Rayz2016

avon b7 said:

lkrupp said:

stevenoz said:

Most of us on this site are probably pretty happy... with Apple and with Tim Cook.

Not Avon b7 or gatorguy. Avon b7 will be in shortly to explain to us why Huawei is superior to Apple in every metric. Gatorguy will be by to explain why Google is in a better position than Apple. You can count on it like death and taxes.

Give me those metrics and let's see if I was right! 

Ball's in your court. 

Let's see if what I said matches what you think I said.

Just today, Canalys has stated that Huawei has claimed the top spot worldwide in handset sales in spite of the pandemic, not having access to one of the world's largest handset markets and with the U.S government literally trying to destroy the company. For context, this is the first time in nine years that Samsung or Apple hasn't held the position. 

I said for years that the eventual 'SE' move was much needed and applauded it when it finally happened.

I said the model spread had to widen and Apple did that. 

I said pricing needed to be adjusted and Apple did that too. 

I said it needed catch up with top Android flagships in many areas. It is (slowly) doing that. 

5G was the last big issue (and 100% thanks to QC) we know that is coming.

And the relevant point in these earnings is that iPhone revenues remain pretty much flat - again ! 

But if you actually bothered to read what I said, about this quarter (and the last one), you would see how wrong you are, but instead of regurgitating what I've already gone on record as saying myself, why not do some actual work yourself (but quoting me) and tell me if what you have just claimed actually holds up to scrutiny?

Lots of people like patting themselves on the back for stating the obvious, but what they often fail to mention is the circumstances surrounding the back-patting.

Everyone, and I mean literally everyone knew that the Apple couldn't rely on the high-end forever. In fact everyone, and I mean literally everyone, knew that they couldn't rely on phones forever, full stop.

The problem isn't that you were predicting the obvious; the problem is that you were calling for Apple to do the obvious at a time when they were still making bags of cash on the high end. The trick is not if, it's when. Apple was always going to do this, but doing it when you said they should do it would have cost them billions in revenue.  

The other thing that all your 'I said' statements fail to address Apple's long term goal, which is certainly wasn't to join the Android OEMs in a race to the bottom. The point you've missed is the why. They're not making cheap phones because they're trying to compete in the cheap phones market. They're making devices more accessible so that more people have access to their services platform.

This is why Apple is spending billions on research into recycling devices.
This is why Apple is pushing folk towards subscribing to their devices and returning them to Apple when they upgrade
This is why they're building out services and education and after care.

Just today, Canalys has stated that Huawei has claimed the top spot worldwide in handset sales in spite of the pandemic, not having access to one of the world's largest handset markets and with the U.S government literally trying to destroy the company. For context, this is the first time in nine years that Samsung or Apple hasn't held the position. 

Yeah, this would be a lot more impressive if they weren't the favoured company in the actual largest handset market and weren't being supported by a government that browbeats American competition while turning a blind eye to wholesale IP theft. 

And being "one of the world's largest handset markets" bears little weight when the market in question is in the grips of a pandemic and its worst economic contraction on record. So I'm not sure if congratulations should go to Huawei, or to the Chinese government for getting a handle on the pandemic so quickly, and even then, I think it would be something of a slow clap of congratulations, since the virus did originate there, and so they had something of a head start on the rest of the planet, especially since they chose to keep live-saving information from the rest of the world.

If the Chinese government sought to share the information on the virus when they became aware of it, instead of trying to suppress it, then tens of thousands of lives worldwide could have been saved, as well as millions of jobs and several economies), which is why crowing about Huawei being the top selling handset is a bit strange considering the cowardly actions of the government supporting played no small part in getting them there.

Beats said:

melgross said:

eriamjh said:

Beats said:

Didn't doubt Apple one bit but surprised how well they've weathered the storm.

Would seem to me that Apple is falling into that category some people can't live without.  Like Toilet paper.

I don’t know what to make of that statement.

He's not wrong. They surveyed people and asked them what was a better invention: the toilet or iPhone, and the iPhone won.

avon b7 said:

lkrupp said:

stevenoz said:

Most of us on this site are probably pretty happy... with Apple and with Tim Cook.

Not Avon b7 or gatorguy. Avon b7 will be in shortly to explain to us why Huawei is superior to Apple in every metric. Gatorguy will be by to explain why Google is in a better position than Apple. You can count on it like death and taxes.

Give me those metrics and let's see if I was right! 

Ball's in your court. 

Let's see if what I said matches what you think I said.

Just today, Canalys has stated that Huawei...

