Should? They might choose to? But "should"? Come on ...
Kind of like it. There is some money in it. But not in the same range as what they are making. Once in a while, Mercedes makes a cheaper sedan or whatever. But it is never a low end vehicle. That's kind of like it, too.
iOS7 will not be "finished". It's a reset of iOS as we knew it. I think it's wrong to say they are doing this to forsake Scott Forstall's vision. I think they are doing this because (a) it's time, (b) they want a new UX that is harder to emulate and (c) they are incorporating new technology in the UX. Future versions (in the next few years) may as well be called iOS7.2, etc., much like the naming of MacOSX. I think they are also instilling uniformity more broadly. For example, I see they have recently adopted parallax scrolling on their website.
I don't think Apple does things necessarily out of demand, at least not in the traditional way. They don't necessarily care what individuals care about. They are more interested in getting individuals to buy what they care about.
It's a problem that the analysts are seeing. From an investor perspective, I would see it as an opportunity, but a lot of analysts may not suggest buying Apple until they get more warm and fuzzies that these carriers will get signed on. Remember, if an analyst makes a recommendation and the company doesn't live up to the recommendations, these analysts can actually lose their jobs if they are not accurate in their predictions. Some are accurate, some aren't. The thing is they go by what guidance the company they are following is saying, what's going on in the market, what kinds of trends they are seeing for the next 6 months to maybe a year. Some of them go further than that, but most of the time, they are looking at within a year time period, sometimes, they are looking at next quarter. I had a tough time swallowing them predicting that Apple would drop to $400 a share and damned if that didn't happen. But I do believe that for LONG term investment, Apple looks pretty good, but a lot of things have to happen before we see them breaking out the growth rate they once had. Microsoft, Intel, CIsco, etc. saw their bubble burst in and around the year 2000, which is around when Apple started to really take off, so 13 years later, Apple's bubble burst and some are wondering is this the sign of Apple stagnating, if so for how long and will Apple see huge growth rate again and what's going to trigger it.
Should? Yes, Apple should have announced the 4inch iPhone 5 and a larger screen iPhone 5 or whatever they were going to call it. If they had, they would have sold a TON of product had they had their production together. The iPhone 5 has done well, but some predicted higher numbers than what they actually got.
Apple's answer to a $500 laptop is the iPad. A lot less expensive to make than a $500 laptop. Making money in the PC industry? The only things that make money are the servers and high end workstations. Go look at any PC mfg like Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. they aren't making dick when it comes to PCs. Why do you think IBM got out, Compaq sold off, HP's looking to dump their PC business, Dell's trying to go private? There's no money selling PC boxes. It's been that way for a long time.
Well, I think they are doing iOS 7 because Forstall didn't want to give up the skeuomorphic look and add the features they should have added last year because they were working on Maps which they should have not released until it was less buggy in the data and how it's presented. that actually hurt Apple in a lot of ways. It's obvious from Craig's presentation that he was doing his little digs in Forstall's approach.
Apple has a planned approach on when they release OSs. IOS 7 will be finished and released soon. iOS 8 will just add more features like they always do.
Apple DOES listen to the users. Why do you think Apple has the feedback site and they encourage people to make submissions? Squeaky wheel gets the oil. I've made LOTS of submissions that eventually came to fruition and it dates back over 10 years ago. In iOS7, there are probably about 5 or 6 things that I have submitted over the past 6 months that I think they should do to a future release, so from my point of view, they did address my needs. They done this on a LOT of levels. Seriously. They may toss out some user's ideas/suggestions for various reasons, but they don't toss out everything. It may not happen immediately since they have to figure out what is most important, but they are listening. Sometimes they go off tangent and come up with something to disrupt everything, but it usually works its way out. Listening to their customers is what ALL companies should be doing. One submission I sent in took two OS X revs, but they eventually did what I asked. But they had to actually hire someone to do the development, which they did because I knew the guy personally and doing what they wanted took time to write the code, but it was done.
DrBlank's interesting last post got me to thinking. Samsung makes EVERYTHING. Their current dependence on phones for profit poses a risk for a company that specializes in not specializing. Apple DOESN'T try to make anything and everything. Now the purpose of Apple's current ad campaign becomes clearer to me. Like Samsung, Apple has a phone problem. Does it want to become primarily a phone company? Apple can use its phones as halo products to sell into its ecosystem. Samsung's phones don't help it to sell its washing machines. Very interesting to watch this play out.
