The entry level iPhone will be the used (or previously owned like with cars) iPhone when the rest of us trade-up!
Exactly.
Don't expect revolutionary improvements in the iPhone.
Look at the iPod, every new model was an evolutionary step adding a few minor features.
This is important because if Apple introduces a model that is far superior, then current iPhone 3G owners will complain that their 1 year old phone that they paid $299 dollars for is now ghetto.
So expect significant minor improvements but nothing earth shattering.
This has to be one of the dumbest, least-informed rumors we've heard yet. NOBODY would release a non-3G phone at this time considering that the carriers are moving toward removing slower protocols/networks in the next few years.
Given these estimates, an entry-level iPhone would generate a 30 percent (or $90) profit margin compared to the iPhone 3G's 50 percent (or $300) margin, meaning Apple would need to sell three $99 iPhones to replicate the gross profit from one 3G iPhone, or 34 million units in total before 'breaking even' on the initiative. He believes 20 to 30 million of the devices will be sold during fiscal 2010.
There is a tradition at 1, Infinite loop, to repeat mistakes because Apple never change and never learn from past mistakes.
Back in the late 1980's, Mac OS 4.8, Mac OS 5.0 and Mac OS 6.0 were competing against Microsoft DOS. It was easy to claim the superiority of the Mac OS based on its graphical interface, its Human Interface Guidelines, and the much higher price of the computers running the Mac OS operating system. But the price was higher on Macs because the Mac OS was not licensed to computer manufacturers and because Apple insisted on maintaining higher prices to guarantee a 50% profit margin on every Mac sold.
What was bound to happen did happen. Most companies and cash strapped students stuck with lower priced DOS computers running on IBM compatible clones sold with a normal profit margin of 15% to 20%. And when Microsoft caught up with Apple by introducing Windows 95 with its graphical interface, Apple was slaughtered because most people rejected the high prices of Macs in favor of reasonably priced computers running Windows. And the rest is history. Windows is installed on 90% of the computers while Apple's world market share is less than 4%.
Apple is repeating its past mistakes by insisting on a 50% profit margin for iPhones. As competitors catch up with Apple, Apple will loose its early market lead because consumers and companies know a good deal when they see it. And they have no inclination to save a company with outrageous prices.
Cut the billion dollar bonus to the CEO and upper management and run Apple like a business venture. Or else, history will repeat itself.
Well, let's be fair. The iPod was a high-end product for the first couple of years, but then Apple was aggressive about introducing cheaper models (Mini, Nano, and Shuffle) and started becoming price competitive as rival MP3 players made their appearance.
Also, Jobs wasn't running the show when Windows 95 came out.
Apple had no equivalent of OS X at the time. Windows 95 was good enough when compared to Mac OS. OS X blows Vista away.
Apple chooses carefully which businesses to get involved in. It knows it makes no sense to release a $400 minitower PC and get clobbered by Dell and HP's economies of scale.
The smartphone market is a new, high-end, and growing market. If Apple sees a smartphone that is a worthy competitor to the iPhone (perhaps an Android phone will come out), then it will adjust its pricing and features accordingly. For now, the iPhone blows away the competition, and they can afford the outrageous profit margins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
There is a tradition at 1, Infinite loop, to repeat mistakes because Apple never change and never learn from past mistakes.
Back in the late 1980's, Mac OS 4.8, Mac OS 5.0 and Mac OS 6.0 were competing against Microsoft DOS. It was easy to claim the superiority of the Mac OS based on its graphical interface, its Human Interface Guidelines, and the much higher price of the computers running the Mac OS operating system. But the price was higher on Macs because the Mac OS was not licensed to computer manufacturers and because Apple insisted on maintaining higher prices to guarantee a 50% profit margin on every Mac sold.
What was bound to happen did happen. Most companies and cash strapped students stuck with lower priced DOS computers running on IBM compatible clones sold with a normal profit margin of 15% to 20%. And when Microsoft caught up with Apple by introducing Windows 95 with its graphical interface, Apple was slaughtered because most people rejected the high prices of Macs in favor of reasonably priced computers running Windows. And the rest is history. Windows is installed on 90% of the computers while Apple's world market share is less than 4%.
