In fact on NPR many reporters complained about the frustration of owning an Apple iOS product and unable to view any FLASH content. Right on national news. Once again, Apple will be left behind. \
No, they will lead the way towards the future. HTML 5.
Somehow, however, I think that responses will be logged that a 38% increase, amounting to nearly 3/4 of a Billion Dollars is the same as "not advertise much".
Somehow, however, I think that responses will be logged that a 38% increase, amounting to nearly 3/4 of a Billion Dollars is the same as "not advertise much".
noted.. thanks.. probably also important to point out the 2nd sentence in the article you referenced. Dont you think?:
"Apple's advertising budget for fiscal 2010 was $691 million, up 38% from last year's $501 million and a much larger increase than in previous years. Even so, the report notes that Apple's rapidly-growing revenues allowed the company to reduce its percentage of revenues spent on advertising from 1.37% to about 1.06%. "
1%? seriously?? they get charged 4 times more money by Visa/Mastercard for the purchasing transactions fees than they spend on advertising. 1% is chump change.
Somehow, however, I think that responses will be logged that a 38% increase, amounting to nearly 3/4 of a Billion Dollars is the same as "not advertise much".
noted.. thanks.. probably also important to point out the 2nd sentence in the article you referenced. Dont you think?:
"Apple's advertising budget for fiscal 2010 was $691 million, up 38% from last year's $501 million and a much larger increase than in previous years. Even so, the report notes that Apple's rapidly-growing revenues allowed the company to reduce its percentage of revenues spent on advertising from 1.37% to about 1.06%. "
1%? seriously?? they get charged 4 times more money by Visa/Mastercard for the purchasing transactions fees than they spend on advertising. 1% is chump change.
Keep in mind that you're not comparing similar kinds of expenses. How does it compare to other companies? IBM's ad budget is roughly $500M. Microsoft is roughly at $1B. So maybe they're in the ballpark. Given how often Apple ads are played, I think they're doing fine. I'd hate to see an overdose of Apple ads just because some guideline suggests spending more when what they're doing clearly is doing the job pretty darn well. I don't want them to join the ranks of companies that air an ad on every commercial break, at that point, the return on investment goes down.
So then why are Android phones outselling iOS phones at a greater than 2 to 1 margin? Are they all selling to poor people?
Software: Android OS is outselling iOS. However this is only on phones. What about tablets? Factor those and it would be a close race indeed.
Hardware: The Apple iPhone is outselling HTC/Samsung/Sony Erricson/Nokia et al. It is the worlds most popular phone, just like the iPad is the worlds most popular tablet. (You open up the Argos catalogue and the heading is "iPads and Tablets" ).
As for the "poor people" comment, thats going about it the wrong way - its more like they are selling to Tight Fisted people and those who don't care about what phone they have, not just those on a low income. QED: I bought a bedside table for £14.99 last week out of the catalogue, its of lower quality than the IKEA bedside I was looking at and not as pretty. I could've easily afforded the IKEA one, but I went for the £14.99 table because it was cheap and it was just... there. I don't really care as long as it was black to match the other furniture in my room and provided a place to put my glasses at night when I go to bed.
Note to JP Morgan: While not a direct competitor to the device known as the iPad 2, the Kindle Fire will affect sales of the iPad. It will not change my purchase plans for an iPad for myself, but it already has changed my purchase plans for the kids.
At the $199 price point I can afford to buy a device to entertain the kids and not have to care that it will probably be destroyed in short-order. I won't be buying into Amazon's $80/year service, but I will be looking to get the device itself. Too bad for Amazon they chose to price it at what will be a loss.
Which is exactly the reason I ordered a TouchPad. At $99, it's a great birthday present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe
Steve disagrees:
Apple's advertising budget for fiscal 2010 was $691 million, up 38% from last year's $501 million and a much larger increase than in previous years.
Somehow, however, I think that responses will be logged that a 38% increase, amounting to nearly 3/4 of a Billion Dollars is the same as "not advertise much".
Given that sales increased significantly more than 38%, Apple's percentage of sales spent on advertising is actually decreasing. And on a percentage basis, it's less than most of their competition. So I wouldn't say that they 'don't advertise much', but their strategy is not all about advertising the heck out of an inferior product - which is what some of the competition does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova
noted.. thanks.. probably also important to point out the 2nd sentence in the article you referenced. Dont you think?:
"Apple's advertising budget for fiscal 2010 was $691 million, up 38% from last year's $501 million and a much larger increase than in previous years. Even so, the report notes that Apple's rapidly-growing revenues allowed the company to reduce its percentage of revenues spent on advertising from 1.37% to about 1.06%. "
Yep. Leave it to ConradJoe to completely misrepresent the point of the article that he's quoting.
