In that case you should find a picture of Buddha with blinders on for your avatar.
ps: I couldn't find any images of Buddha with blinders - the thought that Buddha would choose to ignore truth is anathema.
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.
Android Tops 50% Share of Smartphone Sales, But Apple Still Dominating Profits
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In that case you should find a picture of Buddha with blinders on for your avatar.
ps: I couldn't find any images of Buddha with blinders - the thought that Buddha would choose to ignore truth is anathema.
It has been said many times and I will repeat here again, Android is NOT free.
Why does it matter so much for you what is behind the numbers?
Should we explore the numbers behind Apple's profit? (Not a pretty picture)
By the way, I am not spoiled by Apple, I pay a lot to use their products. I wish they would spoil me though.
No, I'm admitting that Apple sales and Google/Android sales mean separate things. Sales are a relevant measure, but not when you don't understand why and how they happen.
A horizontally integrated platform in which a universally-licensed OS is spread out to everyone who can slam together a box, will experience substantial sales for reasons far different than a vertically integrated platform that is highly differentiated, vetted, comparatively more expensive, with a closed-licensing model where the focus is on differentiation and User Experience (and not pushing massive volume on price.)
You can certainly measure innovation by sales, but if you don't understand your measure (sales) then you'll come to wrong conclusions.
Apple can sell 100 units and Google can sell 100 units via x-number of OEMs. They both sold 100 units. However, there are vastly different forces at work here.
What's happening with Google/Android is your typical OEM-based horizontal business model at work. Virtually any OEM, provided they push enough volume, can outsell Apple by sheer force of numbers and nothing more. And these OEMs *combined* - even if they're ZTE or Huawei, can pinch off and push out even more.
At one point Nokia far outsold Apple with all manner of flotsam and jetsam - a lot of it essentially low-end commodity-ware. It's quite something else, however, to gain the share Apple has with essentially one or two models that run an unlicensed OS. That one phone had better be amazing, and the numbers bear out that it is.
Not all forms of "success" are equal. Google/Android's is rather weak in comparison to Apple's. OEMs pushing volume is nothing to really boast about.
Look at PCs today. Then look at Macs today.
Anyone can pimp out an OS to OEMS and sell tons of $400 eMachines. But what is the consumer actually getting?
We know what they're getting with a Mac, though. Each and every time.
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/20/...secutive-time/
Similarly, look at Android phone sales vs. iPhone sales. Certainly, Android manufacturers combined and even some of them on their own far outsell Apple, especially given that even some of them on their own have a portfolio of 40+ devices, some of them decent, some of them total junk.
I wouldn't wish a ZTE Blade on anyone, but ZTE actually commands a large portion of Android share. ZTE far outsells Apple. Impressive? Not really.
Because here is what is *actually* happening - here is where the rubber meets the road:
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/0...rankings-of-smartphone-consumer-satisfaction/
http://cdn.macnn.com/news/1110/androidfragmentation-lg1.jpg
An unweeded garden is an unweeded garden, no matter how large. And it will show, one way or the other.
This is the reason lineups for iPhones stretch for blocks and Apple gear makes headlines and holds the world in a frenzy. While an Android device, is just another Android device to add to the ever-expanding pile of the good, the, bad, the ugly, and the undifferentiated.
----------
Because that is all that actually matters.
Some products suffer from Blade Runner syndrome. We only know and understand their real impact and meaning years later. There aren't many of these, however. For example, the NeXT systems were priced way, way out of the market. And the Newton was quite a bit ahead of its time.
You can trust that the Huawei Android something-something won't be among them.
But they're sales sucked. You yourself agreed that "Sales are a necessary indicator of innovation." So unless you're saying you are wrong, you are clearly contradicting yourself.
No. Apple is not innovative. Apple is good at marketing and business, not technology. They just buy stuff out there and slap it in white plastic and force Chinese labors to death with QA to convey that image of "Quality" that you worship.
----------
Actually, all it proves is that Android has more marketshare. That's it.
Not according to *LTD*, and how dare you defy Fanboy #1!
I didn't say that.
