610 posts • joined 20 Aug 2009
I think we're missing the point
This IS Apple's plan to conquer the "cheap" end of the market. They simply will redefine what cheap is. $200 will be a "cheap" phone because their other phones will cost $300, $400, $500, etc.
Re: This might make Samsung very happy
I'm not sure how the pricing in the UK works, but in the USA it has been pretty stable for a while.
The "willingness to pay" for smartphones was found to be around $200, so they were subsidized with increases in service to be around $200. You were eligible for a new phone every 1 year, then 1.5 years, then 2 years... as the carriers supposedly had trouble breaking even on iPhone users. Android users where not upgrading as often as they are usually sensible and utilitarian, whereas Apple users were image oriented and not concerned about function. Or maybe Android phones just didn't break so much or wear out so fast. Either way, carriers were losing money on Apple kit from a hardware perspective.
Additionally, the price differentiation factor kicked in. If the iPhone 4S cost $200 when you got in and the iPhone 5 costs $200, is it really an upgrade? Oh no good sir it costs $250 so you can tell it must be an upgrade! There was no resistance to this from carriers because they could use the relaxing of their subsidy, which they may never earn back. Carriers then implemented the same pricing plan for Android phones too.
Apple sees this and is not amused. They want to consume all of the profits in their value chain. The phone carrier (in Apple's opinion) does not deserve to turn a profit on Apple kit. After all, the carrier only warehouses the product, ships it, pays people to sell it and is on the hook for unsold inventory. They clearly add no value compared to Apple, who buys some parts from various companies and pays someone else to assemble them. Apple is raising prices to consume that extra $50 or $100 the carriers have tried to get out of the customer to remain profitable.
As Apple's share continues to fall, eventually this will reach a breaking point, and Apple phones will only be available at the Apple store, as carriers will back out. No one likes working with a bully if they don't have to.
Re: Fair dues...
"If you're interested in reality, Apple doesn't use Samsung displays."
Which only happened after the $1BN jury award, moron. Because immediately after it was awarded, Samsung notified Apple of their price increase. Apple had to go source all their parts from other companies. Apple now uses inferior parts because of their poor corporate strategy.
Re: Fair dues...
"Apple really screwed the pooch by suing Samsung."
I did wonder why that never seemed to directly come up at the trial. I would have had my opening statement be: your honor, if Apple didn't want their phones to look like Samsung phones, perhaps they shouldn't buy and use our screens, processors, RAM, etc. *drops mic*
While Apple "won" $1BN, their annual per year costs went up $1BN as a result. Not really a smart move.
Couldn't you go short a byte too? I'll admit, I'm going based on the XKCD explanation here... but if you were requesting lets say 10 bytes, but set the length to 5 bytes, you'd know the bug works, right?
Re: Thats the problem
"I guess it goes back to "is it a feature or a bug?" "
If we made companies liable for bugs instead of users, we'd have much better quality software out there.
Re: Thats the problem
"Any law that does not protect the people, is tyranny."
Unless the law protects people from themselves, then it is also tyranny.
/eat your vegetables citizen
/don't smoke or drink citizen
Would the NSA be authorized to scan? Perhaps we can convert it into something useful... scan the whole world for SSL bugs.
Re: Apple is misleading
"If you're using a Web browser to browse to a secure site, the security of the connection depends on the version of SSL running server-side. If some banking site somewhere is vulnerable, that's not Apple's fault, seems to me.
Yes, anyone connecting to a vulnerable server is at risk. Apple hasn't said otherwise; what they said was "IOS and OS X never incorporated the vulnerable software and key Web-based services were not affected," which as near as I can tell seems to be true. (Mavericks, for instance, ships with OpenSSL 0.9.8y.)"
While true, I'd wager 99% of Apple's user base has no idea what any of that means. They just heard Apple say whatever they do is safe no matter what. So they will do just that.
Re: Apple is misleading
"If held to your ridiculous standards, every OS vendor out there is "vulnerable" forever "
And that is the message they should be communicating. Every responsible vendor is.
If someone sees on the nightly news today "iOS and OSX are safe" they're going to go back to wantonly logging into their email, banking info, etc at internet cafes and other places, thinking they're immune because of Apple magic when really they are not.
Apple should have said something like "While iOS and OSX are themselves safe, please be aware of the security or lack thereof of all apps, web sites and web service providers".
Re: but you don't understand...
