or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google made last-ditch effort to block WhatsApp-Facebook deal, was willing to pay more than $19B
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google made last-ditch effort to block WhatsApp-Facebook deal, was willing to pay more than $19B - Page 4

post #121 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Is that anymore worse than iTunes for Windows? How many millions upon millions less devices would've Apple sold if there wasn't iTunes for Windows?

iTunes for Windows sold iPods. What does iMessage for Android sell? If you have an Android, you're not going to get an iPhone.
post #122 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian37 View Post

Well. I think you are mixing things up a bit. Safari, Music, etc. Those are apps that add value to the iOS platform as they are. iMessage is different. In communication cross-platform usability is a must. I mean Pages allows you to export documents in word-compatible format or as a pdf. Isn't that the same thing. If you shut out other platforms from a product like iMessage you are basically crippling it intentionally for the people who bought your devices. So basically to hurt people who bought competing products Apple seems to be willing to hurt (for lack of a better word) people who bought an Apple device. If your logic applies that is.

If iOS users want to communicate with non Apple users for free, they could download an app. I see no benefit for Apple.
post #123 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I am with dasanman69 and knowitall (ugh) on this one.

Just as it has with AppleTV, iPad, iPod, iPhone, iTunes, and Safari, it’s way past time for Apple to make its communication/networking offerings – e.g., FaceTime, iMessages, iCloud – platform-agnostic. Such products and services have even more value when users, especially Apple users, can communicate and network with more, rather then fewer, people. It's simply a question of positive network externalities.

Arguments to the contrary are, frankly, knee-jerk throwbacks, I am afraid.

(Btw, what do you mean by ‘dilutes’?)

(Edited)

1) People buy Apple's HW but they come for the OS and services that come only on Apple's HW. This is what Apple knew from the start. If they dilute their OS by giving away all these iOS and Mac OS X apps and services to other OSes to use then they are giving away the reasons to use iOS which means they are weakening the desire for customers to buy their HW.

Let's take an extreme example and say that Apple gives iOS away for free. The whole thing. What does Apple now sell besides great HW with software that is designed for the HW? Sure, you and I will buy it but there are plenty that will see that iOS on a $200 (or less) device would look pretty good. Does Apple then benefit from selling less HW but having increased OS and services marketshare? Where is the value for them?

As I stated at the beginning of the previous paragraph it was an extreme example, but I think this is how Apple thinks. I don't see them giving up the elements that make their iOS great which in turn sells their HW.

2) iCloud isn't platform-sgnostic as it has a web interface that can be accessed by any modern web browser (except ironically mobile Safari), and a Windows control panel app for syncing mail, contacts, calendars, tasks, bookmarks, and photos, but that goes back to WinPCs helping to sell more iDevices.

If Android gets big enough perhaps they will have to follow the same steps they took with Windows after the iPod came out because the Mac platform wasn't large enough. For instance, Apple desiring iWearables to capture more of the market than iOS would allow. If that happens I'd think it would be regulated to specifically capitalizing on those HW sales, not opening up very iOS service and to others that makes iOS unique and great.

"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 #124 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

iTunes for Windows sold iPods. What does iMessage for Android sell? If you have an Android, you're not going to get an iPhone.

And those iPods turned into iPhones, iPads, and Macs. There's plenty of people who have a Android now but are considering an iPhone, being able to message their iPhone friends could be the deciding factor.
"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 #125 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) People buy Apple's HW but they come for the OS and services that come only on Apple's HW. This is what Apple knew from the start. If they dilute their OS by giving away all these iOS and Mac OS X apps and services to other OSes to use then they are giving away the reasons to use iOS which means they are weakening the desire for customers to buy their HW.

Let's take an extreme example and say that Apple gives iOS away for free. The whole thing. What does Apple now sell besides great HW with software that is designed for the HW? Sure, you and I will buy it but there are plenty that will see that iOS on a $200 (or less) device would look pretty good. Does Apple then benefit from selling less HW but having increased OS and services marketshare? Where is the value for them?

As I stated at the beginning of the previous paragraph it was an extreme example, but I think this is how Apple thinks. I don't see them giving up the elements that make their iOS great which in turn sells their HW.

