After losing Apple's iPad business, Intel has bled $7 billion while heavily subsidizing cheap x86 At

1356711

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 217
    I've got a Mac II fx sitting here if you want to upgrade? ;)

    Ooh, a IIfx...I need another Mac with nonstandard RAM that costs a lot compared to regular RAM. ;)

    Don't worry, I'm thinking of getting one of those newfangled PowerBook 180's soon, I hear those have a modem.
  • Reply 42 of 217

    $7 Billion. Wow, that's over twice the price of Beats.

     

    Poof Gone.

  • Reply 43 of 217
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LilSmirk View Post





    Google Nexus a "flop tablet".

    Seriously.

    I did, and thanks.

     

    Now I know that Samsung had a 12.2 inch tablet. 

     

    That nobody wants.

     

    Apple partnering with IBM on the iPad is savvy. Meanwhile, consumer sales of cheap tablets, make that profitless tablets for media consumption, are going great, and while Apple's iPad is selling at a lesser rate than it was, it still leads the premium tablets (are there really any others?), and more importantly, continues making profit for Apple. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that iPads have fallen out of favor, as much as there is a slowdown in sales while apps catch up to current hardware capabilities, further expanding the "jobs to be done".

     

    In the meantime;

     

    http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/11/11/nexus-9-vs-ipad-air-2-a-mostly-subjective-comparison/

  • Reply 44 of 217
    rogifan wrote: »
    abazigal wrote: »
    It's articles like this which make me have to pinch myself every now and then to make sure I am not dreaming. What bizarro world is this where the competition has problems even giving their tablets away at cost, while Apple has no problems selling theirs at a healthy profit? (????)?

    Since the competition doesn't release sales figures how do we know whether they're having problems or not? The only thing we do know is iPad sales have been declining. Where is DED's feature on that?

    It's true that sales of the iPad have declined in the past year, though I think they will return to year-on-year growth.

    However, they have declined from an incredible sales rate. Remember the initial estimates for iPad sales? I recall that every analyst had them marked for the low single-digit millions. They were all made to look foolish by the extraordinary growth of the iPad. It grew faster than the iPhone or iPod. As such, the relatively modest decline in the past year is from a huge base.

    If one compares iPad to Mac in sales, there is no contest. It seems that the refresh rate for iPad will probably end up being somewhere between the iPhone and the Mac. I used to buy an iPhone every two years, but have changed to every three. That is the same as the iPad. I will probably hold onto my Air 2 for even longer, as it's likely to keep speedy for a long time. A big iPad would entice me to upgrade, however.

    Thanks for another great DEDitorial. It's going to be very interesting to see how Intel's fortunes play out. My feeling is that they deserve to be punished by Apple for being so slow with their chips and for not working more closely with Apple to produce optimisation.

    I think that it won't be too long before we see ARM Macs running some form of OS X. The ultimate endgame will be to have a universal App Store that combines iOS and OS X in one place, with Swift leading the charge.
  • Reply 45 of 217
    that's it DED, keep up your reputation of journalistic integrity and replying with thoughtful insightful responses to posters and refusing to respond with insults and petty mindedness. :rolleyes:

    but the post you're responding to is 100% correct. you haven't refuted it in the slightest.
  • Reply 46 of 217
    richl wrote: »
    I'd love to see you back up such a blanket statement with some evidence. 

    For example, how many Nexus 5 units have been sold? What's the BoM cost of a Nexus 5? How much did R&D cost for LG?

    the fact that they don't publish their sales numbers is all you need to know.
  • Reply 47 of 217
    rogifan wrote: »
    Since the competition doesn't release sales figures how do we know whether they're having problems or not? The only thing we do know is iPad sales have been declining. Where is DED's feature on that?

    that they don't release sales figures IS how you know they're having problems.

    iPads are on a different purchasing rotation than phones. my dad was using an ipad 1 until a week ago. even still, they do billions a quarter. good problem to have.
  • Reply 48 of 217
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by abazigal View Post



    It's articles like this which make me have to pinch myself every now and then to make sure I am not dreaming. What bizarro world is this where the competition has problems even giving their tablets away at cost, while Apple has no problems selling theirs at a healthy profit? (????)?




    Since the competition doesn't release sales figures how do we know whether they're having problems or not? The only thing we do know is iPad sales have been declining. Where is DED's feature on that?




    It's true that sales of the iPad have declined in the past year, though I think they will return to year-on-year growth.



