Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 13, 2012, 09:27 AM   #201
rjohnstone
macrumors 68030
 
rjohnstone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: PHX, AZ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
No. The iPhone always was, and still is, like a Ferrari. Personally, I'm glad that the iPhone has such a small market share, like Ferrari. Cars like the Camry sell in large numbers.

What would you rather have, a Ferrari or a Camry? The choice is simple. Are you looking for the finest, high precision beautiful product? Or the one that every Tom, Dick and Hairy has in his pants?

For me, somebody who is entitled to own only the finest things in life, the answer is simple. I choose Apple.
I think you forgot to put a /s at the end of your post.
__________________
"You can't really dust for vomit" - Nigel Tuffnel
Some Apple *****, some Android ***** and some Windows based *****.

Last edited by maflynn; Dec 13, 2012 at 10:26 AM.
rjohnstone is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 09:28 AM   #202
617arg
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by sigamy View Post

As for Google, I do find it lame that they inititally set out to copy the Blackberry and when the iPhone came and was a hit, they turned and copied it.

I really believe if Apple didn't release the iPhone in 2007 smartphones would still look like Blackberries and Treos today.
Exactly. Before the iPhone my phone was a RAZR. Lots of people (mostly business people) had Treos and Blackberry's, but I had no desire for a "smart" phone. They were just too complicated, and the prospect of using one to access my email or use a calendar was not at all enticing to me.

During the keynote introduction of the first iPhone you (me, you, everyone) could feel how things have just changed. Suddenly I didn't just feel like I wanted an iPhone, I felt like I needed one. It changed the game, and everyone felt it.

In no way can I believe that Eric Schmidt just happened to have an epiphany unrelated to his time on the board at Apple. As a consumer I choose to support innovation, not a company that's just trying to get in on the action........
617arg is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 09:32 AM   #203
lazyrighteye
macrumors 65816
 
lazyrighteye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Denver, CO
"Doctor Jones"

Interesting. Nowhere does it mention Schmidt's role as Toht in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Looks like wiki needs an update.

What a creep.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Schmidt-Toht.jpg
Views:	10
Size:	114.1 KB
ID:	383301  
lazyrighteye is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 09:32 AM   #204
rjohnstone
macrumors 68030
 
rjohnstone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: PHX, AZ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 617arg View Post
Exactly. Before the iPhone my phone was a RAZR. Lots of people (mostly business people) had Treos and Blackberry's, but I had no desire for a "smart" phone. They were just too complicated, and the prospect of using one to access my email or use a calendar was not at all enticing to me.

During the keynote introduction of the first iPhone you (me, you, everyone) could feel how things have just changed. Suddenly I didn't just feel like I wanted an iPhone, I felt like I needed one. It changed the game, and everyone felt it.

In no way can I believe that Eric Schmidt just happened to have an epiphany unrelated to his time on the board at Apple. As a consumer I choose to support innovation, not a company that's just trying to get in on the action........
False argument.
Android never was about the hardware.
It was always about the software and its ability to be installed on many variations of hardware.
The BB looking device was ONE of several prototypes for testing purposes.
There was also a touch only unit that everyone (Apple fans) seem to ignore.
__________________
"You can't really dust for vomit" - Nigel Tuffnel
Some Apple *****, some Android ***** and some Windows based *****.
rjohnstone is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 09:35 AM   #205
TMay
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carson City, NV
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
And some people just care too much about corporations. The "mobile war" as discussed here by Eric and people is about consumer mindshare, not corporate profitability.

Which guess what, no one but shareholders care about and guess what again, both Apple and Google are winning.

----------



Better than the money Apple paid for the Nortel patents ?
The $2B plus share of the total Nortel buy that Apple paid makes sense for a hardware manufacturer, and long since absorbed. Moto, on the other hand, hasn't panned out as either a savvy IP defensive buy or as a manufacturer of Android.

