Apple could have released the same featured rich with mediocre use phone as many of its competitors. But Apple never does this with any of its products. They always take an alternate route.
The alternate route was developing a few well written high quality applications. Using hardware centered around media and graphics display as well as extending battery life. This gives Apple a strong foundation to further add more hardware and software.
I think we can all see what Apple is trying to do. The question is, will it fly in various markets around the world? Will Apple, the new kid on the block in phones, be taken seriously?
In the US, where Apple's popularity is the highest and their brand the strongest, they have been. Europe, and Asia? The verdict's still out.
I don't think the car analogy works that well. The worst thing you can do is introduce a product with poor quality. Hyundai and others made that mistake, and it takes a long time to change the perception that your products are shoddy.
That's a very different proposition from "limited feature set."
The choice between "more features but lower quality" and what Apple did release in the Euro market only happens with an early (some would say premature) release into the Euro market. Presumably the 3G iPhone that Apple is likely going to release in June will not be "low quality"/"early Hyundai" in any way, shape or form.
Quote:
So, again, I don't see how "really well made, full efficient, high quality, fun to drive and great handling, missing some features that a lot of buyers in this market want" translates into "now we will never take this manufacturer seriously again and not even bother to check out their newest stuff."
The prob is that I don't think the average Euro customer would give the 2.5G iPhone all the accolades you just did above. So what we have here is a "fundamental disagreement on the nature of reality", as the political pundits like to say.
Given that, no, of course you aren't going to see or agree with what I'm saying, I'm sure. It's like the age-old debate on US domestic cars... one side says, "You have to improve quality or the Japanese are going to eat your lunch", while the other insists, "There's nothing wrong with American cars, Japan is all hype, JD Power and Consumer Reports are all biased", yadda yadda.
Quote:
Yeah, but it's kind of implicit in what you're saying, which is that Apple should have, inexplicably, forgone sales of the phone they had (not to mention a leg up on the boilerplate of negotiating channel allocation), because European sensibilities would be so deeply offended by a phone without 3G it would subsequently depress sales of a 3G phone, once it arrived.
It's not really a matter of being "offended". In the very competitive European high end cellphone market, all it really takes is a "Meh, that bit of kit is only okay, not great. What was all the fuss about again?", for Apple's brand to diminish in that market.
Remember, the hype was quite enormous after the US launch. A lot of Euros were expecting something quite special, and Apple appears to have underwhelmed, judging from sales. You only get one chance to make a first impression. So now the pressure is on Apple to make an extremely good second one.
Quote:
Right? Because unless a 2G iPhone actually in some way will prove to damage the sales of the next model, there is no reason in the world for Apple not to sell those phones and make that money.
They really haven't even sold that many phones in Europe, as of yet. The lion's share has been the US.
Quote:
As far as what Apple's expectation for a 2G model in Europe were..... we don't really know that, do we? Apple only looks foolish if we hypothesis that they thought the iPhone was going to take Europe by storm, and I've never seen anything from Apple that suggests that that's what they believed.
Well, we have their European partner carrier targets, which I'm sure were set with input from Apple no doubt, and which were missed all the way around pretty much. \
I don't think Apple believed that they were going to take Europe "by storm" with the US model iPhone (though I'm sure they had hopes), but I do think they believed that they were going to do quite a lot better in the Euro market than they have, and were caught somewhat by surprise by the reception they're getting.
Which is far from ideal, certainly, but doesn't have to be fatal, so long as Apple adapts quickly and well to this turn of events.
I'm genuinely asking for examples of how I moved the goal posts and my bias. I gave example of why I felt you guys were biased against the iPhone.
I can't speak for Sapporo, who originally raised the complain, but I too have noticed a tendency for you to move the goalposts.
For example, regarding Euro sales, in our early discussions, you steadfastly refused to acknowledge that Apple wasn't doing well over there. Then later you did, but with provisos like "Apple is doing well for a new phone maker up against big phone makers like Nokia" or "they're doing well for being overpriced" etc. etc.
I mean, c'mon. \
Quote:
I don't understand how this differs from what I said. Unless you have evidence that European 3G use has risen above 34% in its user base.
Euro 3G use isn't that high yet? Wait a month.
Seriously, you know as well as I that 3G penetration rates in Europe are increasing, and that 3G should be the majority of Euro cellphone users quite soon. But that's the Euro market as a whole. What do you think 3G penetration rates are among high end cellphone users in Europe, i.e. Apple's segment of the market? What do you think user expectations are as to whether high end phones should have 3G or not?
Quote:
I said 3G is a superior technology to EDGE. Ultimately you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the iPhone having grown into a dominant data device despite EDGE and its 6% marketshare. Clearly shows high quality software is more important than data speed.
Sure, Safari + MultiTouch + big screen = better internet user experience = more browsing. I've said that for a long time. But why hobble that better user experience by forcing the user to surf over a dialup speed connection (GPRS), which is what 2.5G is in a lot of Europe?
And ppl here still wonder why Euro sales are slow? It boggles the mind.
Quote:
You are being argumentative. I didn't say anything like this at all. What I said is that it shows which part of the user experience is more useful and important. That doesn't mean the iPhone doesn't need 3G.
Apple has vastly improved Safari since last year. Add 3G to the mix, the iPhone is likely to crush everyone else in data marketshare.
Well, at least now you get that they need 3G. And yes, they will absolutely annihilate everyone in data marketshare once they've got it.
Quote:
I do IM over EDGE.
I also watch lots of video over EDGE.
Hmm, you must have not checked out iChat's bandwidth requirements.
For 1-to-1 video conferencing:
Good (160x120): 100 Kbps Internet connection (up/down) \t
Better (320x240): 300 Kbps Internet connection (up/down) \t
Best (640x480): 900 Kbps Internet connection (up/down)
For 4-way video conferencing:
To intiate:
Good (160x120): 384 Kbps Internet connection (up/down) \t
Better (320x240): 600 Kbps Internet connection (up/down) \t
Best (640x480): 1800 Kbps Internet connection (up/down)
To participate:
Good (160x120): 100 Kbps Internet connection (up/down) \t
Better (320x240): 200 Kbps Internet connection (up/down) \t
Best (640x480): 300 Kbps Internet connection (up/down)
On EDGE, you might get some low-res (160x120) iChat video conferencing going, assuming of course the iPhone's cpu is up to it (if not now, it eventually will be in future models).
But in Europe, they don't even have EDGE for their 2.5G in a lot of places... they have GPRS, which is 30-45 kbps. Think you're gonna do much video with that?
Quote:
Yes they will. But you cannot ignore the phenomenal growth of the iPhone internet marketshare in relation to its over all marketshare in such a short time.
iPhone internet usage figures will explode even larger with 3G and long battery life.
I think we more or less agree here.
Quote:
Macworld published the breakout numbers.
Cool.
Quote:
Its not normal for a failed product to receive a sales cut that still leaves it more expensive than its competition and sells out of its stock.
I don't think the iPhone is a "failed" product in Europe. It's fairer to characterize it as "down, but not out". Price cuts have helped some in the short-term (as one would expect), but long-term, you have to give the market what it wants, and that means an improvement in the feature-set.
