Apple really needs to start partnering with Amazon and really start exploiting their hardware expertise, and Amazon web services expertise. Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos can take over the world if they would just work together on it. Have Amazon take over all of Apple's iCloud services since they don't work, and have Apple and Amazon work together on VR technology so a consumer could use a 3D camera and VR to try on virtual clothes in front of their iPad, iPhone, Apple TV, or MacBook. Imagine how many clothes Amazon would sale if consumers could try them on virtually first, and then have them delivered to their doorstep in 24 hours. Apple could develop the VR technology and GPU and 3D camera technology to do this, and integrate this technology into their 'A' chips which could be used in iPhone's, iPad's, Apple TV's and Amazon Alexa devices. Imagine if Apple and Amazon worked together on iBooks and developed a low cost iPad for high school and college students, they could easily replace Google's chrome books. Amazon controls all of the web services, and Apple makes the devices. Apple can surely create a cheaper version of the iPad that is cheaper and better then a chrome book! Later on both companies capitalize on these students when they become adults and continue to consume Apple and Amazon products. Imagine autonomous CAT4 car technology developed by Apple, and controlled through Amazon web services. Imagine an Apple TV with superior GPU technology that can be used to replace Sony Playstation and Xbox along with control your home through Apple's HomeKit technology. Apple has the hardware talent to do all of this, all they need to do is exploit it properly with the proper web services which they have not, and seemingly can't do on their own. iCloud continues to be a prime example of how not to do web services on a grand scale. Apple needs to do with Pages what Google has done with Google Docs, and do it with reliable web services that only Amazon possess.
I think Apple is currently using both Google and Amazon for its iCloud services with the latter being the primary one!
Is this just a reprint from an article one year ago? Or two years ago?
It could be, with some updates. The point is that nothing has changed in the media's narrative about Apple, while the evidence continues to mount that when Apple enters a product category it soon dominates. The media may not get it, but the consumer does.
All in All Apple just executes their products at a higher product level than most every other company.
The one item I disagree with is SIRI. Apple was atleast two years ahead of everyone else when it was released. Now it feels much behind the Echo/Alexa which is the first product since the iPad that has delighted me. Hopefully Apple has been doing a lot and will preview or release an incredible product come WWDC. There could be lots of announcements (hopefully) at WWDC.
Is this just a reprint from an article one year ago? Or two years ago?
It could be, with some updates. The point is that nothing has changed in the media's narrative about Apple, while the evidence continues to mount that when Apple enters a product category it soon dominates. The media may not get it, but the consumer does.
All in All Apple just executes their products at a higher product level than most every other company.
The one item I disagree with is SIRI. Apple was atleast two years ahead of everyone else when it was released. Now it feels much behind the Echo/Alexa which is the first product since the iPad that has delighted me. Hopefully Apple has been doing a lot and will preview or release an incredible product come WWDC. There could be lots of announcements (hopefully) at WWDC.
Amazon has made amazing strides with their Echo products and Alexa in such a short time. I can post to at least a half-dozen things Amazon got right, that no one else did with their digital personal assistance, but just pointing to how their mindshare has grown that you can here Siri talked about as much as Alexa. Even SNL had a skit about the Echo/Alexa last night, not about Siri.
As for having a 2 year head start, I'm not so sure about that. Remember that Apple had to buy the Siri app and its IP. They were still licensing Nuance. That means that the original creators of Siri were ahead of Apple, and Nuance was ahead of all them. Then you have SRI International going back to the 1970s. All that of that shows that the foundation for this tech was out there, and that Apple didn't own the rights or invent the most fundamental aspects. Then considered what Google had researched, tested and then shelved for many years before Apple released Siri. It's why Google Now was able to get off the ground so quickly after Siri's debut. It started with Google Labs' Google Voice Search. They created GOOG-411, and it was able to record and analyze a great amount of user input. Google really should've been well ahead of everyone, but they dropped the ball.
