OK. I get the picture. Perhaps he feels that Motorola won't be able to reverse the trend and become a growing enterprise even with the success so far of its Android handsets. Could be, but as I pointed out in my reply, it would take some poor management indeed to not get a lift from Android's growth. Perhaps if they can't turn that to their advantage, they don't deserve to succeed?
I really don't see Apple suffering any significant reverse in the near term. Apple is a highly profitable corporation with a massive cash horde and large margins. That might change when SJ is no longer at the helm, but that's another debate I think.
The problem is that Motorola hitches their wagon to someone else. They tried Apple early this decade and refused to listen to Apple's engineers and we got the ROKKR. Remember that POS? They had the nerve to get upset and blame Apple for that turd. Then they tried making their phones smaller and I had a SLIVR which broke in less than a year. Now they hitched their wagon to Verizon who helped Motorola build a phone to hurt Apple out of spite. After giving one away with each sale, the market has gotten better for Android devices, so they are out of Zune country and can be taken seriously. The issue now, is that the devices are marginally better in some aspects and that won't get people who spent good money on iOS apps to all of a sudden switch. The network might, but I think to give Apple some serious thought to finally ship a Verizon phone would take a new network that would be in place, not just talked about.
Your last paragraph could have had Microsoft's name in place of Apple's 10 years ago or less. See what I mean about things changing rapidly if you aren't careful?
The problem is that Motorola hitches their wagon to someone else. They tried Apple early this decade and refused to listen to Apple's engineers and we got the ROKKR. Remember that POS? They had the nerve to get upset and blame Apple for that turd. Then they tried making their phones smaller and I had a SLIVR which broke in less than a year. Now they hitched their wagon to Verizon who helped Motorola build a phone to hurt Apple out of spite. After giving one away with each sale, the market has gotten better for Android devices, so they are out of Zune country and can be taken seriously. The issue now, is that the devices are marginally better in some aspects and that won't get people who spent good money on iOS apps to all of a sudden switch. The network might, but I think to give Apple some serious thought to finally ship a Verizon phone would take a new network that would be in place, not just talked about.
Your last paragraph could have had Microsoft's name in place of Apple's 10 years ago or less. See what I mean about things changing rapidly if you aren't careful?
Well said and I agree. Apple just does not have a history of 'accommodating' old technology....I would be very surprised if they produce a Verzon phone. I think they will wait till Verizon and China, for that matter, catch up. Apple is struggling to meet demand as it is. But then again what do I know...I decided to get into residential real estate and within 3 years we've had the biggest decline in value since the depression! Alas, amiss, afoot.. But as the late, great Doris Day used to say, 'que so what, so what!'
This article ignores the real truth. And that is that Android OS devices have been outselling Apple's OIS devices for the last 3 months. Apple is now in a solid 3rd place for smartphone sales. You may say you need to compare one phone to one phone. But that is one of Apple's weaknesses. The iphone will soon go the way of the MAC which struggles to get 5% of the market.
I don't think it ignores the truth.
It's an article about hardware sales of Apple and Motorola phones, and as it turns out Apple sells more phones than Motorola. There is nothing more to it than that.
It's not try to compare iOS to Android, misleading title notwithstanding.
I don?t get why some posters think marketshare is the Holy Grail of success, as if Apple didn?t have a choice to create their own OS for their own HW, as opposed to Dell, HP, Moto, and others who simply don?t have the chops to do it. Additionally, MS? biggest nightmare of the 1990s was Apple finally giving into the PC vendors and licensing their OS which would have made it impossible for MS to sell at inflated prices and shrunk their stock overnight and their marketshare thereafter. Of course, this would have killed Apple?s core focus on selling HW, so it was never a real possibility.
OK, if Apple wants to be a niche company forever; with 95% of the public using other products so be it. That is what Apple is destined to be with their current philosophy of one highly restricted size fits all. Thats what happened with desktop, it is what will happen with mobile.
Apple's gadgets (not macs) is what is keeping the ship afloat. Once Apple looses the mobile war; the ship will once again take on water, and I doubt Bill Gates will be around to save it from bankruptcy this time.
I don?t get why some posters think marketshare is the Holy Grail of success, as if Apple didn?t have a choice to create their own OS for their own HW, as opposed to Dell, HP, Moto, and others who simply don?t have the chops to do it. Additionally, MS? biggest nightmare of the 1990s was Apple finally giving into the PC vendors and licensing their OS which would have made it impossible for MS to sell at inflated prices and shrunk their stock overnight and their marketshare thereafter. Of course, this would have killed Apple?s core focus on selling HW, so it was never a real possibility.
