flaneur

blurpbleepbloop said:

StrangeDays said:

tshapi said:

blurpbleepbloop said:

What drives interest in a product like the X better than the perception of scarcity.  If Apple isn’t marketing this idea in advance of the start of pre-sales they aren’t doing their jobs. BUT, it’s Apple, so they are doing their job.

IMO scarcity marketing is there mojo 

Complete BS. That may (may) be viable by a small company struggling to make a name for itself, but not when you’re already the most successful company on earth. Apple can and will sell every single X they produce, so intentionally not selling them means lost sales, lost profit, with absolutely no benefit. Apple makes its record profit by selling devices, not not-selling them. 

I think you missed the message, SD.  Scarcity marketing is not scarcity selling.  The notion is that with every product launch there is always the message that there won’t be enough to go around and ya better get your order in at midnight or you’ll lose out.  Putting aside Apple’s 40-ish years in the PC biz, after 10 years of phenomenal growth of their mobile platform, with the ability to dictate terms to their supply chain, do you have any doubt that Apple will be able to produce exactly the number of devices it wants for any given launch?  No one is saying they would intentionally torpedo their own sales in the name of producing scarcity (though for much, much lower volume sales, that’s a viable tactic).  But they will give every impression that if you don’t act quickly, you’re gonna miss out.

Mike Wuerthele said:

netling said:

Wow talk about a nonstory!!   That's like a story on saying not every gas station has electric chargers and tesla an electric cars... run for your life and dumb Tesla stock!!!  Seriously, did ATT or Verizon pay for this story?

What is a non-story is most of the rest of the tech media screaming about it not in the iPhone 8, and "forgetting" to mention that it's only in the one LG phone.

So, settle down.

tmay said:

cloudmobile said:

Apple will start manufacturing OLED screens themselves at about the same time that they start manufacturing the chassis themselves, the SOCs themselves, the cameras themselves, the modems themselves, GPUs themselves and the memory units themselves ... which is never. Apple has never been and will be in the business of making components. That is not their area of expertise. They have no infrastructure in place for it either, and yes infrastructure includes PATENTS and other IP. It would take them many years to build them up, and even if they did, there is no guarantee that they would be any better than making components than Samsung, TSMC, LG, Sony etc. are. People with this attitude need to get off their high horses concerning Apple, pretending as if Apple is the only good technology company out there with good engineers who design good products. Even if you had that mindset back in, say, 2012, it is impossible to sustain now that Apple has essentially spent the last 5 years taking hardware and software ideas from Google and Samsung, incorporating them into their own products (while hilariously suing Samsung for infringement at the same time) leaving Apple advocates to (not particularly convincingly) claim "they did it first but we did it BETTER" or something like that. So the idea that Apple would get into components and immediately start making them as good as other companies who have fantastic engineers, product design teams, R&D departments etc. have been making FOR DECADES is ridiculous. And it isn't even Apple's wheelhouse. It never has been. Apple has ALWAYS excelled at taking the best - or most proven -existing pieces built by a variety of other companies, assembling them to build a superior end user product that focused on aesthetics/user experience/reliability/support as opposed to raw performance/the latest features/the most versatility or capability. Apple HAS NEVER excelled at - or for that matter even indulged in - the type of basic research in physics, chemistry, electrical, mechanical, process and industrial engineering that it takes to build so much as competitive memory chips, let alone OLED screens of the sort that Samsung is the only company in the world capable of building at scale. Even if Apple were to be able to build competitive OLED screens based on today's standards in 2-3 years, so what? Samsung started putting tons of money into OLED display YEARS ago, back when folks in Apple land were laughing at them, claiming that OLED was only suitable for large displays like TVs, and that LCD would ALWAYS be the best solution for small screens because of superior resolution, sharpness, speed, fluidity, less blacks, no oversaturation, and less power consumption. Samsung first previewed the type of curved OLED that is going to be used for the iPhone 8 way back in 2013 for the Galaxy Round, which was only sold in South Korea because they lacked the manufacturing capacity to make more. Even as recently as the Galaxy S6, two years ago, Samsung lacked the manufacturing capacity to keep up with demand. So what Samsung is putting in their phones now is components that they were developing 6-7 years ago. They have spent the last 3 years working on the next innovation, which are foldable devices. Yes, I know that Apple has filed their patent for a foldable smartphone. But Samsung has put in the R&D into the components - not just the screen but the internals - to actually make the product viable in a device that will be produced in large quantities and operate well enough to be supported. They were supposed to launch the first foldable device in 2016 but it got delayed because their early prototypes couldn't handle the durability testing. Other companies are now trying to beat Samsung to the punch but with different tech. LG tried to develop a foldable OLED screen before Samsung but gave up, and are instead rushing to market with a foldable device that uses hinges in 2018. They are in turn being beaten to the market by ZTE, who will have a foldable device as an AT&T exclusive later this year, but also uses hinges. Both will actually have separate sets of components that will virtually act as a single set when the device is folded out. None of them are working on a device that will have a single, foldable set of components like the one that Samsung has been working on since at least 2013. And that is actually how Samsung was able to beat all the Android competition AND remain competitive with Apple all these years. They weren't better in design. They certainly weren't better in software and services. But Samsung made the best components. Other than being stuck with using Qualcomm as their SOCs for reasons that we won't get into, that has given them the competitive edge that has forced the entire industry - including Google and yes Apple - to ultimately respond to and finally adopt themselves. If it wasn't for their ability to leverage their superiority at components into making devices that look and perform great, they would have been marginalized and commoditized along with the rest of the Android space years ago. And if you think that Apple can dive right into this area and compete with and beat Samsung at their own game, you are as delusional as the folks on this site were as recently as summer 2014 when they claimed that Apple would NEVER adopt the phablet form factor, the stylus, quad-core ARM architecture, multi-windowing or exceed 1 GB of RAM ... all of which were allegedly the product of bad design by Google and Samsung who were both going to be inevitably out of the smartphone business within 2 years (according to some infamous predictions by DED and others). Look folks. Let Samsung make their money. They put in the risk of many years of expensive R&D and infrastructure upgrades to make this possible so they have earned it. And they did it when a lot of other companies and analysts - Apple, Google, LG among them - claimed that they were nuts, that it was a gimmick that would never catch on, and they need to put their money and efforts elsewhere. They were right, everyone else was wrong, let them benefit from it, just as you guys are perfectly fine when Apple does the same. In a couple of years, the market will adjust and prices will come down. And actually, by then it won't matter because Samsung and the competition will have moved on to the next big thing anyway, and Apple will have to go ahead and pony up in order to put that tech in their devices too. Just like they have to pay a ton to put Intel and Nvidia tech into their PCs, and to Amazon and Google to host iCloud. That is not going to change and there is no reason why it should. Apple is not the only company in the world who creates good products that have value. Other companies do too, and when they do Apple should have to pay the going rate to benefit from it, just as everyone pays Apple whatever they decide to charge for their own products. So long as Apple is able to pass on the cost of the $125 OLED panels by charging their consumers $250 for it - and they will - it is fine.

