- Last Active
sog35 said:bobschlob said:I don't see your number for iPhone sales losses in there (you know... "hardware"; where Apple actually makes it's money?)
The key is not to license iOS light to phones that are high end. Only $100-$300 phones. Many who buy those cheaper phones have no possible way to buy $600-$900 iPhones anyway. I think its a win win for Apple. The only one that losses is Android and Google.
The way I see it is two options:
Apple does not license iOS:
Sell 250 million iPhones
$40 billion in iPhone profit
Apple license iOS light:
Get $30 royalties on 600 million phones
Sell 230 million iPhones
$36 billion in iPhone profits
$18 billion on royalties profits
$3 billion on additional services revenue from additional users
Total $57 billion in profit
Apple is losing out on profiting on the $100-$300 price point which makes up over a billion units a year.
cali said:Rinsen said:Bull shit.y these people are creating such lies.i have used the old note 7 as well as the new safe note 7.i didnt get any issues.wonderfull phone.i phone 7 has lot of issues.but still they didnt have the gut to accept it.samsung did.thats da way a company should be.we salute samsung and always with them
rcfa said:Apple's obsession with thinness is getting ridiculous, if they were girls, they'd all be anorexic...
...and instead of top performance we get second or thirds tier components that fit into the cooling capacity of these overly thin devices, and we have systems that under heavy load randomly slow down because the CPU gets throttled because it otherwise would overheat.
It is one thing to strive for thinning when laptops are the size of an NYC phone book, it's a different thing to try to make them thinner when they already cut uncomfortably into your hands if you carry them for a while, and they start to flex noticeably.
Apple is on the same evolutionary dead end as peacocks with their ever longer and ever shinier feathers which may attract mates, but otherwise are simply a useless hindrance.
appleempl said:Plain and Simple the iPhone just lasts longer. In the time I've owned my 6 Plus my son has retired two new android phones, and my wife has just retired hers. These android phones just died or got screen problems that made it useless. I'll stick with Apple. My Macbook is another story, it's only a 2011 and it's obsoleted from using the latest OS's. The mac line used to last forever and the OS's didn't slow 3 or 4 year old models to a crawl. My iMac also crashes all the time but it is a 2010 model, but that's still a lot less duration of new OS compatibility. Old Macs like when they were beige and even after the iMac would last a lot longer and would be upgradeable each year for at least 6 or 7 years or more.
TurboPGT said:Yay. People that buy Space Grey do so because its the only thing close to a "black" model.
cpsro said:"grave harm", my ass. No sympathy for Spotify here, until I know the reason Spotify's update was rejected. I expect it was rejected for good reason, or else Spotify would have told us why. Until then, my assumption is it's all a ploy by Spotify. The app is still available to download and presumably still works, so I don't see how rejecting an app for specious reasons is an issue that anybody outside the company should be concerned about. What a waste of time.
I don't buy it. The iPhone 7 will look different and have at least one new key feature (maybe more) to separate it from the 6/6s outside of the normal enhancements like CPU and camera. The shell will have more changes than getting rid of the antenna lines shown in renderings.
cnocbui said:slprescott said:India is really pissing on Apple, expecially after the major financial commitments that Tim announced last week.
Since the rule applies to "single-brand" stores, maybe Apple could modify its retail strategy in India to increase the emphasis on 3rd-party accessories. Those accessories are not Apple-branded products. Potentially Apple could create a retail model (just for India) that heavily includes Apple products, but also includes enough focus on the non-Apple products to fit legitimately in the multi-brand category.
The store ruling is similar. They have a rule that benefits the local economy that existed before Apple made their application. Why should India make an exception for Apple?
A $10M investment in a facility working on maps is hardly major, and it isn't actually a case of Apple establishing an actual direct presence in India, their map venture is in reality more a case of them engaging a local Indian firm to do work for them. If the proposed investment by Foxconn goes ahead, that certainly would be a lot more significant, but once again, Apple itself would still not have a direct presence in India, which I don't blame them for in the least, given the high-handedness of the Indian Judiciary and Tax department. I don't think Tim Cook wants to be subpoenaed to appear in an Indian court, every time some minor local supplier thinks they have a grievance, which is what happened to the chairman of Samsung Electronics, Lee Kun-hee. I wonder if the arrest warrant is still outstanding.