redstater

cali said:

This is fucking disgusting.

The fact you can just steal a company's hard work and creation and sell it right next to the original is sad.

I watched the full 2007 iPhone keynote yesterday and it changed my view even more on IP theft. I have ZERO respect for the knockoff brands and have even more respect for Apple.

the part where Steve says "we filed over 200 patents for this phone and we plan on protecting them". It's like he truly believed his work would be protected but the U.S. government didn't give a shit and it's probably worse in other countries.

Imagine the billions of dollars IP theft had caused Apple?

IP theft? The Microsoft Windows case from decades ago demonstrated that general UX/UI concepts aren't copyrightable. Because of this, Apple never accused Google of infringement, and was only able to get a small judgment from Samsung because they went beyond general UX/UI and specifically set out to make their product look as much like an iPhone as possible, which got them dinged over "trade dress" instead of intellectual property (which is why the judgment was so small.) The courts, both domestic and international, have long held that taking UX/UI concepts is no more "stealing" than using general hardware designs, such as what Apple did when they created their own ARM CPUs. In order to be consistent, you would need the position that Apple should have designed their own CPUs entirely from the ground up. Otherwise, you would be taking the position that UX/UI is really what matters, and the hardware that makes the UX/UI possible in the first place is trivial. Then again, that may be Apple's position after all, as even while they were suing Samsung and threatening LG, HTC and other Android OEMs over UX/UI before finally giving up on that failed strategy, they themselves were found to be violating hardware patents for 2G/LTE tech by Ericsson and CPU designs by the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Basically, can't complain about what the other guy is doing when your guy is doing the same. You may have wanted Apple to enjoy a monopoly, but similar to Microsoft in the 1990s, Google and their partners came out with good products that was able to compete at a lot of price points. So, it should suffice to merely be glad that Apple enjoys a 48% market share in the U.S. mobile industry, a lot better than the 5%-10% market share that they enjoyed in the PC market in the 90s and 00s.

foggyhill said:

The problem is that the smartphone market is mostly down market (except for Apple), while they're most lucrative products are up market.

3% is pretty small, so not even sure why this is news.

If by "down market" you mean devices that cost as much as an iPhone's 6 price of $599, that is not true and not even close. LG, HTC, Huawei, Xiaomi, Samsung and others combined sell many tens - well into the hundreds - of millions of their various flagship devices. Except that iPhones do not exclusively cost $599 anymore: the iPhone SE costs $399, similar to the Moto X and the Nexus 5X. So when you consider that the average selling price of an Android phone was $180 last year - and this average was brought down by a flood of cheap devices that sold in Asia, Africa and Latin America - then several hundreds of millions of devices that were $399 and up were among the 1.2 billion Android devices sold last year. Quite naturally, if the iPhone SE has this GPU, then any Android device that is anywhere near its price range - I would say $250 on up - would be a candidate to include this GPU also.

But in any case, the new Android Vulkan API performs just fine on Mali GPUs, so long as they are 600 series or higher (the Mali 880 is the latest and is in the crop of flagship Android phones just released) and Google made a point of ensuring Vulkan performance on both high end and midrange Mali GPUs. So I doubt that Imagination will find very many takers for their products in the Android world, though making attempts to market them probably wouldn't hurt as you never know.

apple ][ said:

How many Android users will be using this newest OS when it gets released?

0.0001736%

  

I haven't seen any recent charts, but the majority of Android users are still probably on an ancient version of Android that was released a long, long time ago.

33% of users are on 2013's KitKat. 36% of users are on 2014's Lollipop. 7.5% are on 2015's Marshmallow. 25% of Android users are on versions released before 2013.

MacBook Air as an entry level device for $700 or even $500 is a bad idea why? If Apple is able to manufacture the things for $250 and sell then for $500, what is the problem? Do you want Apple products to be for the masses or don't you? Or would you rather them remain a product for the elite? Another thing: an entry level MacBook Air wouldn't even need the A9 or another ARM chip, which everyone wants to see happen for geeky tech reasons, not because it fills an actual market need. (Never mind the fact that it would force Apple to tune one version of OS X for ARM and another for x86 and maintain two separate OS streams; something that has never been Apple's thing - it is more like what Microsoft and Google specialize in - and should never be.) Instead, it could simply use a cheaper Intel i-series chip (not a Pentium or Celeron type that is being used for Chromebooks and cheaper Windows 10 devices) than are in the MacBook Pros, which quite honestly should cost the same as an A9 anyway. It may even cost less! If Apple is able to build a quality machine that capably runs Mac OS X and sell it for $500-$700 and still make a large per-device margin, then why not? It could target Windows users, public schools and even the users of better Chromebooks (which run about $350-$400). If there is a downside, explain it to me. And if the claim is that Apple cannot POSSIBLY make a device with an i3 or i5 processor that capably runs OS X for that amount of money, make that case also. Kind of difficult to do so if you ask me when you consider that the Mac Mini already starts at $499. (Had I known of the Mac Mini's existence I would not have bought my last Windows PC. I am still hoping that the thing kicks the bucket soon so I can replace it with one.) http://www.apple.com/mac-mini/.

