or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google has fooled the media and markets, but hasn't bested Tim Cook's Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google has fooled the media and markets, but hasn't bested Tim Cook's Apple - Page 7

post #241 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Do you think Apple has a negative attitude toward the handset market because they've chosen not to make cheap, dumb handsets? You need to consider that Apple didn't have to make a high quality smartphone or make one so coveted that they hold their value. They could have started with a dumb phone at a fraction of the price to appeal to a lot more buyers so why didn't they? Have you considered that Apple only cares about the share of the market only if profits aren't going to suffer as a result? Furthermore, have you considered why Apple doesn't simply license their OSes for free so they could gain a higher OS marketshare? Of course not or you wouldn't have made the comments you're making.

BTW, Android isn't marketed to the masses unless you mean to nearly every other HW vendor. Remember that you're not Android's customer, you're Android's product. The HW vendors are Google's customers because they only get paid when they purchase their services for Android.

In all honesty, your points are entirely valid.  Apple wants to market their product as elite, and there's nothing wrong with that.  I just wish they came out with some killer feature or product that got me excited again.  They've changed the game so many times, I'm anxious to see what they come up with next.

post #242 of 299
Originally Posted by NachoKingP View Post
I just wish they came out with some killer feature or product that got me excited again.

 

Foundation-up 64-bit processing didn’t do it for you?

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 #243 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Foundation-up 64-bit processing didn’t do it for you?

Not really.  When 64 bit came to desktops there was (and still is) a huge gap in software that really takes advantage of it.   The same thing will happen with mobile apps.  Not to mention that it really only benefits processor-intensive applications which are not something that are pervasive on mobile platforms yet.  64 bit will mean a lot more 5 years from now, but for now, it's more future-proofing than a killer app.  Other manufacturers are making them as well, although they look like copycats (Qualcomm looks like idiots after their comments).

 

The only thing it adds that can have an immediate effect is addressable memory, but honestly, do we really need 4GB of addressable memory in a phone?

post #244 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by NachoKingP View Post

In all honesty, your points are entirely valid.  Apple wants to market their product as elite, and there's nothing wrong with that.  I just wish they came out with some killer feature or product that got me excited again.  They've changed the game so many times, I'm anxious to see what they come up with next.

It's not easy wowing the audience more than once. Just ask Daffy Duck.
"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 #245 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by NachoKingP View Post

Not really.  When 64 bit came to desktops there was (and still is) a huge gap in software that really takes advantage of it.   The same thing will happen with mobile apps.  Not to mention that it really only benefits processor-intensive applications which are not something that are pervasive on mobile platforms yet.  64 bit will mean a lot more 5 years from now, but for now, it's more future-proofing than a killer app.  Other manufacturers are making them as well, although they look like copycats (Qualcomm looks like idiots after their comments).

The only thing it adds that can have an immediate effect is addressable memory, but honestly, do we really need 4GB of addressable memory in a phone?

1) 32-bit processors can address more than 4GB of RAM.

2) Apple rewriting iOS, their included apps, and their SDK to support 64-bit apps means they can take advantage of the new ARMv64 ISA right away. This new ISA has plenty of benefits for today's Obj-C*.



PS: I hypothesize that Touch ID wouldn't have been feasible (possible, yes, but not fast enough) without ARMv64.


* I wish DED would do an article on the rise of Objective-C as a dominate high-level programming language.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #246 of 299
Originally Posted by NachoKingP View Post

The only thing it adds that can have an immediate effect is addressable memory, but honestly, do we really need 4GB of addressable memory in a phone?

 

Nope. Wrong. Just like every single other person, apparently.

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 #247 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by NachoKingP View Post
 

Not really.  When 64 bit came to desktops there was (and still is) a huge gap in software that really takes advantage of it.   The same thing will happen with mobile apps.  Not to mention that it really only benefits processor-intensive applications which are not something that are pervasive on mobile platforms yet.  64 bit will mean a lot more 5 years from now, but for now, it's more future-proofing than a killer app.  Other manufacturers are making them as well, although they look like copycats (Qualcomm looks like idiots after their comments).

