They don't have to demand IPS specifically to be demanding a better screen. That Apple chose IPS for their Retina display shows that they take pride in their work. I honestly don't think that Apple is self-motivated to evolve their products. I think they take enormous pride in what they produce, but the goal has always been and will always be to make money. If consumers weren't demanding that Apple add features and upgrade their components, then they wouldn't pay for new models.
Well, it's an old argument. Sir Jony says they don't do it for the money, but the money showers down anyway.
Pride is what drives them to constantly innovate. It's a lack of pride that causes companies to go for "the more profitable solution." Apple strives to make the best and most innovative possible products — sustainable, valuable, products they can feel proud of. Product people will love.
Big profits are the result, not the driving goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
They don't have to demand IPS specifically to be demanding a better screen. That Apple chose IPS for their Retina display shows that they take pride in their work. I honestly don't think that Apple is self-motivated to evolve their products. I think they take enormous pride in what they produce, but the goal has always been and will always be to make money. If consumers weren't demanding that Apple add features and upgrade their components, then they wouldn't pay for new models.
Given the opportunity, people generally value usable capabilities that make sense and fit into their lives. This is the only "feature" they care about.
That's why Apple designs products that provide this sort value offering. They design for an optimum and valuable user experience, not for a list of "features."
Exactly. This is true for reasonable people. I honestly think Android marketing is directed at agitated people for whom the best experience is tinkering with a mess of features.
Pride is what drives them to constantly innovate. It's a lack of pride that causes companies to go for "the more profitable solution." Apple strives to make the best and most innovative possible products — sustainable, valuable, products they can feel proud of. Product people will love.
Big profits are the result, not the driving goal.
I don't really think it argues against me. If Apple isn't in this for the money, then why are their products so expensive? Why don't they sell them at cost?
Why would they put in more expensive parts against all the "smartest opinion" if they were after money?
Do you think Ben and Jerry went into ice cream for money? Did Picasso start drawing because he wanted money?
I didn't say Apple wanted to lose money, or that they didn't want to make a whole lot of money. I said that money is not their motive.
They've done lots of things that everyone told them not to do because it wouldn't be profitable (staying in business, the iPod, OS X, the iPhone, etc.) They did it anyway because they thought it was the best way to do something great. Their striving for excellence produces great things, which lead to success, which gives them profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
I don't really think it argues against me. If Apple isn't in this for the money, then why are their products so expensive? Why don't they sell them at cost?
Hey, Apple has a great strategy and a great road map. The problem is that their road map did not include Samsung's selling way more phones than Apple did worldwide in both entry level and smart phone categories.
They don't have to demand IPS specifically to be demanding a better screen. ...
Were consumers demanding Retina screens, or are you rewriting history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
... Do you think Ben and Jerry went into ice cream for money? Did Picasso start drawing because he wanted money?
I didn't say Apple wanted to lose money, or that they didn't want to make a whole lot of money. I said that money is not their motive.
I think you'll find that most people and companies at the top of their game, companies that produce products people want to, as opposed to have to, use aren't in it strictly for the money. If your focus is on the money, you aren't focusing on the quality of what you're making. In fact, most individuals don't do what they do for money. Money is just a means to an end. They are in it for power, status, self-expression, and a host of other motivations, but, except for true misers, money itself is not the goal.
You're getting there. Why did Apple make these changes? Were they made out of the goodness of management's hearts? Were they made on a dare? Apple made these changes because consumers demanded them.
Call it what you want, features are features, and the iPhone has fewer, so it's not fair to say that Android manufacturers are following Apple's lead.
Consumers didn't demand them. Consumers don't know what they want until you show them. Before the car was invented, consumers wanted faster horses. Before the plane wasn't invented, peeps wanted faster trains.
Hey, Apple has a great strategy and a great road map. The problem is that their road map did not include Samsung's selling way more phones than Apple did worldwide in both entry level and smart phone categories.
Actually it did since Apple doesn't care about the low end market.
Were consumers demanding Retina screens, or are you rewriting history?
I think you'll find that most people and companies at the top of their game, companies that produce products people want to, as opposed to have to, use aren't in it strictly for the money. If your focus is on the money, you aren't focusing on the quality of what you're making. In fact, most individuals don't do what they do for money. Money is just a means to an end. They are in it for power, status, self-expression, and a host of other motivations, but, except for true misers, money itself is not the goal.