Apple is repeating its past mistakes by insisting on a 50% profit margin for iPhones. As competitors catch up with Apple, Apple will loose its early market lead because consumers and companies know a good deal when they see it. And they have no inclination to save a company with outrageous prices.
Cut the billion dollar bonus to the CEO and upper management and run Apple like a business venture. Or else, history will repeat itself.
Don't expect revolutionary improvements in the iPhone.
Look at the iPod, every new model was an evolutionary step adding a few minor features.
This is important because if Apple introduces a model that is far superior, then current iPhone 3G owners will complain that their 1 year old phone that they paid $299 dollars for is now ghetto.
So expect significant minor improvements but nothing earth shattering.
All I want is a search feature for Mail and an intuitive (or any) copy and paste feature.
Your argument against a far superior model is asinine. Technology evolves. When that person with a current "ghetto" 3g Iphone bought their current "ghetto" 3g Iphone it was a far superior product to the Edge Iphone. Far superior products introductions should be praised- how else do you think Apple is still relevant in the tech industry? By stepping out on a limb to bring cutting edge technology to the consumer.
Microsoft is the total opposite. It finds something that works and stays with it until it makes negative money for the company. Then it tries to improve the product by tweaking interface and jacks up the price and calls it a brand new OS, or Zune or what have you.
Abramsky believes the move would be a play for unit volumes, something Apple chief operating officer Tim Cook categorically denied interest in pursuing during a recent conference call with analysts and members of the media.
"You know us, we're not going to play in the low-end voice phone business."
It sounds to me like the only thing Tim Cook denied was entering the low-end voice phone business. The iPhone is a smart phone and there is no reason they wouldn't introduce a cheaper model alongside the new high-end model. You would then have a low-end iPhone for those who have not bought an iPhone yet due to cost and a high-end iPhone to get those with the current version to upgrade.
There is a tradition at 1, Infinite loop, to repeat mistakes because Apple never change and never learn from past mistakes.
Back in the late 1980's, Mac OS 4.8, Mac OS 5.0 and Mac OS 6.0 were competing against Microsoft DOS. It was easy to claim the superiority of the Mac OS based on its graphical interface, its Human Interface Guidelines, and the much higher price of the computers running the Mac OS operating system. But the price was higher on Macs because the Mac OS was not licensed to computer manufacturers and because Apple insisted on maintaining higher prices to guarantee a 50% profit margin on every Mac sold.
What was bound to happen did happen. Most companies and cash strapped students stuck with lower priced DOS computers running on IBM compatible clones sold with a normal profit margin of 15% to 20%. And when Microsoft caught up with Apple by introducing Windows 95 with its graphical interface, Apple was slaughtered because most people rejected the high prices of Macs in favor of reasonably priced computers running Windows. And the rest is history. Windows is installed on 90% of the computers while Apple's world market share is less than 4%.
Apple is repeating its past mistakes by insisting on a 50% profit margin for iPhones. As competitors catch up with Apple, Apple will loose its early market lead because consumers and companies know a good deal when they see it. And they have no inclination to save a company with outrageous prices.
Cut the billion dollar bonus to the CEO and upper management and run Apple like a business venture. Or else, history will repeat itself.
i think you're oversimplifying a whole bunch of things historically, and it's not clear to me how you arrive at the conclusion that history will repeat itself. apple is certainly a lot more assertive when it comes to their intellectual property and i don't think that jobs or his successor are going to give the 'crown jewels' away the way that sculley did to microsoft, when they 'settled' their legal spat.
'run apple like a business venture'?? are you serious? by that logic, microsoft should be shut down and the money given back to their shareholders...
There is a tradition at 1, Infinite loop, to repeat mistakes because Apple never change and never learn from past mistakes.
Back in the late 1980's, Mac OS 4.8, Mac OS 5.0 and Mac OS 6.0 were competing against Microsoft DOS. It was easy to claim the superiority of the Mac OS based on its graphical interface, its Human Interface Guidelines, and the much higher price of the computers running the Mac OS operating system. But the price was higher on Macs because the Mac OS was not licensed to computer manufacturers and because Apple insisted on maintaining higher prices to guarantee a 50% profit margin on every Mac sold.
