avon b7

majorsl said:

Probably one of those that buy a flagship phone and then buy a bunch of crap quality cables at the dollar store and wonder why their device releases the magic smoke.

beowulfschmidt said:

Too many people don't understand that, for a device that promises the kind of privacy protection that Apple tauts, a repair is a security risk.  Replacing a critical part with one that isn't up to spec, or possibly even maliciously misperforms, is a security hole a mile wide.  Making it more difficult to replace those critical parts is a good thing.

radarthekat said:

avon b7 said:

ericthehalfbee said:

avon b7 said:

ericthehalfbee said:

avon b7 said:

I was following this news from China early today but in the articles that came my way, It was specifically stated that Alibaba had not given any individual amounts for the brands (not in revenue or unit sales).

Now I read this piece which throws in this:

"Despite a media narrative suggesting that Apple's sales are particularly troubled in China due to large volumes of lower-end models sold outside of Apple's core markets among mostly affluent urban Chinese by domestic brands lead by Huawei and Xiaomi"

Was that just added in spite of having no connection with the news itself or has Alibaba now actually released its brand numbers?

No connection? Apple outsold Huawei and Xiaomi to take first place during this sales event. This despite the doom & gloom announcements from many that companies like Huawei and Xiaomi are "eating Apples lunch" in China.

Look, I get it. Having Huawei end up in second (in China) behind Apple must be heart-breaking to you. There's no way you can spin this to make Apple look like they lost, despite your attempts to do so. Alibaba stated Apple was first. They didn't release specific numbers. If you have a problem with their claim, then take it up with them.

Sales in what terms? Units? Orders for xx amount in monetary terms?

Are you confirming that 'large volumes of lower end phones' has nothing to do with what was being reported?

Why are you so concerned with 'winning' or 'losing'? You do realise this entire piece is based on just ONE event. Sales for ONE day and we don't even know what those sales mean because almost nothing has been detailed about them. Still, if you think it has that much relevance, fine.

Seems like you’re the one concerned with “winning or losing”. Hence your attempts to diminish the claim by bringing up sales vs dollars or the fact it was a one day sale.

Apple is the clear winner. Everyone else fights for runner up.

It doesn't seem that way at all. I really don't care. I don't see things as having to win or lose. I see competition.

I don't diminish anything either. I point out the reality as objectively as possible, so when people start throwing around absurd claims, there is a bit of balance in the comments. Then people can make their own minds up.

As you didn't tackle the point head on I will assume that you agree with me.

If you don't know if sales were in unit or value terms it is difficult to draw conclusions. As you had nothing to offer on that point either I will assume you don't know either. Then again, the title of this piece really sums up the reasons for it:

"Apple beat ..."

It's that winners and losers story all over again. And of course the underlying reason is that 'narrative'. The narrative that everybody is out to get Apple. A narrative that simply doesn't exist and even if it did, would apply to just about all the big players, without exception.

Apple, not long ago, was utterly dependant on unit sales of smartphones for growth. That is not  case to the same extent now but people still think the iPhone is the sole flag bearer of the company. It isn't. More than three years of flat sales (that is reality) make it clear.

But what exactly is your purpose in even asking about whether Apple beat in units or revenues?  Let’s take each...

If Apple beat in units then it’s virtually a lock that they beat in revenues.  If they didn’t beat in units but instead beat in revenues then isn’t that what’s more important for a business?  Once unit volumes are sufficient to garner significant developer support, to lower component costs via economies of scale, to garner significant mind share among potential costumers, to amortize associated R&D costs, etc, then whether unit volumes outperform other smartphone vendors (selling at far lower ASPs) or are lower than the volumes those vendors shift, doesn’t much matter.  

So what’s the point? 

ericthehalfbee said:

mike54 said:

Early days for folding phones. The first rocket failed, yet later it took men to the moon, and there are thousands more examples. Strange that followers of tech have their minds closed to the possibilities, and think that this is the final product of a folding phone that will be ever be made and that no improvements are possible, forever.

Is it needed someone asked. The way tech blogs and the vocal users of smartphones have been pushing for larger and larger phones, I'll say it's needed, as it could be the only way to get a smaller phone.

More like people who understand engineering know this won't go anywhere for a LONG time.

Yes, we have rockets. You ever fly on one? Ever tried a flying car? How about a personal jet pack? There are just as many examples of technology that didn't go anywhere, even though it's "possible".