With a growing number of unhappy iPhone users, due to iOS 4 issues not being addressed by Apple (especially for 3GS users), many are giving up and jumping ship. It's no surprise numbers are down for Apple. They stopped being the company that got their reputation for high quality products and service. Perhaps the new found fortune and popularity has compromised their legendary integrity, that it's now all about the almighty dollar, and less about it's consumers' satisfaction.
As a long time Apple supporter, it's sad to see them go in the direction of Microsoft. Advice; they should check their own forum sight to get an idea of what is going on. They said they have no idea about the 3GS issues with iOS 4? Well, there's at least one thread (about 100 pages and counting) that says it all.
Apparently for 3GS users having issues, iOS 4.1 is a bust. But, in fairness, 3G users are happier now with 4.1.
Every major rev of the iPhone OS started out buggy, with some pretty serious performance problems... 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and now 4.0. It's fixed in the point releases. It is why I don't install major version releases right away. Seasoned iPhone users are well aware of this, and it isn't something new, as you seem to contend.
Every major rev of the iPhone OS started out buggy, with some pretty serious performance problems... 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and now 4.0. It's fixed in the point releases. It is why I don't install major version releases right away. Seasoned iPhone users are well aware of this, and it isn't something new, as you seem to contend.
I've yet to have a problem with any of the revs. And the sparse performance problem reports are well, sparse. The myth of "Apple sucks at rev 1" is just that, a myth. Not perfect but actually pretty damn good overall.
Rule #36 .... from "Trolling Techniques"from (insert name of company here)
Remember: ..... Always, always, always, when slamming Apple, be sure to include this phrase, or a similar one .... "Now, I'm not anti-Apple, in fact, in my house I have 27 iMacs, 36 iPods, 14 iPads, 11 iPhones and several thousand of $$$$ worth of beloved Apple accessories. ... and, oh yeah, one of those Apple TV thingys.
Doesn't that imply that people that are open, inquisitive and try to look at many viewpoints to find out the closest possible truth instead of being critiqueless fanboys (but still fans of Apple and their many of their products) are then by all accounts Anti-Apple trolls?
So me not bying an iPhone (due to the high price of 940 USD and two year carrier lock to a carrier that I don't want due to horrible customer service and higher prices than competition to boot) would make me a troll as well just because I like Apple products, own several but sometimes bring out potentials upsides from competitors or point out deficiencies in iPhone?
Quite a strong black&white viewpoint if that is the case....
Doesn't that imply that people that are open, inquisitive and try to look at many viewpoints to find out the closest possible truth instead of being critiqueless fanboys (but still fans of Apple and their many of their products) are then by all accounts Anti-Apple trolls?
So me not bying an iPhone (due to the high price of 940 USD and two year carrier lock to a carrier that I don't want due to horrible customer service and higher prices than competition to boot) would make me a troll as well just because I like Apple products, own several but sometimes bring out potentials upsides from competitors or point out deficiencies in iPhone?
Quite a strong black&white viewpoint if that is the case....
Regs, Jarkko
That's not the case at all. IMO, a troll is someone who goes on fansite of company "A" and spends all his time trying to tear down that company while promoting company "B". The occasional piece of constructive criticism is healthy ... but the constant whining and bitching about everything serves no purpose at all .... except maybe to make me homesick.
Jarkko, it seems you didn't get my attempt at humor in my posts ... no problem. My point was simply this: To me, it's really funny when an obvious troll, judging by their posting history, goes off on, yet another rant against Apple, but tries to throw us off the track by listing, and in some cases posting pictures, of all the Apple stuff they own. I always question why somebody who always complains about the same company, over and over again, would keep buying from that company. That's not very logical, wouldn't you agree?
Maybe they're like the guy who, when asked why he keeps banging his head against a stonewall, replied .... because it feels so good when I stop! .....
That's not the case at all. IMO, a troll is someone who goes on fansite of company "A" and spends all his time trying to tear down that company while promoting company "B". The occasional piece of constructive criticism is healthy ... but the constant whining and bitching about everything serves no purpose at all .... except maybe to make me homesick.
Jarkko, it seems you didn't get my attempt at humor in my posts ... no problem. My point was simply this: To me, it's really funny when an obvious troll, judging by their posting history, goes off on, yet another rant against Apple, but tries to throw us off the track by listing, and in some cases posting pictures, of all the Apple stuff they own. I always question why somebody who always complains about the same company, over and over again, would keep buying from that company. That's not very logical, wouldn't you agree?
Maybe they're like the guy who, when asked why he keeps banging his head against a stonewall, replied .... because it feels so good when I stop! .....
Well said.
I've been giving some thought to trollers and the like, who claim to have every piece of Apple gear, and every Android phone. In fact, I've challenged a couple of these posters-- especially the cell phones! How can they afford multiple contracts, ETFs, etc.?
As you said, one such [apparent] Apple-hating troll when questioned if he had an iPad and several other tablets-- published several images displaying current posts from the thread displayed on the devices in question.