That's interesting that you brought up licensing Apple's OS. As I recall it was Motorola who made a real turd of a Mac clone and tried to cannibalize sales from Apple. I had to fix a couple and they ended up taking one back and leaving one because they just didn't care anymore about them. They had the nerve to blame Apple for the reason that platform failed. Some of the other clone manufactures actually made faster Macs cheaper than Apple. This was at a time when Apple made to many models of Macs that overlapped with each other, like a Buick and Olds. If Steve Jobs didn't change the terms of the license, Apple would have died a slow death. So, he changed the amount that Apple would charge and they balked so he ended it after the current deal expired.
OK, if Apple wants to be a niche company forever; with 95% of the public using other products so be it. That is what Apple is destined to be with their current philosophy of one highly restricted size fits all. Thats what happened with desktop, it is what will happen with mobile.
Apple's gadgets (not macs) is what is keeping the ship afloat. Once Apple looses the mobile war; the ship will once again take on water, and I doubt Bill Gates will be around to save it from bankruptcy this time.
Apple is the most valuable tech company the world, and the 2nd most valuable company in the world and you can actually called them a "niche company?? I can see I have been interacting with another troll. Welcome to my Ignore List!
I don’t get why some posters think marketshare is the Holy Grail of success, as if Apple didn’t have a choice to create their own OS for their own HW, as opposed to Dell, HP, Moto, and others who simply don’t have the chops to do it. Additionally, MS’ biggest nightmare of the 1990s was Apple finally giving into the PC vendors and licensing their OS which would have made it impossible for MS to sell at inflated prices and shrunk their stock overnight and their marketshare thereafter. Of course, this would have killed Apple’s core focus on selling HW, so it was never a real possibility.
Solipsism, you continue to amaze me. And I mean that in a most complimentary way. You always get right to the heart of the matter!
This holly grail you mention is so dominant because it is the 'easy' way for so many incompetent CEO's to obfuscate their short comings. It is, by far, so much more difficult to research, develop, design and bring to market innovative products than it is to produce and sell crap products at low prices.
It's also why 90% of the companies fail after the first generation that starts the company dies. Ford, Coke, GE, IBM, etc. are the lucky ones I guess.
I think of it as the Walmart model. In the American consumer's psyche, if a blender sells for $13 but only lasts 3 months, somehow that is better 'value' than, say a Braun that costs $60 and last 10 years.
American companies are striving to be Coca Cola...the largest beverage company in the world and what do they sell? A cheap crap drink. Or McDonald's the largest restaurant chain in the world. And what to they sell? Crap food. Or Microsoft, the largest SW manufacturer in the world and what to they make? Crap. GM? Crap, China? Crap. Goldman Sachs? Crap. Bank of America? Crap. DEll? Crap. HP? Crap. Sony? Crap. Nokia? Crap. Samsung? Crap. LG, Crap. BP? Crap. Adobe? Crap. Fox? Crap. MSNBC? Crap. Phillip Morris? Death Crap!
All these companies have 'market share.' How do their executives and share holders sleep at night?
Only a few stand apart. Apple, Honda, Toyota are all I can think of right now!
Edit: 1Password, DropBox, Paralells, Vokl, PDFPen, PDF Shrink are looking pretty good right now!
Apple's gadgets (not macs) is what is keeping the ship afloat. Once Apple looses the mobile war; the ship will once again take on water, and I doubt Bill Gates will be around to save it from bankruptcy this time.
Umm, no. Actually their second quarter sales reported last week said that they sold 33% more Macs than the year before. So it's not just their "gadgets", people ARE buying more Macs.
I think your argument is 16 years too late. Next you will be calling Apple "beleagured" .
Here's something to think about. If so many people want Android phones, why are they so readily available and the "reception challenged" iPhone 4 is hard to find with people actually buying them, not exchanging them. Plus don't you think it's insulting to the customer to announce a Droid 2 just days after shipping a Droid X?
The problem is that Motorola hitches their wagon to someone else. They tried Apple early this decade and refused to listen to Apple's engineers and we got the ROKKR. Remember that POS? They had the nerve to get upset and blame Apple for that turd. Then they tried making their phones smaller and I had a SLIVR which broke in less than a year. Now they hitched their wagon to Verizon who helped Motorola build a phone to hurt Apple out of spite. After giving one away with each sale, the market has gotten better for Android devices, so they are out of Zune country and can be taken seriously. The issue now, is that the devices are marginally better in some aspects and that won't get people who spent good money on iOS apps to all of a sudden switch. The network might, but I think to give Apple some serious thought to finally ship a Verizon phone would take a new network that would be in place, not just talked about.
Your last paragraph could have had Microsoft's name in place of Apple's 10 years ago or less. See what I mean about things changing rapidly if you aren't careful?
