@tribalogical
Absolutely. People who watch "professional" wrestling probably feel the same about the hooded villain, if they still do that sort of thing, when he shows up at the ring. I always like to read a crunchy Constable Odo post. Like I imagine fried grasshoppers are when you bite into them.
The others we have here just piss me off no end. Like you say, Odo is our Onion troll.
We should run a vote for your favorite troll. I like Gatorade, or whatever his name is, best.
In all fairness, R&D expenditures is not the same thing as innovation.
Apple has revolutionized several industries while spending a lot less than the competition. You can's infer a 1:1 correlation.
Exactly. It's all about focus. I remember hearing that Apple has an annual summit, with its top talent present to present and share ideas, then Jobs (at that time) would narrow the field down to just three ideas they would focus on. That is, I believe, how they wring so much (sales and profits) out of fewer R&D dollars versus the competition.
Apple doesn't throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks (in public). They do all of that behind the scenes and only release products when they're ready and products they think people will want to buy. Other companies flood the market with products (whether people want them or not) and call it innovation.
It is amazing how so many equate frenetic activity with innovation.
Oh boy! I'm so glad you are not in charged with Humanity progress and innovation, otherwise we should all still be living in caves saying: "What more do you want? Don't you have fire? Don't you have... sticks? How could other weapons exists besides sticks and stones? We can do the stones a little bigger, the sticks a little sharper, but other than that there really isn't anything!!!"
Um... I think you might want to direct this to Samsung. Look at their smartphones before the iPhone and after (a well circulated illustration of how Samsung 'innovates'). Or to Microsoft; when was their last market creating innovation? Seems other companies get a pass for evolving existing concepts in existing markets while the world impatiently waits for only Apple to open up new frontiers.
Apple did to consumer applications what Microsoft did to business ones. But in all honesty, when I walk into an Apple store these days, there's nothing left I want to buy...
I have spent a small fortune over the years buying Apple gear, but there isn't really anything new for which I'd be willing to shell out more money.
I love their products and would like to buy more, but there hasn't really been much lately worth buying.
FYI - my latest purchase was the 27" iMac released in Jan 13 which I love. Also, I have no interest in the iWatch...
I believe Apple's gear is top notch, but how much are people willing to pay for the small incremental gains? I think this is also the problem with the PC industry (along with Microsoft's inept ability to release new product launches).
You spent a small fortune over the years buying Apple gear.
Your latest purchase, the 27" iMac, came in 2013.
You are proof enough that Apple is doing just fine, thanks.
...the new iPod nano's value is completely lost on me, at least the old ones could be worn as watches...
The new Nano has Bluetooth so you can lave it in your pocket or gym bag and use it with wireless headphones, using the controls on the headphones to pause, skip or go back a track. Much better to my mind than having the thing on my wrist with a wire tethering it to my headphones.
And if your car audio system is bluetooth enabled, you can connect to that too without a cable, and of course your home stereo or bluetooth speakers.
That's not entirely correct. Chris Wallace has won the Peabody. He's won basically every broadcast news award.
Not according to the Peabody Awards site. I searched both by 'fox news' and 'chris wallace' and no results were found. The Wikipedia page on Chris Wallace also does not say anything about a Peabody. Yet his own biography page does.
Hmmm. So maybe O'Reilly isn't the only one lying about a Peabody? Or perhaps he won his award before he joined Fox news?
Reading the article tells you two things. First, Facebook employees, on their own, prefer iPhones to such an extent that Facebook feels the need to launch a full on effort to get some to switch. Second, the only reason Facebook was pressing its employees to switch was because the Facebook app sucked on Android phones, not because they actually felt their employees would be better off carrying such phones. Two strikes against Android.
Sales IS the same thing as revenue. I'm guessing you are confused between revenue and profit.
Once again, simplified:
Revenue (or sales) - money that your company receives for a good or service
COGS (cost of goods sold) - direct manufacturing cost. That is, the variable cost of producing a product. Typically, includes raw materials and direct labor plus any overhead costs that would go away if the product were not manufactured.
Gross margin - Revenue minus COGS. This is the amount the company has left to pay overheads and profit.
Overhead costs - fixed costs that are there regardless of sales volume. For example, if you own a building, that building is a fixed cost since you have to pay the mortgage whether you sell anything or not. Sales and marketing costs are typically overheads (although commissions can sometimes be included in COGS). Research costs are overheads.
Operating income - Gross margin minus overhead costs. This is what most people refer to when they say 'profit'.
Other income or expense - income or expenses which don't fall into any of the above categories. For example Apple's interest income would fall here.
Net income - Operating income plus other income or minus other expense.
Clearly you understand that he meant Sales, as in units sold, versus revenues. But you decided to climb into the saddle of your high horse regardless.
