This doesn't mean Apple needs to make a phone for someone who can't afford it. All you did was show that technology gets cheaper over time, but thats still doesn't mean Apple needs to make a cheaper device, Mac, etc. So I guess by you're thinking, Apple needs to take the Dell approach. Lets just make something as cheap as possible so we can get our products into as many hands as we can. That worked out very well didn't it?
The largest market segment that remains untapped is the developing world, but let's ignore that since we only want to build luxury products. We'll come back and take another look at China in 20 years or so when they might be able to afford our bling. Of course in the mean time that market will be completely dominated by Samsung and Android.
I know it is sort of cliché but it does seem like déjà vu all over again. Mac was elegant and sophisticated in the 80s especially when compared to DOS but by the time Windows 95 came along with most of the same qualities, the Internet, Photoshop and Office, Dell's were generally perceived as just as good but less costly than Macs. It was game over.
So yes it did work out well for Dell...for awhile, but they were unable to adapt to a changing market place. If Apple fails to recognize the changing landscape, the same fate awaits them.
I would hate to see that happen again, which it very well could if Apple loses in China.
They have to innovate faster. They have to turn new phones and tablets faster. They are well behind their competition. Only thing that is saving them is that they have so many people "pregnant" embedded into their ecosystem that people are currently unwilling to switch. But, that day is slowly waning. They also need to come up with new products. ....They "milk" slight changes now like they will change your life. Siri is a perfect example. Yeah, it is neat, but most people stop using it after a while. There maps thing is embracing. Steve would have handled that whole thing differently. They need to go faster.
The largest market segment that remains untapped is the developing world, but let's ignore that since we only want to build luxury products. We'll come back and take another look at China in 20 years or so when they might be able to afford our bling. Of course in the mean time that market will be completely dominated by Samsung and Android.
I know it is sort of cliché but it does seem like déjà vu all over again. Mac was elegant and sophisticated in the 80s especially when compared to DOS but by the time Windows 95 came along with most of the same qualities, the Internet, Photoshop and Office, Dell's were generally perceived as just as good but less costly than Macs. It was game over.
I would hate to see that happen again, which it very well could if Apple loses in China.
since they have 140 billion ready to go, the most flexible supply chain, the best products on their respective categories and are the only ones innovating since 98, i believe you are wrong.
you know, if the situation demands it, Apple is in the best position to turn on their xerox printers too.
When the first iPad came out everyone was predicting it would be between $800-$1200. People were shocked at the $499 price. It was a device from science fiction. Now, only a couple years later, we have the iPad mini, a tablet that is infinitely more capable than the original, MUCH lighter, thinner, faster, more portable, with 2 cameras, an almost infinite library of apps,etc- for $329. Why have we become so synical, so spoiled, as to not have a sense of history and context, and consider this "expensive"? Because cheaper tablets can be found, which are shittier in every single sense? I'm amazed daily at my iPad mini, which I use for a variety of tasks such as reading, browsing, emailing, gaming, and everything else under the sun, in a form factor that is infinitely versatile, portable, and flexible- and which cost merely $329. It doesn't need to be cheaper, it needs to retain the same pricepoint while becoming even more capable. Apple didn't get to where it is today by cutting corners and going for marketshare by releasing bargain bin products. This will do nothing but chip away at brand value and decrease useability and satisfaction. Maybe good for some short term slaes, but catastrophic for the long term. We have enough shitty electronic gadgets produced by every company on the planet, with limited shelf-life and no long term vision. We don't need more.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Normally I don't reply to a post to agree with it but I'm making an exception this time. I think people are forgetting that the iPad mini has similar specs as the iPad 2 yet the iPad 2 still sells for $400 but I don't hear anyone complaining that iPad 2 is overpriced. What gives? If anything the mini should cost more more, not less than the 2 just because of the extra convenience of the smaller form factor. But as usual, people are comparing apples (literally, Apple) with oranges. Actually a more appropriate fruit would be lemons instead of oranges.
