cloudguy

omasou said:

Let's see a show of hands...who would like a folding phone...anyone...anyone...Buller...Buller...crickets.

I am going to trade in my Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra for a Galaxy Fold 3 (almost) immediately after it is available on my carrier. 

By the way ... if you check this site's archives circa 2013 and much of 2014 there were a bunch of comments AND ARTICLES to the effect of "who wants a phone bigger than 4 inches anyway?" and claims that they were terrible, ungainly, that Apple's design was "perfect for one-handed use" etc.

And if you check this site's archives circa 2014 there were similar comments "who wants a smartwatch? It is just a tablet on your wrist!".

Then it was "who wants OLED! LCD doesn't oversaturate colors!" 

"Who wants curved screens! A gimmick!" (Just like widgets and NFC/mobile payments were prior ... said you folks on this very blog.)

"Who wants 120Hz or under screen finger print scanners?" (You guys will when iPhones with them launch in a few months.)

"Who needs 5G?" (According to sales figures ... lots of people did.)

"Who needs a stylus?" (Tons of iPad owners.)

Every. Single. Thing. That. Apple. Adopts. After. Android. We. Go. Through. This.

Folks, you have to realize: Apple doesn't adopt every single Android idea. For example: the next thing that Apple adopts from the failed Pixel line will be the first. Apple also hasn't adopted anything from LG since ... LG abandoned sensible smartphone making to go with their total lack of marketing. Apple only copies from Samsung. Why? Because Samsung is successful. They are the #1 smartphone vendor in the world and have been since 2011. So if Samsung comes up with an idea that works, that validates it in Apple's eyes.

1. Despite what you guys wish to believe, Samsung is GREAT at hardware and design especially as it relates to components. So by copying Samsung they aren't copying bad products. In contrast with - again - Google whose Pixel line gets hit with lawsuits and recalls nearly every year

2. While it isn't anywhere near as large as Apple's, Samsung has a fanbase that is very loyal but also VERY DEMANDING. If it pleases Samsung customers, it will please iPhone customers too. Meanwhile if it doesn't work out, Samsung themselves will drop it before Apple starts to seriously consider it. 

It's been like this since at least 2013 folks. I don't know why you guys try to act surprised or think that it is ever going to change. But the feedback from Galaxy Flip fans and Galaxy Fold 2 fans (the original Galaxy Fold not so much) have been outstanding. Which means that when you guys get your folding iPhones you will love them too. This will be good for Apple, good for iPhone owners, good for Android owners - because when Apple comes out with an Android feature lots more components get manufactured driving the price down ... curved screens can be had on phones that cost as little as $200 for example - everyone wins. What is there to be down about?

elijahg said:

Just proves how desperate they are to keep tracking people, and how certain they are that given the choice, people will choose no to being tracked. Which also proves they know they are acting without people's consent, and relying on dishonesty for their entire business model.

None of this is true. Most users either know that they are being tracked or do not care. The only people who do "care" are Apple fans who started caring when Apple told them to in order to paint their own products as "good" and opposing products as "evil", which is something that Apple and Tim Cook never did prior to around 2013 when they finally acknowledged that despite lawsuit threats and other tactics and alleged claims about the imminent rise of Windows Mobile, Android was never going away. You see it constantly in the U.S. media because nearly everyone in the U.S. media uses iPhones, iPads and Macs as their work and personal devices exclusively. You see it a lot in the foreign media because they see Google and Facebook as these massive U.S. tech companies that crush their own ... it is more of an anti-American (and anti-capitalist) thing than specifically against Google and Facebook and trust me they don't like Apple that much either. Were Google and Facebook EU-based companies that gave the EU countries that sort of wealth and power they would love them to death.

Look: Google was tracking people back when their CEOs were on Apple's board of directors and were considered a critical strategic Apple partner against Apple's #1 competitor Microsoft and #2 competitor Amazon. Had Google not invented Android - for their own needs to survive against Microsoft due to their locking Google out of Windows CE which at the time everyone thought would eventually amount to something - and thereby joined Microsoft and Amazon as an Apple competitor, Google would still be Apple's #1 partner with their CEOs still on Apple's board. It was only because A. Google's tracking/data/analytics operation was being used to compete with Apple instead of helping Apple compete with Microsoft and B. Apple finally acknowledged that neither iOS or Windows Mobile was going to kill off Android (and later the Android/ChromeOS combo ... see https://www.geekwire.com/2021/chromebooks-outsold-macs-worldwide-2020-cutting-windows-market-share/) that Google and their business model became "bad." There is no record, evidence or hint that Apple felt this before but quite the contrary.

In other words, Apple is just a company after your money like Microsoft, Google, Sony, Facebook and all the rest. If you think otherwise then you are just believing what you want to believe instead of thinking for yourself. Here's the deal: if Apple actually thought Google was this huge threat to humanity they could crush Google tomorrow by coming out with laptops that start at $450 instead of $999 and smartphones worth having  - the iPhone SE isn't - that start at $300 instead of $800. Had they done this in 2013 it might have killed off Android entirely. Now it is too late - more than 3 billion satisfied customers too late - but the fact that they aren't even trying to deny market share to "evil Google" shows that they don't really believe Google to be evil to begin with. It is all about money for Apple. Always has been.

M68000 said:

What if Apple is being “played” by these talks with manufacturers?   It has been said that business is war.   Could it be that these car makers are friendly and cordial with Apple but at the executive level they secretly have no intention of doing anything with Apple?  They just want to find out what they can find out about what ideas Apple may have?  It would not surprise me.

