Apple's iPhone is no Blackberry: a closer look at AI and the world's biggest company

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 78
    correctionscorrections Posts: 1,234member
    xbit said:

    In 2006, there were a broad array of profitable smartphone makers; building smartphones was considered to basically be picking money off trees. Today, most of the smartphone makers are losing money. 
    This is a false statement. Back in 2006, only Nokia and Blackberry were making any significant profit from smartphones. Motorola and Samsung hadn't backed a horse yet and Sony Ericsson were on the brink of collapse (as they always were).

    Selling a million smartphones doesn't generate a whole lot of profit (just ask Microsoft). The R&D and marketing costs were considerable back in 2006. The high sticker price of smartphones couldn't balance that out at such low volumes. Only Blackberry had the back-end subscription model to make that level of sales profitable.
    You are wrong. Motorola was profitable in 2006, Samsung was profitable, even Sony Ericsson reported "record shipments sales and profits" in 2006. 

    Motorola later ran into problems as iPhone stole away high end sales of handsets, then returned to profitability after focusing on smartphones, then imploded as Google bought them and began chalking up multibillion dollar losses every year. Sony Ericsson was knocked out by 2009. Samsung only survived by rushing to copy the iPhone in 2009.

    Also: "profit" is not limited by the volume of devices sold. It's the result of selling something for more than the cost of developing and producing it. Many phone makers today are building far more millions of handsets but making nothing or virtually nothing on all those sales. Samsung is selling fewer phones than it was in 2006, but at least some of them are higher end products that turn a little profit. 
  • Reply 62 of 78
    roakeroake Posts: 620member
    tzeshan said:
    crowley said:
    tzeshan said:
    So what he said about Android phone  look and work just like iPhone is rubbish. 
    By many accounts Google Now works better than Siri.  But you're right, it's not exactly the same, by virtue of not being the exact same thing, so I guess you win.
    You missed my point.  Does Google Now works with Apple EarPods?  
    I'm an Apple fanboy, I admit.  But this argument is just embarrassing.  Tzeshan, I advise to just stop posting and hope this discussion goes away.
    edited May 2016 singularity
  • Reply 63 of 78
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,855member
    roake said:
    tzeshan said:
    You missed my point.  Does Google Now works with Apple EarPods?  
    I'm an Apple fanboy, I admit.  But this argument is just embarrassing.  Tzeshan, I advise to just stop posting and hope this discussion goes away.
    No.  I am trying to engage in a dialogue like Plato's works which is a powerful form of truth findings.  Only the person with low regards of truths will do this asking like you.  
    patchythepirate
  • Reply 64 of 78
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,645member
    tzeshan said:
    roake said:
    I'm an Apple fanboy, I admit.  But this argument is just embarrassing.  Tzeshan, I advise to just stop posting and hope this discussion goes away.
    No.  I am trying to engage in a dialogue like Plato's works which is a powerful form of truth findings.  Only the person with low regards of truths will do this asking like you.  
      :D

    I remember that bit in Symposium where Plato told of Socrates' deconstruction of a doubters claim that one abacus brand was better than another.
    edited May 2016
  • Reply 65 of 78
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,855member
    crowley said:
    tzeshan said:
    No.  I am trying to engage in a dialogue like Plato's works which is a powerful form of truth findings.  Only the person with low regards of truths will do this asking like you.  
      :D

    I remember that bit in Symposium where Plato told of Socrates' deconstruction of a doubters claim that one abacus brand was better than another.

    Claiming loyalty to his city, Socrates clashed with the current course of Athenian politics and society.[51] He praises Sparta, archrival to Athens, directly and indirectly in various dialogues. One of Socrates' purported offenses to the city was his position as a social and moral critic. Rather than upholding a status quo and accepting the development of what he perceived as immorality within his region, Socrates questioned the collective notion of "might makes right" that he felt was common in Greece during this period. Plato refers to Socrates as the "gadfly" of the state (as the gadfly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung various Athenians), insofar as he irritated some people with considerations of justice and the pursuit of goodness.[52]His attempts to improve the Athenians' sense of justice may have been the cause of his execution.