2) iCloud isn't platform-sgnostic as it has a web interface that can be accessed by any modern web browser (except ironically mobile Safari), and a Windows control panel app for syncing mail, contacts, calendars, tasks, bookmarks, and photos, but that goes back to WinPCs helping to sell more iDevices.

If Android gets big enough perhaps they will have to follow the same steps they took with Windows after the iPod came out because the Mac platform wasn't large enough. For instance, Apple desiring iWearables to capture more of the market than iOS would allow. If that happens I'd think it would be regulated to specifically capitalizing on those HW sales, not opening up very iOS service and to others that makes iOS unique and great.

1) I disagree. All we have to look at is what making iTunes platform-agnostic did to sales of the iPod, iPhone, iPad, and Mac. (Note that you do not need any Mac hardware to run iTunes). It catapulted the company into the major leagues.  

 

You’re not giving Apple’s hardware nearly enough credit. Once people see what Apple’s software can do, I claim that it actually makes them want – even aspire to – Apple’s hardware.

 

I’d even go a step further and suggest that Apple sell iLife (for a hefty fee) to non-iOS non-OSX users.  I believe that the long-run outcome will be that Apple’s hardware sales will go through the roof.

 

2) Actually iCloud is the least interesting and useful product for me. It’s mediocre. I don’t think it’ll amount to much in other platforms. But FaceTime and iMessage are simply fabulous products.

 

Moreover, I see that you completely ignored the more important point, i.e., positive network externalities for communication/networking products. Would you be willing to use an email system from Apple that only received emails from and sent emails to other Apple users? If your answer is ‘no,’ I hate to say that you’ve lost your argument.

post #126 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

And those iPods turned into iPhones, iPads, and Macs. There's plenty of people who have a Android now but are considering an iPhone, being able to message their iPhone friends could be the deciding factor.

This doesn't make any sense. They could iMessage their iPhone friends with an iPhone. Why would making iMessage global change in Apple's favor if they are considering an iPhone in the first place. In addition, they can still use what's app.
post #127 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

1) I disagree. All we have to look at is what making iTunes platform-agnostic did to sales of the iPod, iPhone, iPad, and Mac.

That's because it allowed for more iPod sales. It opened the market to increased HW sales. Where does giving away key apps and services help sell more iPhones and iPad that these key services are part of?

"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 #128 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

1) ...

You’re not giving Apple’s hardware nearly enough credit. Once people see what Apple’s software can do, I claim that it actually makes them want – even aspire to – Apple’s hardware.


...

Moreover, I see that you completely ignored the more important point, i.e., positive network externalities for communication/networking products. Would you be willing to use an email system from Apple that only received emails from and sent emails to other Apple users? If your answer is ‘no,’ I hate to say that you’ve lost your argument.

1. Wasn't Safari for Windows gonna do the same thing?

Did Apple block Facebook messenger, what's app? You can still use them so your email analogy is flawed.
post #129 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


1. Wasn't Safari for Windows gonna do the same thing?

Did Apple block Facebook messenger, what's app? You can still use them so your email analogy is flawed.

Yeah, but the product has to not suck, like Safari does.

I don't understand the second part of your post.
post #130 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


That's because it allowed for more iPod sales. It opened the market to increased HW sales. Where does giving away key apps and services help sell more iPhones and iPad that these key services are part of?

I notice that you ignored the main point, again.
post #131 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I notice that you ignored the main point, again.

I answered the parts I felt were relevant. What do you think is the main point?


PS: Usually I'm indifferent to ideas I read because even though I don't think Apple will add them if they did add them it would affect the normal in no negative way. With this idea of giving up all these great apps and services to any and all competing OSes I think it would absolutely hurt Apple to lose all these important features that help sell their devices.


edit: Ah, I think I see: "positive network externalities for communication/networking products"? That? That's too much to get into tonight but I can tell you I don't think the open email standards are the same as Apple's proprietary apps and services that I think help sell Apple's devices.

"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 #132 of 165
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
Because it enhances the UX, sheesh.

 

“It’s the software, stupid!” and “It’s the UX, sheesh!”

 

We need a third. “It’s the hardware, dummy!”

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #133 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


It's a subscription app with over 450 million users, $0.99 per year after the first year. It'll have some running costs but there's only 55 staff.