What's going on? If you hate a device so much that you bad mouth it publicly-- why not just sell it and move on. Or, Why have several devices that perform like functions?
Often you can track these trolls-- they join and start bitching when a new product (the iPad, for instance) is announced, before it even is available. Then they seem to be an early adopter (buyer) just so they can bitch some more.
I am beginning to think these are funded OR efforts by Apple's competitors.
It is not unusual for a company to buy a competitor's device to reverse-engineer, determine capabilities, costs, etc. * That's just good business!
* I sold a $5,000 competitive 68000-based desktop computer to Andy Hertzfeld while he was working on the original Mac (about 6 months before the announcement)... we both knew where it was going and for what purpose. We sold Apple computers to IBM, and UBM computers to Apple...
What I think may be happening with these "trolls-who-own-everything" is they are funded to take it a step further-- a concerted effort to disparage the competition (in this case Apple), on the forums.
If true, this is underhanded, at best.
In 32 years of observing Apple, I have never seen Apple do this sort of thing.
I am beginning to think these (trolls) are funded OR efforts by Apple's competitors.
What I think may be happening with these "trolls-who-own-everything" is they are funded to take it a step further-- a concerted effort to disparage the competition (in this case Apple), on the forums.
If true, this is underhanded, at best.
Dick, I agree with you but let me take it a step further. I think there are only 3 logical explanations for "troll like" behavior.
One: Jealousy: This person, for whatever reason, does not buy, (in this case) Apple, but at the same time is pissed at those who do, especially when Apple's success continues to increase. They seem to think that Apple's success somehow points to a poor decision on their part. They cannot even understand why some of us love Apple products so much we could be termed as fans, which, of course, is short for fanatical. This reason suggests, to me, a person who lacks confidence.
Two: As you said, the action of some competitors who have failed to keep up and have to pay people to badmouth their competition ... kind of like the "negative campaigning" of a lot of politicians nowadays. Pathetic behavior, imho.
Three: This one I'll throw out for your consideration, and I admit it is a bizarre, but not an impossible reason.
Since AI is a website that depends on advertisement (hits) for it's $$$$ and since these outrageous troll like posts seem to want to do nothing but "stir up the waters" and invite replies, one could easily consider that Kasper, or whoever is in charge of AI, not only condones, but maybe even encourages, pays or even creates these posts to increase web hits that translates into money. Like I said, bizarre, but not unthinkable ... except I would sure not like it to be the reason. Perhaps you can think of others?
Maybe they're like the guy who, when asked why he keeps banging his head against a stonewall, replied .... because it feels so good when I stop! .....
Good one. Got your point and do agree. I guess I just picked on your post after being fed up by the critiqueless fanboys (which you apparently are not) calling many sensible people with a real point trolls just because they dare to critisize Apple or applaud a competitor when it's due every now and then.
For example I love what Apple did to the mobile phone industry with the iPhone, look at the innovations it forced for the whole industry!. I do critisize the high price and carrier lock of the iPhone. And as I am not a shareholder, high margins for me as a consumer mean a ripoff. Some here would call this critique blasphemy or being a troll.
Good one. Got your point and do agree. I guess I just picked on your post after being fed up by the critiqueless fanboys (which you apparently are not) calling many sensible people with a real point trolls just because they dare to critisize Apple or applaud a competitor when it's due every now and then.
Apologies if I hit the wrong target.
Regs, Jarkko
Jarkko ... Absolutely no need to apologize.
As for your quote about high margins ..... that is your honest opinion based on your personal situation and even 'tho I disagree with it I respect that you have a valid and personal reason for that opinion.
I would only say this about "high margins". Sometimes margins can be misleading, for instance, in the case of MSFT .... their margins, the last time I looked, were higher than Apple, yet nobody seems to be bothered about that.
If you compare both companies, certain things jump out at you:
MSFT is, primarily a software company while Apple is primarily a hardware company ... and the actual physical production of hardware is most certainly going to be more expensive, the more hardware you produce, relative to your entire sales output ... computers vs software discs, for example.
I'm also convinced, until somebody can show me different, that Apple spends a larger amount on R&D and more on actual design than most other computer companies. All of these dollars have to be "built into" the final selling price of their various devices. If higher margins are what it takes for Apple to continue to delight and amaze me then I am all for it. My only problem is that I can't always fit what I'd like into my budget ... but that is my fault, not the fault of Apple.
One company strives to innovate and lead the industry, while the other one is happy to copy and, in most cases, follow, while spending huge dollars on advertising (1/2 of a billion $$$ in their upcoming campaign)
While both companies are successful (if you look only at profits) I'll still stay with Apple.
And as I am not a shareholder, high margins for me as a consumer mean a ripoff. Some here would call this critique blasphemy or being a troll.
I don't think you are being a troll at all. But I would like you to consider this.
Consumers pick the price (and thereby the margin) - not the manufacturer.
What I mean by that is that every company is obliged to set a price point which will maximise revenue.
