Amazon is like Google in that it's building as much crap as they can in the hope something sticks.
This will fail, or at most will be just a barely-used curiosity. Stop wasting time and money and work on your core services. It's amazing that this company barely makes a profit, yet still has a stock-price that in no way correlates to any kind of reality that we live in.
Good grief. The same hypocrisy on this thread that is on so many others. If Apple wants to enter a new field or debut a new product, whether it is music players, smartphones, tablets, smart watches/wearables, IoT, VR/AR, TV and music streaming, ebooks (all of which had viable, profitable, traction-gaining products before Apple entered) it is a good thing. Great for consumers, the market, technology, humanity as a whole. But let other companies do the same thing? Evil. Wrong. Copyright infringement. And so on.
It is funny that fans of the company that renamed itself from "Apple Computer, Inc." to "Apple Inc." in 2007 precisely because personal computers were no longer going to be their primary product because since then they have moved into areas like mobile devices, wearables/IoT, AR/VR, AI, streaming media, cloud, green energy, original entertainment etc. and plans still more expansions into the future is telling everyone else to stay in their lanes. Seriously?
As far as the old "create as many new products as possible in the hope that something sticks" it is very simple to answer that: structured versus RAD. Waterfall versus agile. Apple is the former, along with IBM, Cisco, Microsoft, HP, Oracle, Sony, Nintento, Intel, and the American telecom companies (AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon etc.). The latter includes Google, Amazon, Facebook, Salesforce, Qualcomm and a lot of the South Korean/Taiwanese/Chinese hardware companies (Samsung Mobile, Nvidia, Acer, Asustek, Huawei). Which of those are doing better right now? Before you answer, realize that the former legacy waterfall group also included the likes of DEC, NCR, RCA, GE, Motorola, Eastman Kodak, Xerox, Toshiba and Mitsubishi. Which means that nearly all have been bought by foreign competition (RCA, Motorola), have all but exited the hardware game and are now eking along as software/services only (AT&T, NCR, IBM) or flat out no longer exist in a meaningful sense. By contrast the only major RAD company to have truly gone belly-up was Sun. Which means that not only is Apple the biggest company in the world, but also the last major player of its kind.
Remember that before you mock all these other companies for not having the same product strategy and overall business model as Apple. Because nearly every other company that does things the way that Apple does is either out of business, heading that way or is only surviving as as a shell of its former self. Meaning that what works so well for Apple will probably not work as well for well for everyone else. And for that matter, it is highly debatable how Apple's way of doing things worked before the iPhone or will continue to so after it as more and more things shift to the very platform-independent web and cloud based models that you folks mock Google, Amazon, Facebook etc. for using to make billions, with a good chunk of it coming from Apple's own hardware and in competing with Apple's own software and services.
Apple is not just the last of the older generation of tech companies, but in fact the most successful public corp in human history.
Today Apple is the most successful, yesterday they were not and most certainly tomorrow they will not be.
Apple is is having its glory days now, and I’m extremely excited about that, but just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER COMPANY that has “held” that spot, they will be surpassed sooner or later. Probably a little over sooner and slightly before later.
You say this like it’s the only time in “human history” its ever been done. There have been multiples of company that have “in fact been the most successful public Corp in human history”
Well put. For all the recent emphasis on services, Apple, as it is today, is surfing one big wave (mobile phones). It's ridden things very well and its cash hoard gives it a lot of margin but that wave will not go on forever.
Will services really give them a new platform or will things just come down to normal levels? I don't know but I do know that they will not be sitting so high indefinitely and new markets must be developed AND they must be better than everyone else in those markets to stay on the highest perch. That will not happen.
It's far more likely that they will perform just like a regular tech company.
Apple Messages is one Apple service that is extremely sticky.
One reason is that it works on all of your Apple devices - iPhones, iPads, Macs. If you call or video-call a person with your iPhone to their iPhone, they can seamlessly answer on the iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Apple's system will route through the internet and will do it with end-to-end encryption. You can't do that why any other messaging system.
Google tried to create a messaging system to attract Apple customers. But it is only available on iOS.
Only Microsoft has created a similar system since Skype works on PCs, Macs and iPhone. But Microsoft no longer does phones - leaving a huge part of the market to its competitors. And only Skype for Business has end-to-end encryption.
Apple's system is only Apple. While it may make sense for Apple users, it isn't universal enough to crack the IM market.
Are you under the impression that it's Apple's goal to crack the IM market? Apple's purpose with iMessages is to provide additional value to Apple devices, which it does in spades.
No.
I don't know what plans Apple has for its IM solution. What I can say is that I don't know anybody that uses it.
Okay then! When you get out from that rock you living under, take a look around and discover that there are indeed millions upon millions of people using iMessage -- billions of messages day.
"At peak rates, that would work out to 63 quadrillion messages per year"
Apple Messages is one Apple service that is extremely sticky.
One reason is that it works on all of your Apple devices - iPhones, iPads, Macs. If you call or video-call a person with your iPhone to their iPhone, they can seamlessly answer on the iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Apple's system will route through the internet and will do it with end-to-end encryption. You can't do that why any other messaging system.
Google tried to create a messaging system to attract Apple customers. But it is only available on iOS.
Only Microsoft has created a similar system since Skype works on PCs, Macs and iPhone. But Microsoft no longer does phones - leaving a huge part of the market to its competitors. And only Skype for Business has end-to-end encryption.
