Piper Jaffray: New Moto X won't draw consumers from iPhone

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 110
    rjc999rjc999 Posts: 69member


    Someone has to fund these things, even if they are far off, especially if the government isn't doing it. "Trying to go in a direction" of future company plans is actually how companies fail to innovate because it's incrementalism. The greatest breakthroughs in the world have come through serendipity, when researchers were funded to do whatever they wanted, who would most likely fail, and quite surprisingly, something they discovered turned out to have a practical application. Avoiding failure and risk leads to stagnation.


     


    The way you talk reminds me of all of those utterly stupid Republicans who want to cut science funding by picking on stuff like "Why do we need to study Bear DNA? What use is it!?"


     


    If it often unpredictable to know when and where a breakthrough will occur, or even what use it would be. ARPA couldn't have forseen today's internet. CERN didn't forsee the modern Web. When computers were invented for breaking WW2 cryptography and computing artillery tables, no one ever thought they'd have practical application for personal use.  When Bell Labs invented the transistor, they weren't trying to make computers. Number theory and Abstract Algebra were once thought to have *zero* practical application until modern cryptography.


     


    IBM T.J. Watson Research, for example, ran completely independently of IBM product divisions. They did basic research on elementary chemistry and physics. Scanning Tunnelling and Atomic Force Microscopes were not invented to make things, yet, they potentially applicable to nanotechnology.


     


    As for car companies doing their own self driving car research, every single one I've seen from both manufacturers and universities has paled in comparison to what Google has achieved in terms of distance traveled, achievable speeds, types of environment, etc. 


     


    The reality here is if you don't spend money on basic R&D, and merely pick it up for profitable application later when it is mature, you are in essence, a parasite that is not contributing back. Apple needs to invest more in basic science and stop doing everything purely in the service of known plans and profits. They need to take chances and give grants to people with insane ideas. Apple really isn't a technology company in some regards, they are a consumer electronics company, who buys technology developed by other companies, and packages it in a nice design that is acceptable by consumer.  


     


    I almost feel the government should tax away a big chunk of their $100+b billion cash stockpile and give it to universities, rather than letting it go to waste sitting in foreign bank accounts or used in stock buy backs.

  • Reply 62 of 110
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post


    Someone has to fund these things, even if they are far off, especially if the government isn't doing it. "Trying to go in a direction" of future company plans is actually how companies fail to innovate because it's incrementalism. The greatest breakthroughs in the world have come through serendipity, when researchers were funded to do whatever they wanted, who would most likely fail, and quite surprisingly, something they discovered turned out to have a practical application. Avoiding failure and risk leads to stagnation.


     


    The way you talk reminds me of all of those utterly stupid Republicans who want to cut science funding by picking on stuff like "Why do we need to study Bear DNA? What use is it!?"


     


    If it often unpredictable to know when and where a breakthrough will occur, or even what use it would be. ARPA couldn't have forseen today's internet. CERN didn't forsee the modern Web. When computers were invented for breaking WW2 cryptography and computing artillery tables, no one ever thought they'd have practical application for personal use.  When Bell Labs invented the transistor, they weren't trying to make computers. Number theory and Abstract Algebra were once thought to have *zero* practical application until modern cryptography.


     


    IBM T.J. Watson Research, for example, ran completely independently of IBM product divisions. They did basic research on elementary chemistry and physics. Scanning Tunnelling and Atomic Force Microscopes were not invented to make things, yet, they potentially applicable to nanotechnology.


     


    As for car companies doing their own self driving car research, every single one I've seen from both manufacturers and universities has paled in comparison to what Google has achieved in terms of distance traveled, achievable speeds, types of environment, etc. 


     


    The reality here is if you don't spend money on basic R&D, and merely pick it up for profitable application later when it is mature, you are in essence, a parasite that is not contributing back. Apple needs to invest more in basic science and stop doing everything purely in the service of known plans and profits. They need to take chances and give grants to people with insane ideas. Apple really isn't a technology company in some regards, they are a consumer electronics company, who buys technology developed by other companies, and packages it in a nice design that is acceptable by consumer.  


