This is such a technical victory though. Who cares? and more importantly, why write a story about it? "By revenue" is only important if you are concerned about how much money Apple is making and running the company. It doesn't even matter to investors.
"The worlds biggest cell phone maker" is the company that makes the most cellphones. Technical metrics like how much money they generate are just not relevant to "who's the biggest" for 99.9% of the population.
I simply can't believe you just wrote this twaddle! So if some cheap crap is given away, makes no profits but there is more of 'it' ... then that company is doing better?
This should probably be titled "Apple now the highest-revenue phone vendor on earth," or something like that. Because Nokia is a larger company and sells more phones, in terms of # of units. Apple just happens to make a lot more per phone.
I'm too lazy to look up the stats.
I'm pretty sure Nokia would trade in total units for total profits any day of the week.
Eventually, people making major IT purchase decisions will catch on. In the late 70s, the saying went "no one ever got fired for specifying IBM" when it came to buying computers or other business equipment. Similarly, Microsoft has been the "safe" choice too. That won't last forever.
Sadly the IT types (I just have to laugh at the way they assume 'information technology' equates to using Windows) will mostly go down fighting I suspect as they cling to their MS certificates and sense of self importance. They only have jobs due to the fact Windows is such a pile of 1970's crap and nightmare to run for most humans. For them to embrace Apple means the end of their careers. Having said that, I know a few that now have iPads and even MacBooks in their closets.
This is such a technical victory though. Who cares? and more importantly, why write a story about it? "By revenue" is only important if you are concerned about how much money Apple is making and running the company. It doesn't even matter to investors.
"The worlds biggest cell phone maker" is the company that makes the most cellphones. Technical metrics like how much money they generate are just not relevant to "who's the biggest" for 99.9% of the population.
Of course it matters to investors.
Does 99.9% of the population care about which company makes the most phones?
Which also means Macs going the same way. How are schools supposed to train kids on FUTURE devices? Perhaps use Android slates on a Cloud
I'd agree on Macs as such but I think iOS is the future for a while at least (which was my far too subtle point). The argument for using MS as a basis for the future is far from sound IMHO.
Agreed. I just hope we are not waiting another generation for a true global shift in the IT sector. Your reference to IBM is also spot on. Time will tell I guess.
I think iOS is the future for a while at least (which was my far too subtle point).
So in 5~10 years time you think that 90% of all businesses Worldwide (or is that Earthwide ) will be using iOS devices as their primary computing system.
I also agree about your comments on Windows, but it's so easy to forget that MS did not start their lucrative business by being in the OS business. They are a software company and always have been. They made some incredible opportunistic business moves to get into the OS game ... moves that were opportunistic but highly unethical and arguably illegal. So I am not surprised their quality is always poor. The real credit goes to the millions of IT professionals who keep the leaky boat afloat ... but they also love Windows as it keeps them all primarily employed.
As for schools, you are spot on. The long term value of Apple computers cannot be denied. After 3 years of ownership you are effectively saving money from then on. I still have a late 90s iMac that works great! But Kevin Dudd was never going to buy Apple because the people in his ear would have all been MS minions. If they were really bold they could have chosen Linux in some form! That would have been impressive. And to be honest, while we all bag PCs, once you remove Windows many machines run well and better than ever before, although I have had endless problems with Dell machines. Having Windows on a machine is like buying a sports car, then putting 2 sumo wrestlers in the back seat! Take off Windows and the speed returns and the pressure on parts is reduced. A vague comparison I know, but that's how it feels and it has felt that way since the 80s. Have a great day!
This should probably be titled "Apple now the highest-revenue phone vendor on earth," or something like that. Because Nokia is a larger company and sells more phones, in terms of # of units. Apple just happens to make a lot more per phone.
I'm too lazy to look up the stats.
I think they would prefer to be in Apple position somehow.
Uh no. Investors look at reward vs risk. They invest a tremendous ammount of money in low return, low risk investments like government bonds, investment grade corporate bonds, utilities and so forth. Things with low rates of return and low growth potential. Much much more money than is invested in high margin high growth companies.
Historically, investors following value investing strategies have outperformed those who invest in high growth stocks, over the long haul. Betting on a Google, Apple, Amazon etc. is risky and while there can be huge rewards, you can also lose plenty, if not everything. Most tech companies that show a lot of promise fail. Apple almost did.
