When Microsoft's Internet Explorer was the overwhelming market leader, Microsoft sat on its laurels and didn't improve IE for a long while. IE and its users suffered.
Is Apple going to let the iPad atrophy just because it has no competition, or will Apple continue to provide improvements to its customers?
Apple is likely going to release an iPad 3 next spring and always was
All this nonsense is from the rumors they were going to release an a new iPad this fall. They probably never had that plan and it was just gossip and more of this expert analyst talk
Bit of advice. Remember when reading anything from these analysts that their job title starts with the word anal. Might help you figure out when they get 99% of their info
You have no information upon which to to base your viewpoint.
Only because you chose to ignore what I wrote. For the past decade, Apple has relentlessly improved its products even when there's no real competition.
They released iPad 2 when no one else had sold any significant numbers of tablets. They released new phones almost annually (in fact, the iPhone 5 will have the longest delay - even though Android is more competition for Apple today than it was 3 years ago - which pretty effectively disproves your allegation). Apple updated MBA - even though the competitors need $300 M from Intel to try to compete - and are just now starting to get there.
Apple's history (at least since Jobs returned) has been to continue to improve their products as fast as they could - so that they could attract new customers as well as convince old customers to upgrade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe
I am operating from the premise that Apple seeks to maximize total profit. If you think otherwise, I believe that you are incorrect.
Believe what you want. History proves me to be right.
What you don't understand is that Apple's "seeks to maximize total profit" is based on their business strategy. They are not going to seek to maximize total profit by releasing a cheap, commodity computer - even if it might lead to a short term bump in profits. Apple's profitability is based on a relentless drive to improve their products year over year to gain new customers and gain repeat business from old customers. Sitting on their laurels goes against their strategy and would have the effect of LESSENING their profits.
No, actually, the final product will run on ARM hardware AND intel hardware - which may very well struggle with heat dissipation. We haven't seen anything from Intel suggesting otherwise.
Indeed.
I would also argue that the simple fact that MS has the x86 requirement, added to the fact that intel is their biggest partner, added to the fact that they demoed it first on an Atom chip indicates that MS is rather desperately hoping that intel can pull some magic out of a hat that allows it to compete with ARM.
Microsoft wins big if it can make x86 tablets work in that it's the only real way to make a blended OS. Otherwise, "regular" Windows users are likely to just turn of the Metro UI altogether (you know there will of course be a switch somewhere), and Metro for tablets is likely to fail because the tablet can't access legacy applications.
This leaves their integrated strategy in the dust save for some poor under-performing netbook "switchables" that are unlikely to sell in very large numbers. Business and power users will still continue to use Windows and forget all about Metro. Metro users will have some crappy hot brick of an Atom based ultraportable, or they will have an ARM tablet that doesn't run any Windows programs at all. x86 based tablets (that are competitive in performance and battery life with ARM tablets), would seem crucial to Microsoft's success here IMO.
Certain Apple customers might care about "bragging rights", but Apple doesn't.
Apple cares about profit. If ever Apple does anything that you don't understand, then try this explanation: "Apple is a huge multinational corporation, and they think that doing this will maximize profits, compared to the alternatives."
It works every time. It is the basis of each and every decision Apple makes.
You say that as if it is a bad thing!
Let's step back a little!
Free Market Economics 101:
The purpose of business[es] is to make a profit at the risk of a loss.
That's it! That's what should drive all free market businesses.
Apple really needs to hurry up and release a new model w/ retina this year, just like all those retarded rumors started by clueless people were saying, otherwise, Apple is in deep shit.
With such super strong contenders from the copytition, like the HP DeathPad, the Rim WackBook and Samsung Banned Tab, Apple can't really afford to be sitting on their asses, letting the copytition gain an upper hand. If Apple doesn't do anything, RIM might sell another 83 Playbooks next month, and that would be disastrous.
Certain Apple customers might care about "bragging rights", but Apple doesn't.
Apple cares about profit. If ever Apple does anything that you don't understand, then try this explanation: "Apple is a huge multinational corporation, and they think that doing this will maximize profits, compared to the alternatives."