Quote:
I completely agree. I've said several times in our debates that Nokia has been in telephone communications for over 20 years. Apple has been in mobile communications for 10 months. Apple has only just begun growing the iPhone platform, it will grow and change.
Remember, they are just like you. And if you have any perspective, you should realize they really don't know what they are talking about (they are just like you ) because no one has the market demographics, sales info, expectations, and such. If they did, they won't be talking, and would be selling the information or working for the company.
I'm sure that exact same argument was used against ppl who said the following:
"I don't think the G4 Cube will sell well."
"That new AppleTV gizmo just doesn't seem very compelling."
"You know what? I think iPod sales may be due to plateau soon."
Sometimes, boardroom info is overrated. We, the buying public, ultimately determine what fails and succeeds, by voting with our pocketbooks. And sometimes (just sometimes, mind you), despite the best efforts of all the marketers and product people, we have a better take on what is or isn't going to work, because we're not inside the bubble.
After all, if boardroom info and being a marketing guru really WAS the hand of God, instead of an advantage, NO products would fail, and all the suits would be happy and dancing a merry jig in the streets, eh?
Quote:
As for 3G, just think about this factoid. In terms of 3G users, the USA, as of calendar Q4 07, has a slightly higher percentage of 3G users in its market then Great Britain, Germany and France in their respective markets. Italy/Spain is a little bit higher. Apple did their market demographics right, and their strategy right, by going with EDGE at first with the iPhone.
Not exactly. For example, Italy's 3G penetration rates are over double American ones:
3G penetration rates in Italy are already at 29%, Spain and UK are at about 18%. Even the USA is getting well along into 3G, with 13% having migrated to 3G.
Now add to that that, with the iPhone, we're talking the high-end segment of the market, where 3G is more expected (and more likely to be use) than the market as a whole.
Going with EDGE first with the iPhone was mostly correct in the US, but not really in Europe, and certainly wouldn't be in Asia, specifically Japan and Korea, whose 3G penetration rates are among the highest in the world.
Quote:
The difficulty with Europe has mostly been price.
I'd agree that price is an issue, but it's far from the only one. Price alone won't turn things around long-term in Europe, not with the iPhone's current feature set. Fortunately, help appears to be only two months away or so.
Quote:
Corollary to that is Europe does have more high-end phones on the market, and at discounted prices with contract. Lastly, Apple's brand power isn't very strong outside of the USA. So, competition is stiff.
Yup. As I've said many times.
Quote:
The lunacy is that members of the Internet believe that Apple does not know this.
The lunacy is that Apple did know this, and yet still thought they'd run roughshod over it anyway, with what was basically the US 2.5G model. After all, Euro sales are underwhelming, why, again?
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot... it was all part of Apple's master plan. Apple never makes mistakes. Apple has the Euro market "right where they want them"... etc. etc.
Look, while I believe that Stevie J is the closest thing the industry has to a reliable techno-visionary, at least at the CEO level (and certainly much better than Gates the Fraud, who initially missed the Internet ), NO ONE is Nostradamus in this industry. Apple's slipped on banana peels before, and it'll do it again. That's not so important. What is important is how they respond to it.
Quote:
While I don't think the people participating in European iPhone topics here on AI are xenophobic, it's something that shouldn't be discounted for any company entering into a foreign market. People are nationalistic, are xenophobic by nature. Apple, whose a rather galling company for techno-geeks and enterprise CIOs, generates controversy as part of its being. It shouldn't come as a surprise that their are so many love-hate discussions. And that's just in the USA. Imagine Apple entering an entrenched cell phone market in Europe with it's own set of fan-culture. Well, lile evolution threads, patience and fortitude are required.
So part of Apple's problem in Europe is simple xenophobia? In a market that has THAT many different cultures, languages, traditions? Um... okay.
I think perhaps in highly homogenous Japan, you could make that argument, but not so much in Europe. After all, do the Germans, French, Italians, Spanish, Flemish, etc. really love the Finland (home of Nokia) so much? No, but they certainly buy their phones in epic numbers, because their phones are good, for the most part.
If your argument is more along the lines of the fact that there's a "Euro" way of doing things, certain expected features, etc., then I can get with that. In fact, that's what many Euro posters here have been saying for a long time.
I think we can all see what Apple is trying to do. The question is, will it fly in various markets around the world? Will Apple, the new kid on the block in phones, be taken seriously?
If Apple had not deferred iPhone revenue its bottom line would have an additional 2 billion. Unlocked iPhones are being used in every industrialized nation in the world. I think its safe to say its going pretty well so far.
For example, regarding Euro sales, in our early discussions, you steadfastly refused to acknowledge that Apple wasn't doing well over there. Then later you did, but with provisos like "Apple is doing well for a new phone maker up against big phone makers like Nokia" or "they're doing well for being overpriced" etc. etc.
I always kept my argument in context of Åpple being new to mobile communications and the iPhone being more expensive than its competitors. I never said the iPhone was going to outsell its competitors.
Most of you were arguing that the iPhone was a failure in Europe compared to its US sales. This was a very flawed argument. I always maintained that as long as Apple was making profit and its carriers were adding subscribers the iPhone was doing fine. Its a failure if everyone is either loosing money or making no money from it.
Quote:
Sure, Safari + MultiTouch + big screen = better internet user experience = more browsing. I've said that for a long time. But why hobble that better user experience by forcing the user to surf over a dialup speed connection (GPRS), which is what 2.5G is in a lot of Europe
So hobbled that the iPhone beat everyone except Nokia in data marketshare.
The reason is because right now I use the data applications on my iPhone with little regard for battery life. What would be the point of faster data connection if you would quickly kill your battery. People would use the data applications much less.
Quote:
Hmm, you must have not checked out iChat's bandwidth requirements.
What in the world are you talking about?
Quote:
I don't think the iPhone is a "failed" product in Europe. It's fairer to characterize it as "down, but not out". Price cuts have helped some in the short-term (as one would expect), but long-term, you have to give the market what it wants, and that means an improvement in the feature-set.
The iPhone is over 5 months old in Europe. The fact that it sold through its stock in days after the price cut shows their is a demand for it. It just cost too much.
The lunacy is that Apple did know this, and yet still thought they'd run roughshod over it anyway, with what was basically the US 2.5G model. After all, Euro sales are underwhelming, why, again?
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot... it was all part of Apple's master plan. Apple never makes mistakes. Apple has the Euro market "right where they want them"... etc. etc.
Look, while I believe that Stevie J is the closest thing the industry has to a reliable techno-visionary, at least at the CEO level (and certainly much better than Gates the Fraud, who initially missed the Internet ), NO ONE is Nostradamus in this industry. Apple's slipped on banana peels before, and it'll do it again. That's not so important. What is important is how they respond to it.
See, you keep saying stuff like this, but if anyone points it out you claim to be merely disinterested and analytical.
The whole nut of your attitude on the European roll-out of the iPhone hinges on this idea that Apple thought they could ride "roughshod" over that market. It obliges us to assume that Apple, AKA Steve Jobs, were so blinded by arrogance that they couldn't make basic calculations regarding 2G vs. 3G coverage and uptake.
