applemagic

muthuk_vanalingam said:

tmay said:

muthuk_vanalingam said:

tmay said:

His narrative, btw, is all about marketshare. He does not recognize ASP as a metric in line with his arguments. 

Well, we have had this marketshare Vs ASP discussion few times. I strongly believe BOTH (ASP and MarketShare) are equally important, while you are talking about ASP alone. Here is a question for you. Which of the following OEMs do you think is a "competitor" to Apple and why?

1. OnePlus - ASP $500+. 5 devices (One Plus 3, 3T, 5, 5T and 6) launched in last 2.5 years, all with price >$500. No significant discounts for old models either.

2. Essential - ASP $500+. Only 1 device launched in last 2 years.

3. Google - ASP $500+. 4 devices (Pixel, Pixel XL, Pixel 2, Pixel 2XL), all with price >$600 in last 2 years. Even accounting for discounts, ASP is greater than $500 overall.

4. Samsung - ASP $250 to $275. About 100+ models in last 2 years

Of those, OnePlus is an Oppo brand, who knows what sales are, Essential sold something like 165,000 units all total, Google sold 3.9 million Pixel 2 for the year, leaving Samsung more as an indirect competitor to Apple; they have the best sales and distribution of Android OS devices.

Apple's market is certainly flattening in unit sales for the iPhone, but with that, the average age of iPhones in use is near 4 years, the user base is still increasing, and their is likely still a demand for 225 million units a year, still averaging above $600 ASP.

I also note that the YOY sales for all smartphones is down.

The question is - Does Market Share matter at all, or NOT? And Why?

Well, in the ultimate analysis, profits are what matter and we know that almost the entire profits of the mobile industry belong to Apple. Android has the larger market share and Google monetizes it primarily through collecting user data and serving ads, so they do make money, but nowhere near Apple's scale of either revenue or profits.

I have no doubt that certain models of OnePlus perform well. Recently, my PC repair technician showed me the latest Vivo (or Oppo, I forget which) and it was pretty sleek. It also had facial unlock that was very fast.

However, for me, the problem with all of these Chinese devices is trust. And, indeed, OnePlus has a poor track record in security and handling user data. Here's a sample in just the last few months:

• Collecting extensive user data without permission
• Root backdoor that was shipping for a long time before being discovered
• OnePlus app still collecting user data without consent

The first two, which were going for a long time, are real shockers. But, you get what you pay for, I guess.

I think this article does a disservice to AI readers by presenting one man's opinion as the gospel, more or less, while brushing away a lot of recent studies as not belonging to the category of 'science' this particular author will accept as valid. And, this bias reflects right in the title.

Indeed, the entire article isn't a genuine attempt at exploration or questioning of a very complex topic, but a declaration of a position the author has taken, because of what constitutes 'bad' science, in his personal opinion. That, right there, is a disservice to AI readers.

The article starts by referring to the usual red herring in all the arguments about cell phone radiation:

First and foremost, RF radiation is not the same as ionizing radiation generated by decay of radioactive isotopes, and from the sun itself. This isn't Radiation Physics 101 in 1000 words, so in short, RF lacks the energy that ionizing radiation has to break chemical bonds, ionize atoms, and damage DNA.

However, many recent studies have dwelt on the non-thermal health effects of long term exposure to non-ionizing radiation. Dr. Martin L. Pall of Washington State University has done important research (probably pioneering?) research on the exact biological mechanism through which non-ionizing radiation may be causing lasting damage to human health. To summarize, the non-thermal effects of radiation from electrical devices are real and probably work by causing mitochondrial damage. 

To summarily dismiss such studies or imply they are non-science or bad science, as the author does in multiple comments doesn't seem to me to reflect the so-called 'scientific method' the author supposedly follows. 

More recently, two long term studies have shown an increase in specific types of tumour, with the authors concluding that they are most likely caused by cell phone radiation. The first of these is in the U.K and involves a study of humans; the second is in the U.S and involves a study of the effects of cell phone radiation on rats and mice under the National Toxicology Program.

Needless to say, vested interests deny the validity of both these studies. The NTP study's results were almost whitewashed by the FDA and the American Cancer Society, but a scientific review panel revised their stand when they found that male rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed a form of heart tissue tumour that's extremely rare in rats - the kicker that made the panel change their stand is that this rare form of heart tissue tumour has also been found in people using cell phone at high power settings:

National Toxicology Program senior scientist John Bucher said the heart tissue cancer that developed in male rats is the same type of cancer that has been seen in some people who have used cellphones at the highest power settings for years.

"The fact that this tumor type was the same really drew our eye to it," Bucher said. "And also they were some of the strongest findings from a numerical standpoint."

Finally, on the subject of the 2011 IARC/WHO study, to which the author alludes in one of his comments, not many know that the Ramazzini Institute, which is highly respected for the quality of its medical research, is urging the IARC to revise its categorization of cell phone usage from possibly carcinogenic to probably carcinogenic.

So, my point is that, like many others have pointed out, this is far from a subject on which the final word has been said. For the author to suggest otherwise and to declare the matter as 'settled science' is, to put it mildly, irresponsible and a gross disservice to AI readers.

ireland said:

randominternetperson said:

AppleInsider said:

The digital forensics of Global Security, used by Apple for its investigations, also discovered the identities of several employees feeding confidential data about the iPhone X, iPad Pro, and AirPods to a blogger at one Apple-focused online publication. Global Security is also credited as working with suppliers to "prevent theft of Apple's intellectual property" as well as leakers, improving security with the third-party firms to "meet or exceed Apple's expectations."

Was it you?  I expect it's somewhat stressful knowing that you sources are putting their careers and livelihoods in your hands.

Gruber or Gurman.

I doubt Gruber would put his livelihood on the line like that - he literally makes his living through his Apple- focused blog. But, one never knows.

It's more likely to be Gurman.

Florian Mueller at fosspatents.com has an excellent article about EU's proposed digital tax bill and its impact on U.S internet giants; his arguments about how this tax will be bad for the small app developer are quite compelling.

And, his article lambasting the EU competition commissioner's talk about breaking up Google has several excellent paragraphs in the latter half about the EU's hypocrisy and double standards in tax matters and the so called 'state-aid' clause under which it has hauled up Ireland and Apple.

Well worth reading to understand the larger context  in which these sit-ins are happening.