Not to quibble but the "Gameboy Portable" was replaced by the Nintendo DS/3DS which is still selling pretty well. It is the Wii U that is the failure that everyone attributes to smartphones and tablets, but DS/3DS sales didn't crater nearly as much as the console sales did. The Wii U failed because Nintendo priced it the same as the XBox and Playstation where before their consoles cost half as much.

As far as fitness bands being "a fad" you have to remember that the devices have been around for a long time, but were "dumb" devices called pedometers. I remember when fast food companies were giving the cheaper versions away with meals. The market for the "dumb" versions wasn't that big, but it wasn't insubstantial either; you could always see the things for sale at athletics stores, and manufacturers even built the things into shoes and such.

So calling their "smart" (or smarter) equivalents a fad when their antecedents pre-existed the iPod - and iPods used to include them! - is a bit presumptive. As is expecting a $299 device - which needs to be paired with a $599 device - to replace it. It would be one thing if Apple and their competitors designed and advertised their watches to compete with and be better versions of the fitness trackers the way that the iPhone was both a better version of the Blackberry and Microsoft style smartphones AND feature phones. They aren't. Instead, they are separate devices with fitness features thrown in as a bonus. Except that the iPhone - and smartphones generally - have those same features. So ... no reason to buy a separate device when you can just purchase a $10 exercise band, strap your iPhone in and get going. Do that and you have all of the abilities that the smartwatch has - including the ability to check the time and listen to music - and plenty that the Apple Watch doesn't i.e a GPS and the ability to receive calls.

Fitbit and its competitors are for people who for whatever reason want a better pedometer. That market isn't very big, but neither was the pedometer market that it mostly replaced. The Apple Watch, Android Wear and the rest are for people who for whatever reason want a phone - or more accurately a tablet unless you own one of the few Samsung Tizen or Android Wear devices that have 3G service - on their wrist. So before it obsoletes fitness trackers, the non-fitness tracker uses for the Apple Watch - and smart watches in general - need to be more compelling. Not least because most people who own Fitbit type devices do not own or wear watches of any sort and have no desire to.

daye said:

Apple should persuade more retailers to accept Apple Pay.  Apple should make P2P /ATM on Apple Pay.

And how are they going to do that? Apple would be asking the retailers to spend millions (and for larger ones, billions) in new hardware that they will have to roll out and support, when they will get no more money from it than they already are. Apple Pay - and mobile payments generally - only benefit Apple (and Google) and the banks. They do not increase profits for the retailers, so why bother? "Your competition down the street does." That only works if it is a mom-and-pop shop. Usually the competition will be a regional or national chain. And in any case, you are talking about the small percentage of the population that A) owns an iPhone 6, 6s or an Apple Watch, has signed up for Apple Pay and C) wants to use Apple Pay any given day and D) is motivated to choose their retailer over who gives them the opportunity to pay with their phone or watch instead of paying with their credit card like they have all their previous life. That is going to be, like 10 people per store MAYBE? They are willing to give that up in order to avoid the expense of buying, installing and supporting the new equipment. Until large retailers give up on MCX or their own proprietary mobile payment apps - because stores want to lock their own consumers in AND collect data for their own advertising campaigns - you may not see any real action on Apple Pay.

As Google makes more money off iOS than it does on Android (for now anyway) then this is entirely appropriate and not the least bit conflicting or surprising. Being multi-platform has its benefits, and this is something that Google and Amazon have long exploited, and Microsoft is now learning to exploit also. Oh, and what Apple does to a lesser degree also: iTunes on Windows and Apple Music/Beats on Android for example. So Eric Schmidt prefers his iPhone (but cannot for obvious business and public relations reasons admit it). So long as hundreds of millions of Android users disagree - and all evidence points to this being the case - it is no issue at all.

lkrupp said:

Pandora down, Spotify next. Hey, if AI Apple haters can wish Android was the only mobile platform available then I can wish for Apple Music to be the only choice in streaming music. It’s all about choice? Gimme a break.