If the manufacturer picks too high a price, one the market considers too high, demand is crushed and they and the maker loses unit sales and profits.
Conversely, if the manufacturer picks too low a price, the market will buy lots of units, but the increased sales volume does not make up for the lost revenue.
This is just basic economics.
It's clear that the manufacturer has to select a price-point at a sweet-spot that closely matches a value the audience expects. Within the market there is a consensus in terms of what a product is worth - and the manufacturer has to price an item close to that consensus.
In other words it's the market that sets the price for every item. And any manufacturer that tries to short-change, or rip-off the market will pay dearly in terms of profits.
There's no sign that this is happening with Apple. Sales volumes as well as profits are increasing.
So with that in mind, Apple's relatively large margins means just one thing; According to the market, Apple has a high value-add. According to the market, the resulting products are worth a lot more than the mere cost of the components.
A low margin means that according to the market, the product maker is adding little to the base value of the components.
Good one. Got your point and do agree. I guess I just picked on your post after being fed up by the critiqueless fanboys (which you apparently are not) calling many sensible people with a real point trolls just because they dare to critisize Apple or applaud a competitor when it's due every now and then.
Funny, I say good things about WP7 and haven't been flamed yet. Perhaps there's a delivery issue?
Quote:
I do critisize the high price and carrier lock of the iPhone. And as I am not a shareholder, high margins for me as a consumer mean a ripoff. Some here would call this critique blasphemy or being a troll.
The 799 € is the "retail" price. That's about the average price of an unlocked iPhone 4 across Europe. Price on contract is 579 €...not the greatest but requires a 1 year contract, not 2.
Buy one from Singapore for 496€ because it isn't Apple ripping you off but Sonera. Then use a TeleFinland SIM which I hear is cheaper than the Sonera ones. Odd, aren't they the same company or something?
Either way, the cost here in the US are far lower on contract.
Funny, I say good things about WP7 and haven't been flamed yet. Perhaps there's a delivery issue?
Neither have I. I just reacted (possibly overso) when this troll-calling reached its heights, where it seemed it was headed in the direction that any opposite views would be marked as such. Again apologies if I overreacted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
The 799 ? is the "retail" price. That's about the average price of an unlocked iPhone 4 across Europe. Price on contract is 579 ?...not the greatest but requires a 1 year contract, not 2.
The 576 is for 2 years. 1 year is 600?. 696 vs. 720? (940USD) for the 32GB. So basically a 2?/month addon. Not too bad for a year's shortening no. But you still get the higher contract prices so that all adds up. And I do understand that the pricing is mainly up to Sonera from an Apple baseline. The exclusivity OTOH is Apple's doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Either way, the costs here in the US are far lower on contract.
Personal opinion: I believe that if there was pricing transparency and better competition in the US between operators (i.e. easier to change between operators via less fixed length contracts, compatible tech etc.) you'd also be seeing more of the true price of the phones. Now your highish contract prices and single carrier subsidising the phone hides part of the phone's cost. Latter may benefit the customer when the operator truly subsidises a exclusive phone to get customers but the former does not. The Latter is likely to go away or diminish when TMO gets the iPhone.
I prefer the transparent model, where you buy a phone and a contract separately. You know what you are paying for much more easily.
And for newbee: Mostly I agree on Apple's innovativeness etc. But my wallet disagrees at the counter. Same goes for MSFT. I don't buy Office, I use Openoffice due to MSFTs ripoff pricing even though their product is the better one.
I'm also convinced, until somebody can show me different, that Apple spends a larger amount on R&D and more on actual design than most other computer companies. All of these dollars have to be "built into" the final selling price of their various devices.
Last check Apple spend around 1 to 1.5 billion a year in R&D (maybe a couple of % of revenue). Microsoft's spend on R&D is around 9 billion (around 14% of revenue).
Of course Apple only have a tiny handful of products compared to Microsoft, and even a smaller amount if you look at the logical similarities of each product (i.e. the new Apple TV, the iPod touch, the iPad and the iPhone 4 are all very similar).
So I think it's fair to say that Apple's R&D spending is very targeted (for the last few years my guess would be almost exclusively iOS based), whereas Microsoft's is spread pretty well over a lot of different areas.
Last check Apple spend around 1 to 1.5 billion a year in R&D (maybe a couple of % of revenue). Microsoft's spend on R&D is around 9 billion (around 14% of revenue).
Of course Apple only have a tiny handful of products compared to Microsoft, and even a smaller amount if you look at the logical similarities of each product (i.e. the new Apple TV, the iPod touch, the iPad and the iPhone 4 are all very similar).
So I think it's fair to say that Apple's R&D spending is very targeted (for the last few years my guess would be almost exclusively iOS based), whereas Microsoft's is spread pretty well over a lot of different areas.
If these figures are accurate, and I have no reason to doubt you, then all I can say is MSFT is not getting very good bang for it's buck ... an updated version of windows, a failed kin and a, yet to be released, kinect. I guess 9 billion just doesn't buy what it used to.
