Your points are all valid and I can see the larger retailers and restaurant chains using the "pay with app" approach. Personally, I would happily dispense with paper receipts because they are a nuisance however, there are still many retailers that require a physical proof of purchase when you want to return something.
The iPhone doesn't transmit anything when you're not pressing the button, so there's nothing for a snooper to snoop.
Second, the Apple system uses tokens, not the card number, so even if a snooper intercepts a transaction, all they'll get is a useless string of numbers that don't mean anything.
This is why the banks gave Apple a lower rate -- the fraud risk is REALLY low.
EDIT: Third, the sensitive bits are stored in a secure part of the phone that's not accessible to outsiders.
My wife just opined that the new, bigger, thinner iPhones would look even better with squared off edges rather than rounded. The screen glass could still curve to the edge the way it does now, but rather than the top, bottom and side following that radius, they could be flat. I think she's on to something!
Her opinion is actually based more on utility than looks, but I think it would look great, too. She notes that her rounded iPhone 3G constantly slipped out of her hand, whereas she doesn't have that problem with her squared-edge iPhone 4.
It is sad to see what has happened to Apple over the past 5 years or so. 5 years ago Apple dominated the smartphone market, and one could honestly say that the IPhone was a much better experience than other phones. Today Android has 85% of the market and probably offers a better overall experience (if you get a top of the line phone). Only a few years ago Apple was the tablet market,today they own less than 1\3 of that market, and again, a top of the line Android tablet offers a somewhat better experience.
These new IPhone are playing catch up with Android as opposed to leading the way as they once did. If Apple doesn't get on it we are soon going to all be using Android devices.
Oh, and by the way, I know people who have been using google wallet for a year, or is it longer than that,and it has always worked flawlessly. Now that more stores are putting in NFC capable terminals Wallet will become much more popular.
It is sad to see what has happened to Apple over the past 5 years or so. 5 years ago Apple dominated the smartphone market, and one could honestly say that the IPhone was a much better experience than other phones. Today Android has 85% of the market and probably offers a better overall experience (if you get a top of the line phone). Only a few years ago Apple was the tablet market,today they own less than 1\3 of that market, and again, a top of the line Android tablet offers a somewhat better experience.
Apple never "dominated the smartphone market" in terms of market share as calculated ("80%") by the Android-serving companies who count toy tablets and barely functional sub $200 phones. Apple has, however, long dominated the market in terms of profits.
Even Android fans don't dare to compare its experience to iOS. When you hear "best Android phone" it means something. That Android is in a class of its own: second. Android is a UI mess, on top of being a hardware/software mess and a security mess, and lacking top tier apps.
These new IPhone are playing catch up with Android as opposed to leading the way as they once did. If Apple doesn't get on it we are soon going to all be using Android devices.
Oh, and by the way, I know people who have been using google wallet for a year, or is it longer than that,and it has always worked flawlessly. Now that more stores are putting in NFC capable terminals Wallet will become much more popular.
Android's NFC has been a mess for three years. It still doesn't work, and requires more dicking around with PINs and apps than just using a credit card. That's why it never took off, despite your attempt to lie about it.
As far as "following" goes: Is Apple or Android following in design (metal case, chamfered edges, thin designs)? Which has no Bluetooth LE or support that doesn't work well at all? Which one tries to take pics as well as an iPhone but just fails?
Alternatively, which one tried LED trackballs, flip-out keyboards, multiple face buttons, 3D cameras, bent screens, NFC Bump, and a variety of other failed ideas that they abandoned in order to be more like what Apple was doing?
Everything you said is a phony lie. Would be really pathetic if Samsung weren't paying you to spread bullshit.
Taking the bate.. The term "Market share" is making people blind. "Loosing market share" in an expanding market is making people think it's equivalent to "loosing user base".
As the market matures, it's really quite remarkable tha Apple is still dominating it. It's impossible.
Starting a new market now. Let's see if try can keep dominating it for years to come until it matures.
Oh, and by the way, I know people who have been using google wallet for a year, or is it longer than that,and it has always worked flawlessly. Now that more stores are putting in NFC capable terminals Wallet will become much more popular.