I understand what you're saying, and agree with it to some extent. But hitching themselves to somebody else's wagon is presumably better in the short term for an ailing corporate than taking a gamble on something they will have to build from scratch. I doubt their shareholders would accept that sort of risk.
Even Apple, who made some extremely difficult decisions in the 90's, borrowed heavily in a tech sense in order to survive then ultimately prosper.
I don't see Apple users switching. There's a huge market out there inhabited by people who don't know they need a smartphone yet but when they wise up, they'll go to the most attractive platform/brand for them. That's how it should be and I for one am glad there's more than one game in town, even if my phone is now an iPhone.
Who knows - in the future there could be a compelling reason to look at Android, or RIM, or WinPhone something, or whatever Nokia's OS will be. Exciting times.
Dilger won't do that though - his whole reason for being is to knock Apple's opposition and try to make Apple look good. So he cherrypicks the data that works for his agenda.
He's absolutely correct about the comparison he draws with Motorola.
It's just not convenient to point out that Android as a platform was second behind RIM and Apple has slipped to third. And he certainly won't publish the fact that the iPhone sold just slightly more than one third of the smartphones that Nokia did in that quarter. And that Apple's share of the smartphone market has dropped from 17% to 14% over consecutive quarters. Or that Apple also sold fewer than the 11.2 million smartphones that RIM did.
No doubt we'll hear about Apple's profit margins from some of AI's illuminati, and they will have a very good point. But it seems that Motorola is making money again also. Being a US corporation, I'd have thought that would be good news to some of the American posters, but I won't be surprised if it turns out not to be.
Get off your high horse. AI has posted all those statistics before, when they were released. They had charts showing the comparison of Nokia, RIM and Android with the iPhone, etc. etc. The news today is about Motorola, so that's what's posted today. Do you need a history every time there's a new story?
If you want eveything mentioned in every story, then it should be noted that the amount of revenues and profit Apple earns on the iPhone is orders of magnitude higher than the amount earned by all those other companies. Most of the Android phones have been sold as "Buy one, get one free" since they were first released (I recently saw Motorola selling two Android phones for $99). Shouldn't the sales figures take that into account, and disregard the free phones?
Apple's gadgets (not macs) is what is keeping the ship afloat. Once Apple looses the mobile war; the ship will once again take on water, and I doubt Bill Gates will be around to save it from bankruptcy this time.
Man, it's going to be frustrating to be perpetually wrong.
Talk about drawing false conclusions. I suppose the fact that Apple has more cash on hand and is set to pass Microsoft in revenue means nothing.
I mean, business isn't about profit or customer satisfaction - market share and raw sales numbers are all that matters right? Never mind if you loose money on each sale - you can make it up on volume!
Well said and I agree. Apple just does not have a history of 'accommodating' old technology....I would be very surprised if they produce a Verzon phone. I think they will wait till Verizon and China, for that matter, catch up. Apple is struggling to meet demand as it is. But then again what do I know...I decided to get into residential real estate and within 3 years we've had the biggest decline in value since the depression! Alas, amiss, afoot.. But as the late, great Doris Day used to say, 'que so what, so what!'
Best
Thanks! Verizon is squawking about a new 4g network or "LTE", but has no firm dates or places where it will be. Just that by 2013 it will be nationwide. Any bets that Apple might have a phone for them at that time?
As for your choice in real estate, I did that too back in the 80's in PHX and when it tanked I got involved with computers, so just wait for your silver lining, it's coming.
Thanks! Verizon is squawking about a new 4g network or "LTE", but has no firm dates or places where it will be. Just that by 2013 it will be nationwide. Any bets that Apple might have a phone for them at that time?
As for your choice in real estate, I did that too back in the 80's in PHX and when it tanked I got involved with computers, so just wait for your silver lining, it's coming.
I'm in PHX too. Fountain Hills to be exact. And thanks for the vote of confidence. Hard to believe that five states brought the world economy to its knees. Just my luck, Arizona happens to be the epicenter!
I think I will have to go back to my original line of work, a 'door-to-door lingerie' salesman! Just kidding!
Best
Yep as soon as Verizon upgrades...Apple will be there for sure! Unless Verizon steps on their collective d*cks again!
I understand what you're saying, and agree with it to some extent. But hitching themselves to somebody else's wagon is presumably better in the short term for an ailing corporate than taking a gamble on something they will have to build from scratch. I doubt their shareholders would accept that sort of risk.
True, but Motorola has a tendency to bite the hand that feeds it. Eventually they will have some issue that will frost up their relationship with Verizon. Just give it time. Between Verizon, Motorola, Google and HTC there will be some daggers in backs soon enough.
True, but Motorola has a tendency to bite the hand that feeds it. Eventually they will have some issue that will frost up their relationship with Verizon. Just give it time. Between Verizon, Motorola, Google and HTC there will be some daggers in backs soon enough.
