So what is the right wait time to not be "planned obsolescence"? 1 year? 2 years? 6 months, 3 days, 12 hours and 17 minutes? Good lord is this getting stupid or what?
For crying out loud, if they're going to sue over planned obsolescence, target the SOFTWARE, not the hardware!! That's the part of this system that's doing the deed!! Why is there NOBODY EVER on the correct angle of attack with these tech companies?? This is how they ALL sell more hardware upgrades! Microsoft has been at this like a damn pro since Windows 98! Laziness in development of code base equals excuse to promote new CPU sales!! Well beyond the fundamental requirement of "improving" software!
For crying out loud, if they're going to sue over planned obsolescence, target the SOFTWARE, not the hardware!! That's the part of this system that's doing the deed!! Why is there NOBODY EVER on the correct angle of attack with these tech companies?? This is how they ALL sell more hardware upgrades! Microsoft has been at this like a damn pro since Windows 98! Laziness in development of code base equals excuse to promote new CPU sales!! Well beyond the fundamental requirement of "improving" software!
Microsoft doesn't sell CPUs, so how does Microsoft benefit from pushing customers to buy things they don't sell?
So what is the right wait time to not be "planned obsolescence"? 1 year? 2 years? 6 months, 3 days, 12 hours and 17 minutes? Good lord is this getting stupid or what?
What's funnier is if Apple simply withdrew iPad 4 for sale in Brazil and for that country alone, kept selling iPad 3. Everyone else gets the iPad 4. Then, after 1 year, they get the iPad 4, regardless whether the rest of the planet has moved on to iPad 5 or whatever. Keep Brazil a generation behind. Because they demanded it.
Microsoft doesn't sell CPUs, so how does Microsoft benefit from pushing customers to buy things they don't sell?
Microsoft's benefit was that they didn't have to work to optimize their software or make it efficient. Just wait a while and the hardware will catch up with the sloppy coding.
[" url="/t/156099/brazilian-lawsuit-accuses-apple-of-planned-obsolescence-with-fourth-gen-ipad/40#post_2282022"]So why is Apple appealing the decision then, if they don't believe that they have a right to it or that it wasn't theirs? Is Apple wrong?
Apple is appealing it because they want to gain ownership of the iPhone trademark - even though the court disagreed.
The article you cited even explains it:
Gradiente Eletronica SA filed a request to trademark “iphone” in 2000 and was granted permission to use it in 2008. The company launched its own “iphone” line in December 2012.
Apple began applying for “iPhone” trademarks in 2006, and those relating to communications and cell phones were rejected because of Gradiente’s existing trademarks.
What part do you not understand? And how do you get from that to your claim that Apple lost the trademark? Again, they never had it.
Don't they have better things to do? Like finish construction BEFORE 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics? Or social issues like poverty, crime, drug abuse/trafficking, corruption at every level of society, transportation, really bad traffic congestion in the largest cities, etc. I was born there, I know how bad it is. Fix those social issues before taking on frivolous lawsuits like this.
The "post PC" era is in fact made of products that are obsolete even before hitting the market, because people demand desktop performance (specially for games, but not only), while Apple and Samsung try to make money by doing light and affordable toys.
So, if you design a nice looking toy, which is very light, and reasonably affordable, it's very likely that it's in a tough scenario when users push it with demanding games while expecting a long battery time. No wonder "post PC" products are soon (or already) obsolete, almost by definition.
But this is what happens when the computer market was saturated and some companies had to invent a new market in order to get more easy money from a new source. In the end, however, no matter how cool these toys, people tend to demand the same level of performance they get from their desktops, so it will be interesting to see how this nonsense "post common sense" concept evolves.
Maybe the question is whether Apple produced a New iPad (3) that was as up to date technically as they could while staying within their normal/established price point to the consumer and maintained their profit margin?
I suspect that this is what the court case is most likely to revolve around. If the prosecution could establish that Apple had held back features specifically to change it's refresh cycle and increased it's profit margin substantially over the 6 month period then they might have something to argue about.
I bet that Apple could easily prove that they built the best machine they could at the time and offered the update in November last year as they were in the position to offer the new chip at a price point that matched their profit margins. Maybe the chip just wasn't ready for showtime last march.
The downside for Apple is that every time they fight a case like this they run the risk of having to disclose more of their company policy, how decisions are made within the company and more financial and operational intelligence than they would normally choose to.
