And the current Apple leadership without any attention to detail, knowledge of good UX, or stable code is going to run Apple right back into the ground. And I say this as an avid FanGirl since switching in 2007. I loathe iOS to the point I've considered if the grass really is greener, and Mac's and macOS is stagnant except for juvenile crap and emojis and a half baked bastardisation with iOS.
I miss Steve every day I have to use my crappy iPhone / iPad / MacBook Pro / iMac.
If the Apple kit is so bad why keep using it?
I'm always amazed by people talking about the software being stale etc. Either it works or it does not. If what you have allows you to do your job or whatever then great. As we know, the grass is not always greener on the other side. Having been around computers since 1972 (days of punched cards) and been part of an OS development team I don't think that either iOS or MacOS is stale. They do what I want them to and don't really get in the way that much (As opposed to Windows 10).
As for the future... I think that a lot of people are paid an awful lot of money to do nothing but spread negativity about certain companies. If some of the major investors in Apple actually start to believe this [redacted] they could oust the current management and then it is game on for the dogs of war out there to pick up all sorts of bits of Apple on the cheap. IMHO, Apple needs to stay focussed and keep their current user base happy as well as looking at the future. It is a fine line but the company has more than enough money to do both. Keep us happy and we will be along for the ride.
Because I'm pretty much locked into the eco-system. And the hardware is the best in the world in terms of design and complimentary components, but the software is getting childish and buggy as hell, every day I see graphical errors on iOS. Every day I'm restricted by macOS from doing what I need.
And the fucktard that came up with mid grey on light grey should be executed mafia style.
The biggest blunder Cook made regarding iPhone X is the price. He cannot see that iPhone is beleaguered. The estimated cost of iPhone X parts is $370. He is so obsessed with profit margin that iPhone X price is set to $999. Even at $799, the profit margin is 46%. Apple is giving many buyers an impression of greedy. If you want to sell a product to mass of people, the first thing you should not do is greedy.
Unless Apple has a breakthrough mass product, its future is really not very bright. Cook has wasted the goodwill Jobs created for Apple.
Based on the evidence of the rising ASP, unit sales, and how long it takes before availability levels out after a launch, there's an easy argument to make that Apple's pricing is below the ideal equilibrium price.
I think it's plausible that we'll see a drop this year in the flagship price, but not because Apple read your post or because or some asshat pundit claiming the iPhone is faltering, but because component prices are likely going to be reduced. How much R&D and how many years did Apple spend on reinventing how the iPhone looked? It was the first time in a decade that the face looked significantly different. How much did Face ID cost them before knowing it would be a market success
The biggest blunder Cook made regarding iPhone X is the price. He cannot see that iPhone is beleaguered. The estimated cost of iPhone X parts is $370. He is so obsessed with profit margin that iPhone X price is set to $999. Even at $799, the profit margin is 46%. Apple is giving many buyers an impression of greedy. If you want to sell a product to mass of people, the first thing you should not do is greedy.
Unless Apple has a breakthrough mass product, its future is really not very bright. Cook has wasted the goodwill Jobs created for Apple.
Based on the evidence of the rising ASP, unit sales, and how long it takes before availability levels out after a launch, there's an easy argument to make that Apple's pricing is below the ideal equilibrium price.
I think it's plausible that we'll see a drop this year in the flagship price, but not because Apple read your post or because or some asshat pundit claiming the iPhone is faltering, but because component prices are likely going to be reduced. How much R&D and how many years did Apple spend on reinventing how the iPhone looked? It was the first time in a decade that the face looked significantly different. How much did Face ID cost them before knowing it would be a market success
This won't happen unless Apple discontinue iPhone X. Then Apple will become a laughing stock.
The biggest blunder Cook made regarding iPhone X is the price. He cannot see that iPhone is beleaguered. The estimated cost of iPhone X parts is $370. He is so obsessed with profit margin that iPhone X price is set to $999. Even at $799, the profit margin is 46%. Apple is giving many buyers an impression of greedy. If you want to sell a product to mass of people, the first thing you should not do is greedy.
Unless Apple has a breakthrough mass product, its future is really not very bright. Cook has wasted the goodwill Jobs created for Apple.
Based on the evidence of the rising ASP, unit sales, and how long it takes before availability levels out after a launch, there's an easy argument to make that Apple's pricing is below the ideal equilibrium price.
I think it's plausible that we'll see a drop this year in the flagship price, but not because Apple read your post or because or some asshat pundit claiming the iPhone is faltering, but because component prices are likely going to be reduced. How much R&D and how many years did Apple spend on reinventing how the iPhone looked? It was the first time in a decade that the face looked significantly different. How much did Face ID cost them before knowing it would be a market success
This won't happen unless Apple discontinue iPhone X. Then Apple will become a laughing stock.
What exactly won't happen? Why would offering the next generation iPhone make Apple a laughing stock? Where they a laughing stock when they stopped selling the original iPhone to start selling the iPhone 3G? At least that was unusual because there was no supply for about 2 months as they were ramping up production of the new model. That could happen if newer Face ID components are much cheaper, but I've seen no evidence that we'll see that happen again. Still, killing the iPhone X to come out with a new model that looks the same on the face (perhaps with a smaller notch) doesn't scream laughing stock, to me. You'll have to explain that one.