    According to Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone were wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded that no-one was wiser. Socrates believed the Oracle's response was not correct, because he believed he possessed no wisdom whatsoever. He proceeded to test the riddle by approaching men considered wise by the people of Athens—statesmen, poets, and artisans—in order to refute the Oracle's pronouncement. Questioning them, however, Socrates concluded: while each man thought he knew a great deal and was wise, in fact they knew very little and were not wise at all. Socrates realized the Oracle was correct; while so-called wise men thought themselves wise and yet were not, he himself knew he was not wise at all, which, paradoxically, made him the wiser one since he was the only person aware of his own ignorance. Socrates' paradoxical wisdom made the prominent Athenians he publicly questioned look foolish, turning them against him and leading to accusations of wrongdoing. Socrates defended his role as a gadfly until the end: at his trial, when Socrates was asked to propose his own punishment, he suggested a wage paid by the government and free dinners for the rest of his life instead, to finance the time he spent as Athens' benefactor.[53] He was, nevertheless, found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods of the state"),[54] and subsequently sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock.[55][56][57][58]

  • Reply 66 of 78
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,645member
    The only point that has ever been proven by copying and pasting from Wikipedia is that a person is capable of using the copy and paste function.
    singularitydasanman69
  • Reply 67 of 78
    Herbivore2Herbivore2 Posts: 362member
    Apple is the dominant computing hardware manufacturer period. At this point, Apple is leveraging that dominance to render the remaining competitors impotent. 

    Samsung no longer builds the SoC for the iPad and is losing the iPhone business completely. That move will cripple Samsung's ability to compete with TSMC with respect to the development of advanced CPU manufacturing processes. TSMC is threatening to blow open the race with Apple's considerable help. 

    QCOM has partnered with Samsung, but is on the verge of losing Apple's considerable business in supplying modems for the iPhone. That move will cripple QCOM's ability to design advanced smartphone SOCs.  

    Very soon, the differences with respect to iPhone and Android hardware are going to become far more apparent. 

    It will result in Android OEMs getting SOCs that are a generation old or potentially even more as Apple seems to be putting the one generation old SOCs into the Apple TV. 

    Google might be able to beat Amazon in getting an AI/ML process out to the market, although Amazon has already gained a considerable head start with echo and Alexa. It won't ultimately make any difference. 

    Google seems to recognize the fact that they need to tie themselves to the iPhone in order to remain relevant and successful. However, the feeling does not appear to be mutual. Apple still isn't pre-installing any Google apps on iOS. A long time ago, YouTube did come pre-installed. Amazon and Microsoft are also gravitating to the platform. Samsung may release the Gear with iPhone compatibility also. 

    Soon it will be able about getting the eyes of the iPhone users. It will be interesting to see how that all plays out. 
    correctionspatchythepirate
  • Reply 68 of 78
    Apple is the dominant computing hardware manufacturer period. At this point, Apple is leveraging that dominance to render the remaining competitors impotent. 

    Samsung no longer builds the SoC for the iPad and is losing the iPhone business completely. That move will cripple Samsung's ability to compete with TSMC with respect to the development of advanced CPU manufacturing processes. TSMC is threatening to blow open the race with Apple's considerable help. 

    QCOM has partnered with Samsung, but is on the verge of losing Apple's considerable business in supplying modems for the iPhone. That move will cripple QCOM's ability to design advanced smartphone SOCs.  

    Very soon, the differences with respect to iPhone and Android hardware are going to become far more apparent. 

    It will result in Android OEMs getting SOCs that are a generation old or potentially even more as Apple seems to be putting the one generation old SOCs into the Apple TV. 

    Google might be able to beat Amazon in getting an AI/ML process out to the market, although Amazon has already gained a considerable head start with echo and Alexa. It won't ultimately make any difference. 

    Google seems to recognize the fact that they need to tie themselves to the iPhone in order to remain relevant and successful. However, the feeling does not appear to be mutual. Apple still isn't pre-installing any Google apps on iOS. A long time ago, YouTube did come pre-installed. Amazon and Microsoft are also gravitating to the platform. Samsung may release the Gear with iPhone compatibility also. 

