Editorial: Apple's market disruption savvy is bad news for Android

1356789

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 167
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,966member
    Many Apple fans insist that Apple will not open up iOS to FB because Apple is a closed system. I think they need to think twice. Closed system may be ok for PCs because PCs are powerful and has a much bigger screen than a smartphone. User can easily found what they need on a PC. The smartphone has a very small screen this creates a problem. To be able to further customize the Home will give user tremendous usefulness.
  • Reply 42 of 167
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member
    Interesting piece - another in the series The Empire Strikes Back.
  • Reply 43 of 167
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    It loads fine for me with ML 10.8.3 Build 12D78 and Safari 6.0.3 (8536.28.10).


    You are right see post above: I am using no images as I'm on cell data out here in the wilderness.

  • Reply 44 of 167
    oflifeoflife Posts: 120member
    Apple Maps did NOT effect sales of GPS units like Garmin and Tom Tom, it was first Nokia's excellent Symbian maps (such as that on the superb Nokia N95) and then Android, that came with drive by drive navigation out of the box. Apple Maps was still born, and still is. Sorry!

    Regarding an affordable iPhone, Apple should make something different, that will appeal to the young and ladies, namely, an iPhone nano - the size of the current iPod nano, but, well, a phone. Effectively, a shrunk iPhone 4/4S. I warrant it will sell in HUGE quantities, because it's small size will make it an ideal first phone, and a second phone for socialites who don't want large devices when out partying or at concerts.

    The iPhone nano would be a feat of engineering, but Apple have done it before...
  • Reply 45 of 167
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post


    Apple has one thing left to do to truly become independent with the best platform in the world.


    ...and that is to provide it's own default search engine and perhaps make Google a search an option like Bing and Yahoo.


    Once that is done, it will have full control of it's platform and a much better integrated search engine.


     


    Apple's Market Disruption Savvy comes from its research teams, but also from it's independence in platform integration and design.


    Apple can make its moves without asking permission, and when a technology needed for an Apple product does not exist, it gets invented and patented.



     


    Apple has its own search engine - Spotlight. Of course, it is not a search engine for the WWW.


     


    Apple's market disruption savvy does not come from its research teams. If you were right, their research teams would go to the marketing team and say, "We have developed xyz. Which relevant markets would be interesting targets?" Instead, it's the other way around; Apple's (rather small and focused) marketing team goes to the engineering team and says, "We want you to make xyz. What kind of cool technology can you develop to make this a unique Apple experience?"


     


    Quote:



    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



    The xServe example is a great one. I have always been baffled by the failure of xServe to make a dent in the market - considering how much cheaper it is. I don't buy the 'cheap drives' argument - One could buy an xServe and replace all the drives with 'enterprise level' drives and still be far less than half the cost of a Windows system.

     


     


    I loved Xserve - an exemplar of clean Apple design, but your pricing equation is off. I don't know where you were buying your Windows servers but the ones we have been getting from HP and Dell in the last 20 years have NEVER been twice as expensive as Xserve, let alone Xserve with drives replaced by more expensive ones.


     


    We miss Xserve because it always looked so cool next to the other racks.


     


    It's Xserve, btw, not xServe, btw (shows how much you know).

  • Reply 46 of 167
    orthorim wrote: »
    2 - Android's other advantages are: Distribution - here, I don't see Apple catching up in markets like SE Asia where phones are sold in the majority by little tech shops in the malls. None of those little shops carry iPhones. Most never carried iPods either. Apple doesn't seem to have a good model to deal with those mom and pop operations. The effect is that in SE Asia for every iPhone on display, there are about 100 Android phones on display. That's got to have an effect on sales. iPhone success so far has been despite distribution issues.

    Actually, Apple has a great model for mom and pop shops. It's for them to sign on to become Apple Authorized Resellers though Apple's Channel Partner program. If mom and pop aspire to sell iPhones or iPods, all they have to do is fill out an application, and if they agree to the terms and conditions and meet the requirements, Apple might just let them. We are nowadays used to seeing Apple Stores and "big box" retailers sell Apple products, but many mom and pop computer stores in the 80s were Apple Authorized Resellers, and that program still exists today. They probably won't meet the requirements if they're a shady cash-only, all-sales-final bazaar who couldn't advocate, operate nor support iPhones next to the "100 Android phones" they're hawking. But that's why it's great if they become Apple Channel Partners: customers get better service, mom and pop get to stand out from competing street vendors who aren't offering legit Apple products, and Apple's brand is protected.

