<div class="UserSpoiler"><div class="SpoilerTitle">Spoiler: </div><div class="SpoilerReveal"></div><div class="SpoilerText">
I completely agree. And apple doesn't seem capable of doing paid services.
Maps took time to become acceptable (not good) and was shoved on anybody's phone anyway. Ping went nowhere.
iTunes Radio works only in a handful of countries, and is free because of apple's cash.
iCloud became free, iLife became free, iWork became free. OSX became free. Aperture became almost free (from 300 USD to 80)
Once you go free you can't go back. So if sales decline you cannot make customers pay for your sw. But that's not my point.
Apple has cut off all revenue stream from anything else than hardware sales. And development of these program takes cash. Now they have it, but in time?
And the latest versions of all the mentioned software is a dumbed down version of the previous one (including final cut).
Apple has constantly failed in social, iAd and iTunes Radio advertisements haven't taken off as expected. Maps still needs lots of work (but has become better) but doesn't generate any ad related revenue when it should be a primary source of ads and revenue.
As much as I am an apple buyer and happy user, seeing the total dependency of apple on hardware sales makes me uneasy. If apple ever has a huge flop, a product that doesn't sell, then it is in a world of trouble.
And, because of this dependency, apple has to enter new product categories because as soon as a market matures or shrinks, they lose all revenue. Apple had to enter phone and tablet and they did it quite well. But look at the iPod, there was a time when it was the main contributor to Apple's bottom line. And now is no more. If wearable really takes off then smartphones will become less important. If smart objects really take off, then what little computer is left will go the way of the dodo.
Apple is great right now, but the legs seem thin. They make tons of money, but on 2 product lines with nothing else behind them. The whole ecosystem lives because of the sales of these two products. And, opposite to google, apple is not entrenched in a market (search) that basically gives them tranquility. In 2014 iPhone sales will decline (or, at the very least, stop growing), it is the inevitable cycle of markets and has little to do with competition. So either apple enters a new market or really it will face shrinking. And the price of a smartphone, and related revenue, is much higher (and sales numbers are too) than the one of a watch.
My opinion is that apple is strong, but it has to be really careful to differentiate revenue streams (by doing both home (appletv and others, darn them for not buying Nest) and wearable).
And, for .'s sake, do software right! Fix numbers, pages, aperture, mail, allow me to use airdrop between a mac and an iOS device, etc etc.
Because apple is leaving the door wide open for Microsoft and others.
</div></div>
ok, if google reduced their price for ads in half, and apple did the same, would Google be able to sell twice to quadruple the number of ads?. NO, the ad market iis already saturated... but apple on the other hand could sell twice as many phones ... (hmmm, in china?. can google sell ads in china?...)
BTW, Samsung is selling 4 times the phones (at half the price) , but they are not making the profit that apple is, and google is only making 15 dollars a phone.
Google is in trouble in 2020 when their search patent has expired, when that happens expect their revenue to be one third it is today....
remember that Apple makes tangible items, whereas (to steal /paraphrase a line from "the crazy ones" "simon roberts was here" eps. 14 i believe). google takes a lie and makes it into an ad ... and apple takes a truth and makes it into a product...
The reason Apple is able to sell 51 million iPhones in a quarter is because of Cook. Cook is just as important as Jobs was, hence why Jobs made him CEO.
Wall Street remains obsessed with Apple's short term performance and the belief that Apple's existence is predicated upon their next hit or failed product. Meanwhile, Apple is executing a 10-25 year strategy that will leave their competitors behind entirely as Apple takes its place as the World's only super-company.
It's a foolish mistake to believe Apple and Google are in the same league. I also think that one of the reasons Wall Street produces so much FUD, tripe, and uninformed analysis is that on some level, they know Apple doesn't care about their opinions and hasn't for many years.
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 Daniel Dilger is a blog writer for appleinsider.com 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 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.
