Microsoft hopes to take on Apple with dual mobile platforms

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 157
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    You can say that a company with a massive market cap may or may not use their money and power to do bad things.



    But without any sizeable market cap --- you can't do a single bad thing, even if you want to.



    Aren't you insinuating guilt by just having potential of doing something wrong? Even saying they could do bad things doesn't really mean anything. You're painting Google as a bad actor, specifically against Verizon, without being very specific about why you think so.



    And what about the other three paragraphs? It looks like you're avoiding clarifying several things.



    I am genuinely curious, I'm sorry if I'm coming off as a bit abrasive, but many of your statements don't make sense to me, don't add up as far as I can tell.
  • Reply 122 of 157
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Seconded. I am totally baffled by this argument.
  • Reply 123 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Aren't you insinuating guilt by just having potential of doing something wrong? Even saying they could do bad things doesn't really mean anything. You're painting Google as a bad actor, specifically against Verizon, without being very specific about why you think so.



    And what about the other three paragraphs? It looks like you're avoiding clarifying several things.



    I am genuinely curious, I'm sorry if I'm coming off as a bit abrasive, but many of your statements don't make sense to me, don't add up as far as I can tell.



    Nothing like that.



    I merely am saying that all the supposedly big and evil empires --- aren't big and aren't evil.



    And all the supposedly people-friendly companies --- are comparatively large and monopolistic in size.
  • Reply 124 of 157
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    It's official -- I am no longer baffled, I am now completely confounded by this argument. I have no clue what it means.
  • Reply 125 of 157
    Let's get this thread back to the topic! Now what will happen if Microsoft comes up with dual mobile platforms? Do you think that will affect Apple in the least?
  • Reply 126 of 157
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SGSStateStudent View Post


    Let's get this thread back to the topic! Now what will happen if Microsoft comes up with dual mobile platforms? Do you think that will affect Apple in the least?



    Good point.



    My guess is that it means nothing.
  • Reply 127 of 157
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Good point.



    My guess is that it means nothing.



    Oh it means something alright -- it means that Microsoft can't buy a clue.
  • Reply 128 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Oh it means something alright -- it means that Microsoft can't buy a clue.



    Ballmer laughed at the iphone in Jan 2007 (pre-first gen iphone launch) --- when it was $600 with a 2 year contract with revenue sharing. He was absolutely correct that it was an idiotic business plan.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5oGaZIKYvo



    Later Microsoft mis-estimated the willingness of the carriers to massively subsidize the iphone.



    But as recent reports from analysts that none of the iphone carriers are making any financial sense with their iphone launch --- is it Microsoft's fault to think that the carriers would act rationally?
  • Reply 129 of 157
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Oh it means something alright -- it means that Microsoft can't buy a clue.



    HAHA! They'll sell Ballmer to buy a clue.
  • Reply 130 of 157
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Ballmer laughed at the iphone in Jan 2007 (pre-first gen iphone launch) --- when it was $600 with a 2 year contract with revenue sharing. He was absolutely correct that it was an idiotic business plan.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5oGaZIKYvo



    Later Microsoft mis-estimated the willingness of the carriers to massively subsidize the iphone.



    But as recent reports from analysts that none of the iphone carriers are making any financial sense with their iphone launch --- is it Microsoft's fault to think that the carriers would act rationally?



    I guess Apple made the iPhone so expensive at the start to differentiate the iPhone owners from the rest. Don't forget. iPhone owners ( now and then ) pay much more than other people including data plans and other add-on stuff. iPhone owners are richer ( that's true, don't believe see one of AI's reports on surveys done on what type of people own iPhones ) .. Thus.. I believe this was a smart business plan IMO..
  • Reply 131 of 157
    Apple priced the iPhone at $600 to start because they knew that many would pay that much for the bragging rights. Once the early adopters were satisfied, Apple lowered the price.
  • Reply 132 of 157
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SGSStateStudent View Post


    HAHA! They'll sell Ballmer to buy a clue.



    Sadly, I don't think selling Ballmer will make them enough money to buy the clues that they need
  • Reply 133 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Apple priced the iPhone at $600 to start because they knew that many would pay that much for the bragging rights. Once the early adopters were satisfied, Apple lowered the price.



    So satisfied were these early adopters that Apple had to calm the anger down by giving out $100 itunes gift certificates.



    You guys can't go retroactively trying to change the story.



