WRONG. Technically speaking, Apple was in the phone business FIRST.
Remember the Motorola Rockr? The very first mobile phone with iTunes. Technology sites reporting on collaborations between Motorola and Apple as far back as December 2004.
not quite dude. they licensed itunes for the ROCKR unit.. they didn't have anything to do with the design.. did you ever use it.. it was like a cheap knockoff of itunes.
Apple developed the iPhone internally, and so can't point to a clear public "start date" like Google with the purchase of Android. But the iPhone came out first, period. And when Android came out, it was clearly meant as an iPhone knock-off.
You are probably correct about the "public" part, but you would only need to research NDAs regarding telecom products Apple was working on to help determine an assumed "start" date.
not quite dude. they licensed itunes for the ROCKR unit.. they didn't have anything to do with the design.. did you ever use it.. it was like a cheap knockoff of itunes.
Apple collaborated with Motorola. technically speaking, Apple was in the phone business first.
Companies do it all the time. If one part of the model starts to dip, they give it a crutch until it's better, and vice versa. If something is failing miserably though, then yes, it doesn't make sense to keep sinking money into it.
Consider for instance a bank who's been affected drastically by the housing crisis. You don't think they divert funds to keep the wound minimal?
I don't think comparing Microsoft to a 100 year crisis in the banking sector is helping your ( and daharder's) argument. Giving xbox a crutch for 10 years seems more indicative of a more serious condition than just a broken leg.
My guess? It's probably tough being ignorant, while living in your Mom's basement, with no one to play with except your imaginary friends.
Perhaps less jaded I could find that funny, but I am serious when I ask why he uses the forum. It seems to me that he has a disposition to look at the world in a negative way because of unresolved personal issue. I similarly look at the way some people always make excuses for everything Apple does, every time, in a similar light. Apple do great things and they also do dumb things. It's nice to sometimes acknowledge that. It keeps us all honest.
That guy always goes negative. If I was like that I wouldn't see the point in investing so much time on the forum, which leads me to think there are deeper psychological troubles at play. I'm not a doctor, and it's not a personal attack. It's just my honest opinion.
1) I'm not at all certain that AppleTV doesn't turn a profit.
2) AppleTV is a product under development. That's why they call it a hobby.
3) Apple has a very stellar history of successfully selling consumer products.
For the record: they only call it a hobby because it never took off they way they imagined it could have. It's about managing expectations. It's about PR.
I am not sure because they do not disclose their accounting procedures, but for the last few years, they 'claim' to have made a significant profit on the 'project' not hardware alone. For the 'project', if they break even to 'their plan', in general, if they are 'reporting' profits, then its making money.
Actually, this is a very common accounting practice. Aircraft development for example. Development is amoritized out over dozen of years based on projected sales (thats one model).
But who knows... its accounting(no offense to accountants out there).
Yes, they are showing quarterly profits now for the Xbox division, but my point is, the were not posting profits for many quarters before that. It's not so much a matter of accounting methods as it is the fact that the division lost money big time for years before it started becoming profitable, so they have a lot of sunk costs to cover before anyone can call the Xbox a success. Just try to imagine if Apple launched a major new product that wasn't making a profit in its first quarter of availability, let alone for years afterwards. Nobody would call that a success. Investors would have a conniption fit.
It is ironic that Apple was originally in the computer business but decided to throw itself into the personal music business. And personal media player business. And the set-top box business.
No, that is not ironic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
I hate the iPhone antenna thing, and Apple's response. But I like many other Apple products. It seems you just use this forum to "vent" your own personal issues. And the fact that you keep coming back and repeating yourself tells me whatever you hope you achieve isn't working out for you.
What's with DaSomething? I noticed he made a Segway with the comparison between a loss leader like the xbox and the apple tv. Perhaps he has the numbers to back his bullshit up. To compare those two is beyond the lowest boundaries of intelligence measurement. Xbox is apparently finally making enough profits, although I do not have any idea on how much of a loss they will sell Kinect, and if they do sell it with a loss, they're back to square one.
