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.
seriously, that is your complain? hey don't blame him for apple being good in business and ahead of everyone else! you really can't see apple doing really great and the best out there in smart phones, tables, best high end computers, wearables such as AirPods and Apple Watch, App Store, iTunes Store and all the other stuff they do?
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.
Sorry, since Cheerios are made by a second party (General Mills) and sold in many stores outside of Walmart, Walmart does not have a monopoly on that product, even if that was the only cereal they carried. Whether that would be a wise decision on Walmart's part is another matter, but monopoly it is not.
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.
Actually, I believe Apple is operating under a 3 to 6 month payback on development costs. Apple most likely is modeling the ASP, unit sales, margin and such and that all costs required to bring that product to market are paid for in the first quarters production. After that the margins they make on each sales is pure profits. The only development cost not included are those which are not unique to the product or could be used in future products, since Apple has multi-year roads maps they most likely know what will carry forward. One think we do not see from apple and why they are doing so well is they do not under price the product so they loose money on one product which they hope will drive sales on other product, the loss leader idea. Apple also know what a consumer is willing to pay so selling price is not set based on how cheaply they can make a product, what the market will bear.
It seems a big contributor to Apple's success is the apparent inability on the part of so many to understand Apple's business model.
While you look at the things discussed in this editorial, consider this: Apple has rarely (never?) released a product that was an entirely new thing, never imagined or manufactured by anyone else. Instead, they have designed products that re-imagine and re-combine other concepts so well and in such a way that in hindsight often seems like they invented the category.
Next, one of the common assertions of the grumblers on this thread is that Apple is going to be a "services company." This is no more true than would be an assertion that Apple is a software company. No, Apple is a hardware company, selling hardware with highly integrated software and services. After decades of this, it's mind-boggling that people still don't understand this simple fact. This apparent willful ignorance is at the root of much of the grousing and complaining out there about Apple. Microsoft, Google, et al are software and services companies, sometimes unprofitably selling hardware to highlight their latest software and services. Microsoft and Google do build their own hardware, but they've chosen to create software that must also run other manufacturers' hardware, which limits their ability to truly design and integrate the whole package together. That Google phone and that Surface notebook may have been designed to feature their operating systems, but the software is still loaded with bloat that's necessary to run all the variables introduced by all the other hardware manufacturers that will also use it. Those additional variables in the OS inevitably introduce instability and security vulnerabilities. On the other hand, Samsung, Dell, et al are hardware companies, often scrambling to quickly release marginally functional bells and whistles in order to differentiate themselves from all the other hardware companies that are also dependent on the same software and services created by somebody else. So much of the grumbling that your see and hear about Apple is essentially people unfavorably comparing Apple to some aspect of a competing hardware or software or services company's output, noting that Apple hasn't rushed to market with some new bell, whistle or feature, and that Apple is doomed because of it. Their complaint is essentially that Apple isn't abandoning its highly successful business model in order to be more like Microsoft, Google or Samsung. Sometimes the complaint is also delivered with a comparison to something Steve Jobs once did, ignoring the fact that Jobs was the one who created this process of coming in behind others' disjointed or partially implemented concepts, tying it all together neatly into a bow and introducing it as one more thing.
Right now, Apple is still the only significant company in the tech sector that has the ability to design hardware, software and services at the same time. This is the key to their success. It's incredibly simple, but no one else seems to get it.
It seems a big contributor to Apple's success is the apparent inability on the part of so many to understand Apple's business model.
While you look at the things discussed in this editorial, consider this: Apple has rarely (never?) released a product that was an entirely new thing, never imagined or manufactured by anyone else. Instead, they have designed products that re-imagine and re-combine other concepts so well and in such a way that in hindsight often seems like they invented the category.
