It's entirely possible that page rank wasn't named after Larry but named because it ranks Internet pages.
That was my thought as well, until Gatorguy wrote that he thought it might be named after Larry. So I went to wiki which said it was named after Larry, with a link to the source: Facts about Google and Competition, How Google Search Works
"The first and most well known is PageRank, named for Larry Page (Google’s co-founder and CEO)"
That was my thought as well, until Gatorguy wrote that he thought it might be named after Larry. So I went to wiki which said it was named after Larry, with a link to the source: Facts about Google and Competition, How Google Search Works
"The first and most well known is PageRank, named for Larry Page (Google’s co-founder and CEO)"
It makes for fun etymology but in my experience the better story typically isn't the the truthful one. I can see the comparison having been seen immediately and it certainly sounds better than SiteRank but I think it would still be PageRank if Larry's last name was Di'aria.
PS: Apple's employment site is definitely named after its founder¡
Cook clearly isn't the showman Jobs was but I've never gotten the impression that Cook had a far inferior desire for quality and precision. In fact, I would argue that Cook's drive for unheard of efficiency is part of the same psychology that was present in Jobs, and probably why Cook was the primary choice as CEO. As an owner of a Retina MBP and an iPhone 5S I see no evidence that attention to detail has waned.
Same here. Late in 2013, I purchased a 13" MBA, a Retina iPad Mini and an iPhone 5s... every one of them is precision crafted to the smallest detail. Nothing visible is even so much as a hair's breadth out of alignment, every seam perfect. The finish is pretty much flawless, and I've looked them over very carefully.
And that's just how the look. They're beautiful to look at and beautifully finished, but also solidly constructed, high-performance/high efficiency devices.
My iPad lasts most of the day, and costs under $2 a year on my electric bill to keep fully charged. My MBA lasts all day, and I'm able to run all my major (aka 'pro') level apps on it. My iPhone is my only phone, my camera and my "PDA" (timer/alarm, calendar/reminders, weather, stocks, etc.)...
The only potential weak point in any of this might be the iPhone's battery life, that is, if I tried to use it in place of the other two... but I don't, and so I typically get two days of use between charges.
Software UX, UI, ecosystem, performance, quality and finish of the hardware, yeah... it adds up to an excruciating level of detail that has to be running from top to bottom in that organization.
Here is one article and it was wildly debated here IA that anything and everything that has some semblance of android on it is being rolled up into the overall market share that Android is out preforming everything else. To my point those are the lies behind the 80%. If you going to measure IOS against Android you have to limit it to the same application which are cell phones. The problem is any company can grab android and basterize it to do what they want since they can down load the code for free. The real question is how many android devices are shipping in true smart phone, and not a dumb down versing of Android to make it look like a smart phone.
Oh it reference the article here as well, but others have pointed this fact out but wall street has ignore this piece of information and Google only publish Android activation, and no one has valid this since they are not selling it thus not subject to any financial audits.
This article is so full of inaccuracies and misinformation it borders on comical. This is gonna be a looooooooooooooong comment.
Let me start with the big one: Google relying on "yesterday's PC". Google's revenue is primarily based on ad revenue, that is true, but their ad revenue is not limited to PCs. They make a large percentage of their ad revenue from mobile (which includes ads on iPhones as well), with 19.1% coming from mobile as of August 2013, and expectations are that mobile ads will account for 30% by 2015. Their ad business isn't going anywhere, its' evolving, just as the market is evolving, because their ad service isn't tied to a single hardware platform.
However, that being said, the desktop (and notebook for that matter) isn't going anywhere. Mobile is not going to replace the computer any time in the near future, certainly not in businesses. Tablets are nice, but they aren't powerful or functional enough to perform at the level necessary for a business user. Mobile applications, while good, cannot compete with the desktop platform yet. We are getting there with the move towards 64 bit SOCs, but we won't see the desktop being replaced for years to come.
The author somehow suggested that Apple's success can be attributed to the hiring of Tim Cook in 1998. While it's true that he has streamlined their manufacturing process significantly, this is a completely ludicrous statement. It was Steve Jobs' vision of the future product line that brought Apple back from the depths, and suggesting anything otherwise is offensive to his legacy. If it wasn't for his foresight in designing the iPod, iPhone and iPad for the everyman, Apple wouldn't have been successful in the way they are today, end of story. Would they have had their markets? Absolutely. But not the powerhouse they are.
