Sad and true. We are all guilty of this short sightedness.
Just as an curiousity, I wonder how much more these goods would cost if assembled here.
Balanced trade is good thing... free trade(trade imbalances) there is always a winner and loser. We Americans are losing in long run, but appears good in short run. Sigh.
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.
What if you want to compare the number of phones sold with iPhone OS to the number of phones sold with Android OS?
It's not really all that hard.
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. For that decision, the relevant figure is how many devices use your application (unless it is an application that only has meaning for a cell phone). If that's what you're trying to decide, then you want to know the total number of devices using the OS - so you have to add in iPod Touch and iPad.
OTOH, if you're trying to evaluate the success of a phone, you evaluate the number of each model of phone being sold. You can compare whether Model A sells more than Model B and so on.
You might be interested in a company's market share - in which case you'd look at total phones sold by a company - regardless of which OS they run.
There just aren't that many scenarios where you'd want to know how many PHONES (as opposed to devices) run a given OS.
Yes, I recognized that rather than enter into a lengthy discussion about the myriad reasons why NPD's data are very likely inaccurate and NPD's conclusions are completely wrong, Apple chose to highlight the indisputable opportunity the iPhone presents to developers as compared to Android, Blackberry, Symbian, Palm, WinMo, yada-yada-yada. For apps, App-le is still the market leader.
Please note that your opinion differs from Apple's. When given the opportunity to raise the point you feel is important, they passed and simply tried to change the subject instead.
GS are not bloodsuckers, they are in business to make a profit and there are few companies who do it better. It's easy to kick a company when they are being presented as a scapegoat by the government to gain political advantage to push through absurd, ineffectual financial regulations.
Has GS been promoting & sell securities that they knew were worthless, or not?
Quote:
Have you actually studied the regulations proposed? They are virtually meaningless. You have been played.
The new regulations are supposed to be meaningless. Politics has been a sham for decades, if not longer. That's one reason I don't like seeing people sling political, because it's mostly empty.
Has GS been promoting sell securities that they knew were worthless, or not?
My favorite part of the whole fiasco was when GS was testifying in front of Congress and stated that they ONLY made $500 M on one particular group of troublesome trades, so it wasn't a big deal.
First, the concept that you can get away with something just because the numbers aren't large is appalling. Maybe by that logic, you can shoot someone as long as they're short.
More importantly, you have to wonder how isolated from reality these guys are when they consider $500,000,000 to be an insignificant amount of money. It's a HUGE amount of money for the customers they defrauded.
It's long past time for that industry to be cleaned up - REALLY cleaned up this time rather than just the window dressing that was done over the past few years.
Has GS been promoting & sell securities that they knew were worthless, or not?
Is that relevant or not? They make the point that the corporate clients on either side of the transactions were not seeking advice. The point of a bank is to be as a conduit between counterparties with different exposures and views. It's not the job of every bank to save people from their different views, who then cry wolf when it didn't work out how they expected.
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.
You mean to tell me that offshoring jobs (like the manufacturing jobs that help put the iphone together) is ethical for the American worker? hmmmm.
I suggest you learn a little more about ethics.
Nationalism for the sake of nationalism is unethical. We live in a global economy. To refuse to offer people in developing countries the opportunity to better themselves through employment because of some notion that we should "only support Americans" is highly unethical.
Selling our well-designed products to people in China is not unethical.
Hiring overseas workers (while demanding good working conditions) is highly ethical, in that it supports those workers' pursuit of a better life.
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?
It is off topic to this thread, doesn't apply to this thread, but I had a hard time just letting it slide.
Quote:
They make the point that the corporate clients on either side of the transactions were not seeking advice. The point of a bank is to be as a conduit between counterparties with different exposures and views. It's not the job of every bank to save people from their different views, who then cry wolf when it didn't work out how they expected.
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.
Even if there wasn't specific advice, the accusation that they knowingly offered lemon securities and possibly even knowingly helping in such an activity is a concern to me. It sure sounds like fraud, and I don't see the problem in investigating it.
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?
.
The best way of determining the difference is through the operating margin. Here's the citation.
