or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple iPhone may capture 26 percent of smartphone buyers - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple iPhone may capture 26 percent of smartphone buyers - report

post #1 of 84
Thread Starter 
While it has yet to ship its first cellphone, Apple is already tied with BlackBerry producer RIM in desirability, a just-published study reveals.

Research group ChangeWave announced the findings on Thursday, confirming early suspicions from analysts that the iPhone will dull the impact of the BlackBerry Pearl and other smartphones in the eyes of potential subscribers.

Conducted in April, the study shows that just over a quarter of all potential buyers in the consumer field are set on buying the Apple phone when it launches this month. The figure is an exact match for future Canadian rival Research in Motion, whose BlackBerries have held their appeal in recent months.

Potentially more impressive is Apple's seeming foothold on the business market, ChangeWave says. Though the research firm conducted its study before reports surfaced of corporate account bans that prevent the iPhone from selling directly to businesses in the early phase of its release, findings from a corporate analysis in May point to 9 percent of study members preferring the new device to established rivals.

Apple is also causing a shockwave effect in the industry as a result, according to the report. Motorola, Nokia, and Palm have all seen rapid declines in their attractiveness to buyers since the end of 2006 -- falling to 5, 3, and 10 percent respectively in the number of planned consumer phone purchases at the time of the April poll. And while RIM has cemented its position in the office world, climbing to 67 percent of all smartphones sold, Apple's presence may sap the strength of Motorola (16 percent) and Palm (19 percent), either of which "may well be in danger" of eroding marketshare, ChangeWave claims.

Irrespective of the business or home spheres, however, the study portrays the mid-2007 smartphone industry as a two-man race, with Apple set to outrun current followers and giving RIM genuine competition.

"Going forward, the Apple iPhone launch poses an enormous challenge to Palm, Motorola and Nokia -- all of whom can be expected to record lows," the report says. "So whether talking about the consumer or the corporate [smartphone] space, it's quite clear that the iPhone spells trouble for many of the industry's players."
post #2 of 84
If the iPhone has all the announced features and the stability of OS X, the rest of the competition, if you can call them that, should be quivering in their feet.

BUT, Apple has yet to pierce into the Enterprise level... That is their biggest weakness, and a big one at that. You can be sure that Palm, BB, etc. will all be trying hard to keep the iPhone from being supported from enterprise applications
post #3 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by EruIthildur View Post

If the iPhone has all the announced features and the stability of OS X, the rest of the competition, if you can call them that, should be quivering in their feet.

BUT, Apple has yet to pierce into the Enterprise level... That is their biggest weakness, and a big one at that. You can be sure that Palm, BB, etc. will all be trying hard to keep the iPhone from being supported from enterprise applications

Computer sales at the enterprise level are a commodity at best. While the volume sales to enterprise customers could lower component costs, I just don't see Apple chasing it.

You really can't blame them; with 7.6% market share (revealed today) in the US, but with 50% of Microsoft's net income, Apple seems to have their business plan down cold!
post #4 of 84
It is now starting to sink in.

Remember, boys and girls, Apple gets a (as of yet undisclosed amount) kickback from every iPhone sold, from every month's bill. And that's something that no other handset maker gets. So when they have sold 10 million iPhones they will be receiving, oh maybe, $300 Million per year in free money from royalties. Is it any wonder Verizon said "No" Boy will they be sorry.

And don't forget, Apple sells an enterprise server, Xserve. It would be a snap for them to develop a mail server app and give it away with every Xserve sold. But let's worry about the consumer end first.

At current growth rate Apple Inc. will PASS Microsoft in market capitalization in about 5.5 years. Whether or not they pass them in PC market share. And that's assuming MSFT's share price doesn't decline from here. Why would it go up, if they are loosing market share to Apple?

This is a multi-year Steve Jobs renaissance, and it's just getting started.
post #5 of 84
You know, that's one cross-over I hadn't thought of, but makes perfect sense: deploy custom PBX-esque servers on Xserve for business to have their own communications channels... via iPhones. Nice. Further relegating the cell carriers to Just Another ISP at the same time... even better.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #6 of 84
The iPhone is gonna be a big one, no survey can prove of deny that, it's just in the stars. In other news; my damn nitro car wont start!
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #7 of 84
I've just spent ages trying to get a Windows Mobile device to connect to a wireless network with WPA-PSK. Gah. It hangs the entire system every time.