The biggest blunder Cook made regarding iPhone X is the price. He cannot see that iPhone is beleaguered. The estimated cost of iPhone X parts is $370. He is so obsessed with profit margin that iPhone X price is set to $999. Even at $799, the profit margin is 46%. Apple is giving many buyers an impression of greedy. If you want to sell a product to mass of people, the first thing you should not do is greedy.
Unless Apple has a breakthrough mass product, its future is really not very bright. Cook has wasted the goodwill Jobs created for Apple.
Based on the evidence of the rising ASP, unit sales, and how long it takes before availability levels out after a launch, there's an easy argument to make that Apple's pricing is below the ideal equilibrium price.
I think it's plausible that we'll see a drop this year in the flagship price, but not because Apple read your post or because or some asshat pundit claiming the iPhone is faltering, but because component prices are likely going to be reduced. How much R&D and how many years did Apple spend on reinventing how the iPhone looked? It was the first time in a decade that the face looked significantly different. How much did Face ID cost them before knowing it would be a market success
This won't happen unless Apple discontinue iPhone X. Then Apple will become a laughing stock.
What exactly won't happen? Why would offering the next generation iPhone make Apple a laughing stock? Where they a laughing stock when they stopped selling the original iPhone to start selling the iPhone 3G? At that was unusual because there was no supply for about 2 months as they were ramping up production. My original iPhone went for more than it originally cost because of that.
Apple discontinue a product when it is pretty old. Apple cannot offer the next iPhone at $799 and still selling iPhone X for $999. It must discontinue the X to do that. Then it will became a laughing stock for making the X a blunder.
The biggest blunder Cook made regarding iPhone X is the price. He cannot see that iPhone is beleaguered. The estimated cost of iPhone X parts is $370. He is so obsessed with profit margin that iPhone X price is set to $999. Even at $799, the profit margin is 46%. Apple is giving many buyers an impression of greedy. If you want to sell a product to mass of people, the first thing you should not do is greedy.
Unless Apple has a breakthrough mass product, its future is really not very bright. Cook has wasted the goodwill Jobs created for Apple.
Based on the evidence of the rising ASP, unit sales, and how long it takes before availability levels out after a launch, there's an easy argument to make that Apple's pricing is below the ideal equilibrium price.
I think it's plausible that we'll see a drop this year in the flagship price, but not because Apple read your post or because or some asshat pundit claiming the iPhone is faltering, but because component prices are likely going to be reduced. How much R&D and how many years did Apple spend on reinventing how the iPhone looked? It was the first time in a decade that the face looked significantly different. How much did Face ID cost them before knowing it would be a market success
This won't happen unless Apple discontinue iPhone X. Then Apple will become a laughing stock.
What exactly won't happen? Why would offering the next generation iPhone make Apple a laughing stock? Where they a laughing stock when they stopped selling the original iPhone to start selling the iPhone 3G? At that was unusual because there was no supply for about 2 months as they were ramping up production. My original iPhone went for more than it originally cost because of that.
Apple discontinue a product when it is pretty old. Apple cannot offer the next iPhone at $799 and still selling iPhone X for $999. It must discontinue the X to do that. Then it will became a laughing stock for making the X a blunder.
I have no idea what you're getting at. You're saying the original iPhone "pretty old" at around 8 or 9 months when they stop production? Why exactly was that a "blunder" for Apple and how did that make them a "laughing stock"? How would Apple moving technology forward by either reducing the price of the flagship iPhone (as it typically does) or killing that specific model altogether (as it's done in the past) to offer the latest iPhone-X-looking iPhone as the 2018 flagship model giving you any reason to laugh at Apple's overwhelming success? Am I misunderstanding your meaning entirely and you're actually saying that the edge-to-edge design of the iPhone X with Face ID is going away and that Apple will be going back to the forward and chin with a Home Button design?
The biggest blunder Cook made regarding iPhone X is the price. He cannot see that iPhone is beleaguered. The estimated cost of iPhone X parts is $370. He is so obsessed with profit margin that iPhone X price is set to $999. Even at $799, the profit margin is 46%. Apple is giving many buyers an impression of greedy. If you want to sell a product to mass of people, the first thing you should not do is greedy.
Unless Apple has a breakthrough mass product, its future is really not very bright. Cook has wasted the goodwill Jobs created for Apple.
Based on the evidence of the rising ASP, unit sales, and how long it takes before availability levels out after a launch, there's an easy argument to make that Apple's pricing is below the ideal equilibrium price.
I think it's plausible that we'll see a drop this year in the flagship price, but not because Apple read your post or because or some asshat pundit claiming the iPhone is faltering, but because component prices are likely going to be reduced. How much R&D and how many years did Apple spend on reinventing how the iPhone looked? It was the first time in a decade that the face looked significantly different. How much did Face ID cost them before knowing it would be a market success
This won't happen unless Apple discontinue iPhone X. Then Apple will become a laughing stock.
What exactly won't happen? Why would offering the next generation iPhone make Apple a laughing stock? Where they a laughing stock when they stopped selling the original iPhone to start selling the iPhone 3G? At that was unusual because there was no supply for about 2 months as they were ramping up production. My original iPhone went for more than it originally cost because of that.
Apple discontinue a product when it is pretty old. Apple cannot offer the next iPhone at $799 and still selling iPhone X for $999. It must discontinue the X to do that. Then it will became a laughing stock for making the X a blunder.
