"Cook answered that the split Apple shares only applies to new customers"
Actually, Cook answered that the 70/30 split only applies to customers who subscribe through in-app purchasing. Apple gets no revenue from subscribers (existing or new) who sign up through the publication's web site. It's a small distinction, but I think an important one.
I hope the first question or statement from the shareholders was... "how is SJ doing and can you please let him know we are all pulling for him to make a full recovery"!
It was the second person called on who said this, (he also expressed his complete confidence in the current management), but he WAS the first person to jump out of his seat toward a microphone.
Android is nothing but a clone of the most popular OS at a given time. The only thing that keeps it from being sued to the ground is the "open" nature of it..
Actually, Android IS a clone in more ways than one. It wasn't enough to simply steal the iPhone UI. Google ripped off the Sun mobile JVM, changed things here and there just enough to get past the licensing requirements, and then marketed the result as Android.
How can you sit here and argue that Google had Android in its current form before Apple even began to start working on the iPhone?
They didn't have Android in it's current form, they had it in that one, to compete against Blackberry.
But it became obvious that Apple's iPhone had not only moved the goal posts, but the entire damn playing field. As such, they needed a couple of years to rework the user interface.
Are you telling me that Apple hadn't been working on the iPhone for more than 2 years?
The Nexus One was released in 2010.
How can you sit here and argue that Google had Android in its current form before Apple even began to start working on the iPhone?
The iPhone and Apple have come a long way. Apple has constantly revolutionized the way people listen to music and interact with others. Their mobile handset, the iPhone, has been the forerunner in mobile technology for years now, but it seems that they have forgotten their roots. The iPhone hasn?t always been that sleek and super glossy icon of consumer tech that it has definitely become. So let?s take a look at the evolution of our favorite handset.
2005: The Moto Rokr in all its glory!
In 2oo5 Motorola collaborated with Apple to create the Moto Rokr. Although this ?candy bar??styled device certainly got its looks from Motorola, this beauty does have the Apple signature-white backing, like the iPods of the day. This was the first phone with iTunes, but it was short-lived. It?s almost comical that, since then, Motorola and Apple have been competitors ? especially recently, with the Motorola Droid and the soon-to-launch Droid X. I almost find it hard to believe that this was a top phone in 2005. It?s a good thing Apple opted for a different style.
The iPhone hasn?t always been that sleek and super glossy icon of consumer tech that it has definitely become. So let?s take a look at the evolution of our favorite handset.
2005: The Moto Rokr in all its glory!
In 2oo5 Motorola collaborated with Apple to create the Moto Rokr. Although this ?candy bar??styled device certainly got its looks from Motorola, this beauty does have the Apple signature-white backing, like the iPods of the day. This was the first phone with iTunes, but it was short-lived. It?s almost comical that, since then, Motorola and Apple have been competitors ? especially recently, with the Motorola Droid and the soon-to-launch Droid X. I almost find it hard to believe that this was a top phone in 2005. It?s a good thing Apple opted for a different style.
Your knowledge of the history of this is so seriously off-base that it's pointless to try and explain it all.
If you care one whit about facts, you'll follow up and find out more.
Your knowledge of the history of this is so seriously off-base that it's pointless to try and explain it all.
If you care one whit about facts, you'll follow up and find out more.
My bet is, you probably won't....
Since your statement is so vague, I wonder what exactly you're disagreeing with him over. Eldar Murtazin has a nice piece on the history of the iPhone that I read just the other day that backs up his comment. http://www.mobile-review.com/article-en.shtml
One would think that the vacuum tube tag line would have made you realize he was joking.
Nuance and sarcasm are lost among a many here, based on the responses. They have to be told... this is a joke, or a post must be marked "sarcasm", etc. before it registers.
And, there is also appreciation of the history of technology. Transistors replaced vacuum tubes, and transistors were in turn replaced by silicon wafers and the latter are further being challenged by newer technologies with advances in nanotechnology.
Vacuum tubes were practically out ca 1960s, while Google is a very young company of the New Millenium (21st century). More kudos to the "vacuum tube" poster if (s)he aware of these technological nuances.
"APPLE ISN"T HOSTING ANYTHING!!" Implying the cost of the App Store was nothing and Apple was just sticking it to the publishers...:
In the blogosphere, how many care about facts when it is more fun, easier and "self-satisfying" to create realities from our perceptions. And many people cannot distinguish the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonSn0w
Since your statement is so vague, I wonder what exactly you're disagreeing with him over. Eldar Murtazin has a nice piece on the history of the iPhone that I read just the other day that backs up his comment. http://www.mobile-review.com/article-en.shtml
A review is a perspective of what transpired, not necessarily the facts; just like historians bring their perspective in interpreting historical events. There is a book entitled "The Winner Names the Age". The essence is that what we know as the truth of the past, or that which prevails is the perspective (via historians) of the "winners", not the vanquished.
That aside, I agree that it is difficult to counter a blanket rejection of one's proposition when the critic does not offer any explanation. Basically, the other party (the critic) places the onus on you to "prove" your propositions to be incorrect. But, this is very difficult to do because we sincerely believe in what we perceived to be the truth, and I hope the reason why each is impassioned to share their views here.
It is the role of propagandists to obfuscate facts, and attempt to promote their perception to be the alternative for what is factual and real.
Comments
One would think that the vacuum tube tag line would have made you realize he was joking.
Sorry so used to people bashing Apple for no reason and got carried away. LOL!
I guess some people don't know what a vacuum tube is? Lol
Sure, it's a valve.
Sure, it's a valve.
We have a winner!
We have a winner!
Sorry but VT's are before my time. *snicker*
Actually, Cook answered that the 70/30 split only applies to customers who subscribe through in-app purchasing. Apple gets no revenue from subscribers (existing or new) who sign up through the publication's web site. It's a small distinction, but I think an important one.