It works every time. It is the basis of each and every decision Apple makes.
1) those things aren't mutually exclusive. I'm pretty sure Apple didn't make the MBA solely to say it was the lightest/thinnest notebook. Recognizing a growing demand and profit played into that as well
2) you act as though only Apple cares about profit. Sorry, but I doubt the other tech companies are in business for altruistic reasons only.
What you don't understand is that Apple's "seeks to maximize total profit" is based on their business strategy. They are not going to seek to maximize total profit by releasing a cheap, commodity computer - even if it might lead to a short term bump in profits. Apple's profitability is based on a relentless drive to improve their products year over year to gain new customers and gain repeat business from old customers. Sitting on their laurels goes against their strategy and would have the effect of LESSENING their profits.
Well said!
Apple is in this for the long haul!
For about a week, now, Apple has been the largest public company in the world -- based on market cap.
Apple did not attain this position by resting on its laurels or sacrificing long term goals by maximizing short term profits.
I would also argue that the simple fact that MS has the x86 requirement, added to the fact that intel is their biggest partner, added to the fact that they demoed it first on an Atom chip indicates that MS is rather desperately hoping that intel can pull some magic out of a hat that allows it to compete with ARM.
Microsoft wins big if it can make x86 tablets work in that it's the only real way to make a blended OS. Otherwise, "regular" Windows users are likely to just turn of the Metro UI altogether (you know there will of course be a switch somewhere), and Metro for tablets is likely to fail because the tablet can't access legacy applications.
This leaves their integrated strategy in the dust save for some poor under-performing netbook "switchables" that are unlikely to sell in very large numbers. Business and power users will still continue to use Windows and forget all about Metro. Metro users will have some crappy hot brick of an Atom based ultraportable, or they will have an ARM tablet that doesn't run any Windows programs at all. x86 based tablets (that are competitive in performance and battery life with ARM tablets), would seem crucial to Microsoft's success here IMO.
I don't think it's that bad of a strategy. Everyone is acting like Microsoft's tablet is a single device. I suspect that it will be quite different. MS will offer a range of tablets:
- A low end tablet based on ARM which essentially operates like Apple's iPad. No access to traditional Windows apps (like iPad had no access to traditional Mac OS X apps). Essentially a media consumption device
- A high end tablet based on Intel which operates more like a traditional laptop. Runs conventional x86 apps (perhaps with slight modification) and can be used in place of a laptop. Sort of halfway between an iPad and a laptop. This group could also include a range of products - everything from a simple device which looks like an iPad on steroids up to a full blown laptop. And maybe a convertible (tablet with optional keyboard dock), as well.
Will it work? Who knows. But it has more potential than the existing Android solutions - which are essentially one size fits all solutions that do nothing more than try to mimic the iPad.
The purpose of business[es] is to make a profit at the risk of a loss.
That's it! That's what should drive all free market businesses.
Everything else is secondary!
very reductionist. However it's not always the way. If Apple worked out that they could use their brand to make more money selling Windows, they wouldn't.
I'm a longtime Apple fan, and was a big critic of Windows 8 when it was announced... it didn't make sense, combing desktop and touchscreen OS's (still doesn't really, but I'll get to that in a moment).
I watched the keynote for the Build conference yesterday, and came away fairly impressed. What I like about Metro is that it is a completely re-imagined touchscreen interface, and not simply an iOS clone *cough*Android*cough*.
I think that Windows 8 tablets may be the first consumer tablets to give the iPad a run for its money.
I also think that, even though Metro runs off of the Win 8 codebase, there will always be a wall between the two OS's. Metro tablets won't run legacy apps, because they have to be recompiled for ARM. Desktop users mostly won't care about running Metro apps, although I think it's highly likely that Windows will adopt a much more Metro look and feel over time, just as Mac OS X is integrating a lot of iOS features.
Apple would be smart to sit on the iPad 3 for now, and release it about the time that MS starts their big marketing push for Metro tablets.
