Apple no doubt needs to come out with low cost smartphones if they even want to compete in the same markets Android is cleaning up on...
Do you have a source to cite that shows some evidence that Android is cleaning up on profits, the metric that clearly appeals to Apple? Let's remember it makes no difference to Google since Android is a throwaway giveaway OS? Samsung is not Android and Google makes more money from their services running on the iPhone than on the vast numbers of cheap, devices that are being installed with some old version of Android simply because it's free.
No matter how you look at it Apple is the one dominating the mobile profits in both handsets and tablets.
... They just end up like Ferrari.... making less and less cars so they can only claim how rare and how high the profit margins are growing. Remember that Ferrari is owned by Fiat...
blah blah blah
Fiat Group currently produces vehicles under twelve brands: Abarth, Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge, Ferrari, Fiat, Fiat Professional, Jeep, Lancia, Maserati, Ram Trucks, and SRT.
WTF is your point?
Apple is nothing like Ferrari, Apple could buy Fiat out of pocket change, they and also rans Samsung are sucking all the profits out of handset manufacture.
Although Fiat owning Chrysler makes this quite ironic:-
No doubt about it.... Apple needs to spread their product range out and quit trying to be the end all that was all they had in their 90's Niche market. They didn't succeed by killing the clones back then, just like they failed when Apple sued Clone maker Franklin Computers out of business prior to Apple III launch. The result? Apple III crashed and burned and Apple failed to sell higher profit margin software they could have been selling had they not killed the clones in each era.
Look back at Steve's decision to kill the clones in an effort to turn lower profit Apple Mac hardware into the Niche only market it became? The clone market was not only paying Apple license fees, but they were buying Apple's software. Mac OS market share grew from an all time low of around 3 to 4% to well over 10% by the time Steve killed them with a contract loophole. Next thing you see is that Mac OS market share tanked back down to that prior 3 to 4% ratio throughout the remaining 90's. But.... it was Software sales to clones consumers that really took the hit.
Apple no doubt needs to come out with low cost smartphones if they even want to compete in the same markets Android is cleaning up on, while growing their market share ever closer to being Ubiquitous, windows PC clones were and still are! Elitism has no place in business when you're trying to grow market share. They just end up like Ferrari.... making less and less cars so they can only claim how rare and how high the profit margins are growing. Remember that Ferrari is owned by Fiat and they are largely just a "Come On" to get customers in the door. As long as they get them to buy their less expensive Fiats for everyday consumers..... FIAT IS HAPPY!!! .......and there is no better time than now to spread out product offerings so they cover the high end, mid range and low end consumers wants and needs too!
You, my friend, are a card carrying member of "the church of marketshare".
You've bought into the idea that selling the most is do all end all in business. At the same time you're ignoring profits. Yes even the profits of the lowly Mac division. You see the once powerful HP and Dell played that marketshare game only to find out that it was synonymous with the "race to the bottom" game. Where are they now?
I bet they'd trade their mothers to generate the profits that the less than 5% marketshare of the Mac division generates.
The game that Google plays isn't the same one Apple plays.
Google needs to get the most eyeballs on their services. Apple don't have to.
Your argument is like saying, that the world long jump champion, isn't as good an athlete as the world heavy weight boxing champion.
Much like the posters citing references like The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, reality television and daily talk shows, your link only shows ignorance on your part if you think that's an accurate representation of Americans.
All i did was post a clip off youtube, i didn't say anything, don't presume to know what I'm thinking, i didn't show anything.
All i did was post a clip off youtube, i didn't say anything, don't presume to know what I'm thinking, i didn't show anything.
I don't appreciate your tone.
It was a joke, try relaxing.
It's amazing how ignorant these interviewees are and I bet they don't have to wait too long to find someone that fits their agenda, but I think that is true for any country. I also think the people that are more willing to stop to talk to a stranger with a mic are likely to be less informed. I certainly don't have time to sign waivers and get questions asked by people on the street and any gift they offer isn't likely worth my time.
I think the general feeling assumed by other nations that Americans are ignorant is twofold. 1) America is so prominent in the world of entertainment that you can virtually anywhere in the world to get news about the US. I know this first hand from my travels. 2) The US is such a big country that can be traversed easily that an American can travel often and extensively (as in distances) and never leave its borders. This isn't necessarily a good thing as it does limit ones culture considerably, but it's the reality of being such a large nation with cities from end to end. How long does it take to get from London to Paris via the Chunnel? About 2.5 hours if I remember correctly, while it's about 6 hours of actual flying just to get from one coast to the other to hear people speaking the same language and with almost no cultural changes.