Personal opinion: I believe that if there was pricing transparency and better competition in the US between operators (i.e. easier to change between operators via less fixed length contracts, compatible tech etc.) you'd also be seeing more of the true price of the phones.
Not sure.
In the UK all carriers now offer iPhones.
Competition has meant that the contract terms have improved and the price point of the subsidised phone on contract is actually fallen.
For example...
A 32GB iPhone 4- With a 2 year contract costs £189. ( 225 Euro)
Profit, not market share is Apple's ultimate goal. They do quite well with that 5% market share too. They've stated before that they are in the business of making the best devices, not the most devices, it seems a lot of people tend to forget that. Even if Apple dropped to 5% market share in the smartphone business, they'd only be failing by your standards.
If Apple wanted market share, they'd have multiple phone models at different price points, 2 for 1 deals, and they never would have signed that exclusivity contract with AT&T (they did that to pioneer things like visual voicemail, and keep control of the phone in their hands and not the carriers). However, if they did all that, the quality of their product would drop and so would their margins, and likely their profits. Market share is great, but that's not what they're ultimately after (just ask Nokia how well market share translates to dollars). They want to sell quality hardware with solid profit margins, and that's what they are doing.
That said, the phone market is not the computer market, I wouldn't expect things to play out in the same manner.
uhh...they didnt pioneer visual voicemail dude. Sprint has had it since before the iphone inception.
If these figures are accurate, and I have no reason to doubt you, then all I can say is MSFT is not getting very good bang for it's buck ... an updated version of windows, a failed kin and a, yet to be released, kinect. I guess 9 billion just doesn't buy what it used to.
Well that depends on how you look at it. Microsoft don't seem to get the same ROI on their R&D as Apple do, nor would I expect them to as they have very different product libraries.
Microsoft's bread and butter is Windows licences, and Windows exists because it's part of the Office\\Windows\\Server stack. So if Microsoft need to churn, say $50 million, into researching how to improve the next version of BizTalk Server, it would seem to be a good use of their funds... even though you (or 99.9% of the population for that matter) have no idea of what the heck BizTalk Server is!
At the end of the day money spent on R&D is good for employees, good for business and good for the economy as a whole so it's hard to find a reason to complain when a company dedicates such a high percentage of its revenue toward this area.
At the end of the day money spent on R&D is good for employees, good for business and good for the economy as a whole so it's hard to find a reason to complain when a company dedicates such a high percentage of its revenue toward this area.
Apple is consistently perceived as a highly inventive company, and yet as a proportion of profits, spends much less on R&D than other seemingly less inventive companies.
Nokia spends far more on R&D than Apple.
As a proportion of profits, the Nokia R&D spend seems unjustifiable.
Verizon's crappy Skype deal that doesn't work over WiFi and uses your mobile minutes for local calls.
In addition to paying extra for visual voicemail. Its difficult to see how Apple and Verizon can work together.
I should have responded earlier, maybe you'll see this, but who knows.
Anyways, limited data from Verizon is as much a bummer as it is from AT&T. Luckily for me though, I got in before this happens. So in the context of me looking for a phone right now, Verizon seemed better.
Verizon apps and their app store are meaningless. 10 minutes after owning my phone, I rooted it, and took all the verizon bloatware off (which made my battery life AMAZING.) BTW, I've never owned an Android phone before, so that should tell you how easy it is to root the galaxy s.
Finally, I did get suckered by the visual voicemail, BUT, you can unsubscribe from it. You're not stuck with it. I think I will unsubscribe simply because I hardly ever get voicemails to begin with.
Anyways, the point remains: If AT&T had unlimited data, I'd have an iphone 4.
Well that depends on how you look at it. Microsoft don't seem to get the same ROI on their R&D as Apple do, nor would I expect them to as they have very different product libraries.
At the end of the day money spent on R&D is good for employees, good for business and good for the economy as a whole so it's hard to find a reason to complain when a company dedicates such a high percentage of its revenue toward this area.
There is a difference between spending a lot of money foolishly and a smaller amount wisely. The R&D model MSFT is following seems to follow the ad model they follow. Remember Jerry and Bill?
I think MSFT is following the same philosophy all the way down line and I think it happens because they make so much money from windows that they don't have to "try harder".
They seem to make money in spite of themselves, not because of their ability to always "be right".
Finally, I did get suckered by the visual voicemail, BUT, you can unsubscribe from it. You're not stuck with it. I think I will unsubscribe simply because I hardly ever get voicemails to begin with.
Get Google Voice for this. You can set it up to take over your Verizon voicemail so that anyone who calls your normal cell phone number (as opposed to your Google Voice number) and leaves a voicemail will be picked up by Voice. You can then use the app to view them all in an inbox format.
Bonus in that it transcribes the voicemail after a few minutes. It's fairly accurate if the speaker's using English. Extremely comical if it's any other language.