Still, I think that Xbox is a very good product. Kinect is perhaps the first amazing "vaporware" from MS that wasn't, in fact, "vapor", and that is astounding, to a good degree.
But XBox is, unfortunately for MS, an oasis surrounded by a big dry desert of ideas and execution.
I still don't hate Google as I hate Microsoft, and they have a better taste than MS. I always viewed the austerity of their web pages and their browser very positively.
So, "an oasis surrounded by a big dry desert of ideas and execution" you say? Interesting then that...
Bloomberg reports that Microsoft's Xbox Live service brought in $1.2 billion revenue for the fiscal 2009 year.
For the year ended June 30th, about 12.5 million Xbox Live users paid an annual fee to play games online which Bloomberg says would account for about $600 million in revenue. Xbox Live COO Dennis Durkin says on top of that, sales of DLC, movies and TV topped subscription revenue for the first time ever, and by a significant margin, leading us to the final $1.2 billion figure.
Success with Xbox Live is key to Microsoft's Entertainment division, which has seen slow sales of Zune media players, slow smartphone sales, and a barely profitable Xbox 360 console, which sees most of its profit from software and accessory sales.
Adds Matt Rosoff, an analyst at Directions on Microsoft: "Xbox Live has helped sell a lot of consoles and created a lot of loyalty. Everyone has been talking about Microsoft?s inability to innovate, but this is a pretty good example where they have innovated. They timed it just right with this one."
If accurate, revenue would have jumped from $800 million in 2008, a pretty hefty increase.
So Xbox hardware and accessories do make a profit, albeit "barely" (iTunes anyone?), while Xbox Live has increased its revenue by 50% to $1.2B year to year. Big dry desert of ideas and execution? Only if you're in complete denial, I'd suggest.
But one swallow does not a Summer make, and MS has a very long row to hoe with WinPhone 7 (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphors - ).
I notice that you freely admit to hating certain corporations. How does that make you any better than those accused of hating Apple? Just curious.
WRONG. Technically speaking, Apple was in the phone business FIRST.
Remember the Motorola Rockr? The very first mobile phone with iTunes. Technology sites reporting on collaborations between Motorola and Apple as far back as December 2004.
You mean Motorola was in the phone business first, while Apple was in the iTunes business first. And we all remember how "successful" that little innovation was.
If licensing iTunes to Motorola is your idea of Apple being in the phone business then you're just desperate to try to win a point. Enjoy your delusion.
After reading thru these posts it's comforting to know I'm not the only one who thinks the Android looks like an iPhone wannabe. Like they say, imitation is the greatest form of flattery. But I'd rather have the real thing.
You mean the phone had a screen and buttons!? THOSE MORONS.
Seriously, what is with every AFB's obsession over this idea that if Apple hadn't released a touch screen phone, none of us would have one today? It's absurd, and it's already been proven wrong.
If Apple stayed away from the iphone, definitely you wouldn't see as many contenders stepping up, but it's far fetched to think that phones wouldn't have naturally progressed to where they are today.
You're right. Because without the iPhone, they could have always gone back to the newton for inspiration.
Comments
WRONG. Technically speaking, Apple was in the phone business FIRST.
Remember the Motorola Rockr? The very first mobile phone with iTunes. Technology sites reporting on collaborations between Motorola and Apple as far back as December 2004.
January 7, 2005 - Motorola previews iTunes phone
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ne_images.html
August 17, 2005 - Google buys Android
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...0949_tc024.htm
not quite dude. they licensed itunes for the ROCKR unit.. they didn't have anything to do with the design.. did you ever use it.. it was like a cheap knockoff of itunes.
Apple developed the iPhone internally, and so can't point to a clear public "start date" like Google with the purchase of Android. But the iPhone came out first, period. And when Android came out, it was clearly meant as an iPhone knock-off.
You are probably correct about the "public" part, but you would only need to research NDAs regarding telecom products Apple was working on to help determine an assumed "start" date.
not quite dude. they licensed itunes for the ROCKR unit.. they didn't have anything to do with the design.. did you ever use it.. it was like a cheap knockoff of itunes.