I hope the first question or statement from the shareholders was... "how is SJ doing and can you please let him know we are all pulling for him to make a full recovery"!
It was the second person called on who said this, (he also expressed his complete confidence in the current management), but he WAS the first person to jump out of his seat toward a microphone.
Probably due to the rather large stock drop over the last week. We're jittery as heck!
Android is nothing but a clone of the most popular OS at a given time. The only thing that keeps it from being sued to the ground is the "open" nature of it..
Actually, Android IS a clone in more ways than one. It wasn't enough to simply steal the iPhone UI. Google ripped off the Sun mobile JVM, changed things here and there just enough to get past the licensing requirements, and then marketed the result as Android.
How can you sit here and argue that Google had Android in its current form before Apple even began to start working on the iPhone?
They didn't have Android in it's current form, they had it in that one, to compete against Blackberry.
But it became obvious that Apple's iPhone had not only moved the goal posts, but the entire damn playing field. As such, they needed a couple of years to rework the user interface.
Probably due to the rather large stock drop over the last week. We're jittery as heck!
I see. Hopefully confidence will be restored shortly.
Huh?
Their first iteration looked like this in 2008
Apple released the first iPhone in 2007.
Are you telling me that Apple hadn't been working on the iPhone for more than 2 years?
The Nexus One was released in 2010.
How can you sit here and argue that Google had Android in its current form before Apple even began to start working on the iPhone?
The iPhone and Apple have come a long way. Apple has constantly revolutionized the way people listen to music and interact with others. Their mobile handset, the iPhone, has been the forerunner in mobile technology for years now, but it seems that they have forgotten their roots. The iPhone hasn?t always been that sleek and super glossy icon of consumer tech that it has definitely become. So let?s take a look at the evolution of our favorite handset.
2005: The Moto Rokr in all its glory!
In 2oo5 Motorola collaborated with Apple to create the Moto Rokr. Although this ?candy bar??styled device certainly got its looks from Motorola, this beauty does have the Apple signature-white backing, like the iPods of the day. This was the first phone with iTunes, but it was short-lived. It?s almost comical that, since then, Motorola and Apple have been competitors ? especially recently, with the Motorola Droid and the soon-to-launch Droid X. I almost find it hard to believe that this was a top phone in 2005. It?s a good thing Apple opted for a different style.
Sorry but VT's are before my time. *snicker*
You young whippersnapper! Why, I designed plenty of tube amps in the day. Haven't used one for decades though.
I see. Hopefully confidence will be restored shortly.
Well, it went up $4 today during a down market. Hopefully that will continue tomorrow after the release of new MB Pros.
The iPhone hasn?t always been that sleek and super glossy icon of consumer tech that it has definitely become. So let?s take a look at the evolution of our favorite handset.
2005: The Moto Rokr in all its glory!
In 2oo5 Motorola collaborated with Apple to create the Moto Rokr. Although this ?candy bar??styled device certainly got its looks from Motorola, this beauty does have the Apple signature-white backing, like the iPods of the day. This was the first phone with iTunes, but it was short-lived. It?s almost comical that, since then, Motorola and Apple have been competitors ? especially recently, with the Motorola Droid and the soon-to-launch Droid X. I almost find it hard to believe that this was a top phone in 2005. It?s a good thing Apple opted for a different style.
Your knowledge of the history of this is so seriously off-base that it's pointless to try and explain it all.
If you care one whit about facts, you'll follow up and find out more.
My bet is, you probably won't....
Your knowledge of the history of this is so seriously off-base that it's pointless to try and explain it all.
If you care one whit about facts, you'll follow up and find out more.
My bet is, you probably won't....
Since your statement is so vague, I wonder what exactly you're disagreeing with him over. Eldar Murtazin has a nice piece on the history of the iPhone that I read just the other day that backs up his comment. http://www.mobile-review.com/article-en.shtml
One would think that the vacuum tube tag line would have made you realize he was joking.
Nuance and sarcasm are lost among a many here, based on the responses. They have to be told... this is a joke, or a post must be marked "sarcasm", etc. before it registers.
And, there is also appreciation of the history of technology. Transistors replaced vacuum tubes, and transistors were in turn replaced by silicon wafers and the latter are further being challenged by newer technologies with advances in nanotechnology.
Vacuum tubes were practically out ca 1960s, while Google is a very young company of the New Millenium (21st century). More kudos to the "vacuum tube" poster if (s)he aware of these technological nuances.
CGC
Okay, where are all the idiots who claimed:
"APPLE ISN"T HOSTING ANYTHING!!" Implying the cost of the App Store was nothing and Apple was just sticking it to the publishers...:
In the blogosphere, how many care about facts when it is more fun, easier and "self-satisfying" to create realities from our perceptions. And many people cannot distinguish the two.
Since your statement is so vague, I wonder what exactly you're disagreeing with him over. Eldar Murtazin has a nice piece on the history of the iPhone that I read just the other day that backs up his comment. http://www.mobile-review.com/article-en.shtml
A review is a perspective of what transpired, not necessarily the facts; just like historians bring their perspective in interpreting historical events. There is a book entitled "The Winner Names the Age". The essence is that what we know as the truth of the past, or that which prevails is the perspective (via historians) of the "winners", not the vanquished.
That aside, I agree that it is difficult to counter a blanket rejection of one's proposition when the critic does not offer any explanation. Basically, the other party (the critic) places the onus on you to "prove" your propositions to be incorrect. But, this is very difficult to do because we sincerely believe in what we perceived to be the truth, and I hope the reason why each is impassioned to share their views here.
It is the role of propagandists to obfuscate facts, and attempt to promote their perception to be the alternative for what is factual and real.
CGC
Bastards!