Quality stuff? Seems like recently standards fell drastically in Apple Land.
Look at all these gates...
Okay, maybe you missed the part where all of us here made those up on purpose. Did… did you miss that? Let's pretend that you did: we made them up on purpose.
So in that way, they're exactly like all the previous "real" -gates.
Now, why did we make them up? To mock the previous "real" -gates. We derived humor from blowing out of proportion problems that weren't. Issues that aren't. Truly insignificant (or even nonexistent) aspects of new devices.
We did it to force the media to second-guess themselves the next time they want to call something a -gate, lest they also be perceived as mocking the problem they're trying to create in the first place, as well as perceived as a less than serious news source.
We did it to force the media to second-guess themselves the next time they want to call something a -gate, lest they also be perceived as mocking the problem they're trying to create in the first place, as well as perceived as a less than serious news source.
The media already caught on I think. Yesterday they were calling it Mapocalypse.
The concerns regarding Apple are completely valid. We saw them play out with the PC vs Mac and they could play out again here with smartphones and tablets.
This isn't the 1990s.
Current market dynamics are *completely* different. Additionally, Apple is not the same company, or regarded the same way by consumers at large, as they were in the 1990s.
Perish the thought of any and all comparisons between current market "wars" and the PC/Mac wars of a bygone and dead era of 15-20 years ago.
For one thing, Apple never had *this* level of mindshare:
In fact, nobody in today's market even comes close to Apple-level mindshare. As long as a bomb doesn't drop on Cupertino, Apple can go on mindshare alone for a long, long time. But we all know what Apple's philosophy is, which has *earned* them all that mindshare. No one else in the industry is in such an enviable position.
Current market dynamics are *completely* different. Additionally, Apple is not the same company, or regarded the same way by consumers at large, as they were in the 1990s.
Perish the thought of any and all comparisons between current market "wars" and the PC/Mac wars of a bygone and dead era of 15-20 years ago.
For one thing, Apple never had *this* level of mindshare:
In fact, nobody in today's market even comes close to Apple-level mindshare. As long as a bomb doesn't drop on Cupertino, Apple can go on mindshare alone for a long, long time. But we all know what Apple's philosophy is, which has *earned* them all that mindshare. No one else in the industry is in such an enviable position.
First the mindshare argument is just ridiculous. You are basically saying Apple will continue to perform because people think Apple will continue to perform. It is circular and not based on anything in reality.
That said as someone who lived through those 90's, Apple absolutely had massive mindshare. Apple II's were in all the schools. Mac's were the only thing out there doing desktop publishing, MIDI and other things properly. Windows was still more like a DOS task-manager. Apple had massively increasingly sales every year up until 1995 and we all know what happened that year. Even in that year their sales still had increased from $9 billion to $11 billion.
The problems are very similar in that Apple was selling PC's for a premium within an already premium market and when Windows 95 hit and the complete commodification of the PC industry occurred. Everyone went from selling $2,500 PC's and Apple welling mostly $3,500 average price Macs to $1000-1500 PC's. The change nearly killed Apple.
The change this time will happen much, much faster and in some ways could be more difficult because it isn't just a piece of hardware, it is an entire ecosystems and multiple industries.
It isn't just Apple vs Microsoft this time.
It is Apple versus various sub-contractors and suppliers with Samsung.
It is Apple versus former foes in Microsoft.
It is Apple versus the cloud, search and data with Google.
It is Apple versus e-commerce with Amazon and Google.
First the mindshare argument is just ridiculous. You are basically saying Apple will continue to perform because people think Apple will continue to perform. It is circular and not based on anything in reality.
That said as someone who lived through those 90's, Apple absolutely had massive mindshare. Apple II's were in all the schools. Mac's were the only thing out there doing desktop publishing, MIDI and other things properly. Windows was still more like a DOS task-manager. Apple had massively increasingly sales every year up until 1995 and we all know what happened that year. Even in that year their sales still had increased from $9 billion to $11 billion.
