Apple will be lucky to get 20%. How's the phone percentage doing these days?
Combined Android against Apple's iPhone, not too good but compared it to each individual manufacturer against Apple, it's Houston, Apple is kicking our butts.
Again, Windows Tablets does not exist yet, neither do WebOS , Symbian and most all Android Tablets. When they exist and out to the consumers hands, we can talk about it. Hinted future products cannot compete with an existing product that consumers are using now. And by the time those products are release, the second generation or third generation iPad will be there waiting for them.
Tell you what. You found and build a multi-billion dollar international manufacturing firm like Dell or Acer, and then you'll be in a position to criticize their management.
Until then, you are as silly as those folks who tell Steve how to run his company.
Try this simple experiment:
Look at the number of units Acer sells per year. (Hint. It is a big number)
Look at the total profit Acer makes. (Hint. It is a small number.)
Then divide one by the other and you arrive at a profit per PC. Then come back here. Tell us the number and tell us with a straight face that you don't find it laughable.
A company with absolutely zero value-add. They just glue components together and sell them cheap.
Dell is (was) a brilliant an innovative company. But all that innovation is about component purchase and inventory management. It has nothing at all to do with technology.
Both Dell and Acer are in the business of making fancy packaging for a product called Windows. Both work hard, and sell a lot of units. Neither seems to have a clue how to make their business profitable.
It's like Apple against the world right now. Everyone's gunning for Apple but the reality is that they all have to compete against each other more than they compete with Apple. Who else can provide the software/hardware integration and the whole ecosystem? It's just a hodge-podge chaos outside of the Apple world and the likes of Acer should worry more about HP, Dell, Samsung, LG, Sony, Lenovo, Toshiba, etc. who'll basically offer the same stuff that Acer will produce. On the software front, it'll be Google and Microsoft slugging it out against each other more than against Apple because neither can provide the hardware integration.
The whole "open" argument is so silly. Don't these competing companies realize that there really is a significant portion of the market (if not majority) that want to be in that more cozy "closed" system? I think one can compare Apple's ecosystem to a gated, planned community. It may not have everything in there as opposed to downtown city, but it'd be clean, safe, organized, convenient and aesthetically pleasing. People are willing to pay more to be in the closed ecosystem if it works, feels right and has that touch of luxury.
What I see is extreme jealousy, envy, and fear in all of Apple's competitors. Well, I guess you can't blame them when Apple is raking in nearly half of all profits in the handset industry and around 35% of the profits in the PC industry despite Apple having around 3~4% market share in each of these industries. Would you rather sell one million units of something to earn $100K or sell 100,000 units of the same kind of thing and make $1 million?
I love how everyone has latched onto this "open" policy and how they all think it represents their strategy. The only truly open strategy is where you build your own machine from scratch and install Linux on it.
As soon as you buy a machine with Windows on it, it's not open. As soon as you buy any branded hardware, it's not open because it will have some proprietary components inside that you have to replace from a limited source when it breaks.
Apple's business model is restrictive in some ways but people are free to port their apps to other platforms, they include the most standards-compliant browser software, their OS is based on open standard software, they promote industry standard media formats where it's appropriate and they support 3rd party hardware components.
PC manufacturers complain about Apple because they can't make any money from their business model but the same is true in reverse. Acer's business model is closed off to Apple and they would never be able to make money from it. I'd like to know how much money Acer make from Dell or HP and if they don't make any, why are they just complaining about Apple?
They might be right and Apple won't succeed in the long term but if that happens, the computer world will suffer badly because of it. I never want to see a day when I can't walk into a store and buy a product that I know a group of people have agonised over the details to make the experience as good as they know how to make it. Acer is not that group of people.
In a general rule of thumb, when you design something and expose the complexity way up to to the user then you are simply making your life easier (most linux distros, but Ubuntu is trying to break this).
When, you hide those and expose some badly taken decision to simplify the user experience you make life hell for everybody (Windows Siesta)
When, you hide those & expose easier to control / manage interface then you have something very simple to use (Mac OSX) & yet complex enough.
Don't worry about Apple's roadmap. The "this is a step backwards" comments come from people without imagination. Apple has already announced AirPlay. And this may soon include the ability to stream video and apps between devices, as well as music. Apple is ahead of the game and is slowly sending spinning harddrives in personal devices the way of the floppy drive.
The ultimate simplicity is to have complete access to your media from any of your devices and not have to worry about where the actual files are physically stored. Your premise that you can have either simplicity or capability but not both presents a false dichotomy.
The hub-as-a-living-room-device idea is now old hat. Your circles need to be personal and mobile, moving with you, as in "Mobile me"; and they need to overlap and interact with others' circles. If anything, the new Apple products are designed to get you out of the living room, out of the office, out of the basement. You aren't tied down anymore; you can visit with friends even if your life revolves around computer-based activities.
MS has talked about this but not delivered. Google has released yawn-inducing beta after ugly beta. Apple doesn't talk much, just works on its hobby and releases two or three social networks as incidental features of its regularly scheduled new products.
The "hub" has become an infinite loop with you at the center. You is the new hub.
I couldn't stop myself. But, I need to say this "you just disclosed Apple insider stuff", I bet the shih / shit would have started making the hub, a device that can connect everything (I mean physically).
Again, what crappy brand of AV software do you use? I just set it and forget it, and I haven't had a virus in years.
Ten minutes a day? WTF?
Try AVG. Its free and it works for me.
Of course, I also exercise common sense, which goes far in avoiding infections. For example, I am careful about who's mouth I put my tongue into, and I am careful to only install software that either has been obtained from vetted sources or which has been scanned first.
Comments
Android Tablets.
WebOS Tablets.
Windows Tablets.
Symbian Tablets.
Nook.
Kindle.