What was bound to happen did happen. Most companies and cash strapped students stuck with lower priced DOS computers running on IBM compatible clones sold with a normal profit margin of 15% to 20%. And when Microsoft caught up with Apple by introducing Windows 95 with its graphical interface, Apple was slaughtered because most people rejected the high prices of Macs in favor of reasonably priced computers running Windows. And the rest is history. Windows is installed on 90% of the computers while Apple's world market share is less than 4%.
Apple is repeating its past mistakes by insisting on a 50% profit margin for iPhones. As competitors catch up with Apple, Apple will loose its early market lead because consumers and companies know a good deal when they see it. And they have no inclination to save a company with outrageous prices.
Cut the billion dollar bonus to the CEO and upper management and run Apple like a business venture. Or else, history will repeat itself.
I don't think Apple wants World Domination. Apple is targeted at the high end 10% users for who Apple prices don't seem to be high at all.
No way they are going to create an EDGE-only phone in 2009 for god sakes! It is much easier to just add a secondary data plan for ~$10-$15 that comes with a smaller monthly allotment of say 100MB or 250MB.
This has to be one of the dumbest, least-informed rumors we've heard yet. NOBODY would release a non-3G phone at this time considering that the carriers are moving toward removing slower protocols/networks in the next few years.
Nonsense...
I know lots of people who don't rely on 24/7 connectivity, and for whom original speeds are quite sufficient for the occasional map lookup. for those (of whom I'm one), a more economical data plan and the lower battery drain would be quite attractive.
I know lots of people who don't rely on 24/7 connectivity, and for whom original speeds are quite sufficient for the occasional map lookup. for those (of whom I'm one), a more economical data plan and the lower battery drain would be quite attractive.
Until they actually bought one. Or better yet, until they brought one out.
There is a tradition at 1, Infinite loop, to repeat mistakes because Apple never change and never learn from past mistakes.
Back in the late 1980's, Mac OS 4.8, Mac OS 5.0 and Mac OS 6.0 were competing against Microsoft DOS. It was easy to claim the superiority of the Mac OS based on its graphical interface, its Human Interface Guidelines, and the much higher price of the computers running the Mac OS operating system. But the price was higher on Macs because the Mac OS was not licensed to computer manufacturers and because Apple insisted on maintaining higher prices to guarantee a 50% profit margin on every Mac sold.
What was bound to happen did happen. Most companies and cash strapped students stuck with lower priced DOS computers running on IBM compatible clones sold with a normal profit margin of 15% to 20%. And when Microsoft caught up with Apple by introducing Windows 95 with its graphical interface, Apple was slaughtered because most people rejected the high prices of Macs in favor of reasonably priced computers running Windows. And the rest is history. Windows is installed on 90% of the computers while Apple's world market share is less than 4%.
Apple is repeating its past mistakes by insisting on a 50% profit margin for iPhones. As competitors catch up with Apple, Apple will loose its early market lead because consumers and companies know a good deal when they see it. And they have no inclination to save a company with outrageous prices.
Cut the billion dollar bonus to the CEO and upper management and run Apple like a business venture. Or else, history will repeat itself.
That's not quite what happened! Apple had most of the market. IBM was struggling, so they allowed compatible clones. That made Mircosoft rich, but did substantial damage to both IBM and Apple sales. Apple clones would not have help Apple at the time. Eventually (under a different CEO) allowing a PowerPC clone just took Apple market share away. Also, the cheap computers and Apple computers are not equal. I don't think your profit margin claims are correct
looking at how Banks and Financial institutions have brought the world to ruin due to their lack of foresight and false predictions I call bullshit on this.
720x480 is a plausible screen resolution. The Nokia N80 was released three years ago and had a similar pixel density (256 PPI).
I'd love to see a decent camera on the next iPhone (what do you call the next iPhone? 3rd generation? ). 5MP with a proper flash (ala the SE K850i) would be ideal.