What you haven't done is explain why selling what phones they could, when they could, was a mistake. Your take is predicated on the idea that the only possible reason Apple would have for introducing the phone at all was to "ride roughshod" over the market, but there is absolutely no reason to assume that. We could just as easily assume that Apple felt they could make some modest inroads, hash out the distribution model, and follow up with a 3G model ASAP, which of course is what they're doing.
You've vaguely alluded to the idea that even daring to introduce a high-end 2G model hurts the brand, but that seems just wrong to me. Again, are you actually claiming that people who might have otherwise purchased a 3G iPhone will now refuse to do so, just because there was a 2G phone on the market before it?
If you can't make a convincing case that a 2G model will have hurt sales of a 3G follow-up, and we can agree that the idea that Apple "thought" they were going to do anything in particular with the European market with a 2G phone is just speculation, then what are you arguing?
It seems to me that you're arguing that Apple is an arrogant company that got their comeuppance and the hands of discriminating European consumers and only now is "making amends", in some sense.
You say you're not, but I can't figure out any other way to read it.
Quote:
So part of Apple's problem in Europe is simple xenophobia? In a market that has THAT many different cultures, languages, traditions? Um... okay.
I think perhaps in highly homogenous Japan, you could make that argument, but not so much in Europe. After all, do the Germans, French, Italians, Spanish, Flemish, etc. really love the Finland (home of Nokia) so much? No, but they certainly buy their phones in epic numbers, because their phones are good, for the most part.
If your argument is more along the lines of the fact that there's a "Euro" way of doing things, certain expected features, etc., then I can get with that. In fact, that's what many Euro posters here have been saying for a long time.
.
See above. I was the one to use the term, and I meant European xenophobia directed at America.
And I never claimed that that was the iPhone's "problem", I said that some of the comments in this thread seemed to proceed from something like that, insofar as they hinged on this weird idea that it is sort of satisfying to see a 2G iPhone sell modestly in Europe since, apparently, arrogant Apple thought the would corner the market. That whole idea is fraught with a peculiar kind of chauvinism, and, since everybody is claiming to have no particular animus against Apple per se, what else should I chalk it up to? Maybe we should call it "nationalist tech chauvinism"?
Look, I have no problem with the idea that Europeans have different expectations from Americans in terms of features, distribution and cost when it comes to cell phones. Why would I?
I just don't see why it's necessary to read any more into what's happened than "Apple sold the phone they had, made some money off it, and will presently sell the phone they've had in the pipeline all along, when it's ready, and which will probably be a better match for the European market."
Penetration rate calculations in Europe are useless --- because they count SIM cards which everybody have multiple SIM cards. It's not a coincidence that Italy with a 90% prepaid vs. 10% postpaid --- have a overall penetration rate of 150% and have the highest 3G penetration rate in Europe. It's a meaningless statistics.
58% of Verizon Wireless subscibers have 3G ev-do handsets --- this is a company that doesn't have SIM cards and 90+% are postpaid.
But that statistics is also meaningless --- because we don't know how many people just buy a 3G ev-do phone because that's what Verizon offers (it's hard to find a 1x only phone from Verizon) and we don't know how many of them even use any of the 3G data functions.
See, you keep saying stuff like this, but if anyone points it out you claim to be merely disinterested and analytical.
The whole nut of your attitude on the European roll-out of the iPhone hinges on this idea that Apple thought they could ride "roughshod" over that market. It obliges us to assume that Apple, AKA Steve Jobs, were so blinded by arrogance that they couldn't make basic calculations regarding 2G vs. 3G coverage and uptake.
What you haven't done is explain why selling what phones they could, when they could, was a mistake. Your take is predicated on the idea that the only possible reason Apple would have for introducing the phone at all was to "ride roughshod" over the market, but there is absolutely no reason to assume that. We could just as easily assume that Apple felt they could make some modest inroads, hash out the distribution model, and follow up with a 3G model ASAP, which of course is what they're doing.
You've vaguely alluded to the idea that even daring to introduce a high-end 2G model hurts the brand, but that seems just wrong to me. Again, are you actually claiming that people who might have otherwise purchased a 3G iPhone will now refuse to do so, just because there was a 2G phone on the market before it?
If you can't make a convincing case that a 2G model will have hurt sales of a 3G follow-up, and we can agree that the idea that Apple "thought" they were going to do anything in particular with the European market with a 2G phone is just speculation, then what are you arguing?
It seems to me that you're arguing that Apple is an arrogant company that got their comeuppance and the hands of discriminating European consumers and only now is "making amends", in some sense.
You say you're not, but I can't figure out any other way to read it.
Wow... you sure do read a LOT into a single use of the word "roughshod". LOL.
I'm sorry, it seems like you're the one with some sort of emotional axe to grind here, not me. To go on and on over the use of one word, and not even a particularly emotionally charged one at that? Egads.
All I can say is, you need to chill. I'm not a Euro chauvinist, I'm a Californian. But guess what? Euro chauvinists can say their piece, and it doesn't bother me one whit. I'll give 'em the brush back when they get overly nationalist and anti-American, but that's been rare here.
Finally, regarding the "if you can't formulate a convincing argument" BS... please, give us all a break, that's Internet Debate 1A. I have formulated a convincing argument, just not to your particular point of view. As I already said, what we have is a disagreement on the nature of reality. I'm pretty sure I'm right, but to each their own.
Quote:
See above. I was the one to use the term, and I meant European xenophobia directed at America.
And I never claimed that that was the iPhone's "problem", I said that some of the comments in this thread seemed to proceed from something like that, insofar as they hinged on this weird idea that it is sort of satisfying to see a 2G iPhone sell modestly in Europe since, apparently, arrogant Apple thought the would corner the market. That whole idea is fraught with a peculiar kind of chauvinism, and, since everybody is claiming to have no particular animus against Apple per se, what else should I chalk it up to? Maybe we should call it "nationalist tech chauvinism"?
I think you're way too worried/obsessed with sort of thing.
If Apple had not deferred iPhone revenue its bottom line would have an additional 2 billion. Unlocked iPhones are being used in every industrialized nation in the world. I think its safe to say its going pretty well so far.
I think it's way too early to say much except
- the iPhone is doing well in the US
- the iPhone is not doing well in Europe
The unlocking story is a nice sideshow, but not one Apple wants, as they don't get their monthly kickback from the carrier on those...
I don't understand how people conclude that iphone is doing well in the US --- the US ain't doing well if 50% of the sales have gone to China, Russia and the rest of the world.
AT&T is no longer giving out iphone activation numbers --- that tells you how bad it is.
Most of you were arguing that the iPhone was a failure in Europe compared to its US sales. This was a very flawed argument.
Not really. Apple has publicly set a goal of 10 million iPhones sold in calendar 2008. Maybe half of those they'll get in the US, though that's iffy due to the US entering recession. \
The remaining half has to come mostly from the other two big world markets... Europe and Asia. So yes, Apple does have to sell well in Europe, to be a success by its own metrics. It doesn't have to sell quite as well in Europe as it does in the US, but the sales can't suck either.