     


    I almost feel the government should tax away a big chunk of their $100+b billion cash stockpile and give it to universities, rather than letting it go to waste sitting in foreign bank accounts or used in stock buy backs.



    Apple develops a lot of things that you may not be aware of.  They have a LOT of patents and they are trying to find ways to improve their product, if they need a technology that a small company has that is relevant to the direction they are going in, they'll buy a small company and not always publicize it.  Apple typically doesn't do large acquisitions since most of the time it takes too long to recoup the money and they don't always have what Apple actually needs.  Apple is just trying to make a better product and not trying to come up with a new replacement for silicon technology for processors because they know that isn't their core competency.  Yeah, Apple has been more consumer oriented, but they also allow third parties to come up with ways to utilize their products to come up with new ways to use the products they sell.  Apple chose not to develop Thunderbolt, but they had the idea for it, and went to Intel since that's Intel's core competency. since they had success with USB.  That was smart on Apple's part.  They adopted the technology first and they get the most support from the third party crowd.


     


    Yeah, Bell Labs invented the transistor, but they didn't perfect it and also come up with the integrated circuit, that was done by other people stemming from the original inventor.  Bell Labs didn't even THINK of silicon originally with the original transistor.  That was done much later.


     


    It's all identifying what a company's core competency is, what direction they want to go and figuring out how to best utilize their cash and partnerships to come up with the best solution.  Even though Apple isn't known for making LCD or Plasma displays, they have several patents using LCD panels to improve them for their needs and then they work with the panel suppliers to mfg the panels to their specs.  I'm sure they are doing the same thing with IGZO since Sharp had the expertise to develop IGZO.


     


    It's all about managing the resources that makes sense. 


     


    Apple is speeding ahead with SSD technology and they are integrating faster SSD than the PC crowd and we're seeing that with the MBAir and then the rest of the product line.


     


    There isn't much more that Apple can do other than pick the processors they want to use, but that new cooling method with the MacPro is quite ingenious.  It may not be as important as some other technology, but for the product they are designing, a lot of thought went into it.  Doing away with internal hard drives was also smart. Who the heck wants to deal with constantly screwing around opening up boxes transferring hard drives or data from one machine to another when you just plug in an external RAID and just replace the main CPU/GPU ever so often. In the long run, it's actually a much more practical way of designing a desktop computer.




    Apple has been playing around with at least 5 or more materials to use for cases.  They've played around with the Liquid Metal technology, aluminum, titanium, carbon fiber, polycarb and I'm sure they are still trying to think of what makes the most sense for future products.  Just trying to figure out a case material is a costly venture and Apple is not normally known for being a company that focuses on materials for a case.

  • Reply 63 of 110
    copelandcopeland Posts: 298member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    ... Chief among these is a constant listening mode, ....


    Is there a way to switch it off safely.


    Thinking of NSA and Google this sounds really creepy.


    That's an absolut no go for me!

  • Reply 64 of 110
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by copeland View Post


    Is there a way to switch it off safely.


    Thinking of NSA and Google this sounds really creepy.


    That's an absolut no go for me!



    It's a no go for me too because it's Google. But listening mode actually is nice. I love to have it for my iPhone. I don't like Google but bravo to them for pushing this forward. SJ love to talke about computer talking to us and understand us instead of us needing to understand them. Well, Google makes another big step forward here.


    And battery life is nice too. You got listening mode and 24 hours battery life. Great job. But the screen is sub-par and Apple wouldn't sacrifice that whatever the reason.


  • Reply 65 of 110
    I don't know. They might get me. But will see what apple has to offer. Balls on apples court.
  • Reply 66 of 110
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    matrix07 wrote: »
    It's a no go for me too because it's Google. But listening mode actually is nice. I love to have it for my iPhone. I don't like Google but bravo to them for pushing this forward. SJ love to talke about computer talking to us and understand us instead of us needing to understand them. Well, Google makes another big step forward here.
    And battery life is nice too. You got listening mode and 24 hours battery life. Great job. But the screen is sub-par and Apple wouldn't sacrifice that whatever the reason.
    Has anyone tested out that battery claim? And I'm assuming that's just talk time?
  • Reply 67 of 110
    I think it is very interesting how this new Android phone comes in many colors. I'm sure they did this out of their own inspiration and not in anticipation of rumored new iPhones coming in many colors...