I think for some Samsung users, they'll be more likely to buy a Samsung TV, appliance, tablet, computer if they have a good experience with the product. Samsung is trying to capitalize on anything they can. Judging from their past experience getting caught price fixing, they seem like the type of company that would do whatever they can to make as much money off these phones and tablets, which they are doing. They make panels, processors, SSD, RAM, etc. for a large portion of the smartphone market. It wouldn't surprise me if Samsung made more money from what they sell to Apple than they do those cheap $150 Galaxy Admires.
With all of Apple's money, I'm sure Apple has thought about building and running their own foundries making processors, and possibly their own RAM, SSD. It would cost many billions of dollars to do it, and it would take Apple some expertise they don't currently have to do it, but it would give them greater control over product supply, costs, and keep themselves having more control over their product line. IBM was for the longest time, the biggest semiconductor mfg that only supplied themselves with chips. Most people didn't know that. IBM made the bulk of their own chips that went into those old mainframes, even in the early 80's, IBM had more fab lines than just about the rest of the industry. But they didn't sell any of it external to IBM so a lot of people didn't even realize how much they had going on behind the scenes. IBM's competitors didn't do that, which maybe why IBM has prevailed in the mainframe industry. They do have some pretty sick mainframes. 5.5 Ghz processors. Dig that!!!
It's hard to release something cheaper yet keep high margins. Apple said the iPad mini had the lowest margins of any Apple device. But with the mini Apple didn't sacrifice quality for the sake of margins. I'm sorry but those candy colored plastic cases look cheap. Not something I would spend $400 or more on. I don't think Apple can play in the low end space yet still expect to get high end like margins.
I agree with all, but with a slightly different twist.
It's good business to release something cheaper at lower margins if it is ADDITIVE (and does not cannibalize from existing lines) &/or if it strengthens BRAND (ecosystem).
With the iPad Mini, Apple KNEW it would be popular, the challenge was to produce it with high enough quality and at attractive prices points (while maintaining adequate margins). It's the SAME challenge with smart phones right now. Apple KNOWS that a cheaper smart phone and feature phones would be wildly popular...and will be a good business decision if Apple can do what it did with the iPad Mini. There was definitely some cannibalization with iPad Mini which ended up reducing Gross Margins. But seems like the net effect was more positive than negative.
I'm concerned that a cheaper iPhone may not play out as well as the iPad Mini situation. However...I have to assume that Apple market research/survey would result in a decision WAY better than mine.
I find most things interesting, including silly posts from people in the matrix who insist massive profits made be made by manufacturing, shipping and then burying phones. It was you who claimed to be disinterested and yet summoned the energy to inform us so.
Yes, I was interested in telling you I was disinterested in AI's little click bait article. Is that so difficult to grasp? It was you who demanded that I somehow justify my post as interesting to you, something that I cannot do because, as I pointed out already, "interesting is in the eye of the beholder." I am not responsible for how you wish to judge my posts. You will, of course, apply your biases to your judgments.
So I'm going to post whatever and whenever I feel like posting, your opinion of my posts notwithstanding.
When you buy parts from yourself and count shipped phones as sold but don't account for unsold phones until you give them away as buy one get one, you can show all kinds of profit
Really? Can you give me a numerical example of how that might work?
Yes, I was interested in telling you I was disinterested in AI's little click bait article. Is that so difficult to grasp? It was you who demanded that I somehow justify my post as interesting to you, something that I cannot do because, as I pointed out already, "interesting is in the eye of the beholder." I am not responsible for how you wish to judge my posts. You will, of course, apply your biases to your judgments.
So I'm going to post whatever and whenever I feel like posting, your opinion of my posts notwithstanding.
Isn't that what I wrote already? Aren't my words good enough? You guys have echo me using Henry Ford and Steve Jobs? Sheesh ...
Why so prickly? I can't speak for the other guy, but my contribution to the thread was in no way intended to infer that what you said wasn't good enough. It just reminded me of Ford's quote. One that I had always found apropos Steve's way of doing business. Thought I was just collaborating.
I don't agree with any of your points. Not a single one.
Well, maybe you should understand that EVERY company has problems to deal with. NO COMPANY operates without some internal problems. It's just a matter of what they are, when and how they fix it, etc. Well, you can disagree, but come up with a reason why you disagree and then maybe we can have an intelligent discussion. I think it's kind of chicken to say you disagree and don't have anything to validate your position.
It's a problem that the analysts are seeing. From an investor perspective, I would see it as an opportunity ...