Apple's system is only Apple. While it may make sense for Apple users, it isn't universal enough to crack the IM market.
Are you under the impression that it's Apple's goal to crack the IM market? Apple's purpose with iMessages is to provide additional value to Apple devices, which it does in spades.
No.
I don't know what plans Apple has for its IM solution. What I can say is that I don't know anybody that uses it.
Okay then! When you get out from that rock you living under, take a look around and discover that there are indeed millions upon millions of people using iMessage -- billions of messages day.
"At peak rates, that would work out to 63 quadrillion messages per year"
Amazon is like Google in that it's building as much crap as they can in the hope something sticks.
This will fail, or at most will be just a barely-used curiosity. Stop wasting time and money and work on your core services. It's amazing that this company barely makes a profit, yet still has a stock-price that in no way correlates to any kind of reality that we live in.
Good grief. The same hypocrisy on this thread that is on so many others. If Apple wants to enter a new field or debut a new product, whether it is music players, smartphones, tablets, smart watches/wearables, IoT, VR/AR, TV and music streaming, ebooks (all of which had viable, profitable, traction-gaining products before Apple entered) it is a good thing. Great for consumers, the market, technology, humanity as a whole. But let other companies do the same thing? Evil. Wrong. Copyright infringement. And so on.
It is funny that fans of the company that renamed itself from "Apple Computer, Inc." to "Apple Inc." in 2007 precisely because personal computers were no longer going to be their primary product because since then they have moved into areas like mobile devices, wearables/IoT, AR/VR, AI, streaming media, cloud, green energy, original entertainment etc. and plans still more expansions into the future is telling everyone else to stay in their lanes. Seriously?
As far as the old "create as many new products as possible in the hope that something sticks" it is very simple to answer that: structured versus RAD. Waterfall versus agile. Apple is the former, along with IBM, Cisco, Microsoft, HP, Oracle, Sony, Nintento, Intel, and the American telecom companies (AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon etc.). The latter includes Google, Amazon, Facebook, Salesforce, Qualcomm and a lot of the South Korean/Taiwanese/Chinese hardware companies (Samsung Mobile, Nvidia, Acer, Asustek, Huawei). Which of those are doing better right now? Before you answer, realize that the former legacy waterfall group also included the likes of DEC, NCR, RCA, GE, Motorola, Eastman Kodak, Xerox, Toshiba and Mitsubishi. Which means that nearly all have been bought by foreign competition (RCA, Motorola), have all but exited the hardware game and are now eking along as software/services only (AT&T, NCR, IBM) or flat out no longer exist in a meaningful sense. By contrast the only major RAD company to have truly gone belly-up was Sun. Which means that not only is Apple the biggest company in the world, but also the last major player of its kind.
Remember that before you mock all these other companies for not having the same product strategy and overall business model as Apple. Because nearly every other company that does things the way that Apple does is either out of business, heading that way or is only surviving as as a shell of its former self. Meaning that what works so well for Apple will probably not work as well for well for everyone else. And for that matter, it is highly debatable how Apple's way of doing things worked before the iPhone or will continue to so after it as more and more things shift to the very platform-independent web and cloud based models that you folks mock Google, Amazon, Facebook etc. for using to make billions, with a good chunk of it coming from Apple's own hardware and in competing with Apple's own software and services.
Apple is not just the last of the older generation of tech companies, but in fact the most successful public corp in human history.
Today Apple is the most successful, yesterday they were not and most certainly tomorrow they will not be.
Apple is is having its glory days now, and I’m extremely excited about that, but just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER COMPANY that has “held” that spot, they will be surpassed sooner or later. Probably a little over sooner and slightly before later.
You say this like it’s the only time in “human history” its ever been done. There have been multiples of company that have “in fact been the most successful public Corp in human history”
Yes, and one day the sun will implode. What on earth are you trying to say?
I'm talking about Apple, and referring to its decades-rich history of successful projects, which "cloudmobile" was trying to downplay as some singularity and suggesting their project methodology will DOOM the company 'because agile and Facebook'. It won't.
And on release it’ll be available on more platforms than iMessage.
And it will be installed on 0 phones, unless installed manually by a user.... Compared to billions iMessage apps installed on millions devices.
How can you have billions of the same app on millions of the same devices?
Unless you mean all the other messaging apps of which are far more used and popular than iMessage.
Here's a familar troll trope -- the market share argument. "But Apple isn't the majority!" Whoopdee do. There are more McDonald's than fine steak houses, and more Toyotas than Mercedes. Doesn't make them better, just makes them more common. And your point is.....?
iMessage is a rich messaging platform for customers of Apple hardware. It reinforces the value of the ecosystem.
And on release it’ll be available on more platforms than iMessage.
And it will be installed on 0 phones, unless installed manually by a user.... Compared to billions iMessage apps installed on millions devices.
How can you have billions of the same app on millions of the same devices?
Unless you mean all the other messaging apps of which are far more used and popular than iMessage.
Here's a familar troll trope -- the market share argument. "But Apple isn't the majority!" Whoopdee do. There are more McDonald's than fine steak houses, and more Toyotas than Mercedes. Doesn't make them better, just makes them more common. And your point is.....?
iMessage is a rich messaging platform for customers of Apple hardware. It reinforces the value of the ecosystem.
Yes I know, I use it everyday as well.
If you read what the person I quoted said, you would of understood what I was saying. They were not making any sense so I wanted to have it cleared up a little.
Amazon is like Google in that it's building as much crap as they can in the hope something sticks.