But has Apple really that far behind today? Sure, they're losing mindshare to Amazon, who has done a remarkable job in establishing itself in just two years in a way no one saw coming (very Apple-y), but is Apple out of the running and is Siri really a bad service? I've asked this question many times, but I can't seem to get a single straight answer. How do you test whether Siri has become smarter over the years? How many commands has it grown? What complexity of conversation has it increased? Without that data I can't say whether Siri is either ahead of behind, all I know is that Alexa works better, but that's because of the HW, which is expected when you have a large cylinder with the volume of about 20 iPhones that is mostly just mics and a speaker used as a dedicated appliance. Amazon also lets me know new commands and 3rd-party apps to try on a weekly basis, which I likely wouldn't know about if not for their weekly email. They also let you see every query they've made, report on it, as well as search back for old queries if, say, you inquired about some trivia which you've now forgotten except for the memory of having asked.
These are very user friendly features that I think should be part of the Siri service, and yet don't speak to the accuracy of Siri service or intelligence of the machine learning. Whatever the future may hold, it's still anyone's game.
It's an error for technology companies to build a series of me-too products simply to exist in a category. This is a puppet show to please shareholders.
Apple have already tried this approach in its earlier days and it was a mistake. All that it does is teach consumers that the company will release any old garbage and slap their logo on it, i.e. trashing the brand for short term cash. Google are repeating this same mistake and their quarterly results prove that this has not led to revenue diversification. (Also proves that splitting the company into "Alphabet" subsidiaries hasn't had the intended effect of diluting these mistakes.)
Pundits need to understand that consumers aren't dummies, a company must meaningfully commit to the products and services they create. Tech companies must have an idea and work to bring that idea to market using technology, the technology is secondary to the idea, not the other way around. So many products today are simply idea-less run outs of the "latest" technologies, arbitrary in function with the hope that consumers will find a use for it. Amazon are particularly bad here, simply inventing products that are designed to build their information and advertising profiles. I'm not parting with my money on scattergun products or adware in order to make the decisions for these businesses, instead I want them to sell me a vision through their products. Apple succeeds here, it's why people stick around even if the specific product they are purchasing doesn't have the absolute best specifications in every single metric out there - instead it will have the best specifications in the metrics that matter (many of which aren't easily measured by numbers or tick boxes.)
At the end of the day this knowledge is demonstrated by sales numbers, the amount of press that these devices receive is disproportionately high to their minimal sales. The people who keep reporting on them are unsurprisingly recipients of advertising spend from the companies which have created these products. They are advertorials baked into click-bait Apple-doom news stories.
Is this just a reprint from an article one year ago? Or two years ago?
It could be, with some updates. The point is that nothing has changed in the media's narrative about Apple, while the evidence continues to mount that when Apple enters a product category it soon dominates. The media may not get it, but the consumer does.
All in All Apple just executes their products at a higher product level than most every other company.
The one item I disagree with is SIRI. Apple was atleast two years ahead of everyone else when it was released. Now it feels much behind the Echo/Alexa which is the first product since the iPad that has delighted me. Hopefully Apple has been doing a lot and will preview or release an incredible product come WWDC. There could be lots of announcements (hopefully) at WWDC.
Amazon has made amazing strides with their Echo products and Alexa in such a short time. I can post to at least a half-dozen things Amazon got right, that no one else did with their digital personal assistance, but just pointing to how their mindshare has grown that you can here Siri talked about as much as Alexa. Even SNL had a skit about the Echo/Alexa last night, not about Siri.
As for having a 2 year head start, I'm not so sure about that. Remember that Apple had to buy the Siri app and its IP. They were still licensing Nuance. That means that the original creators of Siri were ahead of Apple, and Nuance was ahead of all them. Then you have SRI International going back to the 1970s. All that of that shows that the foundation for this tech was out there, and that Apple didn't own the rights or invent the most fundamental aspects. Then considered what Google had researched, tested and then shelved for many years before Apple released Siri. It's why Google Now was able to get off the ground so quickly after Siri's debut. It started with Google Labs' Google Voice Search. They created GOOG-411, and it was able to record and analyze a great amount of user input. Google really should've been well ahead of everyone, but they dropped the ball.