Comments
With a growing number of unhappy iPhone users, due to iOS 4 issues not being addressed by Apple (especially for 3GS users), many are giving up and jumping ship. It's no surprise numbers are down for Apple. They stopped being the company that got their reputation for high quality products and service. Perhaps the new found fortune and popularity has compromised their legendary integrity, that it's now all about the almighty dollar, and less about it's consumers' satisfaction.
As a long time Apple supporter, it's sad to see them go in the direction of Microsoft. Advice; they should check their own forum sight to get an idea of what is going on. They said they have no idea about the 3GS issues with iOS 4? Well, there's at least one thread (about 100 pages and counting) that says it all.
Apparently for 3GS users having issues, iOS 4.1 is a bust. But, in fairness, 3G users are happier now with 4.1.
Every major rev of the iPhone OS started out buggy, with some pretty serious performance problems... 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and now 4.0. It's fixed in the point releases. It is why I don't install major version releases right away. Seasoned iPhone users are well aware of this, and it isn't something new, as you seem to contend.
Every major rev of the iPhone OS started out buggy, with some pretty serious performance problems... 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and now 4.0. It's fixed in the point releases. It is why I don't install major version releases right away. Seasoned iPhone users are well aware of this, and it isn't something new, as you seem to contend.
I've yet to have a problem with any of the revs. And the sparse performance problem reports are well, sparse. The myth of "Apple sucks at rev 1" is just that, a myth. Not perfect but actually pretty damn good overall.
Remember: ..... Always, always, always, when slamming Apple, be sure to include this phrase, or a similar one .... "Now, I'm not anti-Apple, in fact, in my house I have 27 iMacs, 36 iPods, 14 iPads, 11 iPhones and several thousand of $$$$ worth of beloved Apple accessories. ... and, oh yeah, one of those Apple TV thingys.
Doesn't that imply that people that are open, inquisitive and try to look at many viewpoints to find out the closest possible truth instead of being critiqueless fanboys (but still fans of Apple and their many of their products) are then by all accounts Anti-Apple trolls?
So me not bying an iPhone (due to the high price of 940 USD and two year carrier lock to a carrier that I don't want due to horrible customer service and higher prices than competition to boot) would make me a troll as well just because I like Apple products, own several but sometimes bring out potentials upsides from competitors or point out deficiencies in iPhone?
Quite a strong black&white viewpoint if that is the case....
Regs, Jarkko
Doesn't that imply that people that are open, inquisitive and try to look at many viewpoints to find out the closest possible truth instead of being critiqueless fanboys (but still fans of Apple and their many of their products) are then by all accounts Anti-Apple trolls?
So me not bying an iPhone (due to the high price of 940 USD and two year carrier lock to a carrier that I don't want due to horrible customer service and higher prices than competition to boot) would make me a troll as well just because I like Apple products, own several but sometimes bring out potentials upsides from competitors or point out deficiencies in iPhone?
Quite a strong black&white viewpoint if that is the case....
Regs, Jarkko
That's not the case at all. IMO, a troll is someone who goes on fansite of company "A" and spends all his time trying to tear down that company while promoting company "B". The occasional piece of constructive criticism is healthy ... but the constant whining and bitching about everything serves no purpose at all .... except maybe to make me homesick.
Jarkko, it seems you didn't get my attempt at humor in my posts ... no problem. My point was simply this: To me, it's really funny when an obvious troll, judging by their posting history, goes off on, yet another rant against Apple, but tries to throw us off the track by listing, and in some cases posting pictures, of all the Apple stuff they own. I always question why somebody who always complains about the same company, over and over again, would keep buying from that company. That's not very logical, wouldn't you agree?
Maybe they're like the guy who, when asked why he keeps banging his head against a stonewall, replied .... because it feels so good when I stop! .....
That's not the case at all. IMO, a troll is someone who goes on fansite of company "A" and spends all his time trying to tear down that company while promoting company "B". The occasional piece of constructive criticism is healthy ... but the constant whining and bitching about everything serves no purpose at all .... except maybe to make me homesick.
Jarkko, it seems you didn't get my attempt at humor in my posts ... no problem. My point was simply this: To me, it's really funny when an obvious troll, judging by their posting history, goes off on, yet another rant against Apple, but tries to throw us off the track by listing, and in some cases posting pictures, of all the Apple stuff they own. I always question why somebody who always complains about the same company, over and over again, would keep buying from that company. That's not very logical, wouldn't you agree?
Maybe they're like the guy who, when asked why he keeps banging his head against a stonewall, replied .... because it feels so good when I stop! .....
Well said.
I've been giving some thought to trollers and the like, who claim to have every piece of Apple gear, and every Android phone. In fact, I've challenged a couple of these posters-- especially the cell phones! How can they afford multiple contracts, ETFs, etc.?
As you said, one such [apparent] Apple-hating troll when questioned if he had an iPad and several other tablets-- published several images displaying current posts from the thread displayed on the devices in question.
What's going on? If you hate a device so much that you bad mouth it publicly-- why not just sell it and move on. Or, Why have several devices that perform like functions?