Apple doesn't care about being number 1 in market share, or even number 2. They're not after market share for market share sake, or for bragging rights.
But Apple does care about establishing viable products - Apple's goal at iPhone launch was 1% or 10M units in its first full year. So they dropped the price, and then changed their sales model (to subsidy) to make that happen.
Apple also does care about number of iPhone OS units sold for the sake of the iPhone OS PLATFORM. There is a unit/share threshold below which very few will develop Apps and content for the platform. The Mac almost died because the number of units sold (or market share) was too small - moving to OS X and establishing Quicktime as part of MPEG-4 saved Apple.
Apple's carefully crafted PR response today was clearly directed to developers who might be concerned. So that's why Apple points to 85M iPhone and iPod touch - both are part of the same platform.
+++ QFT
I missed this post, earlier--- Very well reasoned and presented!
It is off topic to this thread, doesn't apply to this thread, but I had a hard time just letting it slide.
Even if there wasn't specific advice, the accusation that they knowingly offered lemon securities and possibly even knowingly helping in such an activity is a concern to me. It sure sounds like fraud, and I don't see the problem in investigating it.
It's an accusation yes. But it all turns on what representations were made. If they represented something was black and it turned out to be white then obviously that's a problem. If they did not claim or were not asked for advice whether the securities were of value then it must be seen in that context.
When will Google or any developer release some data about sales and revenue data resulting from selling apps for Android phones? Especially to counter data showing that free apps are even more dominant in Android Market (when compared to App Store).
Why hasn't any such data been released yet?
Those are interesting questions!
Assumably, Google would want to publish as much positive info as they can, as often as possible... to encourage developers to develop for their platform.
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).
Hahahaha Apple wont do this, Apple doesn't reply to that...
If Apple's market share or sales start declining, Apple will do ***** anything.
They haven't had to yet. But the signs are a bit worrying in some areas though you have to admit - Android in the number 1 spot. 150000 is a pretty reasonable sample size if you ask me. I'd be happy with it.
I used to be an Apple fan, but my enthusiasm has waned a bit over the years, chiefly due to not so much to the products Apple produces, they are still amazing, but more due to the attitude Apple takes to its customers.
Oh, you must mean things like this:
Quote:
BusinessWeek: Apple Customer Service Leads Computers & Electronics Industry (Again)
Monday, February 22, 2010
By OP Editor
In the latest BusinessWeek customer service rankings, Apple received high scores for its customer service. Apple scored 3rd overall, way above its direct competitors. Apple customer service even scores higher than hospitality heavyweights such as Four Seasons and Ritz-Carlton. Google, RIM, or Microsoft is nowhere to be seen on the top 25 list.
and this:
Quote:
Apple Customer Service Leads Computers & Electronics Industry
In the Computers & Electronics industry, Apple receives the highest score again. In 2010, Apple scored 1016 as opposed to Dell which received a score of 872.
Bloomberg?s NewsWeek on Apple: ?The company?s sleek devices and user-friendly software aren?t its only innovations. Appointments at Apple?s (AAPL) ?Genius Bars? and its roving in-store checkout clerks are just two ways the company has pioneered new approaches to customer service.?
Apple improved from 20th place in last year?s study on the basis of strong improvement in the ?quality of staff? category.
Not in Top 25 Customer Service Ranking
In the Computers & Electronics industry, no other companies besides Apple and Dell made it to the BusinssWeek 2010 top 25 customer service list.
Google (Android), Palm, Motorola (Droid), HTC (Nexus One), Research in Motion / RIM the producer of Blackberry, and Microsoft are not in the BusinessWeek 2010 top 25 customer service champs list.
It's not a question of whether cheap phones should be available or not. Cheap smartphones are here. they're not as good as the more expensive models, but people will buy them. Apple sells its one year old model, which is still better than most smartphones on the market, for $99 here in the States. If some companies abroad want to sell an iPhone for little, or nothing, and suck up the cost, that's their business too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
You say they are not as good as a more expensive model, but is the iPhone really worth five times more than them?
Yes! Obviously they are worth it to the millions of people who buy them!
