A larger Android market might mean devs also going into that area, but it doesn't necessarily mean they will leave the iPhone market. Between iPhones, iPod and iPads, Android will have to sell a whole lot of phones (and eventually tablets) to surpass the overall size of the current iPhone installed base. And while Android seems to be picking up steam, Apple could stop selling all of their iDevices and still maintain a sizable lead over the total Android market for sometime.
Why would they stay? Beyond the size of the already huge installed base (and growing) and that Android would have have to sell a shit load to not just over take iDevice sales but the existing base, there is the quality of the target audience. Apple's base is consistently upscale, educated consumers with a higher than average amount of expendable cash who have shown a willingness to spend on Apple products and the App Store.
See my comment. I never disputed that the iPhone OS installed base was bigger. Nor did I suggest that developers would migrate as soon as Android sales surpassed the iPhone OS. What I am suggesting is that they will move if the Android installed base catches up or exceeds the iPhone OS installed base.
As for more "upscale, educated consumers"....is that really relevant? Let's say the iPhone customer base spends 10% more than Android customers. If Android's base grows 10-20% more than the iPhone OS base, then all of a sudden the profit differential isn't there. And this is not some idle scenario. Dedicated Android OEMs could easily pump out Android handsets that are within the telcos subsidy cap, so that Zero dollar Androids start becoming the norm. At that point, the Android installed base could grow exponentially.
But beyond that, I seriously doubt that this is a static picture and that the iPhone OS's customer base will consistently be more "upscale" or "educated consumers" forever. That held true when the iPhone was creaming dumbphones. I am sceptical it's equally applicable in the new era where virtually everybody will have a smartphone. Keep in mind that as much damage as the iPhone did to other smartphone platforms, it's biggest success was getting a lot of dumbphone users to upgrade. In a lot of cases, people went from a Motorola RAZR to the iPhone. These early adopters will invariably be more "upscale, educated consumers". Years from now when smartphones are the norm will there be such a huge disparity between the iPhone customer base and the Android customer base? I doubt it. And whatever differences there are could easily be overcome by size if Android does grow significantly larger. Just look at the difference between Mac and Windows. Sure Mac owner are more affluent. But where is all the development focus?
See my comment. I never disputed that the iPhone OS installed base was bigger. Nor did I suggest that developers would migrate as soon as Android sales surpassed the iPhone OS. What I am suggesting is that they will move if the Android installed base catches up or exceeds the iPhone OS installed base.
Sorry, if it came off like I was implying you said that, that wasn't my intent. Just that given the current size of Apple installed base and that it includes iPods (gigantic) and iPad, it will be quite some time before Android devices have a larger installer base than iDevices. In the meantime, Apple will have the continued opportunity to fine tune their experience, for users and for devs. They have made mistakes, IMO, and perhaps they will learn from them. I don't think very many, if any, have been fatal mistakes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
As for more "upscale, educated consumers"....is that really relevant? Let's say the iPhone customer base spends 10% more than Android customers. If Android's base grows 10-20% more than the iPhone OS base, then all of a sudden the profit differential isn't there. And this is not some idle scenario. Dedicated Android OEMs could easily pump out Android handsets that are within the telcos subsidy cap, so that Zero dollar Androids start becoming the norm. At that point, the Android installed base could grow exponentially.
It is relevant. Apple has shown that by targeting the cream, you can get the highest profits, even if you don't have the highest sales. While Android could some day overtake the installed base of iDevices, Apple has shown the ability to attract the more profitable segments. Android could quadruple the iDevice market, but if the market isn't as likely to spend money, are they as valuable a market?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
But beyond that, I seriously doubt that this is a static picture and that the iPhone OS's customer base will consistently be more "upscale" or "educated consumers" forever. That held true when the iPhone was creaming dumbphones. I am sceptical it's equally applicable in the new era where virtually everybody will have a smartphone. Keep in mind that as much damage as the iPhone did to other smartphone platforms, it's biggest success was getting a lot of dumbphone users to upgrade. In a lot of cases, people went from a Motorola RAZR to the iPhone. These early adopters will invariably be more "upscale, educated consumers". Years from now when smartphones are the norm will there be such a huge disparity between the iPhone customer base and the Android customer base? I doubt it. And whatever differences there are could easily be overcome by size if Android does grow significantly larger. Just look at the difference between Mac and Windows. Sure Mac owner are more affluent. But where is all the development focus?
