If Apple is in the best position then I'd hate to see the worst position.
Without Apple's expansion into China where would Apple be? What happens when China is saturated?
Everything that you say about Google's precarious position applies to Apple as well. Apple's position looks very similar to where Sony was in the 80s... and to Panasonic as well.
[ I always have to giggle a bit when people give me their opinion about why a company is doing what they are doing]
I'm applying a positive to counter your all-negative.
I'm applying a positive to counter your all-negative.
All negative what?
I was stating that I don't think that everything that Google has done lately is necessarily a bad thing.
I never mentioned anything negative about Apple until you brought it up... and it wasn't that negative anyway. It was just an extension of your thought process.
This whole idea of Apple good, Google bad is just asinine. They are both companies. They are not friends of mine. Lately one hasn't helped me any more than the other. Would I root for one over the other. Sure. Apple. Why? It has more to do with Steve than anything else.
I don't agree with how Issacon appears to be using it but I do think Jobs wanted to disrupt even if Jobs never saw himself as such. My reasoning is Jobs wanted to change the world with "insanely great products." Revolutionary products. Neither of which can happen without disrupting the status quo. The difference I see is that Issacson pens it as Steve's goal, not as an artifact of making sweeping technological and cultural changes.
On similar note, GOOFLEs disrupt our lives like this ....
Honestly folks, this is what GOOFLE does and does BEST. They have no clue about technology, home-automation (Nest) and so on ....
On similar note, GOOFLEs disrupt our lives like this ....
Honestly folks, this is what GOOFLE does and does BEST. They have no clue about technology, home-automation (Nest) and so on ....
Absolutely. The goog is the #1 disrupter on the planet. And it's worked great for them. Not sure it's all roses for the consumers though (other than 'search').
And a very good game plan. It makes leaders earn their position in the market and gives new entrants a home court advantage. Favoring the underdog in business is somewhat unique to the United States and is one of our greatest assets (along with a strong patent system and education system)
Absolutely. The goog is the #1 disrupter on the planet. And it's worked great for them. Not sure it's all roses for the consumers though (other than 'search').
In 100 years, nobody will care about the iPhone. The smartphone will be commoditized like the ball point pen. However, I think there is a good chance Google Search will still dominate search. It has nothing to do with innovativeness...just the nature of the two businesses.
In 100 years, nobody will care about the iPhone. The smartphone will be commoditized like the ball point pen. However, I think there is a good chance Google Search will still dominate search. It has nothing to do with innovativeness...just the nature of the two businesses.
A phone is a communication device. The form will continue to change and evolve, especially in our current, heading-for-the-Singularity, age.
I strongly disagree. First and foremost Apple is a computing device company. They come in many forms:
Mainframe
PC
laptop
smartphone
tablet
watch?
glassess?
Computing devices will NEVER be commoditized. Certain form factors will be, but we will always have the NEXT form factor.
I said mobile phones would be commoditized, not the entire world of computing devices. It's easy to contradict me when you get to reword what I said. And you're a fool if you think the mobile phone won't get commoditized. The risk for Apple is that it isn't out exploring new products and businesses. When the market shifts, Apple has no chance of having the next technology because that isn't its business model. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting Apple is going to die anytime soon. I actually own a lot of Apple stock and zero Google stock (outside mutual funds). There is an awful lot of money to be made before commoditiation kills Apple's current business (my guess is 5-20 years). It is also possible that Apple will change course at the appropriate time.
A phone is a communication device. The form will continue to change and evolve, especially in our current, heading-for-the-Singularity, age.
Of course the phone will continue to change. However, are you suggesting that the mobile phone won't be commoditized? If that's what you are suggesting, I think you are wrong. The hardware business is inherently susceptible to commoditization.
Do you understand what it means to be commoditized? Let me give you an example: the "hammer." There will always be improvements to the hammer. The latest improvements have been in new materials like titanium and different ways to secure the head to the handle. However, the pricing power of these improvements are extremely limited. Hammer manufacturers can't take market share or raise their prices because the commodity is good enough. There will come a time when the features that Apple adds to its phones just don't move the dial for people and pricing pressure will increase. Apple will have to choose to lose market share or lose margin.
Google on the other hand provides its search service for free. It will never experience pricing pressure. Since Google has the best search engine, everyone will continue to use it. Since everyone uses Google Search, it will always have the best search engine. Advertisers have no choice but to use Google because Google has all the eyeballs. The situation feeds on itself.
My bet on Apple is a short term one. I think the commoditization of mobile phones won't happen as fast as the pundits think (mostly because Apple is awesome at what they do) and I believe Google is overpriced because the pundits know it won't get commoditized.
Your entire argument is based on this assumption. How do you know Apple isn't exploring new products?
I don't get his comment at all. It's all doom without any leeway that Apple could possibly be exploring something new right now.