    :no:
  • Reply 68 of 110
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,278member
    eckergus wrote: »
    I think it is very interesting how this new Android phone comes in many colors. I'm sure they did this out of their own inspiration and not in anticipation of rumored new iPhones coming in many colors... just my 2 cents.

    It's not something you do on the spur of the moment. It does take at least a tiny bit of planning. ;) FWIW color options have been rumored for both iOS and Android smartphones for some time now. Soli and I discussed it last year, fully expecting it to have already been offered by one or the other.
  • Reply 69 of 110
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    [VIDEO][/VIDEO]
    rogifan wrote: »
    Has anyone tested out that battery claim?

    Good point. Ha. Ha.
  • Reply 70 of 110
    So taking five-plus years to research and develop the iPod, iPhone and iPad is not considered basic research? Taking time to research and develop cutting-edge machines that automate the processes of building devices is not considered basic research? The entire Liquid Metal effort is not considered basic research for the long term? iCar is not considered basic research for the long term? The internal design of the upcoming Mac Pro is not considered basic research? The biometric technology being researched and developed as you wrote your comment is not considered basic research for the long term? Researching how to develop quality handheld, desktop and server devices is not considered basic research? Embedded display sensors for multi-touch is not considered basic research? Camera technology and voice technology are not considered basic research for the long term? Mineral combinations for constructing devices are not considered basic research? Microprocessor technology and battery technology are not considered basic technology for the long term? Flexible displays, flexible batteries, flexible devices are not considered basic research for the long term? Researching how to develop OLED technology that compensates for aging diodes is not considered basic research for the long term?
  • Reply 71 of 110
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    It's not something you do on the spur of the moment. It does take at least a tiny bit of planning. ;) FWIW color options have been rumored for both iOS and Android smartphones for some time now. Soli and I discussed it last year, fully expecting it to have already been offered by one or the other.
    Exactly. This is as silly as those who think a retina mini is just a response to the Nexus 7. Apple has probably been working on a retina mini since before the first mini came out.
  • Reply 72 of 110
    Is there anything else you can say to the new phone besides "OK, Google Now" in order to wake it up? I basically really like the packaging of this new phone, but I'm simply not up for this kind of dorky marketing in public. Or private.

    Also, I have to say the Samsung Galaxy S3 is the first phone I've had that didn't give me a headache while I was on a long call. And so I've come to the conclusion that exceptionally low SAR ratings really do make a difference. At least for Verizon, the new Moto delivers similar performance EXCEPT in the 1900MHz band that is significant in my market and several other major Verizon markets. I'm going to stick with the lowest possible head SAR across the board, and for now, that continues to mean Samsung.
  • Reply 73 of 110
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,278member
    Is there anything else you can say to the new phone besides "OK, Google Now" in order to wake it up? I basically really like the packaging of this new phone, but I'm simply not up for this kind of dorky marketing in public. Or private.

    From what I've read about it no. The good news is that it reportedly "learns" to recognize only your voice and not others.
  • Reply 74 of 110
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,221member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post



    So taking five-plus years to research and develop the iPod, iPhone and iPad is not considered basic research? Taking time to research and develop cutting-edge machines that automate the processes of building devices is not considered basic research? The entire Liquid Metal effort is not considered basic research for the long term? iCar is not considered basic research for the long term? The internal design of the upcoming Mac Pro is not considered basic research? The biometric technology being researched and developed as you wrote your comment is not considered basic research for the long term? Researching how to develop quality handheld, desktop and server devices is not considered basic research? Embedded display sensors for multi-touch is not considered basic research? Camera technology and voice technology are not considered basic research for the long term? Mineral combinations for constructing devices are not considered basic research? Microprocessor technology and battery technology are not considered basic technology for the long term? Flexible displays, flexible batteries, flexible devices are not considered basic research for the long term? Researching how to develop OLED technology that compensates for aging diodes is not considered basic research for the long term?


     


    Indeed. So far Apple has an outstanding record of focusing on the right tech coming out of R&D. The 3d maps and Siri are external techs, if Apple thinks something is worth it, they will move in and buy them.


