(cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?)
I generally agree with most of what you post here, so please accept this disagreement as being in a constructive and amicable tone:
I don't think what @melgross is suggesting would cut hardware profits. More likely it would grow them.
My mom probably isn't going to buy an AppleTV and install apps on it. She MIGHT buy a simple, inexpensive streaming receiver that would allow her to send stuff from her Mac and/or iPad to the TV.
I think a streaming stick would hit a whole different market than the AppleTV. Different levels of sophistication and capability for different kinds of users. I can't say that a streaming stick would sell in great enough numbers to justify making it, but I don't think it would erode sales of AppleTV in any appreciable way, thus isn't likely to adversely affect profits.
Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
But we don't know how well movies and TV shows are doing because Apple doesn't break down that large "services" line item into specific categories. It could well be that all the growth is in added iCloud storage purchased by people filling their devices with photos while video sales and rentals are actually going in the dumper (or never rose above it in the first place).
The few rumours we've seen/heard on the subject, for whatever they're worth, don't paint a rosy picture of Apple's video efforts. Further, I would bet that casual observation of your community doesn't reveal many users of Apple's video services. I work in a fairly high-tech environment (a TV station) so I'm surrounded by tech-savvy people (most of whom own iPhones and Macs), and I can think of only two or three who ever use iTunes for video acquisition at all, much less routinely.
I understand the argument for profitability over marketshare, but, as I described earlier in the thread, retail distribution of commodity products like music and movies requires marketshare in order to begin making user experience a differentiator. Or maybe more accurately it requires "mindshare." Right now when you ask someone where they're going to buy or rent a movie, iTunes is not near the top of most people's list.
To the first — Apple doesn’t make netbooks either, despite these same sorts arguing Apple should have made cheap netbooks, because hey, that’s what everybody else is doing. Ok. But so what? Nobody else is making insane profit, either. Why should a successful company cut its per-device hardware profit down just to join the crowd of low-earners? Again, this doesn’t make sense. That’s called a race to the bottom.
To the the question of services profit, it’s rising. That’s all I need to know. Apple, who does know the details, will do what’s best for it. If as you suggest may be possible it’s icloud storage and not video content that is driving services, then again — why would Apple cut its hardware margins to race to the bottom of poor content services revenue? Doesn’t make sense.
Grasping at marketshare and entering unprofitable markets because something, something, or someone being in it, or someone entering it, is a fixture on AI. It's almost always shorthand for people that fail to understand how markets actually work, and how to husband resources. More to the point, I don't think that these people arguing for Apple deeper entry in media and media players understand just how commoditized the market is, a condition that is going to create a whole lot of failures, or more likely, later consolidation. I think Apple should be around to pick up some of the pieces, on the cheap, but otherwise, hold its course.
A lot of what we see Amazon, and others doing, is the old concept of selling the razors cheaply, and making the money on the blades. When we look at the chips needed for this, we can see that they just cost a couple of bucks each. I don’t see what the problem is with making a usb stick for that as others are doing. The stick would be cheap to make, and could sell cheaply. Even if Apple lost $5-$10 on each, they would make that back very quickly, possibly in the first month of use.
renting and selling content is very profitable. Carrying that usb stick with you would allow all of this to happen on the go more easily than now, and would almost surely lead to more content rentals and sales.
not everyone needs, or wants, a relatively expensive home bound device like Apple TV. I have it, and will get the new one, assuming there is one, even though I don’t have a 4K model yet. But I would also buy a portable, inexpensive device, and I know my daughter would want one too.
remember that Apple also had a $49 iPod as well as the more expensive offerings. And the Mini Mac was first intended as a “cheap” way of entering the Mac world. So it wouldn’t be unprecedented.
You might have missed the point I made.
I stated that without an Apple subscription service, with or without original content, there wasn't any stickiness for the consumer. A low cost AppleTV device is in essence just another cheap device like all of the other make. Why even buy/rent/stream content from Apple at all if your preferred subscriptions are elsewhere?
You have to be getting some kind of benefit from Apple's ecosystem, Foggyhill made a good point about how poorly the AppleTV integrates into that ecosystem. Making a cheaper device isn't going to fix that. on its own anyway.
Your analogy of razors and blades fail when the blades are commoditized, and certainly, when both are.
I don’t agree. We use the Apple TV. Over the years, I bought a few seasons of various shows. We buy, or rent movies, though not a lot, because we're not big movie watchers, and most things we watch are available on cable.
but I talk to people about this, and I read what’s being said in the industry papers, sites. There is a lot of interest for these low cost devices. You don’t need to have a sub forvapple to make money. They will makes money if someone uses the service a few times a month. I don’t know why you think it needs to be a sub.
and blades are not a commodity.
Right now, I would say that most Apple TV users are overall Apple users. That’s not expanding Apple’s reach. Apple is trying to do that, and not succeeding.
fast charging sucks, because you’re guaranteed of having your battery fail before its normal lifetime is up. So, be happy with that.
I'm not sure that's a real factor if you're on a two-year upgrade cycle and when you can have the battery replaced so easily.
My understanding is that the two biggest factors in having a shortened lifespan on a battery are voltage fluctuations and temperature. I live in a particularly hot environment and have had a series of battery issues with Apple batteries. The latest was two weeks ago when I had to change an iPhone 6 battery. Apple said it should be good for 500 to 800 cycles. The diagnostics showed a little over 500. I wonder if heat played a role there. Impossible to know. I have been using the supplied Huawei fast charger, nightly for the last two years with no perceivable downgrade in battery life for my use. It's only two phones but I haven't hit that guarantee of having it fail yet and even if it does fail in the coming months I can have it replaced easily.
I will use the phone all day, sometimes heavily. Occasionally I will use a RAVPower backup to get me home. Often, when I get home I will shower and get ready to go out. That's when the phone goes back onto fast charge and by the time I'm ready to leave, I have enough juice to get me through the night. That's when fast charging comes into its own in spite of any shortening of lifespan.
I've come to depend on it now. Maybe I've just been lucky but I would appreciate your opinion on how Huawei designs its Supercharge battery tech as they do it all themselves and are very confident in their entire battery production process from chargers through to chemistry through to safety. This independently of any guaranteed shortened lifespan as I'm not a battery expert.
EDIT: I couldn't find much on Supercharge but this article has a video in it which goes over the basics of the Supercharge approach.
I saw an interview in Spanish with a Spanish Huawei engineer. I will try to locate it and extract the information. Then there was a supposed battery breakthrough by Watt Lab two years ago (Huawei's battery research unit) that claimed quick charging without impacting battery life. No idea if that breakthrough has made it into a shipping product yet.
Here's the snippet:
"Watt Lab, which belongs to the Central Research Institute at Huawei Technology Corporation Limited, unveiled their new quick charging lithium-ion batteries at the 56th Battery Symposium in Japan. Using next generation technology, these new batteries have achieved a charging speed 10 times faster than that of normal batteries, reaching about 50% capacity in mere minutes.
Huawei presented videos of the two types of quick charging lithium-ion batteries: one battery with a 600 mAh capacity that can be charged to 68% capacity in two minutes; and another with a 3000 mAh capacity and an energy density above 620 Wh/L, which can be charged to 48% capacity in five minutes to allow ten hours of phone call on Huawei mobile phones. These quick charging batteries underwent many rounds of testing, and have been certified by Huawei's terminal test department.
According to Huawei, the company bonded heteroatoms to the molecule of graphite in anode, which could be a catalyst for the capture and transmission of lithium through carbon bonds. Huawei stated that the heteroatoms increase the charging speed of batteries without decreasing energy density or battery life."
Fast charging results in higher average temperatures in the battery, and the device overall. Quick charging is much worse, and has resulted in premature battery failures. You need a particularly robust battery for that, and you’re just not going to get that on phones that are already sold on tiny margins. I’ve seen a lot of claims for battery designs. Only when they have extensive use in consumer devices are they really validated.
In that case, perhaps in phone temps are the key here but compounded by ambiental heat?
The iPhone 6 did sometimes get hot on normal charging with the supplied charger. My phone, again with the supplied charger rarely get noticeably hot during fast charging.
Add to that that Supercharge (as per video I linked to) reduces in-phone heat build up by up to 50% and even controls heat in the supplied connected cable on top of eliminating any transforming in the the phone before entering the battery itself.
The way I read it is that the Supercharge charger is readying everything to be channelled directly into the battery and the different chips simply control the process, checking for, heat, voltage, etc during the process.
I saw a info graphic a while ago that had three stages
1>2>3
1 was the charger, 3 was the battery and 2 was something else inside the phone but before reaching the battery. I cannot remember the name but it was power related and generated heat.
The same graphic for the Supercharge was:
1>3
The second stage had been eliminated along with the heat it generated.
All in all, if heat is the root of your concern it seems that Huawei have dealt with it very well.
