Microsoft hopes to take on Apple with dual mobile platforms

1234568»

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 157
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    While the massive market cap of a company doesn't necessary say anything about their power. But a company with a tiny market cap can't do much either --- even if they want to.



    This isn't true.



    It's a companies leadership and subsequent products that give the company power.



    When Apple was at its lowest, it had a market cap of about $3 billion. That's really small. All the other computer companies had market caps anywhere from ten to twenty times theirs.



    The rumores that Applw ould either go out of business of be bought up buy much stronger competitors were swirling around like leaves in the fall.



    but look what happened. One of their strongest, Sun, is now owned by Oracle. Gateway was also bought. IBM is out of the PC business. Dell is shrinking and losing marketshare rapidly. Compac was bought by Hp. And only Hp is doing well, and their PC division is having their own problems.



    Meanwhile Apple has come back to become one of the larger companies in the feild, with significant profits, and the highest market cap of all of them except Microsoft, and who knows, that mught happen evntually too.



    The content industries have outplayed their hand. They screwed up. I'm very familiar with the industry. I could give you a good history of what they did going back to the '60's, and where they went wrong. You've go to blame them for where they are.



    As far as the telcos are, well, the world is changing for them too. Landline customers are leaving in droves. Cell customers in the developed countries are an almost saturated market. Growth will come slowly.



    Apple has changed the relationship between carrier and handset manufacturer. You don't have to like that, or even admit it, but it's true. No longer will the carriers have total say about phones, and what services they offer.



    This is like the breakup of Ma Bell here in the US, when it made it difficult for new devices and services to enter the network.



    Apple has done what governments haven't been able to do, and that's good for every user.



    and Apple was much smaller than the telcos when it first came out with its first phone, and is still much smaller than most in both sales and total profits.



    Size is just part of the story.
  • Reply 142 of 157
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    How were they doing it the wrong way?



    The music industry was ambushed by internet start-ups (with questionable legalities and even more questionable long term business models).



    Those start-ups never had a proper business model --- they just want to grow quickly so that they can either be bought out or IPO'ed. How do you defend against those internet start-ups who really has no proper business models?



    Those were the times when you could basically IPO for selling pet food on the internet. And if you manage to IPO at the right time --- you would be bigger than the music industry itself.



    I have no idea about what you're talking about here with these IPO's and underfunded companies. What does that have to do with anything in the discussion? Nothing!



    The word ambushed is meaningless.



    The weren't ambushed at all. You obviously have forgotten that for several years before Apple worked out the deal with the music companies, that there were companies on the net selling songs. Even the record companies had their own music selling sites.



    So to say they were ambushed shows you know little of the history of went on.



    But selling songs for $2.50 to $3.50 apiece as protected low quality mp3s wasn't a good idea, and never caught n. during that time, there were plenty of articles on the net, and in the newspapers and music magazines saying that there were no proper standards for selling music online, and that prices were much too high. but the music companies kept stating in interviews that prices were just right.



    This wasn't being ambushed. This was an amazing lack of listening to customers over a five year period.



    When Jobs came along, they were already becoming desperate for more online sales, and a way to get out from under the P2P losses they were taking. As stated in interviews with music executives at the time, one reason they gave in to Jobs about pricing and iTunes music store sales was because they didn't think it would work, and that it would prove to all their critics that lower pricing, and a uniform selling method wouldn't make a difference. Then they could go back to what they were doing.



    But as we know, they were wrong. Right now, Apple is selling 24% of all the music in the USA, to become the largest music retailer here, and is selling increasing percentages over the rest of the world as time goes by.
  • Reply 143 of 157
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    But on the other hand, you can't argue that Google and Apple were somehow getting beat up by the much smaller carriers --- and require some sort of FCC intervention to protect these internet giants.



    What are you talking about?



    Where do you get these ideas from?



    Tell us exactly what FCC intervention both Google and Apple received from the FCC that protected them from the carriers?



    There wasn't any.



    If you mean that the FCC made sure all involved were playing by the rules, then thats what they're supposed to do. It wasn't helping Google or Apple.



    You make some very odd arguments.
  • Reply 144 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    The content industries have outplayed their hand. They screwed up. I'm very familiar with the industry. I could give you a good history of what they did going back to the '60's, and where they went wrong. You've go to blame them for where they are.



    As far as the telcos are, well, the world is changing for them too. Landline customers are leaving in droves. Cell customers in the developed countries are an almost saturated market. Growth will come slowly.



    Movie studios have always been one bad movie away from bankruptcy (i.e. Liz Taylor in Cleopetra). Yes, they screwed up all the time --- but that doesn't make them bad or anything --- it just make them incompetent.



    But you guys seem to think that it's entirely ok for a college drop-out creating a internet start-up knowing full well that it's probably illegal to trade music online (and later proven in court to be illegal), build up the user base and then flip it quickly by selling it and becomes an instant multi-millionaire.