From David Pogues' review of the iPhone 6:
"Two years ago, I sought out a 7-Eleven near my house because it had a contactless payment terminal on its cash register. I was testing Google Wallet, a feature of some Android phones that lets you pay for things without even pulling out your wallet; you could just hold the phone near that terminal thing. But it took a lot of steps, including tapping in a security code with every purchase. I recently visited the same 7-Eleven. You know what the guy told me? That the last person he remembered using his contactless terminal was me, two years ago. Almost nobody pays by phone-tapping in this country, probably because it’s slower and clunkier than just swiping your credit card."
Apple has, however, long dominated the market in terms of profits.
I've never understood that argument. How is that a benefit, or for that matter, even a consideration for me, the user? Don't Apple's enormous profits actually run contrary to the buyer's interests? As one who buys Apple products, it seems like I would be happier if Apple's profits were smaller, because then the price I pay would be lower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
Would be really pathetic if Samsung weren't paying you to spread bullshit.
You don't really, honestly, believe that, do you? The paid shill accusation is a tired and almost baseless meme (the single case of home-turf, i.e. Korean, students on one particular blog being the only demonstrable case of anything even resembling such action ever actually occurring).
I've never understood that argument. How is that a benefit, or for that matter, even a consideration for me, the user? Don't Apple's enormous profits actually run contrary to the buyer's interests? As one who buys Apple products, it seems like I would be happier if Apple's profits were smaller, because then the price I pay would be lower.
What? You don't see the benefit of Apple having all the $$ resources in the world in order to create the products they release? You don't see the added value of free software? Yes, paid for by the user, through the HW. I could make this a 12 page rant on why I think you're wrong on the topic, right down to the nucleus of it, but I won't.
Plus, not that this is something you have said, but just a question to our fellow readers here: are shareholders ok with the fact that Google X lab has investigated, no, asked themselves, if the user-safe jetpack was a good idea? I'm sure they put a dozen bozos in a boardroom having a one hour discussion on the topic. What would that have cost, $10k or something? Whatever the amount, the way Google can throw money at ideas coming from people with a single digit IQ is beyond me.
What? You don't see the benefit of Apple having all the $$ resources in the world in order to create the products they release?
Apparently that's NOT how they use all that money. We've all just assumed they do.
I'll try to find the report. It was very, very pro-Apple. It examined how the company in general and Tim Cook in particular control all the aspects affecting their success. The numbers showed that Apple actually spends less, a LOT less, on R&D than some people thought. That's part of why their NET margins are so good (not just the gross margins). As the author points out, since cost control is such a driving force in every other aspect of Apple's operations, one wonders why we ever thought R&D would be any different. They spend as little as they need to in order to achieve the goals they set. Money isn't what's driving innovation or product development.
So if you're saying that the reason for me to be happy about Apple's large profit margins is new and exciting products, I'll respond with "nope."
Plus, not that this is something you have said, but just a question to our fellow readers here: are shareholders ok with the fact that Google X lab has investigated, no, asked themselves, if the user-safe jetpack was a good idea? I'm sure they put a dozen bozos in a boardroom having a one hour discussion on the topic. What would that have cost, $10k or something? Whatever the amount, the way Google can throw money at ideas coming from people with a single digit IQ is beyond me.
Really? That's maybe the only thing I actually LIKE about Google. They're not afraid to fund the seemingly-absurd or the way out there. The MoonX project is one of my favourites.
Somebody has to finance the lunatics whose crazy ideas lead to unexpected revelations. Why NOT a wealthy company like Google?
Apple has, however, long dominated the market in terms of profits.
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz
I've never understood that argument. How is that a benefit, or for that matter, even a consideration for me, the user? Don't Apple's enormous profits actually run contrary to the buyer's interests? As one who buys Apple products, it seems like I would be happier if Apple's profits were smaller, because then the price I pay would be lower.
Apple's profitability is generally cited in response to claims that they're "losing" the marketshare race, which is further cited as an indication that users prefer competitors' products. Apple has always and will always have relatively low marketshare for any product with mass appeal. This is because adoption of such products by the masses, most of whom are poor, will eventually be driven by commoditized features, perpetual price cuts, & razor thin profit margins, and these are areas that Apple sees no benefit in competing in (rightfully so.)
