But when someone says Apple should ditch 16GB storage and start with 32GB these same progressives say that's ridiculous and Apple's #1 goal should be to maximize profits for shareholders.
When you say Apple should do something and then back up your whining with some personal wants and reasoning that has less thought put into it than the plot of a Michael Bay film then, yes, it's ridiculous.
How about just once looking at it from the company's PoV and trying to understand the pros and cons of why something is or isn't likely to happen? Ya know, a reasoned comment (or maybe you don't).
iPhone: the competition (even analysts and the media) still don't "get" how and why it's not just a great device, but an icon that continues to iterate on and redefine the philosophy and ideas that stand behind it. It isn't just about the hardware on its own, or the software on its own, or how just these two things function in time and space compared to other rectangular devices stuffed with circuitry and software. It's about the ecosystem which the iPhone enables and empowers people to enjoy. It's about how easily and delightfully the iPhone works with everything else in that ecosystem. The iPhone is both the gateway to it and the ecosystem itself. And it's these things - a lot of them intangible - that Apple pulls off in a way that no one else can. Consumers connect with the value in this and are ready to PAY for it. The value keeps being there, so they keep paying for it.
Watch them do the exact same thing with the Apple Watch.
iPad: It's the de facto tablet. It's more Apple ecosystem on a comfy display. They work so well that the upgrade cycle on them is far longer. This creates a quarterly sales cap. Additionally, they aren't subsidized. Further, the use case for tablets still overlaps with "regular" computers and larger smartphones. There's no doubt that Apple was perfectly happy to have the iPhone 6+ cannibalize the iPad line to some degree. No single tablet manufacturer outsells the iPad.
Macs: There's a natural quarterly market share cap on them because they're expensive. That's it. That's all there is to it. Apple charges for the finest computers (which also means they run OS X) the market can offer.
And the kicker: All of these areas make Apple obscene amounts of money - some to a greater degree than others, but they've proven that high margins - when vertical integration is done right - are not antithetical to consumer spending.
Nope.. Windows 8 ASP is $0, now that Windows 10 is free...
Only the Windows 10 Upgrade is free and it is only for 1 year. You still need a copy of Windows 7 or Windows 8 to be eligible. The full version of Windows 10 will still cost money (maybe even more expensive?) if you are building your own computer with parts from Newegg. HP, Dell will still need to pay Microsoft for every PC sold with Windows.
Microsoft realized very very small number of people actually purchased OS upgrades. That is why it is free upgrade for one year. After that if you "need it" you are more likely to pay whatever the price they charge.
iPhone: the competition (even analysts and the media) still don't "get" how and why it's not just a great device, but an icon that continues to iterate on and redefine the philosophy and ideas that stand behind it. It isn't just about the hardware on its own, or the software on its own, or how just these two things function in time and space compared to other rectangular devices stuffed with circuitry and software. It's about the ecosystem which the iPhone enables and empowers people to enjoy. It's about how easily and delightfully the iPhone works with everything else in that ecosystem. The iPhone is both the gateway to it and the ecosystem itself. And it's these things - a lot of them intangible - that Apple pulls off in a way that no one else can. Consumers connect with the value in this and are ready to PAY for it. The value keeps being there, so they keep paying for it.
Watch them do the exact same thing with the Apple Watch.
iPad: It's the de facto tablet. It's more Apple ecosystem on a comfy display. They work so well that the upgrade cycle on them is far longer. This creates a quarterly sales cap. Additionally, they aren't subsidized. Further, the use case for tablets still overlaps with "regular" computers and larger smartphones. There's no doubt that Apple was perfectly happy to have the iPhone 6+ cannibalize the iPad line to some degree. No single tablet manufacturer outsells the iPad.
Macs: There's a natural quarterly market share cap on them because they're expensive. That's it. That's all there is to it. Apple charges for the finest computers (which also means they run OS X) the market can offer.
And the kicker: All of these areas make Apple obscene amounts of money - some to a greater degree than others, but they've proven that high margins - when vertical integration is done right - are not antithetical to consumer spending.
It's surprising Apple sells as many Macs and the market does grow in light of tablets and phones doing much of what a Mac can do. In our family, you can find us on our phones the vast majority of the time. Wife and daughters don't use a computer. Just phone and iPads.
And a Mac, while awesome, is overkill for a lot of people. With their phones and iPads doing 95% of the work, it's easy to see why people just stay with their "trucks", their PCs.