The reason why Apple maintains such a high average selling price while other mobile operating systems are much lower is because Apple refuses to release products to compete in emerging markets. All of their mobile offerings are priced for the high-end user, and if not for carrier subsidies, would be unaffordable by most. All other mobile OS manufacturers have cheap offerings to allow for traction in the lower price scale, and in doing so, just by volume will lower their average selling price. Looking at Apple compared to other companies in this way will always favor Apple as long as they continue to market their products as elite. That's like comparing Ferrari to Mercedes. Sure, they both make expensive vehicles, but Mercedes also makes cheaper cars whereas Ferrari only stays high end.
Comparing Apple's gross profits to Google's isn't a sound comparison because ultimately they don't run equivalent businesses. As the article points out, 90% of Apple's revenues come from mobile tech, whereas only 15% of Google's lives in mobile. Also of note, Apple is the soup-to-nuts owner of their tech. Sure, they pay for components from some parts manufacturers, but ultimately, all the profits on the sale of the phone AND the sales of their apps falls in their pockets. Google isn't a manufacturer, they only make the OS. When equivalent phones are sold (lets' say a $700 iPhone 5 vs. a $700 Samsung Galaxy S4 for arguments sake), Apple takes 100% of the margin in the sale of that phone, whereas Samsung takes the margin on the Galaxy S4 and only sends Google licensing fees. Also, Apple and Google both make 30% on app sales, however iTunes is the only option for buying an app on an iPhone, due to Apple's ecosystem being very curated by design. Android on the other hand has many alternate app store offerings, as manufacturers like Samsung and Amazon have their own stores and try to encourage (or in the case of the Kindle Fire force) users to buy apps from their app store so they take that cut of the profit. Some cheaper Android devices don't even have the Google Play store available on them. My point is, Apple takes much more profit from mobile than Google does, and anyone who understands the businesses would know that you can't just flatly compare the two companies like that. I guess that is why DED is a blog writer for Apple Insider and not a business analyst.
Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility was about the acquisition of patents, plain and simple. They weren't looking to enhance Google TV with Motorola's STB business, or stave off Motorola making Windows Phone devices. Google has no need to fear Windows Phone devices because the platform is no threat to them, it only accounts for 3% of all mobile sales. Google's hardware partners and Google themselves have been attacked in courts of late by many companies, including Apple, over patent issues, and they were trying to bolster their patent portfolio. The importance of patents in today's patent-troll era cannot be overvalued. Would Google have liked to see Motorola succeed more? Absolutely. But ultimately, Google isn't in the hardware business, they're in the services business. The Nexus lineup, the Google Play Experience device lineup, and the Moto X/G experiments were exactly that, experiments. They were never meant to bring in huge profits. Google also maintained Motorola's Advanced Research division when they sold Motorola Mobility to Lenovo, because there are some more experiments in the pipeline that Google is highly interested in, such as Project Ara. But don't be mistaken, ultimately, Google sells ads and uses that profit to try their hand at other things. They don't always succeed, as is obvious if you just look at their other offerings. For every Gmail and Google Maps, there are things like Google Buzz and Google Wave. Google can afford to lose money on projects like that because they have a sound business with their AdSense.
"Apple's clear successes with ads, Maps and Siri" has to be one of the most hilarious lines I've ever read in a tech blog. I can't speak to Apple's ads business, but the fact that Google still completely owns that business would lead me to think it's PC vs. Mac all over again, with Apple clinging to a tiny percentage and claiming they're a success. Apple Maps was a giant mess, and it forced Tim Cook to issue a messy public apology, which was a big black eye in his early tenure. They released it too early when it wasn't ready for prime time and many people I know refuse to try it again based on that early experience. Siri is gret, but it's a parlor trick. People loved it when they first got it, but the allure wore off quickly because it doesn't really serve a purpose. Sure, it can make a few things faster, that's without question. But ultimately, people don't want to speak to their phone to operate it in public spaces, which is where most people use their phones. Either Siri can't hear you clearly, or you have to shout and make a scene in order for your phone to hear you. Even when Siri does hear you, it's still limited in what it can do. I don't know many people that use it regularly. Most importantly, Siri can't be monetiszed. Apple doesn't make money from its use, so I don't see how even if it was widely adopted, it will really matter in the grand scheme of the business when it's only a software program that can be duplicated on other platforms.