I don't see an e-reader competing with the iPad anytime soon. You also have to eliminate the stigma of an e-reader, where its not up to par with a full fledged tablet, whether it is or not.
You are bunching e-readers in with tablets? Those are currently two totally different markets. As far as I see it the Amazon Kindle and Barnes and Noble Nook 2 are far superior e-readers to the iPad.
#1 they are almost three times less the cost, smaller and easier to hold for extended reading periods.
#2 they offer a better selection of books and in some cases at cheaper prices.
#3 they are much easier to read for extended periods and in the outdoors (exception being the Nook color).
#4 while Apple has great battery life for their tablet the e-readers can get 30 days on a single charge. Apple can't compete there. Again we go back to these devices apply to very different markets.
Now you may like the all in one convenience of the iPad but some people don't care for it and prefer a single use device specifically for ebooks. The only game in town for e-readers is really the Kindle and Nook. I personally prefer the Kindle selections, more often than not I can find what I want through the Amazon Kindle store where as the iBook store doesn't carry what I am looking for most of the time.
As for Amazon not being Android, that remains to be seen. We'll see if it's a fork like what Baidu is doing or its just an Amazon skin without Google apps. If it's the latter, it'll very much remain Android and I strongly suspect that Google will quickly make all their apps available in the Amazon App Store. And don't forget, with Android, you can install apps from outside your native app store if you choose to.
Consulting the magic 8 ball...
Me: Will I be able to sideload the Nook android app on my Kindle tablet?
Magic 8 Ball: Very Doubtful. Are you drunk? Don't drop me you moron.
Let's face it. Apple only has to be marginally better than the competition. And their fans will snap up their products. Who in this crowd for example would seriously consider anything but an iPhone, even though by all (non-AI) accounts there are highly competitive alternatives? Kudos to them for building such a loyal fanbase. That alone must be the envy of every tech and non-tech company out there. But that does create a strong temptation to slack off when you know that people will buy your products because, well it's an iPad/iPhone/iPod/etc.
The last decade called and would like to have their dumb assed "only apple fanbois buy apple stuff" commentary back.
You are bunching e-readers in with tablets? Those are currently two totally different markets. As far as I see it the Amazon Kindle and Barnes and Noble Nook 2 are far superior e-readers to the iPad.
#1 they are almost three times less the cost, smaller and easier to hold for extended reading periods.
#2 they offer a better selection of books and in some cases at cheaper prices.
#3 they are much easier to read for extended periods and in the outdoors (exception being the Nook color).
#4 while Apple has great battery life for their tablet the e-readers can get 30 days on a single charge. Apple can't compete there. Again we go back to these devices apply to very different markets.
Now you may like the all in one convenience of the iPad but some people don't care for it and prefer a single use device specifically for ebooks. The only game in town for e-readers is really the Kindle and Nook. I personally prefer the Kindle selections, more often than not I can find what I want through the Amazon Kindle store where as the iBook store doesn't carry what I am looking for most of the time.
Yes to all points except point #2. You can get Kindle Books, Nook Books, and Google E-Books all in the iOS ecosystem through apps so that's not really a discerning factor. Then you still have iBooks as another e-book marketplace. The iPad (with iOS) provides a bigger selection than any other mobile device.
#4 while Apple has great battery life for their tablet the e-readers can get 30 days on a single charge. Apple can't compete there. Again we go back to these devices apply to very different markets.
The iPad easily exceeds the Nook Color on the battery life front. Only the E-Ink readers trump the iPad in that regard.
Only because you chose to ignore what I wrote. For the past decade, Apple has relentlessly improved its products even when there's no real competition.
They released iPad 2 when no one else had sold any significant numbers of tablets. They released new phones almost annually (in fact, the iPhone 5 will have the longest delay - even though Android is more competition for Apple today than it was 3 years ago - which pretty effectively disproves your allegation). Apple updated MBA - even though the competitors need $300 M from Intel to try to compete - and are just now starting to get there.
Apple's history (at least since Jobs returned) has been to continue to improve their products as fast as they could - so that they could attract new customers as well as convince old customers to upgrade.