It's a good write off, and there is some cash that came with Moto. I suspect that Moto's threats to go after the other Android OEM's for IP infringement had something to do with Google's purchase.
TMay is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 09:37 AM   #206
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yujenisis View Post
The burden of proof is on you.
You stated a fact, you get to back it up. You have failed to do so because frankly, no one can.

Those are the forum rules btw. Burden of proof is on the person making an ascersion.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 09:38 AM   #207
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjohnstone View Post
False argument.
Android never was about the hardware.
It was always about the software and its ability to be installed on many variations of hardware.
The BB looking device was ONE of several prototypes for testing purposes.
There was also a touch only unit that everyone (Apple fans) seem to ignore.
Both prototypes came out almost a year after the iPhone was demoed.
BaldiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 09:42 AM   #208
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever View Post
It's funny that people claim that Apple sucks at online services.

Don't they run the most successful completely online service in iTunes? To call iTunes anything more than a success is insane.

And I place them ahead of Amazon only because the iTunes store is truly a digital only service, where Amazon deals with physical goods. But if you want to add Amazon, then I would place Amazon first and Apple second.
I'm pretty sure if you read my post again, you'll find that I did say iTunes was successful. But to say Apple doesn't suck at online services, not eCommerce (I classify iTunes as eCommerce more than online services) is also insane. iTools, .Mac, MobileMe, iCloud... Ping... iWork.com, all services that have been DOA or have had a lot of usability issues.

So while they may have success doing eCommerce, Search isn't eCommerce.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by vampyr View Post
I am still amazed that this guy hasn't been sued by Apple.

Hmm... Eric Schmidt was a board member of Apple when Apple began working on the iPhone.
About the time the iPad began to reach public media, Eric Schmidt leave Apple board of directors.
Suddenly Google decides to get into the phone and tablet market.
Google decided to get into the phone market in 2005, 1 year before Eric joined the board.

Get your timeline straight if you're going to comment.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 09:53 AM   #209
sampath
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elbon View Post
There are more ants in the world than people. Does that mean the ants are winning?
They were here before us and will most likely be around long after we are extinct, so yes, yes they are.
sampath is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 10:01 AM   #210
Dreamer2go
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
Which cons are those? What is stopping you from getting, for example, an HTC One X? A Galxy S3? Or a Droid Razr Maxx HD? What are the cons?[COLOR="#808080"]

I have a S3... just didn't like Poweramp. Couldn't live without iPod + iTunes. Music is a huge con for me for Android. Not saying it's bad, just not my thing.
I dont use "swipe key" and swiftkey wasn't as accurate to me as iphone's keyboard.

Overall, I feel iPhone's ecosystem + how simple it works fits me more.
__________________
2012 Retina Macbook Pro: Intel Core i7 2.6Ghz | 16GB RAM | 512GB HD | 1GB Nvidia 650M |
iPhone 6, iPad Air, Google Nexus 5
Dreamer2go is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 10:16 AM   #211
InuManiac
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsir2009 View Post
You can pick up an android phone for less than a hundred bucks. Enough said.
Word....this made me realize the time I bought the Zune. POS. Realize that I got get what I paid for. I should have paid the few bucks more for the quality device instead of being cheep and impatient.
InuManiac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 10:29 AM   #212
TMay
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carson City, NV
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post
It was a pretty good deal. Google paid the same price per Motorola patent that Apple did for Nortel patents.

However, the Motorola patents came with a phone and settop box company that can be sold off. Apple's Nortel purchase did not.

Moreover, Motorola came with $3 billion cash reserves included. It's been using that huge reserve to keep the company going. At the rate they were losing money last year, I calculated that their reserve could keep them going for almost another half decade. Extra cost to Google: zero.

As for the patents, twice now Apple's cases against Motorola have been dismissed with prejudice. Sooner or later, Apple is going to have pay Motorola for use of their FRAND patents, and their chances for getting a good price without sharing patents keep getting slimmer.
Yes, and Moto isn't going to be able to use SEP for injunctions, so how exactly is Moto going to be able to get Apple to pay higher that FRAND? If negotiations between Apple and Moto fail, then the court decides.