This certainly sounds like another speculative case dreamed up by a firm of solicitors who have found enough poor mugs to pay for them to try and make something out of nothing. I have friends who have dedicated their lives to protect the weak from flawed, costly legal systems throughout the world, I have friends who are corporate lawyers who protect their clients by giving sensible advice as to what course of action is in the clients best interests and have benefited from that advice. Just like any profession there seem to plenty of lawyers who are more interested in doing what is right for themselves, not the people who are paying for their services.
New processor and new connector. I doubt they can show the A6 was ready. I think it would have been fine with the old connector, but I agree they needed to get their flagship models on Lightning. iPad mini /w lightning next to a Retina iPad w/ 30 pin dock connector looks pretty silly.
You might find that your idea of logic is not widely accepted. Your suggestion is highly disproportionate reaction to a single lawsuit by an organization that doesn't necessarily represent Brazil or its people. Is losing billions of dollars in sales a logical reaction to a lawsuit that probably will fail?
I could have sworn my dad's 1st gen installed iOS 6 fine. There might be something wrong with your device, you can probably restore the device and try again, or bring it to Apple.
1st gen ipads... can not be upgraded to iOS 6... i believe the ipad 2 can... (ipad one is forever stuck on google maps... )
i own the first iPad ... and When iOS 6 was released I checked my iPad 1 for upgrades and I couldn't upgrade... I'm stuck on 5.1 but it is moot point, Because the iPad 3 is superior to the original iPad...
The I switched because of the high-resolution screen and the fact that on the original iPad my eyes were bugging out due to the antialiasing. (the 1024x768) ...
No, that's what an Apple employee told me once when I was there a while ago.
But I did find this link from a couple of years ago, where it says that the Fifth Avenue store grosses $35,000 per square foot. I was in that store a few weeks ago to pick something up, and there are always plenty of tourists and foreigners always picking up Apple devices on their visit to the US.
Fifth Avenue Apple store said to gross $35,000 per square foot. Can it be true?
Let's not get carried away by the high revenue per square foot from the Apple store in Fifth Avenue. The average rent on this stretch is $2000 per square foot per year - so even if Apple is paying average rents, they are getting revenues of 18x rent. So, the rent works out at about 6% of revenue for this store.
And I don't think anyone would be surprised if Apple is paying a lot higher than average, for their prime spot.
When you look at the numbers like that, the number is not anywhere near as phenomenal. There are several stores around the world, whose rental costs are sub 5% of their revenues.
Just to explain what I mean - a 2 square foot vending machine in any crowded railway station probably sells more than 70,000 sodas a year at $1 a piece - that works out to just 12 sodas an hour over a 16-hour day. That vending machine probably has a better revenue per square foot than Apple!
When you look at it like that, what is phenomenal is that Apple is able to have such a huge store in such an expensive location! Even if the store size was reduced, the revenue would probably not reduce by much!
The "post PC" era is in fact made of products that are obsolete even before hitting the market, because people demand desktop performance (specially for games, but not only), while Apple and Samsung try to make money by doing light and affordable toys.
So, if you design a nice looking toy, which is very light, and reasonably affordable, it's very likely that it's in a tough scenario when users push it with demanding games while expecting a long battery time. No wonder "post PC" products are soon (or already) obsolete, almost by definition.
But this is what happens when the computer market was saturated and some companies had to invent a new market in order to get more easy money from a new source. In the end, however, no matter how cool these toys, people tend to demand the same level of performance they get from their desktops, so it will be interesting to see how this nonsense "post common sense" concept evolves.
Not everyone demands "desktop performance" from a tablet. Many people use it to check email, surf the web, play games. No one is running AutoCAD.
Comments
Microsoft doesn't sell CPUs, so how does Microsoft benefit from pushing customers to buy things they don't sell?
But the women are pretty.
What's funnier is if Apple simply withdrew iPad 4 for sale in Brazil and for that country alone, kept selling iPad 3. Everyone else gets the iPad 4. Then, after 1 year, they get the iPad 4, regardless whether the rest of the planet has moved on to iPad 5 or whatever. Keep Brazil a generation behind. Because they demanded it.
Microsoft's benefit was that they didn't have to work to optimize their software or make it efficient. Just wait a while and the hardware will catch up with the sloppy coding.
You really need to learn to read news reports.
Apple is appealing it because they want to gain ownership of the iPhone trademark - even though the court disagreed.
The article you cited even explains it:
What part do you not understand? And how do you get from that to your claim that Apple lost the trademark? Again, they never had it.
Really? I mean, really?