Believe what you want. History proves me to be right.
What you don't understand is that Apple's "seeks to maximize total profit" is based on their business strategy. They are not going to seek to maximize total profit by releasing a cheap, commodity computer - even if it might lead to a short term bump in profits. Apple's profitability is based on a relentless drive to improve their products year over year to gain new customers and gain repeat business from old customers. Sitting on their laurels goes against their strategy and would have the effect of LESSENING their profits.
It would seem that you agree with me. The only difference is properly identifying the ends and the means. The ends will always stay the same. The means change constantly.
And I think that Apple considers timing very, very carefully when doing product release planning.
It would seem that you agree with me. The only difference is properly identifying the ends and the means. The ends will always stay the same. The means change constantly.
How in the world do you conclude that I agree with you? You said that Apple would sit on its hands without competition and that they would delay the iPad 3 solely because of lack of competition.
I stated that Apple drives itself and releases products in order to continue to advance the industry whether there's competition or not.
Sounds like you have a reading comprehension problem.
How in the world do you conclude that I agree with you? You said that Apple would sit on its hands without competition and that they would delay the iPad 3 solely because of lack of competition.
Naw. I never said anything of the sort. I never mentioned competition. I said that Apple's product release schedule is intended to maximize total profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I stated that Apple drives itself and releases products in order to continue to advance the industry whether there's competition or not.
Sounds like you have a reading comprehension problem.
You are welcome to reread everything I said.
To the extent that you said that Apple knowingly does things to reduce total profits, then we do not agree.
Their decisions on product release schedules depend on profits, not on other factors.
Their decisions on product release schedules depend on profits, not on other factors.
I would have to disagree on that. While profit plays a BIG part, there are other factors. I really don't think Apple would release something that definitely wasn't ready for prime time solely because the release schedule was due. The product released may not have everything but the kitchen sink, but it will definitely work the way it is advertised (and work well). Other companies <cough> Google <cough> have been known to do that though.
Comments
?RIM might sell another 83 Playbooks next month, and that would be disastrous.
For every one they sell, ten thousand are "sold" to stores, and you know how much that screws with the real numbers!
When Microsoft's Internet Explorer was the overwhelming market leader, Microsoft sat on its laurels and didn't improve IE for a long while. IE and its users suffered.
Is Apple going to let the iPad atrophy just because it has no competition, or will Apple continue to provide improvements to its customers?
Apple is likely going to release an iPad 3 next spring and always was
All this nonsense is from the rumors they were going to release an a new iPad this fall. They probably never had that plan and it was just gossip and more of this expert analyst talk
Bit of advice. Remember when reading anything from these analysts that their job title starts with the word anal. Might help you figure out when they get 99% of their info
You have no information upon which to to base your viewpoint.
Only because you chose to ignore what I wrote. For the past decade, Apple has relentlessly improved its products even when there's no real competition.
They released iPad 2 when no one else had sold any significant numbers of tablets. They released new phones almost annually (in fact, the iPhone 5 will have the longest delay - even though Android is more competition for Apple today than it was 3 years ago - which pretty effectively disproves your allegation). Apple updated MBA - even though the competitors need $300 M from Intel to try to compete - and are just now starting to get there.
Apple's history (at least since Jobs returned) has been to continue to improve their products as fast as they could - so that they could attract new customers as well as convince old customers to upgrade.
I am operating from the premise that Apple seeks to maximize total profit. If you think otherwise, I believe that you are incorrect.
Believe what you want. History proves me to be right.
What you don't understand is that Apple's "seeks to maximize total profit" is based on their business strategy. They are not going to seek to maximize total profit by releasing a cheap, commodity computer - even if it might lead to a short term bump in profits. Apple's profitability is based on a relentless drive to improve their products year over year to gain new customers and gain repeat business from old customers. Sitting on their laurels goes against their strategy and would have the effect of LESSENING their profits.
No, actually, the final product will run on ARM hardware AND intel hardware - which may very well struggle with heat dissipation. We haven't seen anything from Intel suggesting otherwise.