    Soon it will be able about getting the eyes of the iPhone users. It will be interesting to see how that all plays out. 
    No you are wrong. Hardware outside of screen and storage will not matter for the "average" consumer in the next several years. The phones are peaking in hardware not that hardware is not being improved year after year, but rather that the hardware exceeds what's needed to run the apps most people use (Facebook, Netflix, maps etc.) While games and designer apps need more oomph everything else runs without a hitch. What we will see is in the coming years as has been for the last several years the software on both Android and iOS are starting into coalesce. Apple can make strides in SoCs as much as possible but now that a midrange 250 dollar Android phone can do the same basic task as a 650 iPhone. The average consumer wants Facebook and email. The Chinese OEMs will only get larger and larger as they devour into the marketshare of Samsung, LG, and yes Apple.
  • Reply 69 of 78
    gctwnlgctwnl Posts: 276member
    The only one I would not definitely count out is Microsoft. They have a stranglehold on the business market in terms of desktop computing and a lot of server-side stuff (from Exchange to Office365). They're aggressively innovating there to the extent that Surface Pro is starting to look like an ideal business platform. They support iOS so they can get control of the backend (e.g. their mobile device management platform). But I already see pressure mounting that businesses are going to look at the Microsoft mobile platform for phones, tablets, detachables and so forth. It's a long stretch, still, but if through that route they can make their ecosystem more relevant, they will attract developers and they will be able to get a slice of Apple's pie, even in phones.
  • Reply 70 of 78
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,499member
    Apple is the dominant computing hardware manufacturer period. At this point, Apple is leveraging that dominance to render the remaining competitors impotent. 

    Samsung no longer builds the SoC for the iPad and is losing the iPhone business completely. That move will cripple Samsung's ability to compete with TSMC with respect to the development of advanced CPU manufacturing processes. TSMC is threatening to blow open the race with Apple's considerable help. 

    QCOM has partnered with Samsung, but is on the verge of losing Apple's considerable business in supplying modems for the iPhone. That move will cripple QCOM's ability to design advanced smartphone SOCs.  

    Very soon, the differences with respect to iPhone and Android hardware are going to become far more apparent. 

    It will result in Android OEMs getting SOCs that are a generation old or potentially even more as Apple seems to be putting the one generation old SOCs into the Apple TV. 

    Google might be able to beat Amazon in getting an AI/ML process out to the market, although Amazon has already gained a considerable head start with echo and Alexa. It won't ultimately make any difference. 

    Google seems to recognize the fact that they need to tie themselves to the iPhone in order to remain relevant and successful. However, the feeling does not appear to be mutual. Apple still isn't pre-installing any Google apps on iOS. A long time ago, YouTube did come pre-installed. Amazon and Microsoft are also gravitating to the platform. Samsung may release the Gear with iPhone compatibility also. 

    Soon it will be able about getting the eyes of the iPhone users. It will be interesting to see how that all plays out. 
    No you are wrong. Hardware outside of screen and storage will not matter for the "average" consumer in the next several years. The phones are peaking in hardware not that hardware is not being improved year after year, but rather that the hardware exceeds what's needed to run the apps most people use (Facebook, Netflix, maps etc.) While games and designer apps need more oomph everything else runs without a hitch. What we will see is in the coming years as has been for the last several years the software on both Android and iOS are starting into coalesce. Apple can make strides in SoCs as much as possible but now that a midrange 250 dollar Android phone can do the same basic task as a 650 iPhone. The average consumer wants Facebook and email. The Chinese OEMs will only get larger and larger as they devour into the marketshare of Samsung, LG, and yes Apple.
    You fail to address one of the author's points, is that Apple has managed to grow the Mac line above the PC market for over 10 years, as the average price of a PC has dropped.  In other words, even though ever cheaper PC's which are "good enough" proliferate, Apple has continued to grow its Mac business.  Why do you believe that this will be different with iPhones?

    Apple has shown over the last number of years that their "hardware" advances are more than simply making the CPU/GPU faster - they are adding HW specific features which have made their devices better than the competition: TouchID, security, their implementation for Apple Pay, camera features built into Ax series, Apple Pencil support on the iPad Pro.