 

The only thing it adds that can have an immediate effect is addressable memory, but honestly, do we really need 4GB of addressable memory in a phone?

If you want to say "WOW" in the near-est  future you do.

android sucks, but not as much as the people who come here to defend it.

New for MS dorks - Microsoft sucks just as much as the losers that come to AI to defend it

Reply

android sucks, but not as much as the people who come here to defend it.

New for MS dorks - Microsoft sucks just as much as the losers that come to AI to defend it

Reply
post #248 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

What you don't get is that people are using more and more mobile devices and less and less PCs.
Not only are people buying less PCs but they are using PCs less.
PC sales are slowing, but do you have data to show that PC usage is declining? Google ad revenue is growing 37%. Your assumptions don't fit the data.
Edited by ash471 - 2/17/14 at 5:51pm
post #249 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) 32-bit processors can address more than 4GB of RAM.

Yeah, you're right, I misspoke.  It's the OS that causes the limitation.

post #250 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

I am pointing out the portion of your post where your conclusion went off-track.

Apple sells a prestige product, that could become a commodity product if Apple marketed it that way. This is why Apple is outselling all but one of the Android-based barely-intelligent phones (at nearly three-times the price) and totally dominating the iPad tablet market where it is also the costliest product. The value of a prestige product is not measurable because it has nothing to do with cost of ownership, but is founded upon other intrinsic features.

We live in a world where there are commodity automobiles and prestige automobiles. There are $10 wrist watches and Rolexes worth $30,000. There will always be room for prestige products even in mature markets such as automobiles and watches.

There's no reason for Apple's revenue growth to slow, especially if then continue innovating and extend themselves into new markets. Apple has such a caché aura they could sell bronzed dog turds and people would line up to buy them. It would damage their brand, but people would buy them.

You are sorely mistaken that Apple is in a prestige market. Apple sells quality, but not prestige. If a McDonald's employee is buying the product (which they are) then it isn't a prestige product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post

[/spoiler]
ok, if google reduced their price for ads in half, and apple did the same, would Google be able to sell twice to quadruple the number of ads?. NO, the ad market iis already saturated... but apple on the other hand could sell twice as many phones ... (hmmm, in china?. can google sell ads in china?...)
BTW, Samsung is selling 4 times the phones (at half the price) , but they are not making the profit that apple is, and google is only making 15 dollars a phone.
Google is in trouble in 2020 when their search patent has expired, when that happens expect their revenue to be one third it is today....
Can anyone give me the patent number of this Google patent that expires in 2020?
post #251 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashail View Post

Wow this article is super-biased. Google may be able to fool investors but you can't fool your customers. If 80% of phones being shipped are android it's because people like it. Most of these users are people who have used android phones in the past and are happy with it. Some are switching from the iPhone (for good reason) and maybe a handful are completely new to smartphones but have been recommended by friends/family. If anything, I think it's Apple who has been trying to fool customers by selling products for double their android-equivalent prices based purely on the "it's cool" factor. But the shift to android shows that you can only fool people for so long.

Comparing their growth to Sun/Adobe is a silly comparison. In the smartphone-era android figures are unparalleled. That's not to say that android will always be the dominant OS. Sooner or later they too will join Nokia and Apple in the once-was list. But for now, they are inarguably the no.1 player. And personally I feel as a software Android 4.4 is leagues ahead of iOS7.

I would argue that since the lower tier Android phones make up the bulk of Android sales that price is the deciding factor for most of the people buying Android phones. Screen size for some, but price for the vast majority.
post #252 of 299

@iSteelers

That would be an invalid argument. Samsung alone sold more phones than Apple last year based mainly on sales of their S3, S4 and Note3 sales. All of these phones are high-end and in the same price range as iPhones.