Quote:
So hobbled that the iPhone beat everyone except Nokia in data marketshare.
Why stop there? Why not beat Nokia too? 3G will do that.
Quote:
The reason is because right now I use the data applications on my iPhone with little regard for battery life. What would be the point of faster data connection if you would quickly kill your battery. People would use the data applications much less.
The thing about 3G is, you can turn it off if you need to.
Quote:
What in the world are you talking about?
You mean, you're not aware that video confercing and video apps in general need good bandwidth in order to provide a good user experience? Whoa.
Quote:
The iPhone is over 5 months old in Europe. The fact that it sold through its stock in days after the price cut shows their is a demand for it. It just cost too much.
Anyone can generate a short-term sales spike via pricecuts. The trick, as you're probably aware, is to bring sales up long-term.
In a market as competitive as Europe, that's going to require more than a pricecut... it's going to require giving the Euros the iPhone they've been asking for, features-wise. But you knew that.
I don't understand how people conclude that iphone is doing well in the US --- the US ain't doing well if 50% of the sales have gone to China, Russia and the rest of the world.
AT&T is no longer giving out iphone activation numbers --- that tells you how bad it is.
Great point, actually. US numbers will mean more once the iPhone is launched in places like China, Russia, etc.
I do recall ATT saying that only 900k iPhones were activitated in Q4, even though Apple claimed 2.3 million US sales for that quarter. Sure, some of the gap may've been Xmas presents that hadn't been activated as of Dec 31st, but still, it'd be a stretch to say that represents 1.4 million phones...
And Apple doesn't really want a lot of unlocked iPhones, because they then don't get the monthly carrier kickbacks from the revenue sharing deals.
That said, even giving a significant chunk of US sales away to foreign export/unlocking, US sales still aren't what I'd call bad. Apple would be under more pressure to do well in Europe and Asia, however.
Wow... you sure do read a LOT into a single use of the word "roughshod". LOL.
I'm sorry, it seems like you're the one with some sort of emotional axe to grind here, not me. To go on and on over the use of one word, and not even a particularly emotionally charged one at that? Egads.
(shrug) Roughshod means what it means, and of course it's emotionally charged. You could have used a lot of other words. I guess if you're saying you don't really mean what you say, then whatever.
Quote:
All I can say is, you need to chill. I'm not a Euro chauvinist, I'm a Californian. But guess what? Euro chauvinists can say their piece, and it doesn't bother me one whit. I'll give 'em the brush back when they get overly nationalist and anti-American, but that's been rare here.
Why would I need to chill? I'm not upset or angry or dismayed in any way. I am puzzled by a tone, taken by you and others, and I'm talking about it.
Quote:
Finally, regarding the "if you can't formulate a convincing argument" BS... please, give us all a break, that's Internet Debate 1A. I have formulated a convincing argument, just not to your particular point of view. As I already said, what we have is a disagreement on the nature of reality. I'm pretty sure I'm right, but to each their own.
Expecting you to make sense is Internet Debate 1A? OK.
So you made an argument, or not so much an argument as just kind of a bald assertion regarding Apple's attitude, and I have suggested reasons why I think that doesn't hang together. Rather than explain where I'm mistaken, you just blow the whole thing off. Which is fine, but I remain oddly unpersuaded. It's not really a disagreement on the nature of reality, we disagree on a couple of key points.
So you can decisively put me in my place: show me where Apple asserted they were going to storm Europe with the iPhone, run roughshod, or whatever word you prefer now, over existing vendors with a 2G phone. If that's what they were saying, then you're are absolutely right and I stand corrected-- Apple had unwarranted expectations for a 2G handset and has been schooled.
If not, none of this makes any sense at all, and is just elaborate projection on what after all is business minded corporation who might actually have some people on board that would be aware of what is apparently so blindingly obvious to consumers in the market they were entering.
Quote:
I think you're way too worried/obsessed with sort of thing.
Actual internet debate 1A often involves claiming the other guy is irrational or obsessed or overly emotional.
Anyway, and again, I have no idea why you would think I am "worried." There is a strain of feeling in this thread regarding the relative sophistication of the European phone market vs. Apple's arrogance that I've commented on, because I think it doesn't make any sense and is based on a false premise.
You know, the internet. Really not that big a deal.
(shrug) Roughshod means what it means, and of course it's emotionally charged. You could have used a lot of other words. I guess if you're saying you don't really mean what you say, then whatever.
Why would I need to chill? I'm not upset or angry or dismayed in any way. I am puzzled by a tone, taken by you and others, and I'm talking about it.
Expecting you to make sense is Internet Debate 1A? OK.
So you made an argument, or not so much an argument as just kind of a bald assertion regarding Apple's attitude, and I have suggested reasons why I think that doesn't hang together. Rather than explain where I'm mistaken, you just blow the whole thing off. Which is fine, but I remain oddly unpersuaded. It's not really a disagreement on the nature of reality, we disagree on a couple of key points.
So you can decisively put me in my place: show me where Apple asserted they were going to storm Europe with the iPhone, run roughshod, or whatever word you prefer now, over existing vendors with a 2G phone. If that's what they were saying, then you're are absolutely right and I stand corrected-- Apple had unwarranted expectations for a 2G handset and has been schooled.
If not, none of this makes any sense at all, and is just elaborate projection on what after all is business minded corporation who might actually have some people on board that would be aware of what is apparently so blindingly obvious to consumers in the market they were entering.
Actual internet debate 1A often involves claiming the other guy is irrational or obsessed or overly emotional.
Anyway, and again, I have no idea why you would think I am "worried." There is a strain of feeling in this thread regarding the relative sophistication of the European phone market vs. Apple's arrogance that I've commented on, because I think it doesn't make any sense and is based on a false premise.
You know, the internet. Really not that big a deal.
Addabox, I don't know what your problem is, and frankly, I don't care. If I'm not talking to you much, it's because I've come to the conclusion that you're a little bit strange.
Addabox, I don't know what your problem is, and frankly, I don't care. If I'm not talking to you much, it's because I've come to the conclusion that you're a little bit strange.
The remaining half has to come mostly from the other two big world markets... Europe and Asia. So yes, Apple does have to sell well in Europe, to be a success by its own metrics. It doesn't have to sell quite as well in Europe as it does in the US, but the sales can't suck either.
What does any of that have to do with what the iPhone sold in 2007?
Quote:
Why stop there? Why not beat Nokia too? 3G will do that.
That's your goal. Not necessarily Apple's.
Apple's goal is to make money. You can have the highest 3G use and not make any money at it.
Quote:
The thing about 3G is, you can turn it off if you need to.
That would defeat most of the function of the iPhone. Its better to wait for energy efficient 3G that you don't have to turn off.
Quote:
You mean, you're not aware that video confercing and video apps in general need good bandwidth in order to provide a good user experience? Whoa.
iChat is mostly used for IM. Why even bring up video conferencing when their is no way to even do that on the iPhone. It makes absolutely no sense to try and argue this.