But has Apple really that far behind today? Sure, they're losing mindshare to Amazon, who has done a remarkable job in establishing itself in just two years in a way no one saw coming (very Apple-y), but is Apple out of the running and is Siri really a bad service? I've asked this question many times, but I can't seem to get a single straight answer. How do you test whether Siri has become smarter over the years? How many commands has it grown? What complexity of conversation has it increased? Without that data I can't say whether Siri is either ahead of behind, all I know is that Alexa works better, but that's because of the HW, which is expected when you have a large cylinder with the volume of about 20 iPhones that is mostly just mics and a speaker used as a dedicated appliance. Amazon also lets me know new commands and 3rd-party apps to try on a weekly basis, which I likely wouldn't know about if not for their weekly email. They also let you see every query they've made, report on it, as well as search back for old queries if, say, you inquired about some trivia which you've now forgotten except for the memory of having asked.
These are very user friendly features that I think should be part of the Siri service, and yet don't speak to the accuracy of Siri service or intelligence of the machine learning. Whatever the future may hold, it's still anyone's game.
Google seems to have good ideas and good services but doesn't always put things together as well as Apple. That's just my personal opinion. (How many messaging clients do they have now?)
Apple really needs to go high end and not skimp on the hardware wrt microphones for the SIRI speaker. It has to understand people as well as Amazon. It goes without saying that it will be expensive. If it has very good speakers like SONOS that's even better. Hopefully everything Amazon does and everything SONOS does all together.
Is this just a reprint from an article one year ago? Or two years ago?
It could be, with some updates. The point is that nothing has changed in the media's narrative about Apple, while the evidence continues to mount that when Apple enters a product category it soon dominates. The media may not get it, but the consumer does.
All in All Apple just executes their products at a higher product level than most every other company.
The one item I disagree with is SIRI. Apple was atleast two years ahead of everyone else when it was released. Now it feels much behind the Echo/Alexa which is the first product since the iPad that has delighted me. Hopefully Apple has been doing a lot and will preview or release an incredible product come WWDC. There could be lots of announcements (hopefully) at WWDC.
Are Apple really behind here. Clearly yes from a user facing raw function point of view. Dig a little deeper and Apple seems to have built better ground work. They have clearly invested more time in privacy and how to build out the system with appropriate access to customers data. They have spent more time on international language support. I think in all that they have set themselves to not only expand further than the competitors and maybe even faster.
Yes this WWDC should be fun to watch, as there seem to be a few things almost there for a couple of years now and it seems like the file system could well be the missing link to make them fly.
Is this just a reprint from an article one year ago? Or two years ago?
It could be, with some updates. The point is that nothing has changed in the media's narrative about Apple, while the evidence continues to mount that when Apple enters a product category it soon dominates. The media may not get it, but the consumer does.
All in All Apple just executes their products at a higher product level than most every other company.
The one item I disagree with is SIRI. Apple was atleast two years ahead of everyone else when it was released. Now it feels much behind the Echo/Alexa which is the first product since the iPad that has delighted me. Hopefully Apple has been doing a lot and will preview or release an incredible product come WWDC. There could be lots of announcements (hopefully) at WWDC.
Dig a little deeper and Apple seems to have built better ground work. They have clearly invested more time in privacy and how to build out the system with appropriate access to customers data. They have spent more time on international language support. I think in all that they have set themselves to not only expand further than the competitors and maybe even faster.
This x1000.
Just look at storage as one small example. Do iPhones really need super fast NVMe storage? Inline hardware encryption? A brand-new file system that's more suited to a high-end workstation? The majority of consumers don't know the inner workings of their devices, and Apple certainly doesn't mention any of the above in their marketing. Yet they have invested considerable R&D in the above technologies. This can't be for checking email or using Facebook. Clearly they have long-term goals where having a pocket sized super-computer is going to be required.
You can also add high-performance custom 64bit processors and soon custom GPUs to this as well. Contrast this with Android, where there aren't any Apps that can even utilize those massive 8 core processors, whose only benefit seems to be to convince simple people that more cores = better. On the Android side it's a marketing gimmick. On the iOS side it's to run the next generation of Apps and features.
You do not understand the use of tl;dr, it is meant to be added by the author of an article in order to summarise the main point in a short sentence. It is not meant to be used by a commenter to indicate that they did not read the article, that is just stupid.
The most innovative product I've seen in the last year wasn't an Apple product, it was the Tesla Solar Roof.