This will fail, or at most will be just a barely-used curiosity. Stop wasting time and money and work on your core services. It's amazing that this company barely makes a profit, yet still has a stock-price that in no way correlates to any kind of reality that we live in.
Good grief. The same hypocrisy on this thread that is on so many others. If Apple wants to enter a new field or debut a new product, whether it is music players, smartphones, tablets, smart watches/wearables, IoT, VR/AR, TV and music streaming, ebooks (all of which had viable, profitable, traction-gaining products before Apple entered) it is a good thing. Great for consumers, the market, technology, humanity as a whole. But let other companies do the same thing? Evil. Wrong. Copyright infringement. And so on.
It is funny that fans of the company that renamed itself from "Apple Computer, Inc." to "Apple Inc." in 2007 precisely because personal computers were no longer going to be their primary product because since then they have moved into areas like mobile devices, wearables/IoT, AR/VR, AI, streaming media, cloud, green energy, original entertainment etc. and plans still more expansions into the future is telling everyone else to stay in their lanes. Seriously?
As far as the old "create as many new products as possible in the hope that something sticks" it is very simple to answer that: structured versus RAD. Waterfall versus agile. Apple is the former, along with IBM, Cisco, Microsoft, HP, Oracle, Sony, Nintento, Intel, and the American telecom companies (AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon etc.). The latter includes Google, Amazon, Facebook, Salesforce, Qualcomm and a lot of the South Korean/Taiwanese/Chinese hardware companies (Samsung Mobile, Nvidia, Acer, Asustek, Huawei). Which of those are doing better right now? Before you answer, realize that the former legacy waterfall group also included the likes of DEC, NCR, RCA, GE, Motorola, Eastman Kodak, Xerox, Toshiba and Mitsubishi. Which means that nearly all have been bought by foreign competition (RCA, Motorola), have all but exited the hardware game and are now eking along as software/services only (AT&T, NCR, IBM) or flat out no longer exist in a meaningful sense. By contrast the only major RAD company to have truly gone belly-up was Sun. Which means that not only is Apple the biggest company in the world, but also the last major player of its kind.
Remember that before you mock all these other companies for not having the same product strategy and overall business model as Apple. Because nearly every other company that does things the way that Apple does is either out of business, heading that way or is only surviving as as a shell of its former self. Meaning that what works so well for Apple will probably not work as well for well for everyone else. And for that matter, it is highly debatable how Apple's way of doing things worked before the iPhone or will continue to so after it as more and more things shift to the very platform-independent web and cloud based models that you folks mock Google, Amazon, Facebook etc. for using to make billions, with a good chunk of it coming from Apple's own hardware and in competing with Apple's own software and services.
Apple is not just the last of the older generation of tech companies, but in fact the most successful public corp in human history.
Today Apple is the most successful, yesterday they were not and most certainly tomorrow they will not be.
Apple is is having its glory days now, and I’m extremely excited about that, but just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER COMPANY that has “held” that spot, they will be surpassed sooner or later. Probably a little over sooner and slightly before later.
You say this like it’s the only time in “human history” its ever been done. There have been multiples of company that have “in fact been the most successful public Corp in human history”
Yes, and one day the sun will implode. What on earth are you trying to say?
I'm talking about Apple, and referring to its decades-rich history of successful projects, which "cloudmobile" was trying to downplay as some singularity and suggesting their project methodology will DOOM the company 'because agile and Facebook'. It won't.
You always say the same thing though. “Apple is the most successful company in human history “. Technically you’re extremely wrong about that but it’s more of how you come across when you say it. You say it like Apple is the first, last and only company ever. Like it’s the be all end all and no other company is as good or ever will be as good. Ever. Just like with your “sun will implode” comment. Making it seem as if it’s going to be forever before Apple isn’t number one on the stock market. Apple is just a drop in the bucket compared to the history of the market. Tomorrow it’ll be someone else as it wasn’t too long ago it was GE as the biggest then Exxon and now just recently Apple.
If im misreading it and that not your real true intentions, I apologize to you.
Apple is a fantastic company and, yes you are correct, they have come out with fantastic products over several decades. I hope they continue the strong trend as a portion of my household income depends on Apple for the time being.
And Senator Brandis can partner with Amazon. Amazon can scrape the data for targeted advertising and the Aussie Government can scrape it for terrorists. 😄
I will surely trust Amazon to keep my data safe. Just as I would Google! 🙈
Not interested unless it can message with the other players. There were open messaging standards previously and then it all became Balkanized again. I'd like plain simple text messages to be exchangable (? is that a word? If not, it should be.) between iMessage, Google Hangouts, F*c*book Messager, WhatsApp, Skype, and whatever new spin comes down the pike. No one needs your animated stickers, annoying noises, or other frufru.
Not interested unless it can message with the other players. There were open messaging standards previously and then it all became Balkanized again. I'd like plain simple text messages to be exchangable (? is that a word? If not, it should be.) between iMessage, Google Hangouts, F*c*book Messager, WhatsApp, Skype, and whatever new spin comes down the pike. No one needs your animated stickers, annoying noises, or other frufru.
Well, there is MMS and SMS... and probably even some more modern protocol that no one implements because they all want to keep people on their platform.
Apple Messages is one Apple service that is extremely sticky.
One reason is that it works on all of your Apple devices - iPhones, iPads, Macs. If you call or video-call a person with your iPhone to their iPhone, they can seamlessly answer on the iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Apple's system will route through the internet and will do it with end-to-end encryption. You can't do that why any other messaging system.
