There is a ton of
Originally Posted by Jonteponte
Yep. I'm sure there's just a TON of money in selling $50 and $30 streamers if you are not in control of the actual content being streamed through it. The irony is that Apple is the market leader here. Even though they *just* let the Apple TV out of the "It's just a hobby" - land...
There is a ton of money. Just not as much as Apple makes. Apple is the market leader? Well since their box came out in 2007, where Roku launched in 2011 and Chromecast came out in 2013, they should be. And since Apple TV offers an ecosystem that Roku does not, that is another big advantage also.
The idea "if you are not making as much money as Apple you are failure" is nuts. Having $160 billion is great, but tons of companies will "settle" for only $16 billion or $1.6 billion. Some will even "settle" for $160 million, especially if it is a large diverse company (like Samsung, Microsoft, Google, Acer, Sony, HP) for whom making competing products with Apple simply adds to their bottom line and is used as a hook to draw people to their other products.
Take Chromecast and the upcoming Amazon dongle. Even if they are "break-even" (as Amazon's Kindle products are, as are Google's Nexus line, which Google is dumping next year by the way, replacing it with a Google Play line that will have a much superior version of Android on it) they get people to use other company products to increase the profit margin on them. Chromecast for instance requires a Chrome browser and drives YouTube traffic. The Amazon dongle will increase the number of Amazon Prime buyers and subscribers, and the gaming component will mean more people buying Angry Birds through the Amazon Store instead of the Google Play store.
Sorry, but you guys need to acknowledge that just because everyone doesn't have Apple's business model doesn't mean that it is a bad business model. Especially with companies that are vastly different from Apple anyway. Apple is a hardware company that makes its own software for their devices instead of relying on third party hardware. Good for them. Which means that their real competitors are/were actually companies like IBM, Gateway, Dell, Toshiba, Lenovo (yes many of whom have fallen to the wayside) etc. and is now primarily Samsung. Microsoft is a software company. They can just shift focus and stop trying to make money primarily with Windows and instead find ways to make money off everybody tomorrow. (Or yesterday since that seems primarily to be Natella's strategy: Office on IOS today and Android tomorrow. Go ahead and release Office on Linux I guess.) Amazon and Google meanwhile are Internet companies, a business model that didn't even exist until years after Apple was founded. Their interest in hardware - and software - is to drive their Internet business. Amazon sells hardware to get you to buy stuff from their store, Google sells hardware so they can collect your data and get you to use their search engines.
Apple has no ability to - or reason to really - to compete with Google, Microsoft or Amazon. They DO have the ability/reason to compete with Samsung. But even there, Samsung has learned from the failure of the Wintel companies. Microsoft was able to bully other (mostly American) OEMs to prevent them from using any OS but Windows, including OS developed for their own hardware. But Samsung makes devices with Windows, Android, ChromeOS, now their own Tizen OS ... anything that will sell.