Indeed.
I would also argue that the simple fact that MS has the x86 requirement, added to the fact that intel is their biggest partner, added to the fact that they demoed it first on an Atom chip indicates that MS is rather desperately hoping that intel can pull some magic out of a hat that allows it to compete with ARM.
Microsoft wins big if it can make x86 tablets work in that it's the only real way to make a blended OS. Otherwise, "regular" Windows users are likely to just turn of the Metro UI altogether (you know there will of course be a switch somewhere), and Metro for tablets is likely to fail because the tablet can't access legacy applications.
This leaves their integrated strategy in the dust save for some poor under-performing netbook "switchables" that are unlikely to sell in very large numbers. Business and power users will still continue to use Windows and forget all about Metro. Metro users will have some crappy hot brick of an Atom based ultraportable, or they will have an ARM tablet that doesn't run any Windows programs at all. x86 based tablets (that are competitive in performance and battery life with ARM tablets), would seem crucial to Microsoft's success here IMO.
Certain Apple customers might care about "bragging rights", but Apple doesn't.
Apple cares about profit. If ever Apple does anything that you don't understand, then try this explanation: "Apple is a huge multinational corporation, and they think that doing this will maximize profits, compared to the alternatives."
It works every time. It is the basis of each and every decision Apple makes.
You say that as if it is a bad thing!
Let's step back a little!
Free Market Economics 101:
The purpose of business[es] is to make a profit at the risk of a loss.
That's it! That's what should drive all free market businesses.
Everything else is secondary!
Apple really needs to hurry up and release a new model w/ retina this year, just like all those retarded rumors started by clueless people were saying, otherwise, Apple is in deep shit.
With such super strong contenders from the copytition, like the HP DeathPad, the Rim WackBook and Samsung Banned Tab, Apple can't really afford to be sitting on their asses, letting the copytition gain an upper hand. If Apple doesn't do anything, RIM might sell another 83 Playbooks next month, and that would be disastrous.
There, fixed that for you.
Certain Apple customers might care about "bragging rights", but Apple doesn't.
Apple cares about profit. If ever Apple does anything that you don't understand, then try this explanation: "Apple is a huge multinational corporation, and they think that doing this will maximize profits, compared to the alternatives."
It works every time. It is the basis of each and every decision Apple makes.
1) those things aren't mutually exclusive. I'm pretty sure Apple didn't make the MBA solely to say it was the lightest/thinnest notebook. Recognizing a growing demand and profit played into that as well
2) you act as though only Apple cares about profit. Sorry, but I doubt the other tech companies are in business for altruistic reasons only.
What you don't understand is that Apple's "seeks to maximize total profit" is based on their business strategy. They are not going to seek to maximize total profit by releasing a cheap, commodity computer - even if it might lead to a short term bump in profits. Apple's profitability is based on a relentless drive to improve their products year over year to gain new customers and gain repeat business from old customers. Sitting on their laurels goes against their strategy and would have the effect of LESSENING their profits.
Well said!
Apple is in this for the long haul!
For about a week, now, Apple has been the largest public company in the world -- based on market cap.
Apple did not attain this position by resting on its laurels or sacrificing long term goals by maximizing short term profits.
Indeed.
I would also argue that the simple fact that MS has the x86 requirement, added to the fact that intel is their biggest partner, added to the fact that they demoed it first on an Atom chip indicates that MS is rather desperately hoping that intel can pull some magic out of a hat that allows it to compete with ARM.
Microsoft wins big if it can make x86 tablets work in that it's the only real way to make a blended OS. Otherwise, "regular" Windows users are likely to just turn of the Metro UI altogether (you know there will of course be a switch somewhere), and Metro for tablets is likely to fail because the tablet can't access legacy applications.
This leaves their integrated strategy in the dust save for some poor under-performing netbook "switchables" that are unlikely to sell in very large numbers. Business and power users will still continue to use Windows and forget all about Metro. Metro users will have some crappy hot brick of an Atom based ultraportable, or they will have an ARM tablet that doesn't run any Windows programs at all. x86 based tablets (that are competitive in performance and battery life with ARM tablets), would seem crucial to Microsoft's success here IMO.