One reason why their profitability is a benefit to their customers is the reassurance that they are a stable company and will continue to make their products for some time without compromises or shafting their customers. Apple makes their money by selling their products, unlike Google who gives their products away for "free" because their users are actually the product being sold.
Apple's profitability is what enables them to put the user experience first and to go out of their way NOT to collect and monetize their customers' personal data, unlike Google and Facebook.
Samsung, meanwhile, has been as successful as they've been by shamelessly copying competitors and undercutting them on price. But what's happened in the last year or so is that Chinese OEMs are now demonstrating they are much better at copying Apple than Samsung, and with a great deal more taste, while still undercutting Samsung's prices. The result is that Samsung's financials have been in the shitter for several quarters.
I've never understood that argument. How is that a benefit, or for that matter, even a consideration for me, the user? Don't Apple's enormous profits actually run contrary to the buyer's interests? As one who buys Apple products, it seems like I would be happier if Apple's profits were smaller, because then the price I pay would be lower.
I'm so glad you asked. Many Android fans are completely perplexed by the notion of profits. Surely if the software is pure socialism, shouldn't hardware be priced at a socialized rate every person can afford?
Except if you look at how well communism has worked in other areas, you'll eventually come to the realization that Google's promises of everything being free and there being no government walls is just as worthless as the promises of 1920s activists with a similar faith in that sort of ideology.
If you look at how functional economies work, it relates to profits and demand. That's how Google actually makes its money when its not lying to the ignorant fandroid classes. Google does a little work to create ad markets, and then charges advertisers much more than it actually costs to place those ads. Thats profit. Googles profits are massive, at least for ads. In hardware, Google can't sell anything. It tried to sell expensive phones and failed. It tried to mark up the price of tablets to be more expensive than the iPad in 2011. If you forgot, go back and read about Honeycomb.
?Only after Google failed back to back, year after year in expensive hardware failures did it haul out this fairytale about being all about giving people cheap stuff as a tech sugar daddy. Google is out to make money, not to provide you a cheap device to play free games on.
Everything you believe about Google is pure bullshit.
Apple also makes profits. But it makes profits by building unique products that nobody else can. Samsung has gotten close in hardware, but its software sucks donkey balls.
When you make money, you have capital left over to invest in component supplies, in new technology and in developing entirely new product categories. None of the tech losers (another term for Android licensees) is doing those sorts of things successfully. Apple is.
If Apple reduced its prices, it would make a minor difference in the number of devices it sells. It would make a major difference in Apple's future ability to develop products.
Your fantasy about Apple providing the proletariat with products at a socialized cost is purely nonsense. That's not how the world works. Google has clearly proven that being cheap hasn't advanced technology at all. All Google's cheapX Motorola has done is lost billions of dollars and laid off thousands of people.
You can advocate for Apple to lose lots of money and lay off people but that's not what the company is interested in doing. That's why it doesn't take advice from people who think Android is a great product and that everything should be Chinese cheap and/or stolen.
You don't really, honestly, believe that, do you? The paid shill accusation is a tired and almost baseless meme ...
You didn't grasp what I said. I wasn't making an "accusation" about being a paid shill, merely observing that unless you're being paid, you're really pathetic for posting such pure nonsense.
Except if you look at how well communism has worked [...]Everything you believe about Google is pure bullshit. [...] Your fantasy about Apple providing the proletariat with products at a socialized cost is purely nonsense.
(Lines and lines of similarly erroneous assumptions, irrelevant tangents, and plain ol' insults snipped for brevity.)
Holy shit, Daniel, that was the most patronizing, dismissive and insulting load of shit I've ever received. Do you talk to people like that in real life? How are you still alive? Most people I know would punch you in the face if you spoke to them like that. Not me, of course, but only because I have a sore elbow. Otherwise I probably would, too.
First, I don't give a shit what Google does.
Second, what Google does or doesn't do is utterly irrelevant to the question I asked.
Third, you don't know THING ONE about what I "believe about Google" and thus are in no position to tell me it's "bullshit."