My personal opinion: It's not up to outsiders to decide if it is a problem or opportunity. We can speculate and have fun doing it. Apple decides that for itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Remember, if an analyst makes a recommendation and the company doesn't live up to the recommendations, these analysts can actually lose their jobs if they are not accurate in their predictions. Some are accurate, some aren't.
Munster et al are all doing quite well
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Should? Yes, Apple should have announced the 4inch iPhone 5 and a larger screen iPhone 5 or whatever they were going to call it. If they had, they would have sold a TON of product had they had their production together. The iPhone 5 has done well, but some predicted higher numbers than what they actually got.
Don't take this the wrong way. But you are making the judgment of "should" based on opportunity lost - i.e. they could have taken away some (if not much) of the growing (?) market of 5-inchers. That is only true if one cares about market share. I don't. Apple does to a degree but it is clearly not their primary motivation. Not even close, I'd say. So ... there is no "should", but there could be a "might".
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Apple's answer to a $500 laptop is the iPad. A lot less expensive to make than a $500 laptop. Making money in the PC industry? The only things that make money are the servers and high end workstations. Go look at any PC mfg like Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. they aren't making dick when it comes to PCs. Why do you think IBM got out, Compaq sold off, HP's looking to dump their PC business, Dell's trying to go private? There's no money selling PC boxes. It's been that way for a long time.
I respectfully but totally disagree. The iPad is NOT an answer to anything in the market at the time of launch. If anything, iPad was a question. Perhaps, the question was "What if you forsake the personal computing paradigm of screen, CPU, keyboard and mouse?" Or "what if your computing device doesn't have to do everything?" It most definitely was not an answer to the netbooks, even though it appeared to have decimated the netbooks market. Frankly, that market would have died a natural death.
But then, if you believe the Isaacson biography, the iPad was an answer to Bill Gates.
Apple is making good money making PCs, btw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Well, I think they are doing iOS 7 because Forstall didn't want to give up the skeuomorphic look and add the features they should have added last year because they were working on Maps which they should have not released until it was less buggy in the data and how it's presented.
Not really. iOS7 would look different if Forstall was still around. But too many people are captivated by what iOS7 *looks* like. That's not the real deal behind iOS7. It is a change of paradigm in deeper ways. The development to make this shift didn't just start 10 months ago. The parallax effect, for example, was embodied in an Apple patent application dating back a couple of years. Federighi's quips were not directed at Forstall. If we believe that, then we'd have to believe that they were directed at Jobs too.
I agree with all, but with a slightly different twist.
It's good business to release something cheaper at lower margins if it is ADDITIVE (and does not cannibalize from existing lines) &/or if it strengthens BRAND (ecosystem).
With the iPad Mini, Apple KNEW it would be popular, the challenge was to produce it with high enough quality and at attractive prices points (while maintaining adequate margins). It's the SAME challenge with smart phones right now. Apple KNOWS that a cheaper smart phone and feature phones would be wildly popular...and will be a good business decision if Apple can do what it did with the iPad Mini. There was definitely some cannibalization with iPad Mini which ended up reducing Gross Margins. But seems like the net effect was more positive than negative.
I'm concerned that a cheaper iPhone may not play out as well as the iPad Mini situation. However...I have to assume that Apple market research/survey would result in a decision WAY better than mine.
There will be no Apple feature phone. As for an inexpensive iPhone, I see one between $300-400, off contract. It'll have the internals of the 4.
Apple is a company that nets more than 10% of their market cap in yearly earnings, has about 40% of its market cap in cash equivalents, has authorized 15% of its market cap in buy backs, and offers a dividend and we are to believe they should have a pe of 7 or 8. It's incredible that the arguments against this company has been reduced down to a cheaper phone or wider phone for it to have reasonable value....
This is Apple we are talking about. They know how to make plastic phones that don't look cheap. Remember the original iPhone?
I think he is referring to those Fisher-Price colored bodies floating around the past week. I agree those are the cheapest looking pieces of plastic I have ever seen for phone casings.
I think he is referring to those Fisher-Price colored bodies floating around the past week. I agree those are the cheapest looking pieces of plastic I have ever seen for phone casings.
I think we're all hoping those are cheap Chinese knock off fakes
Looks like Samsung had been drawn into a trap of their own making. They have blithely copied and smugly profited by copying Apple and have become intoxicated by the profits of Apple while being oblivious to the deep philosophical underpinning.
Thus they, as the article says, become more dependent on their smartphones, then amid dwindling profits while chasing the chimera of sheer numbers of sales, they get drawn into a cycle of needing to pour ever more resources chasing a shadow.