Google DOES have an 80 percent share of the mobile market, and as I explained before the reason why Google doesn't have four times the mobile revenue as Apple does is because of the inequalities in how their respective businesses operate. You can't poo-poo the fact that Apple's market share is declining rapidly and their business has become largely uninnovative. Companies like Samsung have taken Apple's formula and improved upon it, while Apple has kept the same attitude of "we're the best, people buy us because we're Apple" and let their market share slip. It's the same stance Blackberry had for years and while I don't think Apple will allow themselves to fail in the way Blackberry did, it's not a good place to be.
"Apple also appears to be strategically investing in wearables, a space that has been dominated by iPods, iPhones and iPad for many years. " How are the iPod, iPhone, and iPad considered "wearables"?!? Maybe iPods can be strapped to an arm when you're jogging, but that's NOT what a wearable is. A wearable is something that is ALWAYS worn on a part of your body, not something that can be strapped on using an accessory case. The thought of someone "wearing" an iPad makes me giggle uncontrollably.
Ultimately, I recognize that this is an article on Apple Insider, but at least attempt to sound like you are knowledgeable and not some corporate shill telling grossly one-sided stories to make your point.
This article is so full of inaccuracies and misinformation it borders on comical. This is gonna be a looooooooooooooong comment.
Let me start with the big one: Google relying on "yesterday's PC". Google's revenue is primarily based on ad revenue, that is true, but their ad revenue is not limited to PCs. They make a large percentage of their ad revenue from mobile (which includes ads on iPhones as well), with 19.1% coming from mobile as of August 2013, and expectations are that mobile ads will account for 30% by 2015. Their ad business isn't going anywhere, its' evolving, just as the market is evolving, because their ad service isn't tied to a single hardware platform.
However, that being said, the desktop (and notebook for that matter) isn't going anywhere. Mobile is not going to replace the computer any time in the near future, certainly not in businesses. Tablets are nice, but they aren't powerful or functional enough to perform at the level necessary for a business user. Mobile applications, while good, cannot compete with the desktop platform yet. We are getting there with the move towards 64 bit SOCs, but we won't see the desktop being replaced for years to come.
The author somehow suggested that Apple's success can be attributed to the hiring of Tim Cook in 1998. While it's true that he has streamlined their manufacturing process significantly, this is a completely ludicrous statement. It was Steve Jobs' vision of the future product line that brought Apple back from the depths, and suggesting anything otherwise is offensive to his legacy. If it wasn't for his foresight in designing the iPod, iPhone and iPad for the everyman, Apple wouldn't have been successful in the way they are today, end of story. Would they have had their markets? Absolutely. But not the powerhouse they are.
The reason why Apple maintains such a high average selling price while other mobile operating systems are much lower is because Apple refuses to release products to compete in emerging markets. All of their mobile offerings are priced for the high-end user, and if not for carrier subsidies, would be unaffordable by most. All other mobile OS manufacturers have cheap offerings to allow for traction in the lower price scale, and in doing so, just by volume will lower their average selling price. Looking at Apple compared to other companies in this way will always favor Apple as long as they continue to market their products as elite. That's like comparing Ferrari to Mercedes. Sure, they both make expensive vehicles, but Mercedes also makes cheaper cars whereas Ferrari only stays high end.
Comparing Apple's gross profits to Google's isn't a sound comparison because ultimately they don't run equivalent businesses. As the article points out, 90% of Apple's revenues come from mobile tech, whereas only 15% of Google's lives in mobile. Also of note, Apple is the soup-to-nuts owner of their tech. Sure, they pay for components from some parts manufacturers, but ultimately, all the profits on the sale of the phone AND the sales of their apps falls in their pockets. Google isn't a manufacturer, they only make the OS. When equivalent phones are sold (lets' say a $700 iPhone 5 vs. a $700 Samsung Galaxy S4 for arguments sake), Apple takes 100% of the margin in the sale of that phone, whereas Samsung takes the margin on the Galaxy S4 and only sends Google licensing fees. Also, Apple and Google both make 30% on app sales, however iTunes is the only option for buying an app on an iPhone, due to Apple's ecosystem being very curated by design. Android on the other hand has many alternate app store offerings, as manufacturers like Samsung and Amazon have their own stores and try to encourage (or in the case of the Kindle Fire force) users to buy apps from their app store so they take that cut of the profit. Some cheaper Android devices don't even have the Google Play store available on them. My point is, Apple takes much more profit from mobile than Google does, and anyone who understands the businesses would know that you can't just flatly compare the two companies like that. I guess that is why DED is a blog writer for Apple Insider and not a business analyst.
Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility was about the acquisition of patents, plain and simple. They weren't looking to enhance Google TV with Motorola's STB business, or stave off Motorola making Windows Phone devices. Google has no need to fear Windows Phone devices because the platform is no threat to them, it only accounts for 3% of all mobile sales. Google's hardware partners and Google themselves have been attacked in courts of late by many companies, including Apple, over patent issues, and they were trying to bolster their patent portfolio. The importance of patents in today's patent-troll era cannot be overvalued. Would Google have liked to see Motorola succeed more? Absolutely. But ultimately, Google isn't in the hardware business, they're in the services business. The Nexus lineup, the Google Play Experience device lineup, and the Moto X/G experiments were exactly that, experiments. They were never meant to bring in huge profits. Google also maintained Motorola's Advanced Research division when they sold Motorola Mobility to Lenovo, because there are some more experiments in the pipeline that Google is highly interested in, such as Project Ara. But don't be mistaken, ultimately, Google sells ads and uses that profit to try their hand at other things. They don't always succeed, as is obvious if you just look at their other offerings. For every Gmail and Google Maps, there are things like Google Buzz and Google Wave. Google can afford to lose money on projects like that because they have a sound business with their AdSense.
"Apple's clear successes with ads, Maps and Siri" has to be one of the most hilarious lines I've ever read in a tech blog. I can't speak to Apple's ads business, but the fact that Google still completely owns that business would lead me to think it's PC vs. Mac all over again, with Apple clinging to a tiny percentage and claiming they're a success. Apple Maps was a giant mess, and it forced Tim Cook to issue a messy public apology, which was a big black eye in his early tenure. They released it too early when it wasn't ready for prime time and many people I know refuse to try it again based on that early experience. Siri is gret, but it's a parlor trick. People loved it when they first got it, but the allure wore off quickly because it doesn't really serve a purpose. Sure, it can make a few things faster, that's without question. But ultimately, people don't want to speak to their phone to operate it in public spaces, which is where most people use their phones. Either Siri can't hear you clearly, or you have to shout and make a scene in order for your phone to hear you. Even when Siri does hear you, it's still limited in what it can do. I don't know many people that use it regularly. Most importantly, Siri can't be monetiszed. Apple doesn't make money from its use, so I don't see how even if it was widely adopted, it will really matter in the grand scheme of the business when it's only a software program that can be duplicated on other platforms.
Google DOES have an 80 percent share of the mobile market, and as I explained before the reason why Google doesn't have four times the mobile revenue as Apple does is because of the inequalities in how their respective businesses operate. You can't poo-poo the fact that Apple's market share is declining rapidly and their business has become largely uninnovative. Companies like Samsung have taken Apple's formula and improved upon it, while Apple has kept the same attitude of "we're the best, people buy us because we're Apple" and let their market share slip. It's the same stance Blackberry had for years and while I don't think Apple will allow themselves to fail in the way Blackberry did, it's not a good place to be.
"Apple also appears to be strategically investing in wearables, a space that has been dominated by iPods, iPhones and iPad for many years. " How are the iPod, iPhone, and iPad considered "wearables"?!? Maybe iPods can be strapped to an arm when you're jogging, but that's NOT what a wearable is. A wearable is something that is ALWAYS worn on a part of your body, not something that can be strapped on using an accessory case. The thought of someone "wearing" an iPad makes me giggle uncontrollably.
Ultimately, I recognize that this is an article on Apple Insider, but at least attempt to sound like you are knowledgeable and not some corporate shill telling grossly one-sided stories to make your point.
This was a very interesting article. Tim Cook & Company are doing a fantastic job at making money while producing excellently made products. It is not easy to do this. Who else is doing both with these margins ? There will be more products coming when the time is right & they will be great. While I can imagine a few like everyone else, no one in the press knows exactly what Apple is going to do. The articles we read are fluff written by authors who publish such for money. If you follow the products closely, the feature advances, the software advances, you can often be a year ahead of what is published. But in the end, you just do not know what they will do next. Apple has plenty of products in the design labs that work; bringing them to mass market is a job in itself.