Next, one of the common assertions of the grumblers on this thread is that Apple is going to be a "services company." This is no more true than would be an assertion that Apple is a software company. No, Apple is a hardware company, selling hardware with highly integrated software and services. After decades of this, it's mind-boggling that people still don't understand this simple fact. This apparent willful ignorance is at the root of much of the grousing and complaining out there about Apple. Microsoft, Google, et al are software and services companies, sometimes unprofitably selling hardware to highlight their latest software and services. Microsoft and Google do build their own hardware, but they've chosen to create software that must also run other manufacturers' hardware, which limits their ability to truly design and integrate the whole package together. That Google phone and that Surface notebook may have been designed to feature their operating systems, but the software is still loaded with bloat that's necessary to run all the variables introduced by all the other hardware manufacturers that will also use it. Those additional variables in the OS inevitably introduce instability and security vulnerabilities. On the other hand, Samsung, Dell, et al are hardware companies, often scrambling to quickly release marginally functional bells and whistles in order to differentiate themselves from all the other hardware companies that are also dependent on the same software and services created by somebody else. So much of the grumbling that your see and hear about Apple is essentially people unfavorably comparing Apple to some aspect of a competing hardware or software or services company's output, noting that Apple hasn't rushed to market with some new bell, whistle or feature, and that Apple is doomed because of it. Their complaint is essentially that Apple isn't abandoning its highly successful business model in order to be more like Microsoft, Google or Samsung. Sometimes the complaint is also delivered with a comparison to something Steve Jobs once did, ignoring the fact that Jobs was the one who created this process of coming in behind others' disjointed or partially implemented concepts, tying it all together neatly into a bow and introducing it as one more thing.
Right now, Apple is still the only significant company in the tech sector that has the ability to design hardware, software and services at the same time. This is the key to their success. It's incredibly simple, but no one else seems to get it.
That is a huge understatement. So many so called experts are modeling Apple the way they think Apple should be run. However, Apple is doing things completely differently than everyone else. They are not riding in taking all the arrows, but they are the janitor coming in cleaning up all the mess that everyone created and making money at it. They are scraping all the stuff off the wall that stuck while their competitors are looking for the next thing to throw.
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.
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.
You lost, bro? DED is a columnist, and properly exposing how well Apple is doing and how poorly reasoned its critics are is his beat.
1) Apple & Services. Apple has a growing services business, and they are absolutely talking this up as it is something that can help the investing community see there is recurring revenue here and Apple can achieve a better valuation. However, Apple's services are entirely built on the Apple user base (primarily iOS devices). If Apple were to get out of making products (a ridiculous assertion), then their services revenue would begin to decline. Apple's services revenue is increasing because Apple is growing their installed base, and also slightly increasing services spend-per-user.
2) In a few years, a $200 phone will be able do anything an iPhone can do. A few points: - Maybe, in a few years, such a smartphone might be able to do much of what an iPhone can do...now. - I would bet that Apple has plans to add new functionality every year, some of which might be very difficult for competitors to add as quickly (implemented in custom silicon on tightly coupled with OS). - Such a $200 device will not approach Apple's level of build quality and longevity. - Such a device would not get support of new releases for 5 years as Apple does - Finally, it might surprise the techies on this forum, but people's buying criteria across a number of product categories goes beyond "mere functionality" - hence why many have moved beyond Mao's green uniform.
3) Siri. I have had lots of frustrating Siri moments, but I do agree with Soli that much of that can be traced to the microphone tech on a mobile device vs. plug-in appliance. Siri works well for me in most situations I use it for - while driving, dictation, etc. I am confident that Apple will announce improvements here, but for Apple to announce anything, it has to be substantial. Thus might be this year, or could be next.
The author lost credibility by saying Google Maps has fallen behind! I can't even use Apple Maps because directions are not supported in my country! I hope the author didn't mean GM has fallen behind AM!
3) Siri. I have had lots of frustrating Siri moments, but I do agree with Soli that much of that can be traced to the microphone tech on a mobile device vs. plug-in appliance. Siri works well for me in most situations I use it for - while driving, dictation, etc. I am confident that Apple will announce improvements here, but for Apple to announce anything, it has to be substantial. Thus might be this year, or could be next.