"Taxes are TOO HIGH! If only we taxed multinationals less, they would hire more, train new graduates, and put more back into the economy!"
If Apple's profit rate fell slightly, it could trigger a mass sell of of their stock. Apple's market cap at EOD yesterday was $463.03BN, at $519.61 a share. Therefore, with their $158.8B on hand, they could keep their market cap the same (if they needed to) if the stock fell as low as $341.41 a share.
I suspect this kind of "insurance" is why they keep that much cash on hand. It is also part of why you hear investors demand stock buy-back programs.
Re: Ought to point out
I'm a bit puzzled as to why the cash reserves of the US even matter. If the government were running at optimal efficiency, their cash reserves would be zero.
Now realistically they need to be liquid enough to pay wages and whatnot, but any company holding $100BN+ is being financially irresponsible and not getting good ROI. Now caveat there is if they're gathering cash for M+A move or for investment in working capital or whatever, but based on how long we've been hearing about Apple's piles of cash, that is not the case.
Finally, kind of interesting how Apple is always compared to the US gov when you hear about this kind of stuff instead of other tech companies. I guess fanboys can feel good when they say Apple has 3 times the cash of the government, but not as good when they say about 2 times as much as Microsoft.
"If you owe the bank £200, they've got you by the balls. If you owe them £200 million, you've got them by the balls."
Makes sense. If you owe them 200, they can make you sell your car or grab your paycheck or whatever and get the money. Chances are you have no actual possessions worth 200 million that they can just come take, so they're much more dependant on you playing nice with them and being successful so you can afford to pay them back.
Re: False feeling of control
"There is an important line between officially sanctioned and not officially sanctioned acts of the secret service. The spies can get into deep shit if they overstep the boundaries and embarrass their superiors"
Yeah, they can or kill that spy and put another guy there to do the exact same thing, while the media reports on the guy who got in trouble.
Re: Could not have timed it better
"US went back in 2012 like Bush promised in 2004"
If Obama hadn't shut down the program... not like Bush had any control over that.
Interesting Point I Suppose
How has Samsung EVER been held responsible for the "slide to unlock patent"? I mean, everyone knows it isn't a valid patent, but nothing Samsung does has anything to do with the unlock functions of Android.
If I was going to sell cars and I called up GM to buy some engines and it turned out Ford had a patent on the engine, that isn't my fault.
I had gotten a beta invite a few weeks back. Kind of glad I did't have the cash to drop on one at the moment, if they're going to be ready for commercial launch soon with a cleaner look.
Re: In technology
"It isn't limited to BB: HTC is still losing money despite well-reviewed handsets."
Amusing since HTC is telling people to ignore reviews of their products.
But reviewers don't buy products. If a product is well reviewed and sells poorly, it means the review writer is incompetent as an analyst.
Re: Chen: Give Us What We Want
I'm not sure if Hans 1 is trolling or is technologically illiterate.
Going to assume there is supposed to be a comma between quad core and 4GB of RAM. Not sure why it was capitalized though. Anyways, that much RAM is useless unless you have a 64 processor. Even then, since 64 bit leads to some performance degradation, you'd be better off with 6GB.
25 emails on Android? Maybe 25 different accounts. What kind of spam business are you running if you have more than 25 email addresses? I've been a gmail user since beta and all my emails are available on my phone.
Whatever keyboard is available on BB is available on Android. Android is the world leader in onscreen keyboards. Swype was invented by Samsung and is the reigning champ for fastest text entry method on a mobile phone.
HP and Apple buying from TD or selling to? That part didn't seem very clear.
I printed out the quote:
"This industry is at a tipping point. When you talk to the CEO and CFO and ask if IT is a must have, everybody would agree, but if you ask a second question 'do you see IT as a strategic asset or a cost factor today?’ the perception is cost."
And put it up at my desk. I work in the same industry and have dealt with modeling profitability around backend rebates for years. It is an utterly backwards business model. I understand why it happens though.
The vendors (HP, Cisco, etc) want to maintain the premium pricing in the industry. They know if the cost was the cost, everyone would price battle down to within a basis point of their life to win the deal. They're trying to maintain a set level of profitability in the industry, so that their "channel partners" can afford to hire quality talent. This talent is what delivers the vendor's value prop to the end user, so it is important to them.
At the same time, they are under immense pressure from Wall Street to perform. When they fail on that end, an easy band aid is to cut rebates to their channel partners. The vendors forget why these rebates are important.
