Still avoiding my question, huh? I laid out the facts as they are now, explicitly acknowledging...
Please don't continue to feed the troll. In case you hadn't noticed, the majority of TS's comments are nothing more than thoughtless one-line "drive by" argumentative posts. Did so, did not, did so, did not. It's like watching Monty Python's Argument clinic skit here, week after week. There's a reason why he has 30,000 comments in only 3 years, and it's not because of thoughtful, high-quality comments.
The only reason I'm commenting here now is because it's littering the thread and driving the signal-to-noise ratio down.
Still avoiding my question, huh? I laid out the facts as they are now, explicitly acknowledging...
Please don't continue to feed the troll. In case you hadn't noticed, the majority of TS's comments are nothing more than thoughtless one-line "drive by" argumentative posts. Did so, did not, did so, did not. It's like watching Monty Python's Argument clinic skit here, week after week. There's a reason why he has 30,000 comments in only 3 years, and it's not because of thoughtful, high-quality comments.
The only reason I'm commenting here now is because it's littering the thread and driving the signal-to-noise ratio down.
I understand he's a troll. I'm just that bored today
Still avoiding my question, huh? I laid out the facts as they are now, explicitly acknowledging the fact that Mac users not currently purchasing new Macs don't get free iWork. You can ignore the part about forever if you would prefer to; I put forever because Apple lists no expiration on the offer.
So, why is iWork currently and indefinitely (rather than eternally) being given away for free to Mac and iDevice buyers? What caused that change?
Same reason iOS and OS X updates are free: to sell hardware.
I don't understand why Um thinks that the subsidy issue will hurt Apple if the carriers drive to "maximize profitability". Apple is always used more then Android according to web statistics. There are too many data points to ignore that Apple users suck up more bandwidth and so are more profitable then Android users. Carriers aren't offering unlimited plans anymore so more bandwidth usage = more profit = carriers want more Apple users.
The usage fees the carriers get for users sucking up bandwidth goes to the carriers, not Apple. Right now consumers can buy a high end iPhone for about the same as any other phone through subsidy magic. Once that magic goes away, consumers will have a choice of paying $800 for an iPhone or $350 for a fairly comparable non Apple phone. Once the real price of the phone is back on the consumers shoulders instead of the carriers' the worry is the US market may start approaching a similar dynamic to the less subsidy reliant European market.
Also, be careful of usage statistics when using the data this site references as they almost always put a lot of spin on things. If you look at IBM's actual source data- iPhone and Android traffic is very comparable. What is not very comparable is Android traffic and iOS traffic. This site almost always includes data from the iPad in with their usage statistics and that is where the data starts to appear way skewed in Apple's favor. People use their iPads to buy a lot of stuff (nowhere near what people buy on their PC's though) and while the iPads sales share has gone down the iPad still enjoys big advantage in user market share from when Androids tablet offerings weren't on par with the iPad. Phones themselves contribute a very small percentage of that data.
So, why is iWork currently and indefinitely (rather than eternally) being given away for free to Mac and iDevice buyers? What caused that change?
I think that Apple is doing everything it can to avoid touching hardware margins.
The more that Apple can include with its hardware offerings, the more those offerings will be seen as attractive.
Anyone who says that Apple's offerings are already attractive will then have to concede that Apple is giving away iWork to compete with Google (or Microsoft or)... because, as you have said, what other reason is there.
Exactly, and Wall Street drives the entire world's economy not just our pension funds. That's why stock manipulation can be so bad for everyone except those who are manipulating it. The SEC does nothing to monitor how these people get their information and which is blatantly false.
If you think that the (Constitutionally approved) free press is bad and should be monitored by government regulators for accuracy I suggest you look at the results of all the other government agencies and government approved agencies before committing to that viewpoint. As irritating as some of these dunderheads are, they are better than the regulators/bureaucrats. They offer opinion. All government can offer is more control. I don't think we need any more of that.
Kaspar, I know the negative stories generate more heat here, but how about maintaining an official database of analyst misfires? Philip Elmer DeWitt maintains a fantastic running account of their hits and misses. If you won't do it, ask Elmer if you can keep a copy here with a link back to his site?
Yeah, but you wouldn't want DuddlerTech anywhere near JavaScript.
Shares fell as much as 5.1 percent on Thursday to 1.302 million won, the lowest since late August. The stock closed down 4.6 percent, its fifth consecutive session of decline, a downtrend that has wiped nearly $18 billion off the market value of Asia's most valuable company.