Fourth, there's a WORLD of difference between arguing that Apple's high margins are NOT a benefit to customers and advocating for some kind of socialist altruism. Quit being such a fücking drama queen.
Fifth, other than making an ambiguous and unsupported claim that high profits result in better products (show me something that supports this. I already explained earlier in the thread why I don't believe that's accurate), you STILL haven't said why a BUYER should be pleased that Apple makes gobs of money. I didn't say they shouldn't, so don't go off on that tangent again. I asked specifically why you would present Apple's wealth as a benefit to its customers. I'm prepared to be enlightened, I just don't want another venomous spew of irrelevant rants about Google this and better dead than Red that.
Show me how Apple's mountain of money is good for ME when I walk into an Apple Store and I'll shut up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
You didn't grasp what I said. I wasn't making an "accusation" about being a paid shill, merely observing that unless you're being paid, you're really pathetic for posting such pure nonsense.
Gotcha. You're right, that makes a lot more sense! Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Apple's profitability is generally cited in response to claims that they're "losing" the marketshare race, which is further cited as an indication that users prefer competitors' products. Apple has always and will always have relatively low marketshare for any product with mass appeal. This is because adoption of such products by the masses, most of whom are poor, will eventually be driven by commoditized features, perpetual price cuts, & razor thin profit margins, and these are areas that Apple sees no benefit in competing in (rightfully so.)
I'll buy that. That doesn't speak directly to my particular question, which was how Apple's profits benefit me as a customer, but, stated like that (very well, thank you), it does explain why the profitability argument comes up in response to discussions of market share, which is what led to my question in the first place. Good point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
One reason why their profitability is a benefit to their customers is the reassurance that they are a stable company and will continue to make their products for some time without compromises or shafting their customers. Apple makes their money by selling their products, unlike Google who gives their products away for "free" because their users are actually the product being sold.
Apple's profitability is what enables them to put the user experience first and to go out of their way NOT to collect and monetize their customers' personal data, unlike Google and Facebook.
Fair enough. Now tell me how that would change if net margins were 20% instead of 30%? They'd still have twice as much money as every country in South America combined, but end-user prices would be 15% lower. The benefits of long-term health and privacy can be easily met, with room to spare, even at lower prices.
Obviously that's irrelevant, because Apple would have to be crazy to lower prices on products they can't build fast enough to meet demand. There may be benefit to Apple by reducing prices on some products, but that also is beside the point. What my question to Daniel was meant to suggest is that I wouldn't present Apple's tremendous profitability as being a direct benefit to consumers. Though now that I've read your first point I'm wondering if maybe that wasn't even what he meant. If it wasn't, I wish he'd been as eloquent in his explanation as you were, rather than going off on another tirade.
Apple's profitability is generally cited in response to claims that they're "losing" the marketshare race, which is further cited as an indication that users prefer competitors' products. Apple has always and will always have relatively low marketshare for any product with mass appeal. This is because adoption of such products by the masses, most of whom are poor, will eventually be driven by commoditized features, perpetual price cuts,
I'll buy that. That doesn't speak directly to my particular question, which was how Apple's profits benefit me as a customer, but, stated like that (very well, thank you), it does explain why the profitability argument comes up in response to discussions of market share, which is what led to my question in the first place. Good point.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">One reason why their profitability is a benefit to their customers is the reassurance that they are a stable company and will continue to make their products for some time without compromises or shafting their customers. Apple makes their money by selling their products, unlike Google who gives their products away for "free" because their users are actually the product being sold.</span>
Apple's profitability is what enables them to put the user experience first and to go out of their way NOT to collect and monetize their customers' personal data, unlike Google and Facebook.
Fair enough. Now tell me how that would change if net margins were 20% instead of 30%? They'd still have twice as much money as every country in South America combined, but end-user prices would be 15% lower. The benefits of long-term health and privacy can be easily met, with room to spare, even at lower prices.
Obviously that's irrelevant, because Apple would have to be crazy to lower prices on products they can't build fast enough to meet demand. There may be benefit to Apple by reducing prices on some products, but that also is beside the point. What my question to Daniel was meant to suggest is that I wouldn't present Apple's tremendous profitability as being a direct benefit to consumers. Though now that I've read your first point I'm wondering if maybe that wasn't even what he meant. If it wasn't, I wish he'd been as eloquent in his explanation as you were, rather than going off on another tirade.