That situation needs to come to a reckoning. Either it will collapse or the vendors will have to recognize the value in those rebates and stop cutting into them. Cloud will eventually go the same way when it isn't shiny and new anymore.
Re: Is this the same Android AV scanner...
"3) I assume every advert that appears on my phone that doesn't name the company to be fraudulent."
I take it a step further. I assume every ad is fraudulent. I've never clicked on an ad on purpose. I'm 26 years old. The whole ad industry should be afraid. Younger generations will be more like me.
/You're the 1 millionth visitor to view my post! Click here for your prize!
"MS grew up in an era where computer users were technical people and they kept assuming that. And then Apple came along and beat them up with iPhones and iPads."
Those aren't even competing market segments...
"Similarly, a non technical person would probably have no way of ascertaining that a virus scanner is doing nothing other than display some pretty graphics on it's UI.."
This average non technical person probably doesn't even need a virus scanner. They've only been scared into it by the media.
Not to mention, in the USA every carrier adds a virus scanner app anyway. And most phone makers do too. (Knox for Samsung).
"If you really want a system like that then run a "verified by Google" program where devs can pay a bit more and send in their source code to get a verified tag in the Play store with a rapid turnaround."
Don't they already do that? There is some kind of "top developer" tag already.
"Relying on end users to be vigilant/knowledgable is not *the* answer "
Eh. Why not? That is how it works in the rest of the world. If I go to the doctor and they sell me some pills to fix me up and they don't work, I don't get my money back. No consequences come of the doctor.
If Google really wants to fix this, have a holding system for money from new apps. If you've never made an app before you have to wait 30, 60 days or whatever to get paid. An app like this is always going to get caught within that timeframe. Then Google can issue refunds.
There was an Android app for managing battery life or something that had gotten a great review here in the Reg not that long ago. I and a number of other users tried it out and found it was basically ransomware. They had 500 fake 5 star reviews on the app store. So yes, there is definitely a service you can sign up for fake reviews. I would assume that exists for everything on the internet.
/the owner of that app had even trolled and harassed people in the comments on the Reg
Good to see MS is getting their head on straight and copying how the Google ecosystem works. With Google, I can have the same apps on Chrome that I do on my Android phone and Android tablet. I can download things to my phone or tablet from my PC on the web. The apps are relatively unified across platforms. I can use Google Hangouts for everything from gtalk to voice to text across devices.
What Microsoft really needs to do is embrace the fragmentation. If I wanted to go all in on MS, I'd want to have one MS account. That would have my Xbox Live in it. It would have my phone and tablet info. I could download Pandora on Windows 8.1 and send the same app to my phone, tablet and xbox, along with my account information. I could listen to music on my phone, get home and swap it to my xbox/media center without missing a beat. If I buy office on PC, I get office on my phone and tablet. My files are cloud stored or have the cloud storage option to be available across devices. I can do RDP from my phone and tablet when something is only on my PC.
I have a little bit of hope that MS may be on the right track here. Usually when that happens we get something soul crushing like Vista, but hey, it is a new world with a new CEO for them.
Fixated on Apple
Makes sense. No other company is/was a serious threat in the mobile phone area. Sorry BB and HTC (and Nokia).
Lenovo may be the next threat, but for now it is all Samsung and Apple.
Who Really Loses?
I can see why what T-Mobile did was a bit of a dick move but... is BB really in any financial position to be turning down carriers?
Re: Eegads imagine the price! (@Bullseyed)
Wasn't sure. He seemed to be back and forth on sarcasm levels.
I'm not entirely convinced that they'd be unsuccessful. They could be running some kind of negotiations to incorporate the "cable box" into the TV that would give them a jump. That is basically what they did with the iTunes market back in the day. Everyone seems to be taking that approach to streaming, but not to cable. Cable providers are heading more toward "on demand" and "apps" on smart TVs and other streaming boxes, so it isn't much of a stretch. However, time is short before the market delivers that sort of functionality on its own.
Re: what use?
The fingerprint scanner did work on knobs and nipples. Apple may have just been practicing for the future.
Re: Eegads imagine the price!
I can't think of a single thing Apple did first. Except maybe those horrible bright colored iMacs back in the day.
"It's just not a remotely sensible way to interact with a large screen unless you are either (a) a small child who watches TV from 2" away or (b) Microsoft and insist on using a touch interface where it's not useful."