I'm likely attributing it improperly but it got me to think about human civilization and knowledge. Humanity is increasing knowledge at faster and faster rates that no individual human can keep up with its growth. As a whole we are much smarter than we've ever been but individually we are less knowledgable (as a percentage) about our world. This divide will continue to grow as long as human civilization continues to grow, but this isn't a bad thing, it just means we will all be more specialized then all previous generations.
I'm likely attributing it improperly but it got me to think about human civilization and knowledge. Humanity is increasing knowledge at faster and faster rates that no individual human can keep up with its growth. As a whole we are much smarter than we've ever been but individually we are less knowledgable (as a percentage) about our world. This divide will continue to grow as long as human civilization continues to grow, but this isn't a bad thing, it just means we will all be more specialized then all previous generations.
Exactly—which highlights the fallacy that ignorance is a bad thing. Ignorance can potentially be bad or good, but it doesn't intrinsically have any value. We are all incredibly ignorant when it comes to the sum total of human knowledge and always have been, but there's no need to feel bad for it.
Exactly—which highlights the fallacy that ignorance is a bad thing. Ignorance can potentially be bad or good, but it doesn't intrinsically have any value. We are all incredibly ignorant when it comes to the sum total of human knowledge and always have been, but there's no need to feel bad for it.
Except when it comes to being ignorant about man's ignorance; one should feel bad about that.
Except when it comes to being ignorant about man's ignorance; one should feel about that.
Yes! In fact, a way in which ignorance could be seen as a positive attribute is that it is wiser to adopt an assumed position of ignorance than to profess to know it all. Clumsily put, I admit.
Exactly—which highlights the fallacy that ignorance is a bad thing. Ignorance can potentially be bad or good, but it doesn't intrinsically have any value. We are all incredibly ignorant when it comes to the sum total of human knowledge and always have been, but there's no need to feel bad for it.
But no one measures ignorance or knowledge as to how it compares to the sum of human learning. It's measured against what an average citizen should probably know.
I don't really know squat about string theory, for instance. I've read some about it, and I've tried to understand. But when it comes right down to it, English isn't a suitable language for explaining string theory. Mathematics is. And my knowledge of math, beyond the basics, is fairly minimal. So when it comes to physics (beyond what you might learn in HS), my options are fairly limited.
But how can a non-brain-damaged adult in the US not know which countries with which we share a border? Something like 1-in-4 in this country believe that the sun revolves around the Earth. About 2/3 of Americans cannot tell you what the Constitution is -- and I don't mean explaining the different articles and amendments and everything. I mean, "What is this document and what does it do?" sort of explanation.
But how can a non-brain-damaged adult in the US not know which countries with which we share a border? Something like 1-in-4 in this country believe that the sun revolves around the Earth. About 2/3 of Americans cannot tell you what the Constitution is -- and I don't mean explaining the different articles and amendments and everything. I mean, "What is this document and what does it do?" sort of explanation.
That is certainly something to debate. What knowledge should be so common that we should except everyone to know? Your examples sounds beyond reasonable to me but I counter with this question: Should one know their own phone number?
One of Einstein's colleagues asked him for his telephone number one day. Einstein reached for a telephone directory and looked it up. "You don't remember your own number?" the man asked, startled.
"No," Einstein answered. "Why should I memorize something I can so easily get from a book?"
That is certainly something to debate. What knowledge should be so common that we should except everyone to know? Your examples sounds beyond reasonable to me but I counter with this question: Should one know their own phone number?
I know that story quite well. And it's humorous, and in Einstein's case makes some sense, too.
But an individual's knowledge (or lack thereof) of his or her phone number has no effect on me. Conversely, I REALLY don't want a potential 25% of those voting alongside me on election day to think the sun rotates around the Earth, to be voting for someone who says the Earth is 6,000 years old, or who calls embryology and evolution "lies from the Pit of Hell." People who can't name the branches of government, or have no idea against whom we fought WWII, or think that the "End Days" are coming -- these aren't people I want voting in a democratic society.
Believe me when I tell you that reading threads here or on Ars or wherever often remind me of how ignorant I am, when it comes to technology. But my lack of knowledge concerning the intricacies of file systems has no effect on anyone else.