That said, Apple has nothing to worry about profit wise. The new regulations banning laptops & tablet on airline flights are going to drive business travelers into larger more expensive phones. (In an attempt to get work done on the plane)
For regular Joes, the Apple Watch may be getting their killer apps in monitoring glucose levels for diabetics and identifying heart disease in watch wearers.
The next step is integrating the cellular modem in the watch. Who knows if heart attacks can be predicted before they happen, but sending out automatic emergency response requests when they do, would be a Killer App.
The Tesla solar roof is nothing innovative or new, it is just an improvement over "old" products. Similar to what Apple often does...improving older products up to a point where these products become mainstream or a real want-/must have products.
Yes, a wearable device like the Apple Watch capable of accurately measuring blood glucose levels without the need to draw blood would be a real breakthrough and innovation. I do not think that current wearable tech could predict heart attacks, this will take at least another decade of tech development but I could imagine some sort of heart sensor tech which detects some anomalies like extrasystoles or whatever. Maybe even some tech which could deliver a basic ECG. Future applications for such tech are endless once the sensor tech has been developed.
Future is cloud services, that's where the money is, not in hardware, any Tom dick and harry can make a phone. That's why the pc market is suffering and will continue to do so as margins are minimal.
He never said there was no money to be made in services. Of course there is, and Apple is doing a great job at it.
Your original point is that phones are becoming a commodity and Apple will get out of the market because you can get a $200 phone that does the same job as their flagship $800 phone.
Well, maybe in the future, but not today.
1) you need hardware to run services
2) Apple's strength has never been hardware or software alone, but how delivering both allows perfect integration within the two
3) All leading companies introduce flagship phones in the same $800 price range: Samsung, LG, Sony. What you're saying is that BMW should have gotten out of the business of making cars because Hyundai makes much cheaper cars with similar features.
if a company does manage to come up with a way to make an add-on without paying you, then they too are absolutely entitled to do so. This is why you can make alternative refills for your printer and HP cannot take you to court.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your broader point, but printer cartridge manufacturers would very much like to take alternative suppliers to court, and have been trying to for a long time.
The issue long-term for Apple is will people pay a premium for a phone in years to come when a £200 phone will do everything they need and more?
IBM used to sell expensive PCs with massive cost to profit ratio, but once competition had caught up and started to out innovate them, their profits started to fall down a cliff. Blackberry suffered the same fate. What's different this time is Apple has monopoly on its app store, and this is why Apple will turn into a services company. However regulators may see this as anti competitive and allow likes of e.g Amazon to setup its own Apple app store. Wouldn't that be good for consumers!
Hey, maybe "regulators" will also let KMart call themselves Target or Walmart, or let them somehow set up "Walmart" stores. Sounds like a fantastic idea to compete against the "monopoly" that Walmart has to supply its own stores as they see fit!
IBM competed with other Windows OEMs in a race to the bottom. They are now Apple fans and use Apple products internally, and offer full OS X and iOS solutions to their clients.
Blackberry was a one-trick pony that didn't know squat about software. Apple can do both hardware and software well -- and apply their abilities in integration to new industries, like, um phones. Apple didn't have to buy a Nokia or a Motorola to enter and do, um, rather well, in the phone market. The buyers of Nokia and Motorola spent billions to find out they couldn't do well in the phone market. And their offerings did "everything they need and more for 200". The "premium" on Apple is about the integration of hardware and software, all the way down to custom and optimised silicon.
Despite the customization of parts (unlike the commoditisation of off-the-shelf parts that OEMs are forced to partake in because they are in a race to the bottom for survival), Apple remains profitable, and can continue to do so, because, among other things, it is careful about its products -- a simple product line that has 2 year cycles during which a model completely pays for its own fixed costs and development. The longer that a single model remains in production and use, like the iPhone 4S, the more profitable it becomes, even as its price drops.
Contrast this with portfolio companies like Samsung who throw everything at the wall to see what sticks, and try a few new things every six months. Their ASP is all over the place, and profit, if any, is short-lived. Samsung et al are shooting themselves in the foot. Samsung may sell more units overall, but how many Samsung models does it take to sell the same number of units as any one iPhone model?
The focus and strategic planning at Apple is unprecedented. Apple is patient and lays foundations for market changes years in advance.