Edit: I just double-checked and I am right anyway, so you got an apology for nothing. While "resolution" usually refers to pixel density in a technical sense, the common usage of "higher resolution" is indeed more pixels wide by more pixels tall. Since the description in the article talks about a phone and screen of the same *physical* size, and yet a higher resolution in terms of pixels, that would seem to indicate that the images on the screen would become smaller than they are now (smaller keyboard etc.).
So yes, I think that deserves a WTF? or two.
It wouldn't be difficult to update iPhone OS X to allow for the greater resolution. The 50% on the x and y would make sense.
The only difficult part would be the iPhone SDK. Not getting developers to update their apps, but pushing out the SDK while keeping this new iPhone secret. I think that Apple would have to pre-announce this new device ahead of time to prepare developers. Perhaps at WWDC.
PS: While I think this rumour source is BSing, I don't see how Apple can grow the iPhone brand without eventually introducing a simpler, cheaper iPhone.
I have an iPod Touch which I find is a terrific product. I'm using it more than I had anticipated I would.
In any case, in regards to screen resolution, I can't see the value of upping the resolution. Movies look marvelous on this device already. I for one couldn't see more detail even if it were there and I'm not getting any younger so if anything it will get worse.
More importantly, if you increase screen resolution, all that does is force the processor to work harder and takes up drive space with bigger files. That in turn would also negatively impact battery life. If there were a payoff for that, then it would be worth it, but there isn't.
Seems to me that it's not Apple's modus operandi to do something just for the sake of appearing to have upgraded specs. There is no real gain from making the iPhone/Touch screen any denser and numerous drawbacks to doing so. If customers were complaining about the current product's picture quality, there'd be something for Apple to consider but I think far more customers would prefer longer battery life, something that can always be improved and has consistently been improved with each generation of iPod. Customers also long for more storage space which has likewise been upgraded. More pixels for an already terrific screen runs counter to both of those.
If Apple were to release a device with more resolution, I would hope that would be because it had a larger screen, something that could come in handy for surfing the net, reading, gameplay, etc. Even that move would have to be done in moderation. Make the screen too big and you lose a lot of the advantages of the iPod form factor. And such a device would, I would think, be a complimentary device, as opposed to replacing existing devices.
Abramsky believes the move would be a play for unit volumes, something Apple chief operating officer Tim Cook categorically denied interest in pursuing during a recent conference call with analysts and members of the media.
Oddly, the RBC analyst acknowledged the poor economics of such a move in his report to clients, noting that an entry-level iPhone at lower gross profit margin to Apple would "appear less attractive" while simultaneously posing a threat of cannibalizing the sales of higher-end iPhones and iPods.
Ironically, Abramsky followed his prediction of this margin-diluting strategy by maintaining his Underperform rating and $70 price target on shares of the Cupertino-based iPhone maker, saying he remains concerned of the "elevated risks to valuation from a possible growth and/or margin 'downshift'" for the company.
(and finally...)
Quote:
In an article titled "Mike Abramsky?s bad Apple*advice," published earlier this week, Fortune took the analyst to task for his most recent recommendations on the stock, noting that shares have climbed 27.5% in the past three weeks, meaning anyone who sold short the Monday after Abramsky?s most recent downgrade "would have lost his or her shirt."
<sigh> Another 'analyst' contradicting himself..
So in other words...
"Apple is going to do this incredibly stupid business move that even I recognize as stupid, and it will ultimately cause them to lose lots of money...
....but Apple will do it anyway. Therefore I predict that Apple's stock will go down."
-_- Not to mention he's already been proven to be clueless.
The only difficult part would be the iPhone SDK. Not getting developers to update their apps, but pushing out the SDK while keeping this new iPhone secret. I think that Apple would have to pre-announce this new device ahead of time to prepare developers. Perhaps at WWDC.
Is'nt the SDK supposed to be resolution independent? The old apps should theoretically work just fine even with a high resolution screen.
In fact, a lot of the rationale for the size-drop in Snow Leopard is because Apple is migrating the technologies developed for the iPhone over to Mac OS X. Like vector based fonts, etc. These are essential to have resolution independence. All the graphics elements are resolution independent because Quartz is now completely resolution independent.