All the while as Samsung become more dependent on their smartphones, Apple gradually keeps on doing what they do and soon, beginning with the ground shifting iOS 7 they will suddenly steam ahead, and leave Samsung to ponder where they went wrong.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
If the phone is in my pocket, does it count as wearing?
Is this intended to be a serious question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
That's not a problem. It's an opportunity.
Should? They might choose to? But "should"? Come on ...
Kind of like it. There is some money in it. But not in the same range as what they are making. Once in a while, Mercedes makes a cheaper sedan or whatever. But it is never a low end vehicle. That's kind of like it, too.
iOS7 will not be "finished". It's a reset of iOS as we knew it. I think it's wrong to say they are doing this to forsake Scott Forstall's vision. I think they are doing this because (a) it's time, (b) they want a new UX that is harder to emulate and (c) they are incorporating new technology in the UX. Future versions (in the next few years) may as well be called iOS7.2, etc., much like the naming of MacOSX. I think they are also instilling uniformity more broadly. For example, I see they have recently adopted parallax scrolling on their website.
I don't think Apple does things necessarily out of demand, at least not in the traditional way. They don't necessarily care what individuals care about. They are more interested in getting individuals to buy what they care about.
It's a problem that the analysts are seeing. From an investor perspective, I would see it as an opportunity, but a lot of analysts may not suggest buying Apple until they get more warm and fuzzies that these carriers will get signed on. Remember, if an analyst makes a recommendation and the company doesn't live up to the recommendations, these analysts can actually lose their jobs if they are not accurate in their predictions. Some are accurate, some aren't. The thing is they go by what guidance the company they are following is saying, what's going on in the market, what kinds of trends they are seeing for the next 6 months to maybe a year. Some of them go further than that, but most of the time, they are looking at within a year time period, sometimes, they are looking at next quarter. I had a tough time swallowing them predicting that Apple would drop to $400 a share and damned if that didn't happen. But I do believe that for LONG term investment, Apple looks pretty good, but a lot of things have to happen before we see them breaking out the growth rate they once had. Microsoft, Intel, CIsco, etc. saw their bubble burst in and around the year 2000, which is around when Apple started to really take off, so 13 years later, Apple's bubble burst and some are wondering is this the sign of Apple stagnating, if so for how long and will Apple see huge growth rate again and what's going to trigger it.
Should? Yes, Apple should have announced the 4inch iPhone 5 and a larger screen iPhone 5 or whatever they were going to call it. If they had, they would have sold a TON of product had they had their production together. The iPhone 5 has done well, but some predicted higher numbers than what they actually got.
Apple's answer to a $500 laptop is the iPad. A lot less expensive to make than a $500 laptop. Making money in the PC industry? The only things that make money are the servers and high end workstations. Go look at any PC mfg like Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. they aren't making dick when it comes to PCs. Why do you think IBM got out, Compaq sold off, HP's looking to dump their PC business, Dell's trying to go private? There's no money selling PC boxes. It's been that way for a long time.
Well, I think they are doing iOS 7 because Forstall didn't want to give up the skeuomorphic look and add the features they should have added last year because they were working on Maps which they should have not released until it was less buggy in the data and how it's presented. that actually hurt Apple in a lot of ways. It's obvious from Craig's presentation that he was doing his little digs in Forstall's approach.
Apple has a planned approach on when they release OSs. IOS 7 will be finished and released soon. iOS 8 will just add more features like they always do.
Apple DOES listen to the users. Why do you think Apple has the feedback site and they encourage people to make submissions? Squeaky wheel gets the oil. I've made LOTS of submissions that eventually came to fruition and it dates back over 10 years ago. In iOS7, there are probably about 5 or 6 things that I have submitted over the past 6 months that I think they should do to a future release, so from my point of view, they did address my needs. They done this on a LOT of levels. Seriously. They may toss out some user's ideas/suggestions for various reasons, but they don't toss out everything. It may not happen immediately since they have to figure out what is most important, but they are listening. Sometimes they go off tangent and come up with something to disrupt everything, but it usually works its way out. Listening to their customers is what ALL companies should be doing. One submission I sent in took two OS X revs, but they eventually did what I asked. But they had to actually hire someone to do the development, which they did because I knew the guy personally and doing what they wanted took time to write the code, but it was done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
DrBlank's interesting last post got me to thinking. Samsung makes EVERYTHING. Their current dependence on phones for profit poses a risk for a company that specializes in not specializing. Apple DOESN'T try to make anything and everything. Now the purpose of Apple's current ad campaign becomes clearer to me. Like Samsung, Apple has a phone problem. Does it want to become primarily a phone company? Apple can use its phones as halo products to sell into its ecosystem. Samsung's phones don't help it to sell its washing machines. Very interesting to watch this play out.