Edited by ashail - 2/18/14 at 12:49am
post #253 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashail View Post
 

That would be an invalid argument. Samsung alone sold more phones than Apple last year based mainly on sales of their S3, S4 and Note3 sales. All of these phones are high-end and in the same price range as iPhones.

 

numbers please

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #254 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

numbers please

@hill60 Another time when google is helpful...

http://www.t3.com/news/samsung-beats-apple-to-become-top-trade-in-brand

post #255 of 299

A little of topic but commenting on the things getting better part considering Apple. Well things have certainly changed in many ways in the past few years, not always for the better.

 

-features missing (mac os X)

-support time for OS shortened for macs

-new features are not useable (eg ios "Airdrop")

-system backups possibilities have decreased

-fresh OS installation cant be done easily without the internet and takes hours if you don't have a fast connection

-no fysical media available for local installation

-user interface changes for the worse (some os X apps eg itunes11)

-Apple tying users possibilities to do the things that were possible before eg. upgrading memory, discs on macs.

 

And these are just the ones I came up with in 1 minute....

post #256 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Hey, The Real Story, if you expect people to read that you may want to make it format it so one's eyes don't bleed.

Trolls. So poor they can't afford paragraphing. They're also so broke they can't even pay attention.
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #257 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post


Can anyone give me the patent number of this Google patent that expires in 2020?

I think the posters are referring to Pagerank, #6285999. (named after Larry Page presumably).

Google was the exclusive licensee of the Stanford-owned patent since the beginning. I say was because that exclusivity ended a couple years ago in 2011. Stanford could now license it to anyone else willing to pay the price, and perhaps they have, dunno. In any event it will be expiring altogether relatively soon but seeing as it's only the original PageRank and a lot of patenting has taken place since I doubt it will have much if any effect on Google when it does.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #258 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I doubt it will have much if any effect on Google when it does.

Nothing that Google does seem to have any effect. From crap products like the Google Wave to partnering with HW manufacturers. Same can be said for their stock, though I see no relation to its price and what Google does.

Nota bene: Pagerank < Larry Page. Narcist.

Thanks for explaining the patent!
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #259 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashail View Post
 

@hill60 Another time when google is helpful...

http://www.t3.com/news/samsung-beats-apple-to-become-top-trade-in-brand

How does that article show that samesung's high line phones are selling more.  It just shows that they are being actively traded in.  And it's only for the UK!?

post #260 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashail View Post

@iSteelers

That would be an invalid argument. Samsung alone sold more phones than Apple last year based mainly on sales of their S3, S4 and Note3 sales. All of these phones are high-end and in the same price range as iPhones.

That is kind of hard to believe when every sales ranking of US carriers has the iPhone as the #1 and #3 best selling phone, the Samsung SGS usually occupies the #2 spot.
"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 #261 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
 

 

The similarities were removed at Steve Jobs' insistence. According to author Fred Vogelstein, Jobs demanded that Google remove UI elements that mimicked the UI of the iPhone from the initial version of Android, such as pinch-to-zoom and swipe-to-unlock. This reportedly angered Rubin, who felt Google had caved to Jobs. The story indicates that the Android that Andy Rubin wanted to ship (post iPhone) was very much a recreation of the iPhone, rather than something original that Rubin was trying to come up with himself.

 

The fact that the early Android versions (like the one that shipped on the G1) didn't look much like iPhone can't be taken as proof that copying didn't occur--we know anecdotally that it did--it just didn't ship that way.

 

The G1 actually did have an element of 'slide to unlock' so the only thing listed seems to be pinch to zoom. I really don't think that's sufficient enough to accuse them of copying. You need more than just a single user gesture.

post #262 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by NachoKingP View Post
 

That sounds more to me like sour grapes than a valid point.  ~80% is ~80%, you can justify it to yourself however you want, but it's a fact.  Apple can be happy marketing only to the elite class, but Google's operating system is being marketed to the masses and they're buying it.  Dunno what else to say about it.