Not trying to be a dick, but many, many, creative types figured out over the years how to make text readable. You should try it.

GeorgeBMac said:

melgross said:

GeorgeBMac said:

melgross said:

GeorgeBMac said:

melgross said:

mobird said:

Soli said:
This will be landmark event for many reasons, one of which I hope will make this the most remembered event since the original 2007 introduction of the iPhone*.

Won't be with out Steve Jobs. Tim Cook is no where close to what Steve could do with an audience...

He’s enthusiastic to be sure, but he says that he’s uncomfortable in front of large audiences. Apple has a management school, and one thing it teaches is presentation. He’s much better than in the beginning, but his quiet demeanor comes across on the stage, and his slight southern drawl doesn’t give him the sharpness needed. Steve, of course, was unmatched. Just watching some old presentations shows that.

I think the major difference -- what made Steve so great -- was that he understood the underlying technology and how it was being utilized to make people's live better -- as well as the infinite care from late and sleepless nights that went into making it a great product.   Tim is doing well -- but he just doesn't have Steve's underlying emotional investment or understanding of the product.

Steve was like any entrepreneur, but he was just better at this whole marketing thing, because he really BELIEVED. Cook is really much better than he’s given credit for. Just watch presentations from other large companies, and you'll see what I mean. I think he also really believes, as do the others below him. But Steve had a talent for this, without having to learn it. Natural charismatics, are rare.

edit; the usual typos, errors in auto correction that I always seem to miss until much later.

You seem to have a far more in depth and inside knowledge of Apple than I do -- so I respect your opinion.
But on this I would, knowing that my opinion may be based more on bias than fact, would differ with you.

To me it seems that Steve's "charisma" stemmed from a deep conviction (that underlies mere 'faith' or 'belief' because it is founded on knowledge rather than faith) as well as a passion to present something that will make a difference in the world and make people's lives better. 

While I very much respect Tim Cook and believe that he was an outstanding choice for CEO, I don't think he can every have that same magic as Steve -- not for lack of charisma (which I don't think that either has) but because he lacks the conviction and passion that show when presenting a product that you have personally spent long nights down in the nuts and bolts, bits and bytes while perfecting that product.

I think Markkula, during the first Jobs movie said it best:  "I see that look in your eye -- because I've had myself". 

We all know people who have charisma. We all know people who don’t. While believing in something helps, you either have it, or you don’t.

Believing and knowing are two different things.
--  Steve knew
--  Tim believes