If anything, Apple is fighting the basis of Moto's SEP, and in fact made an offer not to exceed $1 per device, which Moto rejected.

Moto wants basis to be the finished product. Microsoft and Apple want basis to be at the component level.

Apple will end up paying, but almost certainly, much less than Moto wants.

Moto is a white elephant as far as IP is concerned.
TMay is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 10:34 AM   #213
-hh
macrumors 68020
 
-hh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: NJ Highlands, Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1080p View Post
Lets's see...

Google develops a mobile OS built around it's services and give this OS away for FREE to device manufacturers so that they may collect user info and *HOPEFULLY* use that info to make money in advertising. Sells no devices of it's own....
For the first part, there's zero revenue stream there to exploit. Of course, the second part alludes to building hooks into that OS which tie into one's advertising-based revenue stream, which would be a mechanism to effect a positive cash flow and potential Return on Investment (ROI). But the problem with this second part is ... "but can those hooks be removed - - or at least changed to point to a different beneficiary?". The answer to that question is YES.


Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino23 View Post
I wonder if they have lost control of Android. Chinese companies are repurposing it without using Google search or ads. Lots of companies are using it to build feature phones which really don't present ads or use search...
Because Android is obstensively Open Source, it is impossible by definition for Google to retain control. That's why Google has tried to forstall defections by having a trademark requirement on Android(TM).

The fundamental business model problem that Google has with Android is that the advertising hooks that Google put within Android can be removed (feature phones) or replaced ... and this latter part isn't just theory: Baidu has already replaced Google in China.

Google is "locked out" of the China market due to Govt-vs-censorship issues and Baidu has stepped into that vaccume: reportedly, something like ~80% of the Android cellphones in China are running with a Baidu replacement of Google in Android OS - - this all just goes to illustrate that trying to associate marketshare to corporate revenue (and profits) is a fallacy.



Quote:
Originally Posted by davidjearly View Post
Dominance does not equal money.

Marketshare does not equal money.

Why are people not getting this?
The reason why people trip on this intellectual hurdle is because marketshare=money=dominance is true when you're talking about pure commodity markets ... and what we had in the 1990s with Windows OS running on any OEM's Intel PCs was a hybrid of a commodity market: the OS may have been proprietary, but hardware OEMs were the commodity, resulting in price wars (...and slim profit margins).


Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
We're talking about it from a consumer perspective. As a consumer, I don't give 2 craps about profits. It doesn't benefit me.
YMMV. That's entirely appropriate for a consumer with a very short term perspective, such as on a consumable like today's lunch.

However, when the consumer places significance on a product's sustainment, then the health of the company can become a consideration: a company who aren't prospering is at risk of no longer existing when you might come to them with for support, such as a warranty claim. For an analogy, Saab and Suzuki automobiles are discontinued brands in the USA ... who today would choose to totally ignore this as a factor when shopping for a new car?


Quote:
Originally Posted by apfeljonas View Post
Anyone ever considered the fact that Android is pretty much installed on every dumbphone so it can be called a smartphone. If you compare Apples vs. Apples, aka High-end devices vs High-end, you see the real picture. 50/50 Apple Android.
A good point: knowing exactly what goes into a metric is often critically important to really understand what's going on in a market. And FYI, when looking further into the ROI for Google's books, there's also a couple of hundred million real smartphones in China running on Baidu (not Google) that also need to be adjusted in the counts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mrxak View Post
I'm going to go ahead and say businessmen in charge of major corporations care about who wins the profits....

Maybe it's a sustainable business model, and Google can continue to make small profits with it, and that's fine. Apple's value will continue to be higher because they do business a lot better.
And similarly, there are business models which may look great in the short term, but which may not be sustainable over a longer term. Given how netbooks (and now eBooks appear to be) were a "boom & bust" cycle, the question harkens back to business fundementals on if Google's business strategy for Android may similarly contain a fatal flaw.