So, this is pretty awesome that Apple continues to grow its Macs like it does. I wonder what percentage are college students who buy a new Mac for school and could be a good chunk of this market.
One other thing, the Macs seem to last longer. We have a 2009 MacBook that has been around the block and back and then some and it looks like new.
Nah - take out Samsung by buying Intel. Don't sell off the pieces, appease everyone by guaranteeing x86 chips will still be built (but stop future development unless you plan on keeping Macs in that architecture), kill off Atom and re-task those foundries.
As far as I am concerned, Apple needs to buy nothing at all. There's plenty for them to do in-house, and solely with organic growth. I'd like to see @TV taken to the next stage, and significant moves forward in CarPlay as next major steps. (I am assuming that the mega-iPad is on its way, as is a Retina MBAir, both of which will fire up those respective segments).
According to progressives, socialists and Marxists, Apple "didn't build that", therefore no amount workers are paid and no amount Apple is taxed will be enough.
I was coming back at you commenting on the ridiculousness of what I can only describe as an involuntary curmudgeonly twitch but decided just to use an emoticon instead -
I was coming back at you commenting on the ridiculousness of what I can only describe as an involuntary curmudgeonly twitch but decided just to use an emoticon instead - :no:
And yet the comment is completely accurate and based on personal experience.
My interesting numbers for the quarter are 21m v 1m i.e. 21 million iPads sold, which equal a failure for Apple versus 1 million Surface sold which is a "success" for Microsoft!!
According to progressives, socialists and Marxists, Apple "didn't build that", therefore no amount workers are paid and no amount Apple is taxed will be enough.
I was coming back at you commenting on the ridiculousness of what I can only describe as an involuntary curmudgeonly twitch but decided just to use an emoticon instead -
Great results - let's just hope that Apple doesn't become a one-trick pony: almost 65% of revenues coming from the iPhone only is, in my view, a worrying sign.
Comments
Thanks. I heard about this yesterday I just couldn't find the article today.
When you say Apple should do something and then back up your whining with some personal wants and reasoning that has less thought put into it than the plot of a Michael Bay film then, yes, it's ridiculous.
How about just once looking at it from the company's PoV and trying to understand the pros and cons of why something is or isn't likely to happen? Ya know, a reasoned comment (or maybe you don't).
Here's a stat for you: Apple sold iPhones at a rate 3.8 times faster than world population growth.
They will have to, to ensure everyone on the planet has an iPhone eventually.
"Ludicrous" isn't really the right word for the headline, though. It implies foolishness or amusing ridiculousness.
Perhaps there was some confusion with the word "luchre"?
iPhone: the competition (even analysts and the media) still don't "get" how and why it's not just a great device, but an icon that continues to iterate on and redefine the philosophy and ideas that stand behind it. It isn't just about the hardware on its own, or the software on its own, or how just these two things function in time and space compared to other rectangular devices stuffed with circuitry and software. It's about the ecosystem which the iPhone enables and empowers people to enjoy. It's about how easily and delightfully the iPhone works with everything else in that ecosystem. The iPhone is both the gateway to it and the ecosystem itself. And it's these things - a lot of them intangible - that Apple pulls off in a way that no one else can. Consumers connect with the value in this and are ready to PAY for it. The value keeps being there, so they keep paying for it.
Watch them do the exact same thing with the Apple Watch.
iPad: It's the de facto tablet. It's more Apple ecosystem on a comfy display. They work so well that the upgrade cycle on them is far longer. This creates a quarterly sales cap. Additionally, they aren't subsidized. Further, the use case for tablets still overlaps with "regular" computers and larger smartphones. There's no doubt that Apple was perfectly happy to have the iPhone 6+ cannibalize the iPad line to some degree. No single tablet manufacturer outsells the iPad.
Macs: There's a natural quarterly market share cap on them because they're expensive. That's it. That's all there is to it. Apple charges for the finest computers (which also means they run OS X) the market can offer.
And the kicker: All of these areas make Apple obscene amounts of money - some to a greater degree than others, but they've proven that high margins - when vertical integration is done right - are not antithetical to consumer spending.
Nope.. Windows 8 ASP is $0, now that Windows 10 is free...