    The telco's know that the world is changing --- and they are changing their business model to capture more of the revenue by selling more service-oriented stuff. Only that when they do try to caputre more of the revenue, you people think that they are evil.
  • Reply 145 of 157
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    But you guys can't argue that Ballmer --- based on the best information available publicly at the time --- was making idiotic comments on the iphone.



    Every single comment on the iphone made by Microsoft and Verizon in January 2007 --- turned out to have merit.



    What was that "best information available publicly at the time"?



    Since it was public, and you must know what it was, since you claim Ballmer was using it, rather than doing his famous sticking his foot in his mouth routine, you should be eager to post all the links to that information.



    I'm curious. Was it the iPhone's high sales? Was it the tremendous praise of the phone from everywhere that gave him his information?
  • Reply 146 of 157
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Movie studios have always been one bad movie away from bankruptcy (i.e. Liz Taylor in Cleopetra). Yes, they screwed up all the time --- but that doesn't make them bad or anything --- it just make them incompetent.



    But you guys seem to think that it's entirely ok for a college drop-out creating a internet start-up knowing full well that it's probably illegal to trade music online (and later proven in court to be illegal), build up the user base and then flip it quickly by selling it and becomes an instant multi-millionaire.



    The telco's know that the world is changing --- and they are changing their business model to capture more of the revenue by selling more service-oriented stuff. Only that when they do try to caputre more of the revenue, you people think that they are evil.



    Where did I ever say they were "bad", as in evil, a word you're bandying around as though it means something? I said they had the right to protect themselves.



    I also said that they didn't know what they were doing. both of those statements are correct.



    You're the guy here who is calling companies and industries evil, not us.



    Perhaps you should go back and re-read most of the posts here.
  • Reply 147 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    What was that "best information available publicly at the time"?



    Since it was public, and you must know what it was, since you claim Ballmer was using it, rather than doing his famous sticking his foot in his mouth routine, you should be eager to post all the links to that information.



    I'm curious. Was it the iPhone's high sales? Was it the tremendous praise of the phone from everywhere that gave him his information?



    Apple keynote speech is of course the primary source of the public information --- $600 with a 2 year contract.



    http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/l...-jobs-keynote/
  • Reply 148 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Where did I ever say they were "bad", as in evil, a word you're bandying around as though it means something? I said they had the right to protect themselves.



    I also said that they didn't know what they were doing. both of those statements are correct.



    You're the guy here who is calling companies and industries evil, not us.



    Perhaps you should go back and re-read most of the posts here.



    But what are the right way then?



    The industry was either fighting against the Napster type start-ups (no actual business model, only wanted to be bought out or IPO in crazy internet bubble era) or against internet giants 100x their size.
  • Reply 149 of 157
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Apple keynote speech is of course the primary source of the public information --- $600 with a 2 year contract.



    http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/l...-jobs-keynote/



    In other words, you have nothing.



    As I mentioned. even at that price, the phone sold very well, and received very good reviews.



    He also said that he would prefer having MS's software on 80 to 90% of the phones out there instead of having 3% of the sales of phones.



    Well MS's software is on about 2% of the phones out there, or down to 9% of all smartphones.



    Ballmer was just being "Monkey Boy" again. He was trying to dampen sales of the device. He often does that.



    He makes ridiculous statements all the time. It's part of his "schtick".



    He said that "Plays for Sure" would win out over the iPod, and that MS had no interest in making its own music player.



    He then also said, after MS did come out with their own music player after Plays for Sure failed, that the Zune would outsell the iPod.



    There's a lot of things he says that are unsupported by facts. No one takes him seriously, except, maybe you.
  • Reply 150 of 157
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    But what are the right way then?



    The industry was either fighting against the Napster type start-ups (no actual business model, only wanted to be bought out or IPO in crazy internet bubble era) or against internet giants 100x their size.



    The right way would have been, as many other industries already had seen from back in 1995, when the web was just getting started, that the future was moving there in sales. But they were resisting that because CD sales were moving so well. When they came out with such high pricing for their own web sales, with so many restrictions on how those songs could be used, they almost singlehandedly started Napster. There was a desire to buy music on the web, but the music industry wasn't realistically serving the market.



    Whenever that happens, a route around the blockage occurs, and that became P2P.



    The tremendous success of itunes, they've now sold over 8 billion songs, shows that people will buy music if it's sold at a fair price, and can be used fairly.



    If the music companies understood that at the beginning, there likely wouldn't have been Napster in the first place, and also DRM either wouldn't have been needed, or would have been less restrictive, because there wouldn't have been nearly as much pirating.



    Once people get used to pirating, it's difficult to get them to stop.



    It's also interesting that younger kids are doing more buying and less pirating than those who are older and grew up used to the idea.



    With the movie industry, the huge files prevented much pirating until more recently, but as a percentage of sales and distribution, it's still much less.



    Book publishers are now showing that they haven't learned the lesson. I get a lot of digital books, but most people won't spend the inflated prices. Part of this problem is as it was for the music and movie industries, due to the brick and mortar distributers, such as WalMart, BB, Target, Barnes & Noble, etc, not wanting online sales to be cheaper than for what they sell hard copies.



    but, it will happen. The $9.95 that both Amazon and now B&N are selling most books for is a drop in the ridiculous prices that they have been selling for so far, but it's still too much.