Google tried to create a messaging system to attract Apple customers. But it is only available on iOS.
Only Microsoft has created a similar system since Skype works on PCs, Macs and iPhone. But Microsoft no longer does phones - leaving a huge part of the market to its competitors. And only Skype for Business has end-to-end encryption.
Apple's system is only Apple. While it may make sense for Apple users, it isn't universal enough to crack the IM market.
Are you under the impression that it's Apple's goal to crack the IM market? Apple's purpose with iMessages is to provide additional value to Apple devices, which it does in spades.
No.
I don't know what plans Apple has for its IM solution. What I can say is that I don't know anybody that uses it.
Okay then! When you get out from that rock you living under, take a look around and discover that there are indeed millions upon millions of people using iMessage -- billions of messages day.
"At peak rates, that would work out to 63 quadrillion messages per year"
Apple Messages is one Apple service that is extremely sticky.
One reason is that it works on all of your Apple devices - iPhones, iPads, Macs. If you call or video-call a person with your iPhone to their iPhone, they can seamlessly answer on the iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Apple's system will route through the internet and will do it with end-to-end encryption. You can't do that why any other messaging system.
Google tried to create a messaging system to attract Apple customers. But it is only available on iOS.
Only Microsoft has created a similar system since Skype works on PCs, Macs and iPhone. But Microsoft no longer does phones - leaving a huge part of the market to its competitors. And only Skype for Business has end-to-end encryption.
Apple's system is only Apple. While it may make sense for Apple users, it isn't universal enough to crack the IM market.
It's worth noting that WhatsApp has a desktop application and a web interface. Outside China, WhatsApp is the defacto standard with Line and Telegram as most people's backup.
Not completely true. I can send anybody a message and if they don't have an iPhone , it'll go through as a text message.
Yes, but as a text message it it isn't classified as 'data' and that means any images, audio, video etc will be stripped unless the user has MMS activated. Also as SMS, costs may apply (multiple costs if the text is long). Emojis will be converted into ordinary text.
It it precisely for this reason (and the fact that WhatsApp literally killed SMS in great parts of the world) that people choose not to use services that can have a cost. In fact, many plans where I live no longer even consider WhatsApp content as part of the subscribers data allotment.
Me, I'm not part of the Facebook universe, and would like to keep it that way.
I haven't checked recently but the last time I looked, not even WhatsApp could see my messages and as for FaceBook, there was a proposal to share user data (like telephone numbers etc) but that it hadn't actually happened (I think due to EU regulatory problems).
I don't know what plans Apple has for its IM solution. What I can say is that I don't know anybody that uses it.
Okay then! When you get out from that rock you living under, take a look around and discover that there are indeed millions upon millions of people using iMessage -- billions of messages day.
"At peak rates, that would work out to 63 quadrillion messages per year"
Apple's ecosystem has grown quite a bit since 2014 when they said they were processing 40b per day.
Apple has over 1 billion active users, as does Facebook and their messaging apps ( https://blog.whatsapp.com/616/One-billion ), so it shouldn't be all that surprising that they process similar amounts of messages. Some of the WhatsApp users also use Messages. The following sampling showed most WhatsApp users to be on Android:
There's always a desire to paint Apple as being some minority, niche platform but that's an alternative reality from the one that exists. 1 billion people is about 1/3 of the entire mobile ecosystem worldwide and it's an even higher portion when you split China and developing countries off.
Nobody ever seems to mention how many people use Android's built-in messaging app. Is it really that bad that most Android users worldwide are either on WhatsApp or WeChat? It has something to do with the biggest manufacturers making their own default messaging apps but the option is still there:
"Some might think that the phone dialer and text messaging apps that come installed on all Android devices are the same, but that is far from reality. Samsung, Sony, and LG all make their own versions of what they think the standard text messaging apps should be, which is very different than what Google offers in Messenger."
Google's trying to make their own Messaging app more appealing:
They are trying to promote a rich messaging format that will work cross-platform. This will need the other manufacturers to sign on to it. Once they all play nice with each other, there's no vendor lock-in so some will resist adoption. Apple doesn't have to worry about this but it could affect the phone manufacturers as users could easily ditch their messaging apps and leave them without their mini-platforms inside the main Android platform.
Amazon has a bit of an uphill struggle with messaging. They don't have a social network to rely on like Facebook nor a platform like Apple and Google. WhatsApp's growth came about because it offered a cross-platform alternative to SMS fees by using data plans and wifi before the blue iMessage bubbles came along. They got to over 400m users in just 4 years:
It didn't make any serious money though. WhatsApp made a few million dollars in revenue before Facebook bought it for $19b:
"Facebook broke down the money it spent on WhatsApp as $2.026 billion for the user base, $448 million for the brand, $288 million for technology, and $21 million for other. That left it to chalk up the $15.314 billion difference as “good will” aka the value “from future growth, from potential monetization opportunities, from strategic advantages provided in the mobile ecosystem from expansion of our mobile messaging offerings.”"
If they figure out how to monetize those users then it can make a lot of money but it will be with ads:
Apple makes the revenue from the product so they don't need to put ads into their core services but they wouldn't make any revenue by offering it to competitors.