I think for some Samsung users, they'll be more likely to buy a Samsung TV, appliance, tablet, computer if they have a good experience with the product. Samsung is trying to capitalize on anything they can. Judging from their past experience getting caught price fixing, they seem like the type of company that would do whatever they can to make as much money off these phones and tablets, which they are doing. They make panels, processors, SSD, RAM, etc. for a large portion of the smartphone market. It wouldn't surprise me if Samsung made more money from what they sell to Apple than they do those cheap $150 Galaxy Admires.
With all of Apple's money, I'm sure Apple has thought about building and running their own foundries making processors, and possibly their own RAM, SSD. It would cost many billions of dollars to do it, and it would take Apple some expertise they don't currently have to do it, but it would give them greater control over product supply, costs, and keep themselves having more control over their product line. IBM was for the longest time, the biggest semiconductor mfg that only supplied themselves with chips. Most people didn't know that. IBM made the bulk of their own chips that went into those old mainframes, even in the early 80's, IBM had more fab lines than just about the rest of the industry. But they didn't sell any of it external to IBM so a lot of people didn't even realize how much they had going on behind the scenes. IBM's competitors didn't do that, which maybe why IBM has prevailed in the mainframe industry. They do have some pretty sick mainframes. 5.5 Ghz processors. Dig that!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
It's hard to release something cheaper yet keep high margins. Apple said the iPad mini had the lowest margins of any Apple device. But with the mini Apple didn't sacrifice quality for the sake of margins. I'm sorry but those candy colored plastic cases look cheap. Not something I would spend $400 or more on. I don't think Apple can play in the low end space yet still expect to get high end like margins.
I agree with all, but with a slightly different twist.
It's good business to release something cheaper at lower margins if it is ADDITIVE (and does not cannibalize from existing lines) &/or if it strengthens BRAND (ecosystem).
With the iPad Mini, Apple KNEW it would be popular, the challenge was to produce it with high enough quality and at attractive prices points (while maintaining adequate margins). It's the SAME challenge with smart phones right now. Apple KNOWS that a cheaper smart phone and feature phones would be wildly popular...and will be a good business decision if Apple can do what it did with the iPad Mini. There was definitely some cannibalization with iPad Mini which ended up reducing Gross Margins. But seems like the net effect was more positive than negative.
I'm concerned that a cheaper iPhone may not play out as well as the iPad Mini situation. However...I have to assume that Apple market research/survey would result in a decision WAY better than mine.
Originally Posted by lkrupp
And still not any mention of Samsung's "disappointing" sales or the Android security breach on C|net or most other non Apple-centric blogs. Nothing.
Yup. 99% of all Android devices are wide open to a killer flaw.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/07/03/security-flaw-opens-all-modern-android-devices-to-zombie-botnet-takeover
And Jay Z's got 99 problems and malware is one.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/07/05/samsungs-free-jay-z-album-delivered-via-android-spyware-app
Analysts whine about Apple "not innovating" while Android is a freakshow of spyware on top of malware.
Good luck with that "Knox" enterprise security hack, Samsung.
Yes, I was interested in telling you I was disinterested in AI's little click bait article. Is that so difficult to grasp? It was you who demanded that I somehow justify my post as interesting to you, something that I cannot do because, as I pointed out already, "interesting is in the eye of the beholder." I am not responsible for how you wish to judge my posts. You will, of course, apply your biases to your judgments.
So I'm going to post whatever and whenever I feel like posting, your opinion of my posts notwithstanding.
Bingo. Someone is paying attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle
When you buy parts from yourself and count shipped phones as sold but don't account for unsold phones until you give them away as buy one get one, you can show all kinds of profit
Really? Can you give me a numerical example of how that might work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Yes, I was interested in telling you I was disinterested in AI's little click bait article. Is that so difficult to grasp? It was you who demanded that I somehow justify my post as interesting to you, something that I cannot do because, as I pointed out already, "interesting is in the eye of the beholder." I am not responsible for how you wish to judge my posts. You will, of course, apply your biases to your judgments.
So I'm going to post whatever and whenever I feel like posting, your opinion of my posts notwithstanding.
I was just kidding. Sheesh ...
