Why doesn't anyone come close to apple as far as design?

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

The point is that tethering wasn't even an option out of the box, which would have saved Apple users a good chunk of money instead of ponying up for 2 data plans instead of one. Now it's an option because Apple users want to tether (no wai, design flaw?). And nobody gives a sht if you want to walk around with your iPad because the masses want tethering with their iPhones; whether it's to their Macbook or iPad or windows notebook.

Yes, initially you couldn't tether out of the box with 1st Gen droids. But at least you had the option to do it with Android apps (easy as hell, my 53 yr old dad does it with Easy Tether) and didn't have to hack. Droid carriers did initially bitch and were going to remove it until they realized it'd be a cash cow with the pay per use data plans.

That's because when the iPhone first came out it was on Edge and who wants to tether on edge. Tethering on iPhone was built in in June 2009 and wifi tethering was built in a year later. This whole tethering thing is all about the carriers, so please don't bring in hardware/software manufacturers like they can do anything about it.

Apple finally realized they aren't special and will have to conform to the masses (i.e. Android's market share) if they want to sell their iPhone on new carriers like Verizon.

This statement is so full of fail. Apple is the most profitable mobile handset maker in the world. They don't care about market share, to a point of course, but it's not that big of a deal to them.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

multi-touch isn't exclusive to macs.

No but multi-touch on Macs is incredibly smooth.

 

[CZroe]

The battery on the MBs should last you at least 3 years old. That's the point of having no user-replaceable batteries.

The whole discussion was that the notebook would hold it's value and have high resale in three years, not that it would last "at least" that long. You are only reinforcing my point that that it is made to kill that market and enforce a forced upgrade cycle. Force. Forcy force force. Force?

That was "the point."

 

[CZroe]

That's because when the iPhone first came out it was on Edge and who wants to tether on edge. Tethering on iPhone was built in in June 2009 and wifi tethering was built in a year later. This whole tethering thing is all about the carriers, so please don't bring in hardware/software manufacturers like they can do anything about it.



This statement is so full of fail. Apple is the most profitable mobile handset maker in the world. They don't care about market share, to a point of course, but it's not that big of a deal to them.

WiFi tethering wasn't until this year and the iPad had no way to tether to your iPhone over USB or Bluetooth. That is not a carrier limitation.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

The whole discussion was that the notebook would hold it's value and have high resale in three years, not that it would last "at least" that long. You are only reinforcing my point that that it is made to kill that market and enforce a forced upgrade cycle. Force. Forcy force force. Force?

That was "the point."

It's not a forced upgrade cycle. When you can get 75% of your money back after 2-3 years, why wouldn't you sell of your old one and get a new one? Best Buy's buyback guarantee is only 50% after the 1st year.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

WiFi tethering wasn't until this year and the iPad had no way to tether to your iPhone over USB or Bluetooth. That is not a carrier limitation.

Did you not read that I said wifi tethering came a year later? So you're complaining because you want to tether your iPad to your iPhone over a USB cable? Can you do that with an Android handset to tablet?

 

[SP33Demon]

That's because when the iPhone first came out it was on Edge and who wants to tether on edge. Tethering on iPhone was built in in June 2009 and wifi tethering was built in a year later. This whole tethering thing is all about the carriers, so please don't bring in hardware/software manufacturers like they can do anything about it.



This statement is so full of fail. Apple is the most profitable mobile handset maker in the world. They don't care about market share, to a point of course, but it's not that big of a deal to them.

So Apple couldn't negotiate with the carrier to allow tethering? BS. The "most profitable handset maker in the world" couldn't negotiate a single plan for iPhone + iPad users? Of course they could have. GTFOOH, the iPhone is the cash cow for AT&T, they'd toss Jobs's salad if he asked.

They don't care about market share? Jobs is sure as sht concerned about it:

Steve Jobs's Android Obsession Analyzed
BY David ZaxTue Oct 19, 2010
No sense ignoring the elephant in the cloud: "Android" clearly made more appearances than any other word, by far. One might be tempted to read fear or obsession into the repetition of his rival's name -- self-possessed politicians usually settle for "my opponent," after all -- until we scrutinize some of the other words that made prominent appearances.