The plus for Amazon is that messaging should be a relatively low cost venture. The video below describes WhatsApp's hardware setup:
They were able to run their whole operation in 2014 with just 35 engineers and 550 servers with each server handling ~2m messages each. The database nodes had 512GB RAM and they use the Erlang programming language for stability. Even if each server was $10k and each engineer made $100k, the operating expense is under $10m per year. Facebook noted total operating expenses to be about $13.5m in 2014.
If it doesn't work out, it's not a huge expense for Amazon and they have enough server capacity already. The marketing could be tough because they are going up against the default platform apps and the already popular WhatsApp. One way they can push adoption is by limiting real-time Amazon delivery notifications to come through their app or more detailed info, that way all Amazon customers will want to get the app. If they get other businesses on board for customer service instead of those popup chat windows on websites then that can attract some users too. Facebook will always have the social element behind it though that will drive regular use.
Apple Messages is one Apple service that is extremely sticky.
One reason is that it works on all of your Apple devices - iPhones, iPads, Macs. If you call or video-call a person with your iPhone to their iPhone, they can seamlessly answer on the iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Apple's system will route through the internet and will do it with end-to-end encryption. You can't do that why any other messaging system.
Google tried to create a messaging system to attract Apple customers. But it is only available on iOS.
Only Microsoft has created a similar system since Skype works on PCs, Macs and iPhone. But Microsoft no longer does phones - leaving a huge part of the market to its competitors. And only Skype for Business has end-to-end encryption.
Apple's system is only Apple. While it may make sense for Apple users, it isn't universal enough to crack the IM market.
Are you under the impression that it's Apple's goal to crack the IM market? Apple's purpose with iMessages is to provide additional value to Apple devices, which it does in spades.
No.
I don't know what plans Apple has for its IM solution. What I can say is that I don't know anybody that uses it.
Okay then! When you get out from that rock you living under, take a look around and discover that there are indeed millions upon millions of people using iMessage -- billions of messages day.
"At peak rates, that would work out to 63 quadrillion messages per year"
Amazon is like Google in that it's building as much crap as they can in the hope something sticks.
This will fail, or at most will be just a barely-used curiosity. Stop wasting time and money and work on your core services. It's amazing that this company barely makes a profit, yet still has a stock-price that in no way correlates to any kind of reality that we live in.
Good grief. The same hypocrisy on this thread that is on so many others. If Apple wants to enter a new field or debut a new product, whether it is music players, smartphones, tablets, smart watches/wearables, IoT, VR/AR, TV and music streaming, ebooks (all of which had viable, profitable, traction-gaining products before Apple entered) it is a good thing. Great for consumers, the market, technology, humanity as a whole. But let other companies do the same thing? Evil. Wrong. Copyright infringement. And so on.
It is funny that fans of the company that renamed itself from "Apple Computer, Inc." to "Apple Inc." in 2007 precisely because personal computers were no longer going to be their primary product because since then they have moved into areas like mobile devices, wearables/IoT, AR/VR, AI, streaming media, cloud, green energy, original entertainment etc. and plans still more expansions into the future is telling everyone else to stay in their lanes. Seriously?
As far as the old "create as many new products as possible in the hope that something sticks" it is very simple to answer that: structured versus RAD. Waterfall versus agile. Apple is the former, along with IBM, Cisco, Microsoft, HP, Oracle, Sony, Nintento, Intel, and the American telecom companies (AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon etc.). The latter includes Google, Amazon, Facebook, Salesforce, Qualcomm and a lot of the South Korean/Taiwanese/Chinese hardware companies (Samsung Mobile, Nvidia, Acer, Asustek, Huawei). Which of those are doing better right now? Before you answer, realize that the former legacy waterfall group also included the likes of DEC, NCR, RCA, GE, Motorola, Eastman Kodak, Xerox, Toshiba and Mitsubishi. Which means that nearly all have been bought by foreign competition (RCA, Motorola), have all but exited the hardware game and are now eking along as software/services only (AT&T, NCR, IBM) or flat out no longer exist in a meaningful sense. By contrast the only major RAD company to have truly gone belly-up was Sun. Which means that not only is Apple the biggest company in the world, but also the last major player of its kind.
Remember that before you mock all these other companies for not having the same product strategy and overall business model as Apple. Because nearly every other company that does things the way that Apple does is either out of business, heading that way or is only surviving as as a shell of its former self. Meaning that what works so well for Apple will probably not work as well for well for everyone else. And for that matter, it is highly debatable how Apple's way of doing things worked before the iPhone or will continue to so after it as more and more things shift to the very platform-independent web and cloud based models that you folks mock Google, Amazon, Facebook etc. for using to make billions, with a good chunk of it coming from Apple's own hardware and in competing with Apple's own software and services.
Apple is not just the last of the older generation of tech companies, but in fact the most successful public corp in human history.
Today Apple is the most successful, yesterday they were not and most certainly tomorrow they will not be.
Apple is is having its glory days now, and I’m extremely excited about that, but just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER COMPANY that has “held” that spot, they will be surpassed sooner or later. Probably a little over sooner and slightly before later.
You say this like it’s the only time in “human history” its ever been done. There have been multiples of company that have “in fact been the most successful public Corp in human history”
Yes, and one day the sun will implode. What on earth are you trying to say?
I'm talking about Apple, and referring to its decades-rich history of successful projects, which "cloudmobile" was trying to downplay as some singularity and suggesting their project methodology will DOOM the company 'because agile and Facebook'. It won't.