Righto...the senior management of the companies mentioned above all have demonstrated they have more foreskin than foresight. Especially, in the last couple of years or so.
Get off your high horse. AI has posted all those statistics before, when they were released.
If you'd like to post the link to where "AI has posted all those statistics before, when they were released." for this 2nd quarter referenced in Dilger's puff piece above, then I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
Dilger chose to take some positive news about Motorola's performance and spin it into an attack, belittling their handset sales by comparing them to Apple's superior figures and tying it all together with the reminder that Motorola is the biggest Android handset maker thus far. All nicely packaged to do a hack job on Motorola and Android in the one disingenuous load of Fanboy-Exciter pap.
As I said, he cherrypicks to make Apple look good while attacking Apple's opposition. Hardly fair and balanced reporting that one might expect on AI's "news" page. So I'll ride my "high horse" as you put it, as long as AI gives Dilger carte blanche to dump his cr@p here.
And you get to insult me into the bargain. Seems like a deal. Or you could do a solipsism and just add me to your ignore list. No skin off my nose.
So you didn't like the figures I posted? The truth shall set you free.
OK, if Apple wants to be a niche company forever; with 95% of the public using other products so be it. That is what Apple is destined to be with their current philosophy of one highly restricted size fits all. Thats what happened with desktop, it is what will happen with mobile.
Apple's gadgets (not macs) is what is keeping the ship afloat. Once Apple looses the mobile war; the ship will once again take on water, and I doubt Bill Gates will be around to save it from bankruptcy this time.
I think "niche" might be the wrong word.
I also think the prediction of 5% market share is too small. I'm thinking more like 10%, maybe more (iOS definitely appeals to more people than OSX).
Assuming they eventually settle into the portable computing market at 10% market share, and that "niche" (if you want to call it that) is the premium market where users pay top dollar for products, upgrade regularly and are more likely to pay for content and services... is that really a bad thing?
The alternative is to be in the race to the bottom and trade healthy profit for market share. I just can't see Apple doing that.
I don’t get why some posters think marketshare is the Holy Grail of success, as if Apple didn’t have a choice to create their own OS for their own HW, as opposed to Dell, HP, Moto, and others who simply don’t have the chops to do it.
I'm glad the others didn't all choose to go out and create new OSes. How many different OSes do we need? We want competition but what we don't want is a large number of small platforms that are unable to get any momentum behind them. Between iOS, Android, WinMo, WebOS, MeeGo, Symbian, and whatever RiM's OS is call we already have more than enough platforms. A bunch of Additional OSes with no more than a few percent market share each is not going to attract developers or drive competition.
If you'd like to post the link to where "AI has posted all those statistics before, when they were released." for this 2nd quarter referenced in Dilger's puff piece above, then I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
Dilger chose to take some positive news about Motorola's performance and spin it into an attack, belittling their handset sales by comparing them to Apple's superior figures and tying it all together with the reminder that Motorola is the biggest Android handset maker thus far. All nicely packaged to do a hack job on Motorola and Android in the one disingenuous load of Fanboy-Exciter pap.
As I said, he cherrypicks to make Apple look good while attacking Apple's opposition. Hardly fair and balanced reporting that one might expect on AI's "news" page. So I'll ride my "high horse" as you put it, as long as AI gives Dilger carte blanche to dump his cr@p here.
I'm not a big fan of some of Dilger's news either. I will give him credit that in the past he was spot on on his analysis of Apple and the competition, but that changed shortly after the iPhone came out.
He was more critical of other companies and had a blind spot when it came to Apple's shortcomings. In my book that's just as bad as bashing Apple for no good reason. He hasn't yet turned into a Paul Thurrot, but his articles swing dangerously close to being more fanboi nonsense than objective reporting. On the other hand it's hard to find objective reporting anywhere on the net anymore.
It could be that he hasn't forgotten how Motorola was one of the reasons why Apple was hamstrung in the 90's. Between them and IBM lying to Apple on PPC clock speeds and Apple trying to make other changes to their hardware to be able to be competitive with processors that didn't make enough "umph" to make the market notice. So he could have an axe to grind with Motorola and their new ads aren't helping them win friends over that are Apple users.
I would say that, those who adopt android can only survive in the market, can not go on top with market share. HTC,Motorola,Samsung,LG will all suffer this fate. There is no compelling reason for HTC user to jump to Motorola vice versa and like that for all manufacturers who are adopting android.
Then again this new phone rooting thing, no manufacturers will benefit who are adopting android., google and google lovers will encourage behind the scene this rooting thing. Where we ultimately see that all are selling only hardware with no differentiation. They can only differentiate themselves with pricing.All manufactures are looking like sales agents of google services.