Haha! King of Apple iSheep bleating his usual rhetoric crap. Must be nice walking with round with all that hate and bile for Microsoft and Google Dilger. Who honesty cares what you think fool.
It's also great listening to all you iSheep on here bleating about how much you hate Google. Like you think Google or your great crApple gives a damn what you think. They are a business and are only interested in making money!
Poor iSheepies so angry with the world! Bleat bleat poor iSheep!
So long as tech media are dependent on Google search results for traffic and ad dollars you can expect this lie to continue. People are afraid (and with good reason) of Google retaliation.
Hopefully the EU gets after Google more on the Android front and really bears its teeth. Google's monopoly on search must not continue unchecked and that is why I am really hoping for a resurgent Yahoo and Facebook and Twitter to start gobbling up mobile ad revenues and starve the Google beast as the transition to mobile continues..
Google don't have a monopoly on searching. I have been using DuckDuckGo for years and would only try google for 1 in 50 where DDG didn't deliver. About the only thing I would consistently use google for is image searches.
Pretty good rebuttal nachoking. Though we come from different positions I can't see the eulogising of Cook on here. And the ditto heads here don't matter either, most people who buy iPhones have no animosity towards google or MS ( most have Windows machines as is clear by the relative sales of iPhones to Macs). I have only Apple products and I dispair at the "80% of the market doesn't count" nonsense. DED could pour out his overblown prose on this site here as Apple declined to 1% of the market, and everybody here would be dittoing that market share doesn't matter, as they would be part of the 1%, but it does matter. It does.
Apple would do better to have angrier fans, hopefully it has saner management.
Google don't have a monopoly on searching. I have been using DuckDuckGo for years and would only try google for 1 in 50 where DDG didn't deliver. About the only thing I would consistently use google for is image searches.
To be fair, a monopoly doesn't mean every single person uses Google, just that the majority do. Considering Google own the literal word used for searching (Everyone I know says 'Just google it') then it'll take a lot to de-throne them.
I disagree with most of this article, especially the insults against anyone who would repeat a market share claim, because this seems to be a no true scotsman. If you don't think the reported numbers are accurate, where is the more accurate source that gives accurate numbers? I haven't seen any backing for this.
Apple is a special company, but special does not mean undefeatable. We know from Apple's previous problems that they need to remain ahead of the market and personally I don't think a TV or Watch is the right product to go for. I haven't used an iPhone with AppleTV other than just to stream a video to it but I cannot imagine that it will open a whole new world of apps or interactivity any more than say a simple games console.
Apple fanboy blogs seem to love talking about
Google and what google does, yet google,
android fanboy blogs seem to not give a dam.
Sites like android central, Google os, literally
pretends apple doesn't exist and Apple blogs
seem to have this weird hatred for Google, its
weird.
LOL, I've also just noticed this. It's so weird, this Google hate Apple blogs have
And yet Android fans need to come onto an Apple site. Last time I went on an Android site even the threads that marked as being on fire had any new posts for months.
Tim Cook does a better job of defending Tim Cook than DED. He says the phone market is 3 fold.
1) smartphones 2) smartphones used as feature phones. 3) feature phones.
And he sees Apple as top of number 1) in most countries except parts of Europe. He said they track those metrics so they do care about share, he also said they weren't interested in 3) but saw people in 2) moving to 1). And Apple was looking into that. Apple would take share as people moved to real smartphones. He also said Android wasn't one market which is true.
Some of this is self serving, none of it it inevitable but neither is it dismissing market share to concentrate on profit share. Because as a market commodifies that's the dumbest thing you can do. As Steve Jobs pointed out with regards the Apple being run by salesmen in the early 90's.
If Cook ever gave a DED speech the stock would tank.
And yet Android fans need to come onto an Apple site. Last time I went on an Android site even the threads that marked as being on fire had any new posts for months.
