Exactly, it can't have been analysing what each app was actually doing. So it's more a "here's what Bitdefender thinks of your Apps" application masquerading as something more insightful and authoritative.
504 posts • joined 12 Mar 2007
Exactly, it can't have been analysing what each app was actually doing. So it's more a "here's what Bitdefender thinks of your Apps" application masquerading as something more insightful and authoritative.
MS does this with every Windows upgrade. It enables them to claim enormous immediate sales of the new release, and in fact engineer more or less whatever initial sales figure they want.
It's based on US accounting regulations that say you can't recognise sales until you have made ALL the deliverables available to the customer. So those Windows 7 licences OEM's are buying in the usual huge quantities (or quite possibly more, because of the threat Windows 7 might not be available at the current price for very long), include a free upgrade to Windows 8. And because Windows 8 is a not yet available deliverable, MS is not recognising the sales until after W8 can be downloaded. So it's not really a Windows 7 OEM sale is it? It's a Windows 8 sale that is not currently deliverable, but has the right to use Windows 7 meantime.
And that's how MS can say to the world "our most successful Windows launch ever". It's a monopoly, and they simply relabel a suitable bunch of sales of the old version to look like the world eagerly CHOOSING the new product.
So when, in due course, MS brags about the incredibly successful launch, you'll know their claims are entirely meaningless, won't you? You didn't think MS could afford to take a RISK with a Windows release did you?
Of course Samsung copied, and in detail. Of course iPad looks "obvious" in retrospect - that's what's Apple's minimal design is all about. But it was not obvious before Apple showed the world. There had been tablets for years, but very few people actually wanted them.
The judge has explicitly allowed Apple to continue asserting that Samsung copied iPad. He believes it to be a matter of opinion, which Apple has the right to express. But he wants Apple to point out to consumers that under English law, sale of Samsung's product has not been compromised by Apple's well publicised litigation.
Of course his real motivation in this olympic year was to remind the world of Monty Python.
So China must be shrinking 3 times as fast.
You can read about the environmental impact of Apple products here:
OSX spellchecker likes it. "Disintermediation" is in Wikipedia too, if you want more.
I think the way Apple disintermediated the carriers was by exploiting the "competition" set up by governments when issuing carrier licences. By offering an exclusive, if iPhone failed, no harm done that the carrier had signed away the customer relationship. But if iPhone was a success, subscribers would switch in their millions, and competing carriers would be powerless.
So carriers signed up as simple insurance, not to be on the losing side. I don't think anyone in the industry actually believed iPhone would succeed. Signing was just in case.
AFAIK Apple issue security updates for the current and immediately prior OS versions. Older than that, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure Apple would ensure that you can safely use a Mac for at least 5-7 years from original purchase date, and if you can't update your OS any more, they will issue security updates for the last OS version you can use.
..that worked together to make it an HTML5 internet and end the Microsoft (or any other) monopoly. Then, just as it began to work, Google decided to try and become the new Microsoft and defeat both Apple and Microsoft, by entering the phone business, doing a deal to put Flash back centre stage, etc. But it didn't work. Despite the fact that there are more Android devices than IOS, only 7% of them run the current release (vs 70% of IOS), and Android owners don't even use the web much, let alone subscribe to Murdoch publications. (in June there was more than three times more IOS browsing than Android, despite lower device numbers).
And with hundreds of different device/release versions, Android isn't yet such an attractive market for Murdoch. The problem Murdoch hasn't embraced is that to sell like old print media did, you have to sell it like old print media. In other words, I'll happily pay a pound or two for one copy of the Times or the FT on a day when I'm likely to read it (e.g. on the train). But there's no way I'm going to actually subscribe for more than pennies a day. Even free, I'm quite likely not to subscribe. There is no way Murdoch can get casual readers to subscribe. If he wants their eyeballs, it has to be free. Find a way.
Don't write off Apple too quickly at the low end. Only natural they should hold off for as long as possible before pissing in the soup (as the CEO of Avis so graphically put it years ago).