Sales IS the same thing as revenue. I'm guessing you are confused between revenue and profit.
Once again, simplified:
Revenue (or sales) - money that your company receives for a good or service
COGS (cost of goods sold) - direct manufacturing cost. That is, the variable cost of producing a product. Typically, includes raw materials and direct labor plus any overhead costs that would go away if the product were not manufactured.
Gross margin - Revenue minus COGS. This is the amount the company has left to pay overheads and profit.
Overhead costs - fixed costs that are there regardless of sales volume. For example, if you own a building, that building is a fixed cost since you have to pay the mortgage whether you sell anything or not. Sales and marketing costs are typically overheads (although commissions can sometimes be included in COGS). Research costs are overheads.
Operating income - Gross margin minus overhead costs. This is what most people refer to when they say 'profit'.
Other income or expense - income or expenses which don't fall into any of the above categories. For example Apple's interest income would fall here.
Net income - Operating income plus other income or minus other expense.
Clearly you understand that he meant Sales, as in units sold, versus revenues. But you decided to climb into the saddle of your high horse regardless.
Calm down (unless you're his parent). People misuse these concepts all the time.
Clearly you understand that he meant Sales, as in units sold, versus revenues. But you decided to climb into the saddle of your high horse regardless.
Wrong. Your interpretation doesn't make sense.
Someone said "you have to admire Android's sales figures". Phil said "sales, not revenues".
Now, since the ASP for Android phones is less than the ASP for iPhones, their lead would be even GREATER if you look at units sold. So if he had meant units sold, his comment would have made no sense at all. The only way it could have made sense is if he meant 'profit' - where Apple has a strong lead in spite of trailing in revenues.
Furthermore, I'm trying to educate people. Maybe you like it when people babble about things they don't understand and make it nearly impossible to understand what they're saying, but I believe it's easier to have a rational discussion if people use terminology correctly.
Not according to the Peabody Awards site. I searched both by 'fox news' and 'chris wallace' and no results were found. The Wikipedia page on Chris Wallace also does not say anything about a Peabody. Yet his own biography page does.
Hmmm. So maybe O'Reilly isn't the only one lying about a Peabody? Or perhaps he won his award before he joined Fox news?
My guess is that a show Chis Wallace worked on received a Peabody or two (or three according to a few articles) but not Chris Wallace himself. But that's just a guess... or he could be lying. Now his father on the other hand. . .
My guess is that a show Chis Wallace worked on received a Peabody or two (or three according to a few articles) but not Chris Wallace himself. But that's just a guess... or he could be lying. Now his father on the other hand. . .
If you think it's a simple mistake, all you have to do is show that a show that he was working on received a Peabody. So far, no one has done that. A search of the Peabody site shows nothing for either Chris Wallace or Fox News.
Apple should buy back their stock & go private again, then they can actually focus on innovation instead of padding the pockets of their investors. This is such a joke, if anything catering to investors has stifled Apple's innovation not helped it.
If you think it's a simple mistake, all you have to do is show that a show that he was working on received a Peabody. So far, no one has done that. A search of the Peabody site shows nothing for either Chris Wallace or Fox News.
Yep, I've searched in detail... I find George Wallace by name, even Stephen Colbert (!), but no sign of FOX "News" (although some of their other branches in entertainment were involved in awarded shows), "O'Reilly" ("William" or "Bill") and nothing related to Chris Wallace other than George.
So Chris Wallace, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News… none of those make an appearance in the Peabody Winners List so far as I can tell. Who's lying do you think?
I'm inclined to check the veracity of the rest of those awards claims…
Is it just me, or is it absolutely telling that they refer to their stable of "journalists" as "On Air Personalities" instead of, you know, journalists? What was Walter Cronkite referred to as?
This is NOT a "news" organization by any real measure. It's purely an "entertainment network". Is any more proof really needed?
Here is the list of significant launches under Cook's leadership. I find it very impressive
My one concern is the iPhone product line. I expect we will see that addressed very shortly. I also have to believe they are investing heavily in a few great ideas which we'll see over 2014
========================
iMac
MacBook Pro
iPad Retina
iPad mini
iPhone 5
iPod refresh (including major iPod touch update)
AirPort Extreme and TC
Siri
Maps
ITunes in iCloud
ITunes 11
iTunes - international rollouts
iTunes Radio
iOS 6 & 7
OSX ML and Mavericks
LogicPro X
Final Cut Pro X
EarPods
Lightning ports
Thunderbolt
60 Retail Store openings
Store Checkout
Most of those are incremental updates and facelifts, not innovations. Most of those were developed under Jobs (the iPhone 5 was the last project that Jobs worked on to near completion). One of them was such a downgrade that Apple even had to apologize for it (Maps), but of course, they didn't go back to Google -- that's the only apology that I'd be willing to accept, because talk is cheap.