Don't for get all those horrible people who just simply hate anything Apple. And all of the good kind people that the greedy salesmen talk into buying one because it is "just like an iPad".
It worked in the smartphone biz, so why not the tablet biz?
Poor.
Bad.
Gullible.
Pick one or more to explain why Android is kicking Apples butt in the phone market, and then extend that to the tablet market. Maybe Apple should have stuck with selling to elite people instead of Grandma.
You're comparing Iphones to an OS used by bucketfuls of phone manufacturers yet Apple is the only one who can't keep up with the demand and still makes more profit than all of the other Android phone makers COMBINED.
According to technology reports and reviewers, FLASH content runs fine on the device. In fact it runs fine on just about all of them. With newer hardware models that are more capable, the argument that FLASH is just bad is pretty much gone. In fact on NPR many reporters complained about the frustration of owning an Apple iOS product and unable to view any FLASH content. Right on national news. Once again, Apple will be left behind. \
1) No, it means that there are still plenty of people locked into Flash usage, but that doesn't change the fact that Flash is what is being left behind
2) If you need or want Flash just use something that plays well with it. Complaining about Flash on an iPad is like complaining about streaming HD video off a Windows phone via USB to a TV. Don't use it for the wrong job. Why be annoyed that a banana isn't crispy?
That Flash is all over the place doesn't mean Apple made the wrong move not supporting it. Until it gets completely overhauled and stops being the POS ancient format with hundreds of bandaids of code that require security patches regularly, it won't survive to the next generation of computing, whether billions use it or not.
It's very amusing that a single sound bite said once on a radio show could cause someone to jump up and rejoice to the downfall of IOS, despite the many in the field who do not concur.
It's 40% of the iPad's price, but it's also only 40% of the size, and has about 40% of the features. Together, that may be enough to satisfy some. It also my wet their thirst for the real thing.
It's also probably 40% of the weight, which is something the 7" naysayers always leave out. The iPad is pretty heavy for its form, especially for holding freely. A tablet of any size that give a good browsing and reading experience that is notably lighter will have a niche, other shortcomings notwithstanding.
It's also probably 40% of the weight, which is something the 7" naysayers always leave out. The iPad is pretty heavy for its form, especially for holding freely. A tablet of any size that give a good browsing and reading experience that is notably lighter will have a niche, other shortcomings notwithstanding.
1) No, it means that there are still plenty of people locked into Flash usage, but that doesn't change the fact that Flash is what is being left behind
+1. Another way to look at it. If you ONLY support flash, you are being left behind.
Remember the web is based on an open interpreted language standard called HTML. HTML is supported by EVERY architect and EVERY OS. Flash is an proprietary plugin extension to the web, that allowed you to do things that HTML at the time could not do. In other words, it filled a functional gap in HTML. Thank you Adobe. However, HTML has evolved and many of the things which HTML could not do prior to Flash is possible today. Thus the need for Flash going forward is diminished and web developers can leverage things which they can be assured will be supported by most all browsers going forward. This is because HTML and all future version will continue to be supported by EVERY architect and EVERY OS going forward as it is the natural evolution of the web language.
In summary, Its the safer route for web site designers, to update their website to the latest version of HTML and its capabilities, as it will support a wider audience than flash going forward (not just a subset of CPU architectures and/or OSes) So the question is not why don't you support Flash, the question is why don't you update your website support the latest version of HTML and determine if you even still need flash. If you can get duplicate the functionality of flash with HTML, then you stand a good chance to increase your visibility on all platforms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd
2) If you need or want Flash just use something that plays well with it. Complaining about Flash on an iPad is like complaining about streaming HD video off a Windows phone via USB to a TV. Don't use it for the wrong job. Why be annoyed that a banana isn't crispy?
crispy banana? funny analogy... made me laugh.
How about this one. Complaining you can't use a floppy in your new laptop.
Comments
In fact on NPR many reporters complained about the frustration of owning an Apple iOS product and unable to view any FLASH content. Right on national news. Once again, Apple will be left behind.
No, they will lead the way towards the future. HTML 5.
Do you still use floppy disks?
Apple does not need to advertise much.
Steve disagrees:
Apple's advertising budget for fiscal 2010 was $691 million, up 38% from last year's $501 million and a much larger increase than in previous years.
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/27/...margins-ahead/
Somehow, however, I think that responses will be logged that a 38% increase, amounting to nearly 3/4 of a Billion Dollars is the same as "not advertise much".
