That's bullshit. We talked about sales which is why we knew Apple was struggling. We also talked about user experience which was an issue before the redesign of the Mac and Mac OS.
So glad that you aren't employed by Apple. Nothing says turning success into failure faster than asinine suggestions like making iPhones only work on a proprietary Apple mobile network.
People always cracked me up with "Apple should build/buy their own network". It's such a limited viewpoint, what about the rest of the world?
But now that there's real competition in design, user experience, and content…
AppleInsider Semi-official "Seaw O' Quabity"
They are sitting on a gold mine in terms of technological resources, and yet they squander that by playing it safe.
So continuing to manage a company with the frugality of a start-up is "squandering" these days…
Apple can do SO many things, but it's sitting back and waiting, and that's why there is no "flawgic", there's only risk taking and wimp CEO's that are scared to take risks.
Apple could make clothes. Apple should get into food. Apple should build spaceships.
Apple can do SO many things, but they're not staffed by complete and utter morons, so they don't.
Lol, cheaper? Let me guess, you're gonna use the BMW vs. Ford analogy?
You don't gotta get mad TS, I'm just saying what is on everyone's mind even if they don't want to admit it. Apple is NOT SPECIAL. Their 5 minutes of fame (or 5 years really) is over, and now you guys are mad because Google is getting their time in the spotlight. Let's just call it what it is...
5 minutes (or years) of fame? Do you actual believe what you wrote? Apple invented the PC market with the Apple II, reinvented it with the original Mac, some might say it reinvented the PC with the iMac and MBA. It reinvented mp3 players, smartphones, and tablets. Know your history, troll.
What has Google reinvented without stealing first.
That's bullshit. We talked about sales which is why we knew Apple was struggling. We also talked about user experience which was an issue before the redesign of the Mac and Mac OS.
So glad that you aren't employed by Apple. Nothing says turning success into failure faster than asinine suggestions like making iPhones only work on a proprietary Apple mobile network.
I am not convinced that is the asinine. I am not talking about covering the whole world or having iPhones work only on proprietary Apple network. But what about an iOS-only network.
Not all airports have free Wifi (take Heathrow, for example). Most subways systems do not. Apple has the cash to cover all airports and subways in the world. Imagine providing free Wifi to all iPhone users in those public places, along with other corridors with heavy traffic. Make sure Apple Maps app works really, really well at those locations (particularly in providing information on how to get to hotels, etc.).
Building this out worldwide is hard for other companies to match. Google doesn't make enough money from mobile to make such an investment (their efforts to provide free Wifi in certain US cities have clearly not paid off), and they certainly wouldn't do this only to benefit mostly Samsung. Can Samsung do this? Maybe. But Apple definitely can afford to, and will make it back in iPhone sales. Perhaps it might not work out. But it's not asinine a concept at all. In fact, it is arguably the same type of investment that Google made in building Google Maps.
I am not convinced that is the asinine. I am not talking about covering the whole world or having iPhones work only on proprietary Apple network. But what about an iOS-only network.
Not all airports have free Wifi (take Heathrow, for example). Most subways systems do not. Apple has the cash to cover all airports and subways in the world. Imagine providing free Wifi to all iPhone users in those public places, along with other corridors with heavy traffic. Make sure Apple Maps app works really, really well at those locations (particularly in providing information on how to get to hotels, etc.).
Building this out worldwide is hard for other companies to match. Google doesn't make enough money from mobile to make such an investment (their efforts to provide free Wifi in certain US cities have clearly not paid off), and they certainly wouldn't do this only to benefit mostly Samsung. Can Samsung do this? Maybe. But Apple definitely can afford to, and will make it back in iPhone sales. Perhaps it might not work out. But it's not asinine a concept at all. In fact, it is arguably the same type of investment that Google made in building Google Maps.
