 

Unfortunately, creativity is not something you can buy or spray-on.  What MS has never understood, across all their products, is the concept of usability.  Whether it's the OS (e.g., 3.1, NT, XP, Vista, Win 8 ;-) or the product (e.g., MS-Project) - they just don't get it.  In the end, the user has to want to use the product, and have the minimum difficulty and pain in doing so.  It's all about UX.

 

My own takeaway from Daniel's post is that if MS had had a single clue (like the software engineers at Apple clearly do) about what makes people relate to, and engage with, products, systems and applications, they might still be dominant, even with all the lock-in licensing rubbish.

post #56 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

You'll never convince the other side's sycophants that they are copying Apple's business model (vertical integration.) From stand alone retail stores, to iPhone form and function, to the iTunes Music Store, you name it, they have all come around to Apple's way of thinking but will NEVER admit it.

 

Apple should've patented their business method (which is possible to do, by the way):  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_patent

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #57 of 178

sorry but everyone here including DED still misses the one key reason for MS' success in the '90's - the absolute necessity for software files that could be universally shared among businesses, government, and professionals. 

 

i was the boss in the '80's that decided how my small company should first computerize. it was some DOS system, i can't even remember which. by the early 90's that was obsolete. so some of us got Macs, but by then MS Windows PC's were becoming common in many businesses. the proprietary business software we had to use for some of our work was PC only.

 

the overwhelming problem for us all then - many today probably don't even know this - was that the file types of each office software suite - lotus, word perfect, word star, MS office, some others i forget too - COULD NOT EVEN BE OPENED BY THE OTHERS, let alone worked on. and there were no translator programs yet then either to convert them - those finally appeared in the late '90s'. and of course no Mac files could then be opened on a PC an vice-versa either.

 

so it became unavoidably clear to me we had NO CHOICE but to switch to PC's for most staff. and we did. that also meant brining in a Windows IT shop to get the company network all set up - it was very complicated in those days. they saw the Macs as nothing but an obstacle of course. over the years they just kept adding more and more MS system stuff.

 

today of course universal cross platform file sharing is trivial. but 20 years ago its was THE DECIDING FACTOR. i know, because i made the decision then and that was the ultimate reason. that's also the real reason why all those other office suites died out.

post #58 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex101 View Post

Interesting read, thanks. One of the reasons I check AI daily.

The question I have: If the days of broadly licensed OSes are over, what then? Will every vendor cook up their own OS? Samsung OS? Dell OS? LG OS? HTC OS? Apart from being an expensive task with a high risk of failing (see: Windows Phone, BlackBerry), I'm doubtful they have the human resources and knowledge to pull it off. Maybe with a mobile OS but certainly not with a desktop OS. 

Personally, I love Apple and their ecosystem but the idea of Windows/Android isn't bad, it's the execution that's lacking. 

Let's say that they did have the human resources and knowledge would it pay off? Would the smartphone market support 4,5,6 different platforms? Would devs make apps for all of them?
"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 #59 of 178

Ah, the Windows Kin:

 

 

To this day, I believe that Microsoft missed a huge opportunity by not licensing it to the medical industry to combat depression.

 

It sure makes me laugh whenever I see it.


Edited by GTR - 9/9/13 at 4:21am
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
post #60 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

Apple should've patented their business method (which is possible to do, by the way):  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_patent

 

There was a precedent at the time. Hewlett-Packard was the era's supreme, vertically integrated computing/instrument manufacturer. Jobs and Wozniak learned many lessons at HP which they put into practice at Apple.

Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #61 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

Even now, the pundits and Wall Street believe the Android platform is far superior to iOS and Apple devices. All that really matters to Wall Street is how many units can a platform spawn. Android is already past a billion units despite its later start, easily leaving Apple's iOS in the dust. Android has been declared the winner in the mobile wars and Apple is still seen and valued as a doomed company.

Wall Street is definitely betting against Apple. Even as high a number of iOS devices there are, the pundits claim that Windows Phone devices will overtake iOS by 2017. That's how poorly they think Apple as a company is. It's really sad that after all these years Apple has not been able to do anything to give Wall Street and investors confidence that it isn't going out of business. Apple always appears to be on the verge of collapse as far as the big money investors are concerned.

 

Regrettably Constable, that's sure the way it seems, but Apple probably doesn't care too much about the cognitively challenged (mostly male) droids on Wall Street and the (mostly male) "big money investors".  After all, they are the ones who respectively, fucked-up the US economy in 2008, and don't have a clue about investor value today.  Size isn't everything - quality of performance is everything.  Ask any Woman.

post #62 of 178

This post is nearly as well thought out and insightful as the article. Thank you.

post #63 of 178

IMHO, I think that Nokia may have asked Microsoft to buy the handset business in order to save it from closing it down entirely.  There was so much integration between Microsoft and Nokia from a software perspective for the Lumia line that it made complete sense for both parties.