If Apple can get it right, and it looks like they will at the OS and software level, even if the custom applications level is a bit weak, then it will do well.

People hate hassle. Windows Mobile, Motorola, Nokia .... it's all hassle (in descending order).

Geeks like hassle, that's why they bemoan the lack of native on-board custom applications and other restrictions that the iPhone may or may not have. They rate that as a bigger concern than usability and stress-free-ness.

Every one else just wants a stress-free time with their smartphone. The iPhone could be the device to give them what they want, something that just works. I bet loads of them won't even use the flash memory for music or video apart from a few tracks maybe, they'll just want the rest of the phone's features.

What the iPhone is seriously lacking is mobile Office-like software however. Online applications like Google's are simply not up to scratch (although they're an option at least with the iPhone). I really would like the iPhone to have (firstly) viewers for Keynote, Pages, Word, Powerpoint, etc, documents, and later on editors. Seeing as Apple has applications that do these, I think there is a strong chance within the next year that iPhone versions will be available, for a fee, from the iTunes store.
post #8 of 84
Jesus I can't f'ing wait until I can come to AppleInsider without seeing some pointless story about what the iPhone MAY do, or for that matter seeing the word iPhone at all.
post #9 of 84
All I can think of is the CEO of Palm commenting on the iPhone when it was first introduced. I wonder if it's hit him yet
post #10 of 84
Hattig, you are assuming 3rd party apps and a stress-free phone are mutually exclusive, which I don't believe is the case.

As for viewers for documents on the phone, maybe that's where QuickView comes in.
MusicMobs: Music recommendations based on your iTunes library. Publish your playlists.
Reply
MusicMobs: Music recommendations based on your iTunes library. Publish your playlists.
Reply
post #11 of 84
I keep thinking that QuickLook + Back To My Mac would be a killer way to *view* most any document on your Mac back at the homebase... not edit, just view. But still. No special stripped down viewer app for every little document type needed.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #12 of 84
It will be interesting to see how a non smartphone captures 26% of the segments buyers. One would have to speculate that smartphone buyers are looking for cool rather than smart.
post #13 of 84
It's interesting that Windows Mobile isn't mentioned. A whole bunch of companies make those phones.
post #14 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

Geeks like hassle, that's why they bemoan the lack of native on-board custom applications and other restrictions that the iPhone may or may not have. They rate that as a bigger concern than usability and stress-free-ness.

Every one else just wants a stress-free time with their smartphone. The iPhone could be the device to give them what they want, something that just works.

Well put! My thoughts exactly.
post #15 of 84
Quote:
Computer sales at the enterprise level are a commodity at best. While the volume sales to enterprise customers could lower component costs, I just don't see Apple chasing it.

Maybe i would agree with you if Apple were a hardware vendor, but they are a software vendor and the enterprise is where the profits are. I fully expect this rebirth of Apple as a serious competitor to the dominance of MS to be realised on the office desktop, it is clearly the direction that Apple will have to eventually take. I am in the office communications business and the thought of Apple entering this market excites me, i hope it happens and think in the next year or two it will.
post #16 of 84
The iPhone isn't a smart phone. Once you can put your own apps on it, it will be. RIM shouldn't worry for the time being, they're on fire, and they've had a slew of great products come out since the iPhone was announced and I'm sure there's more on the way. Sony-Ericsson should be the ones worrying, their media phones are what the iPhone is more positioned to target.

And I second the mention of too many iPhone articles. I can't wait till it's released so that hopefully slows them down.
post #17 of 84
I agree. The iPhone isn't going to replace smartphones, but other high end phones sales will drop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anawrahta View Post

The iPhone isn't a smart phone. Once you can put your own apps on it, it will be. RIM shouldn't worry for the time being, they're on fire, and they've had a slew of great products come out since the iPhone was announced and I'm sure there's more on the way. Sony-Ericsson should be the ones worrying, their media phones are what the iPhone is more positioned to target.

And I second the mention of too many iPhone articles. I can't wait till it's released so that hopefully slows them down.
post #18 of 84
The iPhone is going to be one of the final nails in Palms coffin. The rest of which Palm will nail in themselves if they don't start listening to their customers. "Things" like the Foleo are only rushing Palms demise.
post #19 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post

Maybe i would agree with you if Apple were a hardware vendor, but they are a software vendor and the enterprise is where the profits are. I fully expect this rebirth of Apple as a serious competitor to the dominance of MS to be realised on the office desktop, it is clearly the direction that Apple will have to eventually take. I am in the office communications business and the thought of Apple entering this market excites me, i hope it happens and think in the next year or two it will.