I recently directed a family member to the Apple Store because earpiece speaker stopped working properly on their iPhone. Everyone started sounding further away. They took it in and at first they had to pay for a new display cover (no AC+ on their phone), which they were willing to pay, but after the Apple Store techs got ahold of it they noticed the mic was clogged with lint. They cleaned it out for free.
I can see that happening with the mics over time with a pocketable device you take everywhere.
Pointing out a bonus to owning Apple products that aren't available or feasible with other vendors and retailers.
The author lost credibility by saying Google Maps has fallen behind! I can't even use Apple Maps because directions are not supported in my country! I hope the author didn't mean GM has fallen behind AM!
You can fall behind while still being the best option for certain users under certain conditions. For example, a country where Apple Maps doesn't yet offer turn-by-turn directions.
That said, I'm not sure I see Google Maps as having fallen behind any of the competition, except maybe Waze in terms of on-time traffic mapping, pattern recognition and rerouting.
Actually, I believe Apple is operating under a 3 to 6 month payback on development costs. Apple most likely is modeling the ASP, unit sales, margin and such and that all costs required to bring that product to market are paid for in the first quarters production. After that the margins they make on each sales is pure profits. The only development cost not included are those which are not unique to the product or could be used in future products, since Apple has multi-year roads maps they most likely know what will carry forward. One think we do not see from apple and why they are doing so well is they do not under price the product so they loose money on one product which they hope will drive sales on other product, the loss leader idea. Apple also know what a consumer is willing to pay so selling price is not set based on how cheaply they can make a product, what the market will bear.
I agree. I just didn't want to blow anyone's mind too much in one post
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!
Apple cannot have a monopoly on its own App Store, in much the same way that Toyota cannot have a monopoly for selling Toyota cars.
The market is for app stores, not the App Store. Apple does not have the biggest app store, and even if it did, there is nothing illegal in having a monopoly, so regulators have no case.
Hope that makes things a little clearer for you.
It's nothing like Toyota having a monopoly selling Toyota cars, the similarity here would be Apple selling iPhones in their own stores. In a car selling scenario, the appstore is like aftermarket parts for the toyota cars, Toyota can sell you an upgraded headunit, an upgraded leather interior just like a third party can also - the difference is Apple owns the only compatible App Store to control the sale of it's own apps AND third party apps thus, having the monopoly, controlling price tiers and taking a cut of all sales, this doesn't happen in the car world, or 99% of other industries tbh.
America is fine with monopolies, Europe however is not and expect them to clamp down in the next few years. Queue the uproar of anti-american, targeting apple, chasing the money etc. claims...
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!
Apple cannot have a monopoly on its own App Store, in much the same way that Toyota cannot have a monopoly for selling Toyota cars.
The market is for app stores, not the App Store. Apple does not have the biggest app store, and even if it did, there is nothing illegal in having a monopoly, so regulators have no case.
Hope that makes things a little clearer for you.
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....
There is a similarity but with one massive difference... you can buy Cheerios at any other store with differing prices, differing profit margins, differing offers, differing sizes etc. The monopolistic approach would require a special walmart bowl that only allowed walmart purchased cereal to be eaten out of it using a special walmart spoon - the walmart edition cheerios could only be sold in walmart with them taking a cut on it's sale in addition to the cost of placing the cereal in their stores - it sounds ridiculous outside of the mobile/tablet world.
Like the article very much,thank you for sharing the spirit, and this article give us an comfortable reading experience.
May I ask you to translate this article into Chinese, please be assured that I will not use it for business, and I’m sure that I will retain the original link.
Finally, thanks again.
Best Regard.
Comments
you really can't see apple doing really great and the best out there in smart phones, tables, best high end computers, wearables such as AirPods and Apple Watch, App Store, iTunes Store and all the other stuff they do?
anyways, don't kill the messenger man !
