radarthekat

zoetmb said:

I still don't understand just what all these employees actually do.   For the size of the product line and the pace of new releases, it doesn't seem like Apple should need the number of employees that it has, unless they're planning an entirely new line of businesses that we don't yet know about.

The other strange thing is that for all the employees, when we hear reports about specific development teams, those teams tend to be relatively small.   Or, we hear about people being moved from one team to another, as if Apple doesn't have enough employees.   None of this makes sense to me. 

Just in engineering roles, in addition to the obvious work of designing existing Apple products, which requires a good number of engineers, Apple also is engaged in

the design and development of specialized factory equipment and processes used to create those products,

the design and development of a growing number of chips and SIPs used in those products, 

basic materials research to create specialized materials used in those products,

the support of a growing (already exceeding billion) user base engaged with those products,

QA and QC efforts associated with those products.

Then there’s the design of Apple’s facilities, stores, data centers, website,

engineers supporting Apple’s product partners, like IBM et al,

engineers supporting telecom partners, like AT&T, Verizon and 350 more around the world,

engineers supporting Apple’s salesforce,

health future product R&D initiatives,

transportation future product R&D initiatives,

AR future product R&D initiatives,

digital content future services R&D initiatives,

ongoing development and support of the App Store,

ongoing development of MacOS, iOS, TVOS, WatchOS, CarPlay, ApplePay, Apple Music, the suite of apps included with Apple hardware products, 

cross-team development initiatives to share features and capabilities among Apple products, like continuity, iPhone/Watch integration, HomeKit, HealthKit, etc,

patent review, defense, and development initiatives,

participation with standards bodies to assist in the definition and advancement of engineering standards of interest to Apple; WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC, etc,

social and environmental initiatives,

marketing big-data development initiatives,

machine learning R&D,

software development tools (Swift, Metal, etc) R&D,

Apple’s Today At Apple course development,

engineers supporting Apple in education,

cloud services R&D,

and a fairly large number of IT staff to support local networks in each facility, support users and keep the internal Apple machine running smoothly. 

Have I left anyone out?  

The list truly does go on, doesn’t it?  It’s not a matter of just current products versus future products, there’s a lot of richness and detail to creating and advancing a $220 billion+ revenue beast. 

I’d think the damage to consumers in this spat would exceed the damage done to the patent holder.  On that basis alone I imagine Qualcomm will not be successful in persuading toward its goal.  

Just looked at the screen shots.  The word ‘select’
isrught there between ‘when you buy’ and ‘Mac models.’  If you are seeing the offer at all you have to read all the way to ‘Mac models’ to know what the offer applies to, and so there’s zero chance you could know the offer applies to Mac models without having read that it applies to ‘select Mac Models.’

melgross said:

I don’t agree with this. It was a mistake for Apple to do this. We really don’t know the reason for it, no matter what some people may be writing, as though they have special knowledge, which they don’t.

but if this isn’t to just hide declining sales numbers across several product lines, which the investment and reporting community believes it is, as it has been for other companies, then this was the worst time to have done it. Right at the time where Apple gave disappointing guidance for their biggest quarter of the year, which we were in when the guidance was given, that has lead many to think that Apple did this because of the modest guidance, and a poor start for the first month of the quarter.

if that isn’t true, then Apple should have done it before, when their sales were very robust, and growing well. Then it couldn’t have been thought of as an attempt to hide disappointment.

as a customer, and a long term investor in Apple, I look forwards to the quarterly numbers. One reason is to see how they did when compared to the estimates given by those firms that earn their living from it. But now, Apple won’t be able to rebut their often inaccurate numbers, which, more often than not, are below the actual numbers.

so yes, I’m disappointed in this, and I haven’t seen a logical and good reason for them doing it.

I’m surprised by your reaction, Mel.  I’m down $500k from the top and I think you’re down $6 million, but the facts are different from your characterization. 