    However, they have declined from an incredible sales rate. Remember the initial estimates for iPad sales? I recall that every analyst had them marked for the low single-digit millions. They were all made to look foolish by the extraordinary growth of the iPad. It grew faster than the iPhone or iPod. As such, the relatively modest decline in the past year is from a huge base.



    If one compares iPad to Mac in sales, there is no contest. It seems that the refresh rate for iPad will probably end up being somewhere between the iPhone and the iMac. I used to buy an iPhone every two years, but have changed to every three. That is the same as the iPad. I will probably hold onto my Air 2 for even longer, as it's likely to keep speedy for a long time. A big iPad would entice me to upgrade, however.



    Thanks for another great DEDitorial. It's going to be very interesting to see how Intel's fortunes play out. My feeling is that they deserve to be punished by Apple for being so slow with their chips and for not working more closely with Apple to produce optimisation.



    I think that it won't be too long before we see ARM Macs running some form of OS X. The ultimate endgame will be to have a universal App Store that combines iOS and OS X in one place, with Swift leading the charge.

     

    Also - the iPad essentially created a market where none, of any significance, existed before. So it is inevitable that after satisfying that market with first-time sales, subsequent sales would slow down to a sustainable upgrade rate. The proliferation of cheap, subsidized tablets from other manufacturers undoubtedly took some sales, but there is really nothing that Apple can, or probably should, do to combat market demand for low-performance, low-cost devices.

  • Reply 49 of 217
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    It's true that sales of the iPad have declined in the past year, though I think they will return to year-on-year growth.



    However, they have declined from an incredible sales rate. Remember the initial estimates for iPad sales? I recall that every analyst had them marked for the low single-digit millions. They were all made to look foolish by the extraordinary growth of the iPad. It grew faster than the iPhone or iPod. As such, the relatively modest decline in the past year is from a huge base.



    If one compares iPad to Mac in sales, there is no contest. It seems that the refresh rate for iPad will probably end up being somewhere between the iPhone and the Mac. I used to buy an iPhone every two years, but have changed to every three. That is the same as the iPad. I will probably hold onto my Air 2 for even longer, as it's likely to keep speedy for a long time. A big iPad would entice me to upgrade, however.



    Thanks for another great DEDitorial. It's going to be very interesting to see how Intel's fortunes play out. My feeling is that they deserve to be punished by Apple for being so slow with their chips and for not working more closely with Apple to produce optimisation.



    I think that it won't be too long before we see ARM Macs running some form of OS X. The ultimate endgame will be to have a universal App Store that combines iOS and OS X in one place, with Swift leading the charge.

     

    " think that it won't be too long before we see ARM Macs running some form of OS X. The ultimate endgame will be to have a universal App Store that combines iOS and OS X in one place, with Swift leading the charge."

     

    I agree.  With Windows 10 having a Universal Apps for phone, tablet, PC, it can't come soon enough.  A universal app store would be great for consumers.

  • Reply 50 of 217
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,467member

    If you think it was not a flop, then who commercially benefitted from Nexus sales? Asus didn't, and Google didn't. 

    A product that costs more to make that it earns in revenues is most definitely a flop.

    There are some Android apologists arguing that Google is "successful" in the sense of keeping itself busy and showing its licensees how they could be making money if they only tried harder, but that's sort of ridiculous bullshit. No Nexus product has ever been a legitimate commercial success. 
    Since it's been explained to you several times that Nexus devices are not meant to be market-leading commercial successes, and which you acknowledged as true at least once recently (and as Google themselves has oft-explained in blogs), continuing the same line of spin reeks of FUD-raking. This is probably where you pull out your venerable "but...but...but... Nexus One!"

    A flop would be a device that doesn't serve its intended purpose. Since Google's stated purpose for Nexus models is to define a hardware platform for new the OS version as well as introduce features of the new Android build to the public I'd say they've been pretty darn successful with 'em. They're doing just what Google says they're intended for.

    Question for anyone who still has doubts: If Google really meant for Nexus models to be profit-making, licensee-competing commercial successes why don't they go directly to Foxconn or Pegatron or Quanta directly for the builds rather than using a licensee like LG or HTC or Motorola or Samsung who doesn't even manufacture the device themselves?

    'nuff said.
  • Reply 51 of 217
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Corrections View Post





    If you think it was not a flop, then who commercially benefitted from Nexus sales? Asus didn't, and Google didn't. 



    A product that costs more to make that it earns in revenues is most definitely a flop.



    There are some Android apologists arguing that Google is "successful" in the sense of keeping itself busy and showing its licensees how they could be making money if they only tried harder, but that's sort of ridiculous bullshit. No Nexus product has ever been a legitimate commercial success. 