First I will teach you a little some about Stats, in the world there are three kinds of liars, there is your ordinary every day liar who just makes stuff up and everyone know he is lying, Then there is the Damn Liar, this person is so good that he'll be go to hell for this lies. Then there is statistician this guy hides his lies behind numbers which everyone take as gospel and never question and accept if on faith.  

 

So unless you understand the number behind those % sign they are really meaningless and are just another marketing tool to convince people of something they want you to believe.

 

To your point, Android or the code behind in maybe placed on any number of devices, however, the question, is the code being used as intended, the answer here is no, why because as it has been pointed on in a number of source android is being put on USB device you plug in to your TV to watch pirated content in third world counties these are being counted as cell phones with android on them. To your other point google is not selling android so they make no profit on it, also people are not buying most android phones they are getting a free device so service provider can over change them for a contract.


Edited by Maestro64 - 2/18/14 at 3:40pm
post #263 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

 

To your point, Android or the code behind in maybe placed on any number of devices, however, the question is the code being used as intended, the answer here is no, why because as it has been pointed on in a number of source android is being put on USB device you plug in to you TV to watch pirated connect in third world counties how it is being counted as cell phones with android on them. You other point google is not selling android so make no profit on it, also people are not buying most android phones they are getting a free device so service provider can over change them for a contract.

Can you cite these please? I must have missed out on them. The numbers do seem pretty dubious but I find it hard to believe that Android based media players make much of an impact on them.

post #264 of 299
Even though I agree with facts in this article, I must say Tim Cook is responsible for AAPL stock performance. Many big institute investors lost confidence when Cook failed to defend the stock while it was falling like penny stock due to false rumors and perceptions. Cook said in the conference call that he doesn't feel like spending energy defending false rumors. Well, Mr. Cook, that's what your PR department is for. When you are running the largest company in the world, you can't have your PR department going on vacation while the stock was falling like penny stock. Cook can learn a lot from Elon Musk who goes online to defend every negative article or news. Perception matter. That's how you get high multiple PE. Financial institutes don't like their investments swing like penny stock. I don't think Jobs would allow that to happen. Can you blame the big investors to put low PE on Cook? Cook can't talk and articulate vision for Apple. And he doesn't know how to defend Apple stock, so the stock suffered. That's all there is.
post #265 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoNonsense View Post

I am still waiting for your constructive counter arguments. Otherwise, you should take own advice and change your username to "nonsense poster"

How is Tim responsible for the stock? That's not what Apple is about; they create products they love to use and the world loves to use. There really is no reason for him or his PR department to 'defend false rumours.

Perception isn't 'all that matters'. The company marches on their own merits, innovations or implementations of tech done in a way that are useful, unlike previous attempts from the competition.

If you think a CEO is responsible for a high PE, what has Jeff or Larry ever done?
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #266 of 299
Originally Posted by The Real Story View Post
First off

 

Shut up and go away. Seek psychiatric help.

 

Originally Posted by NoNonsense View Post
I must say Tim Cook is responsible for AAPL stock performance.

 

Not entirely, no.

 
Many big institute investors lost confidence when Cook failed to defend the stock while it was falling like penny stock due to false rumors and perceptions.

 

They’re idiots. Steve did the same thing. They should do their jobs. Apple will keep doing its.

 
Cook said in the conference call that he doesn't feel like spending energy defending false rumors.

 

Just like Steve Jobs.

 
Cook can learn a lot from Elon Musk who goes online to defend every negative article or news. 

 

Yeah: he has learned that is exactly what you SHOULD NOT BE DOING.

 
Perception matter.

 

The perception of idiots, however, doesn’t. Wall Street are those idiots.

 
Can you blame the big investors to put low PE on Cook?

 

Rather low than Amazon.

 
Cook can't talk and articulate vision for Apple. And he doesn't know how to defend Apple stock, so the stock suffered. That's all there is. 

 

So you know this… how, exactly?

 

Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post
You should take the 'Non' part out of your username

 

He’s not completely wrong. Cook is partially responsible for the stock. In that his direction makes the products that are fully responsible for it.