Yes, I always say that the proof is in the pudding but this claim by Huawei seems very clear:
Huawei stated that the heteroatoms increase the charging speed of batteries without decreasing energy density or battery life."
I’m still skeptical. I followcbattery developments pretty closely. I’ve seen a lot of claims made that haven’t held up in real world use.
There's been a lot of talk about the under screen fingerprint sensor but I don't consider that to be all that special. It's just another way of doing something we already do, just in a different place.
Ridiculous. A reader under the screen allows you to have slim bezels AND keep the fingerprint sensor on the front, instead of the useless hack that everyone else is doing placing it on the back (because they had no alternative). That is, if Apple even goes this route (they likely have a superior solution in FaceID).
The same goes for speed. Mid tier phones have been fast enough for quite a while. The same applies to graphics. RAM and storage? Apple will finally leaving this problem behind.
Rubbish. For example, ARCore from Google requires the latest and fastest phones to work (because AR done in software requires power). This is why Apple also requires a minimum A9 equipped device to use ARKit. Mid-tier phones WILL NOT be able to do AR because they will lack the processor power to achieve it. The funny thing about this is that a 2 year old A9 equipped iPhone (even the least expensive SE) still outperforms 95% of Android devices on the market. Which is why Apple will dominate AR because of the sheer number of devices that will be able to use ARKit.
If all you do is run basic Apps, then mid-tier phones are fast. It's when you want to do something more that iOS shines (not only because of the superior processing power but because of Apps that can actually take advantage of it).
RAM is a problem? iOS isn't the clusterfuck known as Android where you need more RAM than a desktop PC running Windows before it will perform well.
Some kind of new optical biometric option? It's still just a biometric option, just a different one. Nice to have but little more.
More rubbish. Perhaps you forgot how useless Face Unlock was when Android introduced it? Easily fooled by a picture of you, forcing Google to add their Liveness Check feature which required you to blink to verify you weren't a picture. And having to hold your phone up to your face (even for a short time) to unlock? Nobody wants to do that, which is why nobody uses Face Unlock. Then Samsung decided to add this useless feature to the S8, and apparently forgot about the issues Google had and their system was also fooled with a picture. So was their iris scanner. Two-time losers for that screw up.
If Apple implements FaceID according to the features/capabilities shown by the companies they acquired, then it will be a complete game changer. Can't be fooled by a picture, can't be fooled by a 3D sculpture with your face applied to it, can tell identical twins apart, works in the dark, works from a partial view of your face, works at odd angles, and can't be fooled by sunglasses, beards or shaving. It's practically the perfect biometric unlocking feature. If you can see the screen of your phone then it can see you and unlock. It has all the features that make Touch ID so great (fast and accurate) without any drawbacks (like wearing gloves or having dirty/wet fingers).
Better battery is nothing new, nor is OLED, nor is wireless charging.
OLED is not new, but an OLED phone that supports color management is. Since Android doesn't have color management then having a great OLED screen with a wide color gamut is pointless since you can't render content correctly. The iPhone will be the first device in the world to have an OLED screen AND support color management. Couple that with individually calibrated screens and you get the most accurate color reproduction possible. It won't have the "pop" that the cartoonish OLED screens of other devices do, but I'll take accuracy over flash any day.
millions upon millions of phones have the sensor on the back and people have zero issues with them. For those people (myself included) moving the sensor from the front chin to under the screen is just that, a move. It is absolutely nothing special. There is zero change in function. Some phones already have full screen fronts and there is nothing to comment on except how it looks because the sensor is on the back well out of the way and users are comfortable with it. It's been that way for years. If it were different, rear sensors wouldn't have got past one generation. Do you doubt that Apple also has prototypes with rear sensors? If it were such a bad placement, those prototypes wouldn't exist.
Speed
ARCore and ARKit are not shipping products. Both require developers to develop the possibilities and we have NO IDEA how consumers will react. Right now there is nothing to do but wait. In the meantime, people with mid range phones will continue to use them happily, impervious to what is available through AR.
You think the new iPhones won't ship with more RAM? You don't think that older, supported phones won't feel the pinch of their RAM allotments? I would wait before before answering those questions. The fact that you don't take issue with my point on storage, I take as tacit admission that it was a problem.
Face Unlock? It is not meant to be a secure feature. On Samsung phones You cannot even activate it without a warning on security. The system will not even allow you to use it for payments. It is a convenience feature. Nothing more.
On the other hand iPhones allow you to not set any unlock code or use 0000, 1234, etc. In that situation, which option is more secure! The user has to decide, depending on how he/she takes security. Options are good and some Samsung users can try Iris scanning if they wish. iPhone users cannot.
FaceID will not be the gamechanger you think it will. It will simply be another biometric option and very little more. Am I for it? Yes, because options are good. For unlocking, any secure option is good, great even, but gamechanging, NO.
Colour management. Have you ever seen a regular user question colour on their screens? No, I didn't think you had. You might find a subset of pro users who appreciate it but the vast majority of users don't even know they have a 'problem'.
Any comments on battery design and charging? because I will take my fast charging over colour management any day.
Your comments regarding what represents true innovation versus "just another way of doing the same thing" mark you as a most common denominator user. That's nothing to be ashamed of, but it disqualifies you to preach among those here who have the technical chops to grok the difference.
This is actually incorrect and has nothing to do with 'chops'.
The OP jumped in feet first with the 'stupid' comment. Never a good way to start a post. He then followed up with his 'two second' comment which was completely ironic because he hadn't thought through my possible counter, and as I said in my response, the decision to put the sensor on the rear on many phones had and has nothing to do with lacking room on the front. They were deliberate design decisions that went through the full range of usability studies and had the relevant user studies to determine if users would like them on the rear. To even think no such studies are carried out is absurd in the extreme and makes the 'two second' comment look exactly what it is.
The fingerprint sensor is that: A fingerprint sensor. It doesn't matter where it is (on the front, on the side, on the back or under the screen) it does the job of scanning fingerprints. The placement or preference of placement has nothing to do with being a 'most common denominator user' nor innovation and it is exactly what I said. The same way of doing the same thing. It's function hasn't changed at all. Put my reply into the context of the post I was replying to. It has nothing to do with innovation, which in this case, wouldn't be what the sensor does but how it is done.
I took his comments point by point and even asked questions to see how he was thinking, to better understand his claims. He was unwilling or unable to respond in a normal fashion and just threw in the 'troll' grenade and withdrew.
If he hadn't started with 'stupid' and followed through with the 'two second' comment he wouldn't have received a pointed counter.
So, to sum up. The OP and my reply are on placement and function. Not technology or innovation.
The reason why some manufacturers have put the touch button on the rear has far more to do with the fact that the ”chin” of the phone is too short to fit the sensor and the charge/sync socket. That’s why Samsung was trying to put it behind the screen, and why Apple was also attempting it. The front is always the preferred place.
so, ok, some people MAY prefer it on the rear, or, more likely, just get used to it, and then figure that it’s not so bad.
My current phone has plenty of space for a front scanner but it is on the back as a deliberate placing from phone concept through to implementation. That is true for many phones with rear scanners.
Just as there are poorer placements for front scanners, try to imagine one off centre, there are poor placements for rear scanners. I really can't fathom how Samsung managed to get the theirs through with no eyebrows being raised.
If your design goal is to have the sensor on the front and eliminate the chin, trying to get it under the screen is worth trying. That has now been achieved and we are just waiting for phones to appear. Next year for Qualcomm sensors it seems.
If your design goal was never the front in the first place, it obviously isn't an issue that needs tackling.
I think Huawei already has underscreen finger tracking implemented and its current on board AI (nothing to do with the new NPU) uses it to try and guess where the user is going to tap. IIRC, that's why their phones do not have a special coating to reduce finger oils as it interferes with the tracking. They come with screen protectors installed in the factory.
What you’re saying simply isn’t true. There has been plenty written about this for several years now since Apple came out with it. These other companies were struggling with the concept. These chins we’ve been seeing more recently just don’t have the space needed. Thatvwhy samsung tried to put it behind the screen, and when that failed, put in that awkward spot in the back, because there is no room in the shortened chin. Phone makers have been criticized for making big chins. Apple has too. So they went to shorted chins, with no resultant room for the button. The sides of the chins have speakers and headphone jacks. No room for the button, so they go on the back.
Why is the 7s cheaper? Because it using the same basic body shell that is 4 years old.
Plus Apple wants to widen the gap between the top end phone and the mid tier. Look at the iPad.
Next year Apple will introduce the iPhone X Plus that will start at $999
I mean that would be impressive pricing for sure, but seems cheap to me. The $899 will be supply contrained for months.