I have complete confidence in Tim Cook & Company and put a fairly large percentage of my retirement money in AAPL. Note this is not the company we bought in 1984 or even earlier - it is vastly improved and is very, very profitable and continues to be creative.
I commend Apple in being able to bring production of the Mac Pro back to the US. Our country has sent too much manufacturing overseas and too much technology has been stolen, copied, and otherwise given away. Until Manufacturing returns to the US, our economy will continue to have difficulties - we need American Jobs.
I challenge the other companies & industrial sectors to adopt a meaningful Corporate Goal of bringing a certain amount overseas manufacturing (that makes sense) back to the US; and also guard the technology. It is just too easy to steal or reverse engineer technology today. I applaud Apple on being silent on products to be released - don't give away the farm if you do not have to do so.
As a shareholder, I found this an interesting read, the only problem is it is only on AppleInsider. This will only be read by fanbios, not the general market, you should sell this articule to a site that has a wider readership and gets picked up in the news feed of some of the more popular share ticker sites, like Seeking Alpha/Google Finance, etc.
The problem with this article is that it is rear looking. Stocks are not valued based on their past if their future is viewed differently. Apple's markets are maturing. If Apple does not create a LARGE new category (relative to current revenues) then Apple's ability to grow is limited. In 2013 Apple stopped growing profits because their markets matured. Therefore, without a new, successful product category Apple's stock is dead money. Reality bites.
The problem with this article is that it is rear looking. Stocks are not valued based on their past if their future is viewed differently. Apple's markets are maturing. If Apple does not create a LARGE new category (relative to current revenues) then Apple's ability to grow is limited. In 2013 Apple stopped growing profits because their markets matured. Therefore, without a new, successful product category Apple's stock is dead money. Reality bites.
According to this 27% of Chinese smartphone users use phones valued at $US500 or more, Apple has 80% of that market.
There are now 700 million smartphone users in China times 27% times 80% equals 151 million iPhone users.
Whaddayamean no growth?
Most popular App for sub $300 Android phones = "wallpapers".
What do I mean no growth? Look at Apple's revenues and earnings in 2013 vs 2012. Apple was growing rapidly between 09- 2012. It ended in 2013 because Apple's end markets matured. I'm not saying Apple can't grow. I am saying the real growth is in the past. Who knows, maybe Apple will invent another new category that scales like the iPhone. Or maybe somebody else will. Uh oh...
And your math... They call that Chinese math. And that's not a complement.
What do I mean no growth? Look at Apple's revenues and earnings in 2013 vs 2012. Apple was growing rapidly between 09- 2012. It ended in 2013 because Apple's end markets matured. I'm not saying Apple can't grow. I am saying the real growth is in the past. Who knows, maybe Apple will invent another new category that scales like the iPhone. Or maybe somebody else will. Uh oh...
And your math... They call that Chinese math. And that's not a complement.
iTunes revenue growth.
Apple makes more from iTunes revenue than all the handset makers apart from Samsung, added together.
According to this 27% of Chinese smartphone users use phones valued at $US500 or more, Apple has 80% of that market.
There are now 700 million smartphone users in China times 27% times 80% equals 151 million iPhone users.
Whaddayamean no growth?
Most popular App for sub $300 Android phones = "wallpapers".
More math...
If it's true that "27% of all Chinese smartphone users buy >$500 phones", AND that "Apple owns 80% of that market", then it means that Apple owns roughly 22% of the entire Chinese smartphone market.
If the numbers are right, it's pretty impressive.
And they're only just getting started with China Mobile.
Another important number I'd like to know: What percent of all Chinese mobile phone users are Smartphone Users? How big is that market today in real terms, not just "potential"?
If, for example, smartphone users represent 25% of the whole market, then Apple would own about 5% of the entire mobile phone market in China, with plenty of room to grow...
Comments
That was my thought as well, until Gatorguy wrote that he thought it might be named after Larry. So I went to wiki which said it was named after Larry, with a link to the source: Facts about Google and Competition, How Google Search Works
"The first and most well known is PageRank, named for Larry Page (Google’s co-founder and CEO)"
It makes for fun etymology but in my experience the better story typically isn't the the truthful one. I can see the comparison having been seen immediately and it certainly sounds better than SiteRank but I think it would still be PageRank if Larry's last name was Di'aria.
