Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Interesting Apple Article how they are repeating the 80's
- Thread starter Wicked1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Interesting read. But the whole "apple should open up iOS to other manufacturers" thing, is never gonna happen. Nor should it.
I think it would be wise for apple to create an iTunes Store app for android, so that people that use iTunes on their pc can also use iTunes on their android. Seems like an easy way to dominate music purchasing on the android platform.
I think it would be wise for apple to create an iTunes Store app for android, so that people that use iTunes on their pc can also use iTunes on their android. Seems like an easy way to dominate music purchasing on the android platform.
If that is really what the author of that article argues, then he doesn't even remember what almost killed Apple before : The Clone market. Specifically, opening MacOS to other manufacturers.
So by keeping iOS to themselves, they aren't repeating squat.
The article ends with this:
So the author is basically arguing that Apple should license iOS, thus undermining its high-revenue high-profit sales of devices, in order to increase its sales from the lower-revenue lower-profit iTunes store. This despite the fact that Apple is consistently taking nearly 2/3 of the profits in smartphone sales, with less market share than its largest competitor. Clearly, a business plan worthy of ... uh, someone who needs to write an article about a "faltering" Apple.
After all, the iPhone is simply a delivery device for contentthe more people you have on your network, the larger your revenue. If Apple continues on its current path, it could losea lot.
The author should look at Apple's reported revenues for a few years in the past, and see what the revenues are for sales of iOS devices vs. revenues from the iTunes store. Short answer: Not even close.
So the author is basically arguing that Apple should license iOS, thus undermining its high-revenue high-profit sales of devices, in order to increase its sales from the lower-revenue lower-profit iTunes store. This despite the fact that Apple is consistently taking nearly 2/3 of the profits in smartphone sales, with less market share than its largest competitor. Clearly, a business plan worthy of ... uh, someone who needs to write an article about a "faltering" Apple.
The press loves a good fall from on high story - Android still pulls in a fraction of the profit that iOS does and only Samsung is profitable to speak of.
The writer really did not make many good points.
Should Apple rest? of course not but to draw parallels to the 80s is pretty sensational and they are a much different company, that has attained a much higher high.
Look at the iPad success and most recently the iPad Mini.
The writer really did not make many good points.
Should Apple rest? of course not but to draw parallels to the 80s is pretty sensational and they are a much different company, that has attained a much higher high.
Look at the iPad success and most recently the iPad Mini.
At one time (80-90s) Apple was the nut case who controlled both OS and hardware. Ironic that now Microsoft and Google are both trying to emulate Apple. The argument is that a great product needs consistent vision on both ends of the equations.
Funny, I just read this blog.
http://mac360.com/2013/01/how-apple...tm_campaign=Feed:+loopinsight/KqJb+(The+Loop)
http://mac360.com/2013/01/how-apple...tm_campaign=Feed:+loopinsight/KqJb+(The+Loop)
Well, if they are on their way out, it's not for any of the reasons the article brings up (in the first 2/3rds of it -- I stopped reading after that.
That article is just run-of-the-mill Apple bashing. It's a common practice amongst the tech press because it's an easy way to get clicks.
Why do you think this? Not saying you're wrong but your statement isn't very helpful otherwise.
I pointed out a big reason why myself. Others have pointed out others. (chown33's post is especially damning).
At this point, it's pretty much established fact that the guy who wrote the article has no clue whatsoever.
I agree with your reasoning and others, because you gave reasons. That's why I didn't quote or question yours.