You always say the same thing though. “Apple is the most successful company in human history “. Technically you’re extremely wrong about that but it’s more of how you come across when you say it. You say it like Apple is the first, last and only company ever. Like it’s the be all end all and no other company is as good or ever will be as good. Ever. Just like with your “sun will implode” comment. Making it seem as if it’s going to be forever before Apple isn’t number one on the stock market. Apple is just a drop in the bucket compared to the history of the market. Tomorrow it’ll be someone else as it wasn’t too long ago it was GE as the biggest then Exxon and now just recently Apple.
If im misreading it and that not your real true intentions, I apologize to you.
Thanks for the apology because yes, you still completely do not get it. I say the sun will implode not to suggest Apple will be around as long as sun (because that's insanely stupid), but because given infinite time failure inevitable. So your inane come-back that 'But one day Apple will slump!' counter-point is a silly thing to say because 1) well yes, all things must end. and 2) it has absolutely no relevance to what we're discussing *today*.
And I never said Apple is the most successful company, I say they're the most successful publicly traded company, which is fact. The numbers they pull have never been done before by any company, which is also fact. So no, there is nothing "technically extremely wrong" about these my assertions and facts.
Apple Messages is one Apple service that is extremely sticky.
One reason is that it works on all of your Apple devices - iPhones, iPads, Macs. If you call or video-call a person with your iPhone to their iPhone, they can seamlessly answer on the iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Apple's system will route through the internet and will do it with end-to-end encryption. You can't do that why any other messaging system.
Google tried to create a messaging system to attract Apple customers. But it is only available on iOS.
Only Microsoft has created a similar system since Skype works on PCs, Macs and iPhone. But Microsoft no longer does phones - leaving a huge part of the market to its competitors. And only Skype for Business has end-to-end encryption.
Apple's system is only Apple. While it may make sense for Apple users, it isn't universal enough to crack the IM market.
Are you under the impression that it's Apple's goal to crack the IM market? Apple's purpose with iMessages is to provide additional value to Apple devices, which it does in spades.
No.
I don't know what plans Apple has for its IM solution. What I can say is that I don't know anybody that uses it.
Okay then! When you get out from that rock you living under, take a look around and discover that there are indeed millions upon millions of people using iMessage -- billions of messages day.
"At peak rates, that would work out to 63 quadrillion messages per year"
No one is doubting that but the fact remains. The amount of messages sent is dwarfed by competitors.
Congratulations -- you just moved the goal posts. First you suggest there are few people using iMessages because you've never seen one in your land of knockoffs. Then, when presented with actual facts dispelling that bullshit, you say "But others have more!"
Typical FUD nonsense from a troll. Moving goalposts is your speciality.
Apple Messages is one Apple service that is extremely sticky.
One reason is that it works on all of your Apple devices - iPhones, iPads, Macs. If you call or video-call a person with your iPhone to their iPhone, they can seamlessly answer on the iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Apple's system will route through the internet and will do it with end-to-end encryption. You can't do that why any other messaging system.
Google tried to create a messaging system to attract Apple customers. But it is only available on iOS.
Only Microsoft has created a similar system since Skype works on PCs, Macs and iPhone. But Microsoft no longer does phones - leaving a huge part of the market to its competitors. And only Skype for Business has end-to-end encryption.
Apple's system is only Apple. While it may make sense for Apple users, it isn't universal enough to crack the IM market.
Are you under the impression that it's Apple's goal to crack the IM market? Apple's purpose with iMessages is to provide additional value to Apple devices, which it does in spades.
No.
I don't know what plans Apple has for its IM solution. What I can say is that I don't know anybody that uses it.
Okay then! When you get out from that rock you living under, take a look around and discover that there are indeed millions upon millions of people using iMessage -- billions of messages day.
"At peak rates, that would work out to 63 quadrillion messages per year"
No one is doubting that but the fact remains. The amount of messages sent is dwarfed by competitors.
Congratulations -- you just moved the goal posts. First you suggest there are few people using iMessages because you've never seen one in your land of knockoffs. Then, when presented with actual facts dispelling that bullshit, you say "But others have more!"
Typical FUD nonsense from a troll. Moving goalposts is your speciality.
Avon b7 aspires, based on his many posts, to be the very best product possible for all of these corporations, so of course, "free" and "low cost" are life goals.
Some, maybe many, Apple users resist being the "product;" I consider myself one of those users. Give me a nice walled garden with a spacious view.
Apple Messages is one Apple service that is extremely sticky.
One reason is that it works on all of your Apple devices - iPhones, iPads, Macs. If you call or video-call a person with your iPhone to their iPhone, they can seamlessly answer on the iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Apple's system will route through the internet and will do it with end-to-end encryption. You can't do that why any other messaging system.
Google tried to create a messaging system to attract Apple customers. But it is only available on iOS.
Only Microsoft has created a similar system since Skype works on PCs, Macs and iPhone. But Microsoft no longer does phones - leaving a huge part of the market to its competitors. And only Skype for Business has end-to-end encryption.
Apple's system is only Apple. While it may make sense for Apple users, it isn't universal enough to crack the IM market.
Are you under the impression that it's Apple's goal to crack the IM market? Apple's purpose with iMessages is to provide additional value to Apple devices, which it does in spades.
No.
I don't know what plans Apple has for its IM solution. What I can say is that I don't know anybody that uses it.
Okay then! When you get out from that rock you living under, take a look around and discover that there are indeed millions upon millions of people using iMessage -- billions of messages day.
"At peak rates, that would work out to 63 quadrillion messages per year"
No one is doubting that but the fact remains. The amount of messages sent is dwarfed by competitors.
