Let's talk about this again after Apple releases a larger phone so that we can factor iOS out of the equation. Right now there is no way to make a claim about small screens being more popular if your support for that claim is only iPhones.
Don't forget the elephant in the room, "What percentage of Android handsets being sold now are "large screen" phones?"
Going by the large number of Android "activations" in comparison to the number of declared sales of high end large screen Android handsets, it cannot be particularly high.
I don't like Samsung much. I don't have their TVs, Phones, tablets or computers. I'm unlikely to get one either; there is more attractive product - for me - from other vendors for any above mentioned.
But... I was today in local shopping mall. On central square (where huge Christmas tree gets erected every holiday) there was big Samsung Galaxy pavilion showing everything Galaxy - phones, tablets, cameras. Everything was available to try, there were giveaways (don't know what and how much, didn't spend too much time in there), there was also live music, DJs and dancers outside. We were in mall for 6 hours - went earlier to get good seats for Iron Man 3, did some shopping, had lunch... and something was happening pretty much all the time.
I live in NZ. Small country, less than 4 mil people all together. Small market. Still. Samsung decided it is big enough for some serious promotions. I have seen their promo stands on airport and other malls, never this big but presence was there before this event. I've never seen Nokia, Apple, Sony... doing things like this. We don't even have a proper Apple shop, only resellers.
So... regardless of my opinion on Samsung, I'm not going to be surprised if I learn tomorrow that they have majority of smartphone market, and are growing in tablet market as well. Here at least, they are working harder than others in securing it.
That PPT was for Q4 2012, not Q1 2013. (I haven't looked at the latter, so have no idea if it was better or worse... just wanted to point you at the right one.)
Don't forget the elephant in the room, "What percentage of Android handsets being sold now are "large screen" phones?"
As in, "Will Apple ever make a larger screened phone?" That already seems to be answered after Tim Cook said:
"Our competitors have made some significant tradeoffs in many of these areas to ship a larger display. We would not ship a larger display iPhone while these tradeoffs exist."
He didn't say they would never ship a larger display iPhone (unlike what they said about the book-sized tablet market, which they later got into anyway, with the iPad mini). Instead, he explained why they're not shipping one now.
Think about it. Apple specializes in designing for high profit, and not necessarily high quantity, markets. A larger screened phone seems tailor made for their product line. Certainly far more likely than a bargain priced phone.
Those who say that Apple would never do a bigger screened phone, seem to be setting themselves up to look as foolish as some did when they claimed there'd never be a smaller iPad, or a 4" iPhone.
The only "revisionist crap" involved comes from people who want to take Jobs' very specific claims about 10" being the minimum, and needing sandpapered fingers to use a tablet app on anything smaller...
Quote:
"While one could increase the resolution to make up some of the difference, it is meaningless unless your tablet also includes sandpaper, so that the user can sand down their fingers to around one-quarter of their present size. Apple has done expensive user testing on touch interfaces over many years, and we really understand this stuff.
There are clear limits of how close you can place physical elements on a touch screen, before users cannot reliably tap, flick or pinch them. This is one of the key reasons we think the 10-inch screen size is the minimum size required to create great tablet apps.
- Steve Jobs"
... and somehow try to spin that into claiming that he didn't really mean screens under 10"... especially when we already know from an internal email that he had to be approached several times about a smaller tablet. And that email even called it the 7" market, not 7.9".
Of course, Tim Cook's current comments about "screen tradeoffs" (he mentioned resolution, color quality, white balance, reflectivity) are also a bit ironic in the face of the iPad mini's screen, vs others like the Fire HD or Nexus 7... which have higher PPI, better color gamut, less reflectivity,
Still, everyone knows that it's all just typical management handwaving until they have a product ready. One of the best things about Jobs and Cook is that they're at times willing to make fairly big changes in their direction. I have faith that Apple will come through eventually.
The only "revisionist crap" involved comes from people who want to take Jobs' very specific claims about 10" being the minimum, and needing sandpapered fingers to use a tablet app on anything smaller...
... and somehow try to spin that into claiming that he didn't really mean screens under 10"... especially when we already know from an internal email that he had to be approached several times about a smaller tablet. And that email even called it the 7" market, not 7.9".
Of course, Tim Cook's current comments about "screen tradeoffs" (he mentioned resolution, color quality, white balance, reflectivity) are also a bit ironic in the face of the iPad mini's screen, vs others like the Fire HD or Nexus 7... which have higher PPI, better color gamut, less reflectivity,
Still, everyone knows that it's all just typical management handwaving until they have a product ready. One of the best things about Jobs and Cook is that they're at times willing to make fairly big changes in their direction. I have faith that Apple will come through eventually.