The problems are very similar in that Apple was selling PC's for a premium within an already premium market and when Windows 95 hit and the complete commodification of the PC industry occurred. Everyone went from selling $2,500 PC's and Apple welling mostly $3,500 average price Macs to $1000-1500 PC's. The change nearly killed Apple.
The change this time will happen much, much faster and in some ways could be more difficult because it isn't just a piece of hardware, it is an entire ecosystems and multiple industries.
It isn't just Apple vs Microsoft this time.
It is Apple versus various sub-contractors and suppliers with Samsung.
It is Apple versus former foes in Microsoft.
It is Apple versus the cloud, search and data with Google.
It is Apple versus e-commerce with Amazon and Google.
It is Apple versus social media with Facebook.
With a paltry 2 or at most, 3 smartphones, Apple commands a massive chunk of *overall* US phone share, for example. And that's with a bare minimum of models.
It's Apple vs. Apple. Their entire strategy, as long as they continue to execute it, will continue to have a large segment of the consumer tech market locked down *indefinitely*. Why? Because no one is doing what Apple is doing.
Apple in the 1990s did not perfect vertical integration. They fumbled that business model. But when it's executed correctly, nothing beats it in terms of the value proposition for the consumer. The big difference from the 19905 to today, is that Apple has perfected vertical integration. No one else has. And no one else enjoys the kind of success Apple enjoys.
Sooner, rather than later, Apple will have to change its business plan and start cutting down its prices (and thus its margins) to compete in the growth markets (BRIC countries being the prime example).
Slowly, Samsung and others will start taking more of Apple's customer away (as it is doing it now).
You cant just stick to the add-value proposition forever. Your market shares will inevitably decline and your leverage for cheaper components will also decline as well, cutting further into your margins.
Once investors get a whiff of falling margins, the stock prices will reflect that. (negatively).
Apple has two options:
1) Cut prices and target growth segments
2) Invest heavily into vertical integration to control and manage its cost structure.
First the mindshare argument is just ridiculous. You are basically saying Apple will continue to perform because people think Apple will continue to perform. It is circular and not based on anything in reality.
It's how Windows has operated for the past two decades. This is only changing because they're changing; if Windows 8 hadn't been different, they would have kept it up.
Now they've doomed themselves, which is the only way a company CAN when they have a majority mindshare. So screw 'em.
1. To me it speaks volume that there are more people going on the cheap by buying knock-off products as opposed to the minority who buy pristine quality products that are well made, last longer and have been given the utmost care by people who have an eye for detail.
2. I see 4 colors in that chart, but only 3 in the legend.
Knock-offs are nothing new. Apple offers premium products that remain worthy of being 'knocked-off' (so to speak). They sell prestigious tech.
First the mindshare argument is just ridiculous. You are basically saying Apple will continue to perform because people think Apple will continue to perform. It is circular and not based on anything in reality.
It's how Windows has operated for the past two decades. This is only changing because they're changing; if Windows 8 hadn't been different, they would have kept it up.
Now they've doomed themselves, which is the only way a company CAN when they have a majority mindshare. So screw 'em.
Windows did and does operate that way. However it is clear they are being knocked aside not by another competitor but by an entirely different type of computing. They are trying to bridge the gap but Google got there first and continues to execute better. They've become IBM to the next Microsoft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
With a paltry 2 or at most, 3 smartphones, Apple commands a massive chunk of *overall* US phone share, for example. And that's with a bare minimum of models.
It's Apple vs. Apple. Their entire strategy, as long as they continue to execute it, will continue to have a large segment of the consumer tech market locked down *indefinitely*. Why? Because no one is doing what Apple is doing.
Apple in the 1990s did not perfect vertical integration. They fumbled that business model. But when it's executed correctly, nothing beats it in terms of the value proposition for the consumer. The big difference from the 19905 to today, is that Apple has perfected vertical integration. No one else has. And no one else enjoys the kind of success Apple enjoys.