Please Please Please take the time to actually read Apple's financial statements. Apple is a Hardware vendor.
post #20 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's interesting that Windows Mobile isn't mentioned. A whole bunch of companies make those phones.

Good point. If Chnagewave is fairly correct—and I think they are—it will be Windows Mobile that will suffer the most hit in overall marketshare from the upcoming Cupertino device.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #21 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy View Post

Please Please Please take the time to actually read Apple's financial statements. Apple is a Hardware vendor.

I really hate this argument. Apple is both a hardware and software vendor. They sell both. They make both. They do, as you are pointing out, make the bulk of their profits from their hardware offerings, but this doesn't not make the company any less of a vendor in software.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #22 of 84
I hope it supports java applications. I want to use it with SecuritySpy so I can check up on things on the go.

My brother and I will be turning in our BlackBerry's come June 29th. Push email is nice but if the iPhone checks my mail every minute or 5 I think I will live.

PS RIM should be worried because on my 8703e you can't pull up files on your phone for editing. i.e mini excel doc's and such. I hope text edit is included in the iPhone because it would be nice to have a text editor that was computer worthy on a phone for a change.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #23 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

Jesus I can't f'ing wait until I can come to AppleInsider without seeing some pointless story about what the iPhone MAY do, or for that matter seeing the word iPhone at all.

I sort of get your point but... this is a discussion board not strickly news. We can get that from AP, Reuters, etc. However redundant, folks come hear to discuss, ponder, guess and even argue -- all for the fun of it. I don't post that much, but that's how I see it. Just my two pennies... All in good fun!
post #24 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

While it has yet to ship its first cellphone, Apple is already tied with BlackBerry producer RIM in desirability, a just-published study reveals.
...
Conducted in April, the study shows that just over a quarter of all potential buyers in the consumer field are set on buying the Apple phone when it launches this month. The figure is an exact match for future Canadian rival Research in Motion, whose BlackBerries have held their appeal in recent months.

Wow, you mean those people who're potentially buying a smartphone next month are considering an iPhone? Wow! Well, it would be a wow if, say, all the other companies were releasing new phones at the same time. However, isn't it likely that potential buyers would be buying the 'new' thing, because, well, the other manufactuers have sold their current offerings to their potential buyers already when they first came out?
post #25 of 84
I don't get people saying that the iPhone isn't a smartphone. Of course it is!

It may not hew to what some people think fits all of the requirements, but that doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the category.

It does e-mail. It does web browsing, it does data syncing. It has real programs for other catagories. It has an alphanumeric keyboard. There will be other programs available, in one way or another.

It has WiFi and Bluetooth.

It will be upgradeable in the OS, which most smartphones are not.

I can't think what else it might be.
post #26 of 84
People, by every aspect of the definition, the iPhone IS a smart phone. I think Wikipedia has an excellent page on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Phone). But check where you will... the iPhone is a smart phone.

There are two OSS projects that could really do well to include push technology to the iPhone (and other such devices). These are Open-Xchange and Zimbra. Zimbra already has a relationship with Apple so I hope the PUMs will see fit to investigate this avenue. I have used Exchange servers for a very long time... and to be honest I want nothing to do with them anymore. IMAP is king in my book... and for once we will have a true IMAP client on a phone.

aplnub: The iPhone does not have Java.. and I for one hope it will never. But that is just my opinion about Java spilling through. (anyone ever see a true Java App sit nicely in the Apple environment or comply to the UI standards that Apple has set forth?)

Concerning market Share. The aforementioned Wikipedia page also shows stats on smart phone OS penetration. The stats seem pretty accurate on glance. Not sure where ChangeWave got their info or how they are defining the market.
post #27 of 84
Quote:
Please Please Please take the time to actually read Apple's financial statements. Apple is a Hardware vendor.

When Steve Jobs quotes Alan Kay and says "those wanting to do great software need to make hardware" That says they are a software company, Steve Jobs will tell you he runs a software company. Yes they sell hardware, do you think i am stupid enough to not know that? But they sell hardware in order to sell great software, they do not write software in order to sell Hardware. There is a huge difference between the two.