You are, of course correct, but off point. The issue in the original point was unit count vs revenue, not high vs low risk. Given a the choice between a company with A) low unit sale but high ROI or high unit sale but low ROI the investor will always choose A. Unit count is irrelevant UNLESS it impact profits, which is clearly NOT the case with Apple. It could impact profits if it was so low as to discourage development for the platform - again not the case here.
How much is that in real dollars. I can't be bothered looking.
Comparing a 23% VAT included unsubsidised pre-order price with a subsidised street price again Hill60? Facts are what they are, why skew them intentionally?
Consumers want quality, finish, excellent customer service, and good value for their money.
But with Apple, one of those is not something you get is it? Ot to be honest, all of those are in the eye of the beholder and one of the arguments I cannot undersign personally.
In addition with Apple you get:
- Effortless user experience
- Arbitrary limitations, which don't seem to bother the masses at least yet.
The question I've been wondering is if it will start bothering the masses once/if Apple goes a bit out of fashion when say Android or someone else becomes "the fashionable"? One of the feelings I've gotten when talking to "joe users" is that at first, Apple cannot do wrong. Once they've bought into it they say "but these restrictions and oversimplifications started to bug me. I'm not changing yet, but Android looks interesting". Any thoughts?
I know it's a small sample and all that, but fashions change quickly. Especially in the US. Can Apple hold on to these margins if/when the fashion shifts?
But with Apple, one of those is not something you get is it? Ot to be honest, all of those are in the eye of the beholder and one of the arguments I cannot undersign personally.
In addition with Apple you get:
- Effortless user experience
- Arbitrary limitations, which don't seem to bother the masses at least yet.
The question I've been wondering is if it will start bothering the masses once/if Apple goes a bit out of fashion when say Android or someone else becomes "the fashionable"? One of the feelings I've gotten when talking to "joe users" is that at first, Apple cannot do wrong. Once they've bought into it they say "but these restrictions and oversimplifications started to bug me. I'm not changing yet, but Android looks interesting". Any thoughts?
I know it's a small sample and all that, but fashions change quickly. Especially in the US. Can Apple hold on to these margins if/when the fashion shifts?
When consumers decide when Apple is no longer in vogue, then that will be the time to reflect. Until then, you're asking me something that has not happened yet and I prefer not to get into "what if?" games.
Arbitrary limitations as you have stated is more a gripe with the technically-savvy folks and not the masses. It's why they have such issues with Apple's approach, yet the masses embrace. The reason they embrace Apple's approach is because for the past few decades, Joe-consumer became fed-up with the PC paradigm and having to micromanage everything about how computers worked. People want toasters. They don't care about how it works underneath. Apple does everything they can to remove that aspect from the user. They don't want to tweak system settings, resources, priorities, etc.
I see tech-savvy folks using Android and they love it. There's nothing wrong with that. I see Joe-consumer using Android and they hate it. It's so overly complex with a horrible interface that of course the only folks that can make sense of it are the savvy folks. It was downright painful for me to use after using the silky-smooth iPhone.
Complaints are made about Apple's walled-garden ecosystem. Again, Android folks want to put whatever they want on their devices, origin be damned. They want the wild west. Joe-Consumer wants one place to shop, and not have to worry (like on PC's and Android) where it originated from, whether it is trustworthy, and have to worry about malware, trojans, viruses, etc. Proof of that is in the Android marketplace right now. Not including jalbroken iPhones, there has been no nefarious apps that infected iPhones. Sure, I can't use an SSH app, but we're in the minority and frankly, using the iPhone as a tool and not the mess that Android is, is quite refreshing. I have more important things to do than to tweak my phone so a rogue app does not deplete my battery, or performance. I think Apple does a great job (not perfect) to keep their app store malware-free.
I've used Android. I can understand its appeal. That appeal is not shared by most. people. I don't think the masses will ever care that Apple implements certain limitations and you hint at. I personally think those issues are more FUD from the haters than real and tangible issues. Apple showed everyone that technology can be easy to use if done right.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Android hater. I'm a software engineer and developing software that is usable and intuitive for a joe-user is something I take very seriously. I appreciate what Apple is doing, and Android should really take a step back and decide what it is they are trying to accomplish with their product.
Comments
...
(chirp, chirp) crickets in background.
I prefer The Verse. Ohh, I think I?ll start referring to trolls as Reavers.
Which makes sense, since the iPhone is so shiny!
Daniel, the term is: "in the world". Not: "on earth".
Who on earth told you that?
I prefer The Verse. Ohh, I think I?ll start referring to trolls as Reavers.