Congratulations -- you just moved the goal posts. First you suggest there are few people using iMessages because you've never seen one in your land of knockoffs. Then, when presented with actual facts dispelling that bullshit, you say "But others have more!"
Typical FUD nonsense from a troll. Moving goalposts is your speciality.
Avon b7 aspires, based on his many posts, to be the very best product possible for all of these corporations, so of course, "free" and "low cost" are life goals.
Some, maybe many, Apple users resist being the "product;" I consider myself one of those users. Give me a nice walled garden with a spacious view.
I definitely don't aspire to that.
I am probably one of the worst products for these corporations as the data they receive conflicts every step of the way.
I'm glad you feel safe in your walled garden and are happy to pay upfront to be in it. I am also in there but would far prefer the opportunity to opt in or out should I see fit. Just as I can on macOS.
The reality is we are all products and there is very little you or I can do about it without going off to live in a cave without any kind of social contact.
Far better to allow privacy legislation to sit between us and the wolves, and try to make information on us so conflicting as to be useless.
And I should remind you, if you have a short memory, that Apple was a willing participant in pumping ads into the walled garden - as long as it received a chunk of the advertising pie.
Apple Messages is one Apple service that is extremely sticky.
One reason is that it works on all of your Apple devices - iPhones, iPads, Macs. If you call or video-call a person with your iPhone to their iPhone, they can seamlessly answer on the iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Apple's system will route through the internet and will do it with end-to-end encryption. You can't do that why any other messaging system.
Google tried to create a messaging system to attract Apple customers. But it is only available on iOS.
Only Microsoft has created a similar system since Skype works on PCs, Macs and iPhone. But Microsoft no longer does phones - leaving a huge part of the market to its competitors. And only Skype for Business has end-to-end encryption.
Apple's system is only Apple. While it may make sense for Apple users, it isn't universal enough to crack the IM market.
Are you under the impression that it's Apple's goal to crack the IM market? Apple's purpose with iMessages is to provide additional value to Apple devices, which it does in spades.
No.
I don't know what plans Apple has for its IM solution. What I can say is that I don't know anybody that uses it.
Okay then! When you get out from that rock you living under, take a look around and discover that there are indeed millions upon millions of people using iMessage -- billions of messages day.
"At peak rates, that would work out to 63 quadrillion messages per year"
No one is doubting that but the fact remains. The amount of messages sent is dwarfed by competitors.
Congratulations -- you just moved the goal posts. First you suggest there are few people using iMessages because you've never seen one in your land of knockoffs. Then, when presented with actual facts dispelling that bullshit, you say "But others have more!"
Typical FUD nonsense from a troll. Moving goalposts is your speciality.
Please look at my first post in this thread. The goalposts remain rooted firmly in the same place.
What actualfacts are you referring to?
Are we talking about Eddy Cue's peak numbers, one day maximums, averages? Are we talking about articles that present numbers then question them?
I don't recall 'suggesting' few people use Apple's IM platform. Not in the slightest. I said fewer people use it than competing systems. I said I don't know anyone that uses it.
The reason is that 80% of the mobile IM market doesn't run iOS and therefore doesn't even have the option of using Apple's platform. One the other side, all iOS users have the option of using competing services.
So what we have is not a moving on of the goalposts but you putting words into my mouth.
Comments
Will services really give them a new platform or will things just come down to normal levels? I don't know but I do know that they will not be sitting so high indefinitely and new markets must be developed AND they must be better than everyone else in those markets to stay on the highest perch. That will not happen.
It's far more likely that they will perform just like a regular tech company.
"At peak rates, that would work out to 63 quadrillion messages per year"
"In 2014, CEO Tim Cook said that Apple handles 40 billion iMessage notifications per day"
http://www.businessinsider.com/eddy-cue-200k-imessages-per-second-2016-2
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/02/28/apple-40-billion-imessages/
I'm talking about Apple, and referring to its decades-rich history of successful projects, which "cloudmobile" was trying to downplay as some singularity and suggesting their project methodology will DOOM the company 'because agile and Facebook'. It won't.
iMessage is a rich messaging platform for customers of Apple hardware. It reinforces the value of the ecosystem.
If you read what the person I quoted said, you would of understood what I was saying. They were not making any sense so I wanted to have it cleared up a little.
If im misreading it and that not your real true intentions, I apologize to you.
Apple is a fantastic company and, yes you are correct, they have come out with fantastic products over several decades. I hope they continue the strong trend as a portion of my household income depends on Apple for the time being.
I will surely trust Amazon to keep my data safe. Just as I would Google! 🙈
The limitations are not technology for sure.
The amount of messages isn't the issue though, as I have already explained and if I live under a rock, it's the same rock where 80% of IM users live.
https://www.phonearena.com/news/Messenger-and-WhatsApp-process-60-billion-messages-per-day_id80214
https://venturebeat.com/2017/01/06/facebook-says-people-sent-63-billion-whatsapp-messages-on-new-years-eve/
WeChat is at 768m daily users x 74 messages per user = 57b messages per day:
https://www.chinainternetwatch.com/19524/wechat-data-report-2016/
It doesn't look like twitter even reaches 1 billion per day:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3662925/What-happens-internet-second-54-907-Google-searches-7-252-tweets-125-406-YouTube-video-views-2-501-018-emails-sent.html
Apple's ecosystem has grown quite a bit since 2014 when they said they were processing 40b per day.