Shouldn't those people who want to, have the choice to buy a "best of breed" product?
Or must we all settle for the devices you deem to be fairly priced?
We have cell manufacturers selling 50 models of phones. from the cheapest junk to high end smartphones. They sell a lot of phones, like Nokia. But like Nokia, most of those sales are of cheap, hardly profitable models. Their individual smartphones don't sell that many, but all together they sell a lot. Unfortunately, that makes for less profit.
...
The same thing it true for their computers. Have you seen how many models Dell and Hp have? Dozens! And each comes in as many as a dozen versions. That's one reason why their profits are so low for that. Apple has few computer models. R&D costs, again, can be lower, yet accomplish so much more.
So Apple sold 8.75 million phones last quarter. Almost all were of one model phone. How many different Android models, from how many different manufacturers did it take to sell the number of phones they sold? Quite a few.
So far less profits.
It will always be thus.
It sounds like you are saying that Apple' strategies are good to its shareholders, but bad for its consumers.
Without a doubt, Apple has changed the whole mobile market and loosened the grip of the carriers in controlling the user experience for the better and everyone benefits.
While I can see Android supplanting the iPhone OS in short order, I see Android to be more in the disposable budget category phone business, rather than the premium sector.
I think that the newest, most fully-featured, coolest, most capable new phones will all be Android OS.
And too there will be lost and lots of other categories of Android phones and other devices.
Including the vast majority of disposable, budget category phones, as you predict.
Would you have Apple discontinue doing business in China? That way all those handling hazardous materials would lose their jobs & die of starvation... if you were Chinese: Which would you choose, Which is better... worse... unethical?
.
I first saw this question arise in the late 1970's, when some students wanted universities to divest South African stocks.
The same points were made then.
Another point to consider is that by removing oneself, one cannot work towards better conditions.
Comments
Actually, iPhone 3GS 8G in Japan is free, with two year contract. It's about $53/month, unlimited data (actually the limit is 300G).
its all a trick
i prefer upfront pricing
nokia now offers 3 for 1 deals
which inflates their sales number's
but sadly it also fill's the landfills with toxic garbage phones that much faster
nokia should make a sturdy long lasting green phone .
Sad and true. We are all guilty of this short sightedness.
Just as an curiousity, I wonder how much more these goods would cost if assembled here.
Balanced trade is good thing... free trade(trade imbalances) there is always a winner and loser. We Americans are losing in long run, but appears good in short run. Sigh.
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.
What if you want to compare the number of phones sold with iPhone OS to the number of phones sold with Android OS?
It's not really all that hard.
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. For that decision, the relevant figure is how many devices use your application (unless it is an application that only has meaning for a cell phone). If that's what you're trying to decide, then you want to know the total number of devices using the OS - so you have to add in iPod Touch and iPad.
OTOH, if you're trying to evaluate the success of a phone, you evaluate the number of each model of phone being sold. You can compare whether Model A sells more than Model B and so on.
You might be interested in a company's market share - in which case you'd look at total phones sold by a company - regardless of which OS they run.
There just aren't that many scenarios where you'd want to know how many PHONES (as opposed to devices) run a given OS.
Yes, I recognized that rather than enter into a lengthy discussion about the myriad reasons why NPD's data are very likely inaccurate and NPD's conclusions are completely wrong, Apple chose to highlight the indisputable opportunity the iPhone presents to developers as compared to Android, Blackberry, Symbian, Palm, WinMo, yada-yada-yada. For apps, App-le is still the market leader.
Please note that your opinion differs from Apple's. When given the opportunity to raise the point you feel is important, they passed and simply tried to change the subject instead.
GS are not bloodsuckers, they are in business to make a profit and there are few companies who do it better. It's easy to kick a company when they are being presented as a scapegoat by the government to gain political advantage to push through absurd, ineffectual financial regulations.
Has GS been promoting & sell securities that they knew were worthless, or not?
Have you actually studied the regulations proposed? They are virtually meaningless. You have been played.
The new regulations are supposed to be meaningless. Politics has been a sham for decades, if not longer. That's one reason I don't like seeing people sling political, because it's mostly empty.