"Integrated" and "fragmented" were buzzwords, as we noted yesterday, since these were the adjectives Jobs favors over "closed" and "open," words used by Google's CEO to describe the iPhone versus the Android. Jobs's central point is that Apple devices, by working more or less the same way across the board, ensure simplicty for app developers and users -- a point reinforced by three other prominent words: "developers," "software," and "apps."

So yes, the Android weighs heavily upon Jobs's mind; and his dreams are more than likely populated with ravenous green robots consuming everything in their path.

http://www.****************/1696243/word-cloud-computing-steve-jobss-android-obsession



iPhone 5 better step up its game or it's going to be left in the dust:

Even with the new iOS 5, people say iPhone 5 will not surpass the capability of Android phone and the likes. Most of the rumored updates on iOS 5 are already available on Android phones, which means the next generation iOS-powered iPhone will simply be playing a catch-up game.

For instance, the turn-to-turn navigation system is not available on iPhone under current operating system unless one downloads a GPS app (usually not free) or jailbreaks. However, this is available for free on Androids.

Also, iPhone users are not allowed to customize the unlock screen the way they want (again, of course, unless one jailbreaks), something which Android users already can do.

If Apple indeed plans on trumping its rivals both on design and function, iOS 5 should include groundbreaking updates.

Otherwise, Apple will have to hope that Steve Jobs' showmanship can convince people that the next generation iPhone is as good as the latest Android phones, if not better.

June 2, 2011 9:11 AM EDT
http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/art...-ios-5-wwdc-android-steve-jobs-smartphone.htm

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

So Apple couldn't negotiate with the carrier to allow tethering? BS. The "most profitable handset maker in the world" couldn't negotiate a single plan for iPhone + iPad users? Of course they could have. GTFOOH, the iPhone is the cash cow for AT&T, they'd toss Jobs's salad if he asked.

They don't care about market share? Jobs is sure as sht concerned about it:

http://www.****************/1696243/word-cloud-computing-steve-jobss-android-obsession

Right because the iPhone and iPad is only on one carrier.

If Jobs was concerned about marketshare, then why hasn't there been a big push for Macs?

iPhone 5 better step up its game or it's going to be left in the dust:

June 2, 2011 9:11 AM EDT
http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/art...-ios-5-wwdc-android-steve-jobs-smartphone.htm

Right let's link to a random blog about a product that hasn't been released or announced. That'll show him.

 

[Arkaign]

Right because the iPhone and iPad is only on one carrier.

If Jobs was concerned about marketshare, then why hasn't there been a big push for Macs?



Right let's link to a random blog about a product that hasn't been released or announced. That'll show him.

Of *course* Jobs is concerned about marketshare. He's highly intelligent and he doesn't run his business like a charity. He's out to be successful and make money just like the rest of them. I don't think there are going to be any massive moves one way or the other though, with one exception. Smartphones at present are fairly expensive (when you take out the rebates for getting a long phone plan). Whoever successfully brings out a significantly cheaper but capable smartphone will enjoy a pretty good momentum swing.

I think the lack of energy pushing Macs is largely that it's not a constant profit bomb like Smartphones and Ipads are with the app store. iTunes is already making them heaps of $$ whether they are on PC or Mac. That and the market that they're going after, primarily hardware at or above the $1k price point, isn't large enough to allow a great deal of expansion. Offering lower-priced Macbooks and iMacs is something of a trap, because it jeapordizes their image as a premium product, and with often limited production capacity they're better off selling ~100k of something at $400 gross profit per unit than ~500k of something at $40 gross profit per unit.

 

[SP33Demon]

Right because the iPhone and iPad is only on one carrier.

If Jobs was concerned about marketshare, then why hasn't there been a big push for Macs?



Right let's link to a random blog about a product that hasn't been released or announced. That'll show him.

No rebuttal about functionality that the iPhone doesn't have (navigation turn by turn, locked screen customization) and Android does? It's ok, you can admit you're one of the Shapple who overpaid for something pretty. Hey, but at least you're part of the "Club".

Android's already ahead by 10% and that gap will continue to grow unless iPhone5 can pull a fluffy white rabbit out of its ass.

