tenly

Mr_Grey said:

apple iigs said:

Actually this is not a bad idea. Imagine Apple saying "the iPhone will go on sale for x amount of dollars or buy one iPhone get one free for one month only". This would be interesting to see. Remembering back to 2009 and 2010 there were huge android promotions pushing buy 1 android device get a second free. This was at time when iPhone was selling many more iPhones then android. The user base  was much larger for iPhone at the time. That buy one get one free promotion really helped android go over the top with its user install base... with goole making incredible claims of something like close to a one million android activations a day. I don't know if that was accurate number but clearly google realized that it needed to push its user base quickly to expand.

But really I am not sure any of this matters anyway now. Apple is company I would think is comfortable with its self and its position in the consumer technology business.

As a side note I really wish Apple would pay attention to the less popular products like its mac mini and iPod touch. The Mini and Touch probably don't make much money for Apple but these products are essential for people who generally cannot afford the apple experience a different way. The mini should be updated more regularly then is what seems now to be a two year update cycle. In my opinion Apple can afford to come close on breaking even on some of their products. Its not difficult to see that this would make sense. Just because you can only afford the lesser of the Apple products does not mean not mean that we should be left out and neglected with regular timely updates.

Thanks for being the only person who didn't crap on me for making the "perhaps they could reduce their margins" comment.  

Funnily enough, right after I said it, 9to5Mac published a piece saying much the same thing.  

To those taking me to task for the "commodity" word, I might have mis-spoke or used the wrong term.  What I was talking about was market saturation and dwindling sales as a result of same.  In other words, if they are having trouble selling iPhones, maybe the fact that some of the "cheapest" models withe the "lowest" prices are basically a thousand bucks has something to do with it.  

Apple has the fattest margins in the business.  I said two or three times the average, but some people even say four or eighth times the average.  They make 40% on every product.  Always.  Most other computer manufacturers make 5% or so from what I understand.  

One of the typical rules of business is that if people are having trouble affording your products or they aren't selling as well as you want, that reduction of said (super) fat margins is something to consider.  It's not a crazy idea by any means.  

As a consumer, you shouldn't be worried about margins at all.  Margins are for shareholders.

The iPhone is the best selling phone on the planet and it appears to be priced appropriately for the market it competes in.  Being the best product in its market, it deserves to command a higher price than the 2nd and 3rd best products - and obviously consumers agree.  It's priced more expensive than the flagship Samsung phones - but only slightly more - and it is selling extremely well - so it appears that Apple has chosen exactly the right price point.

The biggest problem with your argument is that you think that Apple is making too much money and it sounds like you resent them for it because you are talking about "reducing margins" instead of "lowering prices" - and you compare their 40% margin to the 5% or less that their competitors are making - and implying that Apples margins should be closer to the margins of competing products.  But margins should be irrelevant to consumers.  You are essentially saying that Apple doesn't deserve to profit from the supply chain management efficiencies that allow them to build their products with less expense.  Apple has made some bold, and risky moves - especially in the beginning of the iPhone life cycle that have paid off.  They have designed a product that is so desirable, they sell millions of units per quarter which requires purchasing in bulk, vast numbers of components which translates into a lower price for the components.  And Apple negotiates better deals for assembly, their logistics are better, etc, etc, etc.  It took many years, a lot of effort, and some very smart people to create such an efficient supply chain - and *THAT* is what translates into higher margins.  They deserve to be rewarded for all of the extra effort they put into keeping their costs low.  Why should you be rewarded for Apples extra efforts?  And who are you to determine how much a company should be allowed to make?

Forget about margins.  They are irrelevant to retail pricing.  The only important question is "Is the iPhone too expensive?  Or is it priced "just right" with respect to the rest of the market?"   From where I stand, it appears to be priced just right.  You are obviously jealous and angry that they are allied to be so successful - but don't be.  They've earned it.

hentaiboy said:

AppleInsider said:

In a rare move, Apple released supplemental material along with its usual 8-K SEC filing to demonstrate the extent to which currency headwinds impacted results. It was calculated that $100 of non-U.S. dollar revenue at the end of fiscal 2014 translates to only $85 in the just ended period, meaning first quarter 2015 revenue would have been $5 billion higher at "constant currency." This disparity was the first issue Cook addressed in today's call.

Why use "constant currency" to fudge the numbers? Apple has been raising prices overseas to compensate for the U.S. dollar movement.