 

Actually, I think that there was talk a while back that Apple was in talks to be an MVNO (mobile virtual network operator) and integrate service, content, software and hardware thus cutting out the provider from the equation.  That would have been very simply incredible as Apple could have provided a single experience throughout the vertical stack.

post #64 of 178

Several things come to mind, my N7 was virtually unusable for months till they released 4.3 with significantly better memory management.  Google got a pass on that, like all the other crap they pull.  

 

That Google and Microsoft have become vertically integrated is amazing to me, both companies are heavily invested in a distribution model, it's not working for Google, and I just can't see MS pulling it off, maybe if they put 90% + of their managers out to pasture and hire 20 year olds to replace them, but I just don't see them pulling it off, this is the company that thought the Kin was a good idea.

 

Google can't pull off a good phone/tablet through Motorola or the nexus line because it risks pissing off Samsung and all of it's other OHA members.  What they can do is put out "average" phones like the Moto X.  Every nexus device launch has been a mess, and Google gets a pass again because "Well, they contract out a company to do that, it's not really Google."  

 

Neither company has the balls to do what it would take to become a wildly successful fully integrated vertical company like Apple has become because of their pre existing relationships with OEM's.  

 

Were I Tim Cook, I'd be sorely tempted to watch MS and Google burn some bridges with OEM's and then license out iOS and OSX to Foxconn for a year (but hide the year only part of the licensing) and watch MS and Google scramble to rebuild OEM relationships.

post #65 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

You'll never convince the other side's sycophants that they are copying Apple's business model (vertical integration.) From stand alone retail stores, to iPhone form and function, to the iTunes Music Store, you name it, they have all come around to Apple's way of thinking but will NEVER admit it.

They'll just try to make up a story like Apple copied someone else.  It tries to divert the attention away from Microsoft and themselves.

post #66 of 178

It is with a kind of regretful honesty that I think that the selfish monopoly that is MS brought the computer industry into a kind of harmony by making the kind of compatibility, you speak of, the LAW. As in a Play our way or Die.

 

It was a painful era for many who bet on alternatives, sometimes way superior. But it was play our way, or die an ignoble pauper's death. And it was too often, 'you are competing with the MotherShip so die no matter what'.

 

None the less I think we got a cruddy but common and refined framework. Apple is now Intel, USB is everywhere, and Word or compatible is universal. It was an ugly, unfair process but like British Royalty in the end it works pretty well. Think of MS as an aging matriarch, heir to the system, but not really in charge of much as history races past.

post #67 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post


1) I think you have confused the terms "affluent" and "rich". 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.

2) You may be right. However Google took a huge risk by offending by their breach of trust their strongest ally  in mobile computing and they are beginning to pay a heavy price.  Android is already costing them billions and those losses will mount up, especially as Samsung and other Android OEMs increasing fork and fragment Android.
1. Affluent is defined as having an abundance of something (in this case we are referring to wealth). Owning an iPhone or having your credit card on file with iTunes doesn't make you affluent by any accepted definition of that word.

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.
post #68 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Sorry Constable, but this is just too wacky to let slide. Institutions and mutual funds own 62% of Apple. At the current market cap, that amounts to $280 billion. Do you really think they would invest that much if they thought Apple was going under?
You forgot one thing. Most of those one billion Android devices are low end, low margin junk. And if there's one thing Wall Street hates it's low margins.
post #69 of 178
LOL!

Key missing point here: The hardware companies may not make much money on Android, but at least they're making something. They can't make Apple products because of Apple's business model and they have to make something or they perish.

And Apple may be the best at hardware, but they can't fight armies of hardware manufactures and software giants forever. That's why they lost the war with Microsoft despite Microsoft's (mostly) shitty products. That's also why they lost the war with Android.

Also, a couple reality checks: Microsoft bought Nokia because no one else would make their phones and people generally love the Nexus line.
post #70 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by exbusfish View Post
 

IMHO, I think that Nokia may have asked Microsoft to buy the handset business in order to save it from closing it down entirely.  

I doubt it. If so, MSFT would not have paid the premium that it did.

post #71 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoom View Post
 

Were I Tim Cook, I'd be sorely tempted to .... license out iOS and OSX to Foxconn for a year....

I sure am glad you're not Tim Cook.

post #72 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by politicalslug View Post

Owning an iPhone or having your credit card on file with iTunes doesn't make you affluent by any accepted definition of that word.

That's not what he said. 