    Since it's been explained to you several times that Nexus devices are not meant to be market-leading commercial successes, and which you acknowledged as true at least once recently (and as Google themselves has oft-explained in blogs), continuing the same line of spin reeks of FUD-raking. This is probably where you pull out your venerable "but...but...but... Nexus One!"



    Question for anyone who still has doubts: If Google really meant for Nexus models to be profit-making, licensee-competing commercial successes why don't they go directly to Foxconn or Pegatron or Quanta directly for the builds rather than using a licensee like LG or HTC or Motorola or Samsung who doesn't even manufacture the devices themselves?



    'nuff said.

     

    That explanation may be correct, but does it fundamentally change anything except, perhaps in the most generous sense, to say that it should not even be included in the comparison. If they never intended it to be a commercial success and it still failed to compete significantly with the iPad, what should we conclude?

  • Reply 52 of 217
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by staticx57 View Post





    Yup, Intel has performed so poorly that Apple has given up with them in the Macbook Air, Macbook Pro , Mac Pro, iMac 5k, and the Mac mini

    .. Oh wait EVERY MAC USES INTEL



    Which Apple product uses Intel Atom? Which?

    One does not just post ones opinion after reading only headline. Sort of reading ... Oh gosh ...

  • Reply 53 of 217
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Since it's been explained to you several times that Nexus devices are not meant to be market-leading commercial successes, and which you acknowledged as true at least once recently (and as Google themselves has oft-explained in blogs), continuing the same line of spin reeks of FUD-raking. This is probably where you pull out your venerable "but...but...but... Nexus One!"



    Question for anyone who still has doubts: If Google really meant for Nexus models to be profit-making, licensee-competing commercial successes why don't they go directly to Foxconn or Pegatron or Quanta directly for the builds rather than using a licensee like LG or HTC or Motorola or Samsung who doesn't even manufacture the devices themselves?



    'nuff said.

    Google wants the OEM's to take the losses from these poorly reviewed POS devices. How lovely.

     

    How that Glass thing working out? Any developers still on board? Oh, that's okay because it's a bold experiment.

     

    Google would get their asses kicked going head to head with Apple in the market, and they know it. Why take the public beatdown.

  • Reply 54 of 217
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,467member
    muppetry wrote: »
    That explanation may be correct, but does it fundamentally change anything except, perhaps in the most generous sense, to say that it should not even be included in the comparison. If they never intended it to be a commercial success and it still failed to compete significantly with the iPad, what should we conclude?
    That Nexus devices fulfill their stated purpose pretty well.

    I don't have a problem with any smartphones being compared. That's the kind of thing consumers appreciate with so many choices out there. At the same time are any of the models DED discusses too slow to run the apps and services buyers typically want and use? I don't think so. An A8 is no doubt faster than Apple's previous A7, but that doesn't make the year old version unfit for purpose anymore than an i5 processor would not serve the vast majority of home computer buyers just as completely as an i7.

    At this point in time the latest mobile processors from Qualcomm, Samsung, Apple and others are well ahead of the app/services curve IMHO. Almost all of the more recent ones would fill the needs of all but the most demanding power-users, and those use-types are rare.
  • Reply 55 of 217
    that's it DED, keep up your reputation of journalistic integrity and replying with thoughtful insightful responses to posters and refusing to respond with insults and petty mindedness. :rolleyes:

    He technically didn't. Corrections does all the replying. ;)
  • Reply 56 of 217
    gatorguy wrote: »
    That Nexus devices fulfill their stated purpose pretty well.

    I don't have a problem with any smartphones being compared. That's the kind of thing consumers appreciate with so many choices out there. At the same time are any of the models DED discusses too slow to run the apps and services buyers typically want and use? I don't think so. An A8 is no doubt faster than Apple's previous A7, but that doesn't make the year old version unfit for purpose anymore than an i5 processor would not serve the vast majority of home computer buyers just as completely as an i7.

    At this point in time the latest mobile processors from Qualcomm, Samsung, Apple and others are well ahead of the app/services curve IMHO. Almost all of the more recent ones would fill the needs of all but the most demanding power-users, and those use-types are rare.

    Google has a 'stated purpose' for Nexus? I'd like a link to that.

    That aside, (i) this means that sales must certainly fall into the 'flop' -- i.e., rounding error -- category, factually speaking; and (ii) how has Google's stated purpose panned out -- do you have a statement or something along those lines from Google on that front?

