Free trade benefits both parties. The exact amount of benefit can vary but free trade is a positive outcome for both America and China in the long run.
Free trade may or may not benefit both parties.
It depends on many factors. For example, if one country uses slave labor, and their customers lose their industrial base while temporarily enjoying cheap imported goods, that is bad in the long run for the customer countries.
Same with cheap goods made so by lack of environmental laws. Or any number of other practices.
Free trade can be optimum. But it is not necessarily so.
Sure, you could make that comparison (if you could find the data). However, it's a meaningless comparison.
It's meaningless because it blows a hole in your opinions.
I suppose we can now break down windows marketshare, you know, based on the different companies that produce machines that run windows. Because, you know, it's meaningless to compile the number of users running windows, win2000, xp, vista, and win7 as a whole because why would we want to know what microsoft's marketshare is.
Then, because he is considered "evil incarnate" by some, I'll try to add some perspective.
Steve Jobs:
• is 55 years old
• is recovering from a recent liver transplant
• at age 21, helped found Apple computer
• at age 24, became a multimillionaire
• has worked in, and been a leader of, an electronics industry for 34 years
• has had many successes and a few failures
• in 2009 was ranked the world's 136th richest man
• has a net worth of $5.5 Billion (2009)
I've met Steve, but don't really know him!
My wife Lucy and I worked in Steve's world (though not for Apple) for 11 of those years-- they were the most difficult and rewarding years of our lives.
We left Steve's world in 1989, totally burned out-- didn't really do anything computer-related for 5 years (kinda' missed that Internet thingie). *
* I do have a complete set of AOL Internet Beverage Coasters, er, CDs, that I'm thinking of puttin' on eBay-- think of it 20,000,000 free hours of AOL access
In 1989 we were comfortable financially, healthy, and after working for 33 years, we retired (I age 49, my wife 47).
I am satisfied with my life and decisions, but observing Steve, I have to ask some questions:
• Why does Steve do it?
• It can't be for the money, can it?
• It can't be for the fame, can it? "Steve Jobs" is probably a household word in most sections of the planet.
• Is it for the power-- most would say he has conquered a good share of his world?
• What about the glory-- winning almost every contest he enters?
Money, Fame, Power and Glory-- Steve has it all! What else is there?
Why is Steve still working?
The only thing I can think of is that Steve has an inner dissatisfaction with the way things are and an overriding compulsion to make them better.
From my perspective, Steve, thanks for the ride!
You've made my life better!
You've helped change the world!
I wish you well, and as an AAPL shareholder, I say screw the Bozos and keep on, keepin' on!
I think that the newest, most fully-featured, coolest, most capable new phones will all be Android OS.
"Newest" depends on when during the year. In June/July, it'll be iPhone. In other months, it'll probably be Android.
"most fully-featured, coolest, most capable" depends on what you mean by that. If you mean the one with the longest list of features, and the highest number of megapixels, then you're right, it'll not be Apple. If you mean the phone with best overall and balanced user experience - with well thought-out and simple-to-use UI, most responsive, most accurate and just-the-right-sensitivity-to touch, and the best ecosystem connected to the phone, I'd tend to think it will still be Apple.
It depends on many factors. For example, if one country uses slave labor, and their customers lose their industrial base while temporarily enjoying cheap imported goods, that is bad in the long run for the customer countries.
Same with cheap goods made so by lack of environmental laws. Or any number of other practices.
Free trade can be optimum. But it is not necessarily so.
The problem with that is the assumption that it assumes that the country providing labor is happy to see exploitation. The reality is that - popular conspiracy theories aside - countries do want the best for their people. Working and environmental conditions vary of course but even the least democratic countries face severe civil unrest when workers don't have reasonable conditions.
As to the other point about trading an industrial base for temporary cheap imports there's two errors in that. First cheaper imports aren't temporary, they're enduring. If one exporter gets expensive, imports will be sourced at the next most competitive country. Second, there's a question about the importance of an industrial base as a goal. Where the industrial base compromises making product no one want and costs far more to produce than it should that base does nothing but harm the country.
That I did not know. I wonder if any statisticians would care to comment on whether that can be considered to be a representative sample?
Just stop there. It doesn't matter. They could have the best methodology in the world and it wouldn't matter. 150,000 people in an online survey is a joke. You have to look at reported actual sales. Nothing else matters. Apple sold X number of phones, phones with Android sold Y number. That's really all there is too it.
Not sure where you're getting the view that I said that, or if you meant to quote someone else. Of course I want them to grow!
Here's what I was trying to respond to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by benicey benice
It's entirely sensible that buyers and sellers and those in between take a different view about value. Apple also has a view that their computers are worth much less than what they sell them to us for.