If you've done PPTs in the corporate world, you'd understand how nice using a touch interface on a screen that big is.
Re: Apple iTV...
When has Apple let prior art stop them before?
This. MS was demoing CRM on an 80 inch touchscreen at Convergence this year.
The notification area is "iOS like"?
The notification area was invented by Google for Android and got copied to iOS years later. An "iOS like" notification system is one that pops to your screen and doesn't allow you to do ANYTHING until you tap the OK button.
Aaand you win the comments section of this article.
Apple would then patent a tripod on a mobile phone that changes colors if wet and with a glass back that shatters when dropped.
Re: Bland rehash
"Why do they bother with these tiny annual releases?"
Because unless you're an Apple moron, you don't update every year. The tiny difference from a 2013 tablet to a 2014 tablet is big when you plan to use it for 2-3-4 years.
/I still use my HP TouchPad, dual booted cyanogen
//Want to upgrade to a Samsung Tab Pro but don't want to pay more than $200
Because bigger screens at high resolution consume more power?
A better question is why are people so obsessed with weight and depth when it comes to devices? Anyone who isn't a moron puts an Otterbox or comparable on their phone anyway.
I'd rather have a heavy, thick tablet that runs for days and is more durable than a thin light one that lasts 8-10-12 hours.
Re: I don't want a larger phone
That whole "thumb" thing was held up when Apple was sticking to tiny 3 inch screens and refusing to go to 3.5 inch. But they went anyway. Then claimed again at 3.5 inch refusing to go to 4. But they went anyway. Now at 4, refusing to go to 4.6.
When will it die?
The fact of the matter is Samsung is the world leader in screen tech. The "retina display" was produced at Samsung and sold to Apple for assembly at Foxconn. Apple remains behind in screen size not because of some secret research they have done, but because they will always be behind in tech, because they produce no tech. And now that they refuse to buy parts from the world leader, they will be further behind.
/Samsung phones looked like iPhones because 85% of the iPhone was Samsung parts
The Joy of Android
"But if they do, may we humbly suggest that they keep a 4-incher in the line for those of us who use our phone as a phone more than we use it as a mobile home entertainment center?"
With Android, you can pick what size phone you want. With Apple, the almighty Steve Jobs err Tim Cook tells you what size is appropriate and you must thank him for the privilege.
Isn't "the next big thing" trademarked by Apple or Samsung?
Probably about $40 per pageview licensing fee....
"Bala, however, has a different bone to pick, complaining that the note is evidence that “Amazon or someone working with them is downloading apps from the Google Play Store and decompiling and/or otherwise inspecting them.”"
If Amazon is doing it, you know someone in the wild is. Storing passwords in plain text is obviously an issue.
"Christie's team then went on to dream up many familiar facets of the iPhone, including the swipe-to-unlock gesture, the cover flow method of viewing images, the address book and most importantly, the touch screen itself."
Except none of those things were new. There was no "dreaming up" involved.
Sticking it to HP
I really believe that Lenovo is committed to succeed at everything HP has recently failed at, for no real reason other than to stick it to HP. The battle between these two firms is much quieter than the battle between HP and Cisco was, but it is more chess than checkers.
Re: Lenovo's move to Microsoft only technology ecosystem
Apple still has a long way to fall to get back to their usual 2% marketshare. There is room for a third player in the mobile OS market. Microsoft can be that player if they just find one or two ways to differentiate. They haven't yet, as live tiles aren't really well liked. Maybe Lenovo will figure it out for them.
That being said, there is also room for a #2 behind Samsung in the Android space. Neither HTC nor LG have the innovative skill set to fill that gap.
Re: Net Neutrality
"Somebody should pay for the cost of bandwidth sufficient to access services like Netflix."
I already do. I pay for a 25/25 FiOS connection. Any time my Netflix hangs, freezes, buffers, etc, that is a breach of contract on the part of FiOS and I should be able to sue them for the cost of the contract.
Let's put that into law and see what happens. I bet suddenly the cable companies would have a whole lot of money available for putting in new fiber.
Re: He who pays the piper calls the tune
"If they're mad enough to force short term charges on the content providers, the latter will simply build their own networks, undercut the incumbents, destroy their business, and buy their assets for pennies on the pound/dollar."
Legally the content providers are not allowed to build their own networks. The free market has been prevented from functioning by oppressive government regulation (called the FCC).