I never found the $999 starting price for a special edition, 10th anniversary iPhone that was using was rumours claimed to be new technologies and manufacturing processes that will hinder unit production compared to an updated iPhone 7s series. In fact, I've argued that the interest and supply constraints for their iPhones (and other products, like AirPods) aren't because Apple isn't making a massive number of units that no other company could compete with at that scale and quality, but because there prices are too low; at least, on paper when you look at what the equilibrium price should be. Of course, that only works when you look at the individual product for a given market at a given time.
Surely Apple knows more about their pricing structure than I ever will as they have throngs of bean counters and computers constantly crunching the numbers and running scenarios, so I'm not saying that Apple is selling their products for too little money, only that during the launch and what seems to be longer-and- longer timeframe their most popular items are hard to come by despite breakneck speeds in production. I see AirPods every day now and yet they're still saying "2–3 weeks" on apple.com. One may argue that it's all artificial and Apple has warehouses full of AirPods ready to ship as they pull off a scam similar to De Beers, but I can't see that as being remotely viable since age as a negative affect on the value of usable technology and Apple doesn't make money by making AirPods but not selling them.
Why is the 7s cheaper? Because it using the same basic body shell that is 4 years old.
Plus Apple wants to widen the gap between the top end phone and the mid tier. Look at the iPad.
Next year Apple will introduce the iPhone X Plus that will start at $999
On the X, I'm in the $999, $1099, $1199 camp.
For that kind of dough, and I'm not even looking to buy this year, the X would have to melt my socks when I try it at the local Apple Store.
I really want pencil support, assuming some sort of 3D capture capability, for creating usable models for my Form 2.
Maybe next year.
I just think the $999 price is just too high for marketing purposes.
I will be shocked if Apple starts the X model at anywhere over $899.
You could be right about that. It’s really hard to say. Despite everything we’re reading, we still don’t know a whole lot about where the “regular” models end, and the “Edition” begins, other than for the screen and case.
Why is the 7s cheaper? Because it using the same basic body shell that is 4 years old.
Plus Apple wants to widen the gap between the top end phone and the mid tier. Look at the iPad.
Next year Apple will introduce the iPhone X Plus that will start at $999
I mean that would be impressive pricing for sure, but seems cheap to me. The $899 will be supply contrained for months.
I never found the $999 starting price for a special edition, 10th anniversary iPhone that was using was rumours claimed to be new technologies and manufacturing processes that will hinder unit production compared to an updated iPhone 7s series. In fact, I've argued that the interest and supply constraints for their iPhones (and other products, like AirPods) aren't because Apple isn't making a massive number of units that no other company could compete with at that scale and quality, but because there prices are too low; at least, on paper when you look at what the equilibrium price should be. Of course, that only works when you look at the individual product for a given market at a given time.
Surely Apple knows more about their pricing structure than I ever will as they have throngs of bean counters and computers constantly crunching the numbers and running scenarios, so I'm not saying that Apple is selling their products for too little money, only that during the launch and what seems to be longer-and- longer timeframe their most popular items are hard to come by despite breakneck speeds in production. I see AirPods every day now and yet they're still saying "2–3 weeks" on apple.com. One may argue that it's all artificial and Apple has warehouses full of AirPods ready to ship as they pull off a scam similar to De Beers, but I can't see that as being remotely viable since age as a negative affect on the value of usable technology and Apple doesn't make money by making AirPods but not selling them.
Well yes, in theory, Apple certainly has priced all iphones that were ever in supply contraint too low. Especially if the supply fails to correct for months and it isnt just an original production glitch. However if they kept changing their price to contrain demand then it would create its own feedback, and demand would drop off for a few months until Apple reduce prices, but people would anticipate that and the supply constraints would happen when the prices drop.
I was answering Sog though, I dont think a $899 iPhone X is on the cards.
I just think the $999 price is just too high for marketing purposes.
I will be shocked if Apple starts the X model at anywhere over $899.
Kudos for forming your belief as an opinion. ⭐️ for the day.
You truly are bitter/mad at me for some reason.
You have been stalking all my posts the last few days and being overly bitter.
Get help. Please. For your own good.
1) My comment was sincere. You wrote something in a responsible and principled manner so I wanted to acknowledge this positive change. Unfortunately you worked so quickly to undo it in your next comment. :sigh:
2) There's no some reason about it. I've been crystal clear about you making absolute statement about the future and then claiming how you knew all along and everyone should bow to you when one out countless revolving guesses actually happen. You're the guy that puts money on every possible combination on a roulette table and then acts special when he wins some money even though he's losing every round.
First, he's obviously not a troll, unless the definition has been expanded to mean "anyone who doesn't worship at the Apple altar." It's lazy to just slap the "troll" label on everyone with whom you disagree or just don't like.
No, he's a troll. They are called trolls for a good reason. If one person spots it, you can question them. If multiple people pick up on it, then maybe it's time for you to consider why those people feel the same way (and why they include certain others in their descriptions, like GoogleGuy).
You have egregious trolling down to an art sir, tossing ad-hom insults at members who aren't even part of the discussion thread. Carry on as you tend to do tho while others among us consider the source.
Your reputation precedes you no matter much you protest.
Why is the 7s cheaper? Because it using the same basic body shell that is 4 years old.
Plus Apple wants to widen the gap between the top end phone and the mid tier. Look at the iPad.
Next year Apple will introduce the iPhone X Plus that will start at $999
I mean that would be impressive pricing for sure, but seems cheap to me. The $899 will be supply contrained for months.
I never found the $999 starting price for a special edition, 10th anniversary iPhone that was using was rumours claimed to be new technologies and manufacturing processes that will hinder unit production compared to an updated iPhone 7s series. In fact, I've argued that the interest and supply constraints for their iPhones (and other products, like AirPods) aren't because Apple isn't making a massive number of units that no other company could compete with at that scale and quality, but because there prices are too low; at least, on paper when you look at what the equilibrium price should be. Of course, that only works when you look at the individual product for a given market at a given time.
Surely Apple knows more about their pricing structure than I ever will as they have throngs of bean counters and computers constantly crunching the numbers and running scenarios, so I'm not saying that Apple is selling their products for too little money, only that during the launch and what seems to be longer-and- longer timeframe their most popular items are hard to come by despite breakneck speeds in production. I see AirPods every day now and yet they're still saying "2–3 weeks" on apple.com. One may argue that it's all artificial and Apple has warehouses full of AirPods ready to ship as they pull off a scam similar to De Beers, but I can't see that as being remotely viable since age as a negative affect on the value of usable technology and Apple doesn't make money by making AirPods but not selling them.
Pricing has alot to do with marketing also.
I don't think Apple wants the iPhone to be seen as a device that is ultra expensive and out of reach for the common man. A price tag of over $1000 for the lowest storage model would be very negative on the brand.
Starting prices at a high mark is not a good idea. Because once the initial surge is done then you would have to make heavy discounts. That looks bad on the brand also. A brand that is always discounted looks cheap, sorta like Samsung.
But they arent starting at that high mark, they are starting at the lowest entry level phone.
Also the standard phone will now be the 7s ( or 8) as opposed to the X -- using the latest rumours for the names. If the entry level for the mid tier phone drops, the entry level for the high level phone can be high.
(cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?)
I generally agree with most of what you post here, so please accept this disagreement as being in a constructive and amicable tone:
I don't think what @melgross is suggesting would cut hardware profits. More likely it would grow them.
My mom probably isn't going to buy an AppleTV and install apps on it. She MIGHT buy a simple, inexpensive streaming receiver that would allow her to send stuff from her Mac and/or iPad to the TV.
I think a streaming stick would hit a whole different market than the AppleTV. Different levels of sophistication and capability for different kinds of users. I can't say that a streaming stick would sell in great enough numbers to justify making it, but I don't think it would erode sales of AppleTV in any appreciable way, thus isn't likely to adversely affect profits.
Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
But we don't know how well movies and TV shows are doing because Apple doesn't break down that large "services" line item into specific categories. It could well be that all the growth is in added iCloud storage purchased by people filling their devices with photos while video sales and rentals are actually going in the dumper (or never rose above it in the first place).
The few rumours we've seen/heard on the subject, for whatever they're worth, don't paint a rosy picture of Apple's video efforts. Further, I would bet that casual observation of your community doesn't reveal many users of Apple's video services. I work in a fairly high-tech environment (a TV station) so I'm surrounded by tech-savvy people (most of whom own iPhones and Macs), and I can think of only two or three who ever use iTunes for video acquisition at all, much less routinely.
I understand the argument for profitability over marketshare, but, as I described earlier in the thread, retail distribution of commodity products like music and movies requires marketshare in order to begin making user experience a differentiator. Or maybe more accurately it requires "mindshare." Right now when you ask someone where they're going to buy or rent a movie, iTunes is not near the top of most people's list.
To the first — Apple doesn’t make netbooks either, despite these same sorts arguing Apple should have made cheap netbooks, because hey, that’s what everybody else is doing. Ok. But so what? Nobody else is making insane profit, either. Why should a successful company cut its per-device hardware profit down just to join the crowd of low-earners? Again, this doesn’t make sense. That’s called a race to the bottom.