Can you also imagine the amount of legal documents the lawyers would have to come up with and go over and agree on... wow

No. Apple is playing themselves by refusing to come up with mutually beneficial terms for these carmakers. They should have known this going in or been willing to adapt after the initial feedback that they were getting. It isn't that hard: companies aren't going to make cars for Apple on terms that will do a better job of diverting energy and ultimately sales from their own cars than they will earning money for or providing any other benefit from the car company.

This column left out critical information that was reported by The Verge.

That report said that “the contact was brief and the discussions did not advance to senior management levels following divisions over branding for the iPhone maker’s electric vehicles.” The breaking point was said to be Apple’s request that Nissan manufacture cars carrying Apple’s branding.

“We have our own customer satisfaction, which comes by car. No way we are going to change the way we make cars,” Nissan COO Ashwani Gupta tells the Financial Times, again stating that talks aren’t happening now without confirming if they ever did. “The way we design, the way we develop, and the way we manufacture is going to be as an automotive manufacturer, as Nissan.”

Which is what I have been saying the entire time. You can have a Foxconn arrangement when margins are high and volumes are low. You can have a Foxconn deal when margins are low but volumes are high (the electronics industry). But Apple wants their "partner" to accept low margins on low volumes without sharing marketing, branding or IP with the partners to benefit their own company. Which means they get no benefit at all from the partnership: pocket change in return for a whole lot of complex work.

As for these claims "do not be the Blackberry or Nokia of the automobile industry":

1. Blackberry and especially Nokia would have been fine had they switched to Android like Samsung did. 
2. If these companies aren't going to make much money from manufacturing this car, won't get any marketing/branding benefits and won't get any of the Apple Car IP how will this keep them from being the next Nokia and Blackberry? Will someone please tell me this. Because as they will be prohibited from using Apple's IP their own automobile R&D and manufacturing will be the same as it was before. Which means that whether they partner with Apple or not, their own car brand will be in the same boat. The only difference between partnering with Apple and telling them to buzz off is that they will get a little bit of cash in return for a lot of work. This is why they are telling Apple to go kick rocks and pound sand. What is so hard about this for you people to understand and accept?

The Foxconn deal only works for Foxconn because Foxconn doesn't make their own laptops and smartphones, Foxconn makes laptops and smartphones for tons of companies instead of just 1 or 2, and because they make hundreds of millions of devices for their partners each year they can turn a tidy volume-based profit off low margins. The same reason why TSMC is able to make so much money fabbing chips for Apple, AMD, Qualcomm and the rest: they don't compete with their customers and they can get a tidy profit off chips that mostly cost $50 or less because they make so many of them. Well sorry but Toyota isn't Foxconn and Nissan isn't TSMC.

The list of companies whose fortunes became MUCH WORSE after partnering with Apple is MUCH BIGGER than the list of companies who were better off. These car companies know this and they have no intention of joining the second list, which is far more likely to happen. 

dk49 said:

Are saying that OEMs would boycott Apple just so that they can maintain their existing customers? Doesn't make sense! This is business, not a family show where companies care about each other. If any OEM sees money in doing business with Apple, they will do it! Sure, existing car manufacturers might not want to partner because that will dilute their brand image. Though I think someone will eventually do it. Automotive industry is a fierce industry, and not every car company is killing it. And even if no car manufacturer agrees to manufacture for Apple, contract manufacturers like Magna are always there.

Not at all. 
1. It would be collusion, which is very illegal.
2. They wouldn't boycott Apple just to maintain their existing customers. They would avoid a business relationship that would provide all the benefits to Apple while practically none to the OEMs.

I will state it again: the car industry is not the electronics industry. While the electronics manufacturing industry has shifted almost entirely to Asia, automobile companies still make most of their cars in their country of origin. That means profit margins, supply chains, economics, labor union issues, environmental regulation issues, local politics and even nationalism/national pride are totally different for the automobile industry than they are for the electronics one. Where it is easy to find a ton of foreign partners willing to put up with Apple's treatment in electronics - which often are only possible because the workers get very low wages AND the foreign partners get significant government subsidies - that doesn't happen in automotives. The only way to get automobile companies on board is to give them money. Lots of it. 

Another thing: electronics companies are able to operate on low margins to make it up on volume. Remember: this was literally Apple's "defense" against Qualcomm ... we sell 200 million iPhones a year so you should be making plenty of money off us no matter what licensing rate we choose to pay you. Would even 1 million Apple Cars sell a year? Not every car company killing it ... that is all the more reason to avoid arrangements where you have to expend a ton of resources and effort in return for peanuts. As for contract manufacturers ... the issue is that none of them have the expertise required to help build an automonous electric car that is totally reliant on Apple hardware, software and services. You need to have SOME background in AVs, EVs and smart car platforms, including but not limited to some of your own products or patents in the area. Otherwise, Apple would wind up having to R&D, license and build everything from scratch, which would delay things by years and cost a ton of money. Apple was able to take the core of what they accomplished with the iPhone and reuse it for the iPad, Apple TV, Apple Watch and M1 Mac. Imagine how much time and money it would have taken if they had to do all those products separately. 

Apple will eventually get this done but only when they realize that it is only going to happen when they come around to the carmakers' terms. Of course, when it happens they will spin it as "carmaker X knew that it was either get behind or get left behind" ... and you guys will believe that spin as always (and because the terms will be kept secret).