Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You are right about the iPhone, but to be fair, the initial Mac received many wows, but didn't ignite very much. The personal computing revolution was ignited by the appropriately-called PC.

While I understand what you mean with the actual growth that happened with the PC and Windows, I would disagree because the PC and Windows just copied everything from Apple and exploded from IBMs stupidity!

Yes Apple got stuff from PARC and Xerox, but there is one HUGE difference, Apple and Steve HAD PERMISSION!!!!!!!!!!

yeah ... I get it. I've read the same article about the 3 screens mantra. Although interesting its still limited and only speaks from a marketing side - user familiarity with the GUI from desktop to laptop to handheld (smartphone, MID, tablet or otherwise).

Symbian is going a HUGE overhaul and its got the largest of members by the big shots in the entire Industry. This is what you do NOT get; along with the best in battery life performance - despite what Apple would have you believe in terms of running multiple applications: SMP check!

symbian-foundation:
http://www.symbian.org/
http://blog.symbian.org/
http://ideas.symbian.org/homepagelight - contribute ideas for the platforms evolution (free membership & your voice does count, critical or not).

Yes coding for it is NOT for the faint of heart, but with Qt supporting Symbian^3 and moreso with Symbian^4 we'll see something serious.

TO be honest, I see the smartphone market going from its infancy (like a baby to a 5yr old) to its adolescence. Its coming of age - where the only feature/dumb phones you'll see is for 3 basic markets:
* The elderly [physical prowess challenged, or cognitively challenged to emerging and advancing technologies/ideas/paradigms: we'll all get there one day ;)] & hearing impaired.
* Those that just need to talk, sms, mms someone else while on the go; nothing special just emergency contacts. These types of phones could evolve to simplistic watch phones, child gps tracker/kidnapping alert devices, etc.
* financially challenging/emerging markets which will quickly adapt.

In 2yrs or less we'll see the real juggernauts go at it, tooth and nail with huge entrenched provider, credit, media industry, and even educational support. Yes Apple is GREATLY poised for this already with iTunes and iTunes University - I just hope their in it for the long haul!

I agree with you except about Symbian. Things are not looking good for Symbian right now and even Android!

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...led_as_new_iphone_android_platform_rival.html

It is looking more and more like an integrated solution like the iPhone is where the industry is headed! Once again being led by Apple.

And don't worry, Apple is IMMENSELY in this for the long haul. They completely understand the future of where this is all headed which is why we even have the iPhone, due to Steve's vision of all this. He doesn't just work towards the future, he creates it and everyone else wonders what happened and tries to catch up!

The Tablet is another important piece in this puzzle that is unfolding! Apple is VERY MUCH on the right track and positioned FAR BETTER than any other company to dominate and direct this future!

This is all karma for the way things went down in the personal computing revolution with Microsoft. Well now Apple is back and has really learned their lessons and Microsoft is still up to their pathetic MO, trying to catch up and stay relevant enough to prevent their monopolistic lock-in from falling apart. They got lucky with Bill Gates' negotiating and IBMs stupidity back in the day! That is pretty much the only reason they are what they are today, and since then it has just been them dragging their feet and trying to keep a tight grip on their lock-in! Well it is all starting to fall apart now because they have neglected too much too long! :rolleyes:

Go Apple! :cool: :D
 
Agreed. Apple is going to have to accelerate the development cycle to stay ahead in this game. I just hope they realize it...

I think you might see Apple doing more frequent product spec upgrades once they add a second USA service provider. Presently there is little point to offering upgraded phones when the bulk of the iPhone customers are locked onto a 20-4 month contracts.

A second service provider like Verizon will help begin to spread out the new phone contract surges which should make newly released iPhone hardware more calendar-wide.
 
Then apparently you know nothing about pharmacudials, medical devices, bottled water, and theater pop corn.

Especially the bottled water and theater popcorn!!

Let's see ... $9-12/Gallon for bottled water ... or ... um ... turn on the faucet. Which should I choose?
Oh dang, gas is almost $3/Gallon again. Freakin' greedy oil company jerks! :D
 
i don't think it comes as a surprise that apple charges a premium for what they consider a premium. I think it would be foolish to assert that there can only be one player in smartphone/multimedia phone space. based off of market share RIM and nokia hold that distinction.
 
Woooo go apple
signature_SmileyFace.jpg
 
Honestly, so what? No one is forced to buy an Apple product and pay a "huge markup" as you call it, people choose too, i don't think anyone that buys an apple product is oblivious to its higher profit margin.

Yeah I know. That's why they can afford to charge it. Like I said, great if you're an AAPL stockholder.

You are way off on the mark up. If you don't understand the financial statements, go take a class.