Often you can track these trolls-- they join and start bitching when a new product (the iPad, for instance) is announced, before it even is available. Then they seem to be an early adopter (buyer) just so they can bitch some more.
I am beginning to think these are funded OR efforts by Apple's competitors.
It is not unusual for a company to buy a competitor's device to reverse-engineer, determine capabilities, costs, etc. * That's just good business!
* I sold a $5,000 competitive 68000-based desktop computer to Andy Hertzfeld while he was working on the original Mac (about 6 months before the announcement)... we both knew where it was going and for what purpose. We sold Apple computers to IBM, and UBM computers to Apple...
What I think may be happening with these "trolls-who-own-everything" is they are funded to take it a step further-- a concerted effort to disparage the competition (in this case Apple), on the forums.
If true, this is underhanded, at best.
In 32 years of observing Apple, I have never seen Apple do this sort of thing.
.
I am beginning to think these (trolls) are funded OR efforts by Apple's competitors.
What I think may be happening with these "trolls-who-own-everything" is they are funded to take it a step further-- a concerted effort to disparage the competition (in this case Apple), on the forums.
If true, this is underhanded, at best.
Dick, I agree with you but let me take it a step further. I think there are only 3 logical explanations for "troll like" behavior.
One: Jealousy: This person, for whatever reason, does not buy, (in this case) Apple, but at the same time is pissed at those who do, especially when Apple's success continues to increase. They seem to think that Apple's success somehow points to a poor decision on their part. They cannot even understand why some of us love Apple products so much we could be termed as fans, which, of course, is short for fanatical. This reason suggests, to me, a person who lacks confidence.
Two: As you said, the action of some competitors who have failed to keep up and have to pay people to badmouth their competition ... kind of like the "negative campaigning" of a lot of politicians nowadays. Pathetic behavior, imho.
Three: This one I'll throw out for your consideration, and I admit it is a bizarre, but not an impossible reason.
Since AI is a website that depends on advertisement (hits) for it's $$$$ and since these outrageous troll like posts seem to want to do nothing but "stir up the waters" and invite replies, one could easily consider that Kasper, or whoever is in charge of AI, not only condones, but maybe even encourages, pays or even creates these posts to increase web hits that translates into money. Like I said, bizarre, but not unthinkable ... except I would sure not like it to be the reason. Perhaps you can think of others?
Maybe they're like the guy who, when asked why he keeps banging his head against a stonewall, replied .... because it feels so good when I stop! .....
Good one. Got your point and do agree. I guess I just picked on your post after being fed up by the critiqueless fanboys (which you apparently are not) calling many sensible people with a real point trolls just because they dare to critisize Apple or applaud a competitor when it's due every now and then.
For example I love what Apple did to the mobile phone industry with the iPhone, look at the innovations it forced for the whole industry!. I do critisize the high price and carrier lock of the iPhone. And as I am not a shareholder, high margins for me as a consumer mean a ripoff. Some here would call this critique blasphemy or being a troll.
Apologies if I hit the wrong target.
Regs, Jarkko
Good one. Got your point and do agree. I guess I just picked on your post after being fed up by the critiqueless fanboys (which you apparently are not) calling many sensible people with a real point trolls just because they dare to critisize Apple or applaud a competitor when it's due every now and then.
Apologies if I hit the wrong target.
Regs, Jarkko
Jarkko ... Absolutely no need to apologize.
As for your quote about high margins ..... that is your honest opinion based on your personal situation and even 'tho I disagree with it I respect that you have a valid and personal reason for that opinion.
I would only say this about "high margins". Sometimes margins can be misleading, for instance, in the case of MSFT .... their margins, the last time I looked, were higher than Apple, yet nobody seems to be bothered about that.
If you compare both companies, certain things jump out at you:
MSFT is, primarily a software company while Apple is primarily a hardware company ... and the actual physical production of hardware is most certainly going to be more expensive, the more hardware you produce, relative to your entire sales output ... computers vs software discs, for example.
I'm also convinced, until somebody can show me different, that Apple spends a larger amount on R&D and more on actual design than most other computer companies. All of these dollars have to be "built into" the final selling price of their various devices. If higher margins are what it takes for Apple to continue to delight and amaze me then I am all for it. My only problem is that I can't always fit what I'd like into my budget ... but that is my fault, not the fault of Apple.
One company strives to innovate and lead the industry, while the other one is happy to copy and, in most cases, follow, while spending huge dollars on advertising (1/2 of a billion $$$ in their upcoming campaign)
While both companies are successful (if you look only at profits) I'll still stay with Apple.
Cheers ... newbee
And as I am not a shareholder, high margins for me as a consumer mean a ripoff. Some here would call this critique blasphemy or being a troll.
I don't think you are being a troll at all. But I would like you to consider this.
Consumers pick the price (and thereby the margin) - not the manufacturer.
What I mean by that is that every company is obliged to set a price point which will maximise revenue.
If the manufacturer picks too high a price, one the market considers too high, demand is crushed and they and the maker loses unit sales and profits.