Quote:
Anyone can generate a short-term sales spike via pricecuts. The trick, as you're probably aware, is to bring sales up long-term.
This would not work for every product. First their has to be a demand. MS could cut the price of the Zune and it would not sell out in days.
Comments
Apple could have released the same featured rich with mediocre use phone as many of its competitors. But Apple never does this with any of its products. They always take an alternate route.
The alternate route was developing a few well written high quality applications. Using hardware centered around media and graphics display as well as extending battery life. This gives Apple a strong foundation to further add more hardware and software.
I think we can all see what Apple is trying to do. The question is, will it fly in various markets around the world? Will Apple, the new kid on the block in phones, be taken seriously?
In the US, where Apple's popularity is the highest and their brand the strongest, they have been. Europe, and Asia? The verdict's still out.
.
I don't think the car analogy works that well. The worst thing you can do is introduce a product with poor quality. Hyundai and others made that mistake, and it takes a long time to change the perception that your products are shoddy.
That's a very different proposition from "limited feature set."
The choice between "more features but lower quality" and what Apple did release in the Euro market only happens with an early (some would say premature) release into the Euro market. Presumably the 3G iPhone that Apple is likely going to release in June will not be "low quality"/"early Hyundai" in any way, shape or form.
So, again, I don't see how "really well made, full efficient, high quality, fun to drive and great handling, missing some features that a lot of buyers in this market want" translates into "now we will never take this manufacturer seriously again and not even bother to check out their newest stuff."
The prob is that I don't think the average Euro customer would give the 2.5G iPhone all the accolades you just did above. So what we have here is a "fundamental disagreement on the nature of reality", as the political pundits like to say.
Given that, no, of course you aren't going to see or agree with what I'm saying, I'm sure. It's like the age-old debate on US domestic cars... one side says, "You have to improve quality or the Japanese are going to eat your lunch", while the other insists, "There's nothing wrong with American cars, Japan is all hype, JD Power and Consumer Reports are all biased", yadda yadda.
Yeah, but it's kind of implicit in what you're saying, which is that Apple should have, inexplicably, forgone sales of the phone they had (not to mention a leg up on the boilerplate of negotiating channel allocation), because European sensibilities would be so deeply offended by a phone without 3G it would subsequently depress sales of a 3G phone, once it arrived.
It's not really a matter of being "offended". In the very competitive European high end cellphone market, all it really takes is a "Meh, that bit of kit is only okay, not great. What was all the fuss about again?", for Apple's brand to diminish in that market.
Remember, the hype was quite enormous after the US launch. A lot of Euros were expecting something quite special, and Apple appears to have underwhelmed, judging from sales. You only get one chance to make a first impression. So now the pressure is on Apple to make an extremely good second one.
Right? Because unless a 2G iPhone actually in some way will prove to damage the sales of the next model, there is no reason in the world for Apple not to sell those phones and make that money.
They really haven't even sold that many phones in Europe, as of yet. The lion's share has been the US.
As far as what Apple's expectation for a 2G model in Europe were..... we don't really know that, do we? Apple only looks foolish if we hypothesis that they thought the iPhone was going to take Europe by storm, and I've never seen anything from Apple that suggests that that's what they believed.
Well, we have their European partner carrier targets, which I'm sure were set with input from Apple no doubt, and which were missed all the way around pretty much.
I don't think Apple believed that they were going to take Europe "by storm" with the US model iPhone (though I'm sure they had hopes), but I do think they believed that they were going to do quite a lot better in the Euro market than they have, and were caught somewhat by surprise by the reception they're getting.
Which is far from ideal, certainly, but doesn't have to be fatal, so long as Apple adapts quickly and well to this turn of events.
.
I'm genuinely asking for examples of how I moved the goal posts and my bias. I gave example of why I felt you guys were biased against the iPhone.
I can't speak for Sapporo, who originally raised the complain, but I too have noticed a tendency for you to move the goalposts.
For example, regarding Euro sales, in our early discussions, you steadfastly refused to acknowledge that Apple wasn't doing well over there. Then later you did, but with provisos like "Apple is doing well for a new phone maker up against big phone makers like Nokia" or "they're doing well for being overpriced" etc. etc.
I mean, c'mon.
I don't understand how this differs from what I said. Unless you have evidence that European 3G use has risen above 34% in its user base.
Euro 3G use isn't that high yet? Wait a month.
Seriously, you know as well as I that 3G penetration rates in Europe are increasing, and that 3G should be the majority of Euro cellphone users quite soon. But that's the Euro market as a whole. What do you think 3G penetration rates are among high end cellphone users in Europe, i.e. Apple's segment of the market? What do you think user expectations are as to whether high end phones should have 3G or not?
I said 3G is a superior technology to EDGE. Ultimately you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the iPhone having grown into a dominant data device despite EDGE and its 6% marketshare. Clearly shows high quality software is more important than data speed.
Sure, Safari + MultiTouch + big screen = better internet user experience = more browsing. I've said that for a long time. But why hobble that better user experience by forcing the user to surf over a dialup speed connection (GPRS), which is what 2.5G is in a lot of Europe?
And ppl here still wonder why Euro sales are slow? It boggles the mind.
You are being argumentative. I didn't say anything like this at all. What I said is that it shows which part of the user experience is more useful and important. That doesn't mean the iPhone doesn't need 3G.
Apple has vastly improved Safari since last year. Add 3G to the mix, the iPhone is likely to crush everyone else in data marketshare.
Well, at least now you get that they need 3G. And yes, they will absolutely annihilate everyone in data marketshare once they've got it.
I do IM over EDGE.
I also watch lots of video over EDGE.
Hmm, you must have not checked out iChat's bandwidth requirements.
For 1-to-1 video conferencing:
Good (160x120): 100 Kbps Internet connection (up/down) \t
Better (320x240): 300 Kbps Internet connection (up/down) \t
Best (640x480): 900 Kbps Internet connection (up/down)
For 4-way video conferencing:
To intiate:
Good (160x120): 384 Kbps Internet connection (up/down) \t
Better (320x240): 600 Kbps Internet connection (up/down) \t
Best (640x480): 1800 Kbps Internet connection (up/down)
To participate:
Good (160x120): 100 Kbps Internet connection (up/down) \t
Better (320x240): 200 Kbps Internet connection (up/down) \t
Best (640x480): 300 Kbps Internet connection (up/down)
On EDGE, you might get some low-res (160x120) iChat video conferencing going, assuming of course the iPhone's cpu is up to it (if not now, it eventually will be in future models).
But in Europe, they don't even have EDGE for their 2.5G in a lot of places... they have GPRS, which is 30-45 kbps. Think you're gonna do much video with that?
Yes they will. But you cannot ignore the phenomenal growth of the iPhone internet marketshare in relation to its over all marketshare in such a short time.
iPhone internet usage figures will explode even larger with 3G and long battery life.
I think we more or less agree here.
Macworld published the breakout numbers.
Cool.
Its not normal for a failed product to receive a sales cut that still leaves it more expensive than its competition and sells out of its stock.