The price increases are extremely recent - and prices have not been increased everywhere.  The price increases help but don't completely compensate for the currency changes.

"Constant currency" is a valid way to convey what would have happened if there had been no "currency headwind" which is largely beyond Apples control - except it doesn't tell the whole story because as you mentioned, Apple has had to raise prices in some countries to help compensate - this always has the effect of reducing sales volumes - so if there had been no headwind, they would have sold more phones too.

Your comments are phrased in a very troll-like manner.  Just because you don't understand somethings doesn't mean you should attack Apple with such negativity.  Just ask nicely and someone smarter than you will explain it.  The forum is literally filled with people that fit that description!

Mr_Grey said:

roake said:

A product line cannot grow forever.  This is why Apple is attempting to branch into other markets.  The trillion-dollar question is whether these endeavors will work out as planned; it's hard to knock it out of the park every single time.

They could always reduce their huge profit margin to the same level as the other players, that would increase sales by a factor of ten probably.  If the iPhone is becoming a commodity device, maybe it should be priced accordingly instead of as if it were some kind of precious gem.  

Right.  Because that's what Burberry, Louis Vuitton, Rolls Royce and Hermés have done...right?  LOL
Lowering prices is definitely not the answer.

sallymcsalad344 said:

What do you expect from a DED article? This article seems to bash Microsoft more than what the article is about which is typical for a ded article, trashing the competition, and then the apple fanboys come to his defense. Look i could care less about microsoft but DED articles are way too bias.

You've arrived at APPLEinsider.com
It appears you were looking for unbiasedinsider.com
You're in the wrong place.  

Most of us enjoy DED's articles that expose the lies spread by the Apple haters and document the truth that the haters try to hide or twist into a negative themed click-bait headline.  Daniels articles definitely have a pro-Apple slant to them - but they are factual, well researched and a refreshing change to the non-stop Apple bashing!

Thanks for stopping by and for all 4 of your tantalizing posts.  The community will miss you and your contributions. (Heavy sarcasm)

danvm said:

tenly said:

All of the weeks that the system has worked, Microsoft has been happy to take the credit for the entire system.  If they're going to mislead people into thinking that somebody else's program and technology (the backend system) is a value add provided by Microsoft - then they damn well be ready to take their lumps when that system has problems.  Because Microsoft has been happy to take the credit for all the successes, they must also take the responsibility for the failure!

There is plenty that Microsoft could have done to ensure that they had a redundant system in place - with backup networks standing by and failover servers ready to take over should any of the main servers fail.  Apple would have definitely had a robust and redundant solution in place - so it's true that this problem would not have occurred if Apple was running the system and featuring iPads.

Redundant systems/disaster recovery and failover are all well-known and documented requirements of any business critical system.  Microsoft is not afraid to spend money but for some reason they didn't build a redundant system.  The blame for the failure may not belong to the surface - but it most definitely belongs to Microsoft.  A great example of Microsoft incompetence and laziness in inaction.  Are you ready to trust them and their software to run your companies business critical systems now that you see how they design and implement their own???  Not me!
 

For some reason, you post mention redundant servers, when the problem was related to a network issue.  If the system was running with iPads, they would have the same problem because (again) it was a network problem.  Maybe it would be worst, since the Surface went hardwire, something you cannot do with iPads (at least from what I know).  

BTW, MS had personnel in the field to give support, and the situation was fixed.  That's part of a recovery plan, and looks like the downtime was minimum because of that.  I think the issue would have taken longer to fix if the had no backup plan at all.  IMO, they had been very successful all year long.  Too bad your opinion is based in 15-20 minutes instead of how the system have work the whole season.  

I mentioned redundant systems which would include network and servers.  It doesn't matter that this particular problem was network related - my comments stand that there should have been backup servers.  They should not have had to fix the network - they should have had a hot standby network ready and waiting.  The downtime could/should have been reduced to less than a minute as opposed to the 15 or 20 it took to switch to a hard-wired solution.

When evaluating a disaster recovery plan/process - it doesn't matter how well the system worked or for what length of time things ran without issue.  Evaluating the response to a problem, the impact the problem creates and the length of the outage is what is important - and that is where Microsoft failed.  Microsoft knew that the eyes of the world were on them and yet they chose not to implement a truly resilient system - so in my opinion, they deserve all of the negativity arising from the incident.  Instead of trying to pass the buck and blame someone else for the problem, they should be apologizing for dropping the ball and for thinking that a 15-20 minute outage mid-game was acceptable.