kellie

About

Username
kellie
Joined
Visits
17
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
229
Badges
0
Posts
73

Reactions

80Like11Dislike32Informative

  • Indonesia says it expects $1 billion from Apple to lift iPhone 16 ban

    kelliekellie
    apple4thewin said:
    ajeffrey said:
    This is just blatant extortion by the Indonesian Govt. Why should Apple invest $1 billion in a country just so they can sell their products there. If I were Apple I would tell them where they can put there request and sell older iPhones, it's only the Indonesian public that will suffer.

    The real question is if Apple make $1 billion in sales in Indonesia 
    Apple needs to make a billion dollars in profits, not sales, in Indonesia, to justify the expenditure. I’m not sure if they manufacture anything there. 
    apple4thewinjas99killroyzeus423watto_cobra

  • Apple heads to court to try to get massive & vague DOJ antitrust suit dismissed

    kelliekellie
    paisleydisco said:
    " but the case isn't going to end today, it is going to run for years."

    when drumpf's department takes over there will be a shake down for $

    it's all he knows. 
    Could you leave politics and your hatred for Trump out of this?  This suit was initiated during the Biden administration, so it’s really got nothing to do with Trump.  The government is designed for shake downs.  Be it a parking ticket, taxes or something more serious.  It’s got nothing to do with who’s president. 

    9secondkox2williamlondon

  • Can Apple innovate if iPhone remains the biggest slice of its revenues?

    kelliekellie
    This article doesn’t give Xerox enough credit.  Xerox invented the GUI which was copied by Apple and Microsoft.  Xerox also invented Ethernet which was initially deployed over a very expensive coaxial cable called Thicknet, which was so named due to the thickness of its coax cable.  And later evolved into ThinNet which was a much thinner and less expensive coaxial cable.  Xerox developed the STAR workstation which ran the GUI software and a STAR server for centralized file storage and sharing.  They also invented the network attached laser printer to print the online developed documents, as there was no way to share documents external to an organization.  The article implies Xerox didn’t productize the GUI software to avoid killing its copier business.  This isn’t accurate as they actually had commercial products for sale using the GUI software.  They failed at marketing and developing a business strategy for this new technology.  Certainly having years of running their cash cow and very profitable copier business made developing a proper business strategy a challenge.  But be clear, the GUI was invented by Xerox and productized.  

    There is a similar story for another Rochester, New York headquartered company , Kodak.  Kodak invented the first digital camera in 1975.  Unlike Xerox, which was an electronics company from its inception, Kodak was a chemical company from its founding in 1888.  It had the new  challenge of learning how to run and manage an electronics company as well as the strategy challenge of developing a new product that ultimately would reduce film sales, their decades old cash cow.  There was lots of internal resistance to making this change. Ultimately Kodak failed at developing a digital image technology business strategy.  

    Innovation isn’t easy.  In many ways it’s easier for younger startup companies, than older mature companies.  Apple is a very mature company now.  Not the young and frisky company it once was.  As a publicly traded company they face the challenges of pleasing Wall Street and share holders.  Don’t underestimate the impact this financial burden has on Apple’s ability to innovate.  There are many comments here referencing Steve Jobs and how Steve was an innovator and Tim Cook isn’t and is more of an operations person.  That may be somewhat true.  But don’t assume that Steve Jobs would have been successful at running a profitable multi trillion dollar company.  That takes a lot of management skills and culture that Steve may not have possessed.  

    Certainly, Apple is in a better position for future innovation than was Kodak and possibly Xerox, especially having the benefit of having lived through the tech innovation cycle.  Kodak and Xerox were at the cusp of the technology revolution, so it’s perhaps understandable, if not excusable, that they struggled with reinventing themselves.  Is AI the next technology wave that will require Apple to reinvent themselves?  Perhaps.  Ultimately, the future will require a company like Apple to be as good at developing software as they are at developing hardware.  I would say historically Apple’s primary strength has been developing devices and hardware.  With software development being a second tier capability/strength.  Software capabilities are what will be needed to truly succeed with AI in the future.  Time will tell if Apple is up to the task. 
    williamlondondewmewatto_cobra

  • 13-inch iPad Pro review: hardware of the future running software of the past

    kelliekellie
    Apple’s strongest skill is compelling hardware design.  Frequently Apple’s quest for design aesthetics creates functionality problems.  The quest for thin form factors had in the past created heat management issues, resulting in slower operations.  Or keyboard keys that loose their tactile feel or longterm reliability issues. The M4 iPad on the other hand has no hardware shortcomings, even though Apple made it incredibly thin.  The performance is outstanding.  The screen images are incredible.  Unfortunately, all of this hardware superiority is hobbled by an operating system that misses the mark.  Apple is a hardware company first. And a software company second.  Their hardware design and manufacturing capabilities are significantly better than their software development abilities.  This is why they are playing catchup with AI.  I am prepared to be underwhelmed with their WWDC announcements regarding AI, operating systems and other application software.  Now that Mac, iPhone and iPad all run on the same hardware architecture, Apple should ditch iPad OS and focus on creating an iPad specific version of MacOs.  If you are going to pay a Mac price for an M4 iPad, you should have access to an OS that offers greater functionality than iPadOS. This way Apple could focus on software development for one less operating system and give customers greater performance, functionality and satisfaction. 
    williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra

  • Mac Pro and Mac Studio refreshes may wait till 2025

    kelliekellie
    Now I hat the M4 is out, in the “lowly” iPad, Apple will be forced to accelerate M4 upgrades in its entire product line.  Sales of Macs will dramatically slow down as people await the M4 deployment.  Unless one absolutely needs a Mac now, people will defer their purchase, awaiting the M4 upgrade.  And if the M4 has some specific features to enhance Apple’s AI strategy, that will be yet another compelling reason to delay a Mac purchase.  I predict a rapid M4 rollout across all Macs. 
    Alex1Ndanoxwilliamlondonwatto_cobra