To the the question of services profit, it’s rising. That’s all I need to know. Apple, who does know the details, will do what’s best for it. If as you suggest may be possible it’s icloud storage and not video content that is driving services, then again — why would Apple cut its hardware margins to race to the bottom of poor content services revenue? Doesn’t make sense.
Grasping at marketshare and entering unprofitable markets because something, something, or someone being in it, or someone entering it, is a fixture on AI. It's almost always shorthand for people that fail to understand how markets actually work, and how to husband resources. More to the point, I don't think that these people arguing for Apple deeper entry in media and media players understand just how commoditized the market is, a condition that is going to create a whole lot of failures, or more likely, later consolidation. I think Apple should be around to pick up some of the pieces, on the cheap, but otherwise, hold its course.
A lot of what we see Amazon, and others doing, is the old concept of selling the razors cheaply, and making the money on the blades. When we look at the chips needed for this, we can see that they just cost a couple of bucks each. I don’t see what the problem is with making a usb stick for that as others are doing. The stick would be cheap to make, and could sell cheaply. Even if Apple lost $5-$10 on each, they would make that back very quickly, possibly in the first month of use.
renting and selling content is very profitable. Carrying that usb stick with you would allow all of this to happen on the go more easily than now, and would almost surely lead to more content rentals and sales.
not everyone needs, or wants, a relatively expensive home bound device like Apple TV. I have it, and will get the new one, assuming there is one, even though I don’t have a 4K model yet. But I would also buy a portable, inexpensive device, and I know my daughter would want one too.
remember that Apple also had a $49 iPod as well as the more expensive offerings. And the Mini Mac was first intended as a “cheap” way of entering the Mac world. So it wouldn’t be unprecedented.
You might have missed the point I made.
I stated that without an Apple subscription service, with or without original content, there wasn't any stickiness for the consumer. A low cost AppleTV device is in essence just another cheap device like all of the other make. Why even buy/rent/stream content from Apple at all if your preferred subscriptions are elsewhere?
You have to be getting some kind of benefit from Apple's ecosystem, Foggyhill made a good point about how poorly the AppleTV integrates into that ecosystem. Making a cheaper device isn't going to fix that. on its own anyway.
Your analogy of razors and blades fail when the blades are commoditized, and certainly, when both are.
I don’t agree. We use the Apple TV. Over the years, I bought a few seasons of various shows. We buy, or rent movies, though not a lot, because we're not big movie watchers, and most things we watch are available on cable.
but I talk to people about this, and I read what’s being said in the industry papers, sites. There is a lot of interest for these low cost devices. You don’t need to have a sub forvapple to make money. They will makes money if someone uses the service a few times a month. I don’t know why you think it needs to be a sub.
and blades are not a commodity.
Right now, I would say that most Apple TV users are overall Apple users. That’s not expanding Apple’s reach. Apple is trying to do that, and not succeeding.
I have no problem with a low(er) cost AppleTV, but merely having a low cost device, isn't enough to change people's viewing habits, IMHO. Now it may be that a low cost, small, and portable device will enhance Apple's downloads, as you state, but Apple having it's own subscription service with quality original content will certainly be a better driver for revenue growth.
For example, I have Amazon Prime, and a Fire TV, and I also have Netflix. I also have the latest AppleTV, and have had every version of AppleTV prior to that. I download three or four titles a month, the most recent, WonderWoman/Batman vs Superman bundle (WonderWoman is very watchable; Batman vs Superman, not so much). I prefer purchase from iTunes rather than Amazon, but pricing is almost identical, and once Amazon has an AppleTV app, arguably I could eliminate the Fire TV entirely. In the meantime, I watch Amazon content on the iMac, and 12.9 iPad Pro. This is just personal anecdotal evidence, but also trending, as I'm aware of many young people that prefer their mobile device over a big screen, likely to facilitate "multitasking" in their social sphere.
In all of this, Apple has data on each download and to which device. I'm pretty sure they know better than you or I what is going on. As well, you seem to discount downloads to iOS and MacOS devices in your analysis, which are likely the "moat", if there is one, in the ecosystem.
First, he's obviously not a troll, unless the definition has been expanded to mean "anyone who doesn't worship at the Apple altar." It's lazy to just slap the "troll" label on everyone with whom you disagree or just don't like.
No, he's a troll. They are called trolls for a good reason. If one person spots it, you can question them. If multiple people pick up on it, then maybe it's time for you to consider why those people feel the same way (and why they include certain others in their descriptions, like GoogleGuy).
You have egregious trolling down to an art sir, tossing ad-hom insults at members who aren't even part of the discussion thread. Carry on as you tend to do tho while others among us consider the source.
Your reputation precedes you no matter much you protest.
Well I've no doubt you and others will relish the chance to point out something I post that's incorrect, as well you should if it happens. But calling out a forum member who is not even taking part in a discussion with an ad-hom lobbed in his direction is clearly trolling whether you are willing to admit it or not ( and I'll confidently predict you are not willing)
Why is the 7s cheaper? Because it using the same basic body shell that is 4 years old.
Plus Apple wants to widen the gap between the top end phone and the mid tier. Look at the iPad.
Next year Apple will introduce the iPhone X Plus that will start at $999
I mean that would be impressive pricing for sure, but seems cheap to me. The $899 will be supply contrained for months.
I never found the $999 starting price for a special edition, 10th anniversary iPhone that was using was rumours claimed to be new technologies and manufacturing processes that will hinder unit production compared to an updated iPhone 7s series. In fact, I've argued that the interest and supply constraints for their iPhones (and other products, like AirPods) aren't because Apple isn't making a massive number of units that no other company could compete with at that scale and quality, but because there prices are too low; at least, on paper when you look at what the equilibrium price should be. Of course, that only works when you look at the individual product for a given market at a given time.
Surely Apple knows more about their pricing structure than I ever will as they have throngs of bean counters and computers constantly crunching the numbers and running scenarios, so I'm not saying that Apple is selling their products for too little money, only that during the launch and what seems to be longer-and- longer timeframe their most popular items are hard to come by despite breakneck speeds in production. I see AirPods every day now and yet they're still saying "2–3 weeks" on apple.com. One may argue that it's all artificial and Apple has warehouses full of AirPods ready to ship as they pull off a scam similar to De Beers, but I can't see that as being remotely viable since age as a negative affect on the value of usable technology and Apple doesn't make money by making AirPods but not selling them.
Pricing has alot to do with marketing also.
I don't think Apple wants the iPhone to be seen as a device that is ultra expensive and out of reach for the common man. A price tag of over $1000 for the lowest storage model would be very negative on the brand.
Starting prices at a high mark is not a good idea. Because once the initial surge is done then you would have to make heavy discounts. That looks bad on the brand also. A brand that is always discounted looks cheap, sorta like Samsung.
The main things that determine pricing is total cost of manufacture, marketing costs, warranty costs, R&D, software included, etc.
that gives a rock bottom cost. Then they need to decide on margins. As a company, Apple has between 20-21% net margin - profit. Some products have higher margins than that, and some lower. But Apple, like most companies is interested in overall margins. With the phone being over 60$ of sales, lowering those margins has an disproportionate affect on those overall margins, and then, the stock price.
as a result, I would think that Apple is constrained in pricing. Whatever price we see will be the result in all of those costs and needs. While I can see a higher price, to discourage orders for a low availability product, I can’t see them cutting margins for that same product. If it does indeed come out for $899, then you can be sure that it’s with the traditional margins iPhones have enjoyed at the flagship level. If it’s $999, the same can be true. I’m still wondering who is taking hit for the 40% reject on the most expensive part of the phone, which is that OLED screen. If it’s Apple, then that will add to the price.
(cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?)
I generally agree with most of what you post here, so please accept this disagreement as being in a constructive and amicable tone:
I don't think what @melgross is suggesting would cut hardware profits. More likely it would grow them.
My mom probably isn't going to buy an AppleTV and install apps on it. She MIGHT buy a simple, inexpensive streaming receiver that would allow her to send stuff from her Mac and/or iPad to the TV.
I think a streaming stick would hit a whole different market than the AppleTV. Different levels of sophistication and capability for different kinds of users. I can't say that a streaming stick would sell in great enough numbers to justify making it, but I don't think it would erode sales of AppleTV in any appreciable way, thus isn't likely to adversely affect profits.
Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
But we don't know how well movies and TV shows are doing because Apple doesn't break down that large "services" line item into specific categories. It could well be that all the growth is in added iCloud storage purchased by people filling their devices with photos while video sales and rentals are actually going in the dumper (or never rose above it in the first place).