PS: Apple's employment site is definitely named after its founder¡
Man! What a way to wake up!
???? ????
Cook clearly isn't the showman Jobs was but I've never gotten the impression that Cook had a far inferior desire for quality and precision. In fact, I would argue that Cook's drive for unheard of efficiency is part of the same psychology that was present in Jobs, and probably why Cook was the primary choice as CEO. As an owner of a Retina MBP and an iPhone 5S I see no evidence that attention to detail has waned.
Same here. Late in 2013, I purchased a 13" MBA, a Retina iPad Mini and an iPhone 5s... every one of them is precision crafted to the smallest detail. Nothing visible is even so much as a hair's breadth out of alignment, every seam perfect. The finish is pretty much flawless, and I've looked them over very carefully.
And that's just how the look. They're beautiful to look at and beautifully finished, but also solidly constructed, high-performance/high efficiency devices.
My iPad lasts most of the day, and costs under $2 a year on my electric bill to keep fully charged. My MBA lasts all day, and I'm able to run all my major (aka 'pro') level apps on it. My iPhone is my only phone, my camera and my "PDA" (timer/alarm, calendar/reminders, weather, stocks, etc.)...
The only potential weak point in any of this might be the iPhone's battery life, that is, if I tried to use it in place of the other two... but I don't, and so I typically get two days of use between charges.
Software UX, UI, ecosystem, performance, quality and finish of the hardware, yeah... it adds up to an excruciating level of detail that has to be running from top to bottom in that organization.
This is a huge part of why I'm an Apple customer.
Here is one article and it was wildly debated here IA that anything and everything that has some semblance of android on it is being rolled up into the overall market share that Android is out preforming everything else. To my point those are the lies behind the 80%. If you going to measure IOS against Android you have to limit it to the same application which are cell phones. The problem is any company can grab android and basterize it to do what they want since they can down load the code for free. The real question is how many android devices are shipping in true smart phone, and not a dumb down versing of Android to make it look like a smart phone.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/18/apple-android-tv-stick/
Oh it reference the article here as well, but others have pointed this fact out but wall street has ignore this piece of information and Google only publish Android activation, and no one has valid this since they are not selling it thus not subject to any financial audits.
Did you even read the article you posted? Or even the title? Or first paragraph? Or were you just looking for something that vaguely fit your argument and blindly posted it? That article is specifically referring to the Android tablet numbers compared to iPad numbers. Neither of which are factors in the 80% global smartphone market that Android currently has, which you can read in any of the articles here: https://www.google.com/search?q=android+has+80+market+share&oq=android+has+80%+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l2.5062j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
This article is so full of inaccuracies and misinformation it borders on comical. This is gonna be a looooooooooooooong comment.
Let me start with the big one: Google relying on "yesterday's PC". Google's revenue is primarily based on ad revenue, that is true, but their ad revenue is not limited to PCs. They make a large percentage of their ad revenue from mobile (which includes ads on iPhones as well), with 19.1% coming from mobile as of August 2013, and expectations are that mobile ads will account for 30% by 2015. Their ad business isn't going anywhere, its' evolving, just as the market is evolving, because their ad service isn't tied to a single hardware platform.
However, that being said, the desktop (and notebook for that matter) isn't going anywhere. Mobile is not going to replace the computer any time in the near future, certainly not in businesses. Tablets are nice, but they aren't powerful or functional enough to perform at the level necessary for a business user. Mobile applications, while good, cannot compete with the desktop platform yet. We are getting there with the move towards 64 bit SOCs, but we won't see the desktop being replaced for years to come.
The author somehow suggested that Apple's success can be attributed to the hiring of Tim Cook in 1998. While it's true that he has streamlined their manufacturing process significantly, this is a completely ludicrous statement. It was Steve Jobs' vision of the future product line that brought Apple back from the depths, and suggesting anything otherwise is offensive to his legacy. If it wasn't for his foresight in designing the iPod, iPhone and iPad for the everyman, Apple wouldn't have been successful in the way they are today, end of story. Would they have had their markets? Absolutely. But not the powerhouse they are.