Apple collaborated with Motorola. technically speaking, Apple was in the phone business first.
Just out of curiosity, why do you actually use this forum?
My guess? It's probably tough being ignorant, while living in your Mom's basement, with no one to play with except your imaginary friends.
Three things:
1) I'm not at all certain that AppleTV doesn't turn a profit.
2) AppleTV is a product under development. That's why they call it a hobby.
3) Apple has a very stellar history of successfully selling consumer products.
Good grief! Don't confuse him with facts.
Companies do it all the time. If one part of the model starts to dip, they give it a crutch until it's better, and vice versa. If something is failing miserably though, then yes, it doesn't make sense to keep sinking money into it.
Consider for instance a bank who's been affected drastically by the housing crisis. You don't think they divert funds to keep the wound minimal?
I don't think comparing Microsoft to a 100 year crisis in the banking sector is helping your ( and daharder's) argument. Giving xbox a crutch for 10 years seems more indicative of a more serious condition than just a broken leg.
My guess? It's probably tough being ignorant, while living in your Mom's basement, with no one to play with except your imaginary friends.
Perhaps less jaded I could find that funny, but I am serious when I ask why he uses the forum. It seems to me that he has a disposition to look at the world in a negative way because of unresolved personal issue. I similarly look at the way some people always make excuses for everything Apple does, every time, in a similar light. Apple do great things and they also do dumb things. It's nice to sometimes acknowledge that. It keeps us all honest.
That guy always goes negative. If I was like that I wouldn't see the point in investing so much time on the forum, which leads me to think there are deeper psychological troubles at play. I'm not a doctor, and it's not a personal attack. It's just my honest opinion.
Three things:
1) I'm not at all certain that AppleTV doesn't turn a profit.
2) AppleTV is a product under development. That's why they call it a hobby.
3) Apple has a very stellar history of successfully selling consumer products.
For the record: they only call it a hobby because it never took off they way they imagined it could have. It's about managing expectations. It's about PR.
Apple collaborated with Motorola. technically speaking, Apple was in the phone business first.
How to draw a long bow.
I am not sure because they do not disclose their accounting procedures, but for the last few years, they 'claim' to have made a significant profit on the 'project' not hardware alone. For the 'project', if they break even to 'their plan', in general, if they are 'reporting' profits, then its making money.
Actually, this is a very common accounting practice. Aircraft development for example. Development is amoritized out over dozen of years based on projected sales (thats one model).
But who knows... its accounting(no offense to accountants out there).
Yes, they are showing quarterly profits now for the Xbox division, but my point is, the were not posting profits for many quarters before that. It's not so much a matter of accounting methods as it is the fact that the division lost money big time for years before it started becoming profitable, so they have a lot of sunk costs to cover before anyone can call the Xbox a success. Just try to imagine if Apple launched a major new product that wasn't making a profit in its first quarter of availability, let alone for years afterwards. Nobody would call that a success. Investors would have a conniption fit.
How to draw a long bow.
do you know when Apple started working internally on an iPhone prototype? NO. so unless you do, you don't have a clue.
It is ironic that Apple was originally in the computer business but decided to throw itself into the personal music business. And personal media player business. And the set-top box business.
No, that is not ironic.
I hate the iPhone antenna thing, and Apple's response. But I like many other Apple products. It seems you just use this forum to "vent" your own personal issues. And the fact that you keep coming back and repeating yourself tells me whatever you hope you achieve isn't working out for you.
Now this is ironic.
The fact is Android changed from a Blackberry Clone to an iPhone Clone.
However you cut it Android is a clone of something.
What's with DaSomething? I noticed he made a Segway with the comparison between a loss leader like the xbox and the apple tv. Perhaps he has the numbers to back his bullshit up. To compare those two is beyond the lowest boundaries of intelligence measurement. Xbox is apparently finally making enough profits, although I do not have any idea on how much of a loss they will sell Kinect, and if they do sell it with a loss, they're back to square one.
Still, I think that Xbox is a very good product. Kinect is perhaps the first amazing "vaporware" from MS that wasn't, in fact, "vapor", and that is astounding, to a good degree.