The point made was that Apple would not enter the enterprise business because it is a commodity sale with little margin. That would make some sense if Apple's competition was Dell and HP, but Apple do not ever compete in the hardware market. The choice between a Dell laptop and an Mac Book Pro are nothing to do with hardware, the choice always come down to Windows XP/Vista or OSX.

The enterprise software market is not a commodity nor is it low margin, this is the area that true innovation is made at the application and operating system level. Many of the applications we all use today and take for granted were born in the enterprise, this is why Microsoft became so dominant and this is the natural next stage of Apples growth.
post #28 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post

When Steve Jobs quotes Alan Kay and says "those wanting to do great software need to make hardware" That says they are a software company, Steve Jobs will tell you he runs a software company. Yes they sell hardware, do you think i am stupid enough to not know that? But they sell hardware in order to sell great software, they do not write software in order to sell Hardware. There is a huge difference between the two.

The point made was that Apple would not enter the enterprise business because it is a commodity sale with little margin. That would make some sense if Apple's competition was Dell and HP, but Apple do not ever compete in the hardware market. The choice between a Dell laptop and an Mac Book Pro are nothing to do with hardware, the choice always come down to Windows XP/Vista or OSX.

The enterprise software market is not a commodity nor is it low margin, this is the area that true innovation is made at the application and operating system level. Many of the applications we all use today and take for granted were born in the enterprise, this is why Microsoft became so dominant and this is the natural next stage of Apples growth.

They certainly don't make hardware to sell software. They DO make software to sell hardware.

Quite a few years ago Apple could have become a software company, but they chose to not give up the 90% of their business, which was the hardware.

So they make some great software, to sell their hardware.
post #29 of 84
I can tell you understand very little about this business.

Where do you think Apple's profits come from? From re-selling components made in taiwan or china and boxed up inside a pretty case or from the OS and application development work that is at the heart of Apples business in California?

Go to iTunes and watch the interview with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, listen as Steve Jobs talk about how everything they do is software, how the iPod is essentially just software or how the iPhone is just software. Apples hardware is nothing, it is not even Apples.

Apple do not make hardware, you tell me what piece of my iMac Apple made? They design computer cases and buy every single thing inside it, add there own software and sell it on as a package. They only thing Apple actually produce is the software.

Quote:
"those wanting to do great software need to make hardware"

What do you think this means? Steve Jobs said this not me, are you saying he does not understand his own business? Jeez
post #30 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPilya View Post

People, by every aspect of the definition, the iPhone IS a smart phone. I think Wikipedia has an excellent page on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Phone). But check where you will... the iPhone is a smart phone.

There are two OSS projects that could really do well to include push technology to the iPhone (and other such devices). These are Open-Xchange and Zimbra. Zimbra already has a relationship with Apple so I hope the PUMs will see fit to investigate this avenue. I have used Exchange servers for a very long time... and to be honest I want nothing to do with them anymore. IMAP is king in my book... and for once we will have a true IMAP client on a phone.

aplnub: The iPhone does not have Java.. and I for one hope it will never. But that is just my opinion about Java spilling through. (anyone ever see a true Java App sit nicely in the Apple environment or comply to the UI standards that Apple has set forth?)

Concerning market Share. The aforementioned Wikipedia page also shows stats on smart phone OS penetration. The stats seem pretty accurate on glance. Not sure where ChangeWave got their info or how they are defining the market.

actually, even Wikipedia agrees, iPhone is not a smart phone, but it never claimed to be. applications must be able to be installed onto it in order to qualify for the relatively exact definition of "smart phone". web apps will be limited by sandbox security issues. this does not at all mean that the iPhone cannot capture a segment of the smart phone market, because many of the smart phone users do not need to install applications, but mainly use it for messaging, contact management, scheduling, etc.... which are all capable features that should be built into the iPhone as part of its core functionality - but smart phone - it is not (we presume that it will not because our understanding from the pre-release information is that you cannot install apps, but things could change)
post #31 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post


Quote:
those wanting to do great software need to make hardware

What do you think this means? Steve Jobs said this not me, are you saying he does not understand his own business? Jeez

Just because Jobs says that he's in the business to make great software, does not mean that this is the case. Apple does make great software, and they also do sell a lot of hardware; but you should realise that Apple is in business to make money.