Right!!!...thank-you for the link... it sums up what I was thinking, while reading about that "shark" Greenlight's stock Manipulation shareholder suit BS...
my favourite quote from the article :
As Upton Sinclair noted, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
or to bash Samsung... “It is difficult to get Samsung to Innovate without copying, when its fortune depends upon it copying”
a good example of NOT copying is the lamented Blackbery Z10... (the only thing similiar to an iPhone is the microphone icon...). and the reviews state that the Z10 has a Superior touch keyboard...
Were consumers demanding Retina screens, or are you rewriting history?
I think you'll find that most people and companies at the top of their game, companies that produce products people want to, as opposed to have to, use aren't in it strictly for the money. If your focus is on the money, you aren't focusing on the quality of what you're making. In fact, most individuals don't do what they do for money. Money is just a means to an end. They are in it for power, status, self-expression, and a host of other motivations, but, except for true misers, money itself is not the goal.
This Forbes article you link to goes straight to the heart of this discussion, and all discussions about why Apple does what it does. wakefinance and those who think the "analyst" mafia have any valid say-so on what Apple's next moves should be, please read, and make sure you get to page 3.
The stock-price manipulation system, which the article identifies as the "expectations market." is the enemy of the kind of reformed capitalism that Apple represents.
"Analysts" are the priests of the expectations market. Interesting that their recent ascendency only goes back to 1976. They can be overthrown, but first "the dumbest idea in the world" must be overthrown: that companies are in business to maximize shareholder value, i.e., to make it look like they can make money—not even that they can make money, just that they can manage the expectations of the stupid market.
Could any system be more transparently corrupt? Can anyone here argure sanely that Apple should do anything but an end run around this system?
(Thanks to anonymouse.)
P.S.: None of this has anything to do with Apple not making a better phone for the masses, or a larger-screen device. Just that letting their moves be framed as responses to Samsung's market penetration is deeply wrong-headed.
Consumers didn't demand them. Consumers don't know what they want until you show them. Before the car was invented, consumers wanted faster horses. Before the plane wasn't invented, peeps wanted faster trains.
I think we fundamentally disagree about how markets work. I think companies respond to the demand of consumers, while you seem to think that consumers are told what they want. I also think think your comparison of the transition from horses to cars and trains to planes is a bit different. Adding a better screen isn't the same as inventing an entirely new mode of transportation. I do agree with you inasmuch as when something brand new is invented, people will want the previously unheard of product.
Were consumers demanding Retina screens, or are you rewriting history?
I think you'll find that most people and companies at the top of their game, companies that produce products people want to, as opposed to have to, use aren't in it strictly for the money. If your focus is on the money, you aren't focusing on the quality of what you're making. In fact, most individuals don't do what they do for money. Money is just a means to an end. They are in it for power, status, self-expression, and a host of other motivations, but, except for true misers, money itself is not the goal.
Like I said, consumers don't demand specifics. They say, "We want a better screen," and then Apple decides how to implement that.
As far as money goes, Apple, which is a corporation, exists for one purpose: to make money. That's the same reason every corporation exists. The way that Apple makes money is where your point of view comes in. Apple engineers take great pride in their products, something they do because it fulfills their need to make something beautiful, intuitive, and desirable.
Like I said, consumers don't demand specifics. They say, "We want a better screen," and then Apple decides how to implement that.
As far as money goes, Apple, which is a corporation, exists for one purpose: to make money. That's the same reason every corporation exists. The way that Apple makes money is where your point of view comes in. Apple engineers take great pride in their products, something they do because it fulfills their need to make something beautiful, intuitive, and desirable.
Nope, to say this is to miss the meaning of the revolution that has happened in front of us.
Some corporations exist to carry out the vision of their founders. NCR, IBM, Ford, Apple come to mind. Some of these can institutionalize the vision of the founder and keep it going for a long time, others lose it and devolve to the lesser objective you mention, making money.
Apple is different from any other corporation I can think of in embodying the vision of the founder into the smallest details of their ongoing products and operations. It is the absolute key to their success so far. Please do read the Forbes article that anonymouse links to. One line of the discussion relevant here is the part about "delighting the customers."