But XBox is, unfortunately for MS, an oasis surrounded by a big dry desert of ideas and execution.
I still don't hate Google as I hate Microsoft, and they have a better taste than MS. I always viewed the austerity of their web pages and their browser very positively.
So, "an oasis surrounded by a big dry desert of ideas and execution" you say? Interesting then that...
Bloomberg reports that Microsoft's Xbox Live service brought in $1.2 billion revenue for the fiscal 2009 year.
For the year ended June 30th, about 12.5 million Xbox Live users paid an annual fee to play games online which Bloomberg says would account for about $600 million in revenue. Xbox Live COO Dennis Durkin says on top of that, sales of DLC, movies and TV topped subscription revenue for the first time ever, and by a significant margin, leading us to the final $1.2 billion figure.
Success with Xbox Live is key to Microsoft's Entertainment division, which has seen slow sales of Zune media players, slow smartphone sales, and a barely profitable Xbox 360 console, which sees most of its profit from software and accessory sales.
Adds Matt Rosoff, an analyst at Directions on Microsoft: "Xbox Live has helped sell a lot of consoles and created a lot of loyalty. Everyone has been talking about Microsoft?s inability to innovate, but this is a pretty good example where they have innovated. They timed it just right with this one."
If accurate, revenue would have jumped from $800 million in 2008, a pretty hefty increase.
So Xbox hardware and accessories do make a profit, albeit "barely" (iTunes anyone?), while Xbox Live has increased its revenue by 50% to $1.2B year to year. Big dry desert of ideas and execution? Only if you're in complete denial, I'd suggest.
But one swallow does not a Summer make, and MS has a very long row to hoe with WinPhone 7 (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphors -
I notice that you freely admit to hating certain corporations. How does that make you any better than those accused of hating Apple? Just curious.
Apple First's
- First Color PC (Apple II $1,200) 1977
- First PC with consumer Disk Drive 1978 Apple
- First Spreadsheet (killer app) Visicalc 1979 Apple
- First PC with 3.5 inch disks 1983 Apple
- First consumer GUI 1984 Apple
- First PC with Mouse 1984 Apple
- First PC with drawing pad 1984 Apple
- First Consumer hard drive 10 megs 1984 Apple
- First PC with Microsoft Word 1984 Apple
- First Laser Printer 1985 Apple
- First PC with Midi 1985 Apple
- First Personel Network appletalk 1985 Apple
- First PC with SCSI 1986 Apple
- First with rewritable optical storage Apple sc 1988
- First PC with CD-ROM Drive Apple 150 1991
- First PC with ethernet built in 1991 Quadra
- First Consumer Digital Camera Quicktake 100 1994
- First PDA (Newton) 1993 before the Palm PDA and Pocket PC
- First PC with usb 1998 iMac
- First PC without Floppy Disk iMac!
- First PC conpany to reach a $1 billion annual sales rate Apple
- First WiFi 1999 Apple Airport
and yet it's Bill Gates who gets all the credit.WRONG. Technically speaking, Apple was in the phone business FIRST.
Remember the Motorola Rockr? The very first mobile phone with iTunes. Technology sites reporting on collaborations between Motorola and Apple as far back as December 2004.
January 7, 2005 - Motorola previews iTunes phone
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ne_images.html
August 17, 2005 - Google buys Android
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...0949_tc024.htm
You mean Motorola was in the phone business first, while Apple was in the iTunes business first. And we all remember how "successful" that little innovation was.
If licensing iTunes to Motorola is your idea of Apple being in the phone business then you're just desperate to try to win a point. Enjoy your delusion.
You mean the phone had a screen and buttons!? THOSE MORONS.
Seriously, what is with every AFB's obsession over this idea that if Apple hadn't released a touch screen phone, none of us would have one today? It's absurd, and it's already been proven wrong.
If Apple stayed away from the iphone, definitely you wouldn't see as many contenders stepping up, but it's far fetched to think that phones wouldn't have naturally progressed to where they are today.
You're right. Because without the iPhone, they could have always gone back to the newton for inspiration.