Jobs knows that most (90%?) of his company's profits come from hardware sales. If he was forced to choose between making only software or selling only hardware, which do you think he'd choose? What you seem to fail to recognise is that if Apple could sell as many computers (and the same array of high-end computers) by loading Vista on them, OSX would cease to exist: why would Apple waste money developing if that money could be turned directly into profit?

But Apple's not going to give up on its software: they wouldn't be able to sell their computers without OSX. Apple is both a software and a hardware company, but don't think for a moment that they don't know which hand feeds them.
post #32 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsvisser View Post

actually, even Wikipedia agrees, iPhone is not a smart phone, but it never claimed to be. applications must be able to be installed onto it in order to qualify for the relatively exact definition of "smart phone".

Er, not as I read their definition...

Quote:
Definition

Smart phones can be noted by several features which include, but are not limited to, touchscreen, operating system, and tethered modem capabilities on top of the default phone characteristics. A full-fledged email support seems to be a characteristic key defining feature found in all existing and announced smartphones as of 2007.[2].
Smartphone features tend to include Internet access, e-mail access, scheduling software, built-in camera, contact management, accelerometers and some navigation software as well as occasionally the ability to read business documents in a variety of formats such as PDF and Microsoft Office.

Nowhere does it say anything about installation of apps in the Definition section. Above that, it does say (emphasis mine however)...

Quote:
An important feature of most smartphones is that applications for enhanced data processing and connectivity can be installed on the device[1], by contrast to regular phones which support sandboxed applications. These applications may be developed by the manufacturer of the device, by the operator or by any other third-party software developer.

So first off, it never says that installation of apps is a required feature, only that is on 'most' smartphones, and also, it doesn't state that they *have* to be open to third-party developers, only that they may be.

So... no, I can see where you might think that supports the claim that a smartphone *has* to have the ability for third-party developers to install their own apps, but careful reading doesn't show it to be so.

There seems to be some argument about it on that very page:

Quote:
It is debatable whether iPhone really can be considered a smartphone, since no third party programs can be installed, therefore making it having less of a "personal computer like functionality". The CEO of Apple, in conjunction to this, has said: "You don’t want your phone to be like a PC." [21]. However, at the recent "D5: All Things Digital" Conference, Steve Jobs mentioned openness as a "security issue, but that Apple is working to find a way to allow developers to build applications for it." [22]

Most people would consider it a smartphone, and certainly in the class of smartphones, in that it does (more or less) what the smartphones on the market do. Or, at least, what the users can manage to get them to do.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #33 of 84
fine, the iphone isn't a smart phone. it's a phone that can do 90% of the things a smart phone can do, but you're forced to make your programs in a manner that's STABLE, ohh, and it all fits inside your ipod... and it's actually easy to use. the first time i picked up a pearl it took me 10 minutes to give my buddy my contact info.

the "smart phone" as it's described now is a joke. in 12 months 99% of phones being sold will be smart phones, by today's definition. how many times has the term supercomputer had to be redefined. smart bomb. supermodel. smart phone. stupid vague terms that mean nothing. IF [by definition] all a smart phone has to do is accept 3rd party apps, then go hack snake for a nokia 5165 and add two pellets at the same time. doesn't that qualify it as a smart phone? no? then someone please make pong for that phone and give me instructions on how to load it. no more sandbox... presto, 8 year old smartphone.
post #34 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post

I can tell you understand very little about this business.

I understand very little? That's a joke, right?

Quote:
Where do you think Apple's profits come from? From re-selling components made in taiwan or china and boxed up inside a pretty case or from the OS and application development work that is at the heart of Apples business in California?

Apple makes most of its profits from those boxes.

While the percentage of profit from software can be much greater than from selling hardware, when the sales of the hardware dwarf the software sales, you can be sure that that's where most of the profit is coming from.

Apple doesn't sell enough copies of their software, including the OS, to make the kinds of profits on them that MS does.

Quote:
Go to iTunes and watch the interview with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, listen as Steve Jobs talk about how everything they do is software, how the iPod is essentially just software or how the iPhone is just software. Apples hardware is nothing, it is not even Apples.

As we all are, I'm pretty familiar with what Jobs has said over the years. Some of it is even true!

Yes, all of Apples devices run on software, but so does almost everything else these days. Does that make every company a software company? No, it doesn't. It makes them, as it makes Apple, a hardware company that makes good software, to sell their products.

Apple is primarily a hardware company. They always were. Early on, ending with System 7, I think it was, they even gave all of their software away, including the OS.