And when have "Apple haters" (more like haters of Apple fans who hate all other platforms and products) wanted Android to be the only mobile platform? Especially since most Android fans also own iPads and/or MacBooks? Never forget which side kicked who off their board of directors, which side threatened "thermonuclear war" over a "stolen product", and which side used lawsuits and threatened unheard-of licensing fees (at one point $35-$50 per device made) to try to intimidate OEMs from making Android devices. Add to that the behavior of a lot of tech media writers, a lot of developers, carriers and of course a lot of Apple fans and of course there is a ton of resentment and a desire to see Apple taken down a peg. But no one wants Google and Android to be to mobile what Microsoft was to PCs. On the other hand, PLENTY of Apple fans are convinced that iOS being the only game in town - despite the fact that 75% of the world's population cannot afford their devices, and that a lot of Apple's "ideas" and "innovations" for their own products kinda came from Google and/or Samsung, especially lately, even if it is never acknowledged - would somehow make the tech industry and the world a better place.

Apple fans view Android as a failed product (even as Apple "adopts" more and more Android features) that will inevitably crash. People in the U.S. and worldwide continue to buy more Android products. Frustration over their failed predictions of Android doom cause even more such predictions, which fuel even more frustration. Year after year after year. Rinse, lather, repeat.

foggyhill said:

The dumbest fracking thing ever posted on Apple Insider.

Apple should 100% create a A chip laptop, that would kill Chrome books in an instant because they're margins is so thin the wouldn't be able to compete.

The dumbest thing ever posted is the continual claims about "thin margins." Apple fans seem to think that the tech market A) began with Apple and consists only of devices that Apple makes and sells. So obviously, because Apple sells PCs, TV boxes, smartphones, tablets, headphones etc. at high margins, that is the only way to make money in consumer products generally and electronics specifically. Right? Right? Except that companies have been selling cheap PCs at low margins FOR THIRTY YEARS. The companies that do it ... Lenovo, Dell, Samsung, Toshiba, Acer, Asus, Vaio ... are still in business and are doing fine. The only major ones to go out of business were not only cheap PC competitors like Compaq and Packard Bell, but IBM, the one manufacturer with an Apple-like premium-only with high margins and extensive support strategy! They were undercut by the competition and wound up having to sell both their PC and small server divisions to Lenovo! But that is just PCs, right? Well, no. Headphones and accessories? Companies that make cheap ones have always been around and will always be around. LG reports that they make more money on accessories for their smartphones than they do on smartphones, even though they aren't "premium" like Beats! (Which is one of the reasons why they will never stop making smartphones, because if they do, their smartphones accessories business will dry up. Buy LG accessories to go with a Samsung, Motorola or Huawei smartphone? Why, when Samsung, Motoroal and Huawei make their own accessories?) All right. Let us get into stuff that Apple doesn't make. TVs? Well you can either pay $5000 for an LG, Sony or Samsung HDTV ... or you can spend $250 for a Haier or RCA one. RCA, Haier and the other cheap TV manufacturers MUST be going out of business because of the low margins right? Nope. They've been in the market for years - though most of the cheap TV brands sell primarily in Asia - and some of them (like Huawei) are finally getting into the premium electronics market for the first time after decades of existing on the fringes as budget electronics and appliance manufacturers by selling Android smartphones! Stereos? More of the same. The companies that were making cheap analog stereos and speakers to plug into (similarly cheap) TVs a decade ago are now making cheap bluetooth and NFC TVs to sync with cheap Android phones and Chromecast Audio dongles. Some of these companies are now building cheap speakers with Chromecast Audio built in. Watches? Timex, Armitron and Casio have been in business for decades and will remain so, and at least a couple of them are now either making Android Wear smartwatches (like Casio and Swatch) or are investigating their own smartwatch/IoT platform. Look, if budget and cheap devices have always existed with the companies making them turning profits, that's not going to change. So please. Stop it with the "the margins are too low to stay in business" thing. It is not true. It has never been true. Decades and decades of consumer and electronics devices prove otherwise. You even have (or had) entire retail chains that specialize in cheap electronics. So long as Wal-Mart (for example) stays in business, companies will exist to sell Chromebooks and Android phones and tablets to their patrons. Who knows, some of them may even use Walmart Pay to buy them! That immutable fact of commerce isn't going to be changed by Apple fans - who obviously by the comments on here never shop at Wal-Mart or any place like it anyway - wishing it to.