Shiny!
This is such a technical victory though. Who cares? and more importantly, why write a story about it? "By revenue" is only important if you are concerned about how much money Apple is making and running the company. It doesn't even matter to investors.
"The worlds biggest cell phone maker" is the company that makes the most cellphones. Technical metrics like how much money they generate are just not relevant to "who's the biggest" for 99.9% of the population.
I simply can't believe you just wrote this twaddle! So if some cheap crap is given away, makes no profits but there is more of 'it' ... then that company is doing better?
This should probably be titled "Apple now the highest-revenue phone vendor on earth," or something like that. Because Nokia is a larger company and sells more phones, in terms of # of units. Apple just happens to make a lot more per phone.
I'm too lazy to look up the stats.
I'm pretty sure Nokia would trade in total units for total profits any day of the week.
Pretty simple answer really. When your kid starts his/her first job it's 90% probable that he/she will be given a windoze machine.
You just might get a shock. By the time those kids graduate PCs and Windows will be remembered by old folks like LPs are today.
Eventually, people making major IT purchase decisions will catch on. In the late 70s, the saying went "no one ever got fired for specifying IBM" when it came to buying computers or other business equipment. Similarly, Microsoft has been the "safe" choice too. That won't last forever.
Sadly the IT types (I just have to laugh at the way they assume 'information technology' equates to using Windows) will mostly go down fighting I suspect as they cling to their MS certificates and sense of self importance. They only have jobs due to the fact Windows is such a pile of 1970's crap and nightmare to run for most humans. For them to embrace Apple means the end of their careers. Having said that, I know a few that now have iPads and even MacBooks in their closets.
This is such a technical victory though. Who cares? and more importantly, why write a story about it? "By revenue" is only important if you are concerned about how much money Apple is making and running the company. It doesn't even matter to investors.
"The worlds biggest cell phone maker" is the company that makes the most cellphones. Technical metrics like how much money they generate are just not relevant to "who's the biggest" for 99.9% of the population.
Of course it matters to investors.
Does 99.9% of the population care about which company makes the most phones?
You just might get a shock. By the time those kids graduate PCs and Windows will be remembered by old folks like LPs are today.
Which also means Macs going the same way. How are schools supposed to train kids on FUTURE devices? Perhaps use Android slates on a Cloud
Which also means Macs going the same way. How are schools supposed to train kids on FUTURE devices? Perhaps use Android slates on a Cloud
I'd agree on Macs as such but I think iOS is the future for a while at least (which was my far too subtle point). The argument for using MS as a basis for the future is far from sound IMHO.
I'm pretty sure Nokia would trade in total units for total profits any day of the week.
You can bet the farm on that. Who on earth (I mean in this World, sorry Ireland) started the thread that volume was better than profits?
I think iOS is the future for a while at least (which was my far too subtle point).
So in 5~10 years time you think that 90% of all businesses Worldwide (or is that Earthwide
That's a bold call
I also agree about your comments on Windows, but it's so easy to forget that MS did not start their lucrative business by being in the OS business. They are a software company and always have been. They made some incredible opportunistic business moves to get into the OS game ... moves that were opportunistic but highly unethical and arguably illegal. So I am not surprised their quality is always poor. The real credit goes to the millions of IT professionals who keep the leaky boat afloat ... but they also love Windows as it keeps them all primarily employed.
As for schools, you are spot on. The long term value of Apple computers cannot be denied. After 3 years of ownership you are effectively saving money from then on. I still have a late 90s iMac that works great! But Kevin Dudd was never going to buy Apple because the people in his ear would have all been MS minions. If they were really bold they could have chosen Linux in some form! That would have been impressive. And to be honest, while we all bag PCs, once you remove Windows many machines run well and better than ever before, although I have had endless problems with Dell machines. Having Windows on a machine is like buying a sports car, then putting 2 sumo wrestlers in the back seat! Take off Windows and the speed returns and the pressure on parts is reduced. A vague comparison I know, but that's how it feels and it has felt that way since the 80s. Have a great day!
This should probably be titled "Apple now the highest-revenue phone vendor on earth," or something like that. Because Nokia is a larger company and sells more phones, in terms of # of units. Apple just happens to make a lot more per phone.
I'm too lazy to look up the stats.
I think they would prefer to be in Apple position somehow.
Uh no. Investors look at reward vs risk. They invest a tremendous ammount of money in low return, low risk investments like government bonds, investment grade corporate bonds, utilities and so forth. Things with low rates of return and low growth potential. Much much more money than is invested in high margin high growth companies.