I stopped reading there. you just HAD to prove his point didn't ya?

gatorguy said:

lkrupp said:

stevenoz said:

Most of us on this site are probably pretty happy... with Apple and with Tim Cook.

Not Avon b7 or gatorguy. Avon b7 will be in shortly to explain to us why Huawei is superior to Apple in every metric. Gatorguy will be by to explain why Google is in a better position than Apple. You can count on it like death and taxes.

LOL...
If I did it would be a first for me. I've never believed Google to be in a better position than Apple and 100% certain I've not claimed it since it's not true. I wish you were as careful with the truth so you wouldn't write such silliness so often.

Some of the stuff you come up with... 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but were you the guy who said Google had "unlimited growth" potential because of online ads? Nothing is unlimited. Someone can invent the next iPhone and put Apple out of business.

Just today it was announced that Google revenue was down for the first time in it's history because of lost ad revenue.

Sara Fischer(?) made an interesting observation regarding Facebook’s relative success in  ad revenue when compared To Google:

Facebook ads are weighted more towards products. 

hammeroftruth said:

This was settled a long time ago when the government spanked Apple hard and let Amazon skate. Now they’re complaining about it again and are surprised Amazon has been abusing their power for years. 

Amazon’s KDP platform explicitly prohibits writers from selling their books on other platforms. 

chelin said:

I’m quite torn here. I generally do not have a problem for consumer grade custom CPUs. However one obvious risk with moving off the x86_64 architecture is that necessary developer tools such as hypervizors and products such as Docker and Java will not be readily available. Apple gained a lot of enterprise developers once they moved to Intel. 

Now their work laptop will probably be some Linux variant. This means less awareness and higher threshold to write iOS apps. I could be wrong, but I think Apple would have better long term chances. It will take years, only time will tell

Docker was running natively on ASi at the WWDC.
They also demonstrated Linux running natively on the new platform.

Writing iOS apps hasn't really changed.

dysamoria said:

tenthousandthings said:

dysamoria said:

Why is Intel failing to fabricate these 7nm chips at acceptable volume while other chips makers are? Is there something inherently different about Intel’s CPUs that makes yield worse? ...

The usual answer to your first question is “they got complacent” — but that doesn’t mean much until you realize what that meant in the real world. What led up to it is a long story (think stock prices), but, ultimately, Intel’s management began cutting costs by laying off engineers.

The rest is easy to understand. It turns out — who knew?! — that engineering is hard and experience matters. On top of that, highly-skilled engineers with years of experience at Intel don’t actually have any trouble finding work. Imagine that! Apple, TSMC, and others snapped these people up.

Can you cite some sources for this info? It’s not that I disbelieve you, I’m just hoping for more detail. Thanks!

Straight from the horse's mouth, as they say:

https://newsroom.intel.com/news-releases/news-release-intel-announces-restructuring/

Intel began their programme of layoffs with 12,000 employees in 2016, as it began to shift its focus away from PC processors and move towards IoT and data centres.

What has lead to this 'cut and run' strategy was detailed in a Vox article a while back:

Intel made a huge mistake 10 years ago. Now 12,000 workers are paying the price.

It was the same strategy that caused Microsoft's fall from grace under Ballmer: trying to protect an existing monopoly by turning their back on innovation.

Mistake #1:

There was just one problem: The PC era was about to end. Apple was already working on the iPhone, which would usher in the modern smartphone era. Intel turned down an opportunity to provide the processor for the iPhone, believing that Apple was unlikely to sell enough of them to justify the development costs.

Oops.

Oops indeed  

To be honest, no one could've have predicted the effect that the iPhone would have on the future of computing, but that doesn't excuse Intel for not realising that the PC was on something of a plateau and they should've been looking for fresh opportunities, instead of scuppering their own internal projects to protect their existing x86 market.

Mistake #2:

Intel had not just one but two opportunities to become a major player in the mobile chip market. One was the opportunity to bid on Apple's iPhone business. The other was its ownership of XScale, an ARM-based chipmaker Intel owned until it sold it for $600 million in 2006.

Intel sold XScale because it wanted to double down on the x86 architecture that had made it so successful. Intel was working on a low-power version of x86 chips called Atom, and it believed that selling ARM chips would signal a lack of commitment to the Atom platform.

Oops squared.

Intel thought they could protect their license to print money from the mobile onslaught by hacking the x86 down into a mobile processor.A few years later, Apple realised they could divorce themselves from Intel's failings by scaling their architecture to a laptop/desktop/server platform.

Intel's delay is simply a byproduct of their new strategy: scaling back their interests in the PC market. They've missed the opportunity to get a foothold in the mobile processor space, so they're looking at the next big thing: iOT and data centres.