Has GS been promoting sell securities that they knew were worthless, or not?
My favorite part of the whole fiasco was when GS was testifying in front of Congress and stated that they ONLY made $500 M on one particular group of troublesome trades, so it wasn't a big deal.
First, the concept that you can get away with something just because the numbers aren't large is appalling. Maybe by that logic, you can shoot someone as long as they're short.
More importantly, you have to wonder how isolated from reality these guys are when they consider $500,000,000 to be an insignificant amount of money. It's a HUGE amount of money for the customers they defrauded.
It's long past time for that industry to be cleaned up - REALLY cleaned up this time rather than just the window dressing that was done over the past few years.
Has GS been promoting & sell securities that they knew were worthless, or not?
Is that relevant or not? They make the point that the corporate clients on either side of the transactions were not seeking advice. The point of a bank is to be as a conduit between counterparties with different exposures and views. It's not the job of every bank to save people from their different views, who then cry wolf when it didn't work out how they expected.
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.
You mean to tell me that offshoring jobs (like the manufacturing jobs that help put the iphone together) is ethical for the American worker? hmmmm.
I suggest you learn a little more about ethics.
Nationalism for the sake of nationalism is unethical. We live in a global economy. To refuse to offer people in developing countries the opportunity to better themselves through employment because of some notion that we should "only support Americans" is highly unethical.
Selling our well-designed products to people in China is not unethical.
Hiring overseas workers (while demanding good working conditions) is highly ethical, in that it supports those workers' pursuit of a better life.
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?
.
Is that relevant or not?
It is off topic to this thread, doesn't apply to this thread, but I had a hard time just letting it slide.
They make the point that the corporate clients on either side of the transactions were not seeking advice. The point of a bank is to be as a conduit between counterparties with different exposures and views. It's not the job of every bank to save people from their different views, who then cry wolf when it didn't work out how they expected.
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.
Even if there wasn't specific advice, the accusation that they knowingly offered lemon securities and possibly even knowingly helping in such an activity is a concern to me. It sure sounds like fraud, and I don't see the problem in investigating it.
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?
.
The best way of determining the difference is through the operating margin. Here's the citation.
Apple doesn't care about being number 1 in market share, or even number 2. They're not after market share for market share sake, or for bragging rights.
But Apple does care about establishing viable products - Apple's goal at iPhone launch was 1% or 10M units in its first full year. So they dropped the price, and then changed their sales model (to subsidy) to make that happen.
Apple also does care about number of iPhone OS units sold for the sake of the iPhone OS PLATFORM. There is a unit/share threshold below which very few will develop Apps and content for the platform. The Mac almost died because the number of units sold (or market share) was too small - moving to OS X and establishing Quicktime as part of MPEG-4 saved Apple.
Apple's carefully crafted PR response today was clearly directed to developers who might be concerned. So that's why Apple points to 85M iPhone and iPod touch - both are part of the same platform.
+++ QFT
I missed this post, earlier--- Very well reasoned and presented!
.
It is off topic to this thread, doesn't apply to this thread, but I had a hard time just letting it slide.
Even if there wasn't specific advice, the accusation that they knowingly offered lemon securities and possibly even knowingly helping in such an activity is a concern to me. It sure sounds like fraud, and I don't see the problem in investigating it.
It's an accusation yes. But it all turns on what representations were made. If they represented something was black and it turned out to be white then obviously that's a problem. If they did not claim or were not asked for advice whether the securities were of value then it must be seen in that context.
When will Google or any developer release some data about sales and revenue data resulting from selling apps for Android phones? Especially to counter data showing that free apps are even more dominant in Android Market (when compared to App Store).
Why hasn't any such data been released yet?
Those are interesting questions!
Assumably, Google would want to publish as much positive info as they can, as often as possible... to encourage developers to develop for their platform.
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).
.
Hahahaha Apple wont do this, Apple doesn't reply to that...
If Apple's market share or sales start declining, Apple will do ***** anything.
They haven't had to yet. But the signs are a bit worrying in some areas though you have to admit - Android in the number 1 spot. 150000 is a pretty reasonable sample size if you ask me. I'd be happy with it.
