Google has fooled the media and markets, but hasn't bested Tim Cook's Apple

145791017

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 340
    asdasd wrote: »
    It's always the fault of the user huh?

    Of course it's the user's fault, if they didn't use it then it wouldn't crash. :lol:
  • Reply 122 of 340
    Much like MS was forced to unbundle IE in Windows in the EU I look for Google to be forced to give Android users the option of hangin built in search and other services in Android!!!!

    Yes, but much like MS was forced to unbundle IE in Windows, Apple could be forced to open the platform to other browser and even to show an ugly ballot screen.
  • Reply 123 of 340
    Excellent and beyond. Thanks.

    There are two parts to your analysis, the insane/inane writing regarding Apple is one part, the refusal to look at Google correctly is the second. Even Horace D. says he can't figure out Google. Google is an OTP, one-trick pony. I hope sometime to see your inner pit-bull go after Google.
  • Reply 124 of 340

    Ok Marvin this is a huge post and I don't want to give you the impression I'm skipping some of your arguments, so I'm just going to quote the major parts first.

     

    Quote:


    Apple has sold 700 million iOS units...they need to convince Apple's 600 million+ customers to part with their devices


    There's a false assumption here, that units sold is approximately equal to users. This is clearly not the case because as you can see from posts here, many users have owned every single iPhone or every other iPhone. This would reduce Apple's users to ~150-200m, which is still a ridiculously high number of course. The same would be true for Android but as usual the situation is more complex. The numbers you quoted only include Google Play activations afaik, so a significant fraction of the market is missed off there, all Amazon or Xaomi or 'Other' devices are also included there.

     

    Quote:


    Android fans do the same thing Windows fans did. It was all about units, software support, raw hardware spec for the price. Steve Jobs acknowledged that Windows won that war but notice he didn't say the hardware manufacturers won. Right now, the hardware companies are struggling to stay above water and Apple recently mentioned that they are the only hardware company that survived since the start


    You have to understand that I am coming from the perspective of a consumer. Whatever stocks I own would never be able to bring me as much money as my work, and so to me what matters is a lot of diversity and strong competition in order to make more and more advanced devices for less money. I have no doubt Apple will survive Android just fine, but if LG (Nexus 5) goes bankrupt tomorrow then I still have a choice of a bunch of different manufacturers and soon potentially even Windows phones will run Android apps.

     

    Quote:


    The hopes of Android are pinned to a follower: Samsung, nothing more than a plagiarist. When they veer away from their leader and go their own way with the likes of the S4 and smartwatch, the results speak for themselves - disappointing.


    Samsung is little more than a copycat, although it's hard to really take the position that any company is truly 'innocent' in this regard. However Android is certainly not tied to Samsung, it is tied to the consumer demand for phones that Apple won't make and features Apple will refuse. One could also argue that Google's ecosystem is a very strong tie. This is why Samsung probably won't be able to break off and go their own way. I certainly wouldn't call the S4 disappointing. The Developer Edition is very nice indeed, and it's mostly the horrible software they add on rather than inferior hardware IMO.

     

    In summary, I don't disagree with you, Android certainly doesn't have a total 80% marketshare. However, I still disagree with the OP because if you are to discount 80% share of new sales then you have to provide some actual evidence. You've staked a claim and you've supported it well, but these same statistics show Apple selling ~750,000 devices per day alongside just Google Activations of 1.5m devices per day. I know your argument is that this is not going to be sustained, but that is a matter of opinion and I refuse to predict the future one way or another.

     

    Thanks for the detailed and thorough reply.

  • Reply 125 of 340
    Excellent and beyond. Thanks.

    There are two parts to your analysis, the insane/inane writing regarding Apple is one part, the refusal to look at Google correctly is the second. Even Horace D. says he can't figure out Google. Google is an OTP, one-trick pony. I hope sometime to see your inner pit-bull go after Google.
  • Reply 126 of 340
    So...:???:

    Exactly. ????
  • Reply 127 of 340
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    asdasd wrote: »
    What evidence do you have that he has Jobs' taste or attention to detail. Jobs took a company which was bleeding to death, righted the ship, released OS X - the basis of all their success - on time; then when Apple was stable produced new and ground breaking products. Cook has taken over that company and as yet has done nothing in terms of innovation, is far too beholden to Wall Street ( buy backs and dividends would never have happened under Jobs - he never tried to prop up the stock). Cook may come good yet, we'll see this year.
    What evidence do you have he doesn't? Or that Apple hasn't done anything innovative on his watch? 64-bit SOCs, touch id, retina Macs, nMP, iWork in the cloud, etc. you don't consider any of that innovative?