I agree with everything you say, except: what is the evidence for Tim's flexibility (I have no reason to believe you are wrong, but do you have actual examples?)
I agree with everything you say, except: what is the evidence for Tim's flexibility (I have no reason to believe you are wrong, but do you have actual examples?)
You're right; he hasn't been in power that long. Ummm...
I think that Cook listened to stock holders and did things differently with Apple's money at least partly because of their wishes.
I think that he was the one who okayed the iPad mini, even after originally echoing what Jobs had said.
I think that he's more willing to negotiate deals rather than to engage in court battles with their bad publicity, although I have no proof except what he's said about it.
I think that he and his execs pushed out Maps in their eagerness to show that they were okay without Jobs. As a result of the fallout, now he's pulled back from quick releases, and instead will wait until the next major addition is as perfect as possible, even if that means a long dry spell.
You're right; he hasn't been in power that long. Ummm...
I think that Cook listened to stock holders and did things differently with Apple's money at least partly because of their wishes.
I think that he was the one who okayed the iPad mini, even after originally echoing what Jobs had said.
I think that he's more willing to negotiate deals rather than to engage in court battles with their bad publicity, although I have no proof except what he's said about it.
I think that he and his execs pushed out Maps in their eagerness to show that they were okay without Jobs. As a result of the fallout, now he's pulled back from quick releases, and instead will wait until the next major addition is as perfect as possible, even if that means a long dry spell.
Thoughts?
Well, in order:
1. What you say is true, but there was a deafening roar (and a stampede out of institutional money), so the fact that it took them so long to make the decision both cost them money (in a number of ways, one of which is that I am pretty sure they would have gotten a AAA rating six months ago, the more obvious is the collapse in stock price), and made them look somewhat inept (I also believe that the Einhorn method would have been more efficient, but whatever), so I would view this as evidence to the contrary.
2. It seems clear (based on no hard evidence, but merely on how long these projects take) that the iPad mini project was underway while Jobs was around. If that's true, than it adds no evidence either way, if false, it is certainly a point in support of your contention.
3. He certainly seems to be far less contentious than Jobs (at least, as you say, in his public pronouncements). I would guess (having worked with/for Jobs-like people) that the management tier just below Jobs viewed the contentiousness as a negative, and so pulling back from it was the first thing they did. I have no idea whether this is actually a wise business decision, nor whether it adds evidence of Cook's flexibility (being a supply-chain specialist, I assume it is his nature to make deals, though he must be enough of a hard-ass to make the suppliers cower).
4. The Maps thing I find strange, and actually somewhat Jobs-like. What was not Jobs-like was the subsequent spin. For examples, note the original iPhone, which was not quite ready for prime time in a number of ways, but was (very successfully, needless to say) rolled out, and Siri, which was definitely not quite ready for prime time, and is just getting there now, both these obviously having been blessed by Jobs -- I am not quite sure WHY Siri was; I doubt it has been particularly positive for Apple, and has now become more of a negative, since Google Now does it clearly better. Not by an enormous margin, but better enough.
Anyway, Maps seemed totally pointless -- it did not add to the functionality of the device, it was not fully baked, and other than the licensing fees to Google (which would have been minor compared to the negative publicity), I really don't see why Apple did not wait another year or two. The spin was completely lacking in Jobsian reality distortion, which was sorely needed, or some clever stunt (like, "we will give everyone free bumpers"). So, I view the whole thing as a number of dropped balls, and find it difficult to find anything positive about it. The most cynical view is that Cook was conscious of the negatives, but thought that the positive of pushing Forstall out was worth it in the long run. If that's the correct assessment, then he is certainly flexible. If not, I don't know what to make of all this.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Paranoia - it looks like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
Let's talk about this again after Apple releases a larger phone so that we can factor iOS out of the equation. Right now there is no way to make a claim about small screens being more popular if your support for that claim is only iPhones.
Don't forget the elephant in the room, "What percentage of Android handsets being sold now are "large screen" phones?"
Going by the large number of Android "activations" in comparison to the number of declared sales of high end large screen Android handsets, it cannot be particularly high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erann
Wow, PowerPoint slides of unique design! That's truly innovative - how didn't I come to think of using PP.
This bit is interesting, from that report:-
"S.LSI : Demand to decrease due to weak seasonality and customers’ inventory adjustments"
Breaking up with your best customer can be hard, I hope Samsung are enjoying Apple's "inventory adjustments".
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Because screen size isn't much a factor if at all when someone chooses a iPhone, but is very likely when choosing a Samsung phone.
But Samsung is one of many companies offering larger screens. So display size surely can't be the main reason for choosing Samsung?
