That's my situation, I have an rMini, great product. Awesome display, but its much easier to use the IP6+ that is always by my side. It wasn't an overt action to stop using the iPad, but rather iPhone naturally just got more use.
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.
Apple Reports Record Earnings and iPhone Sales: $18B Profit on $74.6B in Revenue for Q1 2015
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's my situation, I have an rMini, great product. Awesome display, but its much easier to use the IP6+ that is always by my side. It wasn't an overt action to stop using the iPad, but rather iPhone naturally just got more use.
You do realise that "Post-PC" is a lie. That phrase literally does not exist now. We are in a "new type of PC" era now. The iPad and iPhone is the PC that is all the rage at the moment.
No wonder iPad sales are going down. iPad1 with iOS5 is still going strong. All new Ableton controller apps support iOS5. With iPad 2-3 it's even better.
Maybe if they release iPad Pro with proper OS the numbers would go up.
Ppl seem to be quite happy with their droid tablets.
Maybe if they release iPad Pro with proper OS the numbers would go up.
Ppl seem to be quite happy with their droid tablets.
I believe Apple Pay is not about what profits Apple can get from it. Apple do not need 1% more profits from this. I believe this is about more vertical integration. I'll explain.
You rock up to the Apple store to buy an iPad. The hardware is designed by Apple. iOS is made by Apple. The apps are bought from Apple's App store. So where's the missing link? The purchase of the iPad itself is still done through 3rd parties if you use plastic (credit or debit), as in banks and Apple had no say in this process. But now you can purchase the iPad by swiping your card to Apple Pay technology.
This means everything from the hardware to the software to the point of sale of the iPad itself, Apple has a direct part to play in. You use Apple in every single step of the process. Apple is making sure that if you want to shop Apple, that you can't escape Apple at all, even in the point of sale.
This is Apple giving you two choices. You buy Apple products with the knowledge that you're locked into using Apple for everything, or you do not buy Apple. And because some of Apple products are world leading this forces people to think:
If I want the best I have to totally live in the Apple world (a position that is not immune to abuse by Apple)
Or I buy the competitor's inferior product.
Is this the slow seeds of a vertically integrated monopoly starting now?
Am I the only one having difficulty seeing the 2105Q1 iPod in that sales chart? Who could've predicted 10 years ago that "the iPod Store" would be selling so few iPods that it could cancel the product line altogether with no direct impact on Apple's bottom line?
("Direct" being the key word, of course. The iPod continues to be an entry-level purchase, often leading to iPhone and Mac purchases, and of course it helps to drive iTunes sales.)
("Direct" being the key word, of course. The iPod continues to be an entry-level purchase, often leading to iPhone and Mac purchases, and of course it helps to drive iTunes sales.)
Can someone with more understanding than me comment on the fact that with the largest profit in history, not only for Apple but any other company, they didnt raise the dividend paid to stock owners?
I am not asking for inflamatory purposes. I am a stock holder but dont have a lot of experience following companies dividend activities. So maybe keeping the dividends the same even on record breaking quarters is normal. Maybe it isn't. Or maybe dividend changes tend to lag behind quarterly performance.
I am not asking for inflamatory purposes. I am a stock holder but dont have a lot of experience following companies dividend activities. So maybe keeping the dividends the same even on record breaking quarters is normal. Maybe it isn't. Or maybe dividend changes tend to lag behind quarterly performance.
Well, the bend threads that tried to sabotage the iPhone sales, plus that punk on YouTube that tried to screw over Apple while making a big buck putting out controversy STILL COULDN'T bring down the iPhone. Sorry Samsung. Tell your employees they are fired for not accomplishing what you paid them to do. 
Actually that is a problem, regardless of people's motivation, the iPhone is too thin and the larger phone is prone to bending.
Apple has historically not been investor friendly for dividends and often has chosen to sit on cash reserves idly than increase dividends
Never buy apple for the dividend payout.
It may be "prone" to bending but I don't think that would've been an issue had that YouTube video not been put out showing that guy purposely bending it. There are a ton of expensive products that can be bent. I've had my 6 Plus since the day it was released and it's never been bent. It's in my pocket all the time and I bend down to tie my shoes with the phone in the pocket daily and never had an issue. Most things are blown out of proportion for media sake.
----------
Agreed, but there is always a proper time of release for everything, especially when it comes to tech products.
The iPhone 5s had a number of threads about it getting bent, presumably Apple must received reports of it bending, yet they made the iPhone 6 even thinner.
Regardless of the YT videos, there are people who have their phones bent. Given Apple's attention to detail, it should not have been prone to bending.
There are many ways to label Apples greed, but there's no hiding it. I'm all for profit making and success but Apple does tend to charge very high prices for products that have ceased living up to Apples once excellent reputation. It's shame they get away with shipping buggy stuff.
If Apple sells 60,000,000 ApplePay enabled iPhones which has the potential to generate $6,000 in fees per user over a 2 year contract of the phone that gives ApplePay the upward potential of $45 billion in pure profit per quarter or more than double Apple's current record profits.
ApplePay could see Apples profit per quarter jump to $60 billion per quarter once ApplePay reaches market saturation.
If people are prepared to pay it, then I guess more fool Apple customers (I include myself there, although I have partly broken away by switching to android a few years ago).
But Apple's massive profit margins coupled with their tax avoidance, utilisation of cheap labour and growing cash pile (that they can't actually use), is appalling.
At least companies like Google and Microsoft use their profits to further the industry as a whole. Apple have purely selfish interests.
Here's the thing, while I don't disagree with you, it's also up to the customer to vote with their wallets. Not only are people paying the higher prices, but obviously not enough people are returning their products so either they are accepting the problems or they aren't experiencing them as some do. Either way the fault lies on the consumer if they buy it and accept it. That's just telling the company, "Keep doing what you're doing because I'm perfectly okay with it".
Actually in Consumer Report tests the iPhone 6 Plus was more resistant to bending then the iPhone 6.
You need to go back to your original claim, which was a prediction that Apple would beat the analyst's expectations. My point is that $2.75 EPS would also have beaten analyst's expectations, but that number would not have produced a rally in AAPL. As I have already said, the markets expect companies to beat consensus earnings, but if they only beat it by a little, then the stock is likely to take a hit. The rally was produced by Apple beating it by a lot (15%). So the logic of your argument if faulty.
All comes down to what "bugs" the customer is willing to accept and deal with in their products. Microsoft for over a decade had crap of memory management and other services quite lacking in their operating system. It was simpler to for them to just port to the next generation faster CPUs and let the bugs that slowed the OS down run quicker. It wasn't til Windows 7 was there actually any optimization and efficiency coding done on decades old kernals. That as because Vista was a dog and didn't use multi-core very well at all.
Definitely. Having stuff smaller and lighter is all very well, but they could do so much more if they wanted. I don't know much about business, but is it not quite risky to just churn out the same half dozen products each year just with some minor updates?