Apple's business model is based on innovation and differentiation. Business is war, and Apple is going to use every legal means to keep its products differentiated. It has nothing to do with petulant narcissism. It is puerile to anthropomorphize Apple. It's a multinational corporation; it doesn't have emotions. Everything Apple and Samsung do is of necessity cynical, because otherwise someone somewhere would rip them off. But cynicism with integrity is possible.
The Apple II started the mainstream adoption of personal computers. Cloners cloned, and IBM copied the Apple II in the IBM PC*. Apple II became irrelevant. The IBM PC was in turn cloned by Compaq and others, and IBM lost control of their own product.
The Macintosh revolutionised personal computers, and made them accessible to everyone, from toddlers up. Despite the fact that it took Microsoft twelve years to make the first convincing copy of MacOS (Windows 95), the PC virtually put Apple out of business. Apple tried to increase market share by licensing Mac clones, but the cloners simply made cheap copies of Apple models, taking sales from Apple instead of growing market share. To conceal their monopoly, Microsoft did what was needed to keep Mac alive (mainly maintaining a compatible version of MS Office on the Mac).
Android was unsuccessful as implemented for Google in 2007, so Google copied iPhone's OS. Samsung was unsuccessful with their own copies of the iPhone and iPad hardware, so they copied iPhone and iPad slavishly and have been phenomenally successful. Android phones now outnumber iPhones.
Copying can put Apple out of a market and out of business far more quickly than in the first PC OS wars, leaving a wasteland of zero margins and zero innovation. It's an issue Apple has faced for decades. In the courts, the individual battle always ends up being apparently trivial. But what's at stake is much larger.
*The IBM PC was a direct response to the Apple II. It used a different CPU (8088 vs 6502), and a separate standard IBM keyboard. But otherwise it was uncannily Apple II ish, with slots, TV interface, game paddles, cassette interface.
Download the spec sheet. Practically everything is undefined (including weight, thickness, screen resolution, battery life, price, included features. There is not a single photo of the product on surface.com. No wireless features are specified (apart from the fact it has an aerial). The video out port is a file format, and the screen technology is a software text rendering system.
In short, it's gibberish. This is just MIcrosoft yet again pretending its monopoly is something else. Trouble is, the client device monopoly is long gone. What Disty or retailer is going to buy this after Zune, and the RIM and HP tablet experiences?
Microsoft has had a good run with client computing, but this is just a remake of the last scene with Ballmer as Thelma and Sinofski as Louise.
Ancient Oracle, perhaps you're the one showing naivety. We work so we can have goods and services. We use money so that we don't have to barter. The basic process is work - get stuff. The point is, how much of the stuff goes to the government, and how much does the worker get? You must include all the taxation points. The marginal rate is indeed 40% or so. But it's worse than that; when you buy your goods and services, there's 20% VAT to be paid. So in fact, the marginal rate at which the government taxes the benefits of your work is not 40%, but 52%.
Now if the same thing had happened with cars, for a fiver today you'd be able to buy a machine that could transport the entire population of the UK at the speed of light.
Or beer - for under a penny you could get the entire population drunk in under a second.
(. . . time for my nap)
Call yourself an old fart? When I were a lad . . .
Check out this PDP-9 price list (1966). 32K words (96K 6 bit characters) for $25K with 45Kbytes/sec transfer rate. Compared to SSD's, that's 2 million times smaller and ten million times slower for one hundred times the price (1000 with inflation), isn't it? And DEC were the ones revolutionising the industry by inventing this super cheap minicomputer!
Ten years ago your point was valid. But excluding vat, the UK price is $643. And you could say the cost of stronger EU consumer legislation justifies an extra $14.
Actually, we don't know how many Samsung has sold. They don't disclose that information, only very occasional hints to guide commentators towards optimistic figures. Amazon is the same with Kindle. Apple discloses sales and channel inventory every quarter. (Samsung are clearly doing pretty well with Galaxy, even if the real numbers are 30% lower.)
A certain council has a long straight road, and three identical snow ploughs which clear snow at a constant rate (so speed is inversely proportional to depth of snow). One day it began to snow steadily. The council sent a plough along the road. After an hour they sent the second plough behind the first. After another hour, they sent the third plough. Some time later it was still snowing steadily, and the second and third ploughs simultaneously crashed into the first. How long had it been snowing before the first plough was sent out?