The anti-Samsung comments on the Yahoo story link are surprising. Guess Samsung hasn't caught wind of this story yet so they could redirect the efforts of their Apple Attack Team.
Brian White has never been correct in his earnings calls or his upcoming product releases. When I say never imesn never. He is nothing more than a wannabee stock manipulator. Or Anal-ist ( no spelling error ) check it out for yourself. Guess the press just follows anyone's comments
Where have all these Wall Street apologists been hiding for the past 5 or 6 years? The notion that "if they are doing very well for themselves then your pension must be doing very well too" is totally disconnected from the real world.
Anybody remember anything about mortgage backed securities or "the Great Recession" of 2008? How about the dot.com debacle of 2000? Can anybody say Arthur Andersen or MCI/WorldCom? How about the great Savings and Loans debacle of the 90's, back during President Bush Senior's term? Wanna go further back in history to the 1930's?
Wall Street feeds off your 401k and Pension money and uses that accumulated wealth to manipulate markets for their own personal power and financial gain. There is absolutely no evidence that big money managers are in any way shape or form interested in the welfare of their investors. They make BIG money wether or not investors or markets benefit or not.
In regards to Apple's analysis, it is exceedingly clear to this observer that there is great interest from Wall Street in distorting Apple's financial record, performance, and outlook. Wall Street has generally been predicting Apple's doom ever since I can remember. I have never since them so consistently downgrade or discuss another company of Apple's size in such dire terms for so many years in a row. What makes their behavior even more egregious is how it completelyfles in the face the facts, which have proven most analysts' dire predictions and forecasts to be total fabrications.
To paraphrase someone, there is a "vast Wall Street conspiracy" and --unless you are completely biased yourself-- it is very, very, very obvious.
Comments
Still avoiding my question, huh? I laid out the facts as they are now, explicitly acknowledging...
Please don't continue to feed the troll. In case you hadn't noticed, the majority of TS's comments are nothing more than thoughtless one-line "drive by" argumentative posts. Did so, did not, did so, did not. It's like watching Monty Python's Argument clinic skit here, week after week. There's a reason why he has 30,000 comments in only 3 years, and it's not because of thoughtful, high-quality comments.
The only reason I'm commenting here now is because it's littering the thread and driving the signal-to-noise ratio down.
Still avoiding my question, huh? I laid out the facts as they are now, explicitly acknowledging...
Please don't continue to feed the troll. In case you hadn't noticed, the majority of TS's comments are nothing more than thoughtless one-line "drive by" argumentative posts. Did so, did not, did so, did not. It's like watching Monty Python's Argument clinic skit here, week after week. There's a reason why he has 30,000 comments in only 3 years, and it's not because of thoughtful, high-quality comments.
The only reason I'm commenting here now is because it's littering the thread and driving the signal-to-noise ratio down.
I understand he's a troll. I'm just that bored today
Still avoiding my question, huh?
Answered multiple times already.
So, why is iWork currently and indefinitely (rather than eternally) being given away for free to Mac and iDevice buyers? What caused that change?
Nah. See, you get to prove your theory that it’s in response to lesser-featured free softwares.
Same reason iOS and OS X updates are free: to sell hardware.
Same reason iOS and OS X updates are free: to sell hardware.
I like that you give me an answer, even if I don't like the answer. [pats jungmark on the back]
Nah. See, you get to prove your theory that it’s in response to lesser-featured free softwares.
Actually that was eseexp's theory:
Quote:
Now to compete with Google, the new version Pages, Keynote and Numbers are free.
Which you countered with a well reasoned:
lol, no.
Which is why I asked in an attempt to gain some clarity:
Then why were they made free if not to compete with other free products? Companies don't sacrifice revenues without cause.
Which you still haven't answered.
I don't understand why Um thinks that the subsidy issue will hurt Apple if the carriers drive to "maximize profitability". Apple is always used more then Android according to web statistics. There are too many data points to ignore that Apple users suck up more bandwidth and so are more profitable then Android users. Carriers aren't offering unlimited plans anymore so more bandwidth usage = more profit = carriers want more Apple users.