I think as long as the aspect ratio is maintained, apps need not be changed at all.
Maybe I am completely wrong on this one (maybe resolution independence is Apple's ultimate goal, but they havent got there yet?), but I think not. Why is it that Apple can support zoom on Safari on the iPhone, whereas on other browsers Zoom isnt anywhere as good - only zooms text, etc? I wonder if other browsers that use Webkit, but dont have access to Quartz support zoom-in/out as well as Safari does.
Comments
The entry level iPhone will be the used (or previously owned like with cars) iPhone when the rest of us trade-up!
Exactly.
Don't expect revolutionary improvements in the iPhone.
Look at the iPod, every new model was an evolutionary step adding a few minor features.
This is important because if Apple introduces a model that is far superior, then current iPhone 3G owners will complain that their 1 year old phone that they paid $299 dollars for is now ghetto.
So expect significant minor improvements but nothing earth shattering.
Given these estimates, an entry-level iPhone would generate a 30 percent (or $90) profit margin compared to the iPhone 3G's 50 percent (or $300) margin, meaning Apple would need to sell three $99 iPhones to replicate the gross profit from one 3G iPhone, or 34 million units in total before 'breaking even' on the initiative. He believes 20 to 30 million of the devices will be sold during fiscal 2010.
There is a tradition at 1, Infinite loop, to repeat mistakes because Apple never change and never learn from past mistakes.
Back in the late 1980's, Mac OS 4.8, Mac OS 5.0 and Mac OS 6.0 were competing against Microsoft DOS. It was easy to claim the superiority of the Mac OS based on its graphical interface, its Human Interface Guidelines, and the much higher price of the computers running the Mac OS operating system. But the price was higher on Macs because the Mac OS was not licensed to computer manufacturers and because Apple insisted on maintaining higher prices to guarantee a 50% profit margin on every Mac sold.
What was bound to happen did happen. Most companies and cash strapped students stuck with lower priced DOS computers running on IBM compatible clones sold with a normal profit margin of 15% to 20%. And when Microsoft caught up with Apple by introducing Windows 95 with its graphical interface, Apple was slaughtered because most people rejected the high prices of Macs in favor of reasonably priced computers running Windows. And the rest is history. Windows is installed on 90% of the computers while Apple's world market share is less than 4%.
Apple is repeating its past mistakes by insisting on a 50% profit margin for iPhones. As competitors catch up with Apple, Apple will loose its early market lead because consumers and companies know a good deal when they see it. And they have no inclination to save a company with outrageous prices.
Cut the billion dollar bonus to the CEO and upper management and run Apple like a business venture. Or else, history will repeat itself.
Also, Jobs wasn't running the show when Windows 95 came out.
Apple had no equivalent of OS X at the time. Windows 95 was good enough when compared to Mac OS. OS X blows Vista away.
Apple chooses carefully which businesses to get involved in. It knows it makes no sense to release a $400 minitower PC and get clobbered by Dell and HP's economies of scale.
The smartphone market is a new, high-end, and growing market. If Apple sees a smartphone that is a worthy competitor to the iPhone (perhaps an Android phone will come out), then it will adjust its pricing and features accordingly. For now, the iPhone blows away the competition, and they can afford the outrageous profit margins.
There is a tradition at 1, Infinite loop, to repeat mistakes because Apple never change and never learn from past mistakes.
Back in the late 1980's, Mac OS 4.8, Mac OS 5.0 and Mac OS 6.0 were competing against Microsoft DOS. It was easy to claim the superiority of the Mac OS based on its graphical interface, its Human Interface Guidelines, and the much higher price of the computers running the Mac OS operating system. But the price was higher on Macs because the Mac OS was not licensed to computer manufacturers and because Apple insisted on maintaining higher prices to guarantee a 50% profit margin on every Mac sold.
What was bound to happen did happen. Most companies and cash strapped students stuck with lower priced DOS computers running on IBM compatible clones sold with a normal profit margin of 15% to 20%. And when Microsoft caught up with Apple by introducing Windows 95 with its graphical interface, Apple was slaughtered because most people rejected the high prices of Macs in favor of reasonably priced computers running Windows. And the rest is history. Windows is installed on 90% of the computers while Apple's world market share is less than 4%.