It may seem as though Apple have more money than they need, but that money gives them lower interest rates and a better credit rating. Also, from a dividend perspective, they are still an infant company. When they've had ten solid years of steady dividend increases, then they will have built a reputation for consistency. I think that Microsoft still has a slightly better credit rating than them due to this.
It may seem as though Apple have more money than they need, but that money gives them lower interest rates and a better credit rating. Also, from a dividend perspective, they are still an infant company. When they've had ten solid years of steady dividend increases, then they will have built a reputation for consistency. I think that Microsoft still has a slightly better credit rating than them due to this.
My friend, Jeffery Schlbobnick, just came back from a shopping trip to the Apple Store. He looked at a MacBook Air and said to the salesperson, "Wow, a thousand bucks, that seems like a lotta dough for an entry-level machine..." The salesperson replied, "Well, Apple has an excellent credit rating." For some reason Jeffery didn't understand how that would benefit him, so he asked me.
Comments
Your points are all valid and I can see the larger retailers and restaurant chains using the "pay with app" approach. Personally, I would happily dispense with paper receipts because they are a nuisance however, there are still many retailers that require a physical proof of purchase when you want to return something.
you could just print one yourself!
Don't be a dick.
Link? Cause NFC 'typically requires a distance of 10 cm or less'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_field_communication
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/bank-accounts/10416659/Engineers-claim-to-prove-risks-of-contactless-bank-cards.html
That's bank cards, not the iPhone.
The iPhone doesn't transmit anything when you're not pressing the button, so there's nothing for a snooper to snoop.
Second, the Apple system uses tokens, not the card number, so even if a snooper intercepts a transaction, all they'll get is a useless string of numbers that don't mean anything.
This is why the banks gave Apple a lower rate -- the fraud risk is REALLY low.
EDIT: Third, the sensitive bits are stored in a secure part of the phone that's not accessible to outsiders.
My wife just opined that the new, bigger, thinner iPhones would look even better with squared off edges rather than rounded. The screen glass could still curve to the edge the way it does now, but rather than the top, bottom and side following that radius, they could be flat. I think she's on to something!
Her opinion is actually based more on utility than looks, but I think it would look great, too. She notes that her rounded iPhone 3G constantly slipped out of her hand, whereas she doesn't have that problem with her squared-edge iPhone 4.
These new IPhone are playing catch up with Android as opposed to leading the way as they once did. If Apple doesn't get on it we are soon going to all be using Android devices.
Oh, and by the way, I know people who have been using google wallet for a year, or is it longer than that,and it has always worked flawlessly. Now that more stores are putting in NFC capable terminals Wallet will become much more popular.
Blah blah blah.
Just shut up and go away, please. No one here cares what you say.
...it still is, they have 90% of the market, and you’re a complete imbecile if you think we’re going to believe this dreck.
Does it make you feel good at night to know that you’re whoring out your God-given free will to a corporation to lie for money? Bet you sleep well.
It is sad to see what has happened to Apple over the past 5 years or so. 5 years ago Apple dominated the smartphone market, and one could honestly say that the IPhone was a much better experience than other phones. Today Android has 85% of the market and probably offers a better overall experience (if you get a top of the line phone). Only a few years ago Apple was the tablet market,today they own less than 1\3 of that market, and again, a top of the line Android tablet offers a somewhat better experience.
Even Android fans don't dare to compare its experience to iOS. When you hear "best Android phone" it means something. That Android is in a class of its own: second. Android is a UI mess, on top of being a hardware/software mess and a security mess, and lacking top tier apps.
These new IPhone are playing catch up with Android as opposed to leading the way as they once did. If Apple doesn't get on it we are soon going to all be using Android devices.
Oh, and by the way, I know people who have been using google wallet for a year, or is it longer than that,and it has always worked flawlessly. Now that more stores are putting in NFC capable terminals Wallet will become much more popular.
As far as "following" goes: Is Apple or Android following in design (metal case, chamfered edges, thin designs)? Which has no Bluetooth LE or support that doesn't work well at all? Which one tries to take pics as well as an iPhone but just fails?