Only the Windows 10 Upgrade is free and it is only for 1 year. You still need a copy of Windows 7 or Windows 8 to be eligible. The full version of Windows 10 will still cost money (maybe even more expensive?) if you are building your own computer with parts from Newegg. HP, Dell will still need to pay Microsoft for every PC sold with Windows.
Microsoft realized very very small number of people actually purchased OS upgrades. That is why it is free upgrade for one year. After that if you "need it" you are more likely to pay whatever the price they charge.
iPhone: the competition (even analysts and the media) still don't "get" how and why it's not just a great device, but an icon that continues to iterate on and redefine the philosophy and ideas that stand behind it. It isn't just about the hardware on its own, or the software on its own, or how just these two things function in time and space compared to other rectangular devices stuffed with circuitry and software. It's about the ecosystem which the iPhone enables and empowers people to enjoy. It's about how easily and delightfully the iPhone works with everything else in that ecosystem. The iPhone is both the gateway to it and the ecosystem itself. And it's these things - a lot of them intangible - that Apple pulls off in a way that no one else can. Consumers connect with the value in this and are ready to PAY for it. The value keeps being there, so they keep paying for it.
Watch them do the exact same thing with the Apple Watch.
iPad: It's the de facto tablet. It's more Apple ecosystem on a comfy display. They work so well that the upgrade cycle on them is far longer. This creates a quarterly sales cap. Additionally, they aren't subsidized. Further, the use case for tablets still overlaps with "regular" computers and larger smartphones. There's no doubt that Apple was perfectly happy to have the iPhone 6+ cannibalize the iPad line to some degree. No single tablet manufacturer outsells the iPad.
Macs: There's a natural quarterly market share cap on them because they're expensive. That's it. That's all there is to it. Apple charges for the finest computers (which also means they run OS X) the market can offer.
And the kicker: All of these areas make Apple obscene amounts of money - some to a greater degree than others, but they've proven that high margins - when vertical integration is done right - are not antithetical to consumer spending.
It's surprising Apple sells as many Macs and the market does grow in light of tablets and phones doing much of what a Mac can do. In our family, you can find us on our phones the vast majority of the time. Wife and daughters don't use a computer. Just phone and iPads.
And a Mac, while awesome, is overkill for a lot of people. With their phones and iPads doing 95% of the work, it's easy to see why people just stay with their "trucks", their PCs.
So, this is pretty awesome that Apple continues to grow its Macs like it does. I wonder what percentage are college students who buy a new Mac for school and could be a good chunk of this market.
One other thing, the Macs seem to last longer. We have a 2009 MacBook that has been around the block and back and then some and it looks like new.
Nah - take out Samsung by buying Intel. Don't sell off the pieces, appease everyone by guaranteeing x86 chips will still be built (but stop future development unless you plan on keeping Macs in that architecture), kill off Atom and re-task those foundries.
As far as I am concerned, Apple needs to buy nothing at all. There's plenty for them to do in-house, and solely with organic growth. I'd like to see @TV taken to the next stage, and significant moves forward in CarPlay as next major steps. (I am assuming that the mega-iPad is on its way, as is a Retina MBAir, both of which will fire up those respective segments).
According to progressives, socialists and Marxists, Apple "didn't build that", therefore no amount workers are paid and no amount Apple is taxed will be enough.
I was coming back at you commenting on the ridiculousness of what I can only describe as an involuntary curmudgeonly twitch but decided just to use an emoticon instead -
And yet the comment is completely accurate and based on personal experience.
According to progressives, socialists and Marxists, Apple "didn't build that", therefore no amount workers are paid and no amount Apple is taxed will be enough.
I was coming back at you commenting on the ridiculousness of what I can only describe as an involuntary curmudgeonly twitch but decided just to use an emoticon instead -
Or did you mean the ludicrousness....
$131.4 billion: The total cost of the Apollo program, adjusted for inflation.
..."To the moon, Apple!!"...
Am I the only one that read this article and thought Apple needs to buy an aircraft carrier?
First thing I thought of
LOL
Nah...too much like Google's failed SF Bay adventure.
So, by my mental calculations, Apple bought Beats for 2 weeks of effort. That should be on the list.
Am I the only one that read this article and thought Apple needs to buy an aircraft carrier?
I wonder why Apple doesn't just buy a few 747 cargo jets. They must be getting one hell of a deal through FedEx and UPS.
Great results - let's just hope that Apple doesn't become a one-trick pony: almost 65% of revenues coming from the iPhone only is, in my view, a worrying sign.