Apple is repeating its past mistakes by insisting on a 50% profit margin for iPhones. As competitors catch up with Apple, Apple will loose its early market lead because consumers and companies know a good deal when they see it. And they have no inclination to save a company with outrageous prices.
Cut the billion dollar bonus to the CEO and upper management and run Apple like a business venture. Or else, history will repeat itself.
Exactly.
Don't expect revolutionary improvements in the iPhone.
Look at the iPod, every new model was an evolutionary step adding a few minor features.
This is important because if Apple introduces a model that is far superior, then current iPhone 3G owners will complain that their 1 year old phone that they paid $299 dollars for is now ghetto.
So expect significant minor improvements but nothing earth shattering.
All I want is a search feature for Mail and an intuitive (or any) copy and paste feature.
Your argument against a far superior model is asinine. Technology evolves. When that person with a current "ghetto" 3g Iphone bought their current "ghetto" 3g Iphone it was a far superior product to the Edge Iphone. Far superior products introductions should be praised- how else do you think Apple is still relevant in the tech industry? By stepping out on a limb to bring cutting edge technology to the consumer.
Microsoft is the total opposite. It finds something that works and stays with it until it makes negative money for the company. Then it tries to improve the product by tweaking interface and jacks up the price and calls it a brand new OS, or Zune or what have you.
"You know us, we're not going to play in the low-end voice phone business."
It sounds to me like the only thing Tim Cook denied was entering the low-end voice phone business. The iPhone is a smart phone and there is no reason they wouldn't introduce a cheaper model alongside the new high-end model. You would then have a low-end iPhone for those who have not bought an iPhone yet due to cost and a high-end iPhone to get those with the current version to upgrade.
There is a tradition at 1, Infinite loop, to repeat mistakes because Apple never change and never learn from past mistakes.
Back in the late 1980's, Mac OS 4.8, Mac OS 5.0 and Mac OS 6.0 were competing against Microsoft DOS. It was easy to claim the superiority of the Mac OS based on its graphical interface, its Human Interface Guidelines, and the much higher price of the computers running the Mac OS operating system. But the price was higher on Macs because the Mac OS was not licensed to computer manufacturers and because Apple insisted on maintaining higher prices to guarantee a 50% profit margin on every Mac sold.
What was bound to happen did happen. Most companies and cash strapped students stuck with lower priced DOS computers running on IBM compatible clones sold with a normal profit margin of 15% to 20%. And when Microsoft caught up with Apple by introducing Windows 95 with its graphical interface, Apple was slaughtered because most people rejected the high prices of Macs in favor of reasonably priced computers running Windows. And the rest is history. Windows is installed on 90% of the computers while Apple's world market share is less than 4%.
Apple is repeating its past mistakes by insisting on a 50% profit margin for iPhones. As competitors catch up with Apple, Apple will loose its early market lead because consumers and companies know a good deal when they see it. And they have no inclination to save a company with outrageous prices.
Cut the billion dollar bonus to the CEO and upper management and run Apple like a business venture. Or else, history will repeat itself.
i think you're oversimplifying a whole bunch of things historically, and it's not clear to me how you arrive at the conclusion that history will repeat itself. apple is certainly a lot more assertive when it comes to their intellectual property and i don't think that jobs or his successor are going to give the 'crown jewels' away the way that sculley did to microsoft, when they 'settled' their legal spat.
'run apple like a business venture'?? are you serious? by that logic, microsoft should be shut down and the money given back to their shareholders...
There is a tradition at 1, Infinite loop, to repeat mistakes because Apple never change and never learn from past mistakes.
Back in the late 1980's, Mac OS 4.8, Mac OS 5.0 and Mac OS 6.0 were competing against Microsoft DOS. It was easy to claim the superiority of the Mac OS based on its graphical interface, its Human Interface Guidelines, and the much higher price of the computers running the Mac OS operating system. But the price was higher on Macs because the Mac OS was not licensed to computer manufacturers and because Apple insisted on maintaining higher prices to guarantee a 50% profit margin on every Mac sold.