I'm sorry, ok, Suddenly Cranky?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
I don't agree with any of your points. Not a single one.
Well, maybe you should understand that EVERY company has problems to deal with. NO COMPANY operates without some internal problems. It's just a matter of what they are, when and how they fix it, etc. Well, you can disagree, but come up with a reason why you disagree and then maybe we can have an intelligent discussion. I think it's kind of chicken to say you disagree and don't have anything to validate your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
It's a problem that the analysts are seeing. From an investor perspective, I would see it as an opportunity ...
My personal opinion: It's not up to outsiders to decide if it is a problem or opportunity. We can speculate and have fun doing it. Apple decides that for itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Remember, if an analyst makes a recommendation and the company doesn't live up to the recommendations, these analysts can actually lose their jobs if they are not accurate in their predictions. Some are accurate, some aren't.
Munster et al are all doing quite well
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Should? Yes, Apple should have announced the 4inch iPhone 5 and a larger screen iPhone 5 or whatever they were going to call it. If they had, they would have sold a TON of product had they had their production together. The iPhone 5 has done well, but some predicted higher numbers than what they actually got.
Don't take this the wrong way. But you are making the judgment of "should" based on opportunity lost - i.e. they could have taken away some (if not much) of the growing (?) market of 5-inchers. That is only true if one cares about market share. I don't. Apple does to a degree but it is clearly not their primary motivation. Not even close, I'd say. So ... there is no "should", but there could be a "might".
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Apple's answer to a $500 laptop is the iPad. A lot less expensive to make than a $500 laptop. Making money in the PC industry? The only things that make money are the servers and high end workstations. Go look at any PC mfg like Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. they aren't making dick when it comes to PCs. Why do you think IBM got out, Compaq sold off, HP's looking to dump their PC business, Dell's trying to go private? There's no money selling PC boxes. It's been that way for a long time.
I respectfully but totally disagree. The iPad is NOT an answer to anything in the market at the time of launch. If anything, iPad was a question. Perhaps, the question was "What if you forsake the personal computing paradigm of screen, CPU, keyboard and mouse?" Or "what if your computing device doesn't have to do everything?" It most definitely was not an answer to the netbooks, even though it appeared to have decimated the netbooks market. Frankly, that market would have died a natural death.
But then, if you believe the Isaacson biography, the iPad was an answer to Bill Gates.
Apple is making good money making PCs, btw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Well, I think they are doing iOS 7 because Forstall didn't want to give up the skeuomorphic look and add the features they should have added last year because they were working on Maps which they should have not released until it was less buggy in the data and how it's presented.
Not really. iOS7 would look different if Forstall was still around. But too many people are captivated by what iOS7 *looks* like. That's not the real deal behind iOS7. It is a change of paradigm in deeper ways. The development to make this shift didn't just start 10 months ago. The parallax effect, for example, was embodied in an Apple patent application dating back a couple of years. Federighi's quips were not directed at Forstall. If we believe that, then we'd have to believe that they were directed at Jobs too.
There will be no Apple feature phone. As for an inexpensive iPhone, I see one between $300-400, off contract. It'll have the internals of the 4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Oh dear what a shame .... /s
If this were Apple news the stock would be halved by now, I wonder what Cramer will say about this?
Watch Apple stock go down.
Samsung has less than expected result.
= Market is "saturated".
= Bad news for Apple.
= Apple shares go down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
It is impressive how they earned these record profits by only shipping but not selling millions of phones. Now that's innovation.
Shipping high end handsets.
Selling low end handsets.
Indicated by lower than expected profits.
The majority of Android users are using low and mid range handsets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
1) Ship phones to warehouse to collect dust
2) Harvest dust
3) ???
4) Profit
1) Ship high end phones to warehouse to collect dust
2) Sell mainly low to mid range phones
3) ???
4) Less Profit than expected
5) Wall St pounding.
I think he is referring to those Fisher-Price colored bodies floating around the past week. I agree those are the cheapest looking pieces of plastic I have ever seen for phone casings.
I think we're all hoping those are cheap Chinese knock off fakes
Thus they, as the article says, become more dependent on their smartphones, then amid dwindling profits while chasing the chimera of sheer numbers of sales, they get drawn into a cycle of needing to pour ever more resources chasing a shadow.
All the while as Samsung become more dependent on their smartphones, Apple gradually keeps on doing what they do and soon, beginning with the ground shifting iOS 7 they will suddenly steam ahead, and leave Samsung to ponder where they went wrong.