Same thing with the iPhone - there must be at least 2-3 news/blog stories per week suggesting Apple should release a "cheaper" iPhone - because apparently selling 48 million "expensive" iPhones in one quarter isn't enough. That isn't just a terrible idea because it would cheapen the brand, it's also a terrible idea because they're still selling these "expensive" iPhones hand over fist. Why in the world would they want to make LESS money selling cheaper phones? There's no way they'll make up for the lower margins in volume. What these geniuses fail to understand is that there's absolutely zero incentive for Apple to do this and that selling high margin products and making money is actually a good thing, whereas selling a product at cost and making no money on it is not a good thing (gee what a concept!). And then to show their complete lack of understanding of even basic supply&demand, let alone Apple's business model, they claim that there's a greater "demand" for cheaper phones, particularly in developing markets like China & India. How does that make any sense, how can you have a demand for a certain price??? The price IS the demand! What is so hard about this concept to understand - if there wasn't as much demand for the existing iPhones then they would have already been selling at a lower price (in fact Apple did drop the price of the iPhone significantly just a couple of months after it was originally introduced). The fact that people are buying cheaper phones is tantamount to saying those phones are in lower demand, not higher. When are they going to understand that if Apple ever releases something less expensive than an iPhone then it won't be a "cheaper" iPhone but rather another form factor like an iPhone mini, iWatch, whatever? Well, at this point, probably never.
But I've given up the idea that the majority of these folks are capable of reason. After all some of them complain that Apple should return cash to the share holders but that they should also grow their EPS at the same time, that is, they should magically both grow and shrink their cash balance at the same time! LOL! Imagine if Apple returned something like 50 billion and had to declare a massive net loss in one quarter - everyone would be declaring that Apple would be going bankrupt soon!
since they have 140 billion ready to go, the most flexible supply chain, the best products on their respective categories and are the only ones innovating since 98, i believe you are wrong.
you know, if the situation demands it, Apple is in the best position to turn on their xerox printers too.
You are about 10,000 rems of RDF over save dosage level.
but that's not what shareholders want to hear.. they only care about making more money.
Selling a whole lot of cheap handsets with low margins equals making less money, just ask Nokia, look where a decade of marketshare dominance got them.
In 2006 Symbian had 60% share of the "smartphone" market, Nokia was selling half a billion handsets a year.
Selling a whole lot of cheap handsets with low margins equals making less money, just ask Nokia, look where did a decade of marketshare dominance got them.
In 2006 Symbian was at 60%, Nokia was selling half a billion handsets a year.
The difference was that there was no cell phone handset ecosystem back then. All cell phones were compatible regardless of manufacturer. Now it is a platform war not a handset war.
The difference was that there was no cell phone handset ecosystem back then. All cell phones were compatible regardless of manufacturer. Now it is a platform war not a handset war.
That's incorrect, Palm, WinMo and BB phones were not compatible.
They have to innovate faster. They have to turn new phones and tablets faster. They are well behind their competition. Only thing that is saving them is that they have so many people "pregnant" embedded into their ecosystem that people are currently unwilling to switch. But, that day is slowly waning. They also need to come up with new products. ....They "milk" slight changes now like they will change your life. Siri is a perfect example. Yeah, it is neat, but most people stop using it after a while. There maps thing is embracing. Steve would have handled that whole thing differently. They need to go faster.
.
The one thing Apple has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt is qualifiers such as "faster", "first", "cheaper", etc. are irrelevant, only "better" matters. Faster only matters if all else is equal, that is if one company puts out some crap for sale, another company puts out some similar crap for sale and the one who comes out first makes more money, at least for a little while - not sustainable for sure. After all weren't people complaining that Apple didn't actually invent anything, at least in the past decade or so? It's true, they didn't come out with the first MP3 player, they didn't come out with the first smart phone, they didn't even come out with the first tablet. They have always been behind the competition, at least in raw specs, this is not a new trend. But in the end that didn't matter, only better mattered.
So what you're saying is diametrically opposed to what they should and are already doing. They most certainly don't need to go faster, only better.
Dude, every time apple releases a new device the previous devices become very cheap while maintaing it's long life & quality. It's already done. It is a poor strategy for apple to make a cheaper iPhone & waste of resources.
I don't know if I'd agree with that. Apple's devices are significantly more expensive than competitors devices, especially when accounting for subsidies (apple tends to get a higher subsidy than other companies). I recently switched from a contract plan to a pay as you go plan because a) my iphone went for a swim and b) pay as you go plans are SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than traditional contracts in the US. For $40 a month (tax included), I can get unlimited text/voice and 250MB of data at 4G speeds (data over that is just slower), which is what, half of what I'd pay elsewhere?