Emphasis, mine... Got any citations to support that statement... other than Apple's goal to do business at the best profit, so they can create even greater products to change people's lives for the better?
Then you responded with a link to Apple's operating margins.
To which I responded that you seem to think that's a bad thing...
Emphasis, mine... Got any citations to support that statement... other than Apple's goal to do business at the best profit, so they can create even greater products to change people's lives for the better?
Then you responded with a link to Apple's operating margins.
To which I responded that you seem to think that's a bad thing...
.
I didn't say their operating margins are bad. Their margins are excellent, the envy of the industry, and I applaud that in it's entirety. I can't make it any clearer than that.
"Newest" depends on when during the year. In June/July, it'll be iPhone. In other months, it'll probably be Android.
"most fully-featured, coolest, most capable" depends on what you mean by that. If you mean the one with the longest list of features, and the highest number of megapixels, then you're right, it'll not be Apple. If you mean the phone with best overall and balanced user experience - with well thought-out and simple-to-use UI, most responsive, most accurate and just-the-right-sensitivity-to touch, and the best ecosystem connected to the phone, I'd tend to think it will still be Apple.
Likely we're both correct. IMO, we are each saying different things.
I think that Android will appear on a range of devices, from a range of manufacturers, with a range of different foci. Many will hit their niche, and many people will like them a lot.
Apple will continue down the path that you describe, and will make a product in the way you describe, and many people will like them a lot.
Second, there's a question about the importance of an industrial base as a goal. Where the industrial base compromises making product no one want and costs far more to produce than it should that base does nothing but harm the country.
What about wartime? It was our industrial base that allowed us to survive WWII.
Some things are more important than cheap consumer goods. Energy independence, for one.
I didn't say their operating margins are bad. Their margins are excellent, the envy of the industry, and I applaud that in it's entirety. I can't make it any clearer than that.
But, you also said: "Apple also has a view that their computers are worth much less than what they sell them to us for."
To me, that makes Apple appear to be greedy and/or Apple's customers too dumb to know better (a constant theme of trolls on this site).
How, else, is one to interpret your reason for posting that?
If you wanted to discuss margin as a positive, wouldn't it go something like this:
Apple is happy that their customers see such significant value in their computers that they are willing to pay a higher price for them. This allows Apple to make higher profits, which they reinvest to produce even better products!
But, you also said: "Apple also has a view that their computers are worth much less than what they sell them to us for."
To me, that makes Apple appear to be greedy and/or Apple's customers too dumb to know better (a constant theme of trolls on this site).
How, else, is one to interpret your reason for posting that?
If you wanted to discuss margin as a positive, wouldn't it go something like this:
Apple is happy that their customers see such significant value in their computers that are willing to pay a higher price for them. This allows Apple to make higher profits, which they reinvest to produce even better products!
.
The way you've put it is clearer for your angle but I wasn't making a comment about margin as a positive (though of course it is). I was making a comment about the differences in value between any buyer/seller. In fact the point was in relation largely to things other than AAPL. In any transaction, the buyer values the item more than the seller. Its the same whether you sell me a book, or AAPL sells me a computer.
Yes! Obviously they are worth it to the millions of people who buy them!
To turn it around, they must not be worth it to the multi-millions who don't buy them!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Shouldn't those people who want to, have the choice to buy a "best of breed" product?
Anyone is entitled to buy anything they want, I haven't ever said otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Or must we all settle for the devices you deem to be fairly priced?
No, exactly the opposite, I have been asking what is the issue with phones being available cheaply, don't people deserve to be able to afford to purchase a piece of technology, if you read most the posts here, no. Purchase an iPhone if you want, it is your money, just don't go abusing someone if they decide to purchase a Nokia, RIMM, or Android phone, they purchased it because they wanted to.
Comments
Free trade benefits both parties. The exact amount of benefit can vary but free trade is a positive outcome for both America and China in the long run.
Free trade may or may not benefit both parties.
It depends on many factors. For example, if one country uses slave labor, and their customers lose their industrial base while temporarily enjoying cheap imported goods, that is bad in the long run for the customer countries.
Same with cheap goods made so by lack of environmental laws. Or any number of other practices.
Free trade can be optimum. But it is not necessarily so.
Sure, you could make that comparison (if you could find the data). However, it's a meaningless comparison.
The biggest use for this data involves advertisers and whether it's worth developing an app for a given platform.
There are an infinite number of uses of such data.
It is a relevant statistic for many purposes.
Other statistics are useful as well, for various purposes.
And you have no real basis for submitting that "the biggest use for this data" is...
Sure, you could make that comparison (if you could find the data). However, it's a meaningless comparison.