What I see as factors to contemplate include:

- the indicated 'smartphone' marketshare values for Android are polluted by feature phones;

- the indicated 'Android' marketshare values (even if corrected for the above) need to be split by the underlying revenue beneficiary (eg, Google vs Baidu);

- the ongoing fragmentation of Android OS;

- relative differences in the consumers' real world lifecycle expenses (less than 10%) versus marketing (cellphone providers heavily promote Android);

- customer retention rates (upon contract renewal: 94% vs 39%, etc).


-hh
-hh is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 10:38 AM   #214
Pardus
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
not winning in my world

Quote:
The report notes that Google has gained confidence in its model of giving away Android to handset manufacturing partners and relying on advertising, search, and other services to generate revenue.
hmm, on all my client sites which generate significant traffic, IOS averages 20% of visits while Android has around 4%

somehow I don't see how that is winning if people arent using them in the methods they are relying on for revenue.
Pardus is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 10:39 AM   #215
Oletros
macrumors 603
 
Oletros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Premià de Mar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMay View Post
Apple will end up paying, but almost certainly, much less than Moto wants.

Why certainly?
Oletros is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 10:41 AM   #216
coolspot18
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidjearly View Post
Posts like this really make me crave a downvote button.

Dominant, in terms of marketshare. The dominance ends there.
OSX Lion/Mountain Lions has an increasing number of bugs. OSX is not (probably less) more stable than Windows 7/8 these days.

Apple really needs to fix bugs rather than release a new OS every year.
coolspot18 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 10:44 AM   #217
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamer2go View Post
I have a S3... just didn't like Poweramp. Couldn't live without iPod + iTunes. Music is a huge con for me for Android. Not saying it's bad, just not my thing.
I dont use "swipe key" and swiftkey wasn't as accurate to me as iphone's keyboard.

Overall, I feel iPhone's ecosystem + how simple it works fits me more.
You said that you couldn't live with Android's cons. And you chose an Android phone over the iphone.

I'm not sure that I understand. How are you alive?

But if you think that "how simple it works" is a factor that you cannot live without, then my guess is that you are correct.
iGrip is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 10:49 AM   #218
rjohnstone
macrumors 68030
 
rjohnstone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: PHX, AZ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaldiMac View Post
Both prototypes came out almost a year after the iPhone was demoed.
Which is relevant to my statement and the previous poster's claim.

The arguments have been that BEFORE the iPhone, Android was on BB style hardware only and AFTER the iPhone it went to touch devices.
This is completely false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsir2009 View Post
You can pick up an android phone for less than a hundred bucks. Enough said.
You can pick up an iPhone for less than hundred bucks too... what's your point?
__________________
"You can't really dust for vomit" - Nigel Tuffnel
Some Apple *****, some Android ***** and some Windows based *****.
rjohnstone is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 10:53 AM   #219
TMay
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carson City, NV
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oletros View Post
Why certainly?
Moto is pushing too hard for injunctions, and standard setting organizations and governmental bodies do not support injunctions for SEP.

Motos's (and Google's) negotiating position which centers around getting access to non SEP of Apple and Microsoft won't work without an injunction to force a quick deal; it will just receive a cash payout, and that only after extensive negotiation. Should negotiation fail, the court has to decide what the licensing rates will be.
TMay is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 10:55 AM   #220
Yujenisis
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2002
Send a message via AIM to Yujenisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
You stated a fact, you get to back it up. You have failed to do so because frankly, no one can.

Those are the forum rules btw. Burden of proof is on the person making an ascersion.
I am making an assertion based on facts. From 2010-2011 the company lost BILLIONS on Android and the company is working to make up the difference.

You are claiming a contrary view that 2012 represents a financial turn-around moment for Android...based on?

Nothing.

You have no evidence other than pulling marketshare numbers which have undeniably helped Android's financial growth, but enough to offsets the years in the red and for the purchase of Motorola?