I don't think the iPhone is a "failed" product in Europe. It's fairer to characterize it as "down, but not out". Price cuts have helped some in the short-term (as one would expect), but long-term, you have to give the market what it wants, and that means an improvement in the feature-set.
I completely agree. I've said several times in our debates that Nokia has been in telephone communications for over 20 years. Apple has been in mobile communications for 10 months. Apple has only just begun growing the iPhone platform, it will grow and change.
Well, on that we can agree, at least.
.
Remember, they are just like you. And if you have any perspective, you should realize they really don't know what they are talking about (they are just like you
I'm sure that exact same argument was used against ppl who said the following:
"I don't think the G4 Cube will sell well."
"That new AppleTV gizmo just doesn't seem very compelling."
"You know what? I think iPod sales may be due to plateau soon."
Sometimes, boardroom info is overrated. We, the buying public, ultimately determine what fails and succeeds, by voting with our pocketbooks. And sometimes (just sometimes, mind you), despite the best efforts of all the marketers and product people, we have a better take on what is or isn't going to work, because we're not inside the bubble.
After all, if boardroom info and being a marketing guru really WAS the hand of God, instead of an advantage, NO products would fail, and all the suits would be happy and dancing a merry jig in the streets, eh?
As for 3G, just think about this factoid. In terms of 3G users, the USA, as of calendar Q4 07, has a slightly higher percentage of 3G users in its market then Great Britain, Germany and France in their respective markets. Italy/Spain is a little bit higher. Apple did their market demographics right, and their strategy right, by going with EDGE at first with the iPhone.
Not exactly. For example, Italy's 3G penetration rates are over double American ones:
3G penetration rates in Italy are already at 29%, Spain and UK are at about 18%. Even the USA is getting well along into 3G, with 13% having migrated to 3G.
http://3g4g.blogspot.com/2007/09/random-statistics.html
Now add to that that, with the iPhone, we're talking the high-end segment of the market, where 3G is more expected (and more likely to be use) than the market as a whole.
Going with EDGE first with the iPhone was mostly correct in the US, but not really in Europe, and certainly wouldn't be in Asia, specifically Japan and Korea, whose 3G penetration rates are among the highest in the world.
The difficulty with Europe has mostly been price.
I'd agree that price is an issue, but it's far from the only one. Price alone won't turn things around long-term in Europe, not with the iPhone's current feature set. Fortunately, help appears to be only two months away or so.
Corollary to that is Europe does have more high-end phones on the market, and at discounted prices with contract. Lastly, Apple's brand power isn't very strong outside of the USA. So, competition is stiff.
Yup. As I've said many times.
The lunacy is that members of the Internet believe that Apple does not know this.
The lunacy is that Apple did know this, and yet still thought they'd run roughshod over it anyway, with what was basically the US 2.5G model. After all, Euro sales are underwhelming, why, again?
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot... it was all part of Apple's master plan. Apple never makes mistakes. Apple has the Euro market "right where they want them"... etc. etc.
Look, while I believe that Stevie J is the closest thing the industry has to a reliable techno-visionary, at least at the CEO level (and certainly much better than Gates the Fraud, who initially missed the Internet
While I don't think the people participating in European iPhone topics here on AI are xenophobic, it's something that shouldn't be discounted for any company entering into a foreign market. People are nationalistic, are xenophobic by nature. Apple, whose a rather galling company for techno-geeks and enterprise CIOs, generates controversy as part of its being. It shouldn't come as a surprise that their are so many love-hate discussions. And that's just in the USA. Imagine Apple entering an entrenched cell phone market in Europe with it's own set of fan-culture. Well, lile evolution threads, patience and fortitude are required.
So part of Apple's problem in Europe is simple xenophobia? In a market that has THAT many different cultures, languages, traditions? Um... okay.
I think perhaps in highly homogenous Japan, you could make that argument, but not so much in Europe. After all, do the Germans, French, Italians, Spanish, Flemish, etc. really love the Finland (home of Nokia) so much? No, but they certainly buy their phones in epic numbers, because their phones are good, for the most part.
If your argument is more along the lines of the fact that there's a "Euro" way of doing things, certain expected features, etc., then I can get with that. In fact, that's what many Euro posters here have been saying for a long time.
.
I think we can all see what Apple is trying to do. The question is, will it fly in various markets around the world? Will Apple, the new kid on the block in phones, be taken seriously?
If Apple had not deferred iPhone revenue its bottom line would have an additional 2 billion. Unlocked iPhones are being used in every industrialized nation in the world. I think its safe to say its going pretty well so far.
For example, regarding Euro sales, in our early discussions, you steadfastly refused to acknowledge that Apple wasn't doing well over there. Then later you did, but with provisos like "Apple is doing well for a new phone maker up against big phone makers like Nokia" or "they're doing well for being overpriced" etc. etc.
I always kept my argument in context of Åpple being new to mobile communications and the iPhone being more expensive than its competitors. I never said the iPhone was going to outsell its competitors.
Most of you were arguing that the iPhone was a failure in Europe compared to its US sales. This was a very flawed argument. I always maintained that as long as Apple was making profit and its carriers were adding subscribers the iPhone was doing fine. Its a failure if everyone is either loosing money or making no money from it.
Sure, Safari + MultiTouch + big screen = better internet user experience = more browsing. I've said that for a long time. But why hobble that better user experience by forcing the user to surf over a dialup speed connection (GPRS), which is what 2.5G is in a lot of Europe
So hobbled that the iPhone beat everyone except Nokia in data marketshare.
The reason is because right now I use the data applications on my iPhone with little regard for battery life. What would be the point of faster data connection if you would quickly kill your battery. People would use the data applications much less.
Hmm, you must have not checked out iChat's bandwidth requirements.
What in the world are you talking about?
I don't think the iPhone is a "failed" product in Europe. It's fairer to characterize it as "down, but not out". Price cuts have helped some in the short-term (as one would expect), but long-term, you have to give the market what it wants, and that means an improvement in the feature-set.
The iPhone is over 5 months old in Europe. The fact that it sold through its stock in days after the price cut shows their is a demand for it. It just cost too much.
The lunacy is that Apple did know this, and yet still thought they'd run roughshod over it anyway, with what was basically the US 2.5G model. After all, Euro sales are underwhelming, why, again?
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot... it was all part of Apple's master plan. Apple never makes mistakes. Apple has the Euro market "right where they want them"... etc. etc.
Look, while I believe that Stevie J is the closest thing the industry has to a reliable techno-visionary, at least at the CEO level (and certainly much better than Gates the Fraud, who initially missed the Internet
See, you keep saying stuff like this, but if anyone points it out you claim to be merely disinterested and analytical.
The whole nut of your attitude on the European roll-out of the iPhone hinges on this idea that Apple thought they could ride "roughshod" over that market. It obliges us to assume that Apple, AKA Steve Jobs, were so blinded by arrogance that they couldn't make basic calculations regarding 2G vs. 3G coverage and uptake.