Historically, investors following value investing strategies have outperformed those who invest in high growth stocks, over the long haul. Betting on a Google, Apple, Amazon etc. is risky and while there can be huge rewards, you can also lose plenty, if not everything. Most tech companies that show a lot of promise fail. Apple almost did.
You are, of course correct, but off point. The issue in the original point was unit count vs revenue, not high vs low risk. Given a the choice between a company with A) low unit sale but high ROI or
Why don't you go buy a 599? N7 to help out Nokia?
How much is that in real dollars. I can't be bothered looking.
Comparing a 23% VAT included unsubsidised pre-order price with a subsidised street price again Hill60? Facts are what they are, why skew them intentionally?
Consumers want quality, finish, excellent customer service, and good value for their money.
But with Apple, one of those is not something you get is it? Ot to be honest, all of those are in the eye of the beholder and one of the arguments I cannot undersign personally.
In addition with Apple you get:
- Effortless user experience
- Arbitrary limitations, which don't seem to bother the masses at least yet.
The question I've been wondering is if it will start bothering the masses once/if Apple goes a bit out of fashion when say Android or someone else becomes "the fashionable"? One of the feelings I've gotten when talking to "joe users" is that at first, Apple cannot do wrong. Once they've bought into it they say "but these restrictions and oversimplifications started to bug me. I'm not changing yet, but Android looks interesting". Any thoughts?
I know it's a small sample and all that, but fashions change quickly. Especially in the US. Can Apple hold on to these margins if/when the fashion shifts?
But with Apple, one of those is not something you get is it? Ot to be honest, all of those are in the eye of the beholder and one of the arguments I cannot undersign personally.
In addition with Apple you get:
- Effortless user experience
- Arbitrary limitations, which don't seem to bother the masses at least yet.
The question I've been wondering is if it will start bothering the masses once/if Apple goes a bit out of fashion when say Android or someone else becomes "the fashionable"? One of the feelings I've gotten when talking to "joe users" is that at first, Apple cannot do wrong. Once they've bought into it they say "but these restrictions and oversimplifications started to bug me. I'm not changing yet, but Android looks interesting". Any thoughts?
I know it's a small sample and all that, but fashions change quickly. Especially in the US. Can Apple hold on to these margins if/when the fashion shifts?
When consumers decide when Apple is no longer in vogue, then that will be the time to reflect. Until then, you're asking me something that has not happened yet and I prefer not to get into "what if?" games.
Arbitrary limitations as you have stated is more a gripe with the technically-savvy folks and not the masses. It's why they have such issues with Apple's approach, yet the masses embrace. The reason they embrace Apple's approach is because for the past few decades, Joe-consumer became fed-up with the PC paradigm and having to micromanage everything about how computers worked. People want toasters. They don't care about how it works underneath. Apple does everything they can to remove that aspect from the user. They don't want to tweak system settings, resources, priorities, etc.
I see tech-savvy folks using Android and they love it. There's nothing wrong with that. I see Joe-consumer using Android and they hate it. It's so overly complex with a horrible interface that of course the only folks that can make sense of it are the savvy folks. It was downright painful for me to use after using the silky-smooth iPhone.
Complaints are made about Apple's walled-garden ecosystem. Again, Android folks want to put whatever they want on their devices, origin be damned. They want the wild west. Joe-Consumer wants one place to shop, and not have to worry (like on PC's and Android) where it originated from, whether it is trustworthy, and have to worry about malware, trojans, viruses, etc. Proof of that is in the Android marketplace right now. Not including jalbroken iPhones, there has been no nefarious apps that infected iPhones. Sure, I can't use an SSH app, but we're in the minority and frankly, using the iPhone as a tool and not the mess that Android is, is quite refreshing. I have more important things to do than to tweak my phone so a rogue app does not deplete my battery, or performance. I think Apple does a great job (not perfect) to keep their app store malware-free.
I've used Android. I can understand its appeal. That appeal is not shared by most. people. I don't think the masses will ever care that Apple implements certain limitations and you hint at. I personally think those issues are more FUD from the haters than real and tangible issues. Apple showed everyone that technology can be easy to use if done right.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Android hater. I'm a software engineer and developing software that is usable and intuitive for a joe-user is something I take very seriously. I appreciate what Apple is doing, and Android should really take a step back and decide what it is they are trying to accomplish with their product.