The issue long-term for Apple is will people pay a premium for a phone in years to come when a £200 phone will do everything they need and more?
IBM used to sell expensive PCs with massive cost to profit ratio, but once competition had caught up and started to out innovate them, their profits started to fall down a cliff. Blackberry suffered the same fate. What's different this time is Apple has monopoly on its app store, and this is why Apple will turn into a services company. However regulators may see this as anti competitive and allow likes of e.g Amazon to setup its own Apple app store. Wouldn't that be good for consumers!
Hey, maybe "regulators" will also let KMart call themselves Target or Walmart, or let them somehow set up "Walmart" stores. Sounds like a fantastic idea to compete against the "monopoly" that Walmart has to supply its own stores as they see fit!
IBM competed with other Windows OEMs in a race to the bottom. They are now Apple fans and use Apple products internally, and offer full OS X and iOS solutions to their clients.
Blackberry was a one-trick pony that didn't know squat about software. Apple can do both hardware and software well -- and apply their abilities in integration to new industries, like, um phones. Apple didn't have to buy a Nokia or a Motorola to enter and do, um, rather well, in the phone market. The buyers of Nokia and Motorola spent billions to find out they couldn't do well in the phone market. And their offerings did "everything they need and more for 200". The "premium" on Apple is about the integration of hardware and software, all the way down to custom and optimised silicon.
Despite the customization of parts (unlike the commoditisation of off-the-shelf parts that OEMs are forced to partake in because they are in a race to the bottom for survival), Apple remains profitable, and can continue to do so, because, among other things, it is careful about its products -- a simple product line that has 2 year cycles during which a model completely pays for its own fixed costs and development. The longer that a single model remains in production and use, like the iPhone 4S, the more profitable it becomes, even as its price drops.
Contrast this with portfolio companies like Samsung who throw everything at the wall to see what sticks, and try a few new things every six months. Their ASP is all over the place, and profit, if any, is short-lived. Samsung et al are shooting themselves in the foot. Samsung may sell more units overall, but how many Samsung models does it take to sell the same number of units as any one iPhone model?
The focus and strategic planning at Apple is unprecedented. Apple is patient and lays foundations for market changes years in advance.
The whole industry summed up in six paragraphs. Nicely done.
Now if Walmart forced the consumer to only buy Cheerios from its stores, it has a Monopoly on that product.
Monopoly means: "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service"
Apple has sole control over everything it sells to Apple devices. That can be seen as anti competitive when a company has too much power, like Apple, bad for consumers, and for companies like Spotify etc.
No streaming service can compete with Apples, because Apple can price theirs better than everyone else who sells competing products, plus they take a cut of competing products revenue too as it has to be sold through app store, not fair.
Hope that educates you.
Glad you used Wal-mart as a comparison. I always wondered this: So Walmart (or any other store/grocer) can sell Cherrios in its store and charge them for shelf space. Then, right along side Cherrios, they can sell their own Walmart-O's at a much lower price. Is this anti-competitive? Kind of feel App Store is the same. Apple charges you for shelf space in the App Store and right along side offers there own similar services to what you offer (Spotify, Apple Music). Seems there are very similar parrallels but I don't ever hear people or companies complaining about this. I could be way off though, not as smart as most here....
"Now if Walmart forced the consumer to only buy Cheerios from its stores, it has a Monopoly on that product."
No, it simply does NOT. You can buy Cheerios from any other of millions of stores around the world. And you can go elsewhere to buy the non-Cheerios cereal rings that Walmart doesn't stock.
I'm pretty sure Walmart can refuse to carry Cheerios. And General Mills can refuse to supply Walmart with Cheerios. After all, does every store carry every brand of everything? As long as that refusal isn't a bargaining chip in getting the other to do something regarding their own competitor...
The danger that someone in a position to abuse Monopolistic power poses, is generally business to business in the first instance; that's why it is called "anti-competive".
The danger in a Cheerio scenario would be: a) Like Microsoft's issues with Windows, and potentially Google's issue with Android, General Mills would refuse to supply Walmart with Cheerios, unless Walmart agreed to certain placement and stopped stocking Kellog's rings. b) Walmart would stop carrying Cheerios, unless General Mills gave it an exclusive and stopped supplying them to Walmart's competitors down the street.