Alternatively, which one tried LED trackballs, flip-out keyboards, multiple face buttons, 3D cameras, bent screens, NFC Bump, and a variety of other failed ideas that they abandoned in order to be more like what Apple was doing?
Everything you said is a phony lie. Would be really pathetic if Samsung weren't paying you to spread bullshit.
As the market matures, it's really quite remarkable tha Apple is still dominating it. It's impossible.
Starting a new market now. Let's see if try can keep dominating it for years to come until it matures.
Oh, and by the way, I know people who have been using google wallet for a year, or is it longer than that,and it has always worked flawlessly. Now that more stores are putting in NFC capable terminals Wallet will become much more popular.
From David Pogues' review of the iPhone 6:
"Two years ago, I sought out a 7-Eleven near my house because it had a contactless payment terminal on its cash register. I was testing Google Wallet, a feature of some Android phones that lets you pay for things without even pulling out your wallet; you could just hold the phone near that terminal thing. But it took a lot of steps, including tapping in a security code with every purchase. I recently visited the same 7-Eleven. You know what the guy told me? That the last person he remembered using his contactless terminal was me, two years ago. Almost nobody pays by phone-tapping in this country, probably because it’s slower and clunkier than just swiping your credit card."
I've never understood that argument. How is that a benefit, or for that matter, even a consideration for me, the user? Don't Apple's enormous profits actually run contrary to the buyer's interests? As one who buys Apple products, it seems like I would be happier if Apple's profits were smaller, because then the price I pay would be lower.
You don't really, honestly, believe that, do you? The paid shill accusation is a tired and almost baseless meme (the single case of home-turf, i.e. Korean, students on one particular blog being the only demonstrable case of anything even resembling such action ever actually occurring).
He's wrong. Leave it at that.
What? You don't see the benefit of Apple having all the $$ resources in the world in order to create the products they release? You don't see the added value of free software? Yes, paid for by the user, through the HW. I could make this a 12 page rant on why I think you're wrong on the topic, right down to the nucleus of it, but I won't.
Plus, not that this is something you have said, but just a question to our fellow readers here: are shareholders ok with the fact that Google X lab has investigated, no, asked themselves, if the user-safe jetpack was a good idea? I'm sure they put a dozen bozos in a boardroom having a one hour discussion on the topic. What would that have cost, $10k or something? Whatever the amount, the way Google can throw money at ideas coming from people with a single digit IQ is beyond me.
The paid shill accusation is a tired and almost baseless meme...
Nah.
What? You don't see the benefit of Apple having all the $$ resources in the world in order to create the products they release?
Apparently that's NOT how they use all that money. We've all just assumed they do.
I'll try to find the report. It was very, very pro-Apple. It examined how the company in general and Tim Cook in particular control all the aspects affecting their success. The numbers showed that Apple actually spends less, a LOT less, on R&D than some people thought. That's part of why their NET margins are so good (not just the gross margins). As the author points out, since cost control is such a driving force in every other aspect of Apple's operations, one wonders why we ever thought R&D would be any different. They spend as little as they need to in order to achieve the goals they set. Money isn't what's driving innovation or product development.
So if you're saying that the reason for me to be happy about Apple's large profit margins is new and exciting products, I'll respond with "nope."
What else ya got?
Plus, not that this is something you have said, but just a question to our fellow readers here: are shareholders ok with the fact that Google X lab has investigated, no, asked themselves, if the user-safe jetpack was a good idea? I'm sure they put a dozen bozos in a boardroom having a one hour discussion on the topic. What would that have cost, $10k or something? Whatever the amount, the way Google can throw money at ideas coming from people with a single digit IQ is beyond me.
Really? That's maybe the only thing I actually LIKE about Google. They're not afraid to fund the seemingly-absurd or the way out there. The MoonX project is one of my favourites.
Somebody has to finance the lunatics whose crazy ideas lead to unexpected revelations. Why NOT a wealthy company like Google?
There's more to life than money.