You'd get 30-40 minutes for a question like that, but you'd also be able to choose a different hard question. Oh look, someone's posted the solution if you're interested:
With Windows 8, there's a danger that Microsoft offers their installed base a clear future they don't want, and for the first time ever, the alternative looks a safer, more mainstream option. Windows 8 could end up being Microsoft's confession that it can't catch up with Apple. It'll be interesting to watch. Could it really be so much better than Apple that it matters?
The point is that iPads are being used to do nearly all the tasks that consumers, education and enterprise did use PC's for, so they are competing for the same sale in most cases. Programmers and other heavyweight content creators will continue to use a traditional PC or Mac, but they are numerically a minority.
You don't understand. iPhones aren't bought by end-users in a "smartphone market". The users rent a mobile service. With iPhone, Apple largely defines that service, which end users like very much. Apple is not selling a gadget to the end user, or even to the carrier. Apple sells the end user to the carrier, and the carrier can afford Apple's price. Other handset makers just aren't in a position to control the user experience let alone do better than Apple; they don't control the OS, and they don't control the services. So they won't get either the margins or the loyalty.
As regards Apple's "over inflated" share price, its price to earnings ratio is around 14, with earnings growing at 100% a year. Whereas Amazon's ratio is around 170, with earnings actually shrinking. Even if earnings growth stopped dead today, the P/E would be 10 within a year. The share price should actually be about 50% higher.
No, the Amazon shareholders really are totally crazy. Amazon's price to earnings ratio is 186, which means it would take you 186 years to get your money back if you bought and kept the company. This is bubble territory. Must be because they are growing so fast. Over three years their income has grown - oh, it's shrunk. What about comparable companies? Walmart PE 13; 3 year growth 15%; Apple PE 14; growth 420%.
Perhaps Amazon's share price should be $20. Then you could get your money back in under 20 years.
I'd be saying "Splendid idea, BBC. I can see you're not happy with the licence revenue. Go ahead and charge for everything instead. Set your own prices. We'll split off and keep the taxpayer funded web site, and you can go your own way."
If you don't want employees, you don't want Blackberry or iPhone. But if you want employees and employees want iPhone, iPhone is what you'll have to offer. And if you're deploying corporate web apps for use on tablets (equals, more or less, iPads), then they'll work identically on iPhones.
Staff want it, and the total ecosystem is superior.
Remember 2007/2008? iPhone was to be programmed with HTML5; platform specific third party apps were the evil past, said Steve Jobs. And then came the App Store.
It's true a 7 inch iPad won't give you the same experience. But if you just want to control your Apple gadgets in the home, a 7 incher lying around is probably what you want.
If he were still here, SJ would be happy to launch a seven inch iPad. When the time is right.
Just because something's true one day doesn't mean it's true the next. And Steve Jobs knew that. and exploited it for all he was worth. You thought Apple was in one place? Turned out they were somewhere else entirely a few months later.
“This is so important to us, we can’t rush it.”
More like "This is going nowhere but we're too arrogant to admit it"
It is so like the endless stream of "initiatives" that MS announced over the years (eg at CES).
From past news items, RIM must have made supplier commitments for 5 million or so Playbooks, but have stopped at about one million. Amazon must have taken over the design and supplier commitments, at a hefty discount. The deal is only just finalised, and RIM are now dumping their remaining Playbooks. Amazon have simplified Fire further to reduce cost. They haven't even got it working well enough for real demos yet, despite a supposed November ship date.
Amazon can make a good profit on the first four million, and then decide what to do next.
Amazon have never said how many Kindles they have sold. You don't even need a Kindle to buy ebooks from Amazon. You can use an IOS device, for instance, and there are over 200 million of them.
Of course there's prior art in the world of fiction for a brilliant little pocket screen that just does what you want. But nobody actually made one until Apple.
Like Google's, Samsung's own responses to iPhone weren't successful enough for their taste, and instead of working at it until they had something both original and competitive, they copied Apple and added a couple of features. After ten year's work, Apple wanted a little more differentiation.