    You sound like a typical Jobs sycophant.
  • Reply 128 of 340
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    zippinglou wrote: »
    I'm using safari and have not crashed ever on this site. Reinstall your software if not the whole OS
    Safari is crash happy on the iPad Air. It's certainly not unique to me.
  • Reply 129 of 340
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,114member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

     



    Sadly, what I do now is to write my posts using Textedit (or whatever separate editor) and when I'm ready I simply copy/paste it into the post before the site gets an opportunity to crash my browser.  It's sad, but it's what I do.



    Weird that the site crashes on my MBA (late 2011) consistently, yet is rock-solid on my 2009 iMac.  Both running Mavericks.  Figure that.


    FWIW, I've been blown out of Safari when using my iPad 4 running iOS7 to write a Reply. Not so, however, in Safari with an '09 iMac and a late '08 MacBook, both running Mavericks. I'm guessing that it happens when others who are online at the same time as me will hit the Submit button to post their comments, while I'm still writing mine. Like you, my solution is to write my comments offline (using Notes on my iPad), then copy and paste into AppleInsider, then post. I wonder of it has more to do with some quirk in the AI Reply box than it does with Safari.

  • Reply 130 of 340

    DED. So great. Always well researched and served with a big dollop of verve and nerve.

    "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations." George Orwell.

    Best to let go of the market/media take on Apple. They all pray at the church of monopolies and purported monopolies. Or it's magical thinking, wishing upon a star. Or an addiction, saying the same thing over and over, hoping it will be true this time.

    Anywhoo, it's like trying to mind-read pumpkins. As a great teacher once said about undergraduates, "Way down deep, they are shallow people."

    Apple is the great antimonopoly. Why? Perhaps Steve Jobs watched from his desert island and saw Microsoft in its huge, deep hulled ship built to hold slaves, half sunken with cargo and cannons, headed for the rocks. (Now rudderless.)

    Thanks but no thanks, said Jobs.

    Besides that, in the real world, Google fools nobody but itself and its bootlickers. I know no one who trusts people who keep handing out free things. People are not as stupid as Larry and Sergey think.

    Every new Google "deal" erodes our trust.

    Me? I wonder in awe about that brilliant moment coming up, when Apple has a billion customers under its wing. A billion self-selected, creditcard-carrying, buck-paying peeps. A billion ... 1,000,000,000.00.

    How can Apple be always wrong and get it that right?

  • Reply 131 of 340
    It's a good article but some credibility is lost with language like this.

    [quote]you can confidently assume the author is an [B]idiot[/B] who only repeats numbers he or she does not comprehend and hasn't given the subject even cursory thought.[/quote]

    Personal insults aren't acceptable in the comments, nor should they be found in the articles.
  • Reply 132 of 340
    Someone's already pulled the Peterbob post before I could respond but most of you called him out on his BS.
    DED is right in that the press worship whatever Google does.
    Here's a funny story about Google taking accolades from research that Microsoft had funded:
    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-04/new-ceo-satya-nadella-needs-to-make-microsoft-more-like-google

    Blame Microsoft for not making more noise about its own research, but the press has created the ficition that Google is the center all innovation in Silicon Valley, and that's not true. Google [I]takes credit[/I] for all the innovation, even if someone else is doing the research.
  • Reply 133 of 340
    "Google, in contrast, has been hyping glasses that cause headaches, touting robotics acquisitions that have no obvious business model...,"

    As a reader/investor in Apple who strongly believes in their products and business model, for the record, Google's plans into investing resources in robotics is because they plan to automate manufacturing. The US can't compete vs. low offshore wages; therefore, to restore competitive manufacturing in the US, robots will be the future (they'll run 24/7/365; no hourly wages, no HR issues, no sick days, no health premiums, etc.).

    I applaud Google's efforts in this new business model. Will it work? Time will tell.
  • Reply 134 of 340
    quazze wrote: »
    they'll run 24/7/365; no hourly wages, no HR issues, no sick days, no health premiums, etc.).

    I applaud Google's efforts in this new business model. Will it work? Time will tell.

    24/7/365 can happen with human run facilities, and sick days can occur with machines when there is an error with production or routine maintenance is needed. This will happen. Foxconn is already 24/7 but I'm not sure if they are 365, but if not they are probably in the 360's.

    Costs associated with hourly wages and health premiums are instead converted into the purchase, setup, use, and maintenance of the machines, which includes the requisite employees needed for said machines.

    The only one that I see that can see being removed from the cost of the machines is HR but it'll still be needed for the employees monitoring and maintaining the factories, and is already an insignificant cost for any major company.

    I'd think a reduction in potential legal issues that occur with employees and cost of training to get an employee up to speed would be a more significant cost saver.
  • Reply 135 of 340
    Then how come ISIS itself has not taken off?  MasterCard PayPass?  Visa Wallet?
    • Ease of use problems with pass codes and to many steps?
    • Security risks with lost of phones?
    • No better than the existing credit cards?
    • Minimal to no support from Point Of Sale vendors?

    Isis hadn't taken off because it's only available in one market, Salt Lake City.
  • Reply 136 of 340
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

     

    • Google's driverless cars: 2010 and earlier.

    • iOS in the Car: unveiled at WWDC 2013.

    • Open Automotive Alliance (Android in cars): announced January 2014.

     

    Google were involved in the automotive arena before Apple, and expanding from driverless cars running Google software to cars augmented with Google software is a fairly logical progression. 

     


    Apple was working on full automotive iPod integration with BMW, Volvo, and Mercedes in 2004. To put that in perspective, that was the year that Google had its IPO, and was 4 years before the first release of Android. So, no, in no sense was Google involved in the automotive arena before Apple.

  • Reply 137 of 340
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by haar View Post



    Google is in trouble in 2020 when their search patent has expired, when that happens expect their revenue to be one third it is today....




    Man that is freakin' good news. Never knew, glad to read this; thanks.

    Google's Pagerank is patented but all the other search engines have some similar ranking algorithm. Google search is full of secret sauce and their search extends into many other areas besides text search. They have patent search, weather, movie schedule, images, financials, sports scores, on and on. The expiration of a single patent for a technology that has already been modified to the extent that it has totally replaced the original concept, is not going to change anything.

  • Reply 138 of 340
    froodfrood Posts: 771member

    Passionate article, but glosses over and just misses a few fundamentals...

     

    Apples main income source by far is the iPhone.  That market has been growing for years allowing Apple to post 'record sales' year after year.  That market growth is coming to an end, and the high end portion of the market especially is essentially saturated. 

     

    Despite that massive growth and record sales in terms of unit sales- Apple posted -10% in profits from the prior year.  How many people here think they would be 'worth more' or happy if they took a 10% pay cut in a year?  With their best quarter behind them for this fiscal year, and with their current guidance, Apple is looking to make less money again this year, or maybe break even with last year at best.

     

    Apple really does need their 'next trick' to turn around their profit decline.  Apple will still make insane profits on phones for many many years, but that is going to get whittled away year after year.  I think their plan with iTV was to follow the iBooks model and do an 'agency plan/mfn' combo that would raise all our prices by 30% and give the lions share of that to Apple.  With that thwarted their next focus looks to be wearables.  I like what I've read on their wearables, but in order to have any real impact on Apples financials they really have to be a huge thing and highly profitable right out of the crate.  That's a tough order for Apple.  Whatever they do it has to be of a magnitude that it impacts the massive (but declining) behemoth that is iPhone profits.

     

    Google, on the flip side, has gone- and continues to go on- quite a few long shot boondoggles.  They make no excuses and are quite open about taking on quite risky projects.  *Despite* all their risky R&D ventures and despite whatever losses they may have taken on Moto... their profits continue to grow nicely.   By almost the same 10% that Apple's profits declined.  And that is despite they 'alarming' issues pointed out in the article.  PC's declining and mobile taking over the future!  Actually, PC's are still nicely around 70% of where the online shopping occurs.  Mobile is still a fraction of the online components- but continues to grow.  While sales of tablets and phones may be hurting 'PC' sales directly, how much shopping people do online continues to grow, and so Google's market is still growing (despite them not having the same relative dominance in mobile as they do in PC advertising).

     

    Apple's profits from phones, tablets, and Macs are expected to continue to decline.  The fact that despite that their share price went up is a testament to how much faith the markets have that Apple will come up the next big hit.

  • Reply 139 of 340
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,873moderator
    Apple has sold 700 million iOS units...they need to convince Apple's 600 million+ customers to part with their devices
    There's a false assumption here, that units sold is approximately equal to users. This is clearly not the case because as you can see from posts here, many users have owned every single iPhone or every other iPhone. This would reduce Apple's users to ~150-200m, which is still a ridiculously high number of course. The same would be true for Android but as usual the situation is more complex.

    You'd have to assume that these people throw their old devices away though. Even if they pass them on or sell them used, that's a new owner, some do hold onto them for backup devices. Any consideration of overall units is still clearly more accurate than any financial quarter. At the very least, a 1-3 year period would be better than 3 months as that doesn't even account for seasonality or proximity to a major product revision.
    The numbers you quoted only include Google Play activations afaik, so a significant fraction of the market is missed off there, all Amazon or Xaomi or 'Other' devices are also included there.

    Xiaomi is not a significant fraction. The Kindle is significant in the realm of tablets but nowhere near smartphones.
    Samsung is little more than a copycat, although it's hard to really take the position that any company is truly 'innocent' in this regard.

    That depends on what you want to prove. Did Apple steal their original smartphone design from a competitor in the market? No. Did Google and Samsung? Yes. Did Apple steal anything? Nobody has proven this to be the case, it's what people want to be the case and so they assume it is. It's not really hard to take the position that Apple is 'innocent' of theft because there's no evidence otherwise. It's common for people to try and put them on equal ground though.
    Android certainly doesn't have a total 80% marketshare. if you are to discount 80% share of new sales then you have to provide some actual evidence.

    I don't think the article was taking issue with new sales. The article addresses the 80% figure under the assumption of it being used to represent "the mobile market", not limited to new sales, hence the accusation that the "author is an idiot who only repeats numbers he or she does not comprehend and hasn't given the subject even cursory thought". These people are repeating the phrases that make them feel good outside of their context and changing their meaning.
    statistics show Apple selling ~750,000 devices per day alongside just Google Activations of 1.5m devices per day. I know your argument is that this is not going to be sustained, but that is a matter of opinion and I refuse to predict the future one way or another.

    This places Android's recent growth at 2:1 vs iOS. You then assume that leads to 80:20 (4:1) marketshare. Clearly that doesn't add up. There's a disparity between the activations and the marketshare stats too. If Google is only activating at 2:1, then the quarterly sales share showing 4:1 have to be due to channel flooding, which are balanced out in other quarters.
  • Reply 140 of 340
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    Wall Street remains obsessed with Apple's short term performance and the belief that Apple's existence is predicated upon their next hit or failed product. Meanwhile, Apple is executing a 10-25 year strategy that will leave their competitors behind entirely as Apple takes its place as the World's only super-company: http://torusoft.com/blog/how-to-recognize-a-super-company

    It's a foolish mistake to believe Apple and Google are in the same league. I also think that one of the reasons Wall Street produces so much FUD, tripe, and uninformed analysis is that on some level, they know Apple doesn't care about their opinions and hasn't for many years.

    Now here is the proper big picture view, which I have been struggling to formulate, but not nearly so well as you do here and especially in the linked article.

    I urge everyone to check out the link Chris Marriott provides, and the comments as well. I haven't read the rest of this thread, but I think we've been waiting for this perspective. It implicitly makes good use of DED's valuable work, and builds on it. Thanks, Chris.

    Edit: To clarify, it's a link to his blog, sometimes considered questionable posting, but in this case it's justified, I think. It's serious, and non commercial anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.