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz
I've never understood that argument. How is that a benefit, or for that matter, even a consideration for me, the user? Don't Apple's enormous profits actually run contrary to the buyer's interests? As one who buys Apple products, it seems like I would be happier if Apple's profits were smaller, because then the price I pay would be lower.
Apple's profitability is generally cited in response to claims that they're "losing" the marketshare race, which is further cited as an indication that users prefer competitors' products. Apple has always and will always have relatively low marketshare for any product with mass appeal. This is because adoption of such products by the masses, most of whom are poor, will eventually be driven by commoditized features, perpetual price cuts, & razor thin profit margins, and these are areas that Apple sees no benefit in competing in (rightfully so.)
One reason why their profitability is a benefit to their customers is the reassurance that they are a stable company and will continue to make their products for some time without compromises or shafting their customers. Apple makes their money by selling their products, unlike Google who gives their products away for "free" because their users are actually the product being sold.
Apple's profitability is what enables them to put the user experience first and to go out of their way NOT to collect and monetize their customers' personal data, unlike Google and Facebook.
Samsung, meanwhile, has been as successful as they've been by shamelessly copying competitors and undercutting them on price. But what's happened in the last year or so is that Chinese OEMs are now demonstrating they are much better at copying Apple than Samsung, and with a great deal more taste, while still undercutting Samsung's prices. The result is that Samsung's financials have been in the shitter for several quarters.
There, was that helpful for you?
I've never understood that argument. How is that a benefit, or for that matter, even a consideration for me, the user? Don't Apple's enormous profits actually run contrary to the buyer's interests? As one who buys Apple products, it seems like I would be happier if Apple's profits were smaller, because then the price I pay would be lower.
I'm so glad you asked. Many Android fans are completely perplexed by the notion of profits. Surely if the software is pure socialism, shouldn't hardware be priced at a socialized rate every person can afford?
Except if you look at how well communism has worked in other areas, you'll eventually come to the realization that Google's promises of everything being free and there being no government walls is just as worthless as the promises of 1920s activists with a similar faith in that sort of ideology.
If you look at how functional economies work, it relates to profits and demand. That's how Google actually makes its money when its not lying to the ignorant fandroid classes. Google does a little work to create ad markets, and then charges advertisers much more than it actually costs to place those ads. Thats profit. Googles profits are massive, at least for ads. In hardware, Google can't sell anything. It tried to sell expensive phones and failed. It tried to mark up the price of tablets to be more expensive than the iPad in 2011. If you forgot, go back and read about Honeycomb.
?Only after Google failed back to back, year after year in expensive hardware failures did it haul out this fairytale about being all about giving people cheap stuff as a tech sugar daddy. Google is out to make money, not to provide you a cheap device to play free games on.
Everything you believe about Google is pure bullshit.
Apple also makes profits. But it makes profits by building unique products that nobody else can. Samsung has gotten close in hardware, but its software sucks donkey balls.
When you make money, you have capital left over to invest in component supplies, in new technology and in developing entirely new product categories. None of the tech losers (another term for Android licensees) is doing those sorts of things successfully. Apple is.
If Apple reduced its prices, it would make a minor difference in the number of devices it sells. It would make a major difference in Apple's future ability to develop products.
Your fantasy about Apple providing the proletariat with products at a socialized cost is purely nonsense. That's not how the world works. Google has clearly proven that being cheap hasn't advanced technology at all. All Google's cheapX Motorola has done is lost billions of dollars and laid off thousands of people.
You can advocate for Apple to lose lots of money and lay off people but that's not what the company is interested in doing. That's why it doesn't take advice from people who think Android is a great product and that everything should be Chinese cheap and/or stolen.
You don't really, honestly, believe that, do you? The paid shill accusation is a tired and almost baseless meme ...
You didn't grasp what I said. I wasn't making an "accusation" about being a paid shill, merely observing that unless you're being paid, you're really pathetic for posting such pure nonsense.
Except if you look at how well communism has worked [...] Everything you believe about Google is pure bullshit. [...] Your fantasy about Apple providing the proletariat with products at a socialized cost is purely nonsense.
(Lines and lines of similarly erroneous assumptions, irrelevant tangents, and plain ol' insults snipped for brevity.)