True enough. But Apple fans in general, Mac and/or iDevice users, as you agree, remain the more affluent. Desktop development might favour Windows, just that is mainly because the Windows market so completely overshadows the Mac market. It is unlikely that in the near to medium term, Android could so overwhelm the iDevice installed base, that the higher per user profits on the iDevices are outweighed by the sheer number of Android users.
Could Android achieve parity with Apple's average consumer's spending ability? Probably. But then, why hasn't Windows closed that gap on the desktop? Mainly because they don't market to that segment, they go after the whole. Android appears to share that sentiment and this isn't a bad thing. It worked well for MS for a long time.
Would the push notification api facilitate a messenger app? So will MSN be able to run in the background?
I would think the existing network server based APN would be sufficient for IM apps, at least I don't think the new local APN would add more for this type of app. In either case, no, the IM app would not run in the background but would have the appearance of it in terms of you receiving an alert/popup of the new incoming message. Also, in either case, there is the limitation of the current notification interface sucking donkey balls. For example, if you get 10 new IM messages in, your APN popup notification will only show 1. This is one area, I have heard, that the Android interface for notifications is superior.
The new local APN API is best suited for alerts that do not require network data. The example given by Apple would be a TV Guide app alerting you that a program is about to start, using locally available data. Another might be a social GPS app that could be configured to alert you when another user is in proximity (using both the new background location services API and the local APN API). A third example would be Skype or another VOIP app. Using the background VOIP API and the local APN API, you would get a popup as soon as a call came in, even though Skype was not running in the foreground (or really at all) and this would allow you to answer the call immediately.
I would think the existing network server based APN would be sufficient for IM apps, at least I don't think the new local APN would add more for this type of app. In either case, no, the IM app would not run in the background but would have the appearance of it in terms of you receiving an alert/popup of the new incoming message. Also, in either case, there is the limitation of the current notification interface sucking donkey balls. For example, if you get 10 new IM messages in, your APN popup notification will only show 1. This is one area, I have heard, that the Android interface for notifications is superior. [snip]
The third-party app I use for texts takes care of multiple notifications on the same pop-up by putting them side-by-side. As in you swipe left/right to see the next/previous one. I can see Apple doing something similar. It's a dead-nuts simple solution.
However, the case of getting both IMs and texts, Apple would need something like the notification bar on Android.
You just can't have abusive relationships with developers and not expect some blowback.
In time, apple's other products will likely reach the market penetration of the Mac. Maybe somewhat bigger, as the Mac was supposed to appeal to sophisticated users along with technophobes.
But now Apple is transitioning towards making products mainly for technophobes. There are lots and lots of those in the marketplace. So maybe once the tablet market is mature, Apple might squeak out a double-digit market share.
But their current focus on products which don't do normal things, like display web videos, is likely to relegate the products to a smaller base compared to the just-as-easy, but greatly more capable devices currently being introduced.
The problem is, to date, the Apple AppStore is still the most profitable place for a developer to be.
It depends entirely on the developer.
I have read reports claiming that the vast majority of App Store Devs make little or nothing from their apps.
Their is little visibility for apps. There is (or was, until Google swooped in to the rescue) no good way to even find an app in the app store. Many apps languish with few downloads, lost in the crowd.
Assume for one moment the user and user experience are always central to all their decisions. At that point, all these decisions make perfect sense.
Wow. You are totally naive, or totally snowed.
The maximization of total profits is central to all their decisions. If they used any other criteria as central to their decisions, they could face lawsuits.
Welcome to the real world.
The user experience is crafted to increase total profits. If any other user experience would increase total profits, Apple would use that one.
So don't assume. If you understand that like all multinational corporations, all of apple's decisions are intended to maximize total profits, all these decisions make perfect sense.
The maximization of total profits is central to all their decisions.
Nice attitude, how about trying not to be so offensive next time.
You are right, all corporations are bent on one thing, and that is to make money. Steve's number one priority as CEO (I do know these things contrary to your assumptive little slams) is to maximise shareholder value. I know this well, I know this from business school and I know this from working in corporate hell for more than 20 years in companies big and small.<sigh>
My comment had to do with the products they build. Apple has always been about user experience. It's core to every product they build. True, if another mantra made them more profit they *might* but I don't assume that, I merely stated the products they build today are about users being at the centre of their decisions. It means that their products are not as popular because they aren't as cheap as "pack em high and sell em cheap" mentalities of other product manufacturers. They could have gone that way a long time ago and be a different company, but they have stuck to this one, and it works, and today it's providing more profit than ever to them.