But once we are talking about Cheerios in the Walmart, then it is between General Mills and Walmart to agree terms : what does General Mills charge Walmart? What markup does Walmart place on it (30%?); does General Mills consider Cheerios a desirable, premium product that needs some better placement than other brands of cereal rings, etc. Can Walmart run specials? And if so, does General Mills lower its price to Walmart, or doe Walmart take a loss on that product in order to get people in the store to buy other things?
Again, once the product is actually in the store, other "reasonable" stipulations may be agreed -- Walmart may say, please don't advertise right on the cereal box that consumers should run out to the road next to our parking lot to buy your product from your pop-up outlet truck, so that consumers can avoid our 30% markup for keeping the lights on, keeping the atmosphere in the store tolerable, and providing staff who smile. You can sell it in your truck, but please don't encourage people to do that right on the cereal boxes you supply us with. And if you also supply to our next door-neighbour competitor, and let them sell for less than your RRP, then we would like to be able to sell it for less while retaining our 30% for stocking it in our store.
As a macgeek I had to suffer the ignominy of buying a Windows 10 laptop last week as the misnamed MacBook "Pro" was not very 'high end' for my VR requirements. Apple really is missing out on a new wave of users - university students needing to do tech projects. Ironically I have a software box on my shelf entitled QuicktIme Virtual Reality QTVR by Apple. ..20 years old. Why did Apple drop this? C'mom Sir Jony Ive - a real Pro laptop for WWDC 2017 next month. Please!
lol @ Google Maps falling behind. Google Maps is still by far the most used mapping service worldwide. It has hardly fallen behind and is still more accurate than Apple Maps.
I wouldn't put Google Maps in the same category of failure as Palm, Nokia and BlackBerry, but this minor detail was easily redeemed by the hilarious Kerrigan/Harding analogy. I feel like I've been looking for this analogy for years.
And for the record, Spotify is actually doing better lately, with strong subscriber growth and more favorable deals with record labels, so it's looking like they will be fine for the foreseeable future.
Exactly, I have literally no idea where they came up with the idea that Google Maps is a failure when it's by far the most used mapping service worldwide. Just because maybe on the iPhone people just use the default Maps app, doesn't make Google Maps a failure by any means.
I've asked this question many times, but I can't seem to get a single straight answer. How do you test whether Siri has become smarter over the years? How many commands has it grown? What complexity of conversation has it increased? Without that data I can't say whether Siri is either ahead of behind, all I know is that Alexa works better
Smarter? None of the personal assistants are actually "smart". You're substituting a voice command for a typed search or a click/touch command. That's it. The more familiar you are with how voice commands typically work, the better the experience. It's not really that different from learning keyboard/mouse/touch software. Typically a big part of the learning curve is just being familiar with what commands can be selected and where they reside in the menu system. Same with voice. You have to learn what commands are available. You have to learn certain types of approaches in giving those commands that work better. It's just early days for voice commands, so finding "gaps" in one system vs. the other isn't that hard. With time, that will disappear. The idea that it represents some sort of big competitive gulf doesn't really make much sense.
Just ask yourself this. Under what circumstances does Dilger write an article even the least bit critical of Apple? When they're doing well? No. Because Apple is doing great! When they've slipped? No, look at all the growth opportunities! When they have no product? No! Crazy like a fox waiting to pounce. You don't need to read a Dilger article to know that it's going to be positive on Apple's prospects, no matter what has happened and what Apple is doing, or not doing, about it. That makes it biased, and a waste of time to read, unless you're just looking for something to make you feel good about Apple.
Comments
I think Apple is currently using both Google and Amazon for its iCloud services with the latter being the primary one!
The one item I disagree with is SIRI. Apple was atleast two years ahead of everyone else when it was released. Now it feels much behind the Echo/Alexa which is the first product since the iPad that has delighted me. Hopefully Apple has been doing a lot and will preview or release an incredible product come WWDC.
There could be lots of announcements (hopefully) at WWDC.