Advertising is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
This bit is interesting, from that report:-
"S.LSI : Demand to decrease due to weak seasonality and customers’ inventory adjustments"
You're looking at a report from 2012 predicting last quarter. Now, the latest report's Outlook for LSI for the coming quarter is:
"Expect earnings to improve driven by 28? ramp-up and high-pixel CIS sales"
Quote:
Breaking up with your best customer can be hard, I hope Samsung are enjoying Apple's "inventory adjustments".
Apple still gets their CPUs from Samsung's factories, so last quarter's LSI slowdown would probably be more about poor customer device sales.
Wait a few more months to see if Apple moves to TSMC.
But... I was today in local shopping mall. On central square (where huge Christmas tree gets erected every holiday) there was big Samsung Galaxy pavilion showing everything Galaxy - phones, tablets, cameras. Everything was available to try, there were giveaways (don't know what and how much, didn't spend too much time in there), there was also live music, DJs and dancers outside. We were in mall for 6 hours - went earlier to get good seats for Iron Man 3, did some shopping, had lunch... and something was happening pretty much all the time.
I live in NZ. Small country, less than 4 mil people all together. Small market. Still. Samsung decided it is big enough for some serious promotions. I have seen their promo stands on airport and other malls, never this big but presence was there before this event. I've never seen Nokia, Apple, Sony... doing things like this. We don't even have a proper Apple shop, only resellers.
So... regardless of my opinion on Samsung, I'm not going to be surprised if I learn tomorrow that they have majority of smartphone market, and are growing in tablet market as well. Here at least, they are working harder than others in securing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
That PPT was for Q4 2012, not Q1 2013. (I haven't looked at the latter, so have no idea if it was better or worse... just wanted to point you at the right one.)
(Here's the Q1 report.)
You might want to go back and edit/delete your previous posts so they won't confuse anyone.
My mistake, I just followed the samsung link. Will check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erann
Wow, PowerPoint slides of unique design! That's truly innovative - how didn't I come to think of using PP.
This is the correct report, sorry:
http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/ir/ireventpresentations/earningsrelease/downloads/2012/20130426_conference_eng.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/ir/ireventpresentations/earningsrelease/downloads/2012/20130125_conference_eng.pdf
Sorry, here is the correct report:
http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/ir/ireventpresentations/earningsrelease/downloads/2012/20130426_conference_eng.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Don't forget the elephant in the room, "What percentage of Android handsets being sold now are "large screen" phones?"
As in, "Will Apple ever make a larger screened phone?" That already seems to be answered after Tim Cook said:
"Our competitors have made some significant tradeoffs in many of these areas to ship a larger display. We would not ship a larger display iPhone while these tradeoffs exist."
He didn't say they would never ship a larger display iPhone (unlike what they said about the book-sized tablet market, which they later got into anyway, with the iPad mini). Instead, he explained why they're not shipping one now.
Think about it. Apple specializes in designing for high profit, and not necessarily high quantity, markets. A larger screened phone seems tailor made for their product line. Certainly far more likely than a bargain priced phone.
Those who say that Apple would never do a bigger screened phone, seem to be setting themselves up to look as foolish as some did when they claimed there'd never be a smaller iPad, or a 4" iPhone.
Originally Posted by KDarling
…what they said about the book-sized tablet market…
Enjoy your revisionist crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Enjoy your revisionist crap.
The only "revisionist crap" involved comes from people who want to take Jobs' very specific claims about 10" being the minimum, and needing sandpapered fingers to use a tablet app on anything smaller...
Quote:
"While one could increase the resolution to make up some of the difference, it is meaningless unless your tablet also includes sandpaper, so that the user can sand down their fingers to around one-quarter of their present size. Apple has done expensive user testing on touch interfaces over many years, and we really understand this stuff.
There are clear limits of how close you can place physical elements on a touch screen, before users cannot reliably tap, flick or pinch them. This is one of the key reasons we think the 10-inch screen size is the minimum size required to create great tablet apps.
- Steve Jobs"
... and somehow try to spin that into claiming that he didn't really mean screens under 10"... especially when we already know from an internal email that he had to be approached several times about a smaller tablet. And that email even called it the 7" market, not 7.9".
Of course, Tim Cook's current comments about "screen tradeoffs" (he mentioned resolution, color quality, white balance, reflectivity) are also a bit ironic in the face of the iPad mini's screen, vs others like the Fire HD or Nexus 7... which have higher PPI, better color gamut, less reflectivity,
Still, everyone knows that it's all just typical management handwaving until they have a product ready. One of the best things about Jobs and Cook is that they're at times willing to make fairly big changes in their direction. I have faith that Apple will come through eventually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
The only "revisionist crap" involved comes from people who want to take Jobs' very specific claims about 10" being the minimum, and needing sandpapered fingers to use a tablet app on anything smaller...