Pretend there is this thing called THE REST OF THE WORLD and THE THREE OTHER QUARTERS WHERE AN IPHONE DOESN'T LAUNCH.
It is ridiculous to project as a trend how Apple does in it's strongest market during it's strongest quarter and use it as a norm. Again, I'm going to dispute what you said because Apple was VERY well vertically integrated in the 90's. The problem was the technology moved so fast that those vertical solutions were swept by the wayside. No one cared about MIDI controllers when computers became powerful enough to emulate and create all the instruments, effects and do the recording by themselves. No one cared about Firewire anymore when tape was eliminated and the camera did all the processing and you just needed to copy over the files.
I can remember when my friend bought one of the first aftermarket enhancement kits for one of the top HP printers. It helped double the effective resolution to 1200 DPI which allowed him to typeset his own book and send it to the publisher for a small run. He had written the book using Word on a Windows PC. Apple having the most comprehensive solution there mattered when you trying to walk over files on ZIP disks for printing. It stopped mattering when everyone could print 1200 DPI from their laserprinters and they preferred PDF's anyway instead of receiving paper anyway.
Apple does not have perfect vertical integration. There are articles out right now noting how it might have been Apple who helped create the Samsung monster by giving them the knowledge and expertise to build parts for the iPhone. Apple does not make all the apps for the iPhone and this allows competitors to put solutions/apps onto the iPhone that can facilitate a move way from Apple. People mention missing Google Maps. Apple's first and most well known push provider is Yahoo. Much of their information in terms of maps and reviews comes from Yelp and Tom-tom. Other providers like Amazon offer content on iOS, but Apple does not respond in kind. So someone can actually buy cheaper and future proof their purchases by say, buying Kindle books which can then be used almost anywhere instead of iBooks which must come from only Apple.
Apple's vertical integration used to provide synergy. You'd buy a Mac and get the whole iLife software bundle to help save you money. Now Apple charges for the same apps on iOS. Meanwhile it is Google providing a free email service, free office suite, free YouTube hosting, etc. Does Google provider most of these for iOS as well? Sure and for the same reason Apple provided Safari and iTunes on Windows.
Apple's vertical integration used to provide synergy. You'd buy a Mac and get the whole iLife software bundle to help save you money. Now Apple charges for the same apps on iOS. Meanwhile it is Google providing a free email service, free office suite, free YouTube hosting, etc. Does Google provider most of these for iOS as well? Sure and for the same reason Apple provided Safari and iTunes on Windows.
Get the picture? I hope someone does.
Yeah, I get the picture. Though I wish Apple would sell it to me!
Seriously, no, there is no 'free'. Not even with Google. They are discontinuing Gmail Push Notification as of Feb 1st, 2013 for new subscribers, because they don't want to pay MS their EAS license.
There is no free iLife; it comes bundled with a new Mac - meaning the price is included in the hardware purchase. You want to upgrade iLife to a new version; you'll pay for the software. Gees, you'd think those data centers from Apple, FaceBook and all are, what, free?
Yeah, I get the picture. Though I wish Apple would sell it to me!
Seriously, no, there is no 'free'. Not even with Google. They are discontinuing Gmail Push Notification as of Feb 1st, 2013 for new subscribers, because they don't want to pay MS their EAS license.
There is no free iLife; it comes bundled with a new Mac - meaning the price is included in the hardware purchase. You want to upgrade iLife to a new version; you'll pay for the software. Gees, you'd think those data centers from Apple, FaceBook and all are, what, free?
That only affects MS for the most part, so it's clearly intended to disadvantage their Windows8 platform. Apple already supports the same alternative sync standard as Google does so iOS users won't even notice it.
That only affects MS for the most part, so it's clearly intended to disadvantage their Windows8 platform. Apple already supports the same alternative sync standard as Google does so iOS users won't even notice it.
Thanks, really good article. It's pretty sad; they do have the potential, but without partnerships it will prove to be very difficult to win users over. I think they are doing things right, with their different UI and all, but there really needs to be great incentive to get people buy your product.