And with home schooling always on the rise, and with the number of people who honestly believe that if someone runs a website and posts information on it that it must be true -- all of this gets sort of creepy and unsettling.
How long does it take to get from London to Paris via the Chunnel? About 2.5 hours if I remember correctly, while it's about 6 hours of actual flying just to get from one coast to the other to hear people speaking the same language and with almost no cultural changes.
It's actually about 5 hours by car, but I get your point. And would like to take the opportunity to post an alternative to a car: one can do an Arch to Arc Triathlon:
The triathlon starts with an 87 mile run (140km) from London's Marble Arch to Dover on the Kent coast, then a cross-channel swim (shortest distance 21 miles/33,8km) to the French coast, and finishes with a 180 mile (289,7km) bike from Calais to the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. The clock starts at Marble Arch, London and stops at Arc de Triomphe, Paris. Only 13 athletes have ever completed the challenge, the current record being held by Enduroman's Mark Bayliss and currently standing at 73 hours and 39 minutes (and Mark wasn't wearing a wetsuit for the cross-channel swim). Rachael Cadman finished in 97h37 on 23 August 2011 becoming the first female finisher (and fourth fastest overall).
It's actually about 5 hours by car, but I get your point. And would like to take the opportunity to post an alternative to a car: one can do an Arch to Arc Triathlon:
The triathlon starts with an 87 mile run (140km) from London's Marble Arch to Dover on the Kent coast, then a cross-channel swim (shortest distance 21 miles/33,8km) to the French coast, and finishes with a 180 mile (289,7km) bike from Calais to the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. The clock starts at Marble Arch, London and stops at Arc de Triomphe, Paris. Only 13 athletes have ever completed the challenge, the current record being held by Enduroman's Mark Bayliss and currently standing at 73 hours and 39 minutes (and Mark wasn't wearing a wetsuit for the cross-channel swim). Rachael Cadman finished in 97h37 on 23 August 2011 becoming the first female finisher (and fourth fastest overall).
And no, I won't be trying this myself.
1) That triathlon is just crazy.
2) In my defense I was thinking of a train from London to Paris, not driving, although it would be nice to take my time and drive around France for a few days.
1) I fully agree; that's some serious body slam min', and not even sure if one's physician would allow.
2) My bad. France is nice by car, but I would say one should definitely drive through England as well. Beautiful landscape.
I've seen the UK plenty but mainland Europe I'm still lacking. I'd like to have a few months backpacking around but that doesn't seem feasible anymore.
PS: I'd also like to see Big Ben. I've only ever seen this…
Ah, just the pic. That is sad. Opportunity / time allowing, do come over and visit. So much to see. I would like to make a suggestion that not all Americans take to heart: take your time in Europe and do not try to see it all in one week. One will miss out on many details.
Backpacking is indeed not the best way to travel anymore. A car is really the best way, just make sure you know how to drive a 'shift stick'. (though automatic transmission has become widespread now, especially rentals)
Comments
Good grief man, why are you posting on an Apple centric website without any knowledge on the subject?
Do you have a source to cite that shows some evidence that Android is cleaning up on profits, the metric that clearly appeals to Apple? Let's remember it makes no difference to Google since Android is a
throwawaygiveaway OS? Samsung is not Android and Google makes more money from their services running on the iPhone than on the vast numbers of cheap, devices that are being installed with some old version of Android simply because it's free.No matter how you look at it Apple is the one dominating the mobile profits in both handsets and tablets.
Originally Posted by iKronicle
blah, blah, blah
... They just end up like Ferrari.... making less and less cars so they can only claim how rare and how high the profit margins are growing. Remember that Ferrari is owned by Fiat...
blah blah blah
Fiat Group currently produces vehicles under twelve brands: Abarth, Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge, Ferrari, Fiat, Fiat Professional, Jeep, Lancia, Maserati, Ram Trucks, and SRT.
WTF is your point?
Apple is nothing like Ferrari, Apple could buy Fiat out of pocket change, they and also rans Samsung are sucking all the profits out of handset manufacture.
Although Fiat owning Chrysler makes this quite ironic:-
Viva Italia!