That's not what planned obsolescence means.
So, if you design a nice looking toy, which is very light, and reasonably affordable, it's very likely that it's in a tough scenario when users push it with demanding games while expecting a long battery time. No wonder "post PC" products are soon (or already) obsolete, almost by definition.
But this is what happens when the computer market was saturated and some companies had to invent a new market in order to get more easy money from a new source. In the end, however, no matter how cool these toys, people tend to demand the same level of performance they get from their desktops, so it will be interesting to see how this nonsense "post common sense" concept evolves.
Maybe the question is whether Apple produced a New iPad (3) that was as up to date technically as they could while staying within their normal/established price point to the consumer and maintained their profit margin?
I suspect that this is what the court case is most likely to revolve around. If the prosecution could establish that Apple had held back features specifically to change it's refresh cycle and increased it's profit margin substantially over the 6 month period then they might have something to argue about.
I bet that Apple could easily prove that they built the best machine they could at the time and offered the update in November last year as they were in the position to offer the new chip at a price point that matched their profit margins. Maybe the chip just wasn't ready for showtime last march.
The downside for Apple is that every time they fight a case like this they run the risk of having to disclose more of their company policy, how decisions are made within the company and more financial and operational intelligence than they would normally choose to.
This certainly sounds like another speculative case dreamed up by a firm of solicitors who have found enough poor mugs to pay for them to try and make something out of nothing. I have friends who have dedicated their lives to protect the weak from flawed, costly legal systems throughout the world, I have friends who are corporate lawyers who protect their clients by giving sensible advice as to what course of action is in the clients best interests and have benefited from that advice. Just like any profession there seem to plenty of lawyers who are more interested in doing what is right for themselves, not the people who are paying for their services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53
I wonder if they'll also sue Samsung, HTC, and all the other phone manufacturers who come out with a new model every month.
Except these guys aren't in the high-end market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
New processor and new connector. I doubt they can show the A6 was ready. I think it would have been fine with the old connector, but I agree they needed to get their flagship models on Lightning. iPad mini /w lightning next to a Retina iPad w/ 30 pin dock connector looks pretty silly.
You might find that your idea of logic is not widely accepted. Your suggestion is highly disproportionate reaction to a single lawsuit by an organization that doesn't necessarily represent Brazil or its people. Is losing billions of dollars in sales a logical reaction to a lawsuit that probably will fail?
I could have sworn my dad's 1st gen installed iOS 6 fine. There might be something wrong with your device, you can probably restore the device and try again, or bring it to Apple.
1st gen ipads... can not be upgraded to iOS 6... i believe the ipad 2 can... (ipad one is forever stuck on google maps... )
i own the first iPad ... and When iOS 6 was released I checked my iPad 1 for upgrades and I couldn't upgrade... I'm stuck on 5.1 but it is moot point, Because the iPad 3 is superior to the original iPad...
The I switched because of the high-resolution screen and the fact that on the original iPad my eyes were bugging out due to the antialiasing. (the 1024x768) ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
No, that's what an Apple employee told me once when I was there a while ago.
But I did find this link from a couple of years ago, where it says that the Fifth Avenue store grosses $35,000 per square foot. I was in that store a few weeks ago to pick something up, and there are always plenty of tourists and foreigners always picking up Apple devices on their visit to the US.
Fifth Avenue Apple store said to gross $35,000 per square foot. Can it be true?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/08/24/apples-reported-35-000-per-square-foot-gross-on-fifth-ave-can/
Let's not get carried away by the high revenue per square foot from the Apple store in Fifth Avenue. The average rent on this stretch is $2000 per square foot per year - so even if Apple is paying average rents, they are getting revenues of 18x rent. So, the rent works out at about 6% of revenue for this store.
And I don't think anyone would be surprised if Apple is paying a lot higher than average, for their prime spot.
When you look at the numbers like that, the number is not anywhere near as phenomenal. There are several stores around the world, whose rental costs are sub 5% of their revenues.
Just to explain what I mean - a 2 square foot vending machine in any crowded railway station probably sells more than 70,000 sodas a year at $1 a piece - that works out to just 12 sodas an hour over a 16-hour day. That vending machine probably has a better revenue per square foot than Apple!
When you look at it like that, what is phenomenal is that Apple is able to have such a huge store in such an expensive location! Even if the store size was reduced, the revenue would probably not reduce by much!
Not everyone demands "desktop performance" from a tablet. Many people use it to check email, surf the web, play games. No one is running AutoCAD.