What Cook did, screwing up the company's stock value in the process, was to start giving out dividends (which Jobs was against) and launch the entire product line in September 2012, leaving them with almost nothing to launch for over a year following that and causing investors to lose confidence in the company.
Comments
Anymore than 'Fox' and 'News'!
We should run a vote for your favorite troll. I like Gatorade, or whatever his name is, best.
Maybe points for style, humor and audacity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
In all fairness, R&D expenditures is not the same thing as innovation.
Apple has revolutionized several industries while spending a lot less than the competition. You can's infer a 1:1 correlation.
Exactly. It's all about focus. I remember hearing that Apple has an annual summit, with its top talent present to present and share ideas, then Jobs (at that time) would narrow the field down to just three ideas they would focus on. That is, I believe, how they wring so much (sales and profits) out of fewer R&D dollars versus the competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Apple doesn't throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks (in public). They do all of that behind the scenes and only release products when they're ready and products they think people will want to buy. Other companies flood the market with products (whether people want them or not) and call it innovation.
It is amazing how so many equate frenetic activity with innovation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonX
Oh boy! I'm so glad you are not in charged with Humanity progress and innovation, otherwise we should all still be living in caves saying: "What more do you want? Don't you have fire? Don't you have... sticks? How could other weapons exists besides sticks and stones? We can do the stones a little bigger, the sticks a little sharper, but other than that there really isn't anything!!!"
Um... I think you might want to direct this to Samsung. Look at their smartphones before the iPhone and after (a well circulated illustration of how Samsung 'innovates'). Or to Microsoft; when was their last market creating innovation? Seems other companies get a pass for evolving existing concepts in existing markets while the world impatiently waits for only Apple to open up new frontiers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1randomreader
Apple did to consumer applications what Microsoft did to business ones. But in all honesty, when I walk into an Apple store these days, there's nothing left I want to buy...
I have spent a small fortune over the years buying Apple gear, but there isn't really anything new for which I'd be willing to shell out more money.
I love their products and would like to buy more, but there hasn't really been much lately worth buying.
FYI - my latest purchase was the 27" iMac released in Jan 13 which I love. Also, I have no interest in the iWatch...
I believe Apple's gear is top notch, but how much are people willing to pay for the small incremental gains? I think this is also the problem with the PC industry (along with Microsoft's inept ability to release new product launches).
You spent a small fortune over the years buying Apple gear.
Your latest purchase, the 27" iMac, came in 2013.
You are proof enough that Apple is doing just fine, thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsico
...the new iPod nano's value is completely lost on me, at least the old ones could be worn as watches...
The new Nano has Bluetooth so you can lave it in your pocket or gym bag and use it with wireless headphones, using the controls on the headphones to pause, skip or go back a track. Much better to my mind than having the thing on my wrist with a wire tethering it to my headphones.
And if your car audio system is bluetooth enabled, you can connect to that too without a cable, and of course your home stereo or bluetooth speakers.
Not according to the Peabody Awards site. I searched both by 'fox news' and 'chris wallace' and no results were found. The Wikipedia page on Chris Wallace also does not say anything about a Peabody. Yet his own biography page does.
Hmmm. So maybe O'Reilly isn't the only one lying about a Peabody? Or perhaps he won his award before he joined Fox news?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rough Cider
Yes. you stand around in a circle, hands into trousers, then pop it out.
Now I hate facebook as much as the next man, but one cannot but admire the sales figures of Android phones over Apple in these graphs.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57554230/facebook-posters-push-employees-to-switch-to-android/
Reading the article tells you two things. First, Facebook employees, on their own, prefer iPhones to such an extent that Facebook feels the need to launch a full on effort to get some to switch. Second, the only reason Facebook was pressing its employees to switch was because the Facebook app sucked on Android phones, not because they actually felt their employees would be better off carrying such phones. Two strikes against Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Sales IS the same thing as revenue. I'm guessing you are confused between revenue and profit.
Once again, simplified:
Revenue (or sales) - money that your company receives for a good or service
COGS (cost of goods sold) - direct manufacturing cost. That is, the variable cost of producing a product. Typically, includes raw materials and direct labor plus any overhead costs that would go away if the product were not manufactured.
Gross margin - Revenue minus COGS. This is the amount the company has left to pay overheads and profit.
Overhead costs - fixed costs that are there regardless of sales volume. For example, if you own a building, that building is a fixed cost since you have to pay the mortgage whether you sell anything or not. Sales and marketing costs are typically overheads (although commissions can sometimes be included in COGS). Research costs are overheads.
Operating income - Gross margin minus overhead costs. This is what most people refer to when they say 'profit'.
Other income or expense - income or expenses which don't fall into any of the above categories. For example Apple's interest income would fall here.