With MS being the Enterpice Default as a software supplier I wonder if they'll ever go broke. They have all these spin-off projects. Really boggles the mind to think how many billions get spent on projects that are not their core business. I understand companies want to expend their potential, but I think blowing $10B on a new OS should be enough already. But if they do want to make their Windows Phone work, they better step up their game, as their partners don't seem to be interested in their current efforts.
Sooner, rather than later, Apple will have to change its business plan and start cutting down its prices (and thus its margins) to compete in the growth markets (BRIC countries being the prime example).
Slowly, Samsung and others will start taking more of Apple's customer away (as it is doing it now).
True.
One of the top reasons Apple always presents for their injunction requests against Samsung, is their worry that that once a customer goes Samsung, then it's much more difficult for Apple to get them back. Apple is also famous for selling to students etc... with the idea that if they get a customer while they're young, they usually stay a customer for a long time. Plus there's the halo effect of buying more products. So Apple is definitely aware of the value and the need to win hearts early on.
That said, it sure seems that Apple wants to delay making a lower profit margin entry model for as long as possible. Apparently they figure they can change their mind at any time and still win over a lot of customers.
Anything is possible, of course. Predictions are difficult in this business. The cell phone landscape can change very quickly.
That's iPhone. They also did it with Aperture which tarted at $499, now $79. And some prices go up, for varying factors, obviously.
I wish they'd make the iPhone $1999; I wouldn't like it if their products become similar priced as the competition; less Apple users means less bitching (that can be a tagline).
Comments
Originally Posted by Nathillien
Quality stuff? Seems like recently standards fell drastically in Apple Land.
Look at all these gates...
Okay, maybe you missed the part where all of us here made those up on purpose. Did… did you miss that? Let's pretend that you did: we made them up on purpose.
So in that way, they're exactly like all the previous "real" -gates.
Now, why did we make them up? To mock the previous "real" -gates. We derived humor from blowing out of proportion problems that weren't. Issues that aren't. Truly insignificant (or even nonexistent) aspects of new devices.
We did it to force the media to second-guess themselves the next time they want to call something a -gate, lest they also be perceived as mocking the problem they're trying to create in the first place, as well as perceived as a less than serious news source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
We did it to force the media to second-guess themselves the next time they want to call something a -gate, lest they also be perceived as mocking the problem they're trying to create in the first place, as well as perceived as a less than serious news source.
The media already caught on I think. Yesterday they were calling it Mapocalypse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
The concerns regarding Apple are completely valid. We saw them play out with the PC vs Mac and they could play out again here with smartphones and tablets.
This isn't the 1990s.
Current market dynamics are *completely* different. Additionally, Apple is not the same company, or regarded the same way by consumers at large, as they were in the 1990s.
Perish the thought of any and all comparisons between current market "wars" and the PC/Mac wars of a bygone and dead era of 15-20 years ago.
For one thing, Apple never had *this* level of mindshare:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/154928/47-of-consumers-interested-in-apple-television-willing-to-pay-20-premium
In fact, nobody in today's market even comes close to Apple-level mindshare. As long as a bomb doesn't drop on Cupertino, Apple can go on mindshare alone for a long, long time. But we all know what Apple's philosophy is, which has *earned* them all that mindshare. No one else in the industry is in such an enviable position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien
Quality stuff? Seems like recently standards fell drastically in Apple Land.
Look at all these gates...
If only they were a reflection of reality.
Come talk to us when Apple no longer rules Consumer Satisfaction with an iron fist in *every category* in which they compete.
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
The media already caught on I think. Yesterday they were calling it Mapocalypse.
Ooh! Time for some real creativity, then. Instead of appending -gate, we'll make some portmanteaux!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
This isn't the 1990s.
Current market dynamics are *completely* different. Additionally, Apple is not the same company, or regarded the same way by consumers at large, as they were in the 1990s.
Perish the thought of any and all comparisons between current market "wars" and the PC/Mac wars of a bygone and dead era of 15-20 years ago.