Patents are a far from ideal tool to keep hold of your product's differentiation, but that's the tool Apple has. Far from being a novice at this, Apple has repeatedly been on the losing end big time. Numerous far east companies cloned the Apple 2 (see Wikipedia). It took Microsoft a decade to copy the Mac OS, but then Apple lost out in court, and Mac almost disappeared without trace. In getting multimedia into Windows, Microsoft copied Apple. But this time Steve Jobs negotiated a settlement that guaranteed five years more life for Mac, together with $150M cash, allowing Microsoft to "save" Apple.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Either way, it will drag on long enough for Apple to establish a new differentiator.
Apple won't stop them making smartphones. Just ones that look exactly like an iPhone. So that'll be Windows phone.
Apple is silent about even the existence future products. It's mainly about delaying any competitor response as long as possible, and protecting sales of the Apple product it will replace. Those are worth billions to Apple. Hype is worth only millions, and requires disclosing the existence of the product. And dirty hype, that Barry Shitpeas says Apple is deliberately manufacturing here, is seriously damaging to Apple. Why would they do that?
I'm not claiming that this wasn't Apple, or wasn't incompetent or perhaps immoral. Just that it isn't hype initiated by senior management.
Of course Apple know what they are doing. They WANT HTML5 to be a viable platform. They also prioritise their relationship with the user - hence the privacy bit. They want content providers to grow up and make business decisions instead of pouting and moaning about Apple's little shop.
And if you think Android is taking over, the latest mobile internet statistics (at marketshare.hitslink.com) shows: IOS 53%; Java ME 21%, Android 16%, Symbian 6%, Blackberry 3%, Windows 0.6%.
This is going to be a bigger category than DSLR. We want to put our good lenses on these babies and get connected aperture and focus, but however good Sony (NEX) or Samsung's Evil gets, they won't have the lens catalogue for another ten years (in other words, ever).
It's fine to whinge about the 30%. But you're whinging about a subset of just one hardware platform. Use Android or Blackberry, or Windows mobile or some other platform if you don't like it.
If you ran WH Smith you'd want a cut of FT sales made through you, wouldn't you? And you wouldn't want a sign up saying it was cheaper elsewhere.
Remember when IE6 was a crippling dead hand on web innovation.
Remember how Adobe did its best to destroy the Mac platform with feeble support, terrible performance and endless crashes.
What you're objecting to is that Apple's business strategy, which they've been forced in to, is so superior, that people will willingly pay the 30%. When the so called competitors finally decide to compete, you'll have the world you want.
Apple wants a big enough open market where anyone can compete, and has worked really hard to make sure there is such a place: HTML5 / Webkit / no proprietary Flash. This is the place where the FT App has been "evicted". Apple's need is to prevent an innovation stifling monopoly like Microsoft's emerging again. Even if Apple is the monopolist, it would still stifle their innovation.
There is also the proprietary part of IOS, including the App store, which delivers quite a lot of benefits to publishers and users. Apple charges 30%, and quite reasonably says suppliers can't wander round inside this closed ecosystem inviting people to buy the same thing cheaper outside. That's the same mechanism that's destroying the High Street. (Go look at a product locally, then buy it cheaper on the web).
Instead of taking this as arrogant Apple greed, suggest an alternative that will enable a new economy to flourish for creators and consumers, without being smothered or hijacked by monopolists and gatekeepers.
Yes, Apple is shooting themselves in the foot with these moves. That's the whole idea. It's the only way to force people to move forward to the new economy. When they've got themselves organised, Apple will be happy to compete.
Unfortunately Google jumped ship from this strategy, which they shared, and now hope to be the new Microsoft.
... if that comes to pass, Apple Inc will have a market cap of $15 trillion. And to do that, it will have to take over several global industries. Or maybe Apple will be the de facto world government by then.
P/E is based on past twelve months earnings. In order for earnings to remain flat 12 months ahead, they'd have to _shrink_to match their rapid growth over the past year. If Apple simply stopped growing, then P/E would drop to about 10 in a year's time. But it's going to carry on growing. So without a share price rise, P/E will be down at 8 or so in a year's time.