So each manufacturer should think 10 times before get on board with android bandwagon.
Comments
OK. I get the picture. Perhaps he feels that Motorola won't be able to reverse the trend and become a growing enterprise even with the success so far of its Android handsets. Could be, but as I pointed out in my reply, it would take some poor management indeed to not get a lift from Android's growth. Perhaps if they can't turn that to their advantage, they don't deserve to succeed?
I really don't see Apple suffering any significant reverse in the near term. Apple is a highly profitable corporation with a massive cash horde and large margins. That might change when SJ is no longer at the helm, but that's another debate I think.
The problem is that Motorola hitches their wagon to someone else. They tried Apple early this decade and refused to listen to Apple's engineers and we got the ROKKR. Remember that POS? They had the nerve to get upset and blame Apple for that turd. Then they tried making their phones smaller and I had a SLIVR which broke in less than a year. Now they hitched their wagon to Verizon who helped Motorola build a phone to hurt Apple out of spite. After giving one away with each sale, the market has gotten better for Android devices, so they are out of Zune country and can be taken seriously. The issue now, is that the devices are marginally better in some aspects and that won't get people who spent good money on iOS apps to all of a sudden switch. The network might, but I think to give Apple some serious thought to finally ship a Verizon phone would take a new network that would be in place, not just talked about.
Your last paragraph could have had Microsoft's name in place of Apple's 10 years ago or less. See what I mean about things changing rapidly if you aren't careful?
The problem is that Motorola hitches their wagon to someone else. They tried Apple early this decade and refused to listen to Apple's engineers and we got the ROKKR. Remember that POS? They had the nerve to get upset and blame Apple for that turd. Then they tried making their phones smaller and I had a SLIVR which broke in less than a year. Now they hitched their wagon to Verizon who helped Motorola build a phone to hurt Apple out of spite. After giving one away with each sale, the market has gotten better for Android devices, so they are out of Zune country and can be taken seriously. The issue now, is that the devices are marginally better in some aspects and that won't get people who spent good money on iOS apps to all of a sudden switch. The network might, but I think to give Apple some serious thought to finally ship a Verizon phone would take a new network that would be in place, not just talked about.
Your last paragraph could have had Microsoft's name in place of Apple's 10 years ago or less. See what I mean about things changing rapidly if you aren't careful?
Well said and I agree. Apple just does not have a history of 'accommodating' old technology....I would be very surprised if they produce a Verzon phone. I think they will wait till Verizon and China, for that matter, catch up. Apple is struggling to meet demand as it is. But then again what do I know...I decided to get into residential real estate and within 3 years we've had the biggest decline in value since the depression! Alas, amiss, afoot.. But as the late, great Doris Day used to say, 'que so what, so what!'
Best
This article ignores the real truth. And that is that Android OS devices have been outselling Apple's OIS devices for the last 3 months. Apple is now in a solid 3rd place for smartphone sales. You may say you need to compare one phone to one phone. But that is one of Apple's weaknesses. The iphone will soon go the way of the MAC which struggles to get 5% of the market.
I don't think it ignores the truth.
It's an article about hardware sales of Apple and Motorola phones, and as it turns out Apple sells more phones than Motorola. There is nothing more to it than that.
It's not try to compare iOS to Android, misleading title notwithstanding.
I don?t get why some posters think marketshare is the Holy Grail of success, as if Apple didn?t have a choice to create their own OS for their own HW, as opposed to Dell, HP, Moto, and others who simply don?t have the chops to do it. Additionally, MS? biggest nightmare of the 1990s was Apple finally giving into the PC vendors and licensing their OS which would have made it impossible for MS to sell at inflated prices and shrunk their stock overnight and their marketshare thereafter. Of course, this would have killed Apple?s core focus on selling HW, so it was never a real possibility.
OK, if Apple wants to be a niche company forever; with 95% of the public using other products so be it. That is what Apple is destined to be with their current philosophy of one highly restricted size fits all. Thats what happened with desktop, it is what will happen with mobile.
Apple's gadgets (not macs) is what is keeping the ship afloat. Once Apple looses the mobile war; the ship will once again take on water, and I doubt Bill Gates will be around to save it from bankruptcy this time.
I don?t get why some posters think marketshare is the Holy Grail of success, as if Apple didn?t have a choice to create their own OS for their own HW, as opposed to Dell, HP, Moto, and others who simply don?t have the chops to do it. Additionally, MS? biggest nightmare of the 1990s was Apple finally giving into the PC vendors and licensing their OS which would have made it impossible for MS to sell at inflated prices and shrunk their stock overnight and their marketshare thereafter. Of course, this would have killed Apple?s core focus on selling HW, so it was never a real possibility.