Apple needs good software because without it, they couldn't sell their hardware. If other companies made enough software for Apple's machines, they wouldn't bother to do as much. The area's they go after are areas in which there isn't much development, and that they have traditionally been strong in. When other software companies have shown less interest, Apple has stepped up and taken over.

Quote:
Apple do not make hardware, you tell me what piece of my iMac Apple made? They design computer cases and buy every single thing inside it, add there own software and sell it on as a package. They only thing Apple actually produce is the software.

That's a strange statement. How many companies these days in the computer business (or any business) make their own machines? Most are made by third parties. Apple designs their own machines using far more of their own designs than other manufacturers do. Even Dell, one of the last holdouts, has said that they would also start to farm out some of their manufacturing.

Apple doesn't produce any of their own software either. They write it, and farm it out to manufacturing, as every other company does.

So, does that mean they don't make software either, because they just write it?

Nonsense!

Quote:
What do you think this means? Steve Jobs said this not me, are you saying he does not understand his own business? Jeez

What I think it means, is that you believe too much of the hype, and that you bit off more than you can chew.
post #35 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsvisser View Post

actually, even Wikipedia agrees, iPhone is not a smart phone, but it never claimed to be. applications must be able to be installed onto it in order to qualify for the relatively exact definition of "smart phone". web apps will be limited by sandbox security issues. this does not at all mean that the iPhone cannot capture a segment of the smart phone market, because many of the smart phone users do not need to install applications, but mainly use it for messaging, contact management, scheduling, etc.... which are all capable features that should be built into the iPhone as part of its core functionality - but smart phone - it is not (we presume that it will not because our understanding from the pre-release information is that you cannot install apps, but things could change)

Then you're wrong. Apple can install those apps to meet the definition.

Besides, we are now seeing that the definition of "app" is changing. "web based" apps are becoming popular. So, as the iPhone will use those, it very handily meets the definition.

But, then again, I don't consider Wiki to have the final word on anything.
post #36 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denton View Post

Just because Jobs says that he's in the business to make great software, does not mean that this is the case. Apple does make great software, and they also do sell a lot of hardware; but you should realise that Apple is in business to make money.

Jobs knows that most (90%?) of his company's profits come from hardware sales. If he was forced to choose between making only software or selling only hardware, which do you think he'd choose? What you seem to fail to recognise is that if Apple could sell as many computers (and the same array of high-end computers) by loading Vista on them, OSX would cease to exist: why would Apple waste money developing if that money could be turned directly into profit?

But Apple's not going to give up on its software: they wouldn't be able to sell their computers without OSX. Apple is both a software and a hardware company, but don't think for a moment that they don't know which hand feeds them.

I think this is where the misunderstanding of my point is.

When you say 90% of Apples sales come from hardware what exactly do you mean? Take the iPod for example do you class that as hardware? The iPod i would say is 99% Software running on some cheap components wrapped in a nicely designed metal box. But you would put down all ipod sales as hardware sales. It is not me, Steve Jobs has actually said exactly that. But the fact is ALL of the clever stuff about the iPod is the software and the clickwheel, the User Interface is king and the reason why it became so popular. But crack open a iPod and tell me what exactly inside was made by Apple? Nothing.

Iphone? Exactly the same, 99% Software running on a pretty box.

iMac, AppleTV etc..

Apple design pretty boxes and user interfaces to run the software that they make. Apple makes its profit purely from the software that they produce, anyone, you, me, my gran can make a computer. I can go out now and buy all the components, i can design a shit hot case that would look stunning, maybe even better than an imac, but all it would be would be an empty shiny box. The only clever thing Apple do is invent incredible, easy to use software that whatever it is used for, playing music, making phone calls, editing video. it just works and it is all down to the software. So Apple are a software company regardless of how much tin they shift in the process.
post #37 of 84
So the founder and CEO of a company says...

Quote:
"If you look at the reason the iPod exists, it's because these really great Japanese consumer companies couldn't conceive of and implement the appropriate software. The iPod is in a beautiful box, but it's software. If you look at what a Mac is, it's OS X, in a beautiful box. So the big secret about Apple is that Apple views itself as a software company. And there aren't many software companies left."

But you say "NO, NO Steve Jobs, You know nothing, you are wrong. You do not understand what your own business is clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about. I know more than you about your own company."