How could this possibly work? Look at how long its taken Apple to get to every area of the world with cellular reception. Now look at the cost and time it has taken to just get LTE up in markets. Most of Europe still seems to be without it. I simply don't see how Apple could build towers across every country they work in to get the coverage they need to support the iPhone.
Now lets say they invest the hundreds of billions to do this across 200 countries overnight. What happens if the iPhone isn't popular enough in a country to warrant its own network? What if the product itself falters across the globe? Does Apple then open it up to other handsets? What about those that have plans that may include a range of cellular connected devices? Do they get off their Verizon shared plan to make their life more cumbersome by having to move everything but their grandparents emergency cell phone that was only $10 a month to a more expensive plan?
Then there is the MVNO but that's just worse all around. It costs Apple less up front but you get a poorer network as you're piggybacking off an MNO.
No matter how you go at it just doesn't work to pair a proprietary cellular network to a proprietary handset.
As for Google Maps, I have no idea why that would be an example. Google Maps works across every OS that has a web browser. It's not tied simply to Android or Chrome OS.
I know of one way: Have Apple buy China Mobile, Verizon, O2, Vodaphone, and Orange. That's most of the world right there. Kick out everyone on those networks except iPhones and then continue to expand from there.
I know of one way: Have Apple buy China Mobile, Verizon, O2, Vodaphone, and Orange. That's most of the world right there. Kick out everyone on those networks except iPhones and then continue to expand from there. /s
Actually, if Apple had any interest in being an MNO buying out others would be the way to do it. They would not, however, do it so they could push out all other handsets but the iPhone. They would do it because they see a direct line for increased profits, which likely includes proprietary features that will work between the iPhone and carrier to make them both better than they could be otherwise.
I know of one way: Have them buy China Mobile, Verizon, O2, Vodaphone, and Orange. That's most of the world right there. Kick out everyone on those networks except iPhones and then continue to expand from there.
[SIZE=200px]/s[/SIZE]
How does one purchase something not for sale? Shareholders would have to agree along with government agencies. And even if they did do you think service plans would be much cheaper than they are now? Networks take an army to run and maintain.
I think we all should give Daniel a big shout-out for his very successful effort to stir the pot and attract a fresh new batch of Android and/or MS fans to AI, members some here playfully call "trolls". It was getting a bit quiet lately. 6 pages on a weekend is damn impressive. Perhaps some of our new members can stick around awhile.
A mirror, have you heard of it? Because if you would look into it, you might get a sense of understanding why your own posts attract a fresh new batch of Android and/or MS fans to AI, members some here playfully call "trolls"
How about the RRP of the iPhone 5 16GB vs the RRP of the Samsung Galaxy Note 2 16GB, I get $A799 vs $A849.
Google has been "in the spotlight" since not long after they came out of Stanford and became a household word and the generic term for Internet search.
/yawn , can't you come up with anything better, it's as if you are looking through a $1400 webcam strapped to the side of your face.
The really revealing number will be these prices minus their respective resale values in say, a year from now?
Folks who look beyond the surface *know* Apple products are a valuable and economical choice.
[BTW, I have no idea what RRP stands for, but lets assume a fair "street price" without subsidy and comparable quality service.]
Try the same search terms in a Google Search. . .
Another example off why Google still offers the better search experience IMO
I did, which is why I choose Bing over Google. The point of a search is to provide the most accurate data for a given query, not the most options. Bing provided the most accurate data for this query. Google was alright if I changed the search parameters to " What does RRP stand for in regards to price?" but Bing was still more accurate and then I noticed it was still more accurate even when I dropped the "in regards to price?" portion.
The man behind the writing of this article had an opinion. I refuted his opinion with my opinion. His opinion had flaws, and I corrected them. Now if my opinions have flaws that you want to correct, feel free to correct them. Except you have no real opinions, you only have talking points. You just go with the flow of Apple, even though it's obviously a sinking ship that everyone outside of the Apple bubble can see.