Thus Apple is underpriced now, based on fundamentals. But when did the market consider fundamentals? Compare and contrast AMZN: P/E 86, slower growth, and smaller margins than AAPL.
Specific patents may look stupid, but they are the only weapon when a competitor copies your product. Apple just wants other manufacturers to make their own, recognisably different designs, not simply make Apple device clones.
When Android wasn't popular enough, Google copied iPhone designs into Android. And when Samsung's Android phones weren't selling well enough, Samsung deliberately copied iPhone so as to benefit from punter's recognition of iPhone. Then they copied iPad, and when iPad 2 came out, they copied again.
I have a little bit of sympathy for HTC, but for Samsung, none at all. They deserve the injunctions.
Other manufacturers cannot match the iPad or Macbook Air prices. OEM's asked for $100 a unit subsidy from Intel to compete with the Macbook Air in Intel's Ultrabook initiative.
This article is jumping to some major conclusions based on rumors from Digitimes.
The smartphone market is growing fast, not so much affected by the recession (human needs: 1. Food 2. Shelter 3. Smartphone 4... )
Apple is about to execute one of its overnight global product transitions. Naturally they would have orders in place for iPhone 4 parts until they are certain of the transition date. Then they'd trim back iPhone 4 part supply from the transition date.
Google's disregard of intellectual property is leading HTC and others into legal difficulties which may see their products banned from import to major territories. I'd expect them to be cutting back supplies a little in case courts find against them in the next 6 months.
And finally, Digitimes doesn't always get their facts right.
But it's still possible the recession will deepen this winter. But how would HTC & Apple know?
recap: It is (was) a cache of base station locations that you looked as if you might go near, often as much as 50 miles away from where you actually went - so that internet access is not required to deliver a quick initial response from location services on the phone. It was being held for weeks/months, and grew to a large size.
As such it was pretty useless for tracking you (far too vague). But now the cache has been reduced in size, it's info much more precise about where you've recently been.
Of course the worst thing is: if I get hold of your iPhone, I can tell you EXACTLY where it is. It's an outrage that Apple is shipping a device configured to reveal its own location to anyone who as much as sees it.
Don't be evil - haha. Google's whippersnapper CEO is sailing into a world of hurt. They've built their business too heavily on stolen IP (your privacy, everyone's copyright, GPL violation), for too long, and mobile is where it's coming unstuck. The carriers currently push out Android phones, because they are cheap and tick marketing boxes. But apart from geeks, the customers don't actually use Android internet features. Android tablets are stuck in the channel. Non-geeks don't buy them at all. This is a replay of Microsoft with music. Android is Playsforsure, and now Moto is Zune, which Google thinks Android partners will be happy about.
Apple wasn't worried by Moto patents; the ones everyone needs are FRAND-encumbered, so Apple can license on Fair and Reasonable terms. But Apple is having to use litigation to get a fair price. Just as they did with Nokia. The deal will get done, and Apple will pay the same as everyone else, just as with Nokia.
See what Android looked like nine months after iPhone was launched: http://gizmodo.com/334909/google-android-prototype-in-the-wild. Google and licensees definitely copied iPhone to get traction in the market.
Google have a dismissive attitude to the law. They control Android release by violating GPL. They claim patents are worthless and anticompetitive, yet their entire business was based on one (pagerank), and they pay billions to buy patents intending to use them as offensive weapons. Next they will probably subsidise a Moto tablet to get traction in the market. Then antitrust legislation will be against them too.
Google's greed and disregard of intellectual property is going to trip them up quite soon now. Buying MMI is desperation, not dominance. And MMI may actually cost them $19 billion, because they use the "double Irish" tax dodge to avoid paying US taxes. They'll have to pay those taxes to bring $12B into the US.
And that's the reason why Apple doesn't sue directly.
Classic, Rosetta and Carbon are all things Apple did that allowed old Adobe software to run. But Adobe did nothing for ten years to move to OSX's standard APIs. Adobe has hoped for 15 years that Mac would die, all the while getting half their revenue from Mac users. Cynical beancounter logic is what put them in this state, not Apple.