As for having a 2 year head start, I'm not so sure about that. Remember that Apple had to buy the Siri app and its IP. They were still licensing Nuance. That means that the original creators of Siri were ahead of Apple, and Nuance was ahead of all them. Then you have SRI International going back to the 1970s. All that of that shows that the foundation for this tech was out there, and that Apple didn't own the rights or invent the most fundamental aspects. Then considered what Google had researched, tested and then shelved for many years before Apple released Siri. It's why Google Now was able to get off the ground so quickly after Siri's debut. It started with Google Labs' Google Voice Search. They created GOOG-411, and it was able to record and analyze a great amount of user input. Google really should've been well ahead of everyone, but they dropped the ball.
But has Apple really that far behind today? Sure, they're losing mindshare to Amazon, who has done a remarkable job in establishing itself in just two years in a way no one saw coming (very Apple-y), but is Apple out of the running and is Siri really a bad service? I've asked this question many times, but I can't seem to get a single straight answer. How do you test whether Siri has become smarter over the years? How many commands has it grown? What complexity of conversation has it increased? Without that data I can't say whether Siri is either ahead of behind, all I know is that Alexa works better, but that's because of the HW, which is expected when you have a large cylinder with the volume of about 20 iPhones that is mostly just mics and a speaker used as a dedicated appliance. Amazon also lets me know new commands and 3rd-party apps to try on a weekly basis, which I likely wouldn't know about if not for their weekly email. They also let you see every query they've made, report on it, as well as search back for old queries if, say, you inquired about some trivia which you've now forgotten except for the memory of having asked.
These are very user friendly features that I think should be part of the Siri service, and yet don't speak to the accuracy of Siri service or intelligence of the machine learning. Whatever the future may hold, it's still anyone's game.
Apple have already tried this approach in its earlier days and it was a mistake. All that it does is teach consumers that the company will release any old garbage and slap their logo on it, i.e. trashing the brand for short term cash.
Google are repeating this same mistake and their quarterly results prove that this has not led to revenue diversification. (Also proves that splitting the company into "Alphabet" subsidiaries hasn't had the intended effect of diluting these mistakes.)
Pundits need to understand that consumers aren't dummies, a company must meaningfully commit to the products and services they create.
Tech companies must have an idea and work to bring that idea to market using technology, the technology is secondary to the idea, not the other way around.
So many products today are simply idea-less run outs of the "latest" technologies, arbitrary in function with the hope that consumers will find a use for it. Amazon are particularly bad here, simply inventing products that are designed to build their information and advertising profiles. I'm not parting with my money on scattergun products or adware in order to make the decisions for these businesses, instead I want them to sell me a vision through their products. Apple succeeds here, it's why people stick around even if the specific product they are purchasing doesn't have the absolute best specifications in every single metric out there - instead it will have the best specifications in the metrics that matter (many of which aren't easily measured by numbers or tick boxes.)
At the end of the day this knowledge is demonstrated by sales numbers, the amount of press that these devices receive is disproportionately high to their minimal sales. The people who keep reporting on them are unsurprisingly recipients of advertising spend from the companies which have created these products.
They are advertorials baked into click-bait Apple-doom news stories.
Apple really needs to go high end and not skimp on the hardware wrt microphones for the SIRI speaker. It has to understand people as well as Amazon. It goes without saying that it will be expensive. If it has very good speakers like SONOS that's even better. Hopefully everything Amazon does and everything SONOS does all together.
Yes this WWDC should be fun to watch, as there seem to be a few things almost there for a couple of years now and it seems like the file system could well be the missing link to make them fly.
This x1000.
Just look at storage as one small example. Do iPhones really need super fast NVMe storage? Inline hardware encryption? A brand-new file system that's more suited to a high-end workstation? The majority of consumers don't know the inner workings of their devices, and Apple certainly doesn't mention any of the above in their marketing. Yet they have invested considerable R&D in the above technologies. This can't be for checking email or using Facebook. Clearly they have long-term goals where having a pocket sized super-computer is going to be required.
You can also add high-performance custom 64bit processors and soon custom GPUs to this as well. Contrast this with Android, where there aren't any Apps that can even utilize those massive 8 core processors, whose only benefit seems to be to convince simple people that more cores = better. On the Android side it's a marketing gimmick. On the iOS side it's to run the next generation of Apps and features.