And the only device that has a higher MSRP than the iPhone 5 is the Galaxy Note 2. Given that we're talking about Google, not Samsung, we'd be comparing Google's to Apple's, so it's the Nexus 4 (MSRP $349) vs iPhone 5 ($649). iPhone 5 commands a $300 premium, therefore quality needs to be at least almost double what the Nexus 4 offers, or else it will catch some flak. Same thing with iPhone 5S. It better have an 8K video recorder or something.
I did, which is why I choose Bing over Google. The point of a search is to provide the most accurate data for a given query, not the most options. Bing provided the most accurate data for this query. Google was alright if I changed the search parameters to " What does RRP stand for in regards to price?" but Bing was still more accurate and then I noticed it was still more accurate even when I dropped the "in regards to price?" portion.
Why? the definition showed up at the top of the Google Search without having to follow another link to get there as you did with Bing.
What did you see at the very top of the Google Search results before the links were even offered?
Comments
People always cracked me up with "Apple should build/buy their own network". It's such a limited viewpoint, what about the rest of the world?
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
But now that there's real competition in design, user experience, and content…
AppleInsider Semi-official "Seaw O' Quabity"
They are sitting on a gold mine in terms of technological resources, and yet they squander that by playing it safe.
So continuing to manage a company with the frugality of a start-up is "squandering" these days…
Apple can do SO many things, but it's sitting back and waiting, and that's why there is no "flawgic", there's only risk taking and wimp CEO's that are scared to take risks.
Apple could make clothes. Apple should get into food. Apple should build spaceships.
Apple can do SO many things, but they're not staffed by complete and utter morons, so they don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
If by "true progress" you mean Apple is the first company to build a retail store on Mars. Because that's what Elon Musk is all about, baby.
He's about much more than that, baby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So continuing to manage a company with the frugality of a start-up is "squandering" these days…
I'm not sure that startups are managed more frugally than established companies. In fact, it is often the other way around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Apple should get into food.
They are named Apple after all.
5 minutes (or years) of fame? Do you actual believe what you wrote? Apple invented the PC market with the Apple II, reinvented it with the original Mac, some might say it reinvented the PC with the iMac and MBA. It reinvented mp3 players, smartphones, and tablets. Know your history, troll.
What has Google reinvented without stealing first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That's bullshit. We talked about sales which is why we knew Apple was struggling. We also talked about user experience which was an issue before the redesign of the Mac and Mac OS.
So glad that you aren't employed by Apple. Nothing says turning success into failure faster than asinine suggestions like making iPhones only work on a proprietary Apple mobile network.
I am not convinced that is the asinine. I am not talking about covering the whole world or having iPhones work only on proprietary Apple network. But what about an iOS-only network.
Not all airports have free Wifi (take Heathrow, for example). Most subways systems do not. Apple has the cash to cover all airports and subways in the world. Imagine providing free Wifi to all iPhone users in those public places, along with other corridors with heavy traffic. Make sure Apple Maps app works really, really well at those locations (particularly in providing information on how to get to hotels, etc.).
Building this out worldwide is hard for other companies to match. Google doesn't make enough money from mobile to make such an investment (their efforts to provide free Wifi in certain US cities have clearly not paid off), and they certainly wouldn't do this only to benefit mostly Samsung. Can Samsung do this? Maybe. But Apple definitely can afford to, and will make it back in iPhone sales. Perhaps it might not work out. But it's not asinine a concept at all. In fact, it is arguably the same type of investment that Google made in building Google Maps.
Originally Posted by stelligent
I'm not sure that startups are managed more frugally than established companies. In fact, it is often the other way around.
All right, "with the frugality a start-up would be expected to have".
How could this possibly work? Look at how long its taken Apple to get to every area of the world with cellular reception. Now look at the cost and time it has taken to just get LTE up in markets. Most of Europe still seems to be without it. I simply don't see how Apple could build towers across every country they work in to get the coverage they need to support the iPhone.