I think we fundamentally disagree about how markets work. I think companies respond to the demand of consumers, while you seem to think that consumers are told what they want. I also think think your comparison of the transition from horses to cars and trains to planes is a bit different. Adding a better screen isn't the same as inventing an entirely new mode of transportation. I do agree with you inasmuch as when something brand new is invented, people will want the previously unheard of product.
Other companies respond, Apple does not. Apple is not like other companies. Before the retina display, everyone said the then current screens look great. After retina, they looked kind of fuzzy COMPARED to the retina display. The iPhone is the #1 (and #2, apparently) selling phone. Where are the 5" phones in that list?
That being said, the 5" will be released if and only if Apple deems it's ready. Not because the market may dictate it.
I think I said this before, but the market demanded an Apple Netbook. None was produced. The rest is history.
Apple sat somewhat on the design of the iPhone 4. (Great design, loved it. Lovely phone. But then we had the 'S' stuff from Samesung which made it appear that Apple was standing still. (The 4s wasn't a technical standstill but aesthetically it was.) It's not like Apple's sales are slowing. They're growing. They're selling more phones than ever.
But they're also losing potential sales, I feel, in the 'low end' (they addressed that in the iPod market...) and the 'big' screen market.
4.8 - 5 ish is doable. They had a hand holding an iPad Mini with a straight face...why not a bigger phone? The width of the iPhone is a bit difficult for reading web pages...less so in horizontal mode.
The design...is understated brilliance. But we know Ive can also do understated overstated brilliance. I think the black iPhone 5 disguises it's brilliance on the back...jewel like though it is. It's not 'showy.' It doesn't have to be, I guess. But I look at the iPhone 4 design and the '5' and know what 'I mean.'
It's easy.
Nano the iPhone. £199-250. You're adding a phone radio to the iPod touch line which, in my view, is a better design than the 5 which is the best phone design out there. *looks to the Nano design and thinks of something more phone like? Out of plastic? Alu? Colours.
Update the 5 to 5s. Same design with colours? Quad core and better gpu?
Create a jaw dropping 4.8-5 incher with proper width. Higher res' and density? (Unless we're going for the 'long candy' bar extreme look...) In two colours. Black and white. Rogue graphics?
It's about time they addressed the same market. Let's not forget, the iPhone was the 'iPod' with a Phone in many ways. It was a natural extension...and it got a new interface...but it was no suprise that the iPod became 'touch.' Colours. Different price brackets. Slightly different designs and features for different budgets.
135 billion is a whole hunk of change...that Apple can add to the 135+ billion they already have.
I doubt they will leave that on the table in the Chinese, Indian or Brazil markets. They'd be insane otherwise.
Apple can make the 'premium' device at 3 tiered brackets like they did with iPod. Shuffle, Nana, Touch (there was the classic before...)
We now have the iPhone 'classic'. Time to change the record and give us 3 more addressable products.
In fact, Apple have been past masters at this. I'm surprised it's taken this long with the iPhone.
Comments
Well, it's an old argument. Sir Jony says they don't do it for the money, but the money showers down anyway.
Who are we to argue with him?
Your own observation argues against you.
Pride is what drives them to constantly innovate. It's a lack of pride that causes companies to go for "the more profitable solution." Apple strives to make the best and most innovative possible products — sustainable, valuable, products they can feel proud of. Product people will love.
Big profits are the result, not the driving goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
They don't have to demand IPS specifically to be demanding a better screen. That Apple chose IPS for their Retina display shows that they take pride in their work. I honestly don't think that Apple is self-motivated to evolve their products. I think they take enormous pride in what they produce, but the goal has always been and will always be to make money. If consumers weren't demanding that Apple add features and upgrade their components, then they wouldn't pay for new models.
Exactly. This is true for reasonable people. I honestly think Android marketing is directed at agitated people for whom the best experience is tinkering with a mess of features.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
Your own observation argues against you.
Pride is what drives them to constantly innovate. It's a lack of pride that causes companies to go for "the more profitable solution." Apple strives to make the best and most innovative possible products — sustainable, valuable, products they can feel proud of. Product people will love.
Big profits are the result, not the driving goal.
I don't really think it argues against me. If Apple isn't in this for the money, then why are their products so expensive? Why don't they sell them at cost?
Why would they put in more expensive parts against all the "smartest opinion" if they were after money?
Do you think Ben and Jerry went into ice cream for money? Did Picasso start drawing because he wanted money?
I didn't say Apple wanted to lose money, or that they didn't want to make a whole lot of money. I said that money is not their motive.