WhatsApp has a steep growth curve. This will follow the adoption rate of smart devices so it'll slow down with them too but it has room to more than double again.

The reason for Facebook's price is clearer now after this Google bid. I figured they'd have wanted in on this, they're always trying to buy into social media. At least now I know a starting price to sell them my Flappy Candy Chat app for.

I would have said $5b was a more realistic amount and $10b should have sealed the deal for Google (just like ~$3b did for Nest) but clearly Facebook decided they wanted it no matter what.

The only thing that drives WhatsApp's user base is the telco gouging for SMS. Notice that this is no longer true in the US, and it is not true in the Apple ecosystem (because of iMessage). Further, most people worth advertising to don't really care that much about $20/mo for unlimited texts. So, I am not quite sure (a) why the WA user base is worth anything resembling $19bn and (b) how long the "1 million users a day" growth is going to go on for (especially as, from what I understand, asian countries have their own messaging services, and are unlikely to adopt WA).

post #134 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian37 View Post
 

That is pretty good description of the deals value. Yet, I think people are overly critical when it comes to purchase prices compared to market capitalization. Using the dcf method companies like Twitter, Amazon or Linkedin are also way overvalued.

 

They ARE way overvalued. LinkedIn somewhat less so than others, since they have a pretty healthy revenue stream per user. I cannot even conceive of anything that would make TWTR justify its valuation. Amazon is pouring everything into top-line growth, but I really don't see this translating into bottom line anytime soon.

post #135 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

How many of their 400M+ users are already Facebook users, do you think?

 

The market and the analysts –perhaps even you -- appear to be treating this number as 0%.

 

The cynical view is that FB is having trouble retaining their current user base (they certainly failed to retain me, but that's neither here nor there), so they are throwing money at the wall, and hoping some of it will stick.

post #136 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


It's possible that every WhatsApp user is a Facebook user but Facebook has 1.2b users so 750m Facebook users can't already be WhatsApp users. This means there's room to grow the subscription revenue.

Also, the crossover doesn't matter as far as the current subscription revenue goes. 450m users still means $450m per year in revenue. While that would take a while to recoup $19b if it doesn't grow, there's not really a time limit on how long Facebook or WhatsApp will be around.

The success of this move really depends on how users react to it and if they start dropping the app in large numbers.

 

If Deutsche Telekom figures out that they have given up 90% of their SMS revenue to the likes of WhatsApp, they will adopt the US model of free text messaging, and that will kill (or at least severely injure)  WA in Germany. Same in every other country, and this sort of event is probably months, not decades, away.

post #137 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry View Post

Seriously, why the hell would you pay that much goddamn money for an effing app that can be easily reversed engineered and recreated? LOL!

 

I am not particularly arguing with you, but the granddaddy of these sort of deals is YouTube: Google already HAD the technology (Google Video, which was in no way worse), and YouTube was not even particularly popular back then (it became so due to Google marketing), so it seemed like Google was setting a fire to $1BN. And maybe it was, but now this is viewed as a great success.

post #138 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post

If Deutsche Telekom figures out that they have given up 90% of their SMS revenue to the likes of WhatsApp, they will adopt the US model of free text messaging, and that will kill (or at least severely injure)  WA in Germany. Same in every other country, and this sort of event is probably months, not decades, away.
Probably true. But Deutsche Telekom would have to agree with all other german carriers about this to offer the same kind of service - including photo messages btw. And you would still not be able to send texts cross-borders for free. And what would be the incentive offering this for free? Surely they would hurt whatsapp, but also their own bottom-line. Right now there is still half the population paying for text messages and photo messages both inside germany and cross-borders. They would lose a lot of revenue offering the service for free. So I think an agreement that will really hurt whatsapp is probably not decades but a couple of years away. That said the 19bln dollars price tag is still too high considering this. But Facebook also had to take into account more than what they are gaining with whatsapp. Not buying them could have meant Google probably would have bought them. And that could have cost market share and revenue beyond 19 bln. in the long run.
post #139 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian37 View Post


Probably true. But Deutsche Telekom would have to agree with all other german carriers about this to offer the same kind of service - including photo messages btw. And you would still not be able to send texts cross-borders for free. And what would be the incentive offering this for free? Surely they would hurt whatsapp, but also their own bottom-line. Right now there is still half the population paying for text messages and photo messages both inside germany and cross-borders. They would lose a lot of revenue offering the service for free. So I think an agreement that will really hurt whatsapp is probably not decades but a couple of years away. That said the 19bln dollars price tag is still too high considering this. But Facebook also had to take into account more than what they are gaining with whatsapp. Not buying them could have meant Google probably would have bought them. And that could have cost market share and revenue beyond 19 bln. in the long run.