... and somehow try to spin that into claiming that he didn't really mean screens under 10"... especially when we already know from an internal email that he had to be approached several times about a smaller tablet. And that email even called it the 7" market, not 7.9".
Of course, Tim Cook's current comments about "screen tradeoffs" (he mentioned resolution, color quality, white balance, reflectivity) are also a bit ironic in the face of the iPad mini's screen, vs others like the Fire HD or Nexus 7... which have higher PPI, better color gamut, less reflectivity,
Still, everyone knows that it's all just typical management handwaving until they have a product ready. One of the best things about Jobs and Cook is that they're at times willing to make fairly big changes in their direction. I have faith that Apple will come through eventually.
I agree with everything you say, except: what is the evidence for Tim's flexibility (I have no reason to believe you are wrong, but do you have actual examples?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
I agree with everything you say, except: what is the evidence for Tim's flexibility (I have no reason to believe you are wrong, but do you have actual examples?)
You're right; he hasn't been in power that long. Ummm...
I think that Cook listened to stock holders and did things differently with Apple's money at least partly because of their wishes.
I think that he was the one who okayed the iPad mini, even after originally echoing what Jobs had said.
I think that he's more willing to negotiate deals rather than to engage in court battles with their bad publicity, although I have no proof except what he's said about it.
I think that he and his execs pushed out Maps in their eagerness to show that they were okay without Jobs. As a result of the fallout, now he's pulled back from quick releases, and instead will wait until the next major addition is as perfect as possible, even if that means a long dry spell.
Thoughts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
You're right; he hasn't been in power that long. Ummm...
I think that Cook listened to stock holders and did things differently with Apple's money at least partly because of their wishes.
I think that he was the one who okayed the iPad mini, even after originally echoing what Jobs had said.
I think that he's more willing to negotiate deals rather than to engage in court battles with their bad publicity, although I have no proof except what he's said about it.
I think that he and his execs pushed out Maps in their eagerness to show that they were okay without Jobs. As a result of the fallout, now he's pulled back from quick releases, and instead will wait until the next major addition is as perfect as possible, even if that means a long dry spell.
Thoughts?
Well, in order:
1. What you say is true, but there was a deafening roar (and a stampede out of institutional money), so the fact that it took them so long to make the decision both cost them money (in a number of ways, one of which is that I am pretty sure they would have gotten a AAA rating six months ago, the more obvious is the collapse in stock price), and made them look somewhat inept (I also believe that the Einhorn method would have been more efficient, but whatever), so I would view this as evidence to the contrary.
2. It seems clear (based on no hard evidence, but merely on how long these projects take) that the iPad mini project was underway while Jobs was around. If that's true, than it adds no evidence either way, if false, it is certainly a point in support of your contention.
3. He certainly seems to be far less contentious than Jobs (at least, as you say, in his public pronouncements). I would guess (having worked with/for Jobs-like people) that the management tier just below Jobs viewed the contentiousness as a negative, and so pulling back from it was the first thing they did. I have no idea whether this is actually a wise business decision, nor whether it adds evidence of Cook's flexibility (being a supply-chain specialist, I assume it is his nature to make deals, though he must be enough of a hard-ass to make the suppliers cower).
4. The Maps thing I find strange, and actually somewhat Jobs-like. What was not Jobs-like was the subsequent spin. For examples, note the original iPhone, which was not quite ready for prime time in a number of ways, but was (very successfully, needless to say) rolled out, and Siri, which was definitely not quite ready for prime time, and is just getting there now, both these obviously having been blessed by Jobs -- I am not quite sure WHY Siri was; I doubt it has been particularly positive for Apple, and has now become more of a negative, since Google Now does it clearly better. Not by an enormous margin, but better enough.
Anyway, Maps seemed totally pointless -- it did not add to the functionality of the device, it was not fully baked, and other than the licensing fees to Google (which would have been minor compared to the negative publicity), I really don't see why Apple did not wait another year or two. The spin was completely lacking in Jobsian reality distortion, which was sorely needed, or some clever stunt (like, "we will give everyone free bumpers"). So, I view the whole thing as a number of dropped balls, and find it difficult to find anything positive about it. The most cynical view is that Cook was conscious of the negatives, but thought that the positive of pushing Forstall out was worth it in the long run. If that's the correct assessment, then he is certainly flexible. If not, I don't know what to make of all this.
Just one man's opinion(s)...