    Enlightened yet?
  • Reply 47 of 167
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mstone wrote: »
    You are right see post above: I am using no images as I'm on cell data out here in the wilderness.

    Is this in your rustic California home?
  • Reply 48 of 167
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post



    Many Apple fans insist that Apple will not open up iOS to FB because Apple is a closed system. I think they need to think twice. Closed system may be ok for PCs because PCs are powerful and has a much bigger screen than a smartphone. User can easily found what they need on a PC. The smartphone has a very small screen this creates a problem. To be able to further customize the Home will give user tremendous usefulness.




    This is not about closed v. open. Facebook Home more or less puts Android in the background. Instead of making a single Facebook phone, Home will turn existing Androids into one if Home is downloaded. You think Apple will allow that?


     


    More than anything, I hope Apple will take cues from Home (but not just Home) to continue improving messaging, notification and gestures.

  • Reply 49 of 167
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,743member
    So having large profit margins and charging more for the same functionality makes Apple more prestigious? I don't quite understand your reasoning. 

    Maybe you are trying to defend this company because you own stock or something, I dunno.

    Do you honestly think it's just about "functionality"?

    You don't really get Apple do you. When you get an iPhone, you're buying into something far more than "functionality". Anyone can duplicate functionality. Not everyone can duplicate "User Experience." If you don't understand what that is, then I'm sure there's a Dell tablet somewhere with your name on it.
  • Reply 50 of 167
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    I loved Xserve - an exemplar of clean Apple design, but your pricing equation is off. I don't know where you were buying your Windows servers but the ones we have been getting from HP and Dell in the last 20 years have NEVER been twice as expensive as Xserve, let alone Xserve with drives replaced by more expensive ones.

    If you only bought hardware, that might be relevant. When you add in software, a Windows server is far more expensive. Look at the comparison in tihs article.
    We miss Xserve because it always looked so cool next to the other racks.

    It's Xserve, btw, not xServe, btw (shows how much you know).

    So the fact that I miscapitalized it somehow eliminates the ones that I've bought?
  • Reply 51 of 167
    phone-ui-guyphone-ui-guy Posts: 1,018member
    jragosta wrote: »
    The xServe example is a great one. I have always been baffled by the failure of xServe to make a dent in the market - considering how much cheaper it is. I don't buy the 'cheap drives' argument - One could buy an xServe and replace all the drives with 'enterprise level' drives and still be far less than half the cost of a Windows system.


    Clearly, the Enterprise market is extremely averse to change - but even that doesn't explain everything. After all, Linux has made huge inroads into the Windows server business - and OS X has many of the advantages of Linux. Sure, the xServe hardware is a bit more expensive than equivalent cheap generic hardware, but the difference is very minor.

    Well the server market has become a commodity market mainly because they are all designed to run VMWare to support Linux and Windows.
    I believe Apple has a internal project going with VMWare that could lead to OS X running on virtualized Apple server hardware.  (i.e. Fusion on steroids)
    The Apple cloud applications (iCloud.com) are few and they currently only run at Apple Data Centers but they will grow in numbers and capability.
    They could potentially be sold to businesses for private Clouds in the future.

    Remember the Objective-C based "WebObjects" platform from NeXT? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebObjects )
    Imagine an upgraded version running in the backend on virtualized Apple Hardware supporting all the new Apple and open platform technologies and Apple development tools. (HTML5, Objective-C, X-Code, Core Data, Core Animation, OpenGL, Mapping, Siri, Searching, iWork, iMessage, iTunesU, iTunes, iBooks, FaceTime, AirPlay etc...) That would certainly disrupt the enterprise computing world as we know it today.

    Time will tell.

    You don't know what you are talking about. There are some excellent margins being made in the server market. Look at Cisco's UCS. It isnt cheap and they came out of no where and disrupted the server market in a big way.

    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10265/index.html
  • Reply 52 of 167
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Android as an open source project is and will be a huge success: various companies will make use of it in various (often incompatible) forms. Some of those forms, one day, might be truly great to rival iOS and our quality app selection, but even if not it's still a success: Android gave all those companies something to sell!

    Android as a Google endeavor may not be such a success, if it helps other companies a lot and helps Google less, while Google spends the R&D money.