 

You should learn to read. And figure out which way the causality was implied.

post #73 of 178
Used an iPhone for 6 years. Sold my iPhone 5 for an S4 Active. With the exception of the camera, which is still pretty solid but not consistently enough, I'm much happier with my S4. 5" screen. Water resistant. Notification light. Gmail app is excellent. Terrific Google Music app. Habit browser is smooth. Android has really surprised me in a good way. I still use and love my iPad Mini and iMac. But if you don't think Android has gotten awesome in recent years and that there are some excellent flagships right now being offered by several OEM'S, then you are out of your mind.
post #74 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by blhr View Post

Used an iPhone for 6 years. Sold my iPhone 5 for an S4 Active. With the exception of the camera, which is still pretty solid but not consistently enough, I'm much happier with my S4. 5" screen. Water resistant. Notification light. Gmail app is excellent. Terrific Google Music app. Habit browser is smooth. Android has really surprised me in a good way. I still use and love my iPad Mini and iMac. But if you don't think Android has gotten awesome in recent years and that there are some excellent flagships right now being offered by several OEM'S, then you are out of your mind.

The Sony x-peria is pretty slick too, had a go at it at the store, very sharp colorful screen, very comfy to hold, so much slicker than the Samsung Galaxy phones imo, but for some reason no one talks about the Sony phones.

post #75 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

I would argue that nothing has changed. Phones, games consoles, portable music players, pda's have always had an os made by the guy that makes the hardware. Even Microsoft never tried to license the xbox os to another hardware company.

The only thing thats happen is Apple managed to move into Sonys territory and make a lot more profit and Microsoft so far has failed to follow. Even with the halo effect of iPhone sales leading to Mac sales, after 10 years of ipod, iphone and ipad sales the percentage of macs being sold still isnt that large, there far from beating windows. In the server market osx has done even worse.

So in the end like in the 90s generic pcs are still proving the licensing model works, and more specific devices where the look of the device is more important the whole thing from one company works best.

MS may now be starting to make there own hardware, but is that a result of thinking it works better, or just the fact that the only way they can sell more copies of windows is world population growth. If they can why not get the hardware partners cut of the profits? What competition do they really have?

The iPad is Apples answer to PC licensing. IPads are being purchased for more and more corporate functions. Complete control over the users access is easily accomplished by simply writing your own app. When you have 90% of a market, losing 5% is a pretty big deal. The PC market is dying. Maintenance costs, viruses, adware and high power usage are all built in from the ground up. I will be replacing 13 PC based register systems and 3 servers with iPads and a custom cloud implementation. My installation costs alone will drop by 80%. PCI compliance will come built in and the platform will be updated every year.

Microsoft is not willingly going along with this industry change. They are having to retire Steve Ballmer.
post #76 of 178
Strongly disagree with Nexus 4 and Nexus 7 failure. Firstly they never expected the nexus line to beat Apple, the nexus line exist to inspire manufactures to make better hardware. I guess they're pretty successful on it, since that android phones used to be mediocre 2 years ago, now they're finally catching up Apple.
post #77 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by politicalslug View Post


1. Affluent is defined as having an abundance of something (in this case we are referring to wealth). Owning an iPhone or having your credit card on file with iTunes doesn't make you affluent by any accepted definition of that word.

 

affluent |ˈaflo͞oənt, əˈflo͞o-|adjective(esp. of a group or area) having a great deal of money; wealthy.

I believe you have it the other way around. iDevice users are reportedly known (by pundits and the media) to be affluent. Owning an iDevice does not make one affluent by any means.....although it does enrich one's life.  The hundreds of millions of iTunes account holders (with credit cards on file) are what is coveted by Apple (and by the rest of the tech industry) and they are a HUGE asset that has yet to be tapped. It's Apple's 'Ace in the hole', and I believe, in conjunction with the strong security of the fingerprint scanner, that Apple will capitalize on future transactions taking place outside of the iTunes Store, through the iTunes Store, IMO.

You talkin' to me?
Reply
You talkin' to me?
Reply
post #78 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

affluent |ˈaflo͞oənt, əˈflo͞o-
|

adjective(esp. of a group or area) having a great deal of money; wealthy.


I believe you have it the other way around. iDevice users are reportedly known (by pundits and the media) to be affluent. Owning an iDevice does not make one affluent by any means.....although it does enrich one's life.  The hundreds of millions of iTunes account holders (with credit cards on file) are what is coveted by Apple (and by the rest of the tech industry) and they are a HUGE asset that has yet to be tapped. It's Apple's 'Ace in the hole', and I believe, in conjunction with the strong security of the fingerprint scanner, that Apple will capitalize on future transactions taking place outside of the iTunes Store, through the iTunes Store, IMO.
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.
post #79 of 178
All of that may be true but i got rid of all of my Apple equipment (i.e. ATV1s and TimeCapsule) except for my imac and 3rd gen ipod touch and when they die I will not replace them. I never owned an iphone or an ipad instead I bought a galaxy nexus, a Nexus 7 and 10 and I installed a Chromecast this past week. I think OSX is better than windows but I'm still using Snow Leopard because I didn't like what I read about the later versions.
post #80 of 178
Originally Posted by Joseph Ross View Post
I think OSX is better than windows but I'm still using Snow Leopard because I didn't like what I read about the later versions.

 

Utter nonsense.

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