Furthermore, everyone on this site should know Apple's modus operandi of only announcing a product once they have a full product to release. We saw no sign of the iPod before it happened. We saw no sign of the iPhone before it happened (and, no, iTunes on a Motorola Rokr doesn't count). We saw no signs of the iPad before it happened. Pretty much any product people have dreamed from Apple excited long before it became available from Apple. The iPad is an excellent since there are decades of tablets on the market that didn't do anything and now Apple reinvented and now owns this market.
I do wish Apple had more product offerings that blew me away, but that's par for course simply because I love technology and Apple has a long history of not disappointing me, but that no barring on what appear to people suggesting Apple turn into a buy-everything-then-throw-it-at-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks company.
Of course the phone will continue to change. However, are you suggesting that the mobile phone won't be commoditized? If that's what you are suggesting, I think you are wrong. The hardware business is inherently susceptible to commoditization.
Do you understand what it means to be commoditized? Let me give you an example: the "hammer." There will always be improvements to the hammer. The latest improvements have been in new materials like titanium and different ways to secure the head to the handle. However, the pricing power of these improvements are extremely limited. Hammer manufacturers can't take market share or raise their prices because the commodity is good enough. There will come a time when the features that Apple adds to its phones just don't move the dial for people and pricing pressure will increase. Apple will have to choose to lose market share or lose margin.
Google on the other hand provides its search service for free. It will never experience pricing pressure. Since Google has the best search engine, everyone will continue to use it. Since everyone uses Google Search, it will always have the best search engine. Advertisers have no choice but to use Google because Google has all the eyeballs. The situation feeds on itself.
My bet on Apple is a short term one. I think the commoditization of mobile phones won't happen as fast as the pundits think (mostly because Apple is awesome at what they do) and I believe Google is overpriced because the pundits know it won't get commoditized.
Feature phones are commoditized. PCs are commoditized. Now, as for the multi-touch phone, a whole lot depends on the outcome of the upcoming Rockstar suit against Google and Samsung. If Rockstar wins in a clean sweep Google and Samsung are in serious trouble. Serious trouble.
Cook said they sold more iPhones in greater China than "ever" before, this past quarter. Why would he say this? Isn't that a given since the release was simultaneous with the other major markets?
Cook said they sold more iPhones in greater China than "ever" before, this past quarter. Why would he say this? Isn't that a given since the release was simultaneous with the other major markets?
It might be expected from current iPhone trends and YoY sales, and considered a certainty by those that noticed China Telecom and China Unicom received the iPhone for the full 4th calendar quarter for the first time, but it's still a true fact that makes Apple look good, which is the point of Cook's comment. I don't think anyone that is savvy enough to know the particulars also isn't likely to be moved by any carefully made phrases about Apple's sales.
Island Hermit should revisit what corporate purchases are made and by whom. Google's purchases in recent times are greater than the sum of the next five tech companies - including Apple.
Island Hermit should revisit what corporate purchases are made and by whom. Google's purchases in recent times are greater than the sum of the next five tech companies - including Apple.
Comments
If Apple is in the best position then I'd hate to see the worst position.
Without Apple's expansion into China where would Apple be? What happens when China is saturated?
Everything that you say about Google's precarious position applies to Apple as well. Apple's position looks very similar to where Sony was in the 80s... and to Panasonic as well.
[ I always have to giggle a bit when people give me their opinion about why a company is doing what they are doing]
I'm applying a positive to counter your all-negative.
I'm applying a positive to counter your all-negative.
All negative what?
I was stating that I don't think that everything that Google has done lately is necessarily a bad thing.
I never mentioned anything negative about Apple until you brought it up... and it wasn't that negative anyway. It was just an extension of your thought process.
This whole idea of Apple good, Google bad is just asinine. They are both companies. They are not friends of mine. Lately one hasn't helped me any more than the other. Would I root for one over the other. Sure. Apple. Why? It has more to do with Steve than anything else.
I don't agree with how Issacon appears to be using it but I do think Jobs wanted to disrupt even if Jobs never saw himself as such. My reasoning is Jobs wanted to change the world with "insanely great products." Revolutionary products. Neither of which can happen without disrupting the status quo. The difference I see is that Issacson pens it as Steve's goal, not as an artifact of making sweeping technological and cultural changes.
On similar note, GOOFLEs disrupt our lives like this ....
Honestly folks, this is what GOOFLE does and does BEST. They have no clue about technology, home-automation (Nest) and so on ....
On similar note, GOOFLEs disrupt our lives like this ....
Honestly folks, this is what GOOFLE does and does BEST. They have no clue about technology, home-automation (Nest) and so on ....
Absolutely. The goog is the #1 disrupter on the planet. And it's worked great for them. Not sure it's all roses for the consumers though (other than 'search').