     


    They didnt invent mp3 players, but they are the one who did it right, same goes for smartphones and tablets.  Look at how everyone is cloning the MBA now with ultrabooks. The way I see it the entire industry in taking Apple products, clone them and then do incremental upgrades while undercutting on price. 


     


    Now everyone is waiting on Apple next move, and you can bet the farm everyone will clone them again, while saying they didnt invent anything, again.

  • Reply 75 of 110
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    eckergus wrote: »
    I think it is very interesting how this new Android phone comes in many colors. I'm sure they did this out of their own inspiration and not in anticipation of rumored new iPhones coming in many colors...

    :no:

    If one of the features of Apple's new phone was allowing users to pick out colors the tech media would make a mockery of it and call it gimmicky.

    What really annoys me is all the media talk about if this will hurt iPhone but I don't see those same analysts wondering if it will hurt other Android OEM's. If Apple should be worried, shouldn't Samsung, HTC, LG and Sony be worried too?
  • Reply 76 of 110
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by eckergus View Post



    I think it is very interesting how this new Android phone comes in many colors. I'm sure they did this out of their own inspiration and not in anticipation of rumored new iPhones coming in many colors... image


     


    Oh good grief. Apple did not invent colored phones.


     



     


    What I think is cool, is that one of the Moto X case options will be various types and shades of wood.  (Or as Motorola put it, "We've got wood!") 


     



     



     


    According to Mashable, Motorola listens to suggestions on its Facebook page.  Colors like "Fifty Shades" (of grey) and so forth, have been submitted.


     


    The Moto X website indicates that you'll be able to create your own phone from 2,000 combinations, plus accessories, and it'll be custom built and shipped within four days.

  • Reply 77 of 110
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,221member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    If one of the features of Apple's new phone was allowing users to pick out colors the tech media would make a mockery of it and call it gimmicky.



    What really annoys me is all the media talk about if this will hurt iPhone but I don't see those same analysts wondering if it will hurt other Android OEM's. If Apple should be worried, shouldn't Samsung, HTC, LG and Sony be worried too?


     


    There is a say that when you are down to colors, innovation is dead. But for old models, its genius imo, it all depends on context. If high end still used whatever best shells they can make and used models are using cheaper color options, it all makes sense to me.  Awesome move.

  • Reply 78 of 110
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,221member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


    What I think is cool, is that one of the Moto X case options will be various types and shades of wood.  (Or as Motorola put it, "We've got wood!") 


     




     


    That will go well with this:


     


  • Reply 79 of 110
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post


    That will go well with this:



     


    Cute!  Did you also mock all the wood cases have been sold for years for iPhones?


     


    (That really was a nice matching photo find in a short time. Kudos for that!)

  • Reply 80 of 110
    isteelersisteelers Posts: 738member
    rjc999 wrote: »
    Always on Google Now with excellent battery life isn't a gimmick, it is a system-wide useful feature, one of the most common things people want to do is perform searches, and now it can be done without holding down a button like Siri "Star Trek style".  Siri is actually a gimmick in comparison. It's so slow and cumbersome. Moreover, the X does voice print analysis, and so it unlocks the phone by fingerprinting your voice instead of having to measure your finger. It can also unlock via environment (bluetooth in-car detection), and unlock via NFC token. (proximity to wearable) This will only get better over time.

    Moreover, the concept of powering only part of the pixels of the screen to constantly show time and recent notifications based on the contextual CPU sensing that it is visible is much more useful than the constant need to turn on the phone's screen. It actually does what people hope wearable watches do, which is to present information at a glance rather than requiring you to "unlock" something.

    Apple is going for the past, biometric sensors, including fingerprint scanners, have long been used on corporate laptops, AuthenTec has been doing this for years.  The future is not having to touch your device at all to get the most useful information. If I have to press the Home button to see what time it is or get the weather, you have failed.

    The camera gesture Moto X has is a gimmick IMHO, it could be done better. But Touchless Control, Active Display, and Clear Pixel camera aren't gimmicks.

    Samsung's crap is gimmicky in comparison. 

    While these are useful concepts, it is the implementation of said concepts that usually let's people down.
Sign In or Register to comment.