For one thing, Apple never had *this* level of mindshare:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/154928/47-of-consumers-interested-in-apple-television-willing-to-pay-20-premium
In fact, nobody in today's market even comes close to Apple-level mindshare. As long as a bomb doesn't drop on Cupertino, Apple can go on mindshare alone for a long, long time. But we all know what Apple's philosophy is, which has *earned* them all that mindshare. No one else in the industry is in such an enviable position.
First the mindshare argument is just ridiculous. You are basically saying Apple will continue to perform because people think Apple will continue to perform. It is circular and not based on anything in reality.
That said as someone who lived through those 90's, Apple absolutely had massive mindshare. Apple II's were in all the schools. Mac's were the only thing out there doing desktop publishing, MIDI and other things properly. Windows was still more like a DOS task-manager. Apple had massively increasingly sales every year up until 1995 and we all know what happened that year. Even in that year their sales still had increased from $9 billion to $11 billion.
The problems are very similar in that Apple was selling PC's for a premium within an already premium market and when Windows 95 hit and the complete commodification of the PC industry occurred. Everyone went from selling $2,500 PC's and Apple welling mostly $3,500 average price Macs to $1000-1500 PC's. The change nearly killed Apple.
The change this time will happen much, much faster and in some ways could be more difficult because it isn't just a piece of hardware, it is an entire ecosystems and multiple industries.
It isn't just Apple vs Microsoft this time.
It is Apple versus various sub-contractors and suppliers with Samsung.
It is Apple versus former foes in Microsoft.
It is Apple versus the cloud, search and data with Google.
It is Apple versus e-commerce with Amazon and Google.
It is Apple versus social media with Facebook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
First the mindshare argument is just ridiculous. You are basically saying Apple will continue to perform because people think Apple will continue to perform. It is circular and not based on anything in reality.
That said as someone who lived through those 90's, Apple absolutely had massive mindshare. Apple II's were in all the schools. Mac's were the only thing out there doing desktop publishing, MIDI and other things properly. Windows was still more like a DOS task-manager. Apple had massively increasingly sales every year up until 1995 and we all know what happened that year. Even in that year their sales still had increased from $9 billion to $11 billion.
The problems are very similar in that Apple was selling PC's for a premium within an already premium market and when Windows 95 hit and the complete commodification of the PC industry occurred. Everyone went from selling $2,500 PC's and Apple welling mostly $3,500 average price Macs to $1000-1500 PC's. The change nearly killed Apple.
The change this time will happen much, much faster and in some ways could be more difficult because it isn't just a piece of hardware, it is an entire ecosystems and multiple industries.
It isn't just Apple vs Microsoft this time.
It is Apple versus various sub-contractors and suppliers with Samsung.
It is Apple versus former foes in Microsoft.
It is Apple versus the cloud, search and data with Google.
It is Apple versus e-commerce with Amazon and Google.
It is Apple versus social media with Facebook.
With a paltry 2 or at most, 3 smartphones, Apple commands a massive chunk of *overall* US phone share, for example. And that's with a bare minimum of models.
Then there's this:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/11/27/iphone-5-doubles-apples-share-of-us-smartphone-sales-to-surpass-android
It's Apple vs. Apple. Their entire strategy, as long as they continue to execute it, will continue to have a large segment of the consumer tech market locked down *indefinitely*. Why? Because no one is doing what Apple is doing.
Apple in the 1990s did not perfect vertical integration. They fumbled that business model. But when it's executed correctly, nothing beats it in terms of the value proposition for the consumer. The big difference from the 19905 to today, is that Apple has perfected vertical integration. No one else has. And no one else enjoys the kind of success Apple enjoys.
Sooner, rather than later, Apple will have to change its business plan and start cutting down its prices (and thus its margins) to compete in the growth markets (BRIC countries being the prime example).
Slowly, Samsung and others will start taking more of Apple's customer away (as it is doing it now).