What was bound to happen did happen. Most companies and cash strapped students stuck with lower priced DOS computers running on IBM compatible clones sold with a normal profit margin of 15% to 20%. And when Microsoft caught up with Apple by introducing Windows 95 with its graphical interface, Apple was slaughtered because most people rejected the high prices of Macs in favor of reasonably priced computers running Windows. And the rest is history. Windows is installed on 90% of the computers while Apple's world market share is less than 4%.
Apple is repeating its past mistakes by insisting on a 50% profit margin for iPhones. As competitors catch up with Apple, Apple will loose its early market lead because consumers and companies know a good deal when they see it. And they have no inclination to save a company with outrageous prices.
Cut the billion dollar bonus to the CEO and upper management and run Apple like a business venture. Or else, history will repeat itself.
I don't think Apple wants World Domination. Apple is targeted at the high end 10% users for who Apple prices don't seem to be high at all.
This has to be one of the dumbest, least-informed rumors we've heard yet. NOBODY would release a non-3G phone at this time considering that the carriers are moving toward removing slower protocols/networks in the next few years.
Nonsense...
I know lots of people who don't rely on 24/7 connectivity, and for whom original speeds are quite sufficient for the occasional map lookup. for those (of whom I'm one), a more economical data plan and the lower battery drain would be quite attractive.
Nonsense...
I know lots of people who don't rely on 24/7 connectivity, and for whom original speeds are quite sufficient for the occasional map lookup. for those (of whom I'm one), a more economical data plan and the lower battery drain would be quite attractive.
Until they actually bought one. Or better yet, until they brought one out.
There is a tradition at 1, Infinite loop, to repeat mistakes because Apple never change and never learn from past mistakes.
Back in the late 1980's, Mac OS 4.8, Mac OS 5.0 and Mac OS 6.0 were competing against Microsoft DOS. It was easy to claim the superiority of the Mac OS based on its graphical interface, its Human Interface Guidelines, and the much higher price of the computers running the Mac OS operating system. But the price was higher on Macs because the Mac OS was not licensed to computer manufacturers and because Apple insisted on maintaining higher prices to guarantee a 50% profit margin on every Mac sold.
What was bound to happen did happen. Most companies and cash strapped students stuck with lower priced DOS computers running on IBM compatible clones sold with a normal profit margin of 15% to 20%. And when Microsoft caught up with Apple by introducing Windows 95 with its graphical interface, Apple was slaughtered because most people rejected the high prices of Macs in favor of reasonably priced computers running Windows. And the rest is history. Windows is installed on 90% of the computers while Apple's world market share is less than 4%.
Apple is repeating its past mistakes by insisting on a 50% profit margin for iPhones. As competitors catch up with Apple, Apple will loose its early market lead because consumers and companies know a good deal when they see it. And they have no inclination to save a company with outrageous prices.
Cut the billion dollar bonus to the CEO and upper management and run Apple like a business venture. Or else, history will repeat itself.
That's not quite what happened! Apple had most of the market. IBM was struggling, so they allowed compatible clones. That made Mircosoft rich, but did substantial damage to both IBM and Apple sales. Apple clones would not have help Apple at the time. Eventually (under a different CEO) allowing a PowerPC clone just took Apple market share away. Also, the cheap computers and Apple computers are not equal. I don't think your profit margin claims are correct
Until they actually bought one. Or better yet, until they brought one out.
Well, to tell you the truth, my best fit at the moment is a phone-touch... no data at all.
Just voice, wifi, camera.
I'd love to see a decent camera on the next iPhone (what do you call the next iPhone? 3rd generation?
Edit: I just double-checked and I am right anyway, so you got an apology for nothing. While "resolution" usually refers to pixel density in a technical sense, the common usage of "higher resolution" is indeed more pixels wide by more pixels tall. Since the description in the article talks about a phone and screen of the same *physical* size, and yet a higher resolution in terms of pixels, that would seem to indicate that the images on the screen would become smaller than they are now (smaller keyboard etc.).
So yes, I think that deserves a WTF? or two.