With this in mind you start looking at phones. I chose to get a Galaxy S3 phone that I paid $400 for (brand new no contracts attached). Had I wanted to get an iphone, lets compare the price. An iphone 5 (assuming it would work with my carrier) unlocked costs $650, that's $250 more than the (nearly) top of the line android phone that I just bought. And what extra features would I be getting with the 5 over the galaxy s3? I'll tell you one thing, being trapped in the iOS ecosystem is not worth paying $250 extra dollars. And some might claim the iphone 5 is a better phone, so compare it to last years iphone... Okay, an unlocked iPhone 4GS is $550, that's $150 more than I could get the s3, doesn't sound worth it to me. In fact, the only apple phone that would be at a comparable price is the iphone 4, which is a 2 and a half year old phone.
Seriously, it doesn't take a genius to realize that the galaxy S3 is a better phone than then iPhone 4. And while most of the US is still on contract plans, this isn't the case in the rest of the world. In the rest of the world, going apple involves a SIGNIFICANT apple tax. Considering android is just about as good as iOS, this tax is not worth it for many people.
That said, it still doesn't make sense for apple to sell a cheaper iphone to cater toward people like me. They currently convince millions of people and carriers to pay hundreds of dollars more for an iphone than a comparable android phone, and therefore it makes no sense to sell phones cheaper. If they weren't selling so many millions of phones, I'd think apple would have to compete in the "cheaper" phone market. It just makes me question why so many people are willing to pay so much more to have an apple logo on their device, but I must say, if you've got the golden brand you should milk it for all it's worth, it might not pull in so much later.
That's incorrect, Palm, WinMo and BB phones were not compatible.
Yes a decade ago was about the time that those devices started evolving into phones. Previously BB was email only and the other two were PDA only. I was referring to Nokia's decades of dominance starting earlier when the only things that handsets did was make calls.
The difference was that there was no cell phone handset ecosystem back then. All cell phones were compatible regardless of manufacturer. Now it is a platform war not a handset war.
Symbian.
WinMo.
Palm.
Were the major "smartphone" platforms back then, they were a smaller part of the overall market, they all had developers working on native applications as well as compatibility with Java based applications, which also spread across to cover feature phones.
Success is selling to your capacity, at the margin you deem sustainable by your clientele. When those numbers start to slip, you're not meeting the ideological perceptions of your client. Keep blabbing, Mr. Cook. The market judges your performance, and thus-far yours sucks. I realize it doesn't matter to you, because you've been compensated for the performance of your predecessors.
Apple's board of directors should answer to to that.
The difference was that there was no cell phone handset ecosystem back then. All cell phones were compatible regardless of manufacturer. Now it is a platform war not a handset war.
There were definitely platforms with 3rd-party apps that were not compatible across OSes but they were all poor OSes with a poorly defined ecosystem with vendors putting little to no effort into retention by SW which is why they feel so easily when Apple arrived.
Right now, the only thing that's preventing most developers to release cool new stuff on Android first is the market fragmentation, but that's not going to last forever. You better believe that Google is working very hard on addressing this problem.
I'm sure they do, though at this point there's very little they can do. With Samsung splitting away more and more from the pack and becoming more and more a competitor to Google, things don't look so rosy going forward. It's kind of ironic that Google now has to compete with a version of it's own OS, isn't it? But they've only got themselves to blame, they're the only reason they're now in this mess. They've "sold their soul" so to speak by giving Android away and now it comes back to bite them in the ass. Sure, it looked good for a while and it seemed like Android was taking the world by storm, but now increasingly Android doesn't mean anything anymore. They might as well just call it OS, it's shorter. Saying you have a phone with Android these days is almost like saying you've got a friend with hair.
Success is selling to your capacity, at the margin you deem sustainable by your clientele. When those numbers start to slip, you're not meeting the ideological perceptions of your client. Keep blabbing, Mr. Cook. The market judges your performance, and thus-far yours sucks.
Yes a decade ago was about the time that those devices started evolving into phones. Previously BB was email only and the other two were PDA only. I was referring to Nokia's decades of dominance starting earlier when the only things that handsets did was make calls.
I was referring to the decade preceding 2006, the year before the iPhone changed everything, the beginning of Nokia's downfall, 2006 was their greatest year, their marketshare dominance was unassailable, even as Samsung was stalking them, just as Nokia had stalked Motorola a decade before.
Out of nowhere the iPhone changed it all, no concern about marketshare, only taking the cream off the top, an extremely effective strategy that is still working today, in the words of Jerry Maguire "Show me the money", Apple has delivered in droves to become America's most profitable company.
Apple needs to hold their ground, thinking differently to the scum who are only interested in manipulating stock prices in order to line their pockets with the money of the suckers who swallow their tripe.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Today even the guy who begs on the freeway ramp with a God Bless sign has a cell phone.