Conversely, if the manufacturer picks too low a price, the market will buy lots of units, but the increased sales volume does not make up for the lost revenue.
This is just basic economics.
It's clear that the manufacturer has to select a price-point at a sweet-spot that closely matches a value the audience expects. Within the market there is a consensus in terms of what a product is worth - and the manufacturer has to price an item close to that consensus.
In other words it's the market that sets the price for every item. And any manufacturer that tries to short-change, or rip-off the market will pay dearly in terms of profits.
There's no sign that this is happening with Apple. Sales volumes as well as profits are increasing.
So with that in mind, Apple's relatively large margins means just one thing; According to the market, Apple has a high value-add. According to the market, the resulting products are worth a lot more than the mere cost of the components.
A low margin means that according to the market, the product maker is adding little to the base value of the components.
Discuss!
C.
Good one. Got your point and do agree. I guess I just picked on your post after being fed up by the critiqueless fanboys (which you apparently are not) calling many sensible people with a real point trolls just because they dare to critisize Apple or applaud a competitor when it's due every now and then.
Funny, I say good things about WP7 and haven't been flamed yet. Perhaps there's a delivery issue?
I do critisize the high price and carrier lock of the iPhone. And as I am not a shareholder, high margins for me as a consumer mean a ripoff. Some here would call this critique blasphemy or being a troll.
The 799 € is the "retail" price. That's about the average price of an unlocked iPhone 4 across Europe. Price on contract is 579 €...not the greatest but requires a 1 year contract, not 2.
http://www.geekersmagazine.com/wp-co...ne-4-costs.png
Buy one from Singapore for 496€ because it isn't Apple ripping you off but Sonera. Then use a TeleFinland SIM which I hear is cheaper than the Sonera ones. Odd, aren't they the same company or something?
Either way, the cost here in the US are far lower on contract.
Funny, I say good things about WP7 and haven't been flamed yet. Perhaps there's a delivery issue?
Neither have I. I just reacted (possibly overso) when this troll-calling reached its heights, where it seemed it was headed in the direction that any opposite views would be marked as such. Again apologies if I overreacted.
The 799 ? is the "retail" price. That's about the average price of an unlocked iPhone 4 across Europe. Price on contract is 579 ?...not the greatest but requires a 1 year contract, not 2.
The 576 is for 2 years. 1 year is 600?. 696 vs. 720? (940USD) for the 32GB. So basically a 2?/month addon. Not too bad for a year's shortening no. But you still get the higher contract prices so that all adds up. And I do understand that the pricing is mainly up to Sonera from an Apple baseline. The exclusivity OTOH is Apple's doing.
Either way, the costs here in the US are far lower on contract.
Personal opinion: I believe that if there was pricing transparency and better competition in the US between operators (i.e. easier to change between operators via less fixed length contracts, compatible tech etc.) you'd also be seeing more of the true price of the phones. Now your highish contract prices and single carrier subsidising the phone hides part of the phone's cost. Latter may benefit the customer when the operator truly subsidises a exclusive phone to get customers but the former does not. The Latter is likely to go away or diminish when TMO gets the iPhone.
I prefer the transparent model, where you buy a phone and a contract separately. You know what you are paying for much more easily.
And for newbee: Mostly I agree on Apple's innovativeness etc. But my wallet disagrees at the counter. Same goes for MSFT. I don't buy Office, I use Openoffice due to MSFTs ripoff pricing even though their product is the better one.
Regs, Jarkko
I'm also convinced, until somebody can show me different, that Apple spends a larger amount on R&D and more on actual design than most other computer companies. All of these dollars have to be "built into" the final selling price of their various devices.
Last check Apple spend around 1 to 1.5 billion a year in R&D (maybe a couple of % of revenue). Microsoft's spend on R&D is around 9 billion (around 14% of revenue).
Of course Apple only have a tiny handful of products compared to Microsoft, and even a smaller amount if you look at the logical similarities of each product (i.e. the new Apple TV, the iPod touch, the iPad and the iPhone 4 are all very similar).
So I think it's fair to say that Apple's R&D spending is very targeted (for the last few years my guess would be almost exclusively iOS based), whereas Microsoft's is spread pretty well over a lot of different areas.
Last check Apple spend around 1 to 1.5 billion a year in R&D (maybe a couple of % of revenue). Microsoft's spend on R&D is around 9 billion (around 14% of revenue).
Of course Apple only have a tiny handful of products compared to Microsoft, and even a smaller amount if you look at the logical similarities of each product (i.e. the new Apple TV, the iPod touch, the iPad and the iPhone 4 are all very similar).
So I think it's fair to say that Apple's R&D spending is very targeted (for the last few years my guess would be almost exclusively iOS based), whereas Microsoft's is spread pretty well over a lot of different areas.
If these figures are accurate, and I have no reason to doubt you, then all I can say is MSFT is not getting very good bang for it's buck ... an updated version of windows, a failed kin and a, yet to be released, kinect. I guess 9 billion just doesn't buy what it used to.