That's interesting that you brought up licensing Apple's OS. As I recall it was Motorola who made a real turd of a Mac clone and tried to cannibalize sales from Apple. I had to fix a couple and they ended up taking one back and leaving one because they just didn't care anymore about them. They had the nerve to blame Apple for the reason that platform failed. Some of the other clone manufactures actually made faster Macs cheaper than Apple. This was at a time when Apple made to many models of Macs that overlapped with each other, like a Buick and Olds. If Steve Jobs didn't change the terms of the license, Apple would have died a slow death. So, he changed the amount that Apple would charge and they balked so he ended it after the current deal expired.
OK, if Apple wants to be a niche company forever; with 95% of the public using other products so be it. That is what Apple is destined to be with their current philosophy of one highly restricted size fits all. Thats what happened with desktop, it is what will happen with mobile.
Apple's gadgets (not macs) is what is keeping the ship afloat. Once Apple looses the mobile war; the ship will once again take on water, and I doubt Bill Gates will be around to save it from bankruptcy this time.
Apple is the most valuable tech company the world, and the 2nd most valuable company in the world and you can actually called them a "niche company?? I can see I have been interacting with another troll. Welcome to my Ignore List!
I don’t get why some posters think marketshare is the Holy Grail of success, as if Apple didn’t have a choice to create their own OS for their own HW, as opposed to Dell, HP, Moto, and others who simply don’t have the chops to do it. Additionally, MS’ biggest nightmare of the 1990s was Apple finally giving into the PC vendors and licensing their OS which would have made it impossible for MS to sell at inflated prices and shrunk their stock overnight and their marketshare thereafter. Of course, this would have killed Apple’s core focus on selling HW, so it was never a real possibility.
Solipsism, you continue to amaze me. And I mean that in a most complimentary way. You always get right to the heart of the matter!
This holly grail you mention is so dominant because it is the 'easy' way for so many incompetent CEO's to obfuscate their short comings. It is, by far, so much more difficult to research, develop, design and bring to market innovative products than it is to produce and sell crap products at low prices.
It's also why 90% of the companies fail after the first generation that starts the company dies. Ford, Coke, GE, IBM, etc. are the lucky ones I guess.
I think of it as the Walmart model. In the American consumer's psyche, if a blender sells for $13 but only lasts 3 months, somehow that is better 'value' than, say a Braun that costs $60 and last 10 years.
American companies are striving to be Coca Cola...the largest beverage company in the world and what do they sell? A cheap crap drink. Or McDonald's the largest restaurant chain in the world. And what to they sell? Crap food. Or Microsoft, the largest SW manufacturer in the world and what to they make? Crap. GM? Crap, China? Crap. Goldman Sachs? Crap. Bank of America? Crap. DEll? Crap. HP? Crap. Sony? Crap. Nokia? Crap. Samsung? Crap. LG, Crap. BP? Crap. Adobe? Crap. Fox? Crap. MSNBC? Crap. Phillip Morris? Death Crap!
All these companies have 'market share.' How do their executives and share holders sleep at night?
Only a few stand apart. Apple, Honda, Toyota are all I can think of right now!
Edit: 1Password, DropBox, Paralells, Vokl, PDFPen, PDF Shrink are looking pretty good right now!
Apple's gadgets (not macs) is what is keeping the ship afloat. Once Apple looses the mobile war; the ship will once again take on water, and I doubt Bill Gates will be around to save it from bankruptcy this time.
Umm, no. Actually their second quarter sales reported last week said that they sold 33% more Macs than the year before. So it's not just their "gadgets", people ARE buying more Macs.
I think your argument is 16 years too late. Next you will be calling Apple "beleagured" .
Here's something to think about. If so many people want Android phones, why are they so readily available and the "reception challenged" iPhone 4 is hard to find with people actually buying them, not exchanging them. Plus don't you think it's insulting to the customer to announce a Droid 2 just days after shipping a Droid X?
The problem is that Motorola hitches their wagon to someone else. They tried Apple early this decade and refused to listen to Apple's engineers and we got the ROKKR. Remember that POS? They had the nerve to get upset and blame Apple for that turd. Then they tried making their phones smaller and I had a SLIVR which broke in less than a year. Now they hitched their wagon to Verizon who helped Motorola build a phone to hurt Apple out of spite. After giving one away with each sale, the market has gotten better for Android devices, so they are out of Zune country and can be taken seriously. The issue now, is that the devices are marginally better in some aspects and that won't get people who spent good money on iOS apps to all of a sudden switch. The network might, but I think to give Apple some serious thought to finally ship a Verizon phone would take a new network that would be in place, not just talked about.
Your last paragraph could have had Microsoft's name in place of Apple's 10 years ago or less. See what I mean about things changing rapidly if you aren't careful?