A Nielsen survey conducted in April found Android in top place in the overall mobile market, owned by 36 percent of smartphone users, leaving Apple's iOS with a 26 percent share and RIM with 23 percent.

Read more: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19736_7-20067887-251.html#ixzz1O8mTjURC

 

[vi edit]

Android's already ahead by 10% and that gap will continue to grow unless iPhone5 can pull a fluffy white rabbit out of its ass.

I'd be really curious to see what happens if Verizon can pull off what AT&T does and sells an Iphone4 for $49 when the Iphone5 is going for $200. Right now that's the big difference. It's not the OS. It's the cost. You can buy one droid or Blackberry and get one free. Or get one of those for $50. Not for $200. And you can buy them for cheap in the 2nd hand market.

If Apple can get a "value" priced phone out there like the 3gs is for $49 at AT&T that should be huge for them to increase their share.

 

[QueBert]

No rebuttal about functionality that the iPhone doesn't have (navigation turn by turn, locked screen customization) and Android does? It's ok, you can admit you're one of the Shapple who overpaid for something pretty. Hey, but at least you're part of the "Club".

Android's already ahead by 10% and that gap will continue to grow unless iPhone5 can pull a fluffy white rabbit out of its ass.

Google's already starting to remove tethering apps from the Marketplace, it's a matter of a a short period of time before they'll all be gone

Google's no different than Apple here, dunno why people even think that shit.

http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/04/google-helping-carriers-block-android-tethering

 

[SP33Demon]

I'd be really curious to see what happens if Verizon can pull off what AT&T does and sells an Iphone4 for $49 when the Iphone5 is going for $200. Right now that's the big difference. It's not the OS. It's the cost. You can buy one droid or Blackberry and get one free. Or get one of those for $50. Not for $200. And you can buy them for cheap in the 2nd hand market.

If Apple can get a "value" priced phone out there like the 3gs is for $49 at AT&T that should be huge for them to increase their share.

That'd be key, but not sure if they would be willing to take a hit on the triple digit profit margins they're making now. Hell, if the price and functionality were similar I'd consider an iPhone. Therein lies the problem.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

Of *course* Jobs is concerned about marketshare. He's highly intelligent and he doesn't run his business like a charity.

Marketshare != Profitability

No rebuttal about functionality that the iPhone doesn't have (navigation turn by turn, locked screen customization) and Android does? It's ok, you can admit you're one of the Shapple who overpaid for something pretty. Hey, but at least you're part of the "Club".

Android's already ahead by 10% and that gap will continue to grow unless iPhone5 can pull a fluffy white rabbit out of its ass.

So just because the functionality is not built into the actual OS that means it can't have it? There are plenty of free and paid navigation apps that do turn by turn. Also, locked screen customization is an issue yes I agree with it, but it's not like there aren't pros/cons for both ecosystems.

Like I keep saying marketshare != profitiability. Why does a company need to dominate the market when it makes how the most out of all handset makers without domination?

also, let's not forget that android handsets also go on sale like no other with free, buy one get one, and other sales.

 

[vi edit]

That'd be key, but not sure if they would be willing to take a hit on the triple digit profit margins they're making now. Hell, if the price and functionality were similar I'd consider an iPhone. Therein lies the problem.

I have to wonder how much they really make on the phone itself vs. apps/music sales. Google makes it's money with the embedded google search in the phones. Hell, it's even making money off of iPhones since it's embedded into Safari and a bundled search app. But they make a fraction in market place sales that Apple does.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

I have to wonder how much they really make on the phone itself vs. apps/music sales. Google makes it's money with the embedded google search in the phones. Hell, it's even making money off of iPhones since it's embedded into Safari and a bundled search app. But they make a fraction in market place sales that Apple does.

I would think that Apple gets a 20% margin on each iPhone. Plus the kickback that they get from each carrier (not sure if that's happening anymore). And then 30% of all app sales.

 

[Arkaign]

Marketshare != Profitability

What Jobs and many other people know, is that in the case of devices being little profit portals like the iPod/iPhone/iPad, marketshare is most definitely profitability. The more units in peoples hands, and the sooner the better, the more sales you get on the apps/media stores.

 

[vi edit]

I would think that Apple gets a 20% margin on each iPhone. Plus the kickback that they get from each carrier (not sure if that's happening anymore). And then 30% of all app sales.