While you look at the things discussed in this editorial, consider this: Apple has rarely (never?) released a product that was an entirely new thing, never imagined or manufactured by anyone else. Instead, they have designed products that re-imagine and re-combine other concepts so well and in such a way that in hindsight often seems like they invented the category.
Next, one of the common assertions of the grumblers on this thread is that Apple is going to be a "services company." This is no more true than would be an assertion that Apple is a software company. No, Apple is a hardware company, selling hardware with highly integrated software and services. After decades of this, it's mind-boggling that people still don't understand this simple fact. This apparent willful ignorance is at the root of much of the grousing and complaining out there about Apple. Microsoft, Google, et al are software and services companies, sometimes unprofitably selling hardware to highlight their latest software and services. Microsoft and Google do build their own hardware, but they've chosen to create software that must also run other manufacturers' hardware, which limits their ability to truly design and integrate the whole package together. That Google phone and that Surface notebook may have been designed to feature their operating systems, but the software is still loaded with bloat that's necessary to run all the variables introduced by all the other hardware manufacturers that will also use it. Those additional variables in the OS inevitably introduce instability and security vulnerabilities. On the other hand, Samsung, Dell, et al are hardware companies, often scrambling to quickly release marginally functional bells and whistles in order to differentiate themselves from all the other hardware companies that are also dependent on the same software and services created by somebody else. So much of the grumbling that your see and hear about Apple is essentially people unfavorably comparing Apple to some aspect of a competing hardware or software or services company's output, noting that Apple hasn't rushed to market with some new bell, whistle or feature, and that Apple is doomed because of it. Their complaint is essentially that Apple isn't abandoning its highly successful business model in order to be more like Microsoft, Google or Samsung. Sometimes the complaint is also delivered with a comparison to something Steve Jobs once did, ignoring the fact that Jobs was the one who created this process of coming in behind others' disjointed or partially implemented concepts, tying it all together neatly into a bow and introducing it as one more thing.
Right now, Apple is still the only significant company in the tech sector that has the ability to design hardware, software and services at the same time. This is the key to their success. It's incredibly simple, but no one else seems to get it.
1) Apple & Services. Apple has a growing services business, and they are absolutely talking this up as it is something that can help the investing community see there is recurring revenue here and Apple can achieve a better valuation. However, Apple's services are entirely built on the Apple user base (primarily iOS devices). If Apple were to get out of making products (a ridiculous assertion), then their services revenue would begin to decline. Apple's services revenue is increasing because Apple is growing their installed base, and also slightly increasing services spend-per-user.
2) In a few years, a $200 phone will be able do anything an iPhone can do. A few points:
- Maybe, in a few years, such a smartphone might be able to do much of what an iPhone can do...now.
- I would bet that Apple has plans to add new functionality every year, some of which might be very difficult for competitors to add as quickly (implemented in custom silicon on tightly coupled with OS).
- Such a $200 device will not approach Apple's level of build quality and longevity.
- Such a device would not get support of new releases for 5 years as Apple does
- Finally, it might surprise the techies on this forum, but people's buying criteria across a number of product categories goes beyond "mere functionality" - hence why many have moved beyond Mao's green uniform.
3) Siri. I have had lots of frustrating Siri moments, but I do agree with Soli that much of that can be traced to the microphone tech on a mobile device vs. plug-in appliance. Siri works well for me in most situations I use it for - while driving, dictation, etc. I am confident that Apple will announce improvements here, but for Apple to announce anything, it has to be substantial. Thus might be this year, or could be next.
That said, I'm not sure I see Google Maps as having fallen behind any of the competition, except maybe Waze in terms of on-time traffic mapping, pattern recognition and rerouting.
What country are you in?
'Is Apple the next Apple?' Love this subheading #Perfecto
America is fine with monopolies, Europe however is not and expect them to clamp down in the next few years. Queue the uproar of anti-american, targeting apple, chasing the money etc. claims...