I understand what you're saying, and agree with it to some extent. But hitching themselves to somebody else's wagon is presumably better in the short term for an ailing corporate than taking a gamble on something they will have to build from scratch. I doubt their shareholders would accept that sort of risk.
Even Apple, who made some extremely difficult decisions in the 90's, borrowed heavily in a tech sense in order to survive then ultimately prosper.
I don't see Apple users switching. There's a huge market out there inhabited by people who don't know they need a smartphone yet but when they wise up, they'll go to the most attractive platform/brand for them. That's how it should be and I for one am glad there's more than one game in town, even if my phone is now an iPhone.
Who knows - in the future there could be a compelling reason to look at Android, or RIM, or WinPhone something, or whatever Nokia's OS will be. Exciting times.
Dilger won't do that though - his whole reason for being is to knock Apple's opposition and try to make Apple look good. So he cherrypicks the data that works for his agenda.
He's absolutely correct about the comparison he draws with Motorola.
It's just not convenient to point out that Android as a platform was second behind RIM and Apple has slipped to third. And he certainly won't publish the fact that the iPhone sold just slightly more than one third of the smartphones that Nokia did in that quarter. And that Apple's share of the smartphone market has dropped from 17% to 14% over consecutive quarters. Or that Apple also sold fewer than the 11.2 million smartphones that RIM did.
No doubt we'll hear about Apple's profit margins from some of AI's illuminati, and they will have a very good point. But it seems that Motorola is making money again also. Being a US corporation, I'd have thought that would be good news to some of the American posters, but I won't be surprised if it turns out not to be.
Get off your high horse. AI has posted all those statistics before, when they were released. They had charts showing the comparison of Nokia, RIM and Android with the iPhone, etc. etc. The news today is about Motorola, so that's what's posted today. Do you need a history every time there's a new story?
If you want eveything mentioned in every story, then it should be noted that the amount of revenues and profit Apple earns on the iPhone is orders of magnitude higher than the amount earned by all those other companies. Most of the Android phones have been sold as "Buy one, get one free" since they were first released (I recently saw Motorola selling two Android phones for $99). Shouldn't the sales figures take that into account, and disregard the free phones?
Apple's gadgets (not macs) is what is keeping the ship afloat. Once Apple looses the mobile war; the ship will once again take on water, and I doubt Bill Gates will be around to save it from bankruptcy this time.
Man, it's going to be frustrating to be perpetually wrong.
Talk about drawing false conclusions. I suppose the fact that Apple has more cash on hand and is set to pass Microsoft in revenue means nothing.
I mean, business isn't about profit or customer satisfaction - market share and raw sales numbers are all that matters right? Never mind if you loose money on each sale - you can make it up on volume!
Well said and I agree. Apple just does not have a history of 'accommodating' old technology....I would be very surprised if they produce a Verzon phone. I think they will wait till Verizon and China, for that matter, catch up. Apple is struggling to meet demand as it is. But then again what do I know...I decided to get into residential real estate and within 3 years we've had the biggest decline in value since the depression! Alas, amiss, afoot.. But as the late, great Doris Day used to say, 'que so what, so what!'
Best
Thanks! Verizon is squawking about a new 4g network or "LTE", but has no firm dates or places where it will be. Just that by 2013 it will be nationwide. Any bets that Apple might have a phone for them at that time?
As for your choice in real estate, I did that too back in the 80's in PHX and when it tanked I got involved with computers, so just wait for your silver lining, it's coming.
Thanks! Verizon is squawking about a new 4g network or "LTE", but has no firm dates or places where it will be. Just that by 2013 it will be nationwide. Any bets that Apple might have a phone for them at that time?
As for your choice in real estate, I did that too back in the 80's in PHX and when it tanked I got involved with computers, so just wait for your silver lining, it's coming.
I'm in PHX too. Fountain Hills to be exact. And thanks for the vote of confidence. Hard to believe that five states brought the world economy to its knees. Just my luck, Arizona happens to be the epicenter!
I think I will have to go back to my original line of work, a 'door-to-door lingerie' salesman! Just kidding!
Best
Yep as soon as Verizon upgrades...Apple will be there for sure! Unless Verizon steps on their collective d*cks again!
I understand what you're saying, and agree with it to some extent. But hitching themselves to somebody else's wagon is presumably better in the short term for an ailing corporate than taking a gamble on something they will have to build from scratch. I doubt their shareholders would accept that sort of risk.
True, but Motorola has a tendency to bite the hand that feeds it. Eventually they will have some issue that will frost up their relationship with Verizon. Just give it time. Between Verizon, Motorola, Google and HTC there will be some daggers in backs soon enough.