You cant just stick to the add-value proposition forever. Your market shares will inevitably decline and your leverage for cheaper components will also decline as well, cutting further into your margins.
Once investors get a whiff of falling margins, the stock prices will reflect that. (negatively).
Apple has two options:
1) Cut prices and target growth segments
2) Invest heavily into vertical integration to control and manage its cost structure.
Originally Posted by trumptman
First the mindshare argument is just ridiculous. You are basically saying Apple will continue to perform because people think Apple will continue to perform. It is circular and not based on anything in reality.
It's how Windows has operated for the past two decades. This is only changing because they're changing; if Windows 8 hadn't been different, they would have kept it up.
Now they've doomed themselves, which is the only way a company CAN when they have a majority mindshare. So screw 'em.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
1. To me it speaks volume that there are more people going on the cheap by buying knock-off products as opposed to the minority who buy pristine quality products that are well made, last longer and have been given the utmost care by people who have an eye for detail.
2. I see 4 colors in that chart, but only 3 in the legend.
Knock-offs are nothing new. Apple offers premium products that remain worthy of being 'knocked-off' (so to speak). They sell prestigious tech.
Note the adticle's heading and the meaning of value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by trumptman
First the mindshare argument is just ridiculous. You are basically saying Apple will continue to perform because people think Apple will continue to perform. It is circular and not based on anything in reality.
It's how Windows has operated for the past two decades. This is only changing because they're changing; if Windows 8 hadn't been different, they would have kept it up.
Now they've doomed themselves, which is the only way a company CAN when they have a majority mindshare. So screw 'em.
Windows did and does operate that way. However it is clear they are being knocked aside not by another competitor but by an entirely different type of computing. They are trying to bridge the gap but Google got there first and continues to execute better. They've become IBM to the next Microsoft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
With a paltry 2 or at most, 3 smartphones, Apple commands a massive chunk of *overall* US phone share, for example. And that's with a bare minimum of models.
Then there's this:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/11/27/iphone-5-doubles-apples-share-of-us-smartphone-sales-to-surpass-android
It's Apple vs. Apple. Their entire strategy, as long as they continue to execute it, will continue to have a large segment of the consumer tech market locked down *indefinitely*. Why? Because no one is doing what Apple is doing.
Apple in the 1990s did not perfect vertical integration. They fumbled that business model. But when it's executed correctly, nothing beats it in terms of the value proposition for the consumer. The big difference from the 19905 to today, is that Apple has perfected vertical integration. No one else has. And no one else enjoys the kind of success Apple enjoys.
Pretend there is this thing called THE REST OF THE WORLD and THE THREE OTHER QUARTERS WHERE AN IPHONE DOESN'T LAUNCH.
It is ridiculous to project as a trend how Apple does in it's strongest market during it's strongest quarter and use it as a norm. Again, I'm going to dispute what you said because Apple was VERY well vertically integrated in the 90's. The problem was the technology moved so fast that those vertical solutions were swept by the wayside. No one cared about MIDI controllers when computers became powerful enough to emulate and create all the instruments, effects and do the recording by themselves. No one cared about Firewire anymore when tape was eliminated and the camera did all the processing and you just needed to copy over the files.
I can remember when my friend bought one of the first aftermarket enhancement kits for one of the top HP printers. It helped double the effective resolution to 1200 DPI which allowed him to typeset his own book and send it to the publisher for a small run. He had written the book using Word on a Windows PC. Apple having the most comprehensive solution there mattered when you trying to walk over files on ZIP disks for printing. It stopped mattering when everyone could print 1200 DPI from their laserprinters and they preferred PDF's anyway instead of receiving paper anyway.
Apple does not have perfect vertical integration. There are articles out right now noting how it might have been Apple who helped create the Samsung monster by giving them the knowledge and expertise to build parts for the iPhone. Apple does not make all the apps for the iPhone and this allows competitors to put solutions/apps onto the iPhone that can facilitate a move way from Apple. People mention missing Google Maps. Apple's first and most well known push provider is Yahoo. Much of their information in terms of maps and reviews comes from Yelp and Tom-tom. Other providers like Amazon offer content on iOS, but Apple does not respond in kind. So someone can actually buy cheaper and future proof their purchases by say, buying Kindle books which can then be used almost anywhere instead of iBooks which must come from only Apple.