Where it get's messy is how much is subsidized by the carrier through data plans. What does Verizon/AT&T *really* pay for an iPhone4, how much are the "losing" at the $199 rate, and how much does Apple really get.

 

[SP33Demon]

Marketshare != Profitability


So just because the functionality is not built into the actual OS that means it can't have it? There are plenty of free and paid navigation apps that do turn by turn. Also, locked screen customization is an issue yes I agree with it, but it's not like there aren't pros/cons for both ecosystems.

Like I keep saying marketshare != profitiability. Why does a company need to dominate the market when it makes how the most out of all handset makers without domination?

also, let's not forget that android handsets also go on sale like no other with free, buy one get one, and other sales.

Not disagreeing that marketshare is equivalent to dollars. Just look at Windows vs Mac, there will always be some type of following for Apple products and they'll make their money by marketing a niche. But even with the niche, the gap is closing so they have to keep inventing new niches. For example, Macs used to enjoy a nice graphics performance advantage due to x64, but now Windows has jumped on that technology. The iPod had its niche with mp3's when they first came out, but soon phones will cannibalize that. The iPad's niche is that it's smaller/sleeker than a laptop, but mobile phones can pretty much do almost everything an iPad can (of course with a smaller screen).

For the casual user who just surfs and checks email, phones have already replaced laptops/tablets IMO. Laptops only hold a scalable advantage of more processing power, bigger display, and faster graphics (e.g. gaming). In the future I think as phones get thinner, their viewing size will also be able to fold out and expand (paper thin displays). So laptops will only hold the processing advantage which will be niche.

Re: Android handsets on sale, yup it's because multiple companies have agreed to such a business plan. Apple is up against many companies so it's a losing battle for market share and I'm guessing it will keep its "higher price = better quality" model. How much higher is the question.

 

[BeauJangles]

But even with the niche, the gap is closing so they have to keep inventing new niches.

You're missing the point in Mac's strategy. Look at the PC sales. Mac controls somewhere around 8-10% of the market, but, as a few years ago, they were capturing 90% of the revenue in the $1,000+ category of sales.

Mac's strategy is it to churn out high-margin, high-quality physical products, and pair them with closed ecosystems where consumers will be forced to give them even more money. Instead of churning out quantity, they focus on putting out quality products that deliver a good consumer experience.

If PC manufacturers are the Ford and Toyota's of the pc world, Apple is Porsche / Audi.

And, face it, it works. They are one of the biggest and most successful companies in the world.

 

[CZroe]

It's not a forced upgrade cycle. When you can get 75% of your money back after 2-3 years, why wouldn't you sell of your old one and get a new one? Best Buy's buyback guarantee is only 50% after the 1st year.

Once again... the example showed that you COULD get 75% of your money back in 2-3 years with models BEFORE they started doing this. I brought this up SPECIFICALLY to point out that the current models do not apply similarly to that scenario. No doubt, Apple saw that as an impediment to sales of their latest models and engineered themselves a way to move the "hand-me-down" Apple fans toward becoming "latest and greatest" Apple fans.

 

[Arkaign]

You're missing the point in Mac's strategy. Look at the PC sales. Mac controls somewhere around 8-10% of the market, but, as a few years ago, they were capturing 90% of the revenue in the $1,000+ category of sales.

Mac's strategy is it to churn out high-margin, high-quality physical products, and pair them with closed ecosystems where consumers will be forced to give them even more money. Instead of churning out quantity, they focus on putting out quality products that deliver a good consumer experience.

If PC manufacturers are the Ford and Toyota's of the pc world, Apple is Porsche / Audi.

And, face it, it works. They are one of the biggest and most successful companies in the world.

You're correct in many respects, but you have to realize the delineation here between large expensive desktop/laptop sales, and continual cash cows like iphone/ipad.

With the Mac desktop or the Macbook, most of the $$$ that Apple is going to make is up-front money. Out of the box they do pretty much everything you could want, a ton of software is free/dirt cheap 3rd party stuff, and so on. So that $1700 iMac has got to deliver a big profit then and there.