 

I agree that this would be a process. As for losing revenue beyond $19bn. FB's revenue is a little under $8bn, so they have paid 2.5 years of revenue for this? I really can't construct a scenario where this makes sense.

post #140 of 165
[quote name="marubeni" ...they are throwing money at the wall, and hoping some of it will stick.
[/quote]

You're using this phrase wrong.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #141 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


You're using this phrase wrong.

Maybe in his country they call spaghetti 'money' lol.gif
"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 #142 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post

I agree that this would be a process. As for losing revenue beyond $19bn. FB's revenue is a little under $8bn, so they have paid 2.5 years of revenue for this? I really can't construct a scenario where this makes sense.
Well, first of all. You have to take both growth opportunity and potential revenue loss into account and add them up. Second, there is also growth FB expects without Whatsapp. The 19bln most likely will be two years of revenue or even less. And when you buy a company you consider the effect of the takeover more than two years going forward.
post #143 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian37 View Post


Well, first of all. You have to take both growth opportunity and potential revenue loss into account and add them up. Second, there is also growth FB expects without Whatsapp. The 19bln most likely will be two years of revenue or even less. And when you buy a company you consider the effect of the takeover more than two years going forward.

 

Two years of revenue is a HUGE amount -- it is also around six/seven years of profits. We seem to agree that left to its own devices, WhatsApp's "business model" (if you can call it that, since it does not really make money) will be dead in a couple of years, because the telcos, slow though they are, will not be able to get much more milk out of the SMS/MMS cash cow, and will adapt to the American model for competitive reasons. So, FB is paying just for the WA phone book. It's worse: FB has considerable marketing muscle, which it could use to aggressively push FB messenger. I can't believe that it would cost $19BN to overtake WhatsApp -- FB could just GIVE you $10 to try their service (which is free), and this would cost less than a quarter of what it cost to by WA.

 

Sorry, it does not compute.

post #144 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowitall View Post

No, Android users will install iMessage for the same reasons iOS users installed WhatsApp . And note that WhatsApp is currently the only cross platform solution.

Maybe someone can explain this for me. What does Whatsapp do that Skype or Facebook Messenger don't already do ?
post #145 of 165
I see no reason why iMessage should go cross platform unless someone can explain how it is profitable for Apple. It's not like iMessage on the iPhone only works with other iOS users. I use iMessage to instant message people on non-iOS devices all the time. Also the App Store offers other instant messaging clients, like Whatsapp, so what exactly are people missing out on?

Woz has said in the past that iTunes should be on Android. Ok, does he have any stats to show that people using Android devices would download iTunes on to their device and buy things from it? Wouldn't most people that care about such things use Google Play? Or is there a large number of iTunes users that don't have an iPhone but would still use iTunes? For me that's another case of show me how this makes Apple money, because if it doesn't I don't see what the point is.
Edited by Rogifan - 2/22/14 at 1:52pm
post #146 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

1) I disagree. All we have to look at is what making iTunes platform-agnostic did to sales of the iPod, iPhone, iPad, and Mac. (Note that you do not need any Mac hardware to run iTunes). It catapulted the company into the major leagues.  

You’re not giving Apple’s hardware nearly enough credit. Once people see what Apple’s software can do, I claim that it actually makes them want – even aspire to – Apple’s hardware.

I’d even go a step further and suggest that Apple sell iLife (for a hefty fee) to non-iOS non-OSX users.  I believe that the long-run outcome will be that Apple’s hardware sales will go through the roof.

2) Actually iCloud is the least interesting and useful product for me. It’s mediocre. I don’t think it’ll amount to much in other platforms. But FaceTime and iMessage are simply fabulous products.

