wigby

bloggerblog said:

slurpy said:

scotty321 said:

Apple is so unbelievably tone-deaf to the needs of their customers. We want a Smart CASE, not a Smart COVER. The Smart Cover doesn't even protect the iPad, because it attaches with a weak MAGNET! And it doesn't protect the back of the iPad either! The Smart Cover, which Apple no longer makes, is actually a REAL GENUINE HONEST-TO-GOODNESS CASE. It protects both the front and back of the iPad, and it actually firmly snaps onto the iPad -- so your iPad is fully protected at all times. It is beyond ridiculous that Apple stopped making these, but continues to peddle the subpar Smart covers.

Right, Apple somehow accidentally stumbled it's way into being the most successful company on the planet while being so "unbelievably tone-deaf to the needs of their customers", and somehow still racks up the highest sales and the highest customer satisfaction in the industry, at premium prices, while being so "tone-deaf". Right. Enough with the extreme hyperbole just because not every single accessory they make is to your liking. This sleeve protects both sides, and there's a million other options from 3rd party case manufacturers. Apple is not obligated to produce every type of case imaginable and cover 100% of everyone's preferences. There's a ton of smart case knockoffs that look and work great, just pick up one of those. And stop speaking as if you represent all of Apple's customers. 

That's a false rhetoric. Let's not forget that Microsoft was the all in all tech company for a long time, while it still sucked. Being the biggest or richest doesn't convey excellence. Another example would be Steve Ballmer who is still richer than many who are way more useful and smarter.

You're comparing two different types of companies. Microsoft didn't have end users, only customers because their business was (and still is) essentially enterprise. Apple's customers have always been their end users too. Being good only to your customers only leads to big money. Being good to your end users (and customers) can lead to big money and always leads to big loyalty.

xzu said:

The fastest Mac video card is 5.5 Tflop.The $500 - Nvidia 1080 is 9 Tflop in a 5 year old Hackintosh? Is there any reason anyone questions the need for a modular Mac or why the AIO does not work for a lot of people? I would caution anyone paying that much for so little. 

People that count Teraflops should also be counting minutes and seconds, not dollars. Anyone messing around with a Hackintosh is trading the time they save for the time they waste using unsupported and unstable hardware to save a few bucks. What do you tell clients when you unexpectedly crash and have downtime? "Let me check the Hackintosh forums to see if anyone has posted a new driver or fix." Good luck with that.

On the surface, this seems to be a direct response to Google's TensorFlow announcements. In reality, Apple has been working on such a chip for a few years now and has been forced to reveal something on stage at WWDC so they don't appear to be falling behind.

But the reality is that AI is still like a game of Monopoly and each player only holds one property so far. There are so many moves to go that comparing Siri to Echo or Google or Cortana right now is pointless - they all suck.

cali said:

g-news said:

TL DR, who are you trying to convince here? Basically the article states that the last time Apple pushed out some significant innovation was in 2014. It's nearly mid 2017 now and still no sign of updated desktops. Apple is turning into a services company, but their margins strategy is still one for a hardware company with 100% control over the manufacturing. They're having a really hard time signing contracts with content producers or even just working outside the US. All fanboyism aside, this is going to bite them in the butt rather sooner than later.

I hate how only Apple is held to the innovation standard.

samsung, Microsoft, LG, everyone can copy and follow for decades but Apple must innovate yearly or they're failing.

Qrotateleftbyte said:

ericthehalfbee said:

Can't wait for WWDC. There's so many possibilities Apple could bring out plus ones we haven't even thought about.

But will they do anything? That is the question that so many are asking.
Yes there are possibilities but... Apple is being seen as an ultra conservative 'follower' rather than a leader.
more of a 'Dedicated follower of Fashion' than a '21st Centrury Schitzoid Man'.

Will the WWDC this year be a damp squib or a brand new rocketship heading for the stars?
Will TC give us glimpse of this fantastic pipeline he talks about?
Only time (and plentiful rumours) will tell.

Who is Apple "following" exactly?

again, just because they aren't innovating yearly doesn't mean they're falling behind.

Apple is only "following" concepts that the media hypes like self-driving cars, AI, AR/VR. None of these things are real products or markets yet. They are just getting started or won't begin for a few years. Remember when Apple was "following" the wearables market just 2 years ago? Now they dominate that market. Some say that Apple Watch is a failure but how can it be a failure when it now even beats Fitbit in sales? The only possible failure in the case of wearables is the wearable market itself.

saltyzip said:

Rayz2016 said:

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!

Apple cannot have a monopoly on its own App Store, in much the same way that Toyota cannot have a monopoly for selling Toyota cars. 

The market is for app stores, not the App Store. Apple does not have the biggest app store, and even if it did, there is nothing illegal in having a monopoly, so regulators have no case. 

Hope that makes things a little clearer for you. 

Now if Walmart forced the consumer to only buy Cheerios from its stores, it has a Monopoly on that product.

Monopoly means: "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service"

Apple has sole control over everything it sells to Apple devices. That can be seen as anti competitive when a company has too much power, like Apple, bad for consumers, and for companies like Spotify etc.

No streaming service can compete with Apples, because Apple can price theirs better than everyone else who sells competing products, plus they take a cut of competing products revenue too as it has to be sold through app store, not fair.

Hope that educates you.

Your example doesn't work. If I can buy Cheerios from Amazon too, then Walmart doesn't have a monopoly on that product. You have to define "forcing a consumer". If we are simply talking about competitive pricing or Walmart only carrying Cheerios and no other breakfast cereals, then there is nothing illegal. If Cheerios was somehow deemed an essential part of everyone's breakfast by the FDA, and Walmart became the sole supplier of that product, then you have a case for a monopoly.

Apple does take a piece of revenue from services on their platform but they do not control pricing. Their competition chooses to either pass the cost onto the consumers or absorb those costs. Apple's pricing is usually in line with competing services unless they feel they offer a better hardware / software integration to their customers such as with iCloud pricing.