The reason why Apple maintains such a high average selling price while other mobile operating systems are much lower is because Apple refuses to release products to compete in emerging markets. All of their mobile offerings are priced for the high-end user, and if not for carrier subsidies, would be unaffordable by most. All other mobile OS manufacturers have cheap offerings to allow for traction in the lower price scale, and in doing so, just by volume will lower their average selling price. Looking at Apple compared to other companies in this way will always favor Apple as long as they continue to market their products as elite. That's like comparing Ferrari to Mercedes. Sure, they both make expensive vehicles, but Mercedes also makes cheaper cars whereas Ferrari only stays high end.
Comparing Apple's gross profits to Google's isn't a sound comparison because ultimately they don't run equivalent businesses. As the article points out, 90% of Apple's revenues come from mobile tech, whereas only 15% of Google's lives in mobile. Also of note, Apple is the soup-to-nuts owner of their tech. Sure, they pay for components from some parts manufacturers, but ultimately, all the profits on the sale of the phone AND the sales of their apps falls in their pockets. Google isn't a manufacturer, they only make the OS. When equivalent phones are sold (lets' say a $700 iPhone 5 vs. a $700 Samsung Galaxy S4 for arguments sake), Apple takes 100% of the margin in the sale of that phone, whereas Samsung takes the margin on the Galaxy S4 and only sends Google licensing fees. Also, Apple and Google both make 30% on app sales, however iTunes is the only option for buying an app on an iPhone, due to Apple's ecosystem being very curated by design. Android on the other hand has many alternate app store offerings, as manufacturers like Samsung and Amazon have their own stores and try to encourage (or in the case of the Kindle Fire force) users to buy apps from their app store so they take that cut of the profit. Some cheaper Android devices don't even have the Google Play store available on them. My point is, Apple takes much more profit from mobile than Google does, and anyone who understands the businesses would know that you can't just flatly compare the two companies like that. I guess that is why DED is a blog writer for Apple Insider and not a business analyst.
Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility was about the acquisition of patents, plain and simple. They weren't looking to enhance Google TV with Motorola's STB business, or stave off Motorola making Windows Phone devices. Google has no need to fear Windows Phone devices because the platform is no threat to them, it only accounts for 3% of all mobile sales. Google's hardware partners and Google themselves have been attacked in courts of late by many companies, including Apple, over patent issues, and they were trying to bolster their patent portfolio. The importance of patents in today's patent-troll era cannot be overvalued. Would Google have liked to see Motorola succeed more? Absolutely. But ultimately, Google isn't in the hardware business, they're in the services business. The Nexus lineup, the Google Play Experience device lineup, and the Moto X/G experiments were exactly that, experiments. They were never meant to bring in huge profits. Google also maintained Motorola's Advanced Research division when they sold Motorola Mobility to Lenovo, because there are some more experiments in the pipeline that Google is highly interested in, such as Project Ara. But don't be mistaken, ultimately, Google sells ads and uses that profit to try their hand at other things. They don't always succeed, as is obvious if you just look at their other offerings. For every Gmail and Google Maps, there are things like Google Buzz and Google Wave. Google can afford to lose money on projects like that because they have a sound business with their AdSense.
"Apple's clear successes with ads, Maps and Siri" has to be one of the most hilarious lines I've ever read in a tech blog. I can't speak to Apple's ads business, but the fact that Google still completely owns that business would lead me to think it's PC vs. Mac all over again, with Apple clinging to a tiny percentage and claiming they're a success. Apple Maps was a giant mess, and it forced Tim Cook to issue a messy public apology, which was a big black eye in his early tenure. They released it too early when it wasn't ready for prime time and many people I know refuse to try it again based on that early experience. Siri is gret, but it's a parlor trick. People loved it when they first got it, but the allure wore off quickly because it doesn't really serve a purpose. Sure, it can make a few things faster, that's without question. But ultimately, people don't want to speak to their phone to operate it in public spaces, which is where most people use their phones. Either Siri can't hear you clearly, or you have to shout and make a scene in order for your phone to hear you. Even when Siri does hear you, it's still limited in what it can do. I don't know many people that use it regularly. Most importantly, Siri can't be monetiszed. Apple doesn't make money from its use, so I don't see how even if it was widely adopted, it will really matter in the grand scheme of the business when it's only a software program that can be duplicated on other platforms.
