danox
About
- Username
- danox
- Joined
- Visits
- 152
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 5,358
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 3,912
Reactions
-
Processor cost could drive prices of the iPhone 18 range up
CarmB said:
There have been many advancements in processing power without a dramatic increase in price. Price point matters. If you can't get the price point right, it doesn't matter how capable your product is. This isn't about putting more powerful processors in future generations of iPhones. Really, it's a given that this will happen considering it has been happening for a very long time. You can't simply develop a product, add up all the resulting cost and price it accordingly. It is also part of the design process that said product must come in a pre-determined price point otherwise all bets are off.danox said:
You’re off your rocker take a look at what happened to Intel, AMD, US Steel, Kodak, Xerox, Motorola of Schaumburg, Illinois, when it comes to software and hardware, the job is never done for Apple not if you wanna keep ahead of the competition……CarmB said:That's a problem mainly because the speed of existing processors is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the vast majority of users. Really fast upgraded to faster still, in real-world use, adds up to no discernible upgrade. Asking consumers who already are facing substantial price increases to pay more for essentially nothing doesn't appear to be a good grasp of what will best serve consumers. In the end, the key to success does lie in making your customers happy. Charging more with nothing to show for it is not how you do that. As the price of acquiring the latest and greatest goes up, it motivates consumers to think hard about upgrading from a working iPhone. So if Apple goes to a higher price point with its iPhone line, it will not end well for Apple. The only way this would work would be if there was compelling functionality added to the iPhone experience as a result of a processor upgrade. Current processors are so capable that it seems unlikely this will happen.Apple is in an industry where long slow iteration is a part of the game particularly for those who want to stay ahead of the game. Those that get left behind or who start to sit on their laurels and stop iterating. Intel, IBM and the former Motorola of Schaumburg, Illinois who are exhibits “A”, “B’” and “C” for what happens when you start to sit around and do nothing.Apple over the years can’t afford to rest despite their success they’re not even remotely a monopoly unless your definition of a monopoly is being a monopoly of your own in-house products. (Which some cockeyed people buy into) Apple has had to roll up their sleeves many times over the years to introduce a device or a piece of software to keep ahead of the competition because of the lack of support (AAA games for example), Apple Pay, iMessages, Apple Watch, Safari, Apple Maps, Metal, Swift, MLX and a whole bunch of other devices/software had to be created because Apple had no choice if they were going to continue to be at the forefront, the biggest of these in house projects was Apple Silicon no Apple Silicon probably no Apple computer today with Intel currently listing at sea.
Note: There are two other choices out there if you’re dissatisfied about the price or the pace, you can get a Microsoft Windows computer or you can pick up an Android device both offer plenty of cheap solutions. Apple because of their position (vertical computer company) has always had to do more than their competition and it does cost more money.
-
Processor cost could drive prices of the iPhone 18 range up
You’re off your rocker take a look at what happened to Intel, AMD, US Steel, Kodak, Xerox, Motorola of Schaumburg, Illinois, when it comes to software and hardware, the job is never done for Apple not if you wanna keep ahead of the competition……CarmB said:That's a problem mainly because the speed of existing processors is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the vast majority of users. Really fast upgraded to faster still, in real-world use, adds up to no discernible upgrade. Asking consumers who already are facing substantial price increases to pay more for essentially nothing doesn't appear to be a good grasp of what will best serve consumers. In the end, the key to success does lie in making your customers happy. Charging more with nothing to show for it is not how you do that. As the price of acquiring the latest and greatest goes up, it motivates consumers to think hard about upgrading from a working iPhone. So if Apple goes to a higher price point with its iPhone line, it will not end well for Apple. The only way this would work would be if there was compelling functionality added to the iPhone experience as a result of a processor upgrade. Current processors are so capable that it seems unlikely this will happen. -
Google has an illegal monopoly on online advertising, judge rules
AppleInsider said:Google is an illegal monopolist in online advertising, a federal court has determined, in a ruling that could lead to a breakup of its ad business.
If you want true competition, make it so that Google cannot be on the Apple ecosystems and the same should apply to Microsoft and Meta and vice versa then you will see actual competition among the cozy back scratching tech giants. Of the four out of necessity over the years Apple has always had to have the most complete computer experience for their customers to exist while the others could freeload back-and-forth on other platforms, make them all survive on their own and then you would have real competition. -
iPhone Fold rumored to cost over $2000
charlesn said:
Nibbling at the edges like that has never been Apple's game. The iPhone Plus has routinely made it into the top ten selling smartphones in the world, and yet Apple is still allegedly cutting it for lack of "sufficient" sales. As for 3% of sales being a gigantic win--how do you figure that? I think you're correct that Fold sales will largely come from cannibalizing Pro Max sales. A mid-tier storage Pro Max sells for $1600. A similar storage Fold might come in at $400 or $500 more. But it's going to be a MUCH more expensive phone to manufacture, not to mention the costs for R&D, tooling and marketing that will go into it. I'm not seeing much added profit at all for Apple in that $400-$500 increase in the selling price over the Pro Max when you consider all of the costs that have to be amortized over a relatively small (for Apple) number of phones that will be sold.tht said:If this device is 3% of iPhone sales, it would be an incredible success.
It will finally stop the whining on tech sites for Apple to make a folding phone.geekmee said:Remind me, what problem does this solve again?charlesn said:Zero surprise. Galaxy Fold 6 ranges from $1600 to nearly $2K at Best Buy, depending on storage, So it sounds like Apple will be within a few hundred of those numbers. Why Apple would introduce this extremely niche and expensive bridge to nowhere is beyond me, but I also can't believe that all these predictions of its arrival are wrong. Apple has never felt the "me, too" need to chase Android gimmicks. and it's hard to see the Galaxy Fold as anything more than that when it has generated such little sales traction after six years on the market. Same for the Pixel Fold, although that has been around for only two years. Who knows? Maybe Apple will have come up with some compelling use cases by the time it arrives that will justify its stratospheric price and fragility when you inevitably drop it to a broader audience than either Samsung or Google has reached, but I'm not sure what those would be.It’s like all the whining about Apple making a touchscreen laptop (the MicrosoftSurface) or the additional whining about putting macOS on an iPad Pro, whine number three will be the cost why can’t it cost $600? -
Big tech upset at Meta's poorly executed court document redactions
MplsP said:Raise your hand if you’re surprised by this. Fakebook/Meta doesn’t care about protecting personal data or privacy, why should it care any more about corporate data?No surprise whatsoever, Meta has never cared about anyone’s privacy if it could make them a buck, what is pathetic? Is that companies/pubic keep treating them as if they care they never have and they absolutely never will, which is why you don’t share anything with them no matter how much they cry about it to government for a free ride within your ecosystem and by the way, Google is not that far behind, Apple should treat them like you treat Nvidia/Qualcomm in the end, they are your competitors.