    No one can reliably predict the future, but my view is that Apple will continue with this focus, thus making their devices, while more expensive, desirable by the premium segment of the market.  The upgrade cycle will no doubt lengthen, but together with Apple's s/w and ecosystem, I don't see a massive defection to $50 cheap devices.
    correctionspatchythepirate
  • Reply 71 of 78
    gctwnl said:
    The only one I would not definitely count out is Microsoft. They have a stranglehold on the business market in terms of desktop computing and a lot of server-side stuff (from Exchange to Office365). They're aggressively innovating there to the extent that Surface Pro is starting to look like an ideal business platform. They support iOS so they can get control of the backend (e.g. their mobile device management platform). But I already see pressure mounting that businesses are going to look at the Microsoft mobile platform for phones, tablets, detachables and so forth. It's a long stretch, still, but if through that route they can make their ecosystem more relevant, they will attract developers and they will be able to get a slice of Apple's pie, even in phones.
    MS is desperately trying to remain relevant in the world, the only thing they offer is legacy support for the days of yore. They have an entrenchment in the business world that is less valid every day as the world of computing moves away from the desktop Windows world of commodity devices and bloated ELA software shackled to the desktop via a Kensington lock. Doubtful their demise will be quick, they may cling to the life raft their monopoly position provided for many years, but their days in the limelight are over, and that's not a bad thing at all.
  • Reply 72 of 78
    correctionscorrections Posts: 1,234member
    Apple is the dominant computing hardware manufacturer period. At this point, Apple is leveraging that dominance to render the remaining competitors impotent. 
    No you are wrong. Hardware outside of screen and storage will not matter for the "average" consumer in the next several years. The phones are peaking in hardware not that hardware is not being improved year after year, but rather that the hardware exceeds what's needed to run the apps most people use (Facebook, Netflix, maps etc.) While games and designer apps need more oomph everything else runs without a hitch. What we will see is in the coming years as has been for the last several years the software on both Android and iOS are starting into coalesce. Apple can make strides in SoCs as much as possible but now that a midrange 250 dollar Android phone can do the same basic task as a 650 iPhone. The average consumer wants Facebook and email. The Chinese OEMs will only get larger and larger as they devour into the marketshare of Samsung, LG, and yes Apple.
    That wasn't true in PCs throughout the 1990s, 2000s or even over the last decade. Apart from gaming, we are not using radically new apps, so how is it that we need new CPUs to do Word and Excel and browse the web? 

    In mobile devices, CPUs are not only getting faster, but also more power efficient. They're also adding new capabilities, as things like camera logic and sensor management are built into the SoC next to the conventional CPU cores and GPU engines.

    If you think all progress stopped at email and FB, you are kidding yourself. Who knows how long FB will even hold people's attention? 

    Also, there is no evidence that any significant number of $650 iPhone buyers have migrated to $250 Android phones. In fact, there is carrier reported data showing that the opposite is happening, and Apple is consistently reporting that more and more of its new buyers are coming from Android. Chinese OEMs are largely feeding an emerging middle class that didn't previously exist. Once they have more money, the upgrade to iPhones. 
  • Reply 73 of 78
    correctionscorrections Posts: 1,234member

    gctwnl said:
    The only one I would not definitely count out is Microsoft. They have a stranglehold on the business market in terms of desktop computing and a lot of server-side stuff (from Exchange to Office365). They're aggressively innovating there to the extent that Surface Pro is starting to look like an ideal business platform. They support iOS so they can get control of the backend (e.g. their mobile device management platform). But I already see pressure mounting that businesses are going to look at the Microsoft mobile platform for phones, tablets, detachables and so forth. It's a long stretch, still, but if through that route they can make their ecosystem more relevant, they will attract developers and they will be able to get a slice of Apple's pie, even in phones.
    Saying "It's a long stretch" is perhaps the understatement of the year.

    If Microsoft is so well positioned in mobile devices, why is it firing all of its staff?