There's no need for bias either way. I'm both an Apple and Android fan and I come on this site for the Apple portion of my news. There are Android sites that have existed since before Android existed when they serviced Windows Mobile, such as XDA-Developers. If you want rapid activity there's a lot of crap out there but the idea that Android forums are all dead is incorrect.
So? A COO is pretty damn important and many COO's have become CEO's. Steve Jobs wasn't an engineer or a designer. One could argue his best skll was being a great salesman.
Some posts on this thread are missing the mark when they try to pigeonhole Apple as a hardware company. At present Apple makes its big profits from hardware, but at the root of it is that Apple is a USER EXPERIENCE company. Hardware enables the superior user experience. Ecosystem. iTunes. Apps. These and other user experiences that Apple provides have disrupted markets and destroyed the companies whose fortunes were wedded to them. Look at the list of has-beens: Palm. Sony. CDs. DVDs. Blockbuster. PCs. GPS makers. Still and video photography. And more.
When Cook talks about new categories, he's going way beyond the scope of physical products. New approaches to biometrics can profoundly disrupt the present costly universe of healthcare diagnosis and treatment protocols. They can help us better maintain our health and perhaps live longer. Assistive technologies may help people better compensate for handicaps and disabilities, enabling them to live richer lives and reduce dependency on others. Better educational methods have never been more promising. New categories that broaden, deepen and enrich the user experience will yield amazing new products, from which Apple will continue to prosper.
Addendum: This article appeared almost simultaneously with my post and is a prime example in the medical diagnostics category.
So? A COO is pretty damn important and many COO's have become CEO's. Steve Jobs wasn't an engineer or a designer. One could argue his best skll was being a great salesman.
Yes. That and more. He had taste ( which is a form of design skills) and pushed people to work hard. He also hired the best, I mean really that was a huge skill. He probably let Tim do his thing, which was operations. Now we have an operations guy as CEO and he is as good now as he was then at operations. Clearly there has been no net gain, though because we already had his operations skill. What more has been added?
Federighi is great, Cue not so much. Some people want Ive on stage but if he was good at it he'd be up there. I think there's a reason we see him in nearly every product video but not on stage. Clearly he's not comfortable speaking in front of a large audience. If Angela Ahrendts is as good as people say I hope she gets up on stage. It should be about who works the crowd the best. Right now the only one that does is Federighi.
Comments
ok, if google reduced their price for ads in half, and apple did the same, would Google be able to sell twice to quadruple the number of ads?. NO, the ad market iis already saturated... but apple on the other hand could sell twice as many phones ... (hmmm, in china?. can google sell ads in china?...)
BTW, Samsung is selling 4 times the phones (at half the price) , but they are not making the profit that apple is, and google is only making 15 dollars a phone.
Google is in trouble in 2020 when their search patent has expired, when that happens expect their revenue to be one third it is today....
remember that Apple makes tangible items, whereas (to steal /paraphrase a line from "the crazy ones" "simon roberts was here" eps. 14 i believe). google takes a lie and makes it into an ad ... and apple takes a truth and makes it into a product...
That's a COO job.
It's a foolish mistake to believe Apple and Google are in the same league. I also think that one of the reasons Wall Street produces so much FUD, tripe, and uninformed analysis is that on some level, they know Apple doesn't care about their opinions and hasn't for many years.
Man that is freakin' good news. Never knew, glad to read this; thanks.
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 Daniel Dilger is a blog writer for appleinsider.com 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 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.
Haha! King of Apple iSheep bleating his usual rhetoric crap. Must be nice walking with round with all that hate and bile for Microsoft and Google Dilger. Who honesty cares what you think fool.
It's also great listening to all you iSheep on here bleating about how much you hate Google. Like you think Google or your great crApple gives a damn what you think. They are a business and are only interested in making money!
Poor iSheepies so angry with the world! Bleat bleat poor iSheep!
So long as tech media are dependent on Google search results for traffic and ad dollars you can expect this lie to continue. People are afraid (and with good reason) of Google retaliation.