Sometimes it means that another group of interest is pushed aside and may even have to suffer a little bit. My comment was addressing the fact there are some developers who are perhaps suffering and complaining a lot - my reaction is, "you aren't number one here." Apple addresses my needs as a consumer above anyone else's, which makes their products so great.
I have read reports claiming that the vast majority of App Store Devs make little or nothing from their apps.
Confirmed:
Quote:
The iPad App Store: It’s a Mess
...
According to the model, the #1 grossing iPad app is earning about 70 times more than the #100 top grossing app.
It may no longer be enough for developers to simply climb into Apple’s top 100 grossing apps list to survive. While life continues to be great at the top, what was a graceful walk down the charts has become more of a tumble directly into the App Store’s lower middle class.
It should be noted that Apple currently holds the top three spots in the Top Grossing iPad Apps rankings. According to the model, those three spots are worth about $170,000 a day in gross revenue or 23% of ALL revenue generated daily in the Top 100 Grossing iPad Apps chart. The iPad App Store is so top-heavy that, at least in the immediate future, it may be very difficult for anyone outside of the top 10 or 20 to generate any significant revenue at all, as revenue drops steeply.
The story gets worse for apps not in the top 100. From conversations with developers who we believe are just outside of the Top 100, sales quickly drop into the single digits per day.
In time, apple's other products will likely reach the market penetration of the Mac. Maybe somewhat bigger, as the Mac was supposed to appeal to sophisticated users along with technophobes.
But now Apple is transitioning towards making products mainly for technophobes. There are lots and lots of those in the marketplace. So maybe once the tablet market is mature, Apple might squeak out a double-digit market share.
But their current focus on products which don't do normal things, like display web videos, is likely to relegate the products to a smaller base compared to the just-as-easy, but greatly more capable devices currently being introduced.
I'm not an iFan and I don't buy this argument. Apple got out early in this game. And I think they'll be dominating it for a while to come. They might slip with Android looming large, but they won't go down to a Mac type of defeat.
Apple addresses my needs as a consumer above anyone else's, which makes their products so great.
And if they don't address the needs of developers then Apple really won't be able to meet your needs, if and when developers start leaving the iPhone platform.
Besides, I still fail to see how yanking an existing app simply it duplicates future functionality hurts the user. Shouldn't you give those users the choice to use whatever Apple puts out new of whatever they were using before?
The maximization of total profits is central to all their decisions. If they used any other criteria as central to their decisions, they could face lawsuits.
Welcome to the real world.
The user experience is crafted to increase total profits. If any other user experience would increase total profits, Apple would use that one.
So don't assume. If you understand that like all multinational corporations, all of apple's decisions are intended to maximize total profits, all these decisions make perfect sense.
While such a thoroughly cynical view of business is quite popular, thanks to the likes of BP, Goldman Sachs, Enron, and other companies who have demonstrated a callous disregard for all but mammon, there exist in the literature documented instances that contradict your dreary, soulless view of life.
I would say you've taken a bit of textbook knowledge of capitalism, heard a bit about "fiduciary duty", mixed that together with an inherent negativism and come up with this idée fixe that business is all about being evil, so all business are equally equal, so it doesn't matter...
Well, the world is not as simple as you believe and corporations are only as evil as the people who lead them, who aren't all necessarily subscribers to your world view. One of the funny things about humans is that they can sometimes read the same textbooks you have, yet, inexplicably, they may do something entirely counter to what you predict. Until all corporations, like Goldman Sachs, are run entirely by computers, with no human factors involved in decision making at all, your view will remain, thankfully, completely and utterly wrong.
I wonder how things will play out with potential release of the iPhone on Monday. If it's ready to go immediately, does it have 4.0? There's been no new 4.0 seed, and no GM so far from Apple, which usually comes prior to public release. I'd say more likely GM seed is out Monday, devs finalize and submit apps, iPhone goes on sale within 1-2 weeks and 4.0 goes live then.
There haven't been many indicators that the whole caboodle could go live Monday.