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 #267 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoNonsense View Post

I am still waiting for your constructive counter arguments. Otherwise, you should take own advice and change your username to "nonsense poster"

He has no need to make a counter argument as no argument was made only rambling, senseless statements from a mind afflicted by Google's reality distortion field.
post #268 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoNonsense View Post

Even though I agree with facts in this article, I must say Tim Cook is responsible for AAPL stock performance. Many big institute investors lost confidence when Cook failed to defend the stock while it was falling like penny stock due to false rumors and perceptions. Cook said in the conference call that he doesn't feel like spending energy defending false rumors. Well, Mr. Cook, that's what your PR department is for. When you are running the largest company in the world, you can't have your PR department going on vacation while the stock was falling like penny stock. Cook can learn a lot from Elon Musk who goes online to defend every negative article or news. Perception matter. That's how you get high multiple PE. Financial institutes don't like their investments swing like penny stock. I don't think Jobs would allow that to happen. Can you blame the big investors to put low PE on Cook? Cook can't talk and articulate vision for Apple. And he doesn't know how to defend Apple stock, so the stock suffered. That's all there is.

There's always going to be negative stories and just because you can defend one stupid story doesn't mean 10 more won't pop up. Apple can and always answers Q's at qtr meetings.
post #269 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

How is Tim responsible for the stock? That's not what Apple is about; they create products they love to use and the world loves to use. There really is no reason for him or his PR department to 'defend false rumours.

Perception isn't 'all that matters'. The company marches on their own merits, innovations or implementations of tech done in a way that are useful, unlike previous attempts from the competition.

If you think a CEO is responsible for a high PE, what has Jeff or Larry ever done?

I am glad you brought up Jeff. In fact, I was going to bring up Amazon to illustrate my point.. this article talks about products and earning numbers as that's all matter. If this is the case, Amazon would be trading at less than $10. You see the stock price = earnings * PE. Amazon hardly make money throughout the history of the company. The only reason Amazon has insane valuation is due to insane PE. Why insane PE? Jeff has managed to articulate his vision to Wall Street to become a big ecommerce by selling stuff at little no profit. Even though I don't buy his vision, it is not up to me to decide. It is the big investors that put PE on the company based on future earnings and perceptions. If you don't understand this then you don't understand stock.
post #270 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoNonsense View Post

^ post

Fully agree that Amazon's PE is ridiculous, even though I do not have a good understanding of how the big investors can be responsible for the PE. I do know that I don't understand stock, but still think Tim can't be held responsible for it. And as a pure emotional act, I'd rather buy AAPL than AMZN.

Sorry for my earlier flame; that was uncalled for.
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #271 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
 

First I will teach you a little some about Stats, in the world there are three kinds of liars, there is your ordinary every day liar who just makes stuff up and everyone know he is lying, Then there is the Damn Liar, this person is so good that he'll be go to hell for this lies. Then there is statistician this guy hides his lies behind numbers which everyone take as gospel and never question and accept if on faith.  

 

So unless you understand the number behind those % sign they are really meaningless and are just another marketing tool to convince people of something they want you to believe.

 

To your point, Android or the code behind in maybe placed on any number of devices, however, the question is the code being used as intended, the answer here is no, why because as it has been pointed on in a number of source android is being put on USB device you plug in to you TV to watch pirated connect in third world counties how it is being counted as cell phones with android on them. You other point google is not selling android so make no profit on it, also people are not buying most android phones they are getting a free device so service provider can over change them for a contract.

Well, I'm so glad you've taught me such a valuable lesson.  Typically, when someone is "teaching", they offer things like "facts" to back them up.  I have no problem at all with you choosing to not believe the numbers, but if you expect me to trust you, I would think you'd have some evidence of contradictory information that doesn't come from your own skeptical mind.  You can't just cast a blanket of denial on numbers because you don't like them.

I would also love to see what evidence you have on the use of USB android devices to pad the numbers.  Or for that matter, how you know that they're being used to watch pirated content in third world countries, because that's a pretty bold claim in itself.