New Stuff.
Apple will be lucky to get 20%. How's the phone percentage doing these days?
Combined Android against Apple's iPhone, not too good but compared it to each individual manufacturer against Apple, it's Houston, Apple is kicking our butts.
Again, Windows Tablets does not exist yet, neither do WebOS , Symbian and most all Android Tablets. When they exist and out to the consumers hands, we can talk about it. Hinted future products cannot compete with an existing product that consumers are using now. And by the time those products are release, the second generation or third generation iPad will be there waiting for them.
Tell you what. You found and build a multi-billion dollar international manufacturing firm like Dell or Acer, and then you'll be in a position to criticize their management.
Until then, you are as silly as those folks who tell Steve how to run his company.
Try this simple experiment:
Look at the number of units Acer sells per year. (Hint. It is a big number)
Look at the total profit Acer makes. (Hint. It is a small number.)
Then divide one by the other and you arrive at a profit per PC. Then come back here. Tell us the number and tell us with a straight face that you don't find it laughable.
A company with absolutely zero value-add. They just glue components together and sell them cheap.
Dell is (was) a brilliant an innovative company. But all that innovation is about component purchase and inventory management. It has nothing at all to do with technology.
Both Dell and Acer are in the business of making fancy packaging for a product called Windows. Both work hard, and sell a lot of units. Neither seems to have a clue how to make their business profitable.
C.
The whole "open" argument is so silly. Don't these competing companies realize that there really is a significant portion of the market (if not majority) that want to be in that more cozy "closed" system? I think one can compare Apple's ecosystem to a gated, planned community. It may not have everything in there as opposed to downtown city, but it'd be clean, safe, organized, convenient and aesthetically pleasing. People are willing to pay more to be in the closed ecosystem if it works, feels right and has that touch of luxury.
What I see is extreme jealousy, envy, and fear in all of Apple's competitors. Well, I guess you can't blame them when Apple is raking in nearly half of all profits in the handset industry and around 35% of the profits in the PC industry despite Apple having around 3~4% market share in each of these industries. Would you rather sell one million units of something to earn $100K or sell 100,000 units of the same kind of thing and make $1 million?
I love how everyone has latched onto this "open" policy and how they all think it represents their strategy. The only truly open strategy is where you build your own machine from scratch and install Linux on it.
As soon as you buy a machine with Windows on it, it's not open. As soon as you buy any branded hardware, it's not open because it will have some proprietary components inside that you have to replace from a limited source when it breaks.
Apple's business model is restrictive in some ways but people are free to port their apps to other platforms, they include the most standards-compliant browser software, their OS is based on open standard software, they promote industry standard media formats where it's appropriate and they support 3rd party hardware components.
PC manufacturers complain about Apple because they can't make any money from their business model but the same is true in reverse. Acer's business model is closed off to Apple and they would never be able to make money from it. I'd like to know how much money Acer make from Dell or HP and if they don't make any, why are they just complaining about Apple?
They might be right and Apple won't succeed in the long term but if that happens, the computer world will suffer badly because of it. I never want to see a day when I can't walk into a store and buy a product that I know a group of people have agonised over the details to make the experience as good as they know how to make it. Acer is not that group of people.
In a general rule of thumb, when you design something and expose the complexity way up to to the user then you are simply making your life easier (most linux distros, but Ubuntu is trying to break this).
When, you hide those and expose some badly taken decision to simplify the user experience you make life hell for everybody (Windows Siesta)
When, you hide those & expose easier to control / manage interface then you have something very simple to use (Mac OSX) & yet complex enough.
Don't worry about Apple's roadmap. The "this is a step backwards" comments come from people without imagination. Apple has already announced AirPlay. And this may soon include the ability to stream video and apps between devices, as well as music. Apple is ahead of the game and is slowly sending spinning harddrives in personal devices the way of the floppy drive.
The ultimate simplicity is to have complete access to your media from any of your devices and not have to worry about where the actual files are physically stored. Your premise that you can have either simplicity or capability but not both presents a false dichotomy.
The hub-as-a-living-room-device idea is now old hat. Your circles need to be personal and mobile, moving with you, as in "Mobile me"; and they need to overlap and interact with others' circles. If anything, the new Apple products are designed to get you out of the living room, out of the office, out of the basement. You aren't tied down anymore; you can visit with friends even if your life revolves around computer-based activities.
MS has talked about this but not delivered. Google has released yawn-inducing beta after ugly beta. Apple doesn't talk much, just works on its hobby and releases two or three social networks as incidental features of its regularly scheduled new products.
The "hub" has become an infinite loop with you at the center. You is the new hub.
I couldn't stop myself. But, I need to say this "you just disclosed Apple insider stuff", I bet the shih / shit would have started making the hub, a device that can connect everything (I mean physically).
Again, what crappy brand of AV software do you use? I just set it and forget it, and I haven't had a virus in years.
Ten minutes a day? WTF?
Try AVG. Its free and it works for me.
Of course, I also exercise common sense, which goes far in avoiding infections. For example, I am careful about who's mouth I put my tongue into, and I am careful to only install software that either has been obtained from vetted sources or which has been scanned first.
This stuff is not so hard.
Use Linux
And could the rest of the AppleInsider community help out by then not quoting those trolls?
Thanks in advance.
Nor Mac, if you're listening only to Windows fanboys.
Meanwhile, millions feel differently:
http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2010/09...he-1-myth.html
Heh...the debunking was debunked in the comments by a link to a dude that works at RedHat.
At best Linux is looking at < 2% desktop market share.
Heh...the debunking was debunked in the comments by a link to a dude that works at RedHat.
At best Linux is looking at < 2% desktop market share.
Adam Williamson's only comments were pointing to the very stats the article addressed.
Do you have anything substantial to contribute?