The few rumours we've seen/heard on the subject, for whatever they're worth, don't paint a rosy picture of Apple's video efforts. Further, I would bet that casual observation of your community doesn't reveal many users of Apple's video services. I work in a fairly high-tech environment (a TV station) so I'm surrounded by tech-savvy people (most of whom own iPhones and Macs), and I can think of only two or three who ever use iTunes for video acquisition at all, much less routinely.
I understand the argument for profitability over marketshare, but, as I described earlier in the thread, retail distribution of commodity products like music and movies requires marketshare in order to begin making user experience a differentiator. Or maybe more accurately it requires "mindshare." Right now when you ask someone where they're going to buy or rent a movie, iTunes is not near the top of most people's list.
To the first — Apple doesn’t make netbooks either, despite these same sorts arguing Apple should have made cheap netbooks, because hey, that’s what everybody else is doing. Ok. But so what? Nobody else is making insane profit, either. Why should a successful company cut its per-device hardware profit down just to join the crowd of low-earners? Again, this doesn’t make sense. That’s called a race to the bottom.
To the the question of services profit, it’s rising. That’s all I need to know. Apple, who does know the details, will do what’s best for it. If as you suggest may be possible it’s icloud storage and not video content that is driving services, then again — why would Apple cut its hardware margins to race to the bottom of poor content services revenue? Doesn’t make sense.
Grasping at marketshare and entering unprofitable markets because something, something, or someone being in it, or someone entering it, is a fixture on AI. It's almost always shorthand for people that fail to understand how markets actually work, and how to husband resources. More to the point, I don't think that these people arguing for Apple deeper entry in media and media players understand just how commoditized the market is, a condition that is going to create a whole lot of failures, or more likely, later consolidation. I think Apple should be around to pick up some of the pieces, on the cheap, but otherwise, hold its course.
A lot of what we see Amazon, and others doing, is the old concept of selling the razors cheaply, and making the money on the blades. When we look at the chips needed for this, we can see that they just cost a couple of bucks each. I don’t see what the problem is with making a usb stick for that as others are doing. The stick would be cheap to make, and could sell cheaply. Even if Apple lost $5-$10 on each, they would make that back very quickly, possibly in the first month of use.
renting and selling content is very profitable. Carrying that usb stick with you would allow all of this to happen on the go more easily than now, and would almost surely lead to more content rentals and sales.
not everyone needs, or wants, a relatively expensive home bound device like Apple TV. I have it, and will get the new one, assuming there is one, even though I don’t have a 4K model yet. But I would also buy a portable, inexpensive device, and I know my daughter would want one too.
remember that Apple also had a $49 iPod as well as the more expensive offerings. And the Mini Mac was first intended as a “cheap” way of entering the Mac world. So it wouldn’t be unprecedented.
You might have missed the point I made.
I stated that without an Apple subscription service, with or without original content, there wasn't any stickiness for the consumer. A low cost AppleTV device is in essence just another cheap device like all of the other make. Why even buy/rent/stream content from Apple at all if your preferred subscriptions are elsewhere?
You have to be getting some kind of benefit from Apple's ecosystem, Foggyhill made a good point about how poorly the AppleTV integrates into that ecosystem. Making a cheaper device isn't going to fix that. on its own anyway.
Your analogy of razors and blades fail when the blades are commoditized, and certainly, when both are.
I don’t agree. We use the Apple TV. Over the years, I bought a few seasons of various shows. We buy, or rent movies, though not a lot, because we're not big movie watchers, and most things we watch are available on cable.
but I talk to people about this, and I read what’s being said in the industry papers, sites. There is a lot of interest for these low cost devices. You don’t need to have a sub forvapple to make money. They will makes money if someone uses the service a few times a month. I don’t know why you think it needs to be a sub.
and blades are not a commodity.
Right now, I would say that most Apple TV users are overall Apple users. That’s not expanding Apple’s reach. Apple is trying to do that, and not succeeding.
I have no problem with a low(er) cost AppleTV, but merely having a low cost device, isn't enough to change people's viewing habits, IMHO. Now it may be that a low cost, small, and portable device will enhance Apple's downloads, as you state, but Apple having it's own subscription service with quality original content will certainly be a better driver for revenue growth.
For example, I have Amazon Prime, and a Fire TV, and I also have Netflix. I also have the latest AppleTV, and have had every version of AppleTV prior to that. I download three or four titles a month, the most recent, WonderWoman/Batman vs Superman bundle (WonderWoman is very watchable; Batman vs Superman, not so much). I prefer purchase from iTunes rather than Amazon, but pricing is almost identical, and once Amazon has an AppleTV app, arguably I could eliminate the Fire TV entirely. In the meantime, I watch Amazon content on the iMac, and 12.9 iPad Pro. This is just personal anecdotal evidence, but also trending, as I'm aware of many young people that prefer their mobile device over a big screen, likely to facilitate "multitasking" in their social sphere.
In all of this, Apple has data on each download and to which device. I'm pretty sure they know better than you or I what is going on. As well, you seem to discount downloads to iOS and MacOS devices in your analysis, which are likely the "moat", if there is one, in the ecosystem.
Well, it may be funny, but what you’re doing is almost exactly what we do. So to that extent, we’re almost exactly the same.
i’m not saying that an inexpensive device will solve all of Apple’s problems in this space, but that it will be additive. By how Much? I can’t say, but by adding portability, it could be significant.
(cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?)
I generally agree with most of what you post here, so please accept this disagreement as being in a constructive and amicable tone:
I don't think what @melgross is suggesting would cut hardware profits. More likely it would grow them.
My mom probably isn't going to buy an AppleTV and install apps on it. She MIGHT buy a simple, inexpensive streaming receiver that would allow her to send stuff from her Mac and/or iPad to the TV.
I think a streaming stick would hit a whole different market than the AppleTV. Different levels of sophistication and capability for different kinds of users. I can't say that a streaming stick would sell in great enough numbers to justify making it, but I don't think it would erode sales of AppleTV in any appreciable way, thus isn't likely to adversely affect profits.
Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
But we don't know how well movies and TV shows are doing because Apple doesn't break down that large "services" line item into specific categories. It could well be that all the growth is in added iCloud storage purchased by people filling their devices with photos while video sales and rentals are actually going in the dumper (or never rose above it in the first place).
The few rumours we've seen/heard on the subject, for whatever they're worth, don't paint a rosy picture of Apple's video efforts. Further, I would bet that casual observation of your community doesn't reveal many users of Apple's video services. I work in a fairly high-tech environment (a TV station) so I'm surrounded by tech-savvy people (most of whom own iPhones and Macs), and I can think of only two or three who ever use iTunes for video acquisition at all, much less routinely.
I understand the argument for profitability over marketshare, but, as I described earlier in the thread, retail distribution of commodity products like music and movies requires marketshare in order to begin making user experience a differentiator. Or maybe more accurately it requires "mindshare." Right now when you ask someone where they're going to buy or rent a movie, iTunes is not near the top of most people's list.
To the first — Apple doesn’t make netbooks either, despite these same sorts arguing Apple should have made cheap netbooks, because hey, that’s what everybody else is doing. Ok. But so what? Nobody else is making insane profit, either. Why should a successful company cut its per-device hardware profit down just to join the crowd of low-earners? Again, this doesn’t make sense. That’s called a race to the bottom.
To the the question of services profit, it’s rising. That’s all I need to know. Apple, who does know the details, will do what’s best for it. If as you suggest may be possible it’s icloud storage and not video content that is driving services, then again — why would Apple cut its hardware margins to race to the bottom of poor content services revenue? Doesn’t make sense.
Grasping at marketshare and entering unprofitable markets because something, something, or someone being in it, or someone entering it, is a fixture on AI. It's almost always shorthand for people that fail to understand how markets actually work, and how to husband resources. More to the point, I don't think that these people arguing for Apple deeper entry in media and media players understand just how commoditized the market is, a condition that is going to create a whole lot of failures, or more likely, later consolidation. I think Apple should be around to pick up some of the pieces, on the cheap, but otherwise, hold its course.
A lot of what we see Amazon, and others doing, is the old concept of selling the razors cheaply, and making the money on the blades. When we look at the chips needed for this, we can see that they just cost a couple of bucks each. I don’t see what the problem is with making a usb stick for that as others are doing. The stick would be cheap to make, and could sell cheaply. Even if Apple lost $5-$10 on each, they would make that back very quickly, possibly in the first month of use.
renting and selling content is very profitable. Carrying that usb stick with you would allow all of this to happen on the go more easily than now, and would almost surely lead to more content rentals and sales.
not everyone needs, or wants, a relatively expensive home bound device like Apple TV. I have it, and will get the new one, assuming there is one, even though I don’t have a 4K model yet. But I would also buy a portable, inexpensive device, and I know my daughter would want one too.
remember that Apple also had a $49 iPod as well as the more expensive offerings. And the Mini Mac was first intended as a “cheap” way of entering the Mac world. So it wouldn’t be unprecedented.
You might have missed the point I made.