Comments
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...WhatsNewsFifth
A larger Android market might mean devs also going into that area, but it doesn't necessarily mean they will leave the iPhone market. Between iPhones, iPod and iPads, Android will have to sell a whole lot of phones (and eventually tablets) to surpass the overall size of the current iPhone installed base. And while Android seems to be picking up steam, Apple could stop selling all of their iDevices and still maintain a sizable lead over the total Android market for sometime.
Why would they stay? Beyond the size of the already huge installed base (and growing) and that Android would have have to sell a shit load to not just over take iDevice sales but the existing base, there is the quality of the target audience. Apple's base is consistently upscale, educated consumers with a higher than average amount of expendable cash who have shown a willingness to spend on Apple products and the App Store.
See my comment. I never disputed that the iPhone OS installed base was bigger. Nor did I suggest that developers would migrate as soon as Android sales surpassed the iPhone OS. What I am suggesting is that they will move if the Android installed base catches up or exceeds the iPhone OS installed base.
As for more "upscale, educated consumers"....is that really relevant? Let's say the iPhone customer base spends 10% more than Android customers. If Android's base grows 10-20% more than the iPhone OS base, then all of a sudden the profit differential isn't there. And this is not some idle scenario. Dedicated Android OEMs could easily pump out Android handsets that are within the telcos subsidy cap, so that Zero dollar Androids start becoming the norm. At that point, the Android installed base could grow exponentially.
But beyond that, I seriously doubt that this is a static picture and that the iPhone OS's customer base will consistently be more "upscale" or "educated consumers" forever. That held true when the iPhone was creaming dumbphones. I am sceptical it's equally applicable in the new era where virtually everybody will have a smartphone. Keep in mind that as much damage as the iPhone did to other smartphone platforms, it's biggest success was getting a lot of dumbphone users to upgrade. In a lot of cases, people went from a Motorola RAZR to the iPhone. These early adopters will invariably be more "upscale, educated consumers". Years from now when smartphones are the norm will there be such a huge disparity between the iPhone customer base and the Android customer base? I doubt it. And whatever differences there are could easily be overcome by size if Android does grow significantly larger. Just look at the difference between Mac and Windows. Sure Mac owner are more affluent. But where is all the development focus?
See my comment. I never disputed that the iPhone OS installed base was bigger. Nor did I suggest that developers would migrate as soon as Android sales surpassed the iPhone OS. What I am suggesting is that they will move if the Android installed base catches up or exceeds the iPhone OS installed base.
Sorry, if it came off like I was implying you said that, that wasn't my intent. Just that given the current size of Apple installed base and that it includes iPods (gigantic) and iPad, it will be quite some time before Android devices have a larger installer base than iDevices. In the meantime, Apple will have the continued opportunity to fine tune their experience, for users and for devs. They have made mistakes, IMO, and perhaps they will learn from them. I don't think very many, if any, have been fatal mistakes.
As for more "upscale, educated consumers"....is that really relevant? Let's say the iPhone customer base spends 10% more than Android customers. If Android's base grows 10-20% more than the iPhone OS base, then all of a sudden the profit differential isn't there. And this is not some idle scenario. Dedicated Android OEMs could easily pump out Android handsets that are within the telcos subsidy cap, so that Zero dollar Androids start becoming the norm. At that point, the Android installed base could grow exponentially.
It is relevant. Apple has shown that by targeting the cream, you can get the highest profits, even if you don't have the highest sales. While Android could some day overtake the installed base of iDevices, Apple has shown the ability to attract the more profitable segments. Android could quadruple the iDevice market, but if the market isn't as likely to spend money, are they as valuable a market?
But beyond that, I seriously doubt that this is a static picture and that the iPhone OS's customer base will consistently be more "upscale" or "educated consumers" forever. That held true when the iPhone was creaming dumbphones. I am sceptical it's equally applicable in the new era where virtually everybody will have a smartphone. Keep in mind that as much damage as the iPhone did to other smartphone platforms, it's biggest success was getting a lot of dumbphone users to upgrade. In a lot of cases, people went from a Motorola RAZR to the iPhone. These early adopters will invariably be more "upscale, educated consumers". Years from now when smartphones are the norm will there be such a huge disparity between the iPhone customer base and the Android customer base? I doubt it. And whatever differences there are could easily be overcome by size if Android does grow significantly larger. Just look at the difference between Mac and Windows. Sure Mac owner are more affluent. But where is all the development focus?