Likely a Samsung....
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress
This doesn't mean Apple needs to make a phone for someone who can't afford it. All you did was show that technology gets cheaper over time, but thats still doesn't mean Apple needs to make a cheaper device, Mac, etc. So I guess by you're thinking, Apple needs to take the Dell approach. Lets just make something as cheap as possible so we can get our products into as many hands as we can. That worked out very well didn't it?
The largest market segment that remains untapped is the developing world, but let's ignore that since we only want to build luxury products. We'll come back and take another look at China in 20 years or so when they might be able to afford our bling. Of course in the mean time that market will be completely dominated by Samsung and Android.
I know it is sort of cliché but it does seem like déjà vu all over again. Mac was elegant and sophisticated in the 80s especially when compared to DOS but by the time Windows 95 came along with most of the same qualities, the Internet, Photoshop and Office, Dell's were generally perceived as just as good but less costly than Macs. It was game over.
So yes it did work out well for Dell...for awhile, but they were unable to adapt to a changing market place. If Apple fails to recognize the changing landscape, the same fate awaits them.
I would hate to see that happen again, which it very well could if Apple loses in China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phalanx
They have to innovate faster. They have to turn new phones and tablets faster. They are well behind their competition. Only thing that is saving them is that they have so many people "pregnant" embedded into their ecosystem that people are currently unwilling to switch. But, that day is slowly waning. They also need to come up with new products. ....They "milk" slight changes now like they will change your life. Siri is a perfect example. Yeah, it is neat, but most people stop using it after a while. There maps thing is embracing. Steve would have handled that whole thing differently. They need to go faster.
.
ignorant. fool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonX
The market is skyrocketing today, but AAPL is like the only stock in red! Everything is up, except AAPL! Great job Tim Cook! You're the man!
tim has nothing to do with it. Apple has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
The largest market segment that remains untapped is the developing world, but let's ignore that since we only want to build luxury products. We'll come back and take another look at China in 20 years or so when they might be able to afford our bling. Of course in the mean time that market will be completely dominated by Samsung and Android.
I know it is sort of cliché but it does seem like déjà vu all over again. Mac was elegant and sophisticated in the 80s especially when compared to DOS but by the time Windows 95 came along with most of the same qualities, the Internet, Photoshop and Office, Dell's were generally perceived as just as good but less costly than Macs. It was game over.
I would hate to see that happen again, which it very well could if Apple loses in China.
since they have 140 billion ready to go, the most flexible supply chain, the best products on their respective categories and are the only ones innovating since 98, i believe you are wrong.
you know, if the situation demands it, Apple is in the best position to turn on their xerox printers too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Why? Why do they need a tablet cheaper than $329?
When the first iPad came out everyone was predicting it would be between $800-$1200. People were shocked at the $499 price. It was a device from science fiction. Now, only a couple years later, we have the iPad mini, a tablet that is infinitely more capable than the original, MUCH lighter, thinner, faster, more portable, with 2 cameras, an almost infinite library of apps,etc- for $329. Why have we become so synical, so spoiled, as to not have a sense of history and context, and consider this "expensive"? Because cheaper tablets can be found, which are shittier in every single sense? I'm amazed daily at my iPad mini, which I use for a variety of tasks such as reading, browsing, emailing, gaming, and everything else under the sun, in a form factor that is infinitely versatile, portable, and flexible- and which cost merely $329. It doesn't need to be cheaper, it needs to retain the same pricepoint while becoming even more capable. Apple didn't get to where it is today by cutting corners and going for marketshare by releasing bargain bin products. This will do nothing but chip away at brand value and decrease useability and satisfaction. Maybe good for some short term slaes, but catastrophic for the long term. We have enough shitty electronic gadgets produced by every company on the planet, with limited shelf-life and no long term vision. We don't need more.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Normally I don't reply to a post to agree with it but I'm making an exception this time. I think people are forgetting that the iPad mini has similar specs as the iPad 2 yet the iPad 2 still sells for $400 but I don't hear anyone complaining that iPad 2 is overpriced. What gives? If anything the mini should cost more more, not less than the 2 just because of the extra convenience of the smaller form factor. But as usual, people are comparing apples (literally, Apple) with oranges. Actually a more appropriate fruit would be lemons instead of oranges.