Now lets say they invest the hundreds of billions to do this across 200 countries overnight. What happens if the iPhone isn't popular enough in a country to warrant its own network? What if the product itself falters across the globe? Does Apple then open it up to other handsets? What about those that have plans that may include a range of cellular connected devices? Do they get off their Verizon shared plan to make their life more cumbersome by having to move everything but their grandparents emergency cell phone that was only $10 a month to a more expensive plan?
Then there is the MVNO but that's just worse all around. It costs Apple less up front but you get a poorer network as you're piggybacking off an MNO.
No matter how you go at it just doesn't work to pair a proprietary cellular network to a proprietary handset.
As for Google Maps, I have no idea why that would be an example. Google Maps works across every OS that has a web browser. It's not tied simply to Android or Chrome OS.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
How could this possibly work?
I know of one way: Have Apple buy China Mobile, Verizon, O2, Vodaphone, and Orange. That's most of the world right there. Kick out everyone on those networks except iPhones and then continue to expand from there.
/s
Actually, if Apple had any interest in being an MNO buying out others would be the way to do it. They would not, however, do it so they could push out all other handsets but the iPhone. They would do it because they see a direct line for increased profits, which likely includes proprietary features that will work between the iPhone and carrier to make them both better than they could be otherwise.
How does one purchase something not for sale? Shareholders would have to agree along with government agencies. And even if they did do you think service plans would be much cheaper than they are now? Networks take an army to run and maintain.
PS I just noticed you're super sized /s lol
A mirror, have you heard of it? Because if you would look into it, you might get a sense of understanding why your own posts attract a fresh new batch of Android and/or MS fans to AI, members some here playfully call "trolls"
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
How about the RRP of the iPhone 5 16GB vs the RRP of the Samsung Galaxy Note 2 16GB, I get $A799 vs $A849.
Google has been "in the spotlight" since not long after they came out of Stanford and became a household word and the generic term for Internet search.
/yawn , can't you come up with anything better, it's as if you are looking through a $1400 webcam strapped to the side of your face.
The really revealing number will be these prices minus their respective resale values in say, a year from now?
Folks who look beyond the surface *know* Apple products are a valuable and economical choice.
[BTW, I have no idea what RRP stands for, but lets assume a fair "street price" without subsidy and comparable quality service.]
• What does RRP stand for?
Read the whole thing. What a waste of time. Funny thing is after listening to all this sniveling, I am way less likely to buy anything Apple.
Try the same search terms in a Google Search. . .
Another example off why Google still offers the better search experience IMO
I did, which is why I choose Bing over Google. The point of a search is to provide the most accurate data for a given query, not the most options. Bing provided the most accurate data for this query. Google was alright if I changed the search parameters to " What does RRP stand for in regards to price?" but Bing was still more accurate and then I noticed it was still more accurate even when I dropped the "in regards to price?" portion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
The man behind the writing of this article had an opinion. I refuted his opinion with my opinion. His opinion had flaws, and I corrected them. Now if my opinions have flaws that you want to correct, feel free to correct them. Except you have no real opinions, you only have talking points. You just go with the flow of Apple, even though it's obviously a sinking ship that everyone outside of the Apple bubble can see.
And the only device that has a higher MSRP than the iPhone 5 is the Galaxy Note 2. Given that we're talking about Google, not Samsung, we'd be comparing Google's to Apple's, so it's the Nexus 4 (MSRP $349) vs iPhone 5 ($649). iPhone 5 commands a $300 premium, therefore quality needs to be at least almost double what the Nexus 4 offers, or else it will catch some flak. Same thing with iPhone 5S. It better have an 8K video recorder or something.
The discussion is around Android.
Hey how much do these Android phones cost?
http://www.vertu.com/en/default.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertu_Ti
Why? the definition showed up at the top of the Google Search without having to follow another link to get there as you did with Bing.
What did you see at the very top of the Google Search results before the links were even offered?
Ah, thank you; didn't know there was an alternative to lmgtfy. Love your 248 post here ?