    Everything that Ballmer and Verizon (we rejected the iphone because we don't want to ruin our relationship with independent dealers because they can't sell the iphone) stated in January 2007 (1 week after the apple keynote speech but 5 months before the actual launch of the first gen iphone) turned out to be correct eventually.
  • Reply 134 of 157
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    It's also funny that somehow the RIAA, MPAA and the carriers got to be viewed as the evil empire when in reality they are just trying to survive against silicon valley billionaires whose toy collections of $400 million super-yacht and gulfstream airplanes are enough money to buy their whole company.



    AAPL market cap = $150 billion vs. Warner Music Group market cap = $750 million



    Do you really believe that this is a fair fight between Steve Jobs and the music studios on itunes?



    Google market cap = $150 billion vs. Verizon market cap = $85 billion



    Do you really think it's fair for Google to fool the FCC into making the 700 Mhz auction rules and Google had zero intention to actually bid to win the auction itself?



    I've said here many times that the content providers have the right to attempt to protect their businesses. That' what they've been trying to do.



    But they've also been doing much of it the wrong way. Sometimes the future is in front of you, and you have to give in to it and change your business model.



    I don't know what any of this had to do with what Dr. Millmoss and I were speaking about though.
  • Reply 135 of 157
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    I don't think he cared to. The first thing he did after leaving Apple was spend a bunch of it on things he cared about, like buying computers for schools and those concert events.



    That's part of it. but he's started several businesses, and joined a couple more over that time, and none have panned out.
  • Reply 136 of 157
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    In terms of monopoly --- Google is actually a lot more monopolistic than the carriers.



    Verizon Wireless owns about 31% of the US market. AT&T owns about 29% of the US market. Japan's NTT DoCoMo owns over 50% of the Japanese market. France Telecom owns about 45% of the French market. T-Mobile owns about 40% of the German market.



    The US cell phone market is nowhere near closed and oligopolistic.



    I don't believe helping a much larger company to bash a much smaller company is the right thing to do.



    That's a very strange perspective.



    Technology changes. That also changes our way of interacting socially. No one forced Google to the top. People chose them. Besides, it's far easier to get off using Google than it is getting off a carrier. And we're not paying Google anything. It's a free service, in case you haven't noticed. You're free to use MS for your search needs, if you want to.



    If you're so worried about Verizon, get off the internet, and get on the phone and start using the phonebook again. I'm sure your friends would prefer you calling them all during the day and night rather than your hanging out here and railing against Apple and its partners to us.



    No company the size of AT&T or Verizon can be beat up by Google. What can happen is people can decide to not use their services. This is what's happening in some cases.



    That's a good thing, not as you make it out to be, a bad thing.
  • Reply 137 of 157
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    So satisfied were these early adopters that Apple had to calm the anger down by giving out $100 itunes gift certificates.



    You guys can't go retroactively trying to change the story.



    Story not changed. They charged what the market would bear. When the market would no longer bear that price, they lowered it. A simple business decision.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    That's part of it. but he's started several businesses, and joined a couple more over that time, and none have panned out.



    I know. Woz never was the businessman. He just doesn't have that kind of fire in the belly.
  • Reply 138 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I've said here many times that the content providers have the right to attempt to protect their businesses. That' what they've been trying to do.



    But they've also been doing much of it the wrong way. Sometimes the future is in front of you, and you have to give in to it and change your business model.



    I don't know what any of this had to do with what Dr. Millmoss and I were speaking about though.



    How were they doing it the wrong way?



    The music industry was ambushed by internet start-ups (with questionable legalities and even more questionable long term business models).



    Those start-ups never had a proper business model --- they just want to grow quickly so that they can either be bought out or IPO'ed. How do you defend against those internet start-ups who really has no proper business models?



    Those were the times when you could basically IPO for selling pet food on the internet. And if you manage to IPO at the right time --- you would be bigger than the music industry itself.
  • Reply 139 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    No company the size of AT&T or Verizon can be beat up by Google.



    But on the other hand, you can't argue that Google and Apple were somehow getting beat up by the much smaller carriers --- and require some sort of FCC intervention to protect these internet giants.
  • Reply 140 of 157
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Story not changed. They charged what the market would bear. When the market would no longer bear that price, they lowered it. A simple business decision.



    But you guys can't argue that Ballmer --- based on the best information available publicly at the time --- was making idiotic comments on the iphone.



    Every single comment on the iphone made by Microsoft and Verizon in January 2007 --- turned out to have merit.
Sign In or Register to comment.