Look how comparatively ruthless Apple is being with Final Cut Pro in order to keep it at the cutting edge. Unlike Apple, Adobe hasn't been engineering-led for over a decade.
The banks create the money by inventing it and lending it, but they demand interest in addition to repayment. But the total amount of money they've invented is all there is; it's quite impossible for everyone to repay their loans with interest; the money doesn't exist.
Only two eventual possibilities: banks write off and foreclose and end up owning all the real assets, or: endless asset price inflation financed by bigger new loans putting more money out than the repayment and interest on the old loans.
You'd be forgiven for thinking fractional reserve banking is simply legalized theft.
USB was in later editions of Windows 95, and mandated in new PC's at that time. But USB was going nowhere until Apple delivered a captive market for USB devices with the USB-only iMac in mid 1998.
There never was, beyond the fact that it's a compromise. As is every other cellphone antenna design.
I didn't claim moral superiority for Apple's business model; just tried to remind people of it. USB for examole was dead in the water, despite being on most new Wintel PC's, until Apple shipped the iMac with no alternative interface. And that was a humiliating thing to do when Apple's own firewire was a far superior system.
I'm fine with people resenting Apple's success and profitability.
And if HTC is so wonderful, read this:
Microsoft / Apple was a copyright case based on "look and feel", not a patent case. But Sculley had licensed MS to use Mac GUI elements for Windows 1.0. The case failed because of this prior license and because look and feel is not copyrightable. So in future it's down to specific, nitty-gritty patents (not copyright) if you want to protect your designs. So we have patent wars.
Apple runs its business in a particular way, which allows it to move its customers forward over the long term, but requires a protected space in which to function. What they do is very different to simply making one or two gadgets. HTC and Samsung are gadget makers, in that they have no long term plan or structure, and design their products for a market environment over which they have no control. It's Apple who broke the power of the carriers with a spectacularly innovative product, leveraging government-mandated inter-carrier competition to create a direct relationship with users.
HTC made reasonably popular smartphones long before Apple, but now they all look just like iPhones. There is no doubt they, like Samsung, copied flagrantly. Apple has to protect the space in which it operates.
Bill Gates and Microsoft pushed tablet computers for a decade. Despite monopoly power, they were unable to make significant sales. It's quite obvious Apple didn't copy these tablets, and has no monopoly, but iPad is a huge success, which everyone is copying. Apple's method of working has repeatedly enabled it to rescue technologies that were going nowhere and bring them into the mainstream (eg USB, WiFi).
Apple is effectively the industry's first farmer; the others are hunters who simply exploit the market environment. They will kill the farmer and steal the contents of his barn if they can. Just as farming was the way forward, allowing culture and civilisation to become what it is, the way Apple does business is necessary for similar progress in the wired world. So far, no-one else has shown the required commitment to give up hunting for farming. But they will, because in the end, farming leaves no space for hunters.
Could it be that the supposed Nichicon caps were counterfeit? After all, Nichicon have a high reputation, and are Japanese, and the main cause of the epidemic was a stolen electrolyte formula that was incomplete, and that Chinese manufacturers passed amongst themselves. The new formula was needed to meet environmental requirements.
Apple's iMac G5 also suffered this problem, but there's been an extended warranty service in place.
I think commenters are a little harsh; electronic products from major manufacturers are incredibly reliable these days. Problems arise from change; in this change to a more environmentally friendly electrolyte, which Chinese manufacturers didn't know how to make. And Dell's special problem was how badly they cleared up the mess.
Obviously, anyone can call their application software store an app store, because that's what it is. But maybe they can't brand it App Store, because Apple has prior use. As far as I know, it was also Apple who first used "application" instead of "program" in about 1983.
Anyone can refer to their vacuum cleaner as a hoover, but only Hoover can brand a vacuum cleaner Hoover.
"The App Store" for Apple, and "the Amazon App Store" for Amazon sounds about right to me.
Microsoft were far from first with windows, so it must be "Microsoft Windows" for ever, as far as I am concerned.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018