Apple's vertical integration used to provide synergy. You'd buy a Mac and get the whole iLife software bundle to help save you money. Now Apple charges for the same apps on iOS. Meanwhile it is Google providing a free email service, free office suite, free YouTube hosting, etc. Does Google provider most of these for iOS as well? Sure and for the same reason Apple provided Safari and iTunes on Windows.
Get the picture? I hope someone does.
Yeah, I get the picture. Though I wish Apple would sell it to me!
Seriously, no, there is no 'free'. Not even with Google. They are discontinuing Gmail Push Notification as of Feb 1st, 2013 for new subscribers, because they don't want to pay MS their EAS license.
There is no free iLife; it comes bundled with a new Mac - meaning the price is included in the hardware purchase. You want to upgrade iLife to a new version; you'll pay for the software. Gees, you'd think those data centers from Apple, FaceBook and all are, what, free?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Yeah, I get the picture. Though I wish Apple would sell it to me!
Seriously, no, there is no 'free'. Not even with Google. They are discontinuing Gmail Push Notification as of Feb 1st, 2013 for new subscribers, because they don't want to pay MS their EAS license.
There is no free iLife; it comes bundled with a new Mac - meaning the price is included in the hardware purchase. You want to upgrade iLife to a new version; you'll pay for the software. Gees, you'd think those data centers from Apple, FaceBook and all are, what, free?
That only affects MS for the most part, so it's clearly intended to disadvantage their Windows8 platform. Apple already supports the same alternative sync standard as Google does so iOS users won't even notice it.
I know, thanks. I was trying to point out that There ain't no such thing as a free lunch (Wiki), not even when the EU mandates it. iPhone 5 to come with free Lightning to micro USB adapter in China
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
I know, thanks. I was trying to point out that There ain't no such thing as a free lunch (Wiki)
Phil, take a few minutes to read this editorial concerning Google and Windows8. Well worth the time IMO.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/14/editorial-windows-phone-future-without-google/
Thanks, really good article. It's pretty sad; they do have the potential, but without partnerships it will prove to be very difficult to win users over. I think they are doing things right, with their different UI and all, but there really needs to be great incentive to get people buy your product.
With MS being the Enterpice Default as a software supplier I wonder if they'll ever go broke. They have all these spin-off projects. Really boggles the mind to think how many billions get spent on projects that are not their core business. I understand companies want to expend their potential, but I think blowing $10B on a new OS should be enough already. But if they do want to make their Windows Phone work, they better step up their game, as their partners don't seem to be interested in their current efforts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Sooner, rather than later, Apple will have to change its business plan and start cutting down its prices (and thus its margins) to compete in the growth markets (BRIC countries being the prime example).
Slowly, Samsung and others will start taking more of Apple's customer away (as it is doing it now).
True.
One of the top reasons Apple always presents for their injunction requests against Samsung, is their worry that that once a customer goes Samsung, then it's much more difficult for Apple to get them back. Apple is also famous for selling to students etc... with the idea that if they get a customer while they're young, they usually stay a customer for a long time. Plus there's the halo effect of buying more products. So Apple is definitely aware of the value and the need to win hearts early on.
That said, it sure seems that Apple wants to delay making a lower profit margin entry model for as long as possible. Apparently they figure they can change their mind at any time and still win over a lot of customers.
Anything is possible, of course. Predictions are difficult in this business. The cell phone landscape can change very quickly.
Already done, 5 years ago.
That's iPhone. They also did it with Aperture which tarted at $499, now $79. And some prices go up, for varying factors, obviously.
I wish they'd make the iPhone $1999; I wouldn't like it if their products become similar priced as the competition; less Apple users means less bitching (that can be a tagline).