 

Now let me teach YOU something.  Selling a phone for free on contract doesn't change the price of the phone.  If I go to Verizon and get a Galaxy S4 on contract for free, it's only free to ME.  Verizon is still paying full retail price for that phone and choosing to offer it for free to the consumer in an effort to garner more sales and dump inventory in light of the impending Galaxy S5 launch.  I could also go to T-Mobile RIGHT NOW and get a brand new iPhone 5S for $0 on contract, that doesn't mean Apple is "giving away" their phones.  That means T-Mobile is (probably) taking a loss to get people in the door.  That's the way retail works.  Stores buy their inventory from the manufacturer or wholesale distributor (based on the type of product) and then sell them at either the "Recommended Retail Price" or they can choose to sell it lower or higher, based on their goals.  It has nothing to do with what the manufacturers get for the phone, that stays the same unless they decide to start charging less.  Any profits or losses at the store level is called "margin", which is how retail stores stay in business.  Typically retail mobile stores make little margin on phones and the majority of their actual margin comes from warranties and accessories, which is why they do things like push for extra charging cables, cases, bluetooth, speakers, etc.  They make WAY more money from a USB cable than they do from the actual phone percentage wise.  I worked in a retail computer store that made maybe $100 on a $2400 laptop but they charged $49.99 on an adaptor that literally cost the store $0.81.


Edited by NachoKingP - 2/18/14 at 10:08am
post #272 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post


He has no need to make a counter argument as no argument was made only rambling, senseless statements from a mind afflicted by Google's reality distortion field.

 

Forgive me if I'm missing a joke or a reference here, but wasn't the 'reality distortion field' a positive comment about Steve Jobs? Seems weird to try and paint it as a negative part of a competitor.

post #273 of 299
"They’re idiots. Steve did the same thing. They should do their jobs. Apple will keep doing its.

Just like Steve Jobs."

Nope. What you don't understand about Steve Jobs is he does things secretly. When Steve Jobs came back to Apple, Steve Jobs would reach out to bloggers secretly to write articles for Apple products. Ask Walt Mossberg! Steve Jobs would probably ask his PR or bloggers to address the negative news. He would not sit idly.


"Rather low than Amazon."

Amazon illustrates why earning and products aren't everything to stock. Stock price = earnings * PE. PE is based on future earnings and perceptions by Wall Street. Therefore, Perceptions matter if you are arguing about the stock price!

"So you know this… how, exactly?"

When Cook showed up to Goldman Sachs Investors Conference, the stock tanked. When Cook showed up on stage for products launch, the stock tanked. Whenever Elon Musk goes online to defend negative news you see Tesla stock jumped. Investors can't reasonate what Cook has to say.
post #274 of 299
Originally Posted by NoNonsense View Post
Nope. What you don't understand about Steve Jobs is he does things secretly.

 

So… 

 

I’m trying to figure out how this doesn’t apply to Tim Cook. You want him to do the opposite of what Steve did?

 
Steve Jobs would probably ask his PR or bloggers to address the negative news. He would not sit idly.

 

Except he outright stated that the stock can take care of itself.

 
Amazon illustrates why earning and products aren't everything to stock.

 

And Apple illustrates why stock isn’t everything.

 
When Cook showed up to Goldman Sachs Investors Conference, the stock tanked. When Cook showed up on stage for products launch, the stock tanked. Investors can't reasonate what Cook has to say.

 

So that’s THEIR problem.

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 #275 of 299
[/quote]
"I’m trying to figure out how this doesn’t apply to Tim Cook. You want him to do the opposite of what Steve did?"

What investors expect from Cook is what they expect from good CEO would do. That is, address the false rumors and negative news. Not only they effect the stock price, they effect business like negotiation with phone carriers.

"Except he outright stated that the stock can take care of itself."