What you haven't done is explain why selling what phones they could, when they could, was a mistake. Your take is predicated on the idea that the only possible reason Apple would have for introducing the phone at all was to "ride roughshod" over the market, but there is absolutely no reason to assume that. We could just as easily assume that Apple felt they could make some modest inroads, hash out the distribution model, and follow up with a 3G model ASAP, which of course is what they're doing.
You've vaguely alluded to the idea that even daring to introduce a high-end 2G model hurts the brand, but that seems just wrong to me. Again, are you actually claiming that people who might have otherwise purchased a 3G iPhone will now refuse to do so, just because there was a 2G phone on the market before it?
If you can't make a convincing case that a 2G model will have hurt sales of a 3G follow-up, and we can agree that the idea that Apple "thought" they were going to do anything in particular with the European market with a 2G phone is just speculation, then what are you arguing?
It seems to me that you're arguing that Apple is an arrogant company that got their comeuppance and the hands of discriminating European consumers and only now is "making amends", in some sense.
You say you're not, but I can't figure out any other way to read it.
So part of Apple's problem in Europe is simple xenophobia? In a market that has THAT many different cultures, languages, traditions? Um... okay.
I think perhaps in highly homogenous Japan, you could make that argument, but not so much in Europe. After all, do the Germans, French, Italians, Spanish, Flemish, etc. really love the Finland (home of Nokia) so much? No, but they certainly buy their phones in epic numbers, because their phones are good, for the most part.
If your argument is more along the lines of the fact that there's a "Euro" way of doing things, certain expected features, etc., then I can get with that. In fact, that's what many Euro posters here have been saying for a long time.
.
See above. I was the one to use the term, and I meant European xenophobia directed at America.
And I never claimed that that was the iPhone's "problem", I said that some of the comments in this thread seemed to proceed from something like that, insofar as they hinged on this weird idea that it is sort of satisfying to see a 2G iPhone sell modestly in Europe since, apparently, arrogant Apple thought the would corner the market. That whole idea is fraught with a peculiar kind of chauvinism, and, since everybody is claiming to have no particular animus against Apple per se, what else should I chalk it up to? Maybe we should call it "nationalist tech chauvinism"?
Look, I have no problem with the idea that Europeans have different expectations from Americans in terms of features, distribution and cost when it comes to cell phones. Why would I?
I just don't see why it's necessary to read any more into what's happened than "Apple sold the phone they had, made some money off it, and will presently sell the phone they've had in the pipeline all along, when it's ready, and which will probably be a better match for the European market."
58% of Verizon Wireless subscibers have 3G ev-do handsets --- this is a company that doesn't have SIM cards and 90+% are postpaid.
http://rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...651076448/1002
But that statistics is also meaningless --- because we don't know how many people just buy a 3G ev-do phone because that's what Verizon offers (it's hard to find a 1x only phone from Verizon) and we don't know how many of them even use any of the 3G data functions.
See, you keep saying stuff like this, but if anyone points it out you claim to be merely disinterested and analytical.
The whole nut of your attitude on the European roll-out of the iPhone hinges on this idea that Apple thought they could ride "roughshod" over that market. It obliges us to assume that Apple, AKA Steve Jobs, were so blinded by arrogance that they couldn't make basic calculations regarding 2G vs. 3G coverage and uptake.
What you haven't done is explain why selling what phones they could, when they could, was a mistake. Your take is predicated on the idea that the only possible reason Apple would have for introducing the phone at all was to "ride roughshod" over the market, but there is absolutely no reason to assume that. We could just as easily assume that Apple felt they could make some modest inroads, hash out the distribution model, and follow up with a 3G model ASAP, which of course is what they're doing.
You've vaguely alluded to the idea that even daring to introduce a high-end 2G model hurts the brand, but that seems just wrong to me. Again, are you actually claiming that people who might have otherwise purchased a 3G iPhone will now refuse to do so, just because there was a 2G phone on the market before it?
If you can't make a convincing case that a 2G model will have hurt sales of a 3G follow-up, and we can agree that the idea that Apple "thought" they were going to do anything in particular with the European market with a 2G phone is just speculation, then what are you arguing?
It seems to me that you're arguing that Apple is an arrogant company that got their comeuppance and the hands of discriminating European consumers and only now is "making amends", in some sense.
You say you're not, but I can't figure out any other way to read it.
Wow... you sure do read a LOT into a single use of the word "roughshod". LOL.
I'm sorry, it seems like you're the one with some sort of emotional axe to grind here, not me. To go on and on over the use of one word, and not even a particularly emotionally charged one at that? Egads.
All I can say is, you need to chill. I'm not a Euro chauvinist, I'm a Californian. But guess what? Euro chauvinists can say their piece, and it doesn't bother me one whit. I'll give 'em the brush back when they get overly nationalist and anti-American, but that's been rare here.
Finally, regarding the "if you can't formulate a convincing argument" BS... please, give us all a break, that's Internet Debate 1A. I have formulated a convincing argument, just not to your particular point of view. As I already said, what we have is a disagreement on the nature of reality. I'm pretty sure I'm right, but to each their own.
See above. I was the one to use the term, and I meant European xenophobia directed at America.
And I never claimed that that was the iPhone's "problem", I said that some of the comments in this thread seemed to proceed from something like that, insofar as they hinged on this weird idea that it is sort of satisfying to see a 2G iPhone sell modestly in Europe since, apparently, arrogant Apple thought the would corner the market. That whole idea is fraught with a peculiar kind of chauvinism, and, since everybody is claiming to have no particular animus against Apple per se, what else should I chalk it up to? Maybe we should call it "nationalist tech chauvinism"?
I think you're way too worried/obsessed with sort of thing.
.
If Apple had not deferred iPhone revenue its bottom line would have an additional 2 billion. Unlocked iPhones are being used in every industrialized nation in the world. I think its safe to say its going pretty well so far.
I think it's way too early to say much except
- the iPhone is doing well in the US
- the iPhone is not doing well in Europe
The unlocking story is a nice sideshow, but not one Apple wants, as they don't get their monthly kickback from the carrier on those...
.
AT&T is no longer giving out iphone activation numbers --- that tells you how bad it is.
Most of you were arguing that the iPhone was a failure in Europe compared to its US sales. This was a very flawed argument.
Not really. Apple has publicly set a goal of 10 million iPhones sold in calendar 2008. Maybe half of those they'll get in the US, though that's iffy due to the US entering recession.
The remaining half has to come mostly from the other two big world markets... Europe and Asia. So yes, Apple does have to sell well in Europe, to be a success by its own metrics. It doesn't have to sell quite as well in Europe as it does in the US, but the sales can't suck either.
So hobbled that the iPhone beat everyone except Nokia in data marketshare.
Why stop there? Why not beat Nokia too? 3G will do that.
The reason is because right now I use the data applications on my iPhone with little regard for battery life. What would be the point of faster data connection if you would quickly kill your battery. People would use the data applications much less.
The thing about 3G is, you can turn it off if you need to.
What in the world are you talking about?
You mean, you're not aware that video confercing and video apps in general need good bandwidth in order to provide a good user experience? Whoa.
The iPhone is over 5 months old in Europe. The fact that it sold through its stock in days after the price cut shows their is a demand for it. It just cost too much.