They've done lots of things that everyone told them not to do because it wouldn't be profitable (staying in business, the iPod, OS X, the iPhone, etc.) They did it anyway because they thought it was the best way to do something great. Their striving for excellence produces great things, which lead to success, which gives them profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
I don't really think it argues against me. If Apple isn't in this for the money, then why are their products so expensive? Why don't they sell them at cost?
Hey, Apple has a great strategy and a great road map. The problem is that their road map did not include Samsung's selling way more phones than Apple did worldwide in both entry level and smart phone categories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
They don't have to demand IPS specifically to be demanding a better screen. ...
Were consumers demanding Retina screens, or are you rewriting history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
... Do you think Ben and Jerry went into ice cream for money? Did Picasso start drawing because he wanted money?
I didn't say Apple wanted to lose money, or that they didn't want to make a whole lot of money. I said that money is not their motive.
I think you'll find that most people and companies at the top of their game, companies that produce products people want to, as opposed to have to, use aren't in it strictly for the money. If your focus is on the money, you aren't focusing on the quality of what you're making. In fact, most individuals don't do what they do for money. Money is just a means to an end. They are in it for power, status, self-expression, and a host of other motivations, but, except for true misers, money itself is not the goal.
And, while we're discussing what Apple's motivation ought to be, here's some food for thought: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/28/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-dumbest-idea-in-the-world/
No, you mean Google's success!... they wrote the OS so they should get the Accolades... without Google, SAMSUNG is NOTHING...
so Samsung Keep going down the path of hubris,. and think that Google is your bit*h...
so Samsung, image a world without the Google OS... where would you be now?
Consumers didn't demand them. Consumers don't know what they want until you show them. Before the car was invented, consumers wanted faster horses. Before the plane wasn't invented, peeps wanted faster trains.
Actually it did since Apple doesn't care about the low end market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Were consumers demanding Retina screens, or are you rewriting history?
I think you'll find that most people and companies at the top of their game, companies that produce products people want to, as opposed to have to, use aren't in it strictly for the money. If your focus is on the money, you aren't focusing on the quality of what you're making. In fact, most individuals don't do what they do for money. Money is just a means to an end. They are in it for power, status, self-expression, and a host of other motivations, but, except for true misers, money itself is not the goal.
And, while we're discussing what Apple's motivation ought to be, here's some food for thought: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/28/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-dumbest-idea-in-the-world/
Right!!!...thank-you for the link... it sums up what I was thinking, while reading about that "shark" Greenlight's stock Manipulation shareholder suit BS...
my favourite quote from the article :
As Upton Sinclair noted, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
or to bash Samsung... “It is difficult to get Samsung to Innovate without copying, when its fortune depends upon it copying”
a good example of NOT copying is the lamented Blackbery Z10... (the only thing similiar to an iPhone is the microphone icon...). and the reviews state that the Z10 has a Superior touch keyboard...
This Forbes article you link to goes straight to the heart of this discussion, and all discussions about why Apple does what it does. wakefinance and those who think the "analyst" mafia have any valid say-so on what Apple's next moves should be, please read, and make sure you get to page 3.
The stock-price manipulation system, which the article identifies as the "expectations market." is the enemy of the kind of reformed capitalism that Apple represents.
"Analysts" are the priests of the expectations market. Interesting that their recent ascendency only goes back to 1976. They can be overthrown, but first "the dumbest idea in the world" must be overthrown: that companies are in business to maximize shareholder value, i.e., to make it look like they can make money—not even that they can make money, just that they can manage the expectations of the stupid market.
Could any system be more transparently corrupt? Can anyone here argure sanely that Apple should do anything but an end run around this system?
(Thanks to anonymouse.)
P.S.: None of this has anything to do with Apple not making a better phone for the masses, or a larger-screen device. Just that letting their moves be framed as responses to Samsung's market penetration is deeply wrong-headed.
I think Guy says it all....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR_wX0EwOMM&feature=player_embedded
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Consumers didn't demand them. Consumers don't know what they want until you show them. Before the car was invented, consumers wanted faster horses. Before the plane wasn't invented, peeps wanted faster trains.