Personal opinion: I believe that if there was pricing transparency and better competition in the US between operators (i.e. easier to change between operators via less fixed length contracts, compatible tech etc.) you'd also be seeing more of the true price of the phones.
Not sure.
In the UK all carriers now offer iPhones.
Competition has meant that the contract terms have improved and the price point of the subsidised phone on contract is actually fallen.
For example...
A 32GB iPhone 4- With a 2 year contract costs £189. ( 225 Euro)
C.
Profit, not market share is Apple's ultimate goal. They do quite well with that 5% market share too. They've stated before that they are in the business of making the best devices, not the most devices, it seems a lot of people tend to forget that. Even if Apple dropped to 5% market share in the smartphone business, they'd only be failing by your standards.
If Apple wanted market share, they'd have multiple phone models at different price points, 2 for 1 deals, and they never would have signed that exclusivity contract with AT&T (they did that to pioneer things like visual voicemail, and keep control of the phone in their hands and not the carriers). However, if they did all that, the quality of their product would drop and so would their margins, and likely their profits. Market share is great, but that's not what they're ultimately after (just ask Nokia how well market share translates to dollars). They want to sell quality hardware with solid profit margins, and that's what they are doing.
That said, the phone market is not the computer market, I wouldn't expect things to play out in the same manner.
uhh...they didnt pioneer visual voicemail dude. Sprint has had it since before the iphone inception.
If these figures are accurate, and I have no reason to doubt you, then all I can say is MSFT is not getting very good bang for it's buck ... an updated version of windows, a failed kin and a, yet to be released, kinect. I guess 9 billion just doesn't buy what it used to.
Well that depends on how you look at it. Microsoft don't seem to get the same ROI on their R&D as Apple do, nor would I expect them to as they have very different product libraries.
Microsoft's bread and butter is Windows licences, and Windows exists because it's part of the Office\\Windows\\Server stack. So if Microsoft need to churn, say $50 million, into researching how to improve the next version of BizTalk Server, it would seem to be a good use of their funds... even though you (or 99.9% of the population for that matter) have no idea of what the heck BizTalk Server is!
At the end of the day money spent on R&D is good for employees, good for business and good for the economy as a whole so it's hard to find a reason to complain when a company dedicates such a high percentage of its revenue toward this area.
At the end of the day money spent on R&D is good for employees, good for business and good for the economy as a whole so it's hard to find a reason to complain when a company dedicates such a high percentage of its revenue toward this area.
Apple is consistently perceived as a highly inventive company, and yet as a proportion of profits, spends much less on R&D than other seemingly less inventive companies.
Nokia spends far more on R&D than Apple.
As a proportion of profits, the Nokia R&D spend seems unjustifiable.
C.
Yeah........Verizon is a whole lot better.
Verizon has already stated they will be moving to limited data plans .
You get a Verizon App Store with all of Verizon's crappy services.
Verizon's crappy Skype deal that doesn't work over WiFi and uses your mobile minutes for local calls.
In addition to paying extra for visual voicemail. Its difficult to see how Apple and Verizon can work together.
I should have responded earlier, maybe you'll see this, but who knows.
Anyways, limited data from Verizon is as much a bummer as it is from AT&T. Luckily for me though, I got in before this happens. So in the context of me looking for a phone right now, Verizon seemed better.
Verizon apps and their app store are meaningless. 10 minutes after owning my phone, I rooted it, and took all the verizon bloatware off (which made my battery life AMAZING.) BTW, I've never owned an Android phone before, so that should tell you how easy it is to root the galaxy s.
Finally, I did get suckered by the visual voicemail, BUT, you can unsubscribe from it. You're not stuck with it. I think I will unsubscribe simply because I hardly ever get voicemails to begin with.
Anyways, the point remains: If AT&T had unlimited data, I'd have an iphone 4.
Well that depends on how you look at it. Microsoft don't seem to get the same ROI on their R&D as Apple do, nor would I expect them to as they have very different product libraries.
At the end of the day money spent on R&D is good for employees, good for business and good for the economy as a whole so it's hard to find a reason to complain when a company dedicates such a high percentage of its revenue toward this area.
There is a difference between spending a lot of money foolishly and a smaller amount wisely. The R&D model MSFT is following seems to follow the ad model they follow. Remember Jerry and Bill?
I think MSFT is following the same philosophy all the way down line and I think it happens because they make so much money from windows that they don't have to "try harder".
They seem to make money in spite of themselves, not because of their ability to always "be right".
Finally, I did get suckered by the visual voicemail, BUT, you can unsubscribe from it. You're not stuck with it. I think I will unsubscribe simply because I hardly ever get voicemails to begin with.
Get Google Voice for this. You can set it up to take over your Verizon voicemail so that anyone who calls your normal cell phone number (as opposed to your Google Voice number) and leaves a voicemail will be picked up by Voice. You can then use the app to view them all in an inbox format.
Bonus in that it transcribes the voicemail after a few minutes. It's fairly accurate if the speaker's using English. Extremely comical if it's any other language.