I stated that without an Apple subscription service, with or without original content, there wasn't any stickiness for the consumer. A low cost AppleTV device is in essence just another cheap device like all of the other make. Why even buy/rent/stream content from Apple at all if your preferred subscriptions are elsewhere?
You have to be getting some kind of benefit from Apple's ecosystem, Foggyhill made a good point about how poorly the AppleTV integrates into that ecosystem. Making a cheaper device isn't going to fix that. on its own anyway.
Your analogy of razors and blades fail when the blades are commoditized, and certainly, when both are.
I don’t agree. We use the Apple TV. Over the years, I bought a few seasons of various shows. We buy, or rent movies, though not a lot, because we're not big movie watchers, and most things we watch are available on cable.
but I talk to people about this, and I read what’s being said in the industry papers, sites. There is a lot of interest for these low cost devices. You don’t need to have a sub forvapple to make money. They will makes money if someone uses the service a few times a month. I don’t know why you think it needs to be a sub.
and blades are not a commodity.
Right now, I would say that most Apple TV users are overall Apple users. That’s not expanding Apple’s reach. Apple is trying to do that, and not succeeding.
I have no problem with a low(er) cost AppleTV, but merely having a low cost device, isn't enough to change people's viewing habits, IMHO. Now it may be that a low cost, small, and portable device will enhance Apple's downloads, as you state, but Apple having it's own subscription service with quality original content will certainly be a better driver for revenue growth.
For example, I have Amazon Prime, and a Fire TV, and I also have Netflix. I also have the latest AppleTV, and have had every version of AppleTV prior to that. I download three or four titles a month, the most recent, WonderWoman/Batman vs Superman bundle (WonderWoman is very watchable; Batman vs Superman, not so much). I prefer purchase from iTunes rather than Amazon, but pricing is almost identical, and once Amazon has an AppleTV app, arguably I could eliminate the Fire TV entirely. In the meantime, I watch Amazon content on the iMac, and 12.9 iPad Pro. This is just personal anecdotal evidence, but also trending, as I'm aware of many young people that prefer their mobile device over a big screen, likely to facilitate "multitasking" in their social sphere.
In all of this, Apple has data on each download and to which device. I'm pretty sure they know better than you or I what is going on. As well, you seem to discount downloads to iOS and MacOS devices in your analysis, which are likely the "moat", if there is one, in the ecosystem.
Well, it may be funny, but what you’re doing is almost exactly what we do. So to that extent, we’re almost exactly the same.
i’m not saying that an inexpensive device will solve all of Apple’s problems in this space, but that it will be additive. By how Much? I can’t say, but by adding portability, it could be significant.
I'm not arguing against you, per se, but arguing for Apple streaming with original content. That's how Netflix grew as has Amazon in streaming.
Perhaps a low-cost option might simply be an HDMI AirDisplay device, that could also decode AVC, AVEC, and other media, but not provide any interface except through the device casting the stream. Not an AppleTV, but a zero configuration setup, quick means for a personal media creators to show their stuff as the primary function. You'd still have to log a password to access the WiFi network, unless iPhone offers peer to peer networking for AirDisplay (I don't think so).
First, he's obviously not a troll, unless the definition has been expanded to mean "anyone who doesn't worship at the Apple altar." It's lazy to just slap the "troll" label on everyone with whom you disagree or just don't like.
No, he's a troll. They are called trolls for a good reason. If one person spots it, you can question them. If multiple people pick up on it, then maybe it's time for you to consider why those people feel the same way (and why they include certain others in their descriptions, like GoogleGuy).
You have egregious trolling down to an art sir, tossing ad-hom insults at members who aren't even part of the discussion thread. Carry on as you tend to do tho while others among us consider the source.
Your reputation precedes you no matter much you protest.
Well I've no doubt you and others will relish the chance to point out something I post that's incorrect, as well you should if it happens. But calling out a forum member who is not even taking part in a discussion with an ad-hom lobbed in his direction is clearly trolling whether you are willing to admit it or not ( and I'll confidently predict you are not willing)
For what little it's worth, as someone who knows very little about Android and has so far not had much reason to expend effort learning more about it, I appreciate the brief reality checks and alternate perspectives you provide. I'm secure in my techulinity and don't feel threatened by a little curiosity about alternative techstyles.
I've never understood why people get so bent out of shape whenever a "contrast and compare" pops up, but I wanted you to know that not everyone views you in a negative light.
Then again, I've managed to work my way onto the shit-list this week, so maybe you'd be better off without my endorsement!
tmay said: This is just personal anecdotal evidence, but also trending, as I'm aware of ...
The irony is palpable. Sadly, it will miss the mark because you blocked me, for... what was it again? Presenting personal anecdotes and observations as data sets in arguments, wasn't it?
tmay said: I'm aware of many young people that prefer their mobile device over a big screen, likely to facilitate "multitasking" in their social sphere.
According to the article you linked, young people are using their hand-held devices while watching TV, but not for watching TV:
"The report cites social media (Facebook and Twitter), online shopping and e-reading as the top activities millennials engage in while watching TV. Verizon says these activities are not typically related to their television viewing experience."
That says consumption of the video product still goes through the TV set. The secondary device is used for other, non-viewing activities.
If this information is accurate, it means consumption of iTunes video content over iOS may not be as relevant to the discussion as you suggested it may be earlier in the thread.
That then means the "data" you provide contradict your own assertion. Are you sure what you wrote and quoted is what you meant?
(cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?)
I generally agree with most of what you post here, so please accept this disagreement as being in a constructive and amicable tone:
I don't think what @melgross is suggesting would cut hardware profits. More likely it would grow them.
My mom probably isn't going to buy an AppleTV and install apps on it. She MIGHT buy a simple, inexpensive streaming receiver that would allow her to send stuff from her Mac and/or iPad to the TV.
I think a streaming stick would hit a whole different market than the AppleTV. Different levels of sophistication and capability for different kinds of users. I can't say that a streaming stick would sell in great enough numbers to justify making it, but I don't think it would erode sales of AppleTV in any appreciable way, thus isn't likely to adversely affect profits.
Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
But we don't know how well movies and TV shows are doing because Apple doesn't break down that large "services" line item into specific categories. It could well be that all the growth is in added iCloud storage purchased by people filling their devices with photos while video sales and rentals are actually going in the dumper (or never rose above it in the first place).
The few rumours we've seen/heard on the subject, for whatever they're worth, don't paint a rosy picture of Apple's video efforts. Further, I would bet that casual observation of your community doesn't reveal many users of Apple's video services. I work in a fairly high-tech environment (a TV station) so I'm surrounded by tech-savvy people (most of whom own iPhones and Macs), and I can think of only two or three who ever use iTunes for video acquisition at all, much less routinely.
I understand the argument for profitability over marketshare, but, as I described earlier in the thread, retail distribution of commodity products like music and movies requires marketshare in order to begin making user experience a differentiator. Or maybe more accurately it requires "mindshare." Right now when you ask someone where they're going to buy or rent a movie, iTunes is not near the top of most people's list.
To the first — Apple doesn’t make netbooks either, despite these same sorts arguing Apple should have made cheap netbooks, because hey, that’s what everybody else is doing. Ok. But so what? Nobody else is making insane profit, either. Why should a successful company cut its per-device hardware profit down just to join the crowd of low-earners? Again, this doesn’t make sense. That’s called a race to the bottom.
To the the question of services profit, it’s rising. That’s all I need to know. Apple, who does know the details, will do what’s best for it. If as you suggest may be possible it’s icloud storage and not video content that is driving services, then again — why would Apple cut its hardware margins to race to the bottom of poor content services revenue? Doesn’t make sense.
Grasping at marketshare and entering unprofitable markets because something, something, or someone being in it, or someone entering it, is a fixture on AI. It's almost always shorthand for people that fail to understand how markets actually work, and how to husband resources. More to the point, I don't think that these people arguing for Apple deeper entry in media and media players understand just how commoditized the market is, a condition that is going to create a whole lot of failures, or more likely, later consolidation. I think Apple should be around to pick up some of the pieces, on the cheap, but otherwise, hold its course.
A lot of what we see Amazon, and others doing, is the old concept of selling the razors cheaply, and making the money on the blades. When we look at the chips needed for this, we can see that they just cost a couple of bucks each. I don’t see what the problem is with making a usb stick for that as others are doing. The stick would be cheap to make, and could sell cheaply. Even if Apple lost $5-$10 on each, they would make that back very quickly, possibly in the first month of use.
renting and selling content is very profitable. Carrying that usb stick with you would allow all of this to happen on the go more easily than now, and would almost surely lead to more content rentals and sales.
not everyone needs, or wants, a relatively expensive home bound device like Apple TV. I have it, and will get the new one, assuming there is one, even though I don’t have a 4K model yet. But I would also buy a portable, inexpensive device, and I know my daughter would want one too.
remember that Apple also had a $49 iPod as well as the more expensive offerings. And the Mini Mac was first intended as a “cheap” way of entering the Mac world. So it wouldn’t be unprecedented.