I don't think it's that bad of a strategy. Everyone is acting like Microsoft's tablet is a single device. I suspect that it will be quite different. MS will offer a range of tablets:
- A low end tablet based on ARM which essentially operates like Apple's iPad. No access to traditional Windows apps (like iPad had no access to traditional Mac OS X apps). Essentially a media consumption device
- A high end tablet based on Intel which operates more like a traditional laptop. Runs conventional x86 apps (perhaps with slight modification) and can be used in place of a laptop. Sort of halfway between an iPad and a laptop. This group could also include a range of products - everything from a simple device which looks like an iPad on steroids up to a full blown laptop. And maybe a convertible (tablet with optional keyboard dock), as well.
Will it work? Who knows. But it has more potential than the existing Android solutions - which are essentially one size fits all solutions that do nothing more than try to mimic the iPad.
You say that as if it is a bad thing!
Let's step back a little!
Free Market Economics 101:
The purpose of business[es] is to make a profit at the risk of a loss.
That's it! That's what should drive all free market businesses.
Everything else is secondary!
very reductionist. However it's not always the way. If Apple worked out that they could use their brand to make more money selling Windows, they wouldn't.
I watched the keynote for the Build conference yesterday, and came away fairly impressed. What I like about Metro is that it is a completely re-imagined touchscreen interface, and not simply an iOS clone *cough*Android*cough*.
I think that Windows 8 tablets may be the first consumer tablets to give the iPad a run for its money.
I also think that, even though Metro runs off of the Win 8 codebase, there will always be a wall between the two OS's. Metro tablets won't run legacy apps, because they have to be recompiled for ARM. Desktop users mostly won't care about running Metro apps, although I think it's highly likely that Windows will adopt a much more Metro look and feel over time, just as Mac OS X is integrating a lot of iOS features.
Apple would be smart to sit on the iPad 3 for now, and release it about the time that MS starts their big marketing push for Metro tablets.
I don't see an e-reader competing with the iPad anytime soon. You also have to eliminate the stigma of an e-reader, where its not up to par with a full fledged tablet, whether it is or not.
You are bunching e-readers in with tablets? Those are currently two totally different markets. As far as I see it the Amazon Kindle and Barnes and Noble Nook 2 are far superior e-readers to the iPad.
#1 they are almost three times less the cost, smaller and easier to hold for extended reading periods.
#2 they offer a better selection of books and in some cases at cheaper prices.
#3 they are much easier to read for extended periods and in the outdoors (exception being the Nook color).
#4 while Apple has great battery life for their tablet the e-readers can get 30 days on a single charge. Apple can't compete there. Again we go back to these devices apply to very different markets.
Now you may like the all in one convenience of the iPad but some people don't care for it and prefer a single use device specifically for ebooks. The only game in town for e-readers is really the Kindle and Nook. I personally prefer the Kindle selections, more often than not I can find what I want through the Amazon Kindle store where as the iBook store doesn't carry what I am looking for most of the time.
As for Amazon not being Android, that remains to be seen. We'll see if it's a fork like what Baidu is doing or its just an Amazon skin without Google apps. If it's the latter, it'll very much remain Android and I strongly suspect that Google will quickly make all their apps available in the Amazon App Store. And don't forget, with Android, you can install apps from outside your native app store if you choose to.
Consulting the magic 8 ball...
Me: Will I be able to sideload the Nook android app on my Kindle tablet?
Magic 8 Ball: Very Doubtful. Are you drunk? Don't drop me you moron.
Let's face it. Apple only has to be marginally better than the competition. And their fans will snap up their products. Who in this crowd for example would seriously consider anything but an iPhone, even though by all (non-AI) accounts there are highly competitive alternatives? Kudos to them for building such a loyal fanbase. That alone must be the envy of every tech and non-tech company out there. But that does create a strong temptation to slack off when you know that people will buy your products because, well it's an iPad/iPhone/iPod/etc.