I think we fundamentally disagree about how markets work. I think companies respond to the demand of consumers, while you seem to think that consumers are told what they want. I also think think your comparison of the transition from horses to cars and trains to planes is a bit different. Adding a better screen isn't the same as inventing an entirely new mode of transportation. I do agree with you inasmuch as when something brand new is invented, people will want the previously unheard of product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Were consumers demanding Retina screens, or are you rewriting history?
I think you'll find that most people and companies at the top of their game, companies that produce products people want to, as opposed to have to, use aren't in it strictly for the money. If your focus is on the money, you aren't focusing on the quality of what you're making. In fact, most individuals don't do what they do for money. Money is just a means to an end. They are in it for power, status, self-expression, and a host of other motivations, but, except for true misers, money itself is not the goal.
And, while we're discussing what Apple's motivation ought to be, here's some food for thought: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/28/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-dumbest-idea-in-the-world/
Like I said, consumers don't demand specifics. They say, "We want a better screen," and then Apple decides how to implement that.
As far as money goes, Apple, which is a corporation, exists for one purpose: to make money. That's the same reason every corporation exists. The way that Apple makes money is where your point of view comes in. Apple engineers take great pride in their products, something they do because it fulfills their need to make something beautiful, intuitive, and desirable.
Nope, to say this is to miss the meaning of the revolution that has happened in front of us.
Some corporations exist to carry out the vision of their founders. NCR, IBM, Ford, Apple come to mind. Some of these can institutionalize the vision of the founder and keep it going for a long time, others lose it and devolve to the lesser objective you mention, making money.
Apple is different from any other corporation I can think of in embodying the vision of the founder into the smallest details of their ongoing products and operations. It is the absolute key to their success so far. Please do read the Forbes article that anonymouse links to. One line of the discussion relevant here is the part about "delighting the customers."
12" minimum. Or it's game over for Apple.
/s
Other companies respond, Apple does not. Apple is not like other companies. Before the retina display, everyone said the then current screens look great. After retina, they looked kind of fuzzy COMPARED to the retina display. The iPhone is the #1 (and #2, apparently) selling phone. Where are the 5" phones in that list?
That being said, the 5" will be released if and only if Apple deems it's ready. Not because the market may dictate it.
I think I said this before, but the market demanded an Apple Netbook. None was produced. The rest is history.
*shrugs.
Apple sat somewhat on the design of the iPhone 4. (Great design, loved it. Lovely phone. But then we had the 'S' stuff from Samesung which made it appear that Apple was standing still. (The 4s wasn't a technical standstill but aesthetically it was.) It's not like Apple's sales are slowing. They're growing. They're selling more phones than ever.
But they're also losing potential sales, I feel, in the 'low end' (they addressed that in the iPod market...) and the 'big' screen market.
4.8 - 5 ish is doable. They had a hand holding an iPad Mini with a straight face...why not a bigger phone? The width of the iPhone is a bit difficult for reading web pages...less so in horizontal mode.
The design...is understated brilliance. But we know Ive can also do understated overstated brilliance.
It's easy.
Nano the iPhone. £199-250. You're adding a phone radio to the iPod touch line which, in my view, is a better design than the 5 which is the best phone design out there. *looks to the Nano design and thinks of something more phone like? Out of plastic? Alu? Colours.
Update the 5 to 5s. Same design with colours? Quad core and better gpu?
Create a jaw dropping 4.8-5 incher with proper width. Higher res' and density? (Unless we're going for the 'long candy' bar extreme look...) In two colours. Black and white. Rogue graphics?
It's about time they addressed the same market. Let's not forget, the iPhone was the 'iPod' with a Phone in many ways. It was a natural extension...and it got a new interface...but it was no suprise that the iPod became 'touch.' Colours. Different price brackets. Slightly different designs and features for different budgets.
135 billion is a whole hunk of change...that Apple can add to the 135+ billion they already have.
I doubt they will leave that on the table in the Chinese, Indian or Brazil markets. They'd be insane otherwise.
Apple can make the 'premium' device at 3 tiered brackets like they did with iPod. Shuffle, Nana, Touch (there was the classic before...)
We now have the iPhone 'classic'. Time to change the record and give us 3 more addressable products.
In fact, Apple have been past masters at this. I'm surprised it's taken this long with the iPhone.
Lemon Bon Bon.
...and with that you'd get growth to boost the company's share price.
Add in an iWatch...
...and an ATV worthy of the name...
...then the share price will take off like a rocket.
Lemon Bon Bon.