The continued silence from Google regarding Android's profitability does not support your decision to believe Android has suddenly become profitable. Would not Larry Page be singing profitability to the high heavens to appease shareholders and users?

I also think you'll find that we agree on a number of fronts:
  • Android is enjoying unprecendented marketshare growth
  • Any lack of profits has nothing to do with the overall quality of the Android platform or the quality of the hardware
  • Profits will have no short-term impact on Google's commitment to the platform or to the mobile market
  • Google's product portfolio is extremely profitable and can easily subsidize Android's financial shortcomings for a very long time
  • Many companies have successfully pulled off Google's approach when entering a new industry and become profitable, such as Microsoft with the XBox

But the facts I have presented remain, until you are able to produce contrary ones, and as long as Google remains steadfastly silent - despite requests from shareholders - we can assume the profit picture is not the one that Google hopes it will be in the future.

I will happily wait for your evidence of Android's 2012 banner year. Until then, good day, sir.
Yujenisis is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 10:58 AM   #221
bawbac
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by iRCL View Post
I love how nobody outside of core hardcore apple consumers people have any idea who the hell Tim Cook is

I sure as hell don't recognize the name. He looks like my dad though
fify
bawbac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 11:00 AM   #222
silverblack
macrumors 65816
 
silverblack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
We all like alternatives, and I welcome Android as an alternative.

I love my iPhone, iPad and Macs. But I don't want EVERYONE SINGLE PERSON around me to use Apple products. I like it how Apple place themselves as the luxury brand, and focus to serve those who can afford it.

The rest can buy the cheaper knockoffs.

Without the popular inferior, there is no elite superior. Let them win the market share game.
silverblack is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 11:05 AM   #223
Solomani
macrumors 68000
 
Solomani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012

We sits on their Board. We spiesss on thems! We stealses their ideas! We steals their precioussss!
Solomani is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 11:07 AM   #224
rjohnstone
macrumors 68030
 
rjohnstone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: PHX, AZ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverblack View Post
We all like alternatives, and I welcome Android as an alternative.

I love my iPhone, iPad and Macs. But I don't want EVERYONE SINGLE PERSON around me to use Apple products. I like it how Apple place themselves as the luxury brand, and focus to serve those who can afford it.

The rest can buy the cheaper knockoffs.

Without the popular inferior, there is no elite superior. Let them win the market share game.
Another person who forgot the /s tag.

Seriously... what is superior to one is garbage to another.
Apple is far from a luxury brand. High end yes, luxury... no.

You can buy an iPhone at WalMart.
__________________
"You can't really dust for vomit" - Nigel Tuffnel
Some Apple *****, some Android ***** and some Windows based *****.
rjohnstone is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2012, 11:09 AM   #225
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjohnstone View Post
Which is relevant to my statement and the previous poster's claim.

The arguments have been that BEFORE the iPhone, Android was on BB style hardware only and AFTER the iPhone it went to touch devices.
This is completely false.
Lack of evidence doesn't prove something false. There were reports that Android shift from a blackberry-style UI to a multitouch UI was what made Steve Jobs feel betrayed by Google. I think it was in Steve Levy's book?

If you have any evidence that Android was moving forward with a multitouch UI before the iPhone was demoed, feel free to present it.
BaldiMac is offline   2 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt Posts Guide on Converting to Android from iPhone MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 326 Dec 8, 2013 05:27 AM
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt Says Relationship with Apple 'Improving' MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 179 Jul 21, 2013 10:23 AM
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt Says Apple and Google Will Resolve Issues 'the Adult Way' MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 212 Dec 19, 2012 09:59 PM
Google Is Winning The Mobile War Timzer Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices 5 Dec 14, 2012 05:13 PM
Eric Schmidt: Google Hasn’t Submitted A Native Google Maps App To Apple (Yet) mcfinch iPhone 4 Sep 25, 2012 03:12 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:39 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC