Re. being an Apple competitor, I'm talking about the market they were targetting. BlackBerry were on top of the enterprise, with some minor encroachment on the consumer market, and I believe Android was conceived of as a rival to BlackBerry for that space. When Apple announced the iPhone, and it was clearly consumer-facing (albeit high end) then the target for Android was shifted to also being the consumer market.
I don't think either of these things are in any way illegal or questionable copying, but they're what got Steve Jobs so wound up. Android was refactored from a Microsoft and RIM rival for businesses, to a direct iPhone competitor and copied its touch paradigm.
I don't really disagree with anything you say here, I guess meanings just got mixed. I did find that there was an early full touch-screen prototype but that's not really unexpected either considering the Windows Mobile devices around at the time. One of the notable improvements Apple made was multi-touch although finding accurate information on that is rather difficult, and I think it's clear that modern smartphones have adopted (or 'copied' I guess but that raises the question of significance) this rather widely.
People don't pay the cost of the smartphone off as part of their monthly bill? I think you misread what you quoted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That sounds like the opposite of what actually happens. The more you pay up front the lower your bill would be. That is, if telecoms actually cared about customers.
That's not what he was talking about, he said the monthly bill was higher if the cost of the phone was higher, which it noticeably is with the iPhone.
I think is Apple can another search engine like Yahoo or Bring can work together and begin showing a trend away from Google then wall street will have to stand up and take notice. As long as google shows some amount of improvement and they can spin a story they they growing into new and exciting markets then wall street loves them. But as soon as their numbers start going down and a competitor grows what how fast they tank google.
Lastly, it does not surprise me that people using Google Glasses are getting headache no on should be surprise at that. Google said they work with eye doctors to make sure it work right and it is the person fault they are getting headache since they may not be wearing the glass properly. They should have been working with neurologist to understand how the brain works and how visual input can affect the brain. Just another example that google has not idea what they are doing. We all can hope they will end up like Steve Martin in the jerk paying everyone $1 at time until they are broke.
I was going to post the clip from the movie "The Jerk" from the news conference where it was revealed they glasses caused problems, interesting enough youtude has number of The Jerk clips except this one, i could only find it here, wonder is google is censoring it.
The chart showing the constant lowering of phone prices should scare the hell out of Apple. The old days of not caring how much the phone costs are gone, people now pay monthly or upfront the entire cost of the phone, and the higher the price the more expensive their monthly phone bill. All you have to do is look at the Moto G which is a very nice phone with last years technology and all it costs is $179. Once people get out of their contract and get a great phone for not a lot of money Apple will be forced to dramatically lower their prices which will cut into the massive profit margins they have been enjoying.
Did Apple worry when the prices of computers went considerably down? While their growth will eventually slow down it won't go backwards.
and same can be said of you or anyone else posting in this thread.
That's most certainly true.
However, on the topic of whether Jobs was one among a handful of the greatest corporate leaders of the last hundred years -- anywhere in the world -- I was simply pointing out that many more substantive minds than yours (or mine) have rendered a fairly uniform judgment.
Got a good view up on that horse? Stealing happens all the time. If you live in the US you're living on stolen land, we had a president that stole an election. Companies copy all the time, Philips comes out with a flat panel TV and now every single TV manufacturer makes a flat panel.
Google was smart enough to realize the paradigm shift Apple created and quickly altered their game plan, those that acted slowly are dead (Palm) or dying (BB). Now you might argue that Android hasn't made anyone money except for Samsung, but Motorola, LG, HTC, etc are surviving, and as long as they're alive they have a fighting chance to turn things around. For any of them to make yet another platform is not the answer.
So if anything happens all the time, it's okay. Got it.
I'm not so sure about that, the company still makes most of its money from the iphone and that profit margin simply cannot hold. And the computer market was never priced in a way to hide the true cost in a monthly access fee. I'm not suggesting that Apple will collapse, but without the new "killer product" the inevitable lower profits from Ipads and Iphones won't be enough to continue the Apple juggernaut.
So if anything happens all the time, it's okay. Got it.
Again it's not okay but don't act shocked like its never happened before. Apple isn't the first company that's been copied nor will it be the last. Belly aching about it helps no one, nor changes anything.
I'm not so sure about that, the company still makes most of its money from the iphone and that profit margin simply cannot hold. And the computer market was never priced in a way to hide the true cost in a monthly access fee. I'm not suggesting that Apple will collapse, but without the new "killer product" the inevitable lower profits from Ipads and Iphones won't be enough to continue the Apple juggernaut.
1) Don't conflate lower profit margins with lower profits. If they saturate the upper tiers of the market even more and branch into the next lower tier to sell double the number of devices with a third reduction in their profit margin they are still then increasing their profit.
2) If you think Apple is unbalanced then Google is much worse with pretty much all their profit coming from ad revenue which has had reduced ad APR whilst at the same time Apple's iPhone has seen a rise in its average price.
YEAH. I’m sure that not complaining about theft of intellectual property will stop the theft of intellectual property¡
Your belly aching won't. If your input means squat then why do it? Complain about something you can actually change. It's like complaining about the weather; shut up, dress appropriately, suck it up, and go do what you have to do.
Part of the issue is that Apple is very boring, like Tim Cook, as of late. When you are boring, no one cares, even when you churn out gobs of money. Every Apple product looks like every other boring Apple product, a white slab inside of a boring colored bumper. It's the 1984 commercial, 30 years later, only now, Apple is what IBM of that day was. Google is vibrant, wacky, and entertaining to watch. The investors take note and drive up the share price, even it does seem bizarre.
Again it's not okay but don't act shocked like its never happened before. Apple isn't the first company that's been copied nor will it be the last. Belly aching about it helps no one, nor changes anything.
So you equate standing up for principles as getting on your high horse and belly aching. Why bother having any principles?
Not only do you hone in like a laser on the truth, but you make it entertaining too.
What I appreciate about your analysis is that you look up and down; you observe the big picture but also the detail. Which I think is telling, because it is Apple's attention to detail which is a large part of the secret of their success. It is only through a rigorous focus on detail that you can achieve simplicity. And the truth is in the detail.
AppleInsider has many strengths, and, for me, your contributions are the crowning glory.
Wow this article is super-biased. Google may be able to fool investors but you can't fool your customers. If 80% of phones being shipped are android it's because people like it. Most of these users are people who have used android phones in the past and are happy with it. Some are switching from the iPhone (for good reason) and maybe a handful are completely new to smartphones but have been recommended by friends/family. If anything, I think it's Apple who has been trying to fool customers by selling products for double their android-equivalent prices based purely on the "it's cool" factor. But the shift to android shows that you can only fool people for so long.
Comparing their growth to Sun/Adobe is a silly comparison. In the smartphone-era android figures are unparalleled. That's not to say that android will always be the dominant OS. Sooner or later they too will join Nokia and Apple in the once-was list. But for now, they are inarguably the no.1 player. And personally I feel as a software Android 4.4 is leagues ahead of iOS7.
Most Android phones sold are cheap pieces of junk that barely function as feature phones, let alone smartphones.
This is the third time I'm posting this comment. It keeps getting removed, probably because DED doesn't like it.
This article is so full of inaccuracies and misinformation it borders on comical. Let me start with the big one: Google relying on "yesterday's PC". Google's revenue is primarily based on ad revenue, that is true, but their ad revenue is not limited to PCs. They make a large percentage of their ad revenue from mobile (which includes ads on iPhones as well), with 19.1% coming from mobile as of August 2013, and expectations are that mobile ads will account for 30% by 2015. Their ad business isn't going anywhere, its' evolving, just as the market is evolving, because their ad service isn't tied to a single hardware platform.
However, that being said, the desktop (and notebook for that matter) isn't going anywhere. Mobile is not going to replace the computer any time in the near future, certainly not in businesses. Tablets are nice, but they aren't powerful or functional enough to perform at the level necessary for a business user. Mobile applications, while good, cannot compete with the desktop platform yet. We are getting there with the move towards 64 bit SOCs, but we won't see the desktop being replaced for years to come.
The author somehow suggested that Apple's success can be attributed to the hiring of Tim Cook in 1998. While it's true that he has streamlined their manufacturing process significantly, this is a completely ludicrous statement. It was Steve Jobs' vision of the future product line that brought Apple back from the depths, and suggesting anything otherwise is offensive to his legacy. If it wasn't for his foresight in designing OS X, the iPod, iPhone and iPad for the everyman, Apple wouldn't have been successful in the way they are today, end of story. Would they have had their markets? Absolutely. But not the powerhouse they are.
The reason why Apple maintains such a high average selling price while other mobile operating systems are much lower is because Apple refuses to release products to compete in emerging markets. All of their mobile offerings are priced for the high-end user, and if not for carrier subsidies, would be unaffordable by most. All other mobile OS manufacturers have cheap offerings to allow for traction in the lower price scale, and in doing so, just by volume will lower their average selling price. Looking at Apple compared to other companies in this way will always favor Apple as long as they continue to market their products as elite. That's like comparing Ferrari to Mercedes. Sure, they both make expensive vehicles, but Mercedes also makes cheaper cars whereas Ferrari only stays high end.
Comparing Apple's gross profits to Google's isn't a sound comparison because ultimately they don't run equivalent businesses. As the article points out, 90% of Apple's revenues come from mobile tech, whereas only 15% of Google's lives in mobile. Also of note, Apple is the soup-to-nuts owner of their tech. Sure, they pay for components from some parts manufacturers, but ultimately, all the profits on the sale of the phone AND the sales of their apps falls in their pockets. Google isn't a manufacturer, they only make the OS. When equivalent phones are sold (lets' say a $700 iPhone 5 vs. a $700 Samsung Galaxy S4 for arguments sake), Apple takes 100% of the margin in the sale of that phone, whereas Samsung takes the margin on the Galaxy S4 and only sends Google licensing fees. Also, Apple and Google both make 30% on app sales, however iTunes is the only option for buying an app on an iPhone, due to Apple's ecosystem being very curated by design. Android on the other hand has many alternate app store offerings, as manufacturers like Samsung and Amazon have their own stores and try to encourage (or in the case of the Kindle Fire force) users to buy apps from their app store so they take that cut of the profit. Some cheaper Android devices don't even have the Google Play store available on them. My point is, Apple takes much more profit from mobile than Google does, and anyone who understands the businesses would know that you can't just flatly compare the two companies like that. I guess that is why DED is a blog writer for Apple Insider and not a business analyst.
Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility was about the acquisition of patents, plain and simple. They weren't looking to enhance Google TV with Motorola's STB business, or stave off Motorola making Windows Phone devices. Google has no need to fear Windows Phone devices because the platform is no threat to them, it only accounts for 3% of all mobile sales. Google's hardware partners and Google themselves have been attacked in courts of late by many companies, including Apple, over patent issues, and they were trying to bolster their patent portfolio. The importance of patents in today's patent-troll era cannot be overvalued. Would Google have liked to see Motorola succeed more? Absolutely. But ultimately, Google isn't in the hardware business, they're in the services business. The Nexus lineup, the Google Play Experience device lineup, and the Moto X/G experiments were exactly that, experiments. They were never meant to bring in huge profits. Google also maintained Motorola's Advanced Research division when they sold Motorola Mobility to Lenovo, because there are some more experiments in the pipeline that Google is highly interested in, such as Project Ara. But don't be mistaken, ultimately, Google sells ads and uses that profit to try their hand at other things. They don't always succeed, as is obvious if you just look at their other offerings. For every Gmail and Google Maps, there are things like Google Buzz and Google Wave. Google can afford to lose money on projects like that because they have a sound business with their AdSense.
"Apple's clear successes with ads, Maps and Siri" has to be one of the most hilarious lines I've ever read in a tech blog. I can't speak to Apple's ads business, but the fact that Google still completely owns that business would lead me to think it's PC vs. Mac all over again, with Apple clinging to a tiny percentage and claiming they're a success. Apple Maps was a giant mess, and it forced Tim Cook to issue a messy public apology, which was a big black eye in his early tenure. They released it too early when it wasn't ready for prime time and many people I know refuse to try it again based on that early experience. Siri is gret, but it's a parlor trick. People loved it when they first got it, but the allure wore off quickly because it doesn't really serve a purpose. Sure, it can make a few things faster, that's without question. But ultimately, people don't want to speak to their phone to operate it in public spaces, which is where most people use their phones. Either Siri can't hear you clearly, or you have to shout and make a scene in order for your phone to hear you. Even when Siri does hear you, it's still limited in what it can do. I don't know many people that use it regularly. Most importantly, Siri can't be monetiszed. Apple doesn't make money from its use, so I don't see how even if it was widely adopted, it will really matter in the grand scheme of the business when it's only a software program that can be duplicated on other platforms.
Google DOES have an 80 percent share of the mobile market, and as I explained before the reason why Google doesn't have four times the mobile revenue as Apple does is because of the inequalities in how their respective businesses operate. You can't poo-poo the fact that Apple's market share is declining rapidly and their business has become largely uninnovative. Companies like Samsung have taken Apple's formula and improved upon it, while Apple has kept the same attitude of "we're the best, people buy us because we're Apple" and let their market share slip. It's the same stance Blackberry had for years and while I don't think Apple will allow themselves to fail in the way Blackberry did, it's not a good place to be.
"Apple also appears to be strategically investing in wearables, a space that has been dominated by iPods, iPhones and iPad for many years. " How are the iPod, iPhone, and iPad considered "wearables"?!? Maybe iPods can be strapped to an arm when you're jogging, but that's NOT what a wearable is. A wearable is something that is ALWAYS worn on a part of your body, not something that can be strapped on using an accessory case. The thought of someone "wearing" an iPad makes me giggle uncontrollably.
Ultimately, I recognize that this is an article on Apple Insider, but at least attempt to sound like you are knowledgeable and not some corporate shill telling grossly one-sided stories to make your point. And for the record, I have nothing against Apple or their products. I just have a problem with misleading articles that are based on incorrect information.
So you equate standing up for principles as getting on your high horse and belly aching. Why bother having any principles?
We've all stolen something, a pencil, gotten too much change back, or didn't get charged enough and didn't say anything, gotten to work late, or left early, etc, etc.. Ideas get stolen all the time, that's how we get music genres, and fashion trends. Standing up for principles isn't being on a high horse, acting as if you've never done anything wrong is.
Comments
Re. being an Apple competitor, I'm talking about the market they were targetting. BlackBerry were on top of the enterprise, with some minor encroachment on the consumer market, and I believe Android was conceived of as a rival to BlackBerry for that space. When Apple announced the iPhone, and it was clearly consumer-facing (albeit high end) then the target for Android was shifted to also being the consumer market.
I don't think either of these things are in any way illegal or questionable copying, but they're what got Steve Jobs so wound up. Android was refactored from a Microsoft and RIM rival for businesses, to a direct iPhone competitor and copied its touch paradigm.
I don't really disagree with anything you say here, I guess meanings just got mixed. I did find that there was an early full touch-screen prototype but that's not really unexpected either considering the Windows Mobile devices around at the time. One of the notable improvements Apple made was multi-touch although finding accurate information on that is rather difficult, and I think it's clear that modern smartphones have adopted (or 'copied' I guess but that raises the question of significance) this rather widely.
Not for smartphones, they don’t.
People don't pay the cost of the smartphone off as part of their monthly bill? I think you misread what you quoted.
That sounds like the opposite of what actually happens. The more you pay up front the lower your bill would be. That is, if telecoms actually cared about customers.
That's not what he was talking about, he said the monthly bill was higher if the cost of the phone was higher, which it noticeably is with the iPhone.
Therefore it’s okay¡
That's so impossibly pathetic.
I think is Apple can another search engine like Yahoo or Bring can work together and begin showing a trend away from Google then wall street will have to stand up and take notice. As long as google shows some amount of improvement and they can spin a story they they growing into new and exciting markets then wall street loves them. But as soon as their numbers start going down and a competitor grows what how fast they tank google.
Lastly, it does not surprise me that people using Google Glasses are getting headache no on should be surprise at that. Google said they work with eye doctors to make sure it work right and it is the person fault they are getting headache since they may not be wearing the glass properly. They should have been working with neurologist to understand how the brain works and how visual input can affect the brain. Just another example that google has not idea what they are doing. We all can hope they will end up like Steve Martin in the jerk paying everyone $1 at time until they are broke.
I was going to post the clip from the movie "The Jerk" from the news conference where it was revealed they glasses caused problems, interesting enough youtude has number of The Jerk clips except this one, i could only find it here, wonder is google is censoring it.
http://www.anyclip.com/movies/the-jerk/opti-grab-news-piece/
Did Apple worry when the prices of computers went considerably down? While their growth will eventually slow down it won't go backwards.
and same can be said of you or anyone else posting in this thread.
That's most certainly true.
However, on the topic of whether Jobs was one among a handful of the greatest corporate leaders of the last hundred years -- anywhere in the world -- I was simply pointing out that many more substantive minds than yours (or mine) have rendered a fairly uniform judgment.
Nothing personal.
I didn't say it's okay, but don't act like it's never happened before.
How is my example wrong? Is anyone making 4:3 CRTs anymore?
So if anything happens all the time, it's okay. Got it.
I'm not so sure about that, the company still makes most of its money from the iphone and that profit margin simply cannot hold. And the computer market was never priced in a way to hide the true cost in a monthly access fee. I'm not suggesting that Apple will collapse, but without the new "killer product" the inevitable lower profits from Ipads and Iphones won't be enough to continue the Apple juggernaut.
Again it's not okay but don't act shocked like its never happened before. Apple isn't the first company that's been copied nor will it be the last. Belly aching about it helps no one, nor changes anything.
1) Don't conflate lower profit margins with lower profits. If they saturate the upper tiers of the market even more and branch into the next lower tier to sell double the number of devices with a third reduction in their profit margin they are still then increasing their profit.
2) If you think Apple is unbalanced then Google is much worse with pretty much all their profit coming from ad revenue which has had reduced ad APR whilst at the same time Apple's iPhone has seen a rise in its average price.
YEAH. I’m sure that not complaining about theft of intellectual property will stop the theft of intellectual property¡
Cases of IP infringement are stopped/remedied by authorities, not by rants or sarcasm on the AppleInsider forum.
Your belly aching won't. If your input means squat then why do it? Complain about something you can actually change. It's like complaining about the weather; shut up, dress appropriately, suck it up, and go do what you have to do.
So you equate standing up for principles as getting on your high horse and belly aching. Why bother having any principles?
Not only do you hone in like a laser on the truth, but you make it entertaining too.
What I appreciate about your analysis is that you look up and down; you observe the big picture but also the detail. Which I think is telling, because it is Apple's attention to detail which is a large part of the secret of their success. It is only through a rigorous focus on detail that you can achieve simplicity. And the truth is in the detail.
AppleInsider has many strengths, and, for me, your contributions are the crowning glory.
Wow this article is super-biased. Google may be able to fool investors but you can't fool your customers. If 80% of phones being shipped are android it's because people like it. Most of these users are people who have used android phones in the past and are happy with it. Some are switching from the iPhone (for good reason) and maybe a handful are completely new to smartphones but have been recommended by friends/family. If anything, I think it's Apple who has been trying to fool customers by selling products for double their android-equivalent prices based purely on the "it's cool" factor. But the shift to android shows that you can only fool people for so long.
Comparing their growth to Sun/Adobe is a silly comparison. In the smartphone-era android figures are unparalleled. That's not to say that android will always be the dominant OS. Sooner or later they too will join Nokia and Apple in the once-was list. But for now, they are inarguably the no.1 player. And personally I feel as a software Android 4.4 is leagues ahead of iOS7.
Most Android phones sold are cheap pieces of junk that barely function as feature phones, let alone smartphones.
This is the third time I'm posting this comment. It keeps getting removed, probably because DED doesn't like it.
This article is so full of inaccuracies and misinformation it borders on comical. Let me start with the big one: Google relying on "yesterday's PC". Google's revenue is primarily based on ad revenue, that is true, but their ad revenue is not limited to PCs. They make a large percentage of their ad revenue from mobile (which includes ads on iPhones as well), with 19.1% coming from mobile as of August 2013, and expectations are that mobile ads will account for 30% by 2015. Their ad business isn't going anywhere, its' evolving, just as the market is evolving, because their ad service isn't tied to a single hardware platform.
However, that being said, the desktop (and notebook for that matter) isn't going anywhere. Mobile is not going to replace the computer any time in the near future, certainly not in businesses. Tablets are nice, but they aren't powerful or functional enough to perform at the level necessary for a business user. Mobile applications, while good, cannot compete with the desktop platform yet. We are getting there with the move towards 64 bit SOCs, but we won't see the desktop being replaced for years to come.
The author somehow suggested that Apple's success can be attributed to the hiring of Tim Cook in 1998. While it's true that he has streamlined their manufacturing process significantly, this is a completely ludicrous statement. It was Steve Jobs' vision of the future product line that brought Apple back from the depths, and suggesting anything otherwise is offensive to his legacy. If it wasn't for his foresight in designing OS X, the iPod, iPhone and iPad for the everyman, Apple wouldn't have been successful in the way they are today, end of story. Would they have had their markets? Absolutely. But not the powerhouse they are.
The reason why Apple maintains such a high average selling price while other mobile operating systems are much lower is because Apple refuses to release products to compete in emerging markets. All of their mobile offerings are priced for the high-end user, and if not for carrier subsidies, would be unaffordable by most. All other mobile OS manufacturers have cheap offerings to allow for traction in the lower price scale, and in doing so, just by volume will lower their average selling price. Looking at Apple compared to other companies in this way will always favor Apple as long as they continue to market their products as elite. That's like comparing Ferrari to Mercedes. Sure, they both make expensive vehicles, but Mercedes also makes cheaper cars whereas Ferrari only stays high end.
Comparing Apple's gross profits to Google's isn't a sound comparison because ultimately they don't run equivalent businesses. As the article points out, 90% of Apple's revenues come from mobile tech, whereas only 15% of Google's lives in mobile. Also of note, Apple is the soup-to-nuts owner of their tech. Sure, they pay for components from some parts manufacturers, but ultimately, all the profits on the sale of the phone AND the sales of their apps falls in their pockets. Google isn't a manufacturer, they only make the OS. When equivalent phones are sold (lets' say a $700 iPhone 5 vs. a $700 Samsung Galaxy S4 for arguments sake), Apple takes 100% of the margin in the sale of that phone, whereas Samsung takes the margin on the Galaxy S4 and only sends Google licensing fees. Also, Apple and Google both make 30% on app sales, however iTunes is the only option for buying an app on an iPhone, due to Apple's ecosystem being very curated by design. Android on the other hand has many alternate app store offerings, as manufacturers like Samsung and Amazon have their own stores and try to encourage (or in the case of the Kindle Fire force) users to buy apps from their app store so they take that cut of the profit. Some cheaper Android devices don't even have the Google Play store available on them. My point is, Apple takes much more profit from mobile than Google does, and anyone who understands the businesses would know that you can't just flatly compare the two companies like that. I guess that is why DED is a blog writer for Apple Insider and not a business analyst.
Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility was about the acquisition of patents, plain and simple. They weren't looking to enhance Google TV with Motorola's STB business, or stave off Motorola making Windows Phone devices. Google has no need to fear Windows Phone devices because the platform is no threat to them, it only accounts for 3% of all mobile sales. Google's hardware partners and Google themselves have been attacked in courts of late by many companies, including Apple, over patent issues, and they were trying to bolster their patent portfolio. The importance of patents in today's patent-troll era cannot be overvalued. Would Google have liked to see Motorola succeed more? Absolutely. But ultimately, Google isn't in the hardware business, they're in the services business. The Nexus lineup, the Google Play Experience device lineup, and the Moto X/G experiments were exactly that, experiments. They were never meant to bring in huge profits. Google also maintained Motorola's Advanced Research division when they sold Motorola Mobility to Lenovo, because there are some more experiments in the pipeline that Google is highly interested in, such as Project Ara. But don't be mistaken, ultimately, Google sells ads and uses that profit to try their hand at other things. They don't always succeed, as is obvious if you just look at their other offerings. For every Gmail and Google Maps, there are things like Google Buzz and Google Wave. Google can afford to lose money on projects like that because they have a sound business with their AdSense.
"Apple's clear successes with ads, Maps and Siri" has to be one of the most hilarious lines I've ever read in a tech blog. I can't speak to Apple's ads business, but the fact that Google still completely owns that business would lead me to think it's PC vs. Mac all over again, with Apple clinging to a tiny percentage and claiming they're a success. Apple Maps was a giant mess, and it forced Tim Cook to issue a messy public apology, which was a big black eye in his early tenure. They released it too early when it wasn't ready for prime time and many people I know refuse to try it again based on that early experience. Siri is gret, but it's a parlor trick. People loved it when they first got it, but the allure wore off quickly because it doesn't really serve a purpose. Sure, it can make a few things faster, that's without question. But ultimately, people don't want to speak to their phone to operate it in public spaces, which is where most people use their phones. Either Siri can't hear you clearly, or you have to shout and make a scene in order for your phone to hear you. Even when Siri does hear you, it's still limited in what it can do. I don't know many people that use it regularly. Most importantly, Siri can't be monetiszed. Apple doesn't make money from its use, so I don't see how even if it was widely adopted, it will really matter in the grand scheme of the business when it's only a software program that can be duplicated on other platforms.
Google DOES have an 80 percent share of the mobile market, and as I explained before the reason why Google doesn't have four times the mobile revenue as Apple does is because of the inequalities in how their respective businesses operate. You can't poo-poo the fact that Apple's market share is declining rapidly and their business has become largely uninnovative. Companies like Samsung have taken Apple's formula and improved upon it, while Apple has kept the same attitude of "we're the best, people buy us because we're Apple" and let their market share slip. It's the same stance Blackberry had for years and while I don't think Apple will allow themselves to fail in the way Blackberry did, it's not a good place to be.
"Apple also appears to be strategically investing in wearables, a space that has been dominated by iPods, iPhones and iPad for many years. " How are the iPod, iPhone, and iPad considered "wearables"?!? Maybe iPods can be strapped to an arm when you're jogging, but that's NOT what a wearable is. A wearable is something that is ALWAYS worn on a part of your body, not something that can be strapped on using an accessory case. The thought of someone "wearing" an iPad makes me giggle uncontrollably.
Ultimately, I recognize that this is an article on Apple Insider, but at least attempt to sound like you are knowledgeable and not some corporate shill telling grossly one-sided stories to make your point. And for the record, I have nothing against Apple or their products. I just have a problem with misleading articles that are based on incorrect information.
We've all stolen something, a pencil, gotten too much change back, or didn't get charged enough and didn't say anything, gotten to work late, or left early, etc, etc.. Ideas get stolen all the time, that's how we get music genres, and fashion trends. Standing up for principles isn't being on a high horse, acting as if you've never done anything wrong is.