You might have missed the point I made.
I stated that without an Apple subscription service, with or without original content, there wasn't any stickiness for the consumer. A low cost AppleTV device is in essence just another cheap device like all of the other make. Why even buy/rent/stream content from Apple at all if your preferred subscriptions are elsewhere?
You have to be getting some kind of benefit from Apple's ecosystem, Foggyhill made a good point about how poorly the AppleTV integrates into that ecosystem. Making a cheaper device isn't going to fix that. on its own anyway.
Your analogy of razors and blades fail when the blades are commoditized, and certainly, when both are.
A fire stick like AppleTV for $50 that allowed iPhones and iPads to airplay to TVs would be useful but doesn't really add to the aTV ecosystem.
They really needed some more good games for the 4th gen.
(cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?)
I generally agree with most of what you post here, so please accept this disagreement as being in a constructive and amicable tone:
I don't think what @melgross is suggesting would cut hardware profits. More likely it would grow them.
My mom probably isn't going to buy an AppleTV and install apps on it. She MIGHT buy a simple, inexpensive streaming receiver that would allow her to send stuff from her Mac and/or iPad to the TV.
I think a streaming stick would hit a whole different market than the AppleTV. Different levels of sophistication and capability for different kinds of users. I can't say that a streaming stick would sell in great enough numbers to justify making it, but I don't think it would erode sales of AppleTV in any appreciable way, thus isn't likely to adversely affect profits.
Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
But we don't know how well movies and TV shows are doing because Apple doesn't break down that large "services" line item into specific categories. It could well be that all the growth is in added iCloud storage purchased by people filling their devices with photos while video sales and rentals are actually going in the dumper (or never rose above it in the first place).
The few rumours we've seen/heard on the subject, for whatever they're worth, don't paint a rosy picture of Apple's video efforts. Further, I would bet that casual observation of your community doesn't reveal many users of Apple's video services. I work in a fairly high-tech environment (a TV station) so I'm surrounded by tech-savvy people (most of whom own iPhones and Macs), and I can think of only two or three who ever use iTunes for video acquisition at all, much less routinely.
I understand the argument for profitability over marketshare, but, as I described earlier in the thread, retail distribution of commodity products like music and movies requires marketshare in order to begin making user experience a differentiator. Or maybe more accurately it requires "mindshare." Right now when you ask someone where they're going to buy or rent a movie, iTunes is not near the top of most people's list.
To the first — Apple doesn’t make netbooks either, despite these same sorts arguing Apple should have made cheap netbooks, because hey, that’s what everybody else is doing. Ok. But so what? Nobody else is making insane profit, either. Why should a successful company cut its per-device hardware profit down just to join the crowd of low-earners? Again, this doesn’t make sense. That’s called a race to the bottom.
To the the question of services profit, it’s rising. That’s all I need to know. Apple, who does know the details, will do what’s best for it. If as you suggest may be possible it’s icloud storage and not video content that is driving services, then again — why would Apple cut its hardware margins to race to the bottom of poor content services revenue? Doesn’t make sense.
Grasping at marketshare and entering unprofitable markets because something, something, or someone being in it, or someone entering it, is a fixture on AI. It's almost always shorthand for people that fail to understand how markets actually work, and how to husband resources. More to the point, I don't think that these people arguing for Apple deeper entry in media and media players understand just how commoditized the market is, a condition that is going to create a whole lot of failures, or more likely, later consolidation. I think Apple should be around to pick up some of the pieces, on the cheap, but otherwise, hold its course.
A lot of what we see Amazon, and others doing, is the old concept of selling the razors cheaply, and making the money on the blades. When we look at the chips needed for this, we can see that they just cost a couple of bucks each. I don’t see what the problem is with making a usb stick for that as others are doing. The stick would be cheap to make, and could sell cheaply. Even if Apple lost $5-$10 on each, they would make that back very quickly, possibly in the first month of use.
renting and selling content is very profitable. Carrying that usb stick with you would allow all of this to happen on the go more easily than now, and would almost surely lead to more content rentals and sales.
not everyone needs, or wants, a relatively expensive home bound device like Apple TV. I have it, and will get the new one, assuming there is one, even though I don’t have a 4K model yet. But I would also buy a portable, inexpensive device, and I know my daughter would want one too.
remember that Apple also had a $49 iPod as well as the more expensive offerings. And the Mini Mac was first intended as a “cheap” way of entering the Mac world. So it wouldn’t be unprecedented.
You might have missed the point I made.
I stated that without an Apple subscription service, with or without original content, there wasn't any stickiness for the consumer. A low cost AppleTV device is in essence just another cheap device like all of the other make. Why even buy/rent/stream content from Apple at all if your preferred subscriptions are elsewhere?
You have to be getting some kind of benefit from Apple's ecosystem, Foggyhill made a good point about how poorly the AppleTV integrates into that ecosystem. Making a cheaper device isn't going to fix that. on its own anyway.
Your analogy of razors and blades fail when the blades are commoditized, and certainly, when both are.
I don’t agree. We use the Apple TV. Over the years, I bought a few seasons of various shows. We buy, or rent movies, though not a lot, because we're not big movie watchers, and most things we watch are available on cable.
but I talk to people about this, and I read what’s being said in the industry papers, sites. There is a lot of interest for these low cost devices. You don’t need to have a sub forvapple to make money. They will makes money if someone uses the service a few times a month. I don’t know why you think it needs to be a sub.
and blades are not a commodity.
Right now, I would say that most Apple TV users are overall Apple users. That’s not expanding Apple’s reach. Apple is trying to do that, and not succeeding.
I have no problem with a low(er) cost AppleTV, but merely having a low cost device, isn't enough to change people's viewing habits, IMHO. Now it may be that a low cost, small, and portable device will enhance Apple's downloads, as you state, but Apple having it's own subscription service with quality original content will certainly be a better driver for revenue growth.
For example, I have Amazon Prime, and a Fire TV, and I also have Netflix. I also have the latest AppleTV, and have had every version of AppleTV prior to that. I download three or four titles a month, the most recent, WonderWoman/Batman vs Superman bundle (WonderWoman is very watchable; Batman vs Superman, not so much). I prefer purchase from iTunes rather than Amazon, but pricing is almost identical, and once Amazon has an AppleTV app, arguably I could eliminate the Fire TV entirely. In the meantime, I watch Amazon content on the iMac, and 12.9 iPad Pro. This is just personal anecdotal evidence, but also trending, as I'm aware of many young people that prefer their mobile device over a big screen, likely to facilitate "multitasking" in their social sphere.
In all of this, Apple has data on each download and to which device. I'm pretty sure they know better than you or I what is going on. As well, you seem to discount downloads to iOS and MacOS devices in your analysis, which are likely the "moat", if there is one, in the ecosystem.
Well, it may be funny, but what you’re doing is almost exactly what we do. So to that extent, we’re almost exactly the same.
i’m not saying that an inexpensive device will solve all of Apple’s problems in this space, but that it will be additive. By how Much? I can’t say, but by adding portability, it could be significant.
I'm not arguing against you, per se, but arguing for Apple streaming with original content. That's how Netflix grew as has Amazon in streaming.
Perhaps a low-cost option might simply be an HDMI AirDisplay device, that could also decode AVC, AVEC, and other media, but not provide any interface except through the device casting the stream. Not an AppleTV, but a zero configuration setup, quick means for a personal media creators to show their stuff as the primary function. You'd still have to log a password to access the WiFi network, unless iPhone offers peer to peer networking for AirDisplay (I don't think so).
That’s basically what I’m saying, though maybe I wasn’t as clear as I should have been.
(cut hardware profits to make slimmer services profit? Whaaaa?)
I generally agree with most of what you post here, so please accept this disagreement as being in a constructive and amicable tone:
I don't think what @melgross is suggesting would cut hardware profits. More likely it would grow them.
My mom probably isn't going to buy an AppleTV and install apps on it. She MIGHT buy a simple, inexpensive streaming receiver that would allow her to send stuff from her Mac and/or iPad to the TV.
I think a streaming stick would hit a whole different market than the AppleTV. Different levels of sophistication and capability for different kinds of users. I can't say that a streaming stick would sell in great enough numbers to justify making it, but I don't think it would erode sales of AppleTV in any appreciable way, thus isn't likely to adversely affect profits.
Also, their services are still growing well and are larger than many other entire companies revenues.
But we don't know how well movies and TV shows are doing because Apple doesn't break down that large "services" line item into specific categories. It could well be that all the growth is in added iCloud storage purchased by people filling their devices with photos while video sales and rentals are actually going in the dumper (or never rose above it in the first place).