True enough. But Apple fans in general, Mac and/or iDevice users, as you agree, remain the more affluent. Desktop development might favour Windows, just that is mainly because the Windows market so completely overshadows the Mac market. It is unlikely that in the near to medium term, Android could so overwhelm the iDevice installed base, that the higher per user profits on the iDevices are outweighed by the sheer number of Android users.
Could Android achieve parity with Apple's average consumer's spending ability? Probably. But then, why hasn't Windows closed that gap on the desktop? Mainly because they don't market to that segment, they go after the whole. Android appears to share that sentiment and this isn't a bad thing. It worked well for MS for a long time.
Would the push notification api facilitate a messenger app? So will MSN be able to run in the background?
Tulkas,
Would the push notification api facilitate a messenger app? So will MSN be able to run in the background?
I would think the existing network server based APN would be sufficient for IM apps, at least I don't think the new local APN would add more for this type of app. In either case, no, the IM app would not run in the background but would have the appearance of it in terms of you receiving an alert/popup of the new incoming message. Also, in either case, there is the limitation of the current notification interface sucking donkey balls. For example, if you get 10 new IM messages in, your APN popup notification will only show 1. This is one area, I have heard, that the Android interface for notifications is superior.
The new local APN API is best suited for alerts that do not require network data. The example given by Apple would be a TV Guide app alerting you that a program is about to start, using locally available data. Another might be a social GPS app that could be configured to alert you when another user is in proximity (using both the new background location services API and the local APN API). A third example would be Skype or another VOIP app. Using the background VOIP API and the local APN API, you would get a popup as soon as a call came in, even though Skype was not running in the foreground (or really at all) and this would allow you to answer the call immediately.
I would think the existing network server based APN would be sufficient for IM apps, at least I don't think the new local APN would add more for this type of app. In either case, no, the IM app would not run in the background but would have the appearance of it in terms of you receiving an alert/popup of the new incoming message. Also, in either case, there is the limitation of the current notification interface sucking donkey balls. For example, if you get 10 new IM messages in, your APN popup notification will only show 1. This is one area, I have heard, that the Android interface for notifications is superior. [snip]
The third-party app I use for texts takes care of multiple notifications on the same pop-up by putting them side-by-side. As in you swipe left/right to see the next/previous one. I can see Apple doing something similar. It's a dead-nuts simple solution.
However, the case of getting both IMs and texts, Apple would need something like the notification bar on Android.
You just can't have abusive relationships with developers and not expect some blowback.
In time, apple's other products will likely reach the market penetration of the Mac. Maybe somewhat bigger, as the Mac was supposed to appeal to sophisticated users along with technophobes.
But now Apple is transitioning towards making products mainly for technophobes. There are lots and lots of those in the marketplace. So maybe once the tablet market is mature, Apple might squeak out a double-digit market share.
But their current focus on products which don't do normal things, like display web videos, is likely to relegate the products to a smaller base compared to the just-as-easy, but greatly more capable devices currently being introduced.
The problem is, to date, the Apple AppStore is still the most profitable place for a developer to be.
It depends entirely on the developer.
I have read reports claiming that the vast majority of App Store Devs make little or nothing from their apps.
Their is little visibility for apps. There is (or was, until Google swooped in to the rescue) no good way to even find an app in the app store. Many apps languish with few downloads, lost in the crowd.
Assume for one moment the user and user experience are always central to all their decisions. At that point, all these decisions make perfect sense.
Wow. You are totally naive, or totally snowed.
The maximization of total profits is central to all their decisions. If they used any other criteria as central to their decisions, they could face lawsuits.
Welcome to the real world.
The user experience is crafted to increase total profits. If any other user experience would increase total profits, Apple would use that one.
So don't assume. If you understand that like all multinational corporations, all of apple's decisions are intended to maximize total profits, all these decisions make perfect sense.
Wow. You are totally naive, or totally snowed.
The maximization of total profits is central to all their decisions.
Nice attitude, how about trying not to be so offensive next time.