Google DOES have an 80 percent share of the mobile market, and as I explained before the reason why Google doesn't have four times the mobile revenue as Apple does is because of the inequalities in how their respective businesses operate. You can't poo-poo the fact that Apple's market share is declining rapidly and their business has become largely uninnovative. Companies like Samsung have taken Apple's formula and improved upon it, while Apple has kept the same attitude of "we're the best, people buy us because we're Apple" and let their market share slip. It's the same stance Blackberry had for years and while I don't think Apple will allow themselves to fail in the way Blackberry did, it's not a good place to be.
"Apple also appears to be strategically investing in wearables, a space that has been dominated by iPods, iPhones and iPad for many years. " How are the iPod, iPhone, and iPad considered "wearables"?!? Maybe iPods can be strapped to an arm when you're jogging, but that's NOT what a wearable is. A wearable is something that is ALWAYS worn on a part of your body, not something that can be strapped on using an accessory case. The thought of someone "wearing" an iPad makes me giggle uncontrollably.
Ultimately, I recognize that this is an article on Apple Insider, but at least attempt to sound like you are knowledgeable and not some corporate shill telling grossly one-sided stories to make your point.
/s
Notsomuch
Use those stretches of silence from AAPL to buy shares of your favorite company on sale.
I have complete confidence in Tim Cook & Company and put a fairly large percentage of my retirement money in AAPL. Note this is not the company we bought in 1984 or even earlier - it is vastly improved and is very, very profitable and continues to be creative.
I commend Apple in being able to bring production of the Mac Pro back to the US. Our country has sent too much manufacturing overseas and too much technology has been stolen, copied, and otherwise given away. Until Manufacturing returns to the US, our economy will continue to have difficulties - we need American Jobs.
I challenge the other companies & industrial sectors to adopt a meaningful Corporate Goal of bringing a certain amount overseas manufacturing (that makes sense) back to the US; and also guard the technology. It is just too easy to steal or reverse engineer technology today. I applaud Apple on being silent on products to be released - don't give away the farm if you do not have to do so.
Works fine with Chrome.....
[IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/39359/width/200/height/400[/IMG]
Apple is made of many Great people and they all have their part to play with the success of Apple
And don't forget your selves loyal customers
The problem with this article is that it is rear looking. Stocks are not valued based on their past if their future is viewed differently. Apple's markets are maturing. If Apple does not create a LARGE new category (relative to current revenues) then Apple's ability to grow is limited. In 2013 Apple stopped growing profits because their markets matured. Therefore, without a new, successful product category Apple's stock is dead money. Reality bites.
According to this 27% of Chinese smartphone users use phones valued at $US500 or more, Apple has 80% of that market.
There are now 700 million smartphone users in China times 27% times 80% equals 151 million iPhone users.
Whaddayamean no growth?
Most popular App for sub $300 Android phones = "wallpapers".
And your math... They call that Chinese math. And that's not a complement.
What do I mean no growth? Look at Apple's revenues and earnings in 2013 vs 2012. Apple was growing rapidly between 09- 2012. It ended in 2013 because Apple's end markets matured. I'm not saying Apple can't grow. I am saying the real growth is in the past. Who knows, maybe Apple will invent another new category that scales like the iPhone. Or maybe somebody else will. Uh oh...
And your math... They call that Chinese math. And that's not a complement.
iTunes revenue growth.
Apple makes more from iTunes revenue than all the handset makers apart from Samsung, added together.
That's quite impressive and sad at the same time.
According to this 27% of Chinese smartphone users use phones valued at $US500 or more, Apple has 80% of that market.
There are now 700 million smartphone users in China times 27% times 80% equals 151 million iPhone users.
Whaddayamean no growth?
Most popular App for sub $300 Android phones = "wallpapers".
More math...
If it's true that "27% of all Chinese smartphone users buy >$500 phones", AND that "Apple owns 80% of that market", then it means that Apple owns roughly 22% of the entire Chinese smartphone market.
If the numbers are right, it's pretty impressive.
And they're only just getting started with China Mobile.
Another important number I'd like to know: What percent of all Chinese mobile phone users are Smartphone Users? How big is that market today in real terms, not just "potential"?
If, for example, smartphone users represent 25% of the whole market, then Apple would own about 5% of the entire mobile phone market in China, with plenty of room to grow...
Does anyone have those numbers handy?