Apple has over 1 billion active users, as does Facebook and their messaging apps ( https://blog.whatsapp.com/616/One-billion ), so it shouldn't be all that surprising that they process similar amounts of messages. Some of the WhatsApp users also use Messages. The following sampling showed most WhatsApp users to be on Android:
https://venturebeat.com/2015/08/27/three-quarters-of-whatsapp-users-are-on-android-study-finds/
There's always a desire to paint Apple as being some minority, niche platform but that's an alternative reality from the one that exists. 1 billion people is about 1/3 of the entire mobile ecosystem worldwide and it's an even higher portion when you split China and developing countries off.
Nobody ever seems to mention how many people use Android's built-in messaging app. Is it really that bad that most Android users worldwide are either on WhatsApp or WeChat? It has something to do with the biggest manufacturers making their own default messaging apps but the option is still there:
http://www.androidguys.com/2016/04/02/google-messenger-is-the-best-all-around-texting-app-for-android-devices/
"Some might think that the phone dialer and text messaging apps that come installed on all Android devices are the same, but that is far from reality. Samsung, Sony, and LG all make their own versions of what they think the standard text messaging apps should be, which is very different than what Google offers in Messenger."
Google's trying to make their own Messaging app more appealing:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/24/14721602/android-messages-google-rcs-universal-profile
They are trying to promote a rich messaging format that will work cross-platform. This will need the other manufacturers to sign on to it. Once they all play nice with each other, there's no vendor lock-in so some will resist adoption. Apple doesn't have to worry about this but it could affect the phone manufacturers as users could easily ditch their messaging apps and leave them without their mini-platforms inside the main Android platform.
Amazon has a bit of an uphill struggle with messaging. They don't have a social network to rely on like Facebook nor a platform like Apple and Google. WhatsApp's growth came about because it offered a cross-platform alternative to SMS fees by using data plans and wifi before the blue iMessage bubbles came along. They got to over 400m users in just 4 years:
It didn't make any serious money though. WhatsApp made a few million dollars in revenue before Facebook bought it for $19b:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/346269/whatsapp-annual-revenue/
https://techcrunch.com/2014/10/28/whatsapp-revenue/
"Facebook broke down the money it spent on WhatsApp as $2.026 billion for the user base, $448 million for the brand, $288 million for technology, and $21 million for other. That left it to chalk up the $15.314 billion difference as “good will” aka the value “from future growth, from potential monetization opportunities, from strategic advantages provided in the mobile ecosystem from expansion of our mobile messaging offerings.”"
If they figure out how to monetize those users then it can make a lot of money but it will be with ads:
https://www.recode.net/2017/7/15/15973750/facebook-ads-everywhere-instagram-messenger-whatsapp
They were already using it to benefit their ad network:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/25/whatsapp-to-share-user-data-with-facebook-for-ad-targeting-heres-how-to-opt-out/
Apple makes the revenue from the product so they don't need to put ads into their core services but they wouldn't make any revenue by offering it to competitors.
The plus for Amazon is that messaging should be a relatively low cost venture. The video below describes WhatsApp's hardware setup:
https://www.quora.com/How-many-servers-does-WhatsApp-have
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c12cYAUTXXs
They were able to run their whole operation in 2014 with just 35 engineers and 550 servers with each server handling ~2m messages each. The database nodes had 512GB RAM and they use the Erlang programming language for stability. Even if each server was $10k and each engineer made $100k, the operating expense is under $10m per year. Facebook noted total operating expenses to be about $13.5m in 2014.
If it doesn't work out, it's not a huge expense for Amazon and they have enough server capacity already. The marketing could be tough because they are going up against the default platform apps and the already popular WhatsApp. One way they can push adoption is by limiting real-time Amazon delivery notifications to come through their app or more detailed info, that way all Amazon customers will want to get the app. If they get other businesses on board for customer service instead of those popup chat windows on websites then that can attract some users too. Facebook will always have the social element behind it though that will drive regular use.
And I never said Apple is the most successful company, I say they're the most successful publicly traded company, which is fact. The numbers they pull have never been done before by any company, which is also fact. So no, there is nothing "technically extremely wrong" about these my assertions and facts.
Typical FUD nonsense from a troll. Moving goalposts is your speciality.
Some, maybe many, Apple users resist being the "product;" I consider myself one of those users. Give me a nice walled garden with a spacious view.
I am probably one of the worst products for these corporations as the data they receive conflicts every step of the way.
I'm glad you feel safe in your walled garden and are happy to pay upfront to be in it. I am also in there but would far prefer the opportunity to opt in or out should I see fit. Just as I can on macOS.
The reality is we are all products and there is very little you or I can do about it without going off to live in a cave without any kind of social contact.
Far better to allow privacy legislation to sit between us and the wolves, and try to make information on us so conflicting as to be useless.
And I should remind you, if you have a short memory, that Apple was a willing participant in pumping ads into the walled garden - as long as it received a chunk of the advertising pie.
What actual facts are you referring to?
Are we talking about Eddy Cue's peak numbers, one day maximums, averages? Are we talking about articles that present numbers then question them?
I don't recall 'suggesting' few people use Apple's IM platform. Not in the slightest. I said fewer people use it than competing systems. I said I don't know anyone that uses it.
The reason is that 80% of the mobile IM market doesn't run iOS and therefore doesn't even have the option of using Apple's platform. One the other side, all iOS users have the option of using competing services.
So what we have is not a moving on of the goalposts but you putting words into my mouth.