The few rumours we've seen/heard on the subject, for whatever they're worth, don't paint a rosy picture of Apple's video efforts. Further, I would bet that casual observation of your community doesn't reveal many users of Apple's video services. I work in a fairly high-tech environment (a TV station) so I'm surrounded by tech-savvy people (most of whom own iPhones and Macs), and I can think of only two or three who ever use iTunes for video acquisition at all, much less routinely.
I understand the argument for profitability over marketshare, but, as I described earlier in the thread, retail distribution of commodity products like music and movies requires marketshare in order to begin making user experience a differentiator. Or maybe more accurately it requires "mindshare." Right now when you ask someone where they're going to buy or rent a movie, iTunes is not near the top of most people's list.
To the first — Apple doesn’t make netbooks either, despite these same sorts arguing Apple should have made cheap netbooks, because hey, that’s what everybody else is doing. Ok. But so what? Nobody else is making insane profit, either. Why should a successful company cut its per-device hardware profit down just to join the crowd of low-earners? Again, this doesn’t make sense. That’s called a race to the bottom.
To the the question of services profit, it’s rising. That’s all I need to know. Apple, who does know the details, will do what’s best for it. If as you suggest may be possible it’s icloud storage and not video content that is driving services, then again — why would Apple cut its hardware margins to race to the bottom of poor content services revenue? Doesn’t make sense.
Grasping at marketshare and entering unprofitable markets because something, something, or someone being in it, or someone entering it, is a fixture on AI. It's almost always shorthand for people that fail to understand how markets actually work, and how to husband resources. More to the point, I don't think that these people arguing for Apple deeper entry in media and media players understand just how commoditized the market is, a condition that is going to create a whole lot of failures, or more likely, later consolidation. I think Apple should be around to pick up some of the pieces, on the cheap, but otherwise, hold its course.
A lot of what we see Amazon, and others doing, is the old concept of selling the razors cheaply, and making the money on the blades. When we look at the chips needed for this, we can see that they just cost a couple of bucks each. I don’t see what the problem is with making a usb stick for that as others are doing. The stick would be cheap to make, and could sell cheaply. Even if Apple lost $5-$10 on each, they would make that back very quickly, possibly in the first month of use.
renting and selling content is very profitable. Carrying that usb stick with you would allow all of this to happen on the go more easily than now, and would almost surely lead to more content rentals and sales.
not everyone needs, or wants, a relatively expensive home bound device like Apple TV. I have it, and will get the new one, assuming there is one, even though I don’t have a 4K model yet. But I would also buy a portable, inexpensive device, and I know my daughter would want one too.
remember that Apple also had a $49 iPod as well as the more expensive offerings. And the Mini Mac was first intended as a “cheap” way of entering the Mac world. So it wouldn’t be unprecedented.
You might have missed the point I made.
I stated that without an Apple subscription service, with or without original content, there wasn't any stickiness for the consumer. A low cost AppleTV device is in essence just another cheap device like all of the other make. Why even buy/rent/stream content from Apple at all if your preferred subscriptions are elsewhere?
You have to be getting some kind of benefit from Apple's ecosystem, Foggyhill made a good point about how poorly the AppleTV integrates into that ecosystem. Making a cheaper device isn't going to fix that. on its own anyway.
Your analogy of razors and blades fail when the blades are commoditized, and certainly, when both are.
A fire stick like AppleTV for $50 that allowed iPhones and iPads to airplay to TVs would be useful but doesn't really add to the aTV ecosystem.
They really needed some more good games for the 4th gen.
No, it wouldn't.
I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe a high end 4k HDR version and a low end 1080p version, i.e., a price reduced current version, but making one as a dongle isn't going to be cheaper if it is equivalent to the current generation in capabilities.
Comments
but I talk to people about this, and I read what’s being said in the industry papers, sites. There is a lot of interest for these low cost devices. You don’t need to have a sub forvapple to make money. They will makes money if someone uses the service a few times a month. I don’t know why you think it needs to be a sub.
and blades are not a commodity.
Right now, I would say that most Apple TV users are overall Apple users. That’s not expanding Apple’s reach. Apple is trying to do that, and not succeeding.
I’m still skeptical. I followcbattery developments pretty closely. I’ve seen a lot of claims made that haven’t held up in real world use.
Surely Apple knows more about their pricing structure than I ever will as they have throngs of bean counters and computers constantly crunching the numbers and running scenarios, so I'm not saying that Apple is selling their products for too little money, only that during the launch and what seems to be longer-and- longer timeframe their most popular items are hard to come by despite breakneck speeds in production. I see AirPods every day now and yet they're still saying "2–3 weeks" on apple.com. One may argue that it's all artificial and Apple has warehouses full of AirPods ready to ship as they pull off a scam similar to De Beers, but I can't see that as being remotely viable since age as a negative affect on the value of usable technology and Apple doesn't make money by making AirPods but not selling them.
You could be right about that. It’s really hard to say. Despite everything we’re reading, we still don’t know a whole lot about where the “regular” models end, and the “Edition” begins, other than for the screen and case.
I was answering Sog though, I dont think a $899 iPhone X is on the cards.
2) There's no some reason about it. I've been crystal clear about you making absolute statement about the future and then claiming how you knew all along and everyone should bow to you when one out countless revolving guesses actually happen. You're the guy that puts money on every possible combination on a roulette table and then acts special when he wins some money even though he's losing every round.
Also the standard phone will now be the 7s ( or 8) as opposed to the X -- using the latest rumours for the names. If the entry level for the mid tier phone drops, the entry level for the high level phone can be high.
For example, I have Amazon Prime, and a Fire TV, and I also have Netflix. I also have the latest AppleTV, and have had every version of AppleTV prior to that. I download three or four titles a month, the most recent, WonderWoman/Batman vs Superman bundle (WonderWoman is very watchable; Batman vs Superman, not so much). I prefer purchase from iTunes rather than Amazon, but pricing is almost identical, and once Amazon has an AppleTV app, arguably I could eliminate the Fire TV entirely. In the meantime, I watch Amazon content on the iMac, and 12.9 iPad Pro. This is just personal anecdotal evidence, but also trending, as I'm aware of many young people that prefer their mobile device over a big screen, likely to facilitate "multitasking" in their social sphere.
In all of this, Apple has data on each download and to which device. I'm pretty sure they know better than you or I what is going on. As well, you seem to discount downloads to iOS and MacOS devices in your analysis, which are likely the "moat", if there is one, in the ecosystem.
EDIT:
How millennials watch television:
http://businessjournalism.org/2017/05/millennials-money-tv-entertainment-trends/
that gives a rock bottom cost. Then they need to decide on margins. As a company, Apple has between 20-21% net margin - profit. Some products have higher margins than that, and some lower. But Apple, like most companies is interested in overall margins. With the phone being over 60$ of sales, lowering those margins has an disproportionate affect on those overall margins, and then, the stock price.
as a result, I would think that Apple is constrained in pricing. Whatever price we see will be the result in all of those costs and needs. While I can see a higher price, to discourage orders for a low availability product, I can’t see them cutting margins for that same product. If it does indeed come out for $899, then you can be sure that it’s with the traditional margins iPhones have enjoyed at the flagship level. If it’s $999, the same can be true. I’m still wondering who is taking hit for the 40% reject on the most expensive part of the phone, which is that OLED screen. If it’s Apple, then that will add to the price.
i’m not saying that an inexpensive device will solve all of Apple’s problems in this space, but that it will be additive. By how Much? I can’t say, but by adding portability, it could be significant.
Perhaps a low-cost option might simply be an HDMI AirDisplay device, that could also decode AVC, AVEC, and other media, but not provide any interface except through the device casting the stream. Not an AppleTV, but a zero configuration setup, quick means for a personal media creators to show their stuff as the primary function. You'd still have to log a password to access the WiFi network, unless iPhone offers peer to peer networking for AirDisplay (I don't think so).
I've never understood why people get so bent out of shape whenever a "contrast and compare" pops up, but I wanted you to know that not everyone views you in a negative light.
Then again, I've managed to work my way onto the shit-list this week, so maybe you'd be better off without my endorsement!
According to the article you linked, young people are using their hand-held devices while watching TV, but not for watching TV:
"The report cites social media (Facebook and Twitter), online shopping and e-reading as the top activities millennials engage in while watching TV. Verizon says these activities are not typically related to their television viewing experience."
That says consumption of the video product still goes through the TV set. The secondary device is used for other, non-viewing activities.
If this information is accurate, it means consumption of iTunes video content over iOS may not be as relevant to the discussion as you suggested it may be earlier in the thread.
That then means the "data" you provide contradict your own assertion. Are you sure what you wrote and quoted is what you meant?
They really needed some more good games for the 4th gen.
I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe a high end 4k HDR version and a low end 1080p version, i.e., a price reduced current version, but making one as a dongle isn't going to be cheaper if it is equivalent to the current generation in capabilities.