    (Corrected typo)
  • Reply 57 of 217
    canukstorm wrote: »
    It's true that sales of the iPad have declined in the past year, though I think they will return to year-on-year growth.


    However, they have declined from an incredible sales rate. Remember the initial estimates for iPad sales? I recall that every analyst had them marked for the low single-digit millions. They were all made to look foolish by the extraordinary growth of the iPad. It grew faster than the iPhone or iPod. As such, the relatively modest decline in the past year is from a huge base.


    If one compares iPad to Mac in sales, there is no contest. It seems that the refresh rate for iPad will probably end up being somewhere between the iPhone and the Mac. I used to buy an iPhone every two years, but have changed to every three. That is the same as the iPad. I will probably hold onto my Air 2 for even longer, as it's likely to keep speedy for a long time. A big iPad would entice me to upgrade, however.


    Thanks for another great DEDitorial. It's going to be very interesting to see how Intel's fortunes play out. My feeling is that they deserve to be punished by Apple for being so slow with their chips and for not working more closely with Apple to produce optimisation.


    I think that it won't be too long before we see ARM Macs running some form of OS X. The ultimate endgame will be to have a universal App Store that combines iOS and OS X in one place, with Swift leading the charge.

    " think that it won't be too long before we see ARM Macs running some form of OS X. The ultimate endgame will be to have a universal App Store that combines iOS and OS X in one place, with Swift leading the charge."

    I agree.  With Windows 10 having a Universal Apps for phone, tablet, PC, it can't come soon enough.  A universal app store would be great for consumers.

    Just think of the halo effect of having the mammoth App Store incorporating the Mac! It'll be so cool when you can buy a universal app that works on your iPhone, iPad and iMac.
  • Reply 58 of 217
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,467member
    Just think of the halo effect of having the mammoth App Store incorporating the Mac! It'll be so cool when you can buy a universal app that works on your iPhone, iPad and iMac.

    Eventually they'll finalize HTML5. Web-apps will be the way forward IMHO and that of a whole lotta others.
    http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_26844823/q-tim-berners-lee-professor-inventor-world-wide

    EDIT: Did they finally do so a couple of weeks ago, Oct. 28th? I missed that until a few minutes ago. Duh!
  • Reply 59 of 217
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    With what, Windows? Most peoples' needs to have Windows compatibility on a Mac are over these days. I have long suggested that if Apple were to move its Mac lines to non Intel and use Apple CPU/GPU technology with a new version of OS X all Apple needs to do is offer a BTO Intel language card as an option the same way we did with the Apple ][e. These days it could probably be a dongle.



    Apple had that back in the pre Power-PC days, and it really went nowhere.  The card was almost as expensive as a bare-bones PC of the day, primarily because it had to duplicate most of the PC on that card. While that is a lot cheaper today, it is still a significant extra expense for a few select users.  

     

    If they can get the ARM chip to process the x86 and/or x86_64 instruction set, that will be a much better option.  While it will be an extra expense, it will be spread out across a much larger set of users, and there will not be a need to duplicate the rest of the PC architecture.  

     

    There are those who think that Apple should just switch to ARM.  If WindowsRT had been a success, I would say maybe, but there are too many people who list Windows compatibility as a must have feature (wether they really need it or not).  While they should have an ARM version in the labs (similar to how they had the x86 version in the labs for years before it was released), as long as Windows is still a significant force in the PC Operating system market, ditching that compatibility will be a major step backwards.

  • Reply 60 of 217
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    That Nexus devices fulfill their stated purpose pretty well.

    I don't have a problem with any smartphones being compared. That's the kind of thing consumers appreciate with so many choices out there. At the same time are any of the models DED discusses too slow to run the apps and services buyers typically want and use? I don't think so. An A8 is no doubt faster than Apple's previous A7, but that doesn't make the year old version unfit for purpose anymore than an i5 processor would not serve the vast majority of home computer buyers just as completely as an i7.

    At this point in time the latest mobile processors from Qualcomm, Samsung, Apple and others are well ahead of the app/services curve IMHO. Almost all of the more recent ones would fill the needs of all but the most demanding power-users, and those use-types are rare.

    It seems to me that Google has another, UNstated purpose, one that is deeply cynical.

    Pricing their "reference" tablets at or below cost distorts the market by setting consumer expectations to get a tablet of such and such display quality for a completely unrealistic price. Apple's reputation for selling overpriced stuff is reinforced. Low-priced Android mediocrity is advanced. Consumers are further misled.

    This is the other big reason for avoiding Google and what they stand for.
Sign In or Register to comment.