Moreover, I see that you completely ignored the more important point, i.e., positive network externalities for communication/networking products. Would you be willing to use an email system from Apple that only received emails from and sent emails to other Apple users? If your answer is ‘no,’ I hate to say that you’ve lost your argument.
So you want Apple to spend money and resources developing software for other platforms, and then charge for that software, the same software they just made free on Mac and iOS devices? How many non-Mac/iOS users would pay for that software? And if people really wanted it wouldn't they already jump to Apple hardware since they can get it for free?
post #147 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

So you want Apple to spend money and resources developing software for other platforms, and then charge for that software, the same software they just made free on Mac and iOS devices? How many non-Mac/iOS users would pay for that software? And if people really wanted it wouldn't they already jump to Apple hardware since they can get it for free?

Price it right, and you got it. Bingo!
post #148 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph_went_south View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by knowitall View Post

No, Android users will install iMessage for the same reasons iOS users installed WhatsApp . And note that WhatsApp is currently the only cross platform solution.

Maybe someone can explain this for me. What does Whatsapp do that Skype or Facebook Messenger don't already do ?

As far as I can tell, nothing.
post #149 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post


I am not particularly arguing with you, but the granddaddy of these sort of deals is YouTube: Google already HAD the technology (Google Video, which was in no way worse), and YouTube was not even particularly popular back then (it became so due to Google marketing), so it seemed like Google was setting a fire to $1BN. And maybe it was, but now this is viewed as a great success.

The YouTube deal actually made a lot of sense for Google at the price paid. Many people pointed that out.
post #150 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph_went_south View Post

Maybe someone can explain this for me. What does Whatsapp do that Skype or Facebook Messenger don't already do ?
The biggest difference is that you don't need to get a personal profile. You can join without feeling like you are part of a social network. There are no public posts. So basically, they get people to join who do not like to join a social network. That is why it is valuable to FB. There are a lot of people using whatsapp who do not use FB. And that is also the reason why messenger is less successful in Europe and will not be able to replace it. No matter how much it is advertised.
post #151 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian37 View Post


The biggest difference is that you don't need to get a personal profile. You can join without feeling like you are part of a social network. There are no public posts. So basically, they get people to join who do not like to join a social network. That is why it is valuable to FB. There are a lot of people using whatsapp who do not use FB. And that is also the reason why messenger is less successful in Europe and will not be able to replace it. No matter how much it is advertised.

 

Skype – couldn't they advertise this the same way? 

 

Or make a modified version of Messenger called Anonytext or whatever the hell, and promote that to both Facebook and non-Facebook users. Whatsapp seems incredibly redundant for $19B. 

 

The scariest part of this deal from an investor's POV is that WhatsApp is NOT a social network - the ease with which someone can sign up equates to zero stickiness – people can switch to a different app in an instant. 

 

Basically Facebook is paying $19 billion for a very low-revenue phone book, which may or may not be permanent or grow.  

post #152 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


The YouTube deal actually made a lot of sense for Google at the price paid. Many people pointed that out.

 

Yes, and many people thought it was stupid (including, for example, Mark Cuban), so it was certainly not an obviously a good or bad idea. Given that Google video did exist, and was technically no worse than YouTube, as far as I can tell (YouTube has gotten much better in the last eight years, but obviously Google has been developing it quite intensively), there is certainly a case to be made that money was already burning a hole in Google's pocket, just as it is now burning a hole in FB's pocket.

post #153 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph_went_south View Post
 

 

Skype – couldn't they advertise this the same way? 

 

Or make a modified version of Messenger called Anonytext or whatever the hell, and promote that to both Facebook and non-Facebook users. Whatsapp seems incredibly redundant for $19B. 

 

The scariest part of this deal from an investor's POV is that WhatsApp is NOT a social network - the ease with which someone can sign up equates to zero stickiness – people can switch to a different app in an instant. 

 

Basically Facebook is paying $19 billion for a very low-revenue phone book, which may or may not be permanent or grow.  

 

I completely agree, and note that Microsoft bought Skype not so long ago for a lot less money (and there was a widespread, if not unanimous, opinion that MSFT overpaid). Skype had (and still has) a vastly superior product to WhatsApp.

post #154 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I see no reason why iMessage should go cross platform unless someone can explain how it is profitable for Apple. It's not like iMessage on the iPhone only works with other iOS users. I use iMessage to instant message people on non-iOS devices all the time. Also the App Store offers other instant messaging clients, like Whatsapp, so what exactly are people missing out on?
 