Jobs said the right things publicly. That doesn't mean he doesn't do things privately. In fact, he does many things privately. That's the genius part of Jobs. He spent his entire life creating and nurturing the image of Apple. Both publicly and privately. Cook, on the other hand, thinks products and numbers are all that matter. A typical operation person mentality!

"And Apple illustrates why stock isn’t everything."

The author of this article talked about Apple products, earnings and complained about Apple's valuation. My point is Cook is doing a poor job of nurturing Apple image. Thus, suffered with low PE. Amazon stock illustrates PE is all about future earnings and perceptions!
post #276 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoNonsense View Post

What investors expect from Cook is what they expect from good CEO would do. That is, address the false rumors and negative news. Not only they effect the stock price, they effect business like negotiation with phone carriers.

Wrong. CEO isn't suppose to babysit the media. In addition, what if a rumor is true? If Cook doesn't address it, then Apple has shown its cards. More so if the tech media plays 20 Q's. It's better to ignore the nonsense and do what Apple does best: produce amazing products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Khul View Post

Poster is a complete and utter idiot.
Ditto
post #277 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Wrong. CEO isn't suppose to babysit the media. In addition, what if a rumor is true? If Cook doesn't address it, then Apple has shown its cards. More so if the tech media plays 20 Q's. It's better to ignore the nonsense and do what Apple does best: produce amazing products.
Ditto

We are talking about negative news. How can that be good for Apple? Wonder why Samsung, Google, Amazon and Microsoft spent millions on ads trashing apple products? To create negative image and alter consumers behaviors!
post #278 of 299
Originally Posted by NoNonsense View Post
[/quote]

 

You want to hit the quote button, not the reply button.

 
What investors expect from Cook is what they expect from good CEO would do.

 

So… they didn’t expect that from Jobs? Because he wasn’t a good CEO? Because they didn’t expect him to be a CEO? Because they didn’t want to expect good CEO things?

 
That is, address the false rumors and negative news.

 

Which Steve didn’t do. And that was fine. But it’s not fine now? Why?

 
Not only they effect the stock price, they effect business like negotiation with phone carriers.

 

No, sorry, the telecoms couldn’t care less about what some idiot blogger or analyst says when they’re in actual negotiations with the actual company and the actual people therefrom presenting them actual information.

 
Jobs said the right things publicly.

 

So does Cook.

 
That doesn't mean he doesn't do things privately.

 

Nor Cook.

 
In fact, he does many things privately.

 

As does Cook.

 
Cook, on the other hand, thinks products and numbers are all that matter.

 

Okay, no, first, and second, thanks for pretending you know that.

 
My point is Cook is doing a poor job of nurturing Apple image. Thus, suffered with low PE.

 

Again, who cares? Not only is it better to have realistic P/E, I would say that it’s beyond unacceptable to even suggest that Amazon is doing the right thing.

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 #279 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashail View Post
 

@hill60 Another time when google is helpful...

http://www.t3.com/news/samsung-beats-apple-to-become-top-trade-in-brand

 

Of the 86 million phones Samsung sold last quarter (note the article quotes 80 million for the YEAR) how many were S4's, SIII's and Note 3's.

 

It seems you have quoted an "idiot journalist" a fine example of what Dilger alluded to in this article.

 

Your link fails to answer my question.

 

Samsung's revenues AND claims of disappointment tend to show that these high end phones make up the minority of their sales.

 

Again...

 

numbers please

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #280 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

Forgive me if I'm missing a joke or a reference here, but wasn't the 'reality distortion field' a positive comment about Steve Jobs? Seems weird to try and paint it as a negative part of a competitor.

On the contrary: Steve Jobs bewitched us as a force for good; the so-called reality distortion field was a description of the manner in which he blinded the cynical with his persuasion, his passion, to such a degree that they had to resort to a description for a world which they couldn't understand.

With Google, it simply refers to unfounded optimism.
Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Google has fooled the media and markets, but hasn't bested Tim Cook's Apple
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google has fooled the media and markets, but hasn't bested Tim Cook's Apple