    And for those who think they are getting 3G for free with those readers, think again, every book that's bought, or magazine that's subscribed to, has a chunk of the price going to pay for the 3G service that's being given away for "free". People have to learn that there is nothing valuable that's ever given away for free. There's always a hidden cost. Always.



    And in most cases, the 3G only takes one to the bookstore. So you're paying to go in the door and buy something. Nice!
  • Reply 151 of 157
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    So satisfied were these early adopters that Apple had to calm the anger down by giving out $100 itunes gift certificates.



    You guys can't go retroactively trying to change the story.



    Everything that Ballmer and Verizon (we rejected the iphone because we don't want to ruin our relationship with independent dealers because they can't sell the iphone) stated in January 2007 (1 week after the apple keynote speech but 5 months before the actual launch of the first gen iphone) turned out to be correct eventually.



    "we"? Do you work for Verizon?



    Balmer said no one was going to pay $600, last I recall, nearly 3 million iPhones were sold before their first price drop, a far cry from "nobody". I think Apple's biggest mistake was dropping the price by 33% only two months in. It seems they could have staggered it out a bit more. I recall Balmer also was plugging the Samsung Blackjack or Moto Q in the same interview. How well did that sell?
  • Reply 152 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    The right way would have been, as many other industries already had seen from back in 1995, when the web was just getting started, that the future was moving there in sales. But they were resisting that because CD sales were moving so well. When they came out with such high pricing for their own web sales, with so many restrictions on how those songs could be used, they almost singlehandedly started Napster. There was a desire to buy music on the web, but the music industry wasn't realistically serving the market.



    Whenever that happens, a route around the blockage occurs, and that became P2P.



    The tremendous success of itunes, they've now sold over 8 billion songs, shows that people will buy music if it's sold at a fair price, and can be used fairly.



    If the music companies understood that at the beginning, there likely wouldn't have been Napster in the first place, and also DRM either wouldn't have been needed, or would have been less restrictive, because there wouldn't have been nearly as much pirating.



    Once people get used to pirating, it's difficult to get them to stop.



    It's also interesting that younger kids are doing more buying and less pirating than those who are older and grew up used to the idea.



    With the movie industry, the huge files prevented much pirating until more recently, but as a percentage of sales and distribution, it's still much less.



    Book publishers are now showing that they haven't learned the lesson. I get a lot of digital books, but most people won't spend the inflated prices. Part of this problem is as it was for the music and movie industries, due to the brick and mortar distributers, such as WalMart, BB, Target, Barnes & Noble, etc, not wanting online sales to be cheaper than for what they sell hard copies.



    but, it will happen. The $9.95 that both Amazon and now B&N are selling most books for is a drop in the ridiculous prices that they have been selling for so far, but it's still too much.



    And for those who think they are getting 3G for free with those readers, think again, every book that's bought, or magazine that's subscribed to, has a chunk of the price going to pay for the 3G service that's being given away for "free". People have to learn that there is nothing valuable that's ever given away for free. There's always a hidden cost. Always.



    And in most cases, the 3G only takes one to the bookstore. So you're paying to go in the door and buy something. Nice!



    Napster would have happened anyway because of the tech bubble --- they thought that a puppet could sell pet food over the internet.
  • Reply 153 of 157
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    But you guys can't argue that Ballmer --- based on the best information available publicly at the time --- was making idiotic comments on the iphone.



    Every single comment on the iphone made by Microsoft and Verizon in January 2007 --- turned out to have merit.



    I am me, not "you guys," and I won't defend an argument I have not made.
  • Reply 154 of 157
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Napster would have happened anyway because of the tech bubble --- they thought that a puppet could sell pet food over the internet.



    I'm not sure. Napster wasn't selling anything. It was free for everyone, and the software was free as well. It was only later that these P2P companies tried to monetize them by allowing spyware into the software.
  • Reply 155 of 157
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPhone91 View Post


    Sadly, I don't think selling Ballmer will make them enough money to buy the clues that they need



    LOL! OK, at least one? ..
  • Reply 156 of 157
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    "we"? Do you work for Verizon?



    Balmer said no one was going to pay $600, last I recall, nearly 3 million iPhones were sold before their first price drop, a far cry from "nobody". I think Apple's biggest mistake was dropping the price by 33% only two months in. It seems they could have staggered it out a bit more. I recall Balmer also was plugging the Samsung Blackjack or Moto Q in the same interview. How well did that sell?



    Nice spot. I suppose Samab works for Verizon? Anyway, Ballmer has the ability to predict things wrongly.. way off.. so I'll take what he says with a pinch of salt
  • Reply 157 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Don't work in the telecom industry, nor in the computer industry.



    I am not even an American, I am a Canadian.



    Whatever is within the (), I was just paraphrasing Verizon's comments in short hand --- that's why I used the word "we".
Sign In or Register to comment.