No doubt about it.... Apple needs to spread their product range out and quit trying to be the end all that was all they had in their 90's Niche market. They didn't succeed by killing the clones back then, just like they failed when Apple sued Clone maker Franklin Computers out of business prior to Apple III launch. The result? Apple III crashed and burned and Apple failed to sell higher profit margin software they could have been selling had they not killed the clones in each era.
Look back at Steve's decision to kill the clones in an effort to turn lower profit Apple Mac hardware into the Niche only market it became? The clone market was not only paying Apple license fees, but they were buying Apple's software. Mac OS market share grew from an all time low of around 3 to 4% to well over 10% by the time Steve killed them with a contract loophole. Next thing you see is that Mac OS market share tanked back down to that prior 3 to 4% ratio throughout the remaining 90's. But.... it was Software sales to clones consumers that really took the hit.
Apple no doubt needs to come out with low cost smartphones if they even want to compete in the same markets Android is cleaning up on, while growing their market share ever closer to being Ubiquitous, windows PC clones were and still are! Elitism has no place in business when you're trying to grow market share. They just end up like Ferrari.... making less and less cars so they can only claim how rare and how high the profit margins are growing. Remember that Ferrari is owned by Fiat and they are largely just a "Come On" to get customers in the door. As long as they get them to buy their less expensive Fiats for everyday consumers..... FIAT IS HAPPY!!! .......and there is no better time than now to spread out product offerings so they cover the high end, mid range and low end consumers wants and needs too!
You, my friend, are a card carrying member of "the church of marketshare".
You've bought into the idea that selling the most is do all end all in business. At the same time you're ignoring profits. Yes even the profits of the lowly Mac division. You see the once powerful HP and Dell played that marketshare game only to find out that it was synonymous with the "race to the bottom" game. Where are they now?
I bet they'd trade their mothers to generate the profits that the less than 5% marketshare of the Mac division generates.
The game that Google plays isn't the same one Apple plays.
Google needs to get the most eyeballs on their services. Apple don't have to.
Your argument is like saying, that the world long jump champion, isn't as good an athlete as the world heavy weight boxing champion.
Two entirely different concepts.
Much like the posters citing references like The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, reality television and daily talk shows, your link only shows ignorance on your part if you think that's an accurate representation of Americans.
All i did was post a clip off youtube, i didn't say anything, don't presume to know what I'm thinking, i didn't show anything.
I don't appreciate your tone.
It was a joke, try relaxing.
It's amazing how ignorant these interviewees are and I bet they don't have to wait too long to find someone that fits their agenda, but I think that is true for any country. I also think the people that are more willing to stop to talk to a stranger with a mic are likely to be less informed. I certainly don't have time to sign waivers and get questions asked by people on the street and any gift they offer isn't likely worth my time.
I think the general feeling assumed by other nations that Americans are ignorant is twofold. 1) America is so prominent in the world of entertainment that you can virtually anywhere in the world to get news about the US. I know this first hand from my travels. 2) The US is such a big country that can be traversed easily that an American can travel often and extensively (as in distances) and never leave its borders. This isn't necessarily a good thing as it does limit ones culture considerably, but it's the reality of being such a large nation with cities from end to end. How long does it take to get from London to Paris via the Chunnel? About 2.5 hours if I remember correctly, while it's about 6 hours of actual flying just to get from one coast to the other to hear people speaking the same language and with almost no cultural changes.
All i did was post a clip off youtube, i didn't say anything, don't presume to know what I'm thinking, i didn't show anything.
I don't appreciate your tone.
It was a joke, try relaxing, don't be a bell-end.
Your initial post left open the possibility that you weren't as ignorant as those other posters. This one has removed all doubt.
Good day, sir.
I don't see where he opined either way. I think he just thought it was a funny clip. I thought it was funny clip.
OT: Last week I read about the Ant on the Rubber Rope paradox on iO9.
I'm likely attributing it improperly but it got me to think about human civilization and knowledge. Humanity is increasing knowledge at faster and faster rates that no individual human can keep up with its growth. As a whole we are much smarter than we've ever been but individually we are less knowledgable (as a percentage) about our world. This divide will continue to grow as long as human civilization continues to grow, but this isn't a bad thing, it just means we will all be more specialized then all previous generations.
I don't see where he opined either way.
With the way the posts read now (post moderation) that post of mine you're quoting won't make as much sense.
Exactly—which highlights the fallacy that ignorance is a bad thing. Ignorance can potentially be bad or good, but it doesn't intrinsically have any value. We are all incredibly ignorant when it comes to the sum total of human knowledge and always have been, but there's no need to feel bad for it.