To be honest it is not difficult for me to work out who i should listen to when forming my own opinion as to what Apple as a company represents. This stupid conversation is over, if you look past the trees you just might see the woods!
post #38 of 84
Quote:
What you seem to fail to recognise is that if Apple could sell as many computers (and the same array of high-end computers) by loading Vista on them, OSX would cease to exist: why would Apple waste money developing if that money could be turned directly into profit

Actually, i can't stop until i comment on that, i missed this quote. I cannot stop laughing at it though. are you 5 years old or something?

Do you know if apple released an iMac tomorrow with Vista pre-installed it would be the fastest selling computer of all time? Do you know why? Because people would love an iMac, Mac's are cool, they have been since 1997, everyone wants one on there desk, but they are brainwashed into thinking they need windows and are too scared to spend money on something as strange to them as a Mac. If Apple really wanted to be the biggest hardware vendor in the world they could be tomorrow, just by pre-installing windows. And do you know what the biggest irony would be? That the only reason Mac's are so good is because they do not run Windows.

You have completely destroyed your own argument.

You really need to understand that there is no money in hardware sales, There are plenty of companies out there that sell much much more tin than Apple and are not worth a fraction of the value as Apple. Why is that? Because tin is a low margin, stack 'em high and sell them cheap business. The only way for companies to actually turn a profit is to develop their own software and/or provide services alongside the tin. OSX makes Apple far much more money that the hardware does without a shadow of a doubt, it may be indirect or not transparent to the consumer but this is certainly the case.

Apple can sell an iMac for more money than Dell sell a laptop because it runs OSX, full stop.
post #39 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Besides, we are now seeing that the definition of "app" is changing. "web based" apps are becoming popular. So, as the iPhone will use those, it very handily meets the definition.

Ugh, don't even get me started. Trying to fit everything through the browser interface (oriface) drives me nuts. Seeing the hack upon hack created in the web standards/technology world to make the web browser the new Java Virtual Machine is absolutely hilarious. Aside from the fact that a) web apps are severely limited in what they can do, and b) there is absolutely no user interface consistency for web apps, Web developers will always face the "write once, slightly incompatible everywhere" problem that plagued Java developers for years. You can already see many sites which have been targeted at one browser or another because they don't have the time/resources to make it work well everywhere.

I laugh when I read about people's hatred for Java yet love for web apps. It's the same thing. Just because there's a new web app development technology created every few months, and new buzzwords to latch onto for the marketing folks, doesn't mean anything's actually getting better. If/when web application development technology becomes as powerful as Java (very likely, given the way things are going now), and people start creating more powerful web apps, you'll see that the apps will take just as long to load and feel just as out of place as Java apps (because they're being run in "virtual" environment -- the web browser).

Java apps would look good on Mac if Apple actually cared about Java enough to support it properly (ie. they had something to gain from it). However, there's no incentive for them to make it any better than they have to. They're mainly interested in allowing people to run existing Java apps on Mac OS X so that users who need a particular Java app don't use that as the deciding factor for whether to get a PC over a Mac (same as X11 apps on OS X for Linux users thinking about switching).

Why would they want to spend resources to allow people to write Java applications on Mac which look and feel as good as native Mac apps + have the benefit of being able to run on any OS? That wouldn't tie anyone to the Mac platform. That's the reason Java is a doomed technology, not because it isn't well designed, but because it doesn't make business sense from any given platform maker's perspective. Web app development technology will face the same fate for anything beyond simple widgets.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #40 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post

And do you know what the biggest irony would be? That the only reason Mac's are so good is because they do not run Windows.

I completely agree. While one can debate that Apple's case design is better than other computer manufacturers, it's hard to argue that, internally, Macs are any better than PCs.

I faced this reality after I bought the first gen MacBook Pro and found that if I connected the headphone output to pro audio equipment, there was a lovely buzz (not due to a ground loop, but due to improper internal electrical shielding). Exactly the same as connecting a crappy PC soundcard to pro audio equipment. I never had this problem with my old G4 Powerbook (nor with my iMac G5).

Now I'm forced to use a USB audio device whenever I need to connect my MBP to pro audio equipment. Which isn't terrible, but it just goes to show that the quality of the components in the new Intel Macs just isn't the same.

So yes, the main thing which distinguishes a Mac from your average PC is the software at this point.
 
Reply
 
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple iPhone may capture 26 percent of smartphone buyers - report