    Android as a financial success? Yes, but only in the hands of a few specific companies (well, just Samsung? Amazon maybe?)
  • Reply 53 of 167
    constable odoconstable odo Posts: 1,041member
    This view is how most investors see Apple and there's no changing reality:
    http://www.benzinga.com/news/13/04/3475761/apples-market-share-is-under-attack?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: benzinga %28Benzinga News Feed%29

    Even to current Apple shareholders, it looks as though the wheels have fallen off of Apple. Dilger's view is the minority view of Apple's smartphone sustainability. The future isn't written in stone, so any predictions can be taken with a grain of salt. On Wall Street market share isn't everything. It's the ONLY THING.

    As an Apple shareholder, the only thing I can look forward to now is increased dividends. It doesn't appear as though Apple's share price will ever go back up to former levels. The whole of Wall Street is rigged against Apple's premium smartphone strategy, so I don't think there's any way Apple or Apple shareholders can win. Apple can make all the profit in the world and it won't change Wall Street's view of the company. Wall Street sees Apple as a doomed company and values it as such.
  • Reply 54 of 167
    danoxdanox Posts: 386member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    That might make sense - except for the fact that they dropped the xServe product. If they really planned to do anything with it in the future, you'd think they'd have kept it around - even if it was on life support. I don't recall many times (if any) when they discontinued a product and then brought it back later.


     


    Isn't Apple the company that kept a fully working version of OS X in the back room for almost ten years? Before switching to Intel CPU's, Apple has everything needed software and hardware wise to be a player in the server market at anytime.

  • Reply 55 of 167
    gwmacgwmac Posts: 1,796member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post



    This view is how most investors see Apple and there's no changing reality:

    http://www.benzinga.com/news/13/04/3475761/apples-market-share-is-under-attack?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: benzinga %28Benzinga News Feed%29



    Even to current Apple shareholders, it looks as though the wheels have fallen off of Apple. Dilger's view is the minority view of Apple's smartphone sustainability. The future isn't written in stone, so any predictions can be taken with a grain of salt. On Wall Street market share isn't everything. It's the ONLY THING.



    As an Apple shareholder, the only thing I can look forward to now is increased dividends. It doesn't appear as though Apple's share price will ever go back up to former levels. The whole of Wall Street is rigged against Apple's premium smartphone strategy, so I don't think there's any way Apple or Apple shareholders can win. Apple can make all the profit in the world and it won't change Wall Street's view of the company. Wall Street sees Apple as a doomed company and values it as such.


    As much as I would like to disagree with you I think you are unfortunately right. I sold 100 shares when they reached $700 now I wish I had sold them all and pocketed a nice profit then bought back even more now. Apple is severely undervalued. You never hear analysts mention that Apple makes the lion's share in profits only that they are declining in overall global marketshare. 

  • Reply 56 of 167
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post

    Closed system may be ok for PCs because PCs are powerful and has a much bigger screen than a smartphone. User can easily found what they need on a PC. The smartphone has a very small screen this creates a problem.


     


    What does screen size have to do with anything?

  • Reply 57 of 167
    danoxdanox Posts: 386member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Everett Ruess View Post



    Applesauce007 Would a new Apple search engine need years of user input to learn & evolve into something comparable to Google's?


     


    All Apple has to do is offer a search solution that provides great results on page one, unlike Google who is packing page one with sponsored results more and more (Ad companies just can't help themselves). 

  • Reply 58 of 167
    quadra 610 wrote: »
    Do you honestly think it's just about "functionality"?

    You don't really get Apple do you. When you get an iPhone, you're buying into something far more than "functionality". Anyone can duplicate functionality. Not everyone can duplicate "User Experience." If you don't understand what that is, then I'm sure there's a Dell tablet somewhere with your name on it.

    Guess your definition of user experience is different than mine.
  • Reply 59 of 167

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post



    Guess your definition of user experience is different than mine.


     


    ...she said to him, in bed. image

  • Reply 60 of 167
    danoxdanox Posts: 386member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post


    I just read the entire article and I have to say that it is nothing more than clickbait/fanboism/wishful thinking. 


     


    Apple blew a huge lead in the phone industry and there's nothing to prevent the same thing happening to the tablet industry. iOS is so very very stagnant and locked down. In 2007/8 it was awesome. Now? Meh.



     


    So you believe Apple should open up to Facebook and let them take over Ha..Ha.., iOS, iPhone and the iPad are simply the best combo in the mobile world bar none, and everyday the fragmented unprofitable mess that is Android proves it.


     


    PS. If you combine all of that mobile power with a Mac and a AppleTv there is nothing today that even comes close.

Sign In or Register to comment.