It wouldn't be difficult to update iPhone OS X to allow for the greater resolution. The 50% on the x and y would make sense.
The only difficult part would be the iPhone SDK. Not getting developers to update their apps, but pushing out the SDK while keeping this new iPhone secret. I think that Apple would have to pre-announce this new device ahead of time to prepare developers. Perhaps at WWDC.
PS: While I think this rumour source is BSing, I don't see how Apple can grow the iPhone brand without eventually introducing a simpler, cheaper iPhone.
In any case, in regards to screen resolution, I can't see the value of upping the resolution. Movies look marvelous on this device already. I for one couldn't see more detail even if it were there and I'm not getting any younger so if anything it will get worse.
More importantly, if you increase screen resolution, all that does is force the processor to work harder and takes up drive space with bigger files. That in turn would also negatively impact battery life. If there were a payoff for that, then it would be worth it, but there isn't.
Seems to me that it's not Apple's modus operandi to do something just for the sake of appearing to have upgraded specs. There is no real gain from making the iPhone/Touch screen any denser and numerous drawbacks to doing so. If customers were complaining about the current product's picture quality, there'd be something for Apple to consider but I think far more customers would prefer longer battery life, something that can always be improved and has consistently been improved with each generation of iPod. Customers also long for more storage space which has likewise been upgraded. More pixels for an already terrific screen runs counter to both of those.
If Apple were to release a device with more resolution, I would hope that would be because it had a larger screen, something that could come in handy for surfing the net, reading, gameplay, etc. Even that move would have to be done in moderation. Make the screen too big and you lose a lot of the advantages of the iPod form factor. And such a device would, I would think, be a complimentary device, as opposed to replacing existing devices.
Abramsky believes the move would be a play for unit volumes, something Apple chief operating officer Tim Cook categorically denied interest in pursuing during a recent conference call with analysts and members of the media.
Oddly, the RBC analyst acknowledged the poor economics of such a move in his report to clients, noting that an entry-level iPhone at lower gross profit margin to Apple would "appear less attractive" while simultaneously posing a threat of cannibalizing the sales of higher-end iPhones and iPods.
Ironically, Abramsky followed his prediction of this margin-diluting strategy by maintaining his Underperform rating and $70 price target on shares of the Cupertino-based iPhone maker, saying he remains concerned of the "elevated risks to valuation from a possible growth and/or margin 'downshift'" for the company.
(and finally...)
In an article titled "Mike Abramsky?s bad Apple*advice," published earlier this week, Fortune took the analyst to task for his most recent recommendations on the stock, noting that shares have climbed 27.5% in the past three weeks, meaning anyone who sold short the Monday after Abramsky?s most recent downgrade "would have lost his or her shirt."
<sigh> Another 'analyst' contradicting himself..
So in other words...
"Apple is going to do this incredibly stupid business move that even I recognize as stupid, and it will ultimately cause them to lose lots of money...
....but Apple will do it anyway. Therefore I predict that Apple's stock will go down."
-_- Not to mention he's already been proven to be clueless.
Again...
The only difficult part would be the iPhone SDK. Not getting developers to update their apps, but pushing out the SDK while keeping this new iPhone secret. I think that Apple would have to pre-announce this new device ahead of time to prepare developers. Perhaps at WWDC.
Is'nt the SDK supposed to be resolution independent? The old apps should theoretically work just fine even with a high resolution screen.
In fact, a lot of the rationale for the size-drop in Snow Leopard is because Apple is migrating the technologies developed for the iPhone over to Mac OS X. Like vector based fonts, etc. These are essential to have resolution independence. All the graphics elements are resolution independent because Quartz is now completely resolution independent.
I think as long as the aspect ratio is maintained, apps need not be changed at all.
Maybe I am completely wrong on this one (maybe resolution independence is Apple's ultimate goal, but they havent got there yet?), but I think not. Why is it that Apple can support zoom on Safari on the iPhone, whereas on other browsers Zoom isnt anywhere as good - only zooms text, etc? I wonder if other browsers that use Webkit, but dont have access to Quartz support zoom-in/out as well as Safari does.