Hopefully the EU gets after Google more on the Android front and really bears its teeth. Google's monopoly on search must not continue unchecked and that is why I am really hoping for a resurgent Yahoo and Facebook and Twitter to start gobbling up mobile ad revenues and starve the Google beast as the transition to mobile continues..
Google don't have a monopoly on searching. I have been using DuckDuckGo for years and would only try google for 1 in 50 where DDG didn't deliver. About the only thing I would consistently use google for is image searches.
Federighi and Cue don't do a bad job though!
And for the record, I don't have anything against Apple, I have something against biased articles telling bad information based on poor research.
Apple would do better to have angrier fans, hopefully it has saner management.
QFT. I like Federighi! People should watch his presentations from the WWDC sessions. Funny as hell. He's got the panache of Steve.
Google don't have a monopoly on searching. I have been using DuckDuckGo for years and would only try google for 1 in 50 where DDG didn't deliver. About the only thing I would consistently use google for is image searches.
To be fair, a monopoly doesn't mean every single person uses Google, just that the majority do. Considering Google own the literal word used for searching (Everyone I know says 'Just google it') then it'll take a lot to de-throne them.
I disagree with most of this article, especially the insults against anyone who would repeat a market share claim, because this seems to be a no true scotsman. If you don't think the reported numbers are accurate, where is the more accurate source that gives accurate numbers? I haven't seen any backing for this.
Apple is a special company, but special does not mean undefeatable. We know from Apple's previous problems that they need to remain ahead of the market and personally I don't think a TV or Watch is the right product to go for. I haven't used an iPhone with AppleTV other than just to stream a video to it but I cannot imagine that it will open a whole new world of apps or interactivity any more than say a simple games console.
And yet Android fans need to come onto an Apple site. Last time I went on an Android site even the threads that marked as being on fire had any new posts for months.
1) smartphones
2) smartphones used as feature phones.
3) feature phones.
And he sees Apple as top of number 1) in most countries except parts of Europe. He said they track those metrics so they do care about share, he also said they weren't interested in 3) but saw people in 2) moving to 1). And Apple was looking into that. Apple would take share as people moved to real smartphones. He also said Android wasn't one market which is true.
Some of this is self serving, none of it it inevitable but neither is it dismissing market share to concentrate on profit share. Because as a market commodifies that's the dumbest thing you can do. As Steve Jobs pointed out with regards the Apple being run by salesmen in the early 90's.
If Cook ever gave a DED speech the stock would tank.
And yet Android fans need to come onto an Apple site. Last time I went on an Android site even the threads that marked as being on fire had any new posts for months.
There's no need for bias either way. I'm both an Apple and Android fan and I come on this site for the Apple portion of my news. There are Android sites that have existed since before Android existed when they serviced Windows Mobile, such as XDA-Developers. If you want rapid activity there's a lot of crap out there but the idea that Android forums are all dead is incorrect.
When Cook talks about new categories, he's going way beyond the scope of physical products. New approaches to biometrics can profoundly disrupt the present costly universe of healthcare diagnosis and treatment protocols. They can help us better maintain our health and perhaps live longer. Assistive technologies may help people better compensate for handicaps and disabilities, enabling them to live richer lives and reduce dependency on others. Better educational methods have never been more promising. New categories that broaden, deepen and enrich the user experience will yield amazing new products, from which Apple will continue to prosper.
Addendum: This article appeared almost simultaneously with my post and is a prime example in the medical diagnostics category.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/02/16/apple-secretly-met-with-tesla-ceo-elon-musk-also-working-on-tech-to-predict-heart-attacks
Yes. That and more. He had taste ( which is a form of design skills) and pushed people to work hard. He also hired the best, I mean really that was a huge skill. He probably let Tim do his thing, which was operations. Now we have an operations guy as CEO and he is as good now as he was then at operations. Clearly there has been no net gain, though because we already had his operations skill. What more has been added?