    It's fine for you to be a fan of the Surface, but "ideal business platform" is a long stretch. It's expensive, poorly built, with overheating and Sleep of Death problems, and its share of the PC market is tiny. It has been selling in 1M/Q volumes for the last three years, apparently to the same group over and over again.  
    edited June 2016
  • Reply 74 of 78
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,972member
    brucemc said:
    No you are wrong. Hardware outside of screen and storage will not matter for the "average" consumer in the next several years. The phones are peaking in hardware not that hardware is not being improved year after year, but rather that the hardware exceeds what's needed to run the apps most people use (Facebook, Netflix, maps etc.) While games and designer apps need more oomph everything else runs without a hitch. What we will see is in the coming years as has been for the last several years the software on both Android and iOS are starting into coalesce. Apple can make strides in SoCs as much as possible but now that a midrange 250 dollar Android phone can do the same basic task as a 650 iPhone. The average consumer wants Facebook and email. The Chinese OEMs will only get larger and larger as they devour into the marketshare of Samsung, LG, and yes Apple.
    You fail to address one of the author's points, is that Apple has managed to grow the Mac line above the PC market for over 10 years, as the average price of a PC has dropped.  In other words, even though ever cheaper PC's which are "good enough" proliferate, Apple has continued to grow its Mac business.  Why do you believe that this will be different with iPhones?

    Apple has shown over the last number of years that their "hardware" advances are more than simply making the CPU/GPU faster - they are adding HW specific features which have made their devices better than the competition: TouchID, security, their implementation for Apple Pay, camera features built into Ax series, Apple Pencil support on the iPad Pro.

    No one can reliably predict the future, but my view is that Apple will continue with this focus, thus making their devices, while more expensive, desirable by the premium segment of the market.  The upgrade cycle will no doubt lengthen, but together with Apple's s/w and ecosystem, I don't see a massive defection to $50 cheap devices.
    The Mac sales grew because of the iPhone. The iPhone doesn’t have a stepping stone device to drive sales. 
  • Reply 75 of 78
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,144member
    knowitall said:
    Smartphones will be dead cheap ($20, $30 or less) in the near future and android is on par with iOS from a customer perspective, so yes, Apple will have a difficult time selling iPhones in a few years.

    I have some advice how to keep earning the billions they do now and even increase it (I hope Apple is fair and shifts some billions in my direction as compensation): burn a few 100 billion dollar less (that's free money) and buy (and develop) a satellite network that covers the world, then, start selling a global telephone service with complementary iPhones.
    Bingo.
    The kind of computers that were available in the 80s can now be manufactured for ~ $20. But today we don't use them, we use modern machines that can do things those simpler machines can't. 

    While the iPhone looks like it's a phone, it's really a handheld computer with some phone functions. Apple will have no problem selling premium computers as long as they do valuable new things basic devices can't. 

    And the problem with satellite telephone service is latency. Also bandwidth. 
    Of course it is a handheld computer, but it is called an iPhone; telephone services are considered data service now.
    At a certain point devices become dirt cheap no matter what, take paper for example, very expensive made only for a few, now it's dirt cheap and will stay that way.
    Computers, memory and communication chips will fuse and be powerful and small and cost almost nothing, that's almost as certain as a fact. And the threshold is very near.

    Satellite phone systems have several problems currently, latency is maybe one of them, but you have to consider that the kind of satellites I am talking about fly low and have a latency below 1/100's of a second.
    Thats better than the terrestrial systems we have now.
    The biggest problem is currently the antenna size, but current iPhones are big enough.
    The point is the huge advantages you have with satellite networks: you almost always have a signal, no roaming costs (one fee), no network switching, no local government or other meddling (Apple can ignore all rules of all countries), world wide coverage (you don't have to die 100 meters from a trail), etc.
    So this is a very good idea and can be the future of Apple.
  • Reply 76 of 78
    +3 for the editorial!
  • Reply 77 of 78
    geekmeegeekmee Posts: 293member
    Apple did not have the first MP3 player, nor the first smartphone, nor the first tablet... I think they have a track record to figure out how to differentiate themselves with AI.
  • Reply 78 of 78
    geekmeegeekmee Posts: 293member
    Basically, based on their track record... I wouldn't bet against them figuring it out.
Sign In or Register to comment.