Same thing with the iPhone - there must be at least 2-3 news/blog stories per week suggesting Apple should release a "cheaper" iPhone - because apparently selling 48 million "expensive" iPhones in one quarter isn't enough. That isn't just a terrible idea because it would cheapen the brand, it's also a terrible idea because they're still selling these "expensive" iPhones hand over fist. Why in the world would they want to make LESS money selling cheaper phones? There's no way they'll make up for the lower margins in volume. What these geniuses fail to understand is that there's absolutely zero incentive for Apple to do this and that selling high margin products and making money is actually a good thing, whereas selling a product at cost and making no money on it is not a good thing (gee what a concept!). And then to show their complete lack of understanding of even basic supply&demand, let alone Apple's business model, they claim that there's a greater "demand" for cheaper phones, particularly in developing markets like China & India. How does that make any sense, how can you have a demand for a certain price??? The price IS the demand! What is so hard about this concept to understand - if there wasn't as much demand for the existing iPhones then they would have already been selling at a lower price (in fact Apple did drop the price of the iPhone significantly just a couple of months after it was originally introduced). The fact that people are buying cheaper phones is tantamount to saying those phones are in lower demand, not higher. When are they going to understand that if Apple ever releases something less expensive than an iPhone then it won't be a "cheaper" iPhone but rather another form factor like an iPhone mini, iWatch, whatever? Well, at this point, probably never.
But I've given up the idea that the majority of these folks are capable of reason. After all some of them complain that Apple should return cash to the share holders but that they should also grow their EPS at the same time, that is, they should magically both grow and shrink their cash balance at the same time! LOL! Imagine if Apple returned something like 50 billion and had to declare a massive net loss in one quarter - everyone would be declaring that Apple would be going bankrupt soon!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
since they have 140 billion ready to go, the most flexible supply chain, the best products on their respective categories and are the only ones innovating since 98, i believe you are wrong.
you know, if the situation demands it, Apple is in the best position to turn on their xerox printers too.
You are about 10,000 rems of RDF over save dosage level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netrox
but that's not what shareholders want to hear.. they only care about making more money.
Selling a whole lot of cheap handsets with low margins equals making less money, just ask Nokia, look where a decade of marketshare dominance got them.
In 2006 Symbian had 60% share of the "smartphone" market, Nokia was selling half a billion handsets a year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Selling a whole lot of cheap handsets with low margins equals making less money, just ask Nokia, look where did a decade of marketshare dominance got them.
In 2006 Symbian was at 60%, Nokia was selling half a billion handsets a year.
The difference was that there was no cell phone handset ecosystem back then. All cell phones were compatible regardless of manufacturer. Now it is a platform war not a handset war.
That's incorrect, Palm, WinMo and BB phones were not compatible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phalanx
They have to innovate faster. They have to turn new phones and tablets faster. They are well behind their competition. Only thing that is saving them is that they have so many people "pregnant" embedded into their ecosystem that people are currently unwilling to switch. But, that day is slowly waning. They also need to come up with new products. ....They "milk" slight changes now like they will change your life. Siri is a perfect example. Yeah, it is neat, but most people stop using it after a while. There maps thing is embracing. Steve would have handled that whole thing differently. They need to go faster.
.
The one thing Apple has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt is qualifiers such as "faster", "first", "cheaper", etc. are irrelevant, only "better" matters. Faster only matters if all else is equal, that is if one company puts out some crap for sale, another company puts out some similar crap for sale and the one who comes out first makes more money, at least for a little while - not sustainable for sure. After all weren't people complaining that Apple didn't actually invent anything, at least in the past decade or so? It's true, they didn't come out with the first MP3 player, they didn't come out with the first smart phone, they didn't even come out with the first tablet. They have always been behind the competition, at least in raw specs, this is not a new trend. But in the end that didn't matter, only better mattered.
So what you're saying is diametrically opposed to what they should and are already doing. They most certainly don't need to go faster, only better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WontonParmesan
Dude, every time apple releases a new device the previous devices become very cheap while maintaing it's long life & quality. It's already done. It is a poor strategy for apple to make a cheaper iPhone & waste of resources.
I don't know if I'd agree with that. Apple's devices are significantly more expensive than competitors devices, especially when accounting for subsidies (apple tends to get a higher subsidy than other companies). I recently switched from a contract plan to a pay as you go plan because a) my iphone went for a swim and b) pay as you go plans are SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than traditional contracts in the US. For $40 a month (tax included), I can get unlimited text/voice and 250MB of data at 4G speeds (data over that is just slower), which is what, half of what I'd pay elsewhere?