In 100 years, nobody will care about the iPhone. The smartphone will be commoditized like the ball point pen. However, I think there is a good chance Google Search will still dominate search. It has nothing to do with innovativeness...just the nature of the two businesses.
A phone is a communication device. The form will continue to change and evolve, especially in our current, heading-for-the-Singularity, age.
I strongly disagree. First and foremost Apple is a computing device company. They come in many forms:
Mainframe
PC
laptop
smartphone
tablet
watch?
glassess?
Computing devices will NEVER be commoditized. Certain form factors will be, but we will always have the NEXT form factor.
I said mobile phones would be commoditized, not the entire world of computing devices. It's easy to contradict me when you get to reword what I said. And you're a fool if you think the mobile phone won't get commoditized. The risk for Apple is that it isn't out exploring new products and businesses. When the market shifts, Apple has no chance of having the next technology because that isn't its business model. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting Apple is going to die anytime soon. I actually own a lot of Apple stock and zero Google stock (outside mutual funds). There is an awful lot of money to be made before commoditiation kills Apple's current business (my guess is 5-20 years). It is also possible that Apple will change course at the appropriate time.
A phone is a communication device. The form will continue to change and evolve, especially in our current, heading-for-the-Singularity, age.
Of course the phone will continue to change. However, are you suggesting that the mobile phone won't be commoditized? If that's what you are suggesting, I think you are wrong. The hardware business is inherently susceptible to commoditization.
Do you understand what it means to be commoditized? Let me give you an example: the "hammer." There will always be improvements to the hammer. The latest improvements have been in new materials like titanium and different ways to secure the head to the handle. However, the pricing power of these improvements are extremely limited. Hammer manufacturers can't take market share or raise their prices because the commodity is good enough. There will come a time when the features that Apple adds to its phones just don't move the dial for people and pricing pressure will increase. Apple will have to choose to lose market share or lose margin.
Google on the other hand provides its search service for free. It will never experience pricing pressure. Since Google has the best search engine, everyone will continue to use it. Since everyone uses Google Search, it will always have the best search engine. Advertisers have no choice but to use Google because Google has all the eyeballs. The situation feeds on itself.
My bet on Apple is a short term one. I think the commoditization of mobile phones won't happen as fast as the pundits think (mostly because Apple is awesome at what they do) and I believe Google is overpriced because the pundits know it won't get commoditized.
"neither Xi nor Cook opted to give estimates on how many iPhones they believe China Mobile could sell in its first year."
Don't even care about that. I just want to know what the iPhone price is, and how much of that price goes to Apple.
Why on earth would you care how much "goes to Apple" ..... unless, of course, you get a cut on every iPhone's profit ???
That's right.
so you think google's search will be evergreen?
The risk for Apple is that it isn't out exploring new products and businesses.
Your entire argument is based on this assumption. How do you know Apple isn't exploring new products?
I don't get his comment at all. It's all doom without any leeway that Apple could possibly be exploring something new right now.
Furthermore, everyone on this site should know Apple's modus operandi of only announcing a product once they have a full product to release. We saw no sign of the iPod before it happened. We saw no sign of the iPhone before it happened (and, no, iTunes on a Motorola Rokr doesn't count). We saw no signs of the iPad before it happened. Pretty much any product people have dreamed from Apple excited long before it became available from Apple. The iPad is an excellent since there are decades of tablets on the market that didn't do anything and now Apple reinvented and now owns this market.
I do wish Apple had more product offerings that blew me away, but that's par for course simply because I love technology and Apple has a long history of not disappointing me, but that no barring on what appear to people suggesting Apple turn into a buy-everything-then-throw-it-at-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks company.
Feature phones are commoditized. PCs are commoditized. Now, as for the multi-touch phone, a whole lot depends on the outcome of the upcoming Rockstar suit against Google and Samsung. If Rockstar wins in a clean sweep Google and Samsung are in serious trouble. Serious trouble.
It might be expected from current iPhone trends and YoY sales, and considered a certainty by those that noticed China Telecom and China Unicom received the iPhone for the full 4th calendar quarter for the first time, but it's still a true fact that makes Apple look good, which is the point of Cook's comment. I don't think anyone that is savvy enough to know the particulars also isn't likely to be moved by any carefully made phrases about Apple's sales.
Island Hermit should revisit what corporate purchases are made and by whom. Google's purchases in recent times are greater than the sum of the next five tech companies - including Apple.
You think I haven't.
How does that change anything?
I don’t know if any of these are redundant, but this is what I use.
I don’t know if any of these are redundant, but this is what I use.
My good friend, there's no such a thing as redundant in World War Z Against Google Zombies!
I'm missing these 3: "Google Click Track", "Remove Google ..." and "Get Off My Lawn". Thanks for the tip.