The last decade called and would like to have their dumb assed "only apple fanbois buy apple stuff" commentary back.
You are bunching e-readers in with tablets? Those are currently two totally different markets. As far as I see it the Amazon Kindle and Barnes and Noble Nook 2 are far superior e-readers to the iPad.
#1 they are almost three times less the cost, smaller and easier to hold for extended reading periods.
#2 they offer a better selection of books and in some cases at cheaper prices.
#3 they are much easier to read for extended periods and in the outdoors (exception being the Nook color).
#4 while Apple has great battery life for their tablet the e-readers can get 30 days on a single charge. Apple can't compete there. Again we go back to these devices apply to very different markets.
Now you may like the all in one convenience of the iPad but some people don't care for it and prefer a single use device specifically for ebooks. The only game in town for e-readers is really the Kindle and Nook. I personally prefer the Kindle selections, more often than not I can find what I want through the Amazon Kindle store where as the iBook store doesn't carry what I am looking for most of the time.
Yes to all points except point #2. You can get Kindle Books, Nook Books, and Google E-Books all in the iOS ecosystem through apps so that's not really a discerning factor. Then you still have iBooks as another e-book marketplace. The iPad (with iOS) provides a bigger selection than any other mobile device.
#4 while Apple has great battery life for their tablet the e-readers can get 30 days on a single charge. Apple can't compete there. Again we go back to these devices apply to very different markets.
The iPad easily exceeds the Nook Color on the battery life front. Only the E-Ink readers trump the iPad in that regard.
Only because you chose to ignore what I wrote. For the past decade, Apple has relentlessly improved its products even when there's no real competition.
They released iPad 2 when no one else had sold any significant numbers of tablets. They released new phones almost annually (in fact, the iPhone 5 will have the longest delay - even though Android is more competition for Apple today than it was 3 years ago - which pretty effectively disproves your allegation). Apple updated MBA - even though the competitors need $300 M from Intel to try to compete - and are just now starting to get there.
Apple's history (at least since Jobs returned) has been to continue to improve their products as fast as they could - so that they could attract new customers as well as convince old customers to upgrade.
Believe what you want. History proves me to be right.
What you don't understand is that Apple's "seeks to maximize total profit" is based on their business strategy. They are not going to seek to maximize total profit by releasing a cheap, commodity computer - even if it might lead to a short term bump in profits. Apple's profitability is based on a relentless drive to improve their products year over year to gain new customers and gain repeat business from old customers. Sitting on their laurels goes against their strategy and would have the effect of LESSENING their profits.
It would seem that you agree with me. The only difference is properly identifying the ends and the means. The ends will always stay the same. The means change constantly.
And I think that Apple considers timing very, very carefully when doing product release planning.
It would seem that you agree with me. The only difference is properly identifying the ends and the means. The ends will always stay the same. The means change constantly.
How in the world do you conclude that I agree with you? You said that Apple would sit on its hands without competition and that they would delay the iPad 3 solely because of lack of competition.
I stated that Apple drives itself and releases products in order to continue to advance the industry whether there's competition or not.
Sounds like you have a reading comprehension problem.
How in the world do you conclude that I agree with you? You said that Apple would sit on its hands without competition and that they would delay the iPad 3 solely because of lack of competition.
Naw. I never said anything of the sort. I never mentioned competition. I said that Apple's product release schedule is intended to maximize total profits.
I stated that Apple drives itself and releases products in order to continue to advance the industry whether there's competition or not.
Sounds like you have a reading comprehension problem.
You are welcome to reread everything I said.
To the extent that you said that Apple knowingly does things to reduce total profits, then we do not agree.
Their decisions on product release schedules depend on profits, not on other factors.
Their decisions on product release schedules depend on profits, not on other factors.
I would have to disagree on that. While profit plays a BIG part, there are other factors. I really don't think Apple would release something that definitely wasn't ready for prime time solely because the release schedule was due. The product released may not have everything but the kitchen sink, but it will definitely work the way it is advertised (and work well). Other companies <cough> Google <cough> have been known to do that though.