I used to be an Apple fan, but my enthusiasm has waned a bit over the years, chiefly due to not so much to the products Apple produces, they are still amazing, but more due to the attitude Apple takes to its customers.
Oh, you must mean things like this:
BusinessWeek: Apple Customer Service Leads Computers & Electronics Industry (Again)
Monday, February 22, 2010
By OP Editor
In the latest BusinessWeek customer service rankings, Apple received high scores for its customer service. Apple scored 3rd overall, way above its direct competitors. Apple customer service even scores higher than hospitality heavyweights such as Four Seasons and Ritz-Carlton. Google, RIM, or Microsoft is nowhere to be seen on the top 25 list.
and this:
Apple Customer Service Leads Computers & Electronics Industry
In the Computers & Electronics industry, Apple receives the highest score again. In 2010, Apple scored 1016 as opposed to Dell which received a score of 872.
Bloomberg?s NewsWeek on Apple: ?The company?s sleek devices and user-friendly software aren?t its only innovations. Appointments at Apple?s (AAPL) ?Genius Bars? and its roving in-store checkout clerks are just two ways the company has pioneered new approaches to customer service.?
Apple improved from 20th place in last year?s study on the basis of strong improvement in the ?quality of staff? category.
Not in Top 25 Customer Service Ranking
In the Computers & Electronics industry, no other companies besides Apple and Dell made it to the BusinssWeek 2010 top 25 customer service list.
Google (Android), Palm, Motorola (Droid), HTC (Nexus One), Research in Motion / RIM the producer of Blackberry, and Microsoft are not in the BusinessWeek 2010 top 25 customer service champs list.
from:
http://obamapacman.com/2010/02/busin...nics-industry/
.
It's not a question of whether cheap phones should be available or not. Cheap smartphones are here. they're not as good as the more expensive models, but people will buy them. Apple sells its one year old model, which is still better than most smartphones on the market, for $99 here in the States. If some companies abroad want to sell an iPhone for little, or nothing, and suck up the cost, that's their business too.
You say they are not as good as a more expensive model, but is the iPhone really worth five times more than them?
Yes! Obviously they are worth it to the millions of people who buy them!
Shouldn't those people who want to, have the choice to buy a "best of breed" product?
Or must we all settle for the devices you deem to be fairly priced?
.
The best way of determining the difference is through the operating margin. Here's the citation.
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!
.
We have cell manufacturers selling 50 models of phones. from the cheapest junk to high end smartphones. They sell a lot of phones, like Nokia. But like Nokia, most of those sales are of cheap, hardly profitable models. Their individual smartphones don't sell that many, but all together they sell a lot. Unfortunately, that makes for less profit.
...
The same thing it true for their computers. Have you seen how many models Dell and Hp have? Dozens! And each comes in as many as a dozen versions. That's one reason why their profits are so low for that. Apple has few computer models. R&D costs, again, can be lower, yet accomplish so much more.
So Apple sold 8.75 million phones last quarter. Almost all were of one model phone. How many different Android models, from how many different manufacturers did it take to sell the number of phones they sold? Quite a few.
So far less profits.
It will always be thus.
It sounds like you are saying that Apple' strategies are good to its shareholders, but bad for its consumers.
Without a doubt, Apple has changed the whole mobile market and loosened the grip of the carriers in controlling the user experience for the better and everyone benefits.
While I can see Android supplanting the iPhone OS in short order, I see Android to be more in the disposable budget category phone business, rather than the premium sector.
I think that the newest, most fully-featured, coolest, most capable new phones will all be Android OS.
And too there will be lost and lots of other categories of Android phones and other devices.
Including the vast majority of disposable, budget category phones, as you predict.
Would you have Apple discontinue doing business in China? That way all those handling hazardous materials would lose their jobs & die of starvation... if you were Chinese: Which would you choose, Which is better... worse... unethical?
.
I first saw this question arise in the late 1970's, when some students wanted universities to divest South African stocks.
The same points were made then.
Another point to consider is that by removing oneself, one cannot work towards better conditions.
It is all far from black and white.