True, but Motorola has a tendency to bite the hand that feeds it. Eventually they will have some issue that will frost up their relationship with Verizon. Just give it time. Between Verizon, Motorola, Google and HTC there will be some daggers in backs soon enough.
Righto...the senior management of the companies mentioned above all have demonstrated they have more foreskin than foresight. Especially, in the last couple of years or so.
Get off your high horse. AI has posted all those statistics before, when they were released.
If you'd like to post the link to where "AI has posted all those statistics before, when they were released." for this 2nd quarter referenced in Dilger's puff piece above, then I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
Dilger chose to take some positive news about Motorola's performance and spin it into an attack, belittling their handset sales by comparing them to Apple's superior figures and tying it all together with the reminder that Motorola is the biggest Android handset maker thus far. All nicely packaged to do a hack job on Motorola and Android in the one disingenuous load of Fanboy-Exciter pap.
As I said, he cherrypicks to make Apple look good while attacking Apple's opposition. Hardly fair and balanced reporting that one might expect on AI's "news" page. So I'll ride my "high horse" as you put it, as long as AI gives Dilger carte blanche to dump his cr@p here.
And you get to insult me into the bargain. Seems like a deal. Or you could do a solipsism and just add me to your ignore list. No skin off my nose.
So you didn't like the figures I posted? The truth shall set you free.
OK, if Apple wants to be a niche company forever; with 95% of the public using other products so be it. That is what Apple is destined to be with their current philosophy of one highly restricted size fits all. Thats what happened with desktop, it is what will happen with mobile.
Apple's gadgets (not macs) is what is keeping the ship afloat. Once Apple looses the mobile war; the ship will once again take on water, and I doubt Bill Gates will be around to save it from bankruptcy this time.
I think "niche" might be the wrong word.
I also think the prediction of 5% market share is too small. I'm thinking more like 10%, maybe more (iOS definitely appeals to more people than OSX).
Assuming they eventually settle into the portable computing market at 10% market share, and that "niche" (if you want to call it that) is the premium market where users pay top dollar for products, upgrade regularly and are more likely to pay for content and services... is that really a bad thing?
The alternative is to be in the race to the bottom and trade healthy profit for market share. I just can't see Apple doing that.
I don’t get why some posters think marketshare is the Holy Grail of success, as if Apple didn’t have a choice to create their own OS for their own HW, as opposed to Dell, HP, Moto, and others who simply don’t have the chops to do it.
I'm glad the others didn't all choose to go out and create new OSes. How many different OSes do we need? We want competition but what we don't want is a large number of small platforms that are unable to get any momentum behind them. Between iOS, Android, WinMo, WebOS, MeeGo, Symbian, and whatever RiM's OS is call we already have more than enough platforms. A bunch of Additional OSes with no more than a few percent market share each is not going to attract developers or drive competition.
If you'd like to post the link to where "AI has posted all those statistics before, when they were released." for this 2nd quarter referenced in Dilger's puff piece above, then I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
Dilger chose to take some positive news about Motorola's performance and spin it into an attack, belittling their handset sales by comparing them to Apple's superior figures and tying it all together with the reminder that Motorola is the biggest Android handset maker thus far. All nicely packaged to do a hack job on Motorola and Android in the one disingenuous load of Fanboy-Exciter pap.
As I said, he cherrypicks to make Apple look good while attacking Apple's opposition. Hardly fair and balanced reporting that one might expect on AI's "news" page. So I'll ride my "high horse" as you put it, as long as AI gives Dilger carte blanche to dump his cr@p here.
I'm not a big fan of some of Dilger's news either. I will give him credit that in the past he was spot on on his analysis of Apple and the competition, but that changed shortly after the iPhone came out.
He was more critical of other companies and had a blind spot when it came to Apple's shortcomings. In my book that's just as bad as bashing Apple for no good reason. He hasn't yet turned into a Paul Thurrot, but his articles swing dangerously close to being more fanboi nonsense than objective reporting. On the other hand it's hard to find objective reporting anywhere on the net anymore.
It could be that he hasn't forgotten how Motorola was one of the reasons why Apple was hamstrung in the 90's. Between them and IBM lying to Apple on PPC clock speeds and Apple trying to make other changes to their hardware to be able to be competitive with processors that didn't make enough "umph" to make the market notice. So he could have an axe to grind with Motorola and their new ads aren't helping them win friends over that are Apple users.
Then again this new phone rooting thing, no manufacturers will benefit who are adopting android., google and google lovers will encourage behind the scene this rooting thing. Where we ultimately see that all are selling only hardware with no differentiation. They can only differentiate themselves with pricing.All manufactures are looking like sales agents of google services.
So each manufacturer should think 10 times before get on board with android bandwagon.