A few of us for years have been hoping Apple would stop reporting unit sales, precisely to take the focus off them and for exactly the reason Apple indicated; because a unit of iPhone sales or Mac sales is less relavent to the business results than it used to be.  As painful as this transition is, that’s a fact.  Apple is diversifying with new products and services (Watch, AirPods, HomePod, Apple Music, etc) while also adjusting prices higher, to maintain gross margins and  to reflect higher R&D expenditures and the resulting more sophisticated technology it’s delivering to customers,  

You suggest this is the worst time to make this change and then suggest the best time would have been when sales were very robust.  Mel, sales were VERY robust the last four quarters, so Apple made the change exactly as you would have wanted.  Plus, the forecast for this quarter is some $7-9 billion above last year’s holiday quarter, so again, Apple is taking the focus off unit sales just at the time you’d like them to, it seems.  At a time when sales are robust and forecasts are projecting additional growth in sales.  I fail to see the disconnect between what you think would be the ideal timing and the actual context within which Apple announced the change.  

As to Apple not being able to rebut the often inaccurate unit sales estimates, don’t you see that it will become futile to even make such estimates in the future, at least none that anyone will bother listening to, for the very fact that there will be no actual unit sales numbers reported by Apple to which the estimates can eventually be compared.  Analysts pushing unit sales numbers will increasing feel foolish shouting into a vacuum.  

avon b7 said:

urahara said:

crowley said:

racerhomie3 said:

avon b7 said:

I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.

I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.

The open web exists for that. The App Store should be apple controlled.

And why not allow third-party app stores at the user's risk?

Because those users will be still coming to Apple. Whining. When they screw up with their third-party access apps. At Apple's cost. Meaning also at the cost of those who are just using a more secure App Store.
I personally would recommend those users (who whine now, before they whine later) just go get Android. 
Android was always more customisable. And it was always one of the main selling points for such people.

That isn't actually a reason. Is there a reason that a third party app store couldn't be as good, or better than Apple's? The point is we don't know because the only way a regular user can get apps is by going through Apple's store and the vast majority of them are unnaware of how much Apple takes for providing the service or if Apple is filtering what is available to them.

Those would be non-issues if users had the option go elsewhere for iOS apps.

It is a complex issue but a legal challenge helps clarify many aspects and could possibly lead to changes in how things work.

Here's a bit more about my above comment on trademark law.  After a product, like iPhone or iPad, or iOS, has been on the market for a number of years, the design of that product acquires what's called "secondary meaning", a concept at the heart of trademark law.  Secondary meaning refers to an association of a design, like the design of an iPhone or the iOS operating system, with quality, craftsmanship or other positive attributes one might associate with the brand.  Security is paramount among those attributes when it comes to any Apple product. 

A 3rd-party App Store, which potentially could include insecure apps, malware, spyware, etc, could diminish the value of Apple’s trademarks associated with the affected products and with the entirety of tne value of Apple as a brand.  What is the value of Apple’s reputation as a business that takes great care to protect its users against security breaches?  Will a 3rd-party App Store work as diligently to protect Apple’s reputation in the eyes of Apple’s existing and potential customers?  And what remedy might Apple have against a loss of reputation, which might cost in the $10s or even $100s of billions in future revenue and customer goodwill, against the creator of an App Store which might have corporate resources in the $millions, not billions?  Apple could suffer an enormous hit with no recourse to recover against the entity that did the damage.

What is the obligation of Apple to assist and oversee any 3rd-party App Store?  To provide it the tools Apple has spend untold $billions to develop, in order to ensure that the 3rd-party, through negligence or malice, to minimize the probability of malware, spyware and insecure apps making their way onto iPhones and iPads, AppleTVs and watches and HomePods and AirPods, etc?  

Clearly there should be consideration to protect Apple as a strong competitor offering users a choice versus the market volume dominant Android.  A loss of Apple’s control of its App Store equates to a deterioration of quality of Apple products and diminishment of competition to Android.