Anyone can generate a short-term sales spike via pricecuts. The trick, as you're probably aware, is to bring sales up long-term.
In a market as competitive as Europe, that's going to require more than a pricecut... it's going to require giving the Euros the iPhone they've been asking for, features-wise. But you knew that.
.
I don't understand how people conclude that iphone is doing well in the US --- the US ain't doing well if 50% of the sales have gone to China, Russia and the rest of the world.
AT&T is no longer giving out iphone activation numbers --- that tells you how bad it is.
Great point, actually. US numbers will mean more once the iPhone is launched in places like China, Russia, etc.
I do recall ATT saying that only 900k iPhones were activitated in Q4, even though Apple claimed 2.3 million US sales for that quarter. Sure, some of the gap may've been Xmas presents that hadn't been activated as of Dec 31st, but still, it'd be a stretch to say that represents 1.4 million phones...
And Apple doesn't really want a lot of unlocked iPhones, because they then don't get the monthly carrier kickbacks from the revenue sharing deals.
That said, even giving a significant chunk of US sales away to foreign export/unlocking, US sales still aren't what I'd call bad. Apple would be under more pressure to do well in Europe and Asia, however.
.
Wow... you sure do read a LOT into a single use of the word "roughshod". LOL.
I'm sorry, it seems like you're the one with some sort of emotional axe to grind here, not me. To go on and on over the use of one word, and not even a particularly emotionally charged one at that? Egads.
(shrug) Roughshod means what it means, and of course it's emotionally charged. You could have used a lot of other words. I guess if you're saying you don't really mean what you say, then whatever.
All I can say is, you need to chill. I'm not a Euro chauvinist, I'm a Californian. But guess what? Euro chauvinists can say their piece, and it doesn't bother me one whit. I'll give 'em the brush back when they get overly nationalist and anti-American, but that's been rare here.
Why would I need to chill? I'm not upset or angry or dismayed in any way. I am puzzled by a tone, taken by you and others, and I'm talking about it.
Finally, regarding the "if you can't formulate a convincing argument" BS... please, give us all a break, that's Internet Debate 1A. I have formulated a convincing argument, just not to your particular point of view. As I already said, what we have is a disagreement on the nature of reality. I'm pretty sure I'm right, but to each their own.
Expecting you to make sense is Internet Debate 1A? OK.
So you made an argument, or not so much an argument as just kind of a bald assertion regarding Apple's attitude, and I have suggested reasons why I think that doesn't hang together. Rather than explain where I'm mistaken, you just blow the whole thing off. Which is fine, but I remain oddly unpersuaded. It's not really a disagreement on the nature of reality, we disagree on a couple of key points.
So you can decisively put me in my place: show me where Apple asserted they were going to storm Europe with the iPhone, run roughshod, or whatever word you prefer now, over existing vendors with a 2G phone. If that's what they were saying, then you're are absolutely right and I stand corrected-- Apple had unwarranted expectations for a 2G handset and has been schooled.
If not, none of this makes any sense at all, and is just elaborate projection on what after all is business minded corporation who might actually have some people on board that would be aware of what is apparently so blindingly obvious to consumers in the market they were entering.
I think you're way too worried/obsessed with sort of thing.
Actual internet debate 1A often involves claiming the other guy is irrational or obsessed or overly emotional.
Anyway, and again, I have no idea why you would think I am "worried." There is a strain of feeling in this thread regarding the relative sophistication of the European phone market vs. Apple's arrogance that I've commented on, because I think it doesn't make any sense and is based on a false premise.
You know, the internet. Really not that big a deal.
(shrug) Roughshod means what it means, and of course it's emotionally charged. You could have used a lot of other words. I guess if you're saying you don't really mean what you say, then whatever.
Why would I need to chill? I'm not upset or angry or dismayed in any way. I am puzzled by a tone, taken by you and others, and I'm talking about it.
Expecting you to make sense is Internet Debate 1A? OK.
So you made an argument, or not so much an argument as just kind of a bald assertion regarding Apple's attitude, and I have suggested reasons why I think that doesn't hang together. Rather than explain where I'm mistaken, you just blow the whole thing off. Which is fine, but I remain oddly unpersuaded. It's not really a disagreement on the nature of reality, we disagree on a couple of key points.
So you can decisively put me in my place: show me where Apple asserted they were going to storm Europe with the iPhone, run roughshod, or whatever word you prefer now, over existing vendors with a 2G phone. If that's what they were saying, then you're are absolutely right and I stand corrected-- Apple had unwarranted expectations for a 2G handset and has been schooled.
If not, none of this makes any sense at all, and is just elaborate projection on what after all is business minded corporation who might actually have some people on board that would be aware of what is apparently so blindingly obvious to consumers in the market they were entering.
Actual internet debate 1A often involves claiming the other guy is irrational or obsessed or overly emotional.
Anyway, and again, I have no idea why you would think I am "worried." There is a strain of feeling in this thread regarding the relative sophistication of the European phone market vs. Apple's arrogance that I've commented on, because I think it doesn't make any sense and is based on a false premise.
You know, the internet. Really not that big a deal.
Addabox, I don't know what your problem is, and frankly, I don't care. If I'm not talking to you much, it's because I've come to the conclusion that you're a little bit strange.
Be paranoid on someone else's time. Thanks.
.
Addabox, I don't know what your problem is, and frankly, I don't care. If I'm not talking to you much, it's because I've come to the conclusion that you're a little bit strange.
Be paranoid on someone else's time. Thanks.
.
Yeah. I think that speaks for itself.
Uhh, how exactly is any of that post paranoid and/or strange?
Worrying so much that you obsess that the "Euro chauvinists are out to get ya" is both paranoid and strange.
So's trying to rake someone over the grill over the subtext of the word "roughshod". I really don't like being accused of things over nothing.
Now, if you'll excuse me, Klaus, Francois, Bjorn and I are in the middle of meeting to plot the overthrow of Apple. Thanks.
.
Yeah. I think that speaks for itself.
Whatever gets you through the night. 'bye.
.
The remaining half has to come mostly from the other two big world markets... Europe and Asia. So yes, Apple does have to sell well in Europe, to be a success by its own metrics. It doesn't have to sell quite as well in Europe as it does in the US, but the sales can't suck either.
What does any of that have to do with what the iPhone sold in 2007?
Why stop there? Why not beat Nokia too? 3G will do that.
That's your goal. Not necessarily Apple's.
Apple's goal is to make money. You can have the highest 3G use and not make any money at it.
The thing about 3G is, you can turn it off if you need to.
That would defeat most of the function of the iPhone. Its better to wait for energy efficient 3G that you don't have to turn off.
You mean, you're not aware that video confercing and video apps in general need good bandwidth in order to provide a good user experience? Whoa.
iChat is mostly used for IM. Why even bring up video conferencing when their is no way to even do that on the iPhone. It makes absolutely no sense to try and argue this.
Anyone can generate a short-term sales spike via pricecuts. The trick, as you're probably aware, is to bring sales up long-term.
This would not work for every product. First their has to be a demand. MS could cut the price of the Zune and it would not sell out in days.