With this in mind you start looking at phones. I chose to get a Galaxy S3 phone that I paid $400 for (brand new no contracts attached). Had I wanted to get an iphone, lets compare the price. An iphone 5 (assuming it would work with my carrier) unlocked costs $650, that's $250 more than the (nearly) top of the line android phone that I just bought. And what extra features would I be getting with the 5 over the galaxy s3? I'll tell you one thing, being trapped in the iOS ecosystem is not worth paying $250 extra dollars. And some might claim the iphone 5 is a better phone, so compare it to last years iphone... Okay, an unlocked iPhone 4GS is $550, that's $150 more than I could get the s3, doesn't sound worth it to me. In fact, the only apple phone that would be at a comparable price is the iphone 4, which is a 2 and a half year old phone.
Seriously, it doesn't take a genius to realize that the galaxy S3 is a better phone than then iPhone 4. And while most of the US is still on contract plans, this isn't the case in the rest of the world. In the rest of the world, going apple involves a SIGNIFICANT apple tax. Considering android is just about as good as iOS, this tax is not worth it for many people.
That said, it still doesn't make sense for apple to sell a cheaper iphone to cater toward people like me. They currently convince millions of people and carriers to pay hundreds of dollars more for an iphone than a comparable android phone, and therefore it makes no sense to sell phones cheaper. If they weren't selling so many millions of phones, I'd think apple would have to compete in the "cheaper" phone market. It just makes me question why so many people are willing to pay so much more to have an apple logo on their device, but I must say, if you've got the golden brand you should milk it for all it's worth, it might not pull in so much later.
Phi
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
That's incorrect, Palm, WinMo and BB phones were not compatible.
Yes a decade ago was about the time that those devices started evolving into phones. Previously BB was email only and the other two were PDA only. I was referring to Nokia's decades of dominance starting earlier when the only things that handsets did was make calls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
The difference was that there was no cell phone handset ecosystem back then. All cell phones were compatible regardless of manufacturer. Now it is a platform war not a handset war.
Symbian.
WinMo.
Palm.
Were the major "smartphone" platforms back then, they were a smaller part of the overall market, they all had developers working on native applications as well as compatibility with Java based applications, which also spread across to cover feature phones.
That was before Google forked Java.
This is an interesting read.
Apple's board of directors should answer to to that.
There were definitely platforms with 3rd-party apps that were not compatible across OSes but they were all poor OSes with a poorly defined ecosystem with vendors putting little to no effort into retention by SW which is why they feel so easily when Apple arrived.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJohnWhorfin
Right now, the only thing that's preventing most developers to release cool new stuff on Android first is the market fragmentation, but that's not going to last forever. You better believe that Google is working very hard on addressing this problem.
I'm sure they do, though at this point there's very little they can do. With Samsung splitting away more and more from the pack and becoming more and more a competitor to Google, things don't look so rosy going forward. It's kind of ironic that Google now has to compete with a version of it's own OS, isn't it? But they've only got themselves to blame, they're the only reason they're now in this mess. They've "sold their soul" so to speak by giving Android away and now it comes back to bite them in the ass. Sure, it looked good for a while and it seemed like Android was taking the world by storm, but now increasingly Android doesn't mean anything anymore. They might as well just call it OS, it's shorter. Saying you have a phone with Android these days is almost like saying you've got a friend with hair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrifle
Success is selling to your capacity, at the margin you deem sustainable by your clientele. When those numbers start to slip, you're not meeting the ideological perceptions of your client. Keep blabbing, Mr. Cook. The market judges your performance, and thus-far yours sucks.
Sorry, you've got the wrong universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Yes a decade ago was about the time that those devices started evolving into phones. Previously BB was email only and the other two were PDA only. I was referring to Nokia's decades of dominance starting earlier when the only things that handsets did was make calls.
I was referring to the decade preceding 2006, the year before the iPhone changed everything, the beginning of Nokia's downfall, 2006 was their greatest year, their marketshare dominance was unassailable, even as Samsung was stalking them, just as Nokia had stalked Motorola a decade before.
Out of nowhere the iPhone changed it all, no concern about marketshare, only taking the cream off the top, an extremely effective strategy that is still working today, in the words of Jerry Maguire "Show me the money", Apple has delivered in droves to become America's most profitable company.
Apple needs to hold their ground, thinking differently to the scum who are only interested in manipulating stock prices in order to line their pockets with the money of the suckers who swallow their tripe.
From the customer's perspective, "You had me at hello."