It's meaningless because it blows a hole in your opinions.
I suppose we can now break down windows marketshare, you know, based on the different companies that produce machines that run windows. Because, you know, it's meaningless to compile the number of users running windows, win2000, xp, vista, and win7 as a whole because why would we want to know what microsoft's marketshare is.
totally meaningless
OTOH, for developers already developing for the platform, silence is better:
-- if they're making a lot of money, don't encourage competitive developers
-- if they're losing money or breaking even, why tell anyone (and embarrass yourself in the process).
.
Though on the Apple App Store side, several developers have spoken, some we're making money (or lots of money), and some not.
I want to state a few facts about Steve Jobs.
Then, because he is considered "evil incarnate" by some, I'll try to add some perspective.
Steve Jobs:
• is 55 years old
• is recovering from a recent liver transplant
• at age 21, helped found Apple computer
• at age 24, became a multimillionaire
• has worked in, and been a leader of, an electronics industry for 34 years
• has had many successes and a few failures
• in 2009 was ranked the world's 136th richest man
• has a net worth of $5.5 Billion (2009)
I've met Steve, but don't really know him!
My wife Lucy and I worked in Steve's world (though not for Apple) for 11 of those years-- they were the most difficult and rewarding years of our lives.
We left Steve's world in 1989, totally burned out-- didn't really do anything computer-related for 5 years (kinda' missed that Internet thingie). *
* I do have a complete set of AOL Internet Beverage Coasters, er, CDs, that I'm thinking of puttin' on eBay-- think of it 20,000,000 free hours of AOL access
In 1989 we were comfortable financially, healthy, and after working for 33 years, we retired (I age 49, my wife 47).
I am satisfied with my life and decisions, but observing Steve, I have to ask some questions:
• Why does Steve do it?
• It can't be for the money, can it?
• It can't be for the fame, can it? "Steve Jobs" is probably a household word in most sections of the planet.
• Is it for the power-- most would say he has conquered a good share of his world?
• What about the glory-- winning almost every contest he enters?
Money, Fame, Power and Glory-- Steve has it all! What else is there?
Why is Steve still working?
The only thing I can think of is that Steve has an inner dissatisfaction with the way things are and an overriding compulsion to make them better.
From my perspective, Steve, thanks for the ride!
You've made my life better!
You've helped change the world!
I wish you well, and as an AAPL shareholder, I say screw the Bozos and keep on, keepin' on!
.
I think that the newest, most fully-featured, coolest, most capable new phones will all be Android OS.
"Newest" depends on when during the year. In June/July, it'll be iPhone. In other months, it'll probably be Android.
"most fully-featured, coolest, most capable" depends on what you mean by that. If you mean the one with the longest list of features, and the highest number of megapixels, then you're right, it'll not be Apple. If you mean the phone with best overall and balanced user experience - with well thought-out and simple-to-use UI, most responsive, most accurate and just-the-right-sensitivity-to touch, and the best ecosystem connected to the phone, I'd tend to think it will still be Apple.
Free trade may or may not benefit both parties.
It depends on many factors. For example, if one country uses slave labor, and their customers lose their industrial base while temporarily enjoying cheap imported goods, that is bad in the long run for the customer countries.
Same with cheap goods made so by lack of environmental laws. Or any number of other practices.
Free trade can be optimum. But it is not necessarily so.
The problem with that is the assumption that it assumes that the country providing labor is happy to see exploitation. The reality is that - popular conspiracy theories aside - countries do want the best for their people. Working and environmental conditions vary of course but even the least democratic countries face severe civil unrest when workers don't have reasonable conditions.
As to the other point about trading an industrial base for temporary cheap imports there's two errors in that. First cheaper imports aren't temporary, they're enduring. If one exporter gets expensive, imports will be sourced at the next most competitive country. Second, there's a question about the importance of an industrial base as a goal. Where the industrial base compromises making product no one want and costs far more to produce than it should that base does nothing but harm the country.
I know that Apple is the most profitable company in the industry... that should be their primary goal.
You seem to suggest that this is a bad thing, and that Apple should be satisfied with lower profits!
How much lower? 20%? 50%? 100%? 200%?
Should Apple strive to sell products at break-even, or a loss?
Or, should they do everything they can to grow and sustain a company that has changed millions of lives for the better?
Sheesh!
.
Not sure where you're getting the view that I said that, or if you meant to quote someone else. Of course I want them to grow!
$ 237,553,086,150 AAPL
$ 258,026,962,620 MSFT
.
I
That I did not know. I wonder if any statisticians would care to comment on whether that can be considered to be a representative sample?