Yes, a wearable device like the Apple Watch capable of accurately measuring blood glucose levels without the need to draw blood would be a real breakthrough and innovation. I do not think that current wearable tech could predict heart attacks, this will take at least another decade of tech development but I could imagine some sort of heart sensor tech which detects some anomalies like extrasystoles or whatever. Maybe even some tech which could deliver a basic ECG. Future applications for such tech are endless once the sensor tech has been developed.
IBM competed with other Windows OEMs in a race to the bottom. They are now Apple fans and use Apple products internally, and offer full OS X and iOS solutions to their clients.
Blackberry was a one-trick pony that didn't know squat about software. Apple can do both hardware and software well -- and apply their abilities in integration to new industries, like, um phones. Apple didn't have to buy a Nokia or a Motorola to enter and do, um, rather well, in the phone market. The buyers of Nokia and Motorola spent billions to find out they couldn't do well in the phone market. And their offerings did "everything they need and more for 200". The "premium" on Apple is about the integration of hardware and software, all the way down to custom and optimised silicon.
Despite the customization of parts (unlike the commoditisation of off-the-shelf parts that OEMs are forced to partake in because they are in a race to the bottom for survival), Apple remains profitable, and can continue to do so, because, among other things, it is careful about its products -- a simple product line that has 2 year cycles during which a model completely pays for its own fixed costs and development. The longer that a single model remains in production and use, like the iPhone 4S, the more profitable it becomes, even as its price drops.
Contrast this with portfolio companies like Samsung who throw everything at the wall to see what sticks, and try a few new things every six months. Their ASP is all over the place, and profit, if any, is short-lived. Samsung et al are shooting themselves in the foot. Samsung may sell more units overall, but how many Samsung models does it take to sell the same number of units as any one iPhone model?
The focus and strategic planning at Apple is unprecedented. Apple is patient and lays foundations for market changes years in advance.
The whole industry summed up in six paragraphs. Nicely done.
"Now if Walmart forced the consumer to only buy Cheerios from its stores, it has a Monopoly on that product."
No, it simply does NOT. You can buy Cheerios from any other of millions of stores around the world. And you can go elsewhere to buy the non-Cheerios cereal rings that Walmart doesn't stock.
I'm pretty sure Walmart can refuse to carry Cheerios. And General Mills can refuse to supply Walmart with Cheerios. After all, does every store carry every brand of everything? As long as that refusal isn't a bargaining chip in getting the other to do something regarding their own competitor...
The danger that someone in a position to abuse Monopolistic power poses, is generally business to business in the first instance; that's why it is called "anti-competive".
The danger in a Cheerio scenario would be:
a) Like Microsoft's issues with Windows, and potentially Google's issue with Android, General Mills would refuse to supply Walmart with Cheerios, unless Walmart agreed to certain placement and stopped stocking Kellog's rings.
b) Walmart would stop carrying Cheerios, unless General Mills gave it an exclusive and stopped supplying them to Walmart's competitors down the street.
But once we are talking about Cheerios in the Walmart, then it is between General Mills and Walmart to agree terms : what does General Mills charge Walmart? What markup does Walmart place on it (30%?); does General Mills consider Cheerios a desirable, premium product that needs some better placement than other brands of cereal rings, etc. Can Walmart run specials? And if so, does General Mills lower its price to Walmart, or doe Walmart take a loss on that product in order to get people in the store to buy other things?
Again, once the product is actually in the store, other "reasonable" stipulations may be agreed -- Walmart may say, please don't advertise right on the cereal box that consumers should run out to the road next to our parking lot to buy your product from your pop-up outlet truck, so that consumers can avoid our 30% markup for keeping the lights on, keeping the atmosphere in the store tolerable, and providing staff who smile. You can sell it in your truck, but please don't encourage people to do that right on the cereal boxes you supply us with. And if you also supply to our next door-neighbour competitor, and let them sell for less than your RRP, then we would like to be able to sell it for less while retaining our 30% for stocking it in our store.
Ironically I have a software box on my shelf entitled QuicktIme Virtual Reality QTVR by Apple. ..20 years old. Why did Apple drop this?
C'mom Sir Jony Ive - a real Pro laptop for WWDC 2017 next month. Please!
Maybe he doesn't want to compete in a saturated market.