No offence, mate but based on the rest of your post I'm damn certain I know a hell of a lot more about market trends and economics than you do.

If you actually have any compelling evidence - say in the form of ex-US sales, comparison over 2008/9 vs other vendors, growth rates in non Nokia markets, etc - then we can talk otherwise you might want to think before you post about things you don't really have a clue about.

Still, I'll give you a hint: search for Gross margin in Apple's last quarterly results.

As a general point I think Apple are bang on for charging what they can get away with. That's great business and a true demonstration of understanding your market - they know their customers will pay a premium and they charge it. Nothing wrong with that. It's just funny when the same customers then roll out the ticker tape!
 
While I understand what you mean with the actual growth that happened with the PC and Windows, I would disagree because the PC and Windows just copied everything from Apple and exploded from IBMs stupidity! Yes Apple got stuff from PARC and Xerox, but there is one HUGE difference, Apple and Steve HAD PERMISSION!!!!!!!!!
Microsoft had permission too. Apple had licensed many of the individual GUI concepts to Microsoft for Windows 1.0 and later revisions. When Windows 2.0 came out, Apple tried suing Microsoft on the grounds that Microsoft had copied the "essence" of the GUI of the Mac.

The courts determined that the "look and feel" of a GUI couldn't be clearly defined, as it was the sum of the individual technologies/components (and since Apple had licensed most of them to Microsoft, that Microsoft couldn't be held accountable).

Apple kept fighting though, even though the courts repeatedly affirmed that Microsoft had the right to implement the GUI that they did courtesy of their licensing agreement with Apple. Finally, Microsoft's $150 million investment in Apple non-voting stock in 1997 (which essentially saved Apple, something that many Apple "fans" seem to not realize these days) came as part of an agreement where Apple would finally drop all outstanding "claims".

One important aspect of all of this, which kinda refutes your "Apple had permission" in regards to taking GUI elements for Xerox's PARC research lab, is that Xerox actually sued Apple (not long after Apple sued Microsoft) as part of a defensive action, claiming that Apple had essentially copied and taken PARC's developed ideas for use in its operating system. Xerox's lawsuit ended up being thrown out, not because the claims were invalid, but solely because the statute of limitations had expired for when Xerox could sue Apple (Xerox had allowed Apple to see the technologies it had developed in good faith, not expecting that Apple would then implement those technologies and try to stop others from doing the same by suing them).
 
Microsoft had permission too. Apple had licensed many of the individual GUI concepts to Microsoft for Windows 1.0 and later revisions. When Windows 2.0 came out, Apple tried suing Microsoft on the grounds that Microsoft had copied the "essence" of the GUI of the Mac.

The courts determined that the "look and feel" of a GUI couldn't be clearly defined, as it was the sum of the individual technologies/components (and since Apple had licensed most of them to Microsoft, that Microsoft couldn't be held accountable).

Apple kept fighting though, even though the courts repeatedly affirmed that Microsoft had the right to implement the GUI that they did courtesy of their licensing agreement with Apple. Finally, Microsoft's $150 million investment in Apple non-voting stock in 1997 (which essentially saved Apple, something that many Apple "fans" seem to not realize these days) came as part of an agreement where Apple would finally drop all outstanding "claims".

One important aspect of all of this, which kinda refutes your "Apple had permission" in regards to taking GUI elements for Xerox's PARC research lab, is that Xerox actually sued Apple (not long after Apple sued Microsoft) as part of a defensive action, claiming that Apple had essentially copied and taken PARC's developed ideas for use in its operating system. Xerox's lawsuit ended up being thrown out, not because the claims were invalid, but solely because the statute of limitations had expired for when Xerox could sue Apple (Xerox had allowed Apple to see the technologies it had developed in good faith, not expecting that Apple would then implement those technologies and try to stop others from doing the same by suing them).

I have read a very interesting article with very convincing evidence that the settlement with Microsoft was really over a BILLION dollars that they paid Apple to drop legal action. I am trying to find a link, but am having a hard time. It was by Roughly Drafted. Lots of good articles on there!
 
I have read a very interesting article with very convincing evidence that the settlement with Microsoft was really over a BILLION dollars that they paid Apple to drop legal action. I am trying to find a link, but am having a hard time. It was by Roughly Drafted. Lots of good articles on there!
I'd be interested in seeing it. Apple had a few lawsuits against Microsoft, as well as some disputes, but from what I can remember, as of 1997, they were all settled as part of the 1997 agreement, where basically:

Microsoft bought $150 million shares of non-voting Apple stock
Microsoft agreed to continue to develop Office for the Mac

Apple agreed to use IE as the default browser (this was long before Safari)

Apple has threatened further action occasioanlly, but as far as I know, nothing has ever come of it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.