Net income - Operating income plus other income or minus other expense.
Clearly you understand that he meant Sales, as in units sold, versus revenues. But you decided to climb into the saddle of your high horse regardless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Sales IS the same thing as revenue. I'm guessing you are confused between revenue and profit.
Once again, simplified:
Revenue (or sales) - money that your company receives for a good or service
COGS (cost of goods sold) - direct manufacturing cost. That is, the variable cost of producing a product. Typically, includes raw materials and direct labor plus any overhead costs that would go away if the product were not manufactured.
Gross margin - Revenue minus COGS. This is the amount the company has left to pay overheads and profit.
Overhead costs - fixed costs that are there regardless of sales volume. For example, if you own a building, that building is a fixed cost since you have to pay the mortgage whether you sell anything or not. Sales and marketing costs are typically overheads (although commissions can sometimes be included in COGS). Research costs are overheads.
Operating income - Gross margin minus overhead costs. This is what most people refer to when they say 'profit'.
Other income or expense - income or expenses which don't fall into any of the above categories. For example Apple's interest income would fall here.
Net income - Operating income plus other income or minus other expense.
Clearly you understand that he meant Sales, as in units sold, versus revenues. But you decided to climb into the saddle of your high horse regardless.
Calm down (unless you're his parent). People misuse these concepts all the time.
He's being helpful. You're not.
Wrong. Your interpretation doesn't make sense.
Someone said "you have to admire Android's sales figures". Phil said "sales, not revenues".
Now, since the ASP for Android phones is less than the ASP for iPhones, their lead would be even GREATER if you look at units sold. So if he had meant units sold, his comment would have made no sense at all. The only way it could have made sense is if he meant 'profit' - where Apple has a strong lead in spite of trailing in revenues.
Furthermore, I'm trying to educate people. Maybe you like it when people babble about things they don't understand and make it nearly impossible to understand what they're saying, but I believe it's easier to have a rational discussion if people use terminology correctly.
Thank you [B]jragosta[/B] for setting it straight.
My guess is that a show Chis Wallace worked on received a Peabody or two (or three according to a few articles) but not Chris Wallace himself. But that's just a guess... or he could be lying. Now his father on the other hand. . .
That's a mighty big "if true" there.
If you think it's a simple mistake, all you have to do is show that a show that he was working on received a Peabody. So far, no one has done that. A search of the Peabody site shows nothing for either Chris Wallace or Fox News.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
If you think it's a simple mistake, all you have to do is show that a show that he was working on received a Peabody. So far, no one has done that. A search of the Peabody site shows nothing for either Chris Wallace or Fox News.
Yep, I've searched in detail... I find George Wallace by name, even Stephen Colbert (!), but no sign of FOX "News" (although some of their other branches in entertainment were involved in awarded shows), "O'Reilly" ("William" or "Bill") and nothing related to Chris Wallace other than George.
So Chris Wallace, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News… none of those make an appearance in the Peabody Winners List so far as I can tell. Who's lying do you think?
Check for yourself if you like:
http://peabodyawards.com/past-winners/peabody-search/
Let us know if you find anything interesting.
[EDIT] Out of curiosity, I went to the Fox 'news' website to check what they were claiming, and sho'nuf...
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/chris-wallace/bio/#s=r-z
I'm inclined to check the veracity of the rest of those awards claims…
Is it just me, or is it absolutely telling that they refer to their stable of "journalists" as "On Air Personalities" instead of, you know, journalists? What was Walter Cronkite referred to as?
This is NOT a "news" organization by any real measure. It's purely an "entertainment network". Is any more proof really needed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Oak
Here is the list of significant launches under Cook's leadership. I find it very impressive
My one concern is the iPhone product line. I expect we will see that addressed very shortly. I also have to believe they are investing heavily in a few great ideas which we'll see over 2014
========================
iMac
MacBook Pro
iPad Retina
iPad mini
iPhone 5
iPod refresh (including major iPod touch update)
AirPort Extreme and TC
Siri
Maps
ITunes in iCloud
ITunes 11
iTunes - international rollouts
iTunes Radio
iOS 6 & 7
OSX ML and Mavericks
LogicPro X
Final Cut Pro X
EarPods
Lightning ports
Thunderbolt
60 Retail Store openings
Store Checkout
Most of those are incremental updates and facelifts, not innovations. Most of those were developed under Jobs (the iPhone 5 was the last project that Jobs worked on to near completion). One of them was such a downgrade that Apple even had to apologize for it (Maps), but of course, they didn't go back to Google -- that's the only apology that I'd be willing to accept, because talk is cheap.
What Cook did, screwing up the company's stock value in the process, was to start giving out dividends (which Jobs was against) and launch the entire product line in September 2012, leaving them with almost nothing to launch for over a year following that and causing investors to lose confidence in the company.