 

If iMessage were to come to Android, it would give users yet another messaging client to juggle. What would push users to use iMessage instead of existing cross-platform messaging services like gtalk/hangouts, which is already installed on most Android devices and available to anyone with a web browser and a gmail account?
post #155 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

1) I disagree. All we have to look at is what making iTunes platform-agnostic did to sales of the iPod, iPhone, iPad, and Mac. (Note that you do not need any Mac hardware to run iTunes). It catapulted the company into the major leagues.  

 

You’re not giving Apple’s hardware nearly enough credit. Once people see what Apple’s software can do, I claim that it actually makes them want – even aspire to – Apple’s hardware.

 

I’d even go a step further and suggest that Apple sell iLife (for a hefty fee) to non-iOS non-OSX users.  I believe that the long-run outcome will be that Apple’s hardware sales will go through the roof.

 

2) Actually iCloud is the least interesting and useful product for me. It’s mediocre. I don’t think it’ll amount to much in other platforms. But FaceTime and iMessage are simply fabulous products.

 

Moreover, I see that you completely ignored the more important point, i.e., positive network externalities for communication/networking products. Would you be willing to use an email system from Apple that only received emails from and sent emails to other Apple users? If your answer is ‘no,’ I hate to say that you’ve lost your argument.

 

iTunes IS NOT PLATFORM AGNOSTIC. It's Dual Platform (Win/OS X)

post #156 of 165

My personal favorite all-time plug for fans to ask Apple to open up the operating system to create a clone vendor list was re-soundly and honestly by Steven P. Jobs, internally and at MacWorld.

 

``We checked in on the clone business and you know what we discovered? Nearly all of the clone vendor sales took sales away directly from Apple. They weren't growing the user base.''

 

The reason the iPod was a success is it served a simple purpose: playing Music and later showing Videos and simple games, before being surpassed by the iPod Touch, etc.

 

iTunes was the Media software that managed your media device. That's it. It grew a media centric, and mainly one-trick pony, product into a big business because what OS within it was not part of the equation.


Extending Apple to open up key applications and/or OS X to other platforms and/or vendors is RETARDED.

post #157 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


What value would there be for Apple in an Android version of iMessage? This is a great feature exclusive to Apple hardware, it would be nothing but a drain on Apple's resources. At least with iTunes on Windows people occasionally buy things.

Also, one has to wonder if WhatsApp is violating any patents that Apple or some other company may own: http://www.thefullsignal.com/apple/ios-7/14056/apple-ios-7-imessage-patent-suggests-shake

 

Great question, especially when iMessage for my iPad running iOS 5.1.1 has been broken for the past 5 months.

post #158 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


iTunes IS NOT PLATFORM AGNOSTIC. It's Dual Platform (Win/OS X)

Ok. Whatever's exactly right, as long as you get the drift.... ;-)
post #159 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post
 

 

iTunes IS NOT PLATFORM AGNOSTIC. It's Dual Platform (Win/OS X)

+ iOS.

 

Tri-platform, if you like.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #160 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post
 

My personal favorite all-time plug for fans to ask Apple to open up the operating system to create a clone vendor list was re-soundly and honestly by Steven P. Jobs, internally and at MacWorld.

 

``We checked in on the clone business and you know what we discovered? Nearly all of the clone vendor sales took sales away directly from Apple. They weren't growing the user base.''

 

The reason the iPod was a success is it served a simple purpose: playing Music and later showing Videos and simple games, before being surpassed by the iPod Touch, etc.

 

iTunes was the Media software that managed your media device. That's it. It grew a media centric, and mainly one-trick pony, product into a big business because what OS within it was not part of the equation.


Extending Apple to open up key applications and/or OS X to other platforms and/or vendors is RETARDED.

 

Comparing opening up a communication application like iMessage to opening up the entirety of OSX is the only thing RETARDED here. Seriously, where do you come up with these comparisons?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google made last-ditch effort to block WhatsApp-Facebook deal, was willing to pay more than $19B