You are right, all corporations are bent on one thing, and that is to make money. Steve's number one priority as CEO (I do know these things contrary to your assumptive little slams) is to maximise shareholder value. I know this well, I know this from business school and I know this from working in corporate hell for more than 20 years in companies big and small.<sigh>
My comment had to do with the products they build. Apple has always been about user experience. It's core to every product they build. True, if another mantra made them more profit they *might* but I don't assume that, I merely stated the products they build today are about users being at the centre of their decisions. It means that their products are not as popular because they aren't as cheap as "pack em high and sell em cheap" mentalities of other product manufacturers. They could have gone that way a long time ago and be a different company, but they have stuck to this one, and it works, and today it's providing more profit than ever to them.
Sometimes it means that another group of interest is pushed aside and may even have to suffer a little bit. My comment was addressing the fact there are some developers who are perhaps suffering and complaining a lot - my reaction is, "you aren't number one here." Apple addresses my needs as a consumer above anyone else's, which makes their products so great.
It depends entirely on the developer.
I have read reports claiming that the vast majority of App Store Devs make little or nothing from their apps.
Confirmed:
The iPad App Store: It’s a Mess
...
According to the model, the #1 grossing iPad app is earning about 70 times more than the #100 top grossing app.
It may no longer be enough for developers to simply climb into Apple’s top 100 grossing apps list to survive. While life continues to be great at the top, what was a graceful walk down the charts has become more of a tumble directly into the App Store’s lower middle class.
It should be noted that Apple currently holds the top three spots in the Top Grossing iPad Apps rankings. According to the model, those three spots are worth about $170,000 a day in gross revenue or 23% of ALL revenue generated daily in the Top 100 Grossing iPad Apps chart. The iPad App Store is so top-heavy that, at least in the immediate future, it may be very difficult for anyone outside of the top 10 or 20 to generate any significant revenue at all, as revenue drops steeply.
The story gets worse for apps not in the top 100. From conversations with developers who we believe are just outside of the Top 100, sales quickly drop into the single digits per day.
...
http://appular.com/2010/04/the-ipad-...re-its-a-mess/
So out of 250,000 apps, 249,900 of them are making less than they would if the developers flipped burgers instead of writing code.
In time, apple's other products will likely reach the market penetration of the Mac. Maybe somewhat bigger, as the Mac was supposed to appeal to sophisticated users along with technophobes.
But now Apple is transitioning towards making products mainly for technophobes. There are lots and lots of those in the marketplace. So maybe once the tablet market is mature, Apple might squeak out a double-digit market share.
But their current focus on products which don't do normal things, like display web videos, is likely to relegate the products to a smaller base compared to the just-as-easy, but greatly more capable devices currently being introduced.
I'm not an iFan and I don't buy this argument. Apple got out early in this game. And I think they'll be dominating it for a while to come. They might slip with Android looming large, but they won't go down to a Mac type of defeat.
Apple addresses my needs as a consumer above anyone else's, which makes their products so great.
And if they don't address the needs of developers then Apple really won't be able to meet your needs, if and when developers start leaving the iPhone platform.
Besides, I still fail to see how yanking an existing app simply it duplicates future functionality hurts the user. Shouldn't you give those users the choice to use whatever Apple puts out new of whatever they were using before?
Wow. You are totally naive, or totally snowed.
The maximization of total profits is central to all their decisions. If they used any other criteria as central to their decisions, they could face lawsuits.
Welcome to the real world.
The user experience is crafted to increase total profits. If any other user experience would increase total profits, Apple would use that one.
So don't assume. If you understand that like all multinational corporations, all of apple's decisions are intended to maximize total profits, all these decisions make perfect sense.
While such a thoroughly cynical view of business is quite popular, thanks to the likes of BP, Goldman Sachs, Enron, and other companies who have demonstrated a callous disregard for all but mammon, there exist in the literature documented instances that contradict your dreary, soulless view of life.
I would say you've taken a bit of textbook knowledge of capitalism, heard a bit about "fiduciary duty", mixed that together with an inherent negativism and come up with this idée fixe that business is all about being evil, so all business are equally equal, so it doesn't matter...
Well, the world is not as simple as you believe and corporations are only as evil as the people who lead them, who aren't all necessarily subscribers to your world view. One of the funny things about humans is that they can sometimes read the same textbooks you have, yet, inexplicably, they may do something entirely counter to what you predict. Until all corporations, like Goldman Sachs, are run entirely by computers, with no human factors involved in decision making at all, your view will remain, thankfully, completely and utterly wrong.
There haven't been many indicators that the whole caboodle could go live Monday.