Just stop there. It doesn't matter. They could have the best methodology in the world and it wouldn't matter. 150,000 people in an online survey is a joke. You have to look at reported actual sales. Nothing else matters. Apple sold X number of phones, phones with Android sold Y number. That's really all there is too it.
Not sure where you're getting the view that I said that, or if you meant to quote someone else. Of course I want them to grow!
Here's what I was trying to respond to:
It's entirely sensible that buyers and sellers and those in between take a different view about value. Apple also has a view that their computers are worth much less than what they sell them to us for.
Emphasis, mine... Got any citations to support that statement... other than Apple's goal to do business at the best profit, so they can create even greater products to change people's lives for the better?
Then you responded with a link to Apple's operating margins.
To which I responded that you seem to think that's a bad thing...
.
Here's what I was trying to respond to:
Emphasis, mine... Got any citations to support that statement... other than Apple's goal to do business at the best profit, so they can create even greater products to change people's lives for the better?
Then you responded with a link to Apple's operating margins.
To which I responded that you seem to think that's a bad thing...
.
I didn't say their operating margins are bad. Their margins are excellent, the envy of the industry, and I applaud that in it's entirety. I can't make it any clearer than that.
"Newest" depends on when during the year. In June/July, it'll be iPhone. In other months, it'll probably be Android.
"most fully-featured, coolest, most capable" depends on what you mean by that. If you mean the one with the longest list of features, and the highest number of megapixels, then you're right, it'll not be Apple. If you mean the phone with best overall and balanced user experience - with well thought-out and simple-to-use UI, most responsive, most accurate and just-the-right-sensitivity-to touch, and the best ecosystem connected to the phone, I'd tend to think it will still be Apple.
Likely we're both correct. IMO, we are each saying different things.
I think that Android will appear on a range of devices, from a range of manufacturers, with a range of different foci. Many will hit their niche, and many people will like them a lot.
Apple will continue down the path that you describe, and will make a product in the way you describe, and many people will like them a lot.
The problem with that is the assumption that it assumes that the country providing labor is happy to see exploitation.
It is not an assumption. It is an example.
Second, there's a question about the importance of an industrial base as a goal. Where the industrial base compromises making product no one want and costs far more to produce than it should that base does nothing but harm the country.
What about wartime? It was our industrial base that allowed us to survive WWII.
Some things are more important than cheap consumer goods. Energy independence, for one.
It is not an assumption. It is an example.
Chernobyl is an example too but isn't all you need to know about nuclear power.
What about wartime? It was our industrial base that allowed us to survive WWII.
Some things are more important than cheap consumer goods. Energy independence, for one.
I agree with you. Countries with no industrial base and with very good living conditions must assume that there are other ways to survive.
I didn't say their operating margins are bad. Their margins are excellent, the envy of the industry, and I applaud that in it's entirety. I can't make it any clearer than that.
But, you also said: "Apple also has a view that their computers are worth much less than what they sell them to us for."
To me, that makes Apple appear to be greedy and/or Apple's customers too dumb to know better (a constant theme of trolls on this site).
How, else, is one to interpret your reason for posting that?
If you wanted to discuss margin as a positive, wouldn't it go something like this:
Apple is happy that their customers see such significant value in their computers that they are willing to pay a higher price for them. This allows Apple to make higher profits, which they reinvest to produce even better products!
.
But, you also said: "Apple also has a view that their computers are worth much less than what they sell them to us for."
To me, that makes Apple appear to be greedy and/or Apple's customers too dumb to know better (a constant theme of trolls on this site).
How, else, is one to interpret your reason for posting that?
If you wanted to discuss margin as a positive, wouldn't it go something like this:
Apple is happy that their customers see such significant value in their computers that are willing to pay a higher price for them. This allows Apple to make higher profits, which they reinvest to produce even better products!
.
The way you've put it is clearer for your angle but I wasn't making a comment about margin as a positive (though of course it is). I was making a comment about the differences in value between any buyer/seller. In fact the point was in relation largely to things other than AAPL. In any transaction, the buyer values the item more than the seller. Its the same whether you sell me a book, or AAPL sells me a computer.
Yes! Obviously they are worth it to the millions of people who buy them!
To turn it around, they must not be worth it to the multi-millions who don't buy them!
Shouldn't those people who want to, have the choice to buy a "best of breed" product?
Anyone is entitled to buy anything they want, I haven't ever said otherwise.
Or must we all settle for the devices you deem to be fairly priced?
No, exactly the opposite, I have been asking what is the issue with phones being available cheaply, don't people deserve to be able to afford to purchase a piece of technology, if you read most the posts here, no. Purchase an iPhone if you want, it is your money, just don't go abusing someone if they decide to purchase a Nokia, RIMM, or Android phone, they purchased it because they wanted to.