Holy shit, Daniel, that was the most patronizing, dismissive and insulting load of shit I've ever received. Do you talk to people like that in real life? How are you still alive? Most people I know would punch you in the face if you spoke to them like that. Not me, of course, but only because I have a sore elbow. Otherwise I probably would, too.
First, I don't give a shit what Google does.
Second, what Google does or doesn't do is utterly irrelevant to the question I asked.
Third, you don't know THING ONE about what I "believe about Google" and thus are in no position to tell me it's "bullshit."
Fourth, there's a WORLD of difference between arguing that Apple's high margins are NOT a benefit to customers and advocating for some kind of socialist altruism. Quit being such a fücking drama queen.
Fifth, other than making an ambiguous and unsupported claim that high profits result in better products (show me something that supports this. I already explained earlier in the thread why I don't believe that's accurate), you STILL haven't said why a BUYER should be pleased that Apple makes gobs of money. I didn't say they shouldn't, so don't go off on that tangent again. I asked specifically why you would present Apple's wealth as a benefit to its customers. I'm prepared to be enlightened, I just don't want another venomous spew of irrelevant rants about Google this and better dead than Red that.
Show me how Apple's mountain of money is good for ME when I walk into an Apple Store and I'll shut up.
You didn't grasp what I said. I wasn't making an "accusation" about being a paid shill, merely observing that unless you're being paid, you're really pathetic for posting such pure nonsense.
Gotcha. You're right, that makes a lot more sense! Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Apple's profitability is generally cited in response to claims that they're "losing" the marketshare race, which is further cited as an indication that users prefer competitors' products. Apple has always and will always have relatively low marketshare for any product with mass appeal. This is because adoption of such products by the masses, most of whom are poor, will eventually be driven by commoditized features, perpetual price cuts, & razor thin profit margins, and these are areas that Apple sees no benefit in competing in (rightfully so.)
I'll buy that. That doesn't speak directly to my particular question, which was how Apple's profits benefit me as a customer, but, stated like that (very well, thank you), it does explain why the profitability argument comes up in response to discussions of market share, which is what led to my question in the first place. Good point.
One reason why their profitability is a benefit to their customers is the reassurance that they are a stable company and will continue to make their products for some time without compromises or shafting their customers. Apple makes their money by selling their products, unlike Google who gives their products away for "free" because their users are actually the product being sold.
Apple's profitability is what enables them to put the user experience first and to go out of their way NOT to collect and monetize their customers' personal data, unlike Google and Facebook.
Fair enough. Now tell me how that would change if net margins were 20% instead of 30%? They'd still have twice as much money as every country in South America combined, but end-user prices would be 15% lower. The benefits of long-term health and privacy can be easily met, with room to spare, even at lower prices.
Obviously that's irrelevant, because Apple would have to be crazy to lower prices on products they can't build fast enough to meet demand. There may be benefit to Apple by reducing prices on some products, but that also is beside the point. What my question to Daniel was meant to suggest is that I wouldn't present Apple's tremendous profitability as being a direct benefit to consumers. Though now that I've read your first point I'm wondering if maybe that wasn't even what he meant. If it wasn't, I wish he'd been as eloquent in his explanation as you were, rather than going off on another tirade.
It may seem as though Apple have more money than they need, but that money gives them lower interest rates and a better credit rating. Also, from a dividend perspective, they are still an infant company. When they've had ten solid years of steady dividend increases, then they will have built a reputation for consistency. I think that Microsoft still has a slightly better credit rating than them due to this.
It may seem as though Apple have more money than they need, but that money gives them lower interest rates and a better credit rating. Also, from a dividend perspective, they are still an infant company. When they've had ten solid years of steady dividend increases, then they will have built a reputation for consistency. I think that Microsoft still has a slightly better credit rating than them due to this.
My friend, Jeffery Schlbobnick, just came back from a shopping trip to the Apple Store. He looked at a MacBook Air and said to the salesperson, "Wow, a thousand bucks, that seems like a lotta dough for an entry-level machine..." The salesperson replied, "Well, Apple has an excellent credit rating." For some reason Jeffery didn't understand how that would benefit him, so he asked me.
I told him to ask you.
(Just kidding around!
)