The usage fees the carriers get for users sucking up bandwidth goes to the carriers, not Apple. Right now consumers can buy a high end iPhone for about the same as any other phone through subsidy magic. Once that magic goes away, consumers will have a choice of paying $800 for an iPhone or $350 for a fairly comparable non Apple phone. Once the real price of the phone is back on the consumers shoulders instead of the carriers' the worry is the US market may start approaching a similar dynamic to the less subsidy reliant European market.
Also, be careful of usage statistics when using the data this site references as they almost always put a lot of spin on things. If you look at IBM's actual source data- iPhone and Android traffic is very comparable. What is not very comparable is Android traffic and iOS traffic. This site almost always includes data from the iPad in with their usage statistics and that is where the data starts to appear way skewed in Apple's favor. People use their iPads to buy a lot of stuff (nowhere near what people buy on their PC's though) and while the iPads sales share has gone down the iPad still enjoys big advantage in user market share from when Androids tablet offerings weren't on par with the iPad. Phones themselves contribute a very small percentage of that data.
So, why is iWork currently and indefinitely (rather than eternally) being given away for free to Mac and iDevice buyers? What caused that change?
I think that Apple is doing everything it can to avoid touching hardware margins.
The more that Apple can include with its hardware offerings, the more those offerings will be seen as attractive.
Anyone who says that Apple's offerings are already attractive will then have to concede that Apple is giving away iWork to compete with Google (or Microsoft or)... because, as you have said, what other reason is there.
Actually that was eseexp's theory:
Whoever’s.
Because the statement doesn’t seem all that likely, given the lack of quality of Google’s offering.
Go back and actually read post #84.
No your responses are what is sad. Disregard whatever you think my premise is. Tell me why Apple made iWork free.
They didn't as it's tied to the cost of purchasing new hardware.
Exactly, and Wall Street drives the entire world's economy not just our pension funds. That's why stock manipulation can be so bad for everyone except those who are manipulating it. The SEC does nothing to monitor how these people get their information and which is blatantly false.
If you think that the (Constitutionally approved) free press is bad and should be monitored by government regulators for accuracy I suggest you look at the results of all the other government agencies and government approved agencies before committing to that viewpoint. As irritating as some of these dunderheads are, they are better than the regulators/bureaucrats. They offer opinion. All government can offer is more control. I don't think we need any more of that.
Yeah, but you wouldn't want DuddlerTech anywhere near JavaScript.
Hmmmm... if they are doing very well for themselves then your pension must be doing very well too.
What part of "themselves" makes you think you're getting anything from them? ;-)
Samsung Electronics drops 5 percent on weak earnings outlook, soaring won
The anti-Samsung comments on the Yahoo story link are surprising. Guess Samsung hasn't caught wind of this story yet so they could redirect the efforts of their Apple Attack Team.
Guess the press just follows anyone's comments
Where have all these Wall Street apologists been hiding for the past 5 or 6 years? The notion that "if they are doing very well for themselves then your pension must be doing very well too" is totally disconnected from the real world.
Anybody remember anything about mortgage backed securities or "the Great Recession" of 2008? How about the dot.com debacle of 2000? Can anybody say Arthur Andersen or MCI/WorldCom? How about the great Savings and Loans debacle of the 90's, back during President Bush Senior's term? Wanna go further back in history to the 1930's?
Wall Street feeds off your 401k and Pension money and uses that accumulated wealth to manipulate markets for their own personal power and financial gain. There is absolutely no evidence that big money managers are in any way shape or form interested in the welfare of their investors. They make BIG money wether or not investors or markets benefit or not.
In regards to Apple's analysis, it is exceedingly clear to this observer that there is great interest from Wall Street in distorting Apple's financial record, performance, and outlook. Wall Street has generally been predicting Apple's doom ever since I can remember. I have never since them so consistently downgrade or discuss another company of Apple's size in such dire terms for so many years in a row. What makes their behavior even more egregious is how it completely fles in the face the facts, which have proven most analysts' dire predictions and forecasts to be total fabrications.
To paraphrase someone, there is a "vast Wall Street conspiracy" and --unless you are completely biased yourself-- it is very, very, very obvious.
Sammysamsamsam is well noted Apple basher who contributes nothing in the way of a valid argument but only spews his hate of Apple.
It is very glaring ! He seems very insecure and appears to be an attention seeker.
Sammysamsamsam is well noted Apple basher who contributes nothing in the way of a valid argument but only spews his hate of Apple.
It is very glaring ! He seems very insecure and appears to be an attention seeker.
No, no! That's me. I hate it when somebody else gets credit for those attributes.