With the iPhone/iPad, there's a different approach. Sure it's nice to get a tidy profit per unit, but as they continually generate tons of revenue while they're in the wild (heavily controlled software/media distibution), it makes sense to get them in as many hands as possible with less of a focus on per-unit initial profits. Besides, if the iPhone/iPad only represented ~10% of the smartphone/tablet marketplace, then developers would tend to shy away from even bothering to make apps/content for them, much like the vast majority of games aren't written for OSX. But because the iPhone and especially the iPad are the dominant or evenly matched marketholder, there is a ton of apps coming out daily that will continue to make Apple rich rich rich.

I'd even bet that on average, Apple makes more profit on post-delivery sales for every iPhone, iPod, or iPad that they sell, than they do on the unit hardware itself.

 

[SP33Demon]

You're missing the point in Mac's strategy. Look at the PC sales. Mac controls somewhere around 8-10% of the market, but, as a few years ago, they were capturing 90% of the revenue in the $1,000+ category of sales.

Mac's strategy is it to churn out high-margin, high-quality physical products, and pair them with closed ecosystems where consumers will be forced to give them even more money. Instead of churning out quantity, they focus on putting out quality products that deliver a good consumer experience.

If PC manufacturers are the Ford and Toyota's of the pc world, Apple is Porsche / Audi.

And, face it, it works. They are one of the biggest and most successful companies in the world.

I'm aware of that. My post is saying that now that Wintel has x64, they should be able to compete in the near future and take away Mac's niche. For example, the Toyota Camry getting the same engine as a Porche would take away some market share because you're getting more performance for a cheaper price. While still not a Porche with Porche styling, it will still be able to tap into a market (speed enthusiasts) that wasn't there before. And Apple will lose a big part of its niche (graphically outperforming Wintel with x64 OS).

Yes, there will always be people who will blindly follow Apple, but I'm saying the huge profit margins will decline until they can technologically reinvent themselves again. I don't see them holding any technological edge over the competition atm.

 

[CZroe]

Did you not read that I said wifi tethering came a year later? So you're complaining because you want to tether your iPad to your iPhone over a USB cable? Can you do that with an Android handset to tablet?

My point was that the 2009 date was irrelevant. Not only did it not do WiFi tethering but the iPad didn't exist. Also, it took from mid '09 to early '11... almost TWO years.

And I wasn't complaining about anything with the iPhone or tethering. I was simply pointing out that there is no good reason why the iPad could not do get online from your Blackberry or whatever over BT DUN. Well, it could, if you jailbroke it and installed iBlueVer.

If Apple officially supported BT tethering on the iPhone before supporting WiFi tethering it was likely specifically to support non-PC devices that don't have USB ports, like the iPad. Why their iPad couldn't use it when they expected other devices to is beyond me. It was Apple's limitation and not a carrier limitation. You implied that the inability to tether an iPad before this year was purely a carrier limitation when it would have been possible since the advent of Bluetooth tethering in 2009 if the iPad simply supported BT DUN.

 

[Arkaign]

I'm aware of that. My post is saying that now that Wintel has x64, they should be able to compete in the near future and take away Mac's niche. For example, the Toyota Camry getting the same engine as a Porche would take away some market share because you're getting more performance for a cheaper price. While still not a Porche with Porche styling, it will still be able to tap into a market (speed enthusiasts) that wasn't there before. And Apple will lose a big part of its niche (graphically outperforming Wintel with x64 OS).

Yes, there will always be people who will blindly follow Apple, but I'm saying the huge profit margins will decline until they can technologically reinvent themselves again. I don't see them holding any technological edge over the competition atm.

Erm. Macs have been outpaced by PCs for many many years now in performance. 64-bit vs. 32-bit has nothing to do with it either. The last time Macs had a real performance advantage was back in the motorola era before it stalled out and got run over by much more ambitious designs from intel and AMD.

Most Mac customers aren't obsessive about the performance overall, hell graphic capability is ironically one of the weakest links in the Mac hardware design these days. What they want is :

(1)- Something well built.
(2)- Something that they can easily navigate and use.
(3)- Something that isn't prone to viruses/spyware, as most users aren't that good at keeping their Windows systems clean.
(4)- Something that looks cool, and will match their iPhone/etc apple gateway product.