- Last Active
That's fairly decent profits but yet the iPhone X is considered a "failed" product. I suppose anything can be considered a failure if it doesn't meet a particular person's standards. Apparently, the only measure for Wall Street is when a product exceeds a certain amount of market share percentage whether or not the product is profitable or not. If market share percentage is the only measure of success for a product, then no Apple product will ever be considered "successful." Generally speaking, Apple's entire business is not considered a successful business as far as Wall Street is concerned because of such low growth potential and Apple doesn't seem to dominate any particular market. However, Apple's cash flow is good and profits are relatively high but is still considered a doomed business due to certain set standards of what is considered a successful business.
I don't think anyone buying a Galaxy S9 would care about the processor being slower than Apple's A-series processor. They're going to be buying the S9 for the Infinity Display, the variable iris camera and the headphone jack. As long as those features work, I would think users would be more than satisfied. The iPhone really doesn't get that much praise for processing power and Apple mostly downplays benchmarks. All people did was whine about the iPhone X's display notch, so everyone has their own preferences about what they feel is most important on a smartphone.
wizard69 said:It is pretty delusional to believe that pricing isn't an issue. It is pretty easy to argue that Apple could have sold a lot more iphones if they didn't price the things so high.
All the big hedge funds are piling into Facebook because they know the company can't be touched by the Feds. Despite all the moaning and groaning about loss of personal privacy and data breaches, the big investors are more interested in making money than all that consumer privacy nonsense. Almost no one is concerned with loss of personal privacy and the companies that harvest personal data are the most profitable ones around. Even after the data-breach scandal, Facebook stock is up for the year. Zuckerberg walked away untouched by the Capitol Hill watchdogs.
The way I see it, HomePod sales are going to be compared to sales of Amazon Echo Dots and Google's Home Mini and therefore no matter how many Apple HomePods are sold sales are going to look pathetic in comparison. This is another case of Amazon's market share percentage beating out Apple's profits. I'm sure it's already been declared by the industry how Apple's HomePod is too little and too late. Apple has just that one expensive voice assistant so every other company's voice assistant sales are going to seem immense when compared with the HomePod. Apple is already starting out with Siri being acknowledged as the most stupid AI. Alexa has completely captured the home market and with Amazon's marketing prowess, there's simply no way the HomePod can compete.
I can already see the headlines. "Amazon's Echo outselling the HomePod by 10 to 1 so Apple has a failing product on its hands." Amazon will be reiterated to reach the $1T market cap mark before Apple because Jeff Bezos is seen as a better CEO than Tim Cook. As an individual, I have no interest in either Echos or HomePods because I don't wish to have listening devices in my house. I'm almost 70 years of age, so I suppose I'm just old-fashioned and don't see voice assistants as some wonderful, game-changing products. My house isn't all that complicated where I need devices to talk to in order to carry out simple commands. I already have a media center with 7.1 surround sound and a few BT headphones to listen to music if I want to. Voice assistants may be great for most consumers but I don't fall into that category as of yet.
thrang said:Truth or click-bait, none of this matters, as the need/desire to speak commands to your electronics is so miniscule compared to the totality of all other methods of inputs and interactions. Saying Amazon is winning is like saying a team than went on a 6 game winning streak in May is destined to win the World Series. It's soooo early in the "season" - and I suspect voice recognition, while increasing in importance over time, will remain niche compared type, touch, and perhaps much more advanced forms of AI interpretation (location, proximity, body, facial, eye analysis, sensors, habit analysis..) Part of the limitation for wider home adoption currently is feedback is very limited (assuming one does not want to keep picking up their iPhone or iPad). But an Apple TV, which can become the visual side of an enriched Siri response, is very intriguing.
If it's a Jony Ive design, then I'm sure it will end up thermal throttling long before some other companies' design. Jony Ive's quest for thinness will always hamper cooling. I'm being sarcastic but I'm willing to bet I'm right. I've also heard of Apple being cheap and careless when it comes to the application of thermal paste. So sad. Apple has the power to do things right but seems to be getting lazy and that's just so unfair to loyal Apple product users. If I'm wrong, then I truly apologize but it just seems that's how things are at Apple. There's no point in Apple using high-performance components if they can't fully take advantage of them.
Whenever some Apple product is reviewed, the caveat is always the high cost. As long as there are consumers willing to pay for Apple kit, Apple will continue to charge high prices. It's that ugly matter of supply and demand. I have often wondered how long Apple can get consumers to pay more, but they manage to do so as new consumers come along. Anyway, that sleeve is nothing I would consider buying so I have nothing much to say about whether it cost too much or not. More power to those consumers who can easily afford whatever Apple sells. I'm truly happy for them and maybe in my next life, I'll have that good fortune.
They have to be guessing at those figures as there's no way to tell by way of Apple. I can only trust Apple to give the correct figures if they're going to give them at all. As a shareholder, I don't need to know how many HomePods are being sold as long as Apple's revenue increases in whatever combined category the HomePod falls under. The HomePod has a long way to go to get all the features it was intended to have. A year is fine as long as Apple has other products that are selling. The HomePod is likely a long-term play and there's no way it's going to immediately go up against Amazon Echo devices that are practically disposable. There's no way Amazon can lose based on unit sales but revenue and profits will certainly be to Apple's advantage. As the hardware is quite advanced, once Apple improves Siri, the HomePod will be a revenue driver.