Steve disagrees:
Apple's advertising budget for fiscal 2010 was $691 million, up 38% from last year's $501 million and a much larger increase than in previous years.
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/27/...margins-ahead/
Somehow, however, I think that responses will be logged that a 38% increase, amounting to nearly 3/4 of a Billion Dollars is the same as "not advertise much".
noted.. thanks.. probably also important to point out the 2nd sentence in the article you referenced. Dont you think?:
"Apple's advertising budget for fiscal 2010 was $691 million, up 38% from last year's $501 million and a much larger increase than in previous years. Even so, the report notes that Apple's rapidly-growing revenues allowed the company to reduce its percentage of revenues spent on advertising from 1.37% to about 1.06%. "
1%? seriously?? they get charged 4 times more money by Visa/Mastercard for the purchasing transactions fees than they spend on advertising. 1% is chump change.
Steve disagrees:
Apple's advertising budget for fiscal 2010 was $691 million, up 38% from last year's $501 million and a much larger increase than in previous years.
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/27/...margins-ahead/
Somehow, however, I think that responses will be logged that a 38% increase, amounting to nearly 3/4 of a Billion Dollars is the same as "not advertise much".
Yikes! Way to miss the point.
Yikes! Why to miss the point.
Curbs you, Lion Otto-connect!
So then why are Android phones outselling iOS phones at a greater than 2 to 1 margin? Are they all selling to poor people?
Here we go again... Troll, rinse, repeat.
Troll, rinse, repeat.
noted.. thanks.. probably also important to point out the 2nd sentence in the article you referenced. Dont you think?:
"Apple's advertising budget for fiscal 2010 was $691 million, up 38% from last year's $501 million and a much larger increase than in previous years. Even so, the report notes that Apple's rapidly-growing revenues allowed the company to reduce its percentage of revenues spent on advertising from 1.37% to about 1.06%. "
1%? seriously?? they get charged 4 times more money by Visa/Mastercard for the purchasing transactions fees than they spend on advertising. 1% is chump change.
Keep in mind that you're not comparing similar kinds of expenses. How does it compare to other companies? IBM's ad budget is roughly $500M. Microsoft is roughly at $1B. So maybe they're in the ballpark. Given how often Apple ads are played, I think they're doing fine. I'd hate to see an overdose of Apple ads just because some guideline suggests spending more when what they're doing clearly is doing the job pretty darn well. I don't want them to join the ranks of companies that air an ad on every commercial break, at that point, the return on investment goes down.
So then why are Android phones outselling iOS phones at a greater than 2 to 1 margin? Are they all selling to poor people?
Software: Android OS is outselling iOS. However this is only on phones. What about tablets? Factor those and it would be a close race indeed.
Hardware: The Apple iPhone is outselling HTC/Samsung/Sony Erricson/Nokia et al. It is the worlds most popular phone, just like the iPad is the worlds most popular tablet. (You open up the Argos catalogue and the heading is "iPads and Tablets" ).
As for the "poor people" comment, thats going about it the wrong way - its more like they are selling to Tight Fisted people and those who don't care about what phone they have, not just those on a low income. QED: I bought a bedside table for £14.99 last week out of the catalogue, its of lower quality than the IKEA bedside I was looking at and not as pretty. I could've easily afforded the IKEA one, but I went for the £14.99 table because it was cheap and it was just... there. I don't really care as long as it was black to match the other furniture in my room and provided a place to put my glasses at night when I go to bed.
Note to JP Morgan: While not a direct competitor to the device known as the iPad 2, the Kindle Fire will affect sales of the iPad. It will not change my purchase plans for an iPad for myself, but it already has changed my purchase plans for the kids.
At the $199 price point I can afford to buy a device to entertain the kids and not have to care that it will probably be destroyed in short-order. I won't be buying into Amazon's $80/year service, but I will be looking to get the device itself. Too bad for Amazon they chose to price it at what will be a loss.
Which is exactly the reason I ordered a TouchPad. At $99, it's a great birthday present.
Steve disagrees:
Apple's advertising budget for fiscal 2010 was $691 million, up 38% from last year's $501 million and a much larger increase than in previous years.
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/27/...margins-ahead/
Somehow, however, I think that responses will be logged that a 38% increase, amounting to nearly 3/4 of a Billion Dollars is the same as "not advertise much".