Except when it comes to being ignorant about man's ignorance; one should feel bad about that.
Yes! In fact, a way in which ignorance could be seen as a positive attribute is that it is wiser to adopt an assumed position of ignorance than to profess to know it all. Clumsily put, I admit.
Exactly—which highlights the fallacy that ignorance is a bad thing. Ignorance can potentially be bad or good, but it doesn't intrinsically have any value. We are all incredibly ignorant when it comes to the sum total of human knowledge and always have been, but there's no need to feel bad for it.
But no one measures ignorance or knowledge as to how it compares to the sum of human learning. It's measured against what an average citizen should probably know.
I don't really know squat about string theory, for instance. I've read some about it, and I've tried to understand. But when it comes right down to it, English isn't a suitable language for explaining string theory. Mathematics is. And my knowledge of math, beyond the basics, is fairly minimal. So when it comes to physics (beyond what you might learn in HS), my options are fairly limited.
But how can a non-brain-damaged adult in the US not know which countries with which we share a border? Something like 1-in-4 in this country believe that the sun revolves around the Earth. About 2/3 of Americans cannot tell you what the Constitution is -- and I don't mean explaining the different articles and amendments and everything. I mean, "What is this document and what does it do?" sort of explanation.
It's scary.
That is certainly something to debate. What knowledge should be so common that we should except everyone to know? Your examples sounds beyond reasonable to me but I counter with this question: Should one know their own phone number?
That is certainly something to debate. What knowledge should be so common that we should except everyone to know? Your examples sounds beyond reasonable to me but I counter with this question: Should one know their own phone number?
I know that story quite well. And it's humorous, and in Einstein's case makes some sense, too.
But an individual's knowledge (or lack thereof) of his or her phone number has no effect on me. Conversely, I REALLY don't want a potential 25% of those voting alongside me on election day to think the sun rotates around the Earth, to be voting for someone who says the Earth is 6,000 years old, or who calls embryology and evolution "lies from the Pit of Hell." People who can't name the branches of government, or have no idea against whom we fought WWII, or think that the "End Days" are coming -- these aren't people I want voting in a democratic society.
Believe me when I tell you that reading threads here or on Ars or wherever often remind me of how ignorant I am, when it comes to technology. But my lack of knowledge concerning the intricacies of file systems has no effect on anyone else.
And with home schooling always on the rise, and with the number of people who honestly believe that if someone runs a website and posts information on it that it must be true -- all of this gets sort of creepy and unsettling.
It's actually about 5 hours by car, but I get your point. And would like to take the opportunity to post an alternative to a car: one can do an Arch to Arc Triathlon:
The triathlon starts with an 87 mile run (140km) from London's Marble Arch to Dover on the Kent coast, then a cross-channel swim (shortest distance 21 miles/33,8km) to the French coast, and finishes with a 180 mile (289,7km) bike from Calais to the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. The clock starts at Marble Arch, London and stops at Arc de Triomphe, Paris. Only 13 athletes have ever completed the challenge, the current record being held by Enduroman's Mark Bayliss and currently standing at 73 hours and 39 minutes (and Mark wasn't wearing a wetsuit for the cross-channel swim). Rachael Cadman finished in 97h37 on 23 August 2011 becoming the first female finisher (and fourth fastest overall).
And no, I won't be trying this myself.
1) That triathlon is just crazy.
2) In my defense I was thinking of a train from London to Paris, not driving, although it would be nice to take my time and drive around France for a few days.
1) I fully agree; that's some serious body slam min', and not even sure if one's physician would allow.
2) My bad. France is nice by car, but I would say one should definitely drive through England as well. Beautiful landscape.
I've seen the UK plenty but mainland Europe I'm still lacking. I'd like to have a few months backpacking around but that doesn't seem feasible anymore.
PS: I'd also like to see Big Ben. I've only ever seen this…
trick statement
Ah, just the pic. That is sad. Opportunity / time allowing, do come over and visit. So much to see. I would like to make a suggestion that not all Americans take to heart: take your time in Europe and do not try to see it all in one week. One will miss out on many details.
Backpacking is indeed not the best way to travel anymore. A car is really the best way, just make sure you know how to drive a 'shift stick'. (though automatic transmission has become widespread now, especially rentals)