ManyMacsAgo

saltyzip said:

The issue long-term for Apple is will people pay a premium for a phone in years to come when a £200 phone will do everything they need and more?

IBM used to sell expensive PCs with massive cost to profit ratio, but once competition had caught up and started to out innovate them, their profits started to fall down a cliff. Blackberry suffered the same fate. What's different this time is Apple has monopoly on its app store, and this is why Apple will turn into a services company. However regulators may see this as anti competitive and allow likes of e.g Amazon to setup its own Apple app store. Wouldn't that be good for consumers!

Hey, maybe "regulators" will also let KMart call themselves Target or Walmart, or let them somehow set up "Walmart" stores. Sounds like a fantastic idea to compete against the "monopoly" that Walmart has to supply its own stores as they see fit!

IBM competed with other Windows OEMs in a race to the bottom. They are now Apple fans and use Apple products internally, and offer full OS X and iOS solutions to their clients.

Blackberry was a one-trick pony that didn't know squat about software. Apple can do both hardware and software well -- and apply their abilities in integration to new industries, like, um phones. Apple didn't have to buy a Nokia or a Motorola to enter and do, um, rather well, in the phone market. The buyers of Nokia and Motorola spent billions to find out they couldn't do well in the phone market. And their offerings did "everything they need and more for 200". The "premium" on Apple is about the integration of hardware and software, all the way down to custom and optimised silicon.

Despite the customization of parts (unlike the commoditisation of off-the-shelf parts that OEMs are forced to partake in because they are in a race to the bottom for survival), Apple remains profitable, and can continue to do so, because, among other things, it is careful about its products -- a simple product line that has 2 year cycles during which a model completely pays for its own fixed costs and development. The longer that a single model remains in production and use, like the iPhone 4S, the more profitable it becomes, even as its price drops. 

Contrast this with portfolio companies like Samsung who throw everything at the wall to see what sticks, and try a few new things every six months. Their ASP is all over the place, and profit, if any, is short-lived. Samsung et al are shooting themselves in the foot. Samsung may sell more units overall, but how many Samsung models does it take to sell the same number of units as any one iPhone model? 

The focus and strategic planning at Apple is unprecedented. Apple is patient and lays foundations for market changes years in advance.

sflocal said:

This project was planned for years, along with its intention of planting thousands of trees.  Even with all this advance notice, why are people suddenly pressed for product?  I'm not sure how one goes about placing an order for thousands of trees, but I like Apple does with iPhone parts, the order would have been placed years ago and the trees set aside and cared for until the time comes to plant them.

Is this article just stating there was a problem to generate web clicks?  This really sounds like a non-issue.

Listening to the radio this morning: Apparently, Apple is looking for certain size trees: they need to be about 9 years old. And apparently, the global housing recession meant that tree planting in CA came to a halt 9 years ago and didn't resume until 2012. So, there is a real lack of trees of the right size.

Samsung should be charged for the flight delay.

PhantasticOne said:

So let me see if I can follow Apple logic. If I have a safe deposit box at the bank and keep the record of my illegal activities there, police can get a search warrant and force the bank to open the box. However, if I keep all of my illegal activities on an overpriced iPhone and encrypt it with the help of Apple, I'm in the clear because Apple, unlike banks, doesn't have to comply with any legal search warrants. I see this strictly as a marketing ploy on Apple's part that makes me feel far less secure than I did before. To me, it's just this simple....Don't do anything illegal and you don't need encryption. What did people do in the time BEFORE iPhones? Apple....The criminal's friend and confidant.

Not at all like that. Apple has already provided iCloud Backups, the equivalent of opening a safety deposit box at a bank. The bank has the boxes on its premises, Apple has iCloud servers.

What the FBI is asking is over and above the opening of the box, and affects everyone's phone and data. It's like asking the bank to turn off time-locks, re-build the building so that the FBI doesn't have to inconveniently take an elevator down three floors to the boxes; it's asking that the bank build, literally, a back door, so that the standard need for two keys be bypassed; and it's like asking, once the box is open, that the bank provide a translator because some of the records in the box are written in Chinese.

Your analogy is completely over-simplified and doesn't begin to touch the facts of the matter. But that's why there is discussion about the public perception of the debate, and why there will be a lot of examination in the courts and legislature about what to do. It's complicated, and obviously, you don't appreciate that.