Given that sales increased significantly more than 38%, Apple's percentage of sales spent on advertising is actually decreasing. And on a percentage basis, it's less than most of their competition. So I wouldn't say that they 'don't advertise much', but their strategy is not all about advertising the heck out of an inferior product - which is what some of the competition does.
noted.. thanks.. probably also important to point out the 2nd sentence in the article you referenced. Dont you think?:
"Apple's advertising budget for fiscal 2010 was $691 million, up 38% from last year's $501 million and a much larger increase than in previous years. Even so, the report notes that Apple's rapidly-growing revenues allowed the company to reduce its percentage of revenues spent on advertising from 1.37% to about 1.06%. "
Yep. Leave it to ConradJoe to completely misrepresent the point of the article that he's quoting.
Don't for get all those horrible people who just simply hate anything Apple. And all of the good kind people that the greedy salesmen talk into buying one because it is "just like an iPad".
It worked in the smartphone biz, so why not the tablet biz?
Poor.
Bad.
Gullible.
Pick one or more to explain why Android is kicking Apples butt in the phone market, and then extend that to the tablet market. Maybe Apple should have stuck with selling to elite people instead of Grandma.
You're comparing Iphones to an OS used by bucketfuls of phone manufacturers yet Apple is the only one who can't keep up with the demand and still makes more profit than all of the other Android phone makers COMBINED.
According to technology reports and reviewers, FLASH content runs fine on the device. In fact it runs fine on just about all of them. With newer hardware models that are more capable, the argument that FLASH is just bad is pretty much gone. In fact on NPR many reporters complained about the frustration of owning an Apple iOS product and unable to view any FLASH content. Right on national news. Once again, Apple will be left behind.
1) No, it means that there are still plenty of people locked into Flash usage, but that doesn't change the fact that Flash is what is being left behind
2) If you need or want Flash just use something that plays well with it. Complaining about Flash on an iPad is like complaining about streaming HD video off a Windows phone via USB to a TV. Don't use it for the wrong job. Why be annoyed that a banana isn't crispy?
That Flash is all over the place doesn't mean Apple made the wrong move not supporting it. Until it gets completely overhauled and stops being the POS ancient format with hundreds of bandaids of code that require security patches regularly, it won't survive to the next generation of computing, whether billions use it or not.
It's very amusing that a single sound bite said once on a radio show could cause someone to jump up and rejoice to the downfall of IOS, despite the many in the field who do not concur.
FLASH
The correct name is Flash. All-caps for emphasis is lame.
ANALysts
You guys think you're being clever, I think you're just being tedious and monotonous for doing that.
It's 40% of the iPad's price, but it's also only 40% of the size, and has about 40% of the features. Together, that may be enough to satisfy some. It also my wet their thirst for the real thing.
It's also probably 40% of the weight, which is something the 7" naysayers always leave out. The iPad is pretty heavy for its form, especially for holding freely. A tablet of any size that give a good browsing and reading experience that is notably lighter will have a niche, other shortcomings notwithstanding.
It's also probably 40% of the weight, which is something the 7" naysayers always leave out. The iPad is pretty heavy for its form, especially for holding freely. A tablet of any size that give a good browsing and reading experience that is notably lighter will have a niche, other shortcomings notwithstanding.
+1. Very good point.
1) No, it means that there are still plenty of people locked into Flash usage, but that doesn't change the fact that Flash is what is being left behind
+1. Another way to look at it. If you ONLY support flash, you are being left behind.
Remember the web is based on an open interpreted language standard called HTML. HTML is supported by EVERY architect and EVERY OS. Flash is an proprietary plugin extension to the web, that allowed you to do things that HTML at the time could not do. In other words, it filled a functional gap in HTML. Thank you Adobe. However, HTML has evolved and many of the things which HTML could not do prior to Flash is possible today. Thus the need for Flash going forward is diminished and web developers can leverage things which they can be assured will be supported by most all browsers going forward. This is because HTML and all future version will continue to be supported by EVERY architect and EVERY OS going forward as it is the natural evolution of the web language.
In summary, Its the safer route for web site designers, to update their website to the latest version of HTML and its capabilities, as it will support a wider audience than flash going forward (not just a subset of CPU architectures and/or OSes) So the question is not why don't you support Flash, the question is why don't you update your website support the latest version of HTML and determine if you even still need flash. If you can get duplicate the functionality of flash with HTML, then you stand a good chance to increase your visibility on all platforms.
2) If you need or want Flash just use something that plays well with it. Complaining about Flash on an iPad is like complaining about streaming HD video off a Windows phone via USB to a TV. Don't use it for the wrong job. Why be annoyed that a banana isn't crispy?
crispy banana? funny analogy... made me laugh.
How about this one. Complaining you can't use a floppy in your new laptop.