- Last Active
nealc5 said:I agree with georgecreedle that the gold models served their purpose to create buzz about the product. They are now rare collectors items that will only increase in value. I suspect this was Apple's plan all along.
They'd have called it Limited Edition and announced its availability for only 12 months
If I remember correctly, the first applewatch also got a solid 4 out of 5.
has the scoring methodology changed to have a superior product rate as well than the lesser product?
mayve the first watch wasn't worth the 4 in the first place (just as much as this one doesn't deserve it either)
Read TC's response to the EU.
The guy clearly doesn't control the situation, juggling with issues, creating non-existant amalgams, ...
Taxes for multinational companies are complex, yet a fundamental principle is recognized around the world: A company’s profits should be taxed in the country where the value is created. Apple, Ireland and the United States all agree on this principle.
The US may agree on the principle but still, but they also want to tax Apple when repatriating money earned and taxed in other parts of the world than the US
In Apple’s case, nearly all of our research and development takes place in California, so the vast majority of our profits are taxed in the United States. European companies doing business in the U.S. are taxed according to the same principle. But the Commission is now calling to retroactively change those rules.
Value does not only come from R&D. In any case, Apple was not taxed on R&D but on some imaginary cost
Specifically, it's interersting to ltice that depending on the tax breaks that patents are taxed differently. In that case the EU is right to claim that tailored taxing has been ruled.
They always favor larger corporations which creates an unfair advantage over the smaller companies
In short: 0,005% is not 12,5%.
How about explaining that, in full, Mister Cook
rare comment said:"Combined with a relatively high price compared to the fitness trackers most people seem to be opting for, and it becomes something of a luxury for the mass markets Apple needs to woo in order to make this thing as successful as their other product lines. " I agree that Apple Watch's price is far higher than fitness trackers. I also agree people see Apple Watch as a luxury but I think this is accessible/aspirational luxury pricing that has a good precedent for working in the mass-market: iPods. Mid-line iPods have typically been about $200 (for example, the third generation iPod Nano 8GB or the original iPod Mini 4GB at $250). Apple Watch starts at $269 (for 8GB). So Apple Watch seems to be in the right pricing zone for the "gift" segment of the Apple line up. It will simply take some time for people to realize the Edition was an aberration. The Apple Watch is Apple's replacement for the iPod. For more on watch pricing, see: http://q10a1.blogspot.com/2015/03/apple-watch-pricing.htmlFitbit's offer is more solid. You know what capabilities you're buying and battery life is better... and I'll be moving to the Alta
A smartwatch is just so-so in every category.
I was 9 yrs with Apple's iPhone.
Halo and all that stuff (iMac, iPad, a couple of iPhones - skipped the 5 series, iPad Pro)Just today, I bought my first Android phone. Costed me less than 200USD and it features a superb 13MP camera, Snapdragon quad core, 2Gb RAM, ... performance is terrific.
All the apps work alike on iPhone and Android.
Some seem to work better on Android (better integration of functions - Apple is still closing some stuff - yes, I know, you'll say with good reason, we've been there before).
I guess, I realized that it's been a couple of years that there's nothing special to a smartphone.That it's become since long ago a commodity.
Let's see how I can sync my calendar and contacts. I'll be just fine... paying 600USD less
anantksundaram said:Lesson #1: When you live off or steal other people's designs and IP, you destroy, or at least demean, your own design capabilities. You can't build it back up overnight.
Lesson #2: Quality, quality, quality. No compromises. Quality "costs" what it costs in the short run, but it works out cheaper in the long run.
Lesson #3: Customer, customer, customer. Once gone, they don't come back easily. Especially when there are alternatives.
From here on, Samsung slowly dies. Period.The 2 other remarks are generic enough to be applicable to any company. No kudos for that...