The satisfaction ratings indicate otherwise. Or perhaps consumers are just equally pleased with better implementations . . .
But sure, let's call it "marketing and business", if you're most comfortable with that.
Chinese labour isn't Apple's problem. Or it's everyone's, because nearly everyone uses it. You pick.
----------
"Necessary but not sufficient", as I said (or rather, as someone proposed and I agreed with.) In that sales tell only part of the story.
As consumers, we should only be concerned about our favorite companies making as much profit as possible. When gas hits $5 gallon, Exxon will kick some serious butt.
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/13802988/
Then what have Apple innovated? Slapping laptop parts in a desktop? Forcing people to buy newer hardware to fund their purchase of companies that actually have something new?
The blood of Foxconn suicides are screaming from the ground.
Wow, you have weak material.
Innovative is when a company does something new and original. Apple doesn't do that.
EDIT: I'm not trolling or anything. I love Apple. They popularized a touch based phone. I love Apple for that. But popularizing something is not innovative unless it's original and new.
So I guess it is also important to understand the numbers behind Apple's profit? Or is it not right because it would give Apple a bad image?
Lol!
In one post!
Seriously, pick one: NeXT, Lisa, and Newton are not-innovative, or sales are irrelevant.
In one post!
Seriously, pick one: NeXT, Lisa, and Newton are not-innovative, or sales are irrelevant.
Last edited:
Of course.
Apple has the most positive image in tech today. Massive mindshare. Insane demand, and we're talking a closed ecosystem, unlicensed OSes, and the goods aint cheap.
Tell us how Apple's profit gives them a "bad image."
If anything, they are not only a case study in how to run a business (most of America can use a refresher on that), but it's also a sign that they have plenty of resources to continue innovation.
We don't see consumers complaining about Apple's profits. At all. They're to busy opening their wallets and waiting in line for Apple gear and puffing up Apple's consumer satisfaction ratings, and enjoying their products.
----------
What are they "screaming", exactly?
Forward complaints to China.
Of course, you can always look under "melodrama" in the dictionary.
Neither are mutually exclusive, as I said. I know you're hoping they are, but they aren't.
Yes they are. As you said, "Sales are necessary." NeXT, Lisa, and Newton do not even meet the necessary condition for innovation. Thus, they are not innovative.
This is such an old and pointless argument. Apple has and will continue to be relevant because they always come out with the next greatest thing year after year. If you don't, you becomes irrelevant. Just ask Nokia and Blackberry.
Seriously? You have Buddha as your avatar and this has no matter because it is China and not Apple? Oh yeah you're right, it is not Apple that chose them, must have been China controlling Apple, they had no options... Ethics have no value at all, you're absolutely right!
Once again you have proven that you only see what you want to see.
Exactly. The first part! You agree that sales are necessary! Thus, NeXT, Lisa, and Newton are not innovative by your own standards, regardless of how they became non-innovative.
Sure. Zen is quite malleable.
The expectation that Zen Buddhism, for example, should provide a "moral and spiritual perspective" is nothing new. It is, however, misguided.
The Rinzai Zen Buddhist and Scholar, Ichikawa Hakugen, argued that the submissive stance taken by Zen during Japan’s Fifteen-Year War (1931-1945) helped to promote and glorify Japanese imperialism, and that the writings of Nishida Kitaro (connecting Zen with imperialism), for instance, "stumbled ethically no less than Zen had done."
Yet, traditional Zen practice, as Ichikawa has written, is more concerned with "seeing the principle at the base of actuality, not of changing the material structure of actuality." Zen has not traditionally been used as a springboard for social change or activism, but its malleability and contemplative or "non-dual" viewpoint makes it inherently suitable to a number of sociopolitical situations. Including the glorification of the current imperial regime - that is, even today's Communist China.
Zen, at its purest, is concerned only with perceiving reality for what it is. Nothing more. To admit of morality in the traditional sense is to admit of concepts, and concepts, to Zen, are just concepts.
Once again, your argument lies with the Chinese government. The conduct of business in their country is their responsibility. Apple cannot police China, and can only do so much (and they have already done plenty to attempt to remedy the situation.) The rest is up to local powers.