I have no idea what you're getting at. You're saying the original iPhone "pretty old" at around 8 or 9 months when they stop production? Why exactly was that a "blunder" for Apple and how did that make them a "laughing stock"? How would Apple moving technology forward by either reducing the price of the flagship iPhone (as it typically does) or killing that specific model altogether (as it's done in the past) to offer the latest iPhone-X-looking iPhone as the 2018 flagship model giving you any reason to laugh at Apple's overwhelming success? Am I misunderstanding your meaning entirely and you're actually saying that the edge-to-edge design of the iPhone X with Face ID is going away and that Apple will be going back to the forward and chin with a Home Button design?
iPhone is discontinued because iPhone 3G is much better. Do you think the next iPhone will be MUCH better than iPhone X? If so, why would Apple need to lower its price? Your thinking has a lot of logical problem.
The biggest blunder Cook made regarding iPhone X is the price. He cannot see that iPhone is beleaguered. The estimated cost of iPhone X parts is $370. He is so obsessed with profit margin that iPhone X price is set to $999. Even at $799, the profit margin is 46%. Apple is giving many buyers an impression of greedy. If you want to sell a product to mass of people, the first thing you should not do is greedy.
Unless Apple has a breakthrough mass product, its future is really not very bright. Cook has wasted the goodwill Jobs created for Apple.
Based on the evidence of the rising ASP, unit sales, and how long it takes before availability levels out after a launch, there's an easy argument to make that Apple's pricing is below the ideal equilibrium price.
I think it's plausible that we'll see a drop this year in the flagship price, but not because Apple read your post or because or some asshat pundit claiming the iPhone is faltering, but because component prices are likely going to be reduced. How much R&D and how many years did Apple spend on reinventing how the iPhone looked? It was the first time in a decade that the face looked significantly different. How much did Face ID cost them before knowing it would be a market success
This won't happen unless Apple discontinue iPhone X. Then Apple will become a laughing stock.
What exactly won't happen? Why would offering the next generation iPhone make Apple a laughing stock? Where they a laughing stock when they stopped selling the original iPhone to start selling the iPhone 3G? At that was unusual because there was no supply for about 2 months as they were ramping up production. My original iPhone went for more than it originally cost because of that.
Apple discontinue a product when it is pretty old. Apple cannot offer the next iPhone at $799 and still selling iPhone X for $999. It must discontinue the X to do that. Then it will became a laughing stock for making the X a blunder.
I have no idea what you're getting at. You're saying the original iPhone "pretty old" at around 8 or 9 months when they stop production? Why exactly was that a "blunder" for Apple and how did that make them a "laughing stock"? How would Apple moving technology forward by either reducing the price of the flagship iPhone (as it typically does) or killing that specific model altogether (as it's done in the past) to offer the latest iPhone-X-looking iPhone as the 2018 flagship model giving you any reason to laugh at Apple's overwhelming success? Am I misunderstanding your meaning entirely and you're actually saying that the edge-to-edge design of the iPhone X with Face ID is going away and that Apple will be going back to the forward and chin with a Home Button design?
iPhone is discontinued because iPhone 3G is much better. Do you think the next iPhone will be MUCH better than iPhone X? If so, why would Apple need to lower its price? Your thinking has a lot of logical problem.
1) YES! I absolutely believe the this year's flagship iPhone will be better than the previous year's flagship Phone, as it always is.
2) Why is lowering the price of last year's model a "logical problem" in my thinking when it's what's they've done for almost every iPhone they've released? Here's the link to Apple's iPhone 6S models which went on sale in 2015 as their flagship models, and then were replaced by the iPhone 7 (also still for sale) the next year, which was replaced in 2017. Why exactly were all those embarrassments for Apple?
PS: The iPhone 3G was still very much an anemic device and one of the weakest YoY upgrades Apple has offered for the device. It did finally come a 3G radio, but the silicon wasn't improved much at all (if at all), and then the casing wasn't nearly as attractive to most buyers. Based on your own statement that the original "iPhone is discontinued because iPhone 3G is much better" then every other iPhone should never had had a second year on the market because they all exceed the performance, engineering, design and feature growth (not to mention sales) of the two devices below… and yet we see that Apple doesn't typically keep older iPhone around to sell at a lower price with the company collapsing due to all those people laughing at them. :eyeroll:
Original iPhone: CPU: Samsung 32-bit RISC ARM 1176JZ(F)-S v1.0 @ 620 MHz; Underclocked to 412 MHz
iPhone 3G:CPU: Samsung 32-bit RISC ARM 1176JZ(F)-S v1.0 @ 620 MHz; Underclocked to 412 MHz
Why do apple peeps keep thinking android manufacturers are copying the notch?
To get a phone with next to zero bezel you have to have a notch, unless you have a pop up camera, so it's a natural progression manufacturers will follow. The essential phone was the first with a notch that I remember and that released in August 17 before the iPhone X.
Also what are the iPhone X sales numbers, all I hear is it is certainly not selling as well as they had anticipated, but as the profit margin on the phone is absolutely ridiculous, apple are still making stupid profit.
If people think the phone is good value for money then fine, but I believe smartphones have become commodity devices and for the majority of the people living on the planet they would be more than happy with a device in the midrange bracket. So apples problem is how do they keep those ridiculous iPhone profits coming in, and the answer is they won't be able to for much longer.
Why do Android jerks come on here go to you're own site stay away from here ahole......
Some has to educate you.
There has NEVER been an Android user on AI that knew more about Android than I or numerous other members here do. Which is why we destroy such trolls with ease, based on facts and a deep understanding of Android.
There's nothing wrong with Apple but everything wrong with this country. Yes, I said it but that's where the problem lies. There's false information about everything that makes every product someone wants to look bad, look bad. Market manipulation, shorting of stocks, making up information about sales, everything is being done to make money without actually earning it. The only people who know how well Apple is doing are people within Apple, nobody else no matter how smart they think they are. I don't care what happened years ago, Apple wasn't being run the way it is now. Apple will survive but AAPL might not. When AAPL is being hammered, especially by the media and stock market, Apple must be doing something right because the market has always hated Apple, especially because they're from the left coast.
I agree with Rob53 and remember most all of the things that took place with Apple since I have been involved as a user / investor since prior to the Mac (was it not 1984). Apple ///, Apple 2, Apple , Newton, Camera, etc. So many good products that did not make it from a Marketing stand point. Most of the news writers do not remember these things, etc. It is much easier for reporters, Stock Brokers, Anal-ysts, etc. to de-promote success than to promote or write about it.
Apple is a much greater company than in the past, but the above mentioned publication writers, don't want to say this. It is almost like political system reporting: Very Little fact - lots of opinion. Difficult for me to watch any TV channel for very long. Too much YaDaYaDaYaDa from any side gets old, as does the Apple lambasting. Apple is great - I have a lot & continue to use the products I want to use. I like competition, but Apple has all the money, profit, what ever you want to call it. Reporters expect Magic ! It is not Magic.
The biggest blunder Cook made regarding iPhone X is the price. He cannot see that iPhone is beleaguered. The estimated cost of iPhone X parts is $370. He is so obsessed with profit margin that iPhone X price is set to $999. Even at $799, the profit margin is 46%. Apple is giving many buyers an impression of greedy. If you want to sell a product to mass of people, the first thing you should not do is greedy.
Unless Apple has a breakthrough mass product, its future is really not very bright. Cook has wasted the goodwill Jobs created for Apple.
Based on the evidence of the rising ASP, unit sales, and how long it takes before availability levels out after a launch, there's an easy argument to make that Apple's pricing is below the ideal equilibrium price.
I think it's plausible that we'll see a drop this year in the flagship price, but not because Apple read your post or because or some asshat pundit claiming the iPhone is faltering, but because component prices are likely going to be reduced. How much R&D and how many years did Apple spend on reinventing how the iPhone looked? It was the first time in a decade that the face looked significantly different. How much did Face ID cost them before knowing it would be a market success
This won't happen unless Apple discontinue iPhone X. Then Apple will become a laughing stock.
What exactly won't happen? Why would offering the next generation iPhone make Apple a laughing stock? Where they a laughing stock when they stopped selling the original iPhone to start selling the iPhone 3G? At that was unusual because there was no supply for about 2 months as they were ramping up production. My original iPhone went for more than it originally cost because of that.
Apple discontinue a product when it is pretty old. Apple cannot offer the next iPhone at $799 and still selling iPhone X for $999. It must discontinue the X to do that. Then it will became a laughing stock for making the X a blunder.
I have no idea what you're getting at. You're saying the original iPhone "pretty old" at around 8 or 9 months when they stop production? Why exactly was that a "blunder" for Apple and how did that make them a "laughing stock"? How would Apple moving technology forward by either reducing the price of the flagship iPhone (as it typically does) or killing that specific model altogether (as it's done in the past) to offer the latest iPhone-X-looking iPhone as the 2018 flagship model giving you any reason to laugh at Apple's overwhelming success? Am I misunderstanding your meaning entirely and you're actually saying that the edge-to-edge design of the iPhone X with Face ID is going away and that Apple will be going back to the forward and chin with a Home Button design?
iPhone is discontinued because iPhone 3G is much better. Do you think the next iPhone will be MUCH better than iPhone X? If so, why would Apple need to lower its price? Your thinking has a lot of logical problem.
1) YES! I absolutely believe the YoY iPhone will be better than the previous year.
2) Why is lowering the price of last year's model a "logical problem" in my thinking when it's what's they've done for almost every iPhone they've released? Here's the link to Apple's iPhone 6S models which went on sale in 2015 as their flagship models, and then were replaced by the iPhone 7 (also still for sale) the next year, which was replaced in 2017. Why exactly were all those embarrassments for Apple?
PS: The iPhone 3G was still very much an anemic device. It did have a 3G radio, but the silicon wasn't improved much at all (if at all), and then the casing wasn't nearly as attractive to most buyers.
Original iPhone: CPU: Samsung 32-bit RISC ARM 1176JZ(F)-S v1.0 @ 620 MHz; Underclocked to 412 MHz
iPhone 3G:CPU: Samsung 32-bit RISC ARM 1176JZ(F)-S v1.0 @ 620 MHz; Underclocked to 412 MHz
Are you reading the news correctly? Isn't the news saying Apple will lower the price of NEXT iPhone?
The biggest blunder Cook made regarding iPhone X is the price. He cannot see that iPhone is beleaguered. The estimated cost of iPhone X parts is $370. He is so obsessed with profit margin that iPhone X price is set to $999. Even at $799, the profit margin is 46%. Apple is giving many buyers an impression of greedy. If you want to sell a product to mass of people, the first thing you should not do is greedy.
Unless Apple has a breakthrough mass product, its future is really not very bright. Cook has wasted the goodwill Jobs created for Apple.
Based on the evidence of the rising ASP, unit sales, and how long it takes before availability levels out after a launch, there's an easy argument to make that Apple's pricing is below the ideal equilibrium price.
I think it's plausible that we'll see a drop this year in the flagship price, but not because Apple read your post or because or some asshat pundit claiming the iPhone is faltering, but because component prices are likely going to be reduced. How much R&D and how many years did Apple spend on reinventing how the iPhone looked? It was the first time in a decade that the face looked significantly different. How much did Face ID cost them before knowing it would be a market success
This won't happen unless Apple discontinue iPhone X. Then Apple will become a laughing stock.
What exactly won't happen? Why would offering the next generation iPhone make Apple a laughing stock? Where they a laughing stock when they stopped selling the original iPhone to start selling the iPhone 3G? At that was unusual because there was no supply for about 2 months as they were ramping up production. My original iPhone went for more than it originally cost because of that.
Apple discontinue a product when it is pretty old. Apple cannot offer the next iPhone at $799 and still selling iPhone X for $999. It must discontinue the X to do that. Then it will became a laughing stock for making the X a blunder.
I have no idea what you're getting at. You're saying the original iPhone "pretty old" at around 8 or 9 months when they stop production? Why exactly was that a "blunder" for Apple and how did that make them a "laughing stock"? How would Apple moving technology forward by either reducing the price of the flagship iPhone (as it typically does) or killing that specific model altogether (as it's done in the past) to offer the latest iPhone-X-looking iPhone as the 2018 flagship model giving you any reason to laugh at Apple's overwhelming success? Am I misunderstanding your meaning entirely and you're actually saying that the edge-to-edge design of the iPhone X with Face ID is going away and that Apple will be going back to the forward and chin with a Home Button design?
iPhone is discontinued because iPhone 3G is much better. Do you think the next iPhone will be MUCH better than iPhone X? If so, why would Apple need to lower its price? Your thinking has a lot of logical problem.
1) YES! I absolutely believe the YoY iPhone will be better than the previous year.
2) Why is lowering the price of last year's model a "logical problem" in my thinking when it's what's they've done for almost every iPhone they've released? Here's the link to Apple's iPhone 6S models which went on sale in 2015 as their flagship models, and then were replaced by the iPhone 7 (also still for sale) the next year, which was replaced in 2017. Why exactly were all those embarrassments for Apple?
PS: The iPhone 3G was still very much an anemic device. It did have a 3G radio, but the silicon wasn't improved much at all (if at all), and then the casing wasn't nearly as attractive to most buyers.
Original iPhone: CPU: Samsung 32-bit RISC ARM 1176JZ(F)-S v1.0 @ 620 MHz; Underclocked to 412 MHz
iPhone 3G:CPU: Samsung 32-bit RISC ARM 1176JZ(F)-S v1.0 @ 620 MHz; Underclocked to 412 MHz
Are you reading the news correctly? Isn't the news saying Apple will lower the price of NEXT iPhone?
Don't try changing the subject now. You made specifically claims that the iPhone was "beleaguered" and that there figure was "not bright," and other ridiculous claims. You never once addressed DED's article.
The biggest blunder Cook made regarding iPhone X is the price. He cannot see that iPhone is beleaguered. The estimated cost of iPhone X parts is $370. He is so obsessed with profit margin that iPhone X price is set to $999. Even at $799, the profit margin is 46%. Apple is giving many buyers an impression of greedy. If you want to sell a product to mass of people, the first thing you should not do is greedy.
Unless Apple has a breakthrough mass product, its future is really not very bright. Cook has wasted the goodwill Jobs created for Apple.
Based on the evidence of the rising ASP, unit sales, and how long it takes before availability levels out after a launch, there's an easy argument to make that Apple's pricing is below the ideal equilibrium price.
I think it's plausible that we'll see a drop this year in the flagship price, but not because Apple read your post or because or some asshat pundit claiming the iPhone is faltering, but because component prices are likely going to be reduced. How much R&D and how many years did Apple spend on reinventing how the iPhone looked? It was the first time in a decade that the face looked significantly different. How much did Face ID cost them before knowing it would be a market success
This won't happen unless Apple discontinue iPhone X. Then Apple will become a laughing stock.
What exactly won't happen? Why would offering the next generation iPhone make Apple a laughing stock? Where they a laughing stock when they stopped selling the original iPhone to start selling the iPhone 3G? At that was unusual because there was no supply for about 2 months as they were ramping up production. My original iPhone went for more than it originally cost because of that.
Apple discontinue a product when it is pretty old. Apple cannot offer the next iPhone at $799 and still selling iPhone X for $999. It must discontinue the X to do that. Then it will became a laughing stock for making the X a blunder.
I have no idea what you're getting at. You're saying the original iPhone "pretty old" at around 8 or 9 months when they stop production? Why exactly was that a "blunder" for Apple and how did that make them a "laughing stock"? How would Apple moving technology forward by either reducing the price of the flagship iPhone (as it typically does) or killing that specific model altogether (as it's done in the past) to offer the latest iPhone-X-looking iPhone as the 2018 flagship model giving you any reason to laugh at Apple's overwhelming success? Am I misunderstanding your meaning entirely and you're actually saying that the edge-to-edge design of the iPhone X with Face ID is going away and that Apple will be going back to the forward and chin with a Home Button design?
iPhone is discontinued because iPhone 3G is much better. Do you think the next iPhone will be MUCH better than iPhone X? If so, why would Apple need to lower its price? Your thinking has a lot of logical problem.
1) YES! I absolutely believe the YoY iPhone will be better than the previous year.
2) Why is lowering the price of last year's model a "logical problem" in my thinking when it's what's they've done for almost every iPhone they've released? Here's the link to Apple's iPhone 6S models which went on sale in 2015 as their flagship models, and then were replaced by the iPhone 7 (also still for sale) the next year, which was replaced in 2017. Why exactly were all those embarrassments for Apple?
PS: The iPhone 3G was still very much an anemic device. It did have a 3G radio, but the silicon wasn't improved much at all (if at all), and then the casing wasn't nearly as attractive to most buyers.
Original iPhone: CPU: Samsung 32-bit RISC ARM 1176JZ(F)-S v1.0 @ 620 MHz; Underclocked to 412 MHz
iPhone 3G:CPU: Samsung 32-bit RISC ARM 1176JZ(F)-S v1.0 @ 620 MHz; Underclocked to 412 MHz
Are you reading the news correctly? Isn't the news saying Apple will lower the price of NEXT iPhone?
Don't try changing the subject now. You made specifically claims that the iPhone was "beleaguered" and that there figure was "not bright," and other ridiculous claims. You never once addressed DED's article.
You still have logical problem. I am replying to your post. Why do you say it is changing the subject? BTW, reply to my question first.
Actually Mac OS Classic had a very good memory management within the limits of its capabilities. It was just not a true operating system.
Is that like the
"No True Scotsman" fallacy?
It was software that initialized the hardware, handled input from the keyboard, output to a display, read and wrote to storage media, and ran software on top of that software. In every definition, it was a true operating system. It was modern for the time, even if we've since moved past it.
If you want to go pedantic, all the forum is yours. Of course everyone here knows what CP/M is.
We're talking about something booting from a 400K diskette, just a System file and a Finder file along with the ImageWriter driver and a few other files. Yes that was an achievement but an achievement that shaped all the future evolution. When OS/2, Windows NT and others opened the path to modern PC operating systems it would have no chance of survival. Even Amiga's Tramiel OS was ahead of Mac OS with its true multitasking.
Amiga had AmigaOS - Jack Tramiel was Commodore but left for Atari, and TOS appeared in their Atari ST, the Amiga’s natural competitor.
Amiga OS was preemptive multitasking but I think pretty much the whole thing was run in Userland.
Yes, some TriPOS (Trivial Portable Operating System) had later became AmigaOS. My confusion with TOS.
The biggest blunder Cook made regarding iPhone X is the price. He cannot see that iPhone is beleaguered. The estimated cost of iPhone X parts is $370. He is so obsessed with profit margin that iPhone X price is set to $999. Even at $799, the profit margin is 46%. Apple is giving many buyers an impression of greedy. If you want to sell a product to mass of people, the first thing you should not do is greedy.
Unless Apple has a breakthrough mass product, its future is really not very bright. Cook has wasted the goodwill Jobs created for Apple.
Based on the evidence of the rising ASP, unit sales, and how long it takes before availability levels out after a launch, there's an easy argument to make that Apple's pricing is below the ideal equilibrium price.
I think it's plausible that we'll see a drop this year in the flagship price, but not because Apple read your post or because or some asshat pundit claiming the iPhone is faltering, but because component prices are likely going to be reduced. How much R&D and how many years did Apple spend on reinventing how the iPhone looked? It was the first time in a decade that the face looked significantly different. How much did Face ID cost them before knowing it would be a market success
This won't happen unless Apple discontinue iPhone X. Then Apple will become a laughing stock.
What exactly won't happen? Why would offering the next generation iPhone make Apple a laughing stock? Where they a laughing stock when they stopped selling the original iPhone to start selling the iPhone 3G? At that was unusual because there was no supply for about 2 months as they were ramping up production. My original iPhone went for more than it originally cost because of that.
Apple discontinue a product when it is pretty old. Apple cannot offer the next iPhone at $799 and still selling iPhone X for $999. It must discontinue the X to do that. Then it will became a laughing stock for making the X a blunder.
I have no idea what you're getting at. You're saying the original iPhone "pretty old" at around 8 or 9 months when they stop production? Why exactly was that a "blunder" for Apple and how did that make them a "laughing stock"? How would Apple moving technology forward by either reducing the price of the flagship iPhone (as it typically does) or killing that specific model altogether (as it's done in the past) to offer the latest iPhone-X-looking iPhone as the 2018 flagship model giving you any reason to laugh at Apple's overwhelming success? Am I misunderstanding your meaning entirely and you're actually saying that the edge-to-edge design of the iPhone X with Face ID is going away and that Apple will be going back to the forward and chin with a Home Button design?
iPhone is discontinued because iPhone 3G is much better. Do you think the next iPhone will be MUCH better than iPhone X? If so, why would Apple need to lower its price? Your thinking has a lot of logical problem.
1) YES! I absolutely believe the YoY iPhone will be better than the previous year.
2) Why is lowering the price of last year's model a "logical problem" in my thinking when it's what's they've done for almost every iPhone they've released? Here's the link to Apple's iPhone 6S models which went on sale in 2015 as their flagship models, and then were replaced by the iPhone 7 (also still for sale) the next year, which was replaced in 2017. Why exactly were all those embarrassments for Apple?
PS: The iPhone 3G was still very much an anemic device. It did have a 3G radio, but the silicon wasn't improved much at all (if at all), and then the casing wasn't nearly as attractive to most buyers.
Original iPhone: CPU: Samsung 32-bit RISC ARM 1176JZ(F)-S v1.0 @ 620 MHz; Underclocked to 412 MHz
iPhone 3G:CPU: Samsung 32-bit RISC ARM 1176JZ(F)-S v1.0 @ 620 MHz; Underclocked to 412 MHz
Are you reading the news correctly? Isn't the news saying Apple will lower the price of NEXT iPhone?
Don't try changing the subject now. You made specifically claims that the iPhone was "beleaguered" and that there figure was "not bright," and other ridiculous claims. You never once addressed DED's article.
You still have logical problem. I am replying to your post. Why do you say it is changing the subject? BTW, reply to my question first.
I'd like to think that you're just trolling instead of the other option for making so many stupid statements.
PS: I guess you'll be shocked come September when Apple has yet another blockbuster iPhone for sale.
Lots of talk in that editorial, yet none of it related to the unsustainable business practices in pathological capitalism that are the problem now, as it was for Apple in the past: obsession with perpetual growth of profit margins and Wall Street pandering.
There's also the lack of deeper vision, the loss of expertise (some or much of it being driven out of the company by infighting), and the unrestrained extreme preferences that used to be balanced by complementary preferences...
Corporations are effectively immortal. However, their "personalities" change over time as their makeup changes. Today's Apple isn't the Apple that shook up the computer industry between 2007-2010 (my preferred golden era). Similarly, that Apple wasn't the same one that existed during the previous "golden era".
The sad thing is, both eras were driven by a very strong, mostly unified vision that is not coming back a third time because the man who provided it, as well as the questionable management style that kept the various personalities in balance, is now dead.
Without that unified force, Apple has been degenerating into the riding of its own coattails; there's the insulated arrogance of executives (growing more out of touch every year, possibly bored millionaires), product and customer abuse to drive new sales in shorter and shorter cycles (because shareholders and profit margins rule most of the decision making), resting on the laurels of historic brand respect (being burned away with the death of attention to detail and quality that earned it)... basically, MBA-style management.
While none of what you say is true, if it were, then where would that leave Apple? Um, hmm, I guess Apple would be not worse than most corporations. You comment that Jobs is dead, that it was he who held it all together. But you seem oblivious to the fact none of Apple’s competition ever had Jobs? How on earth have they held things together? What must be the state of their executive suites having never had Jobs to even get things together in the first place?
Lots of talk in that editorial, yet none of it related to the unsustainable business practices in pathological capitalism that are the problem now, as it was for Apple in the past: obsession with perpetual growth of profit margins and Wall Street pandering.
There's also the lack of deeper vision, the loss of expertise (some or much of it being driven out of the company by infighting), and the unrestrained extreme preferences that used to be balanced by complementary preferences...
Corporations are effectively immortal. However, their "personalities" change over time as their makeup changes. Today's Apple isn't the Apple that shook up the computer industry between 2007-2010 (my preferred golden era). Similarly, that Apple wasn't the same one that existed during the previous "golden era".
The sad thing is, both eras were driven by a very strong, mostly unified vision that is not coming back a third time because the man who provided it, as well as the questionable management style that kept the various personalities in balance, is now dead.
Without that unified force, Apple has been degenerating into the riding of its own coattails; there's the insulated arrogance of executives (growing more out of touch every year, possibly bored millionaires), product and customer abuse to drive new sales in shorter and shorter cycles (because shareholders and profit margins rule most of the decision making), resting on the laurels of historic brand respect (being burned away with the death of attention to detail and quality that earned it)... basically, MBA-style management.
While none of what you say is true, if it were, then where would that leave Apple? Um, hmm, I guess Apple would be not worse than most corporations. You comment that Jobs is dead, that it was he who held it all together. But you seem oblivious to the fact none of Apple’s competition ever had Jobs? How on earth have they held things together? What must be the state of their executive suites having never had Jobs to even get things together in the first place?
Hey, but thanks for playing.
The fever has broken, and "The Negatively in all things Apple Ailment" has just about run its course. The clickbait is satiated.
Lots of talk in that editorial, yet none of it related to the unsustainable business practices in pathological capitalism that are the problem now, as it was for Apple in the past: obsession with perpetual growth of profit margins and Wall Street pandering.
There's also the lack of deeper vision, the loss of expertise (some or much of it being driven out of the company by infighting), and the unrestrained extreme preferences that used to be balanced by complementary preferences...
Corporations are effectively immortal. However, their "personalities" change over time as their makeup changes. Today's Apple isn't the Apple that shook up the computer industry between 2007-2010 (my preferred golden era). Similarly, that Apple wasn't the same one that existed during the previous "golden era".
The sad thing is, both eras were driven by a very strong, mostly unified vision that is not coming back a third time because the man who provided it, as well as the questionable management style that kept the various personalities in balance, is now dead.
Without that unified force, Apple has been degenerating into the riding of its own coattails; there's the insulated arrogance of executives (growing more out of touch every year, possibly bored millionaires), product and customer abuse to drive new sales in shorter and shorter cycles (because shareholders and profit margins rule most of the decision making), resting on the laurels of historic brand respect (being burned away with the death of attention to detail and quality that earned it)... basically, MBA-style management.
While none of what you say is true, if it were, then where would that leave Apple? Um, hmm, I guess Apple would be not worse than most corporations. You comment that Jobs is dead, that it was he who held it all together. But you seem oblivious to the fact none of Apple’s competition ever had Jobs? How on earth have they held things together? What must be the state of their executive suites having never had Jobs to even get things together in the first place?
Hey, but thanks for playing.
The fever has broken, and "The Negatively in all things Apple Ailment" has just about run its course. The clickbait is satiated.
Until Wednesday, when it creeps back again.
Same as it ever was.
Well Apple do bring it on themselves by not having anything to talk about between xmas and wwdc.
Lots of talk in that editorial, yet none of it related to the unsustainable business practices in pathological capitalism that are the problem now, as it was for Apple in the past: obsession with perpetual growth of profit margins and Wall Street pandering.
There's also the lack of deeper vision, the loss of expertise (some or much of it being driven out of the company by infighting), and the unrestrained extreme preferences that used to be balanced by complementary preferences...
Corporations are effectively immortal. However, their "personalities" change over time as their makeup changes. Today's Apple isn't the Apple that shook up the computer industry between 2007-2010 (my preferred golden era). Similarly, that Apple wasn't the same one that existed during the previous "golden era".
The sad thing is, both eras were driven by a very strong, mostly unified vision that is not coming back a third time because the man who provided it, as well as the questionable management style that kept the various personalities in balance, is now dead.
Without that unified force, Apple has been degenerating into the riding of its own coattails; there's the insulated arrogance of executives (growing more out of touch every year, possibly bored millionaires), product and customer abuse to drive new sales in shorter and shorter cycles (because shareholders and profit margins rule most of the decision making), resting on the laurels of historic brand respect (being burned away with the death of attention to detail and quality that earned it)... basically, MBA-style management.
While none of what you say is true, if it were, then where would that leave Apple? Um, hmm, I guess Apple would be not worse than most corporations. You comment that Jobs is dead, that it was he who held it all together. But you seem oblivious to the fact none of Apple’s competition ever had Jobs? How on earth have they held things together? What must be the state of their executive suites having never had Jobs to even get things together in the first place?
Hey, but thanks for playing.
The fever has broken, and "The Negatively in all things Apple Ailment" has just about run its course. The clickbait is satiated.
Until Wednesday, when it creeps back again.
Same as it ever was.
Well Apple do bring it on themselves by not having anything to talk about between xmas and wwdc.
I'm curious what the reasoning is. With all their devices working together via iCloud and so much shared coded I understand why WWDC for the reveal and September for the OS releases, as well as pre-holiday shopping season for new devices, but from a consumer's standpoint, when you pile in so many new products at once I'm simply not going to spend as much.
2017 was the 2nd time I didn't buy a new iPhone for a given release, but it was only because I had bought a new Apple Watch and a new MBP recently. If it was the only new Apple product I probably wouldn't bought an iPhone 8 Plus* on launch day.
* It would've been an iPhone X if the display was wider, which I suspect will happen this year.
Comments
And the fucktard that came up with mid grey on light grey should be executed mafia style.
I think it's plausible that we'll see a drop this year in the flagship price, but not because Apple read your post or because or some asshat pundit claiming the iPhone is faltering, but because component prices are likely going to be reduced. How much R&D and how many years did Apple spend on reinventing how the iPhone looked? It was the first time in a decade that the face looked significantly different. How much did Face ID cost them before knowing it would be a market success
2) Why is lowering the price of last year's model a "logical problem" in my thinking when it's what's they've done for almost every iPhone they've released? Here's the link to Apple's iPhone 6S models which went on sale in 2015 as their flagship models, and then were replaced by the iPhone 7 (also still for sale) the next year, which was replaced in 2017. Why exactly were all those embarrassments for Apple?
PS: The iPhone 3G was still very much an anemic device and one of the weakest YoY upgrades Apple has offered for the device. It did finally come a 3G radio, but the silicon wasn't improved much at all (if at all), and then the casing wasn't nearly as attractive to most buyers. Based on your own statement that the original "iPhone is discontinued because iPhone 3G is much better" then every other iPhone should never had had a second year on the market because they all exceed the performance, engineering, design and feature growth (not to mention sales) of the two devices below… and yet we see that Apple doesn't typically keep older iPhone around to sell at a lower price with the company collapsing due to all those people laughing at them. :eyeroll:
There has NEVER been an Android user on AI that knew more about Android than I or numerous other members here do. Which is why we destroy such trolls with ease, based on facts and a deep understanding of Android.
Care to go a few rounds?
Apple is a much greater company than in the past, but the above mentioned publication writers, don't want to say this. It is almost like political system reporting: Very Little fact - lots of opinion. Difficult for me to watch any TV channel for very long. Too much YaDaYaDaYaDa from any side gets old, as does the Apple lambasting. Apple is great - I have a lot & continue to use the products I want to use. I like competition, but Apple has all the money, profit, what ever you want to call it. Reporters expect Magic ! It is not Magic.
PS: I guess you'll be shocked come September when Apple has yet another blockbuster iPhone for sale.
Hey, but thanks for playing.
Until Wednesday, when it creeps back again.
Same as it ever was.
2017 was the 2nd time I didn't buy a new iPhone for a given release, but it was only because I had bought a new Apple Watch and a new MBP recently. If it was the only new Apple product I probably wouldn't bought an iPhone 8 Plus* on launch day.
* It would've been an iPhone X if the display was wider, which I suspect will happen this year.