Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I'm not usually one to judge, but you go through an awful lot of trouble just to get your CD music onto non-Apple devices, much less an Apple device. Ripping it into .flac, then onto an NAS, then to some streamer, that's a lot more work than just tapping the buy button in iTunes or play button in Apple Music and have it on all your Apple devices. There's no way I would go through what you do to listen to your music on a non-Apple device even. But to each his own I guess.
No, the work is only with the Apple stuff. Ripping the CD directly onto the NAS is straight-forward. I just, well, rip it straight on the NAS. Takes 3 minutes. You probably misunderstood what the streamer does. Once an album is on the NAS, I see it on the Streamer's remote control and can play it.

Yes tapping the button in iTunes would be easier, but I don't want 256kbps compressed AAC for, hilariously, more money. It's an awful deal.
I don't know how your .p12 works, but it seems like it would be something that you could put in Dropbox or some other cloud service and email it from there right on the iPhone.
I don't think so. The problem is that you cannot download this type of file (and many others) on an iPhone and store it in a user-accessible way.
 
Some use good stuff, others, not so much. Heck the knock-off iPhones in China (some plastic, others nearly identical) run Android (so people can look like they have an iPhone for like $50-$70... they are complete junk though). All of that stuff adds into those percentages.



I'm not so sure about that, but I think the goal was fundamentally different. Jobs was about serving the customers with the best products Apple could make (within reason), where as Cook seems about maximizing profits. Jobs never made cheap junk (and in fact, eliminated some of it when he returned) to bring in the masses. He made great products, and at times whittled them down into a price margin nearly everyone could afford.



Oh, for sure. There's usually a place for a cheap, entry level product. That's just never been Apple's thing. And, not making *enough* money is a serious problem for the stability of a platform or vendor.



Or, new physical enclosures. Yea, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I wish they'd have stopped at the 5s/SE, actually. The design seems backwards since. And, I don't agree about iOS... while they have advanced in some ways, iOS7 was a total disaster, and they've been trying to fix it ever since.



Well, it's a bit more complex than that. Apple is an entire eco-system. What made them great was focusing on UX and UI and making great stuff that made people more productive. If they lose that, it doesn't matter how much 'thinking like a business person' people do. The leaders Apple had in the 90s, arguably, 'thought like a business person.' Jobs thought outside that stale box.

The Mac is a crucial part of Apple's eco-system, as are the creatives, designers, students, etc. You can't just thumb your nose at that crowd without repercussions. And, Windows isn't dominant in business because it's the best platform for business. Apple had the perfect chance to make advances there, and blew it. Maybe they decided they didn't want it (fair enough). But if they did, they blew it.



Oh, I agree that's what is happening. And, that's unfortunate (and not what Jobs did). I'm also pointing out that this is much of what's wrong with the corporate world today. Short term thinking is very dangerous, and calling people who cause it 'investors' is stretching it quite a bit. They are the problem, and a better term is gamblers and profiteers.



I've worked for a Fortune 100 (nearly Fortune 50), and I'm hardly a kid, so I understand what you're talking about. But, much of this is due to short-sighted thinking and poor IT design and practices. Why should it be hard to move from Win 7 to Win 10 or to Macs? Because they picked poor technologies that locked them into hard to move from eco-systems. That's why a lot of 'intranets' still need old versions of IE... can you say, stupid? But, yes, it's the reality.



To be fair, I disagree here. If growth is what matters, then you need to increase somehow, somewhere. If you're just flat, at say $1B in profit year after year, then that's not growth. I'll invest in such a company ANY DAY though!



Yea, but who cares? If I could make $1M every year for 30 years with ZERO growth, I'd be ecstatic! The only reason we're talking about this is because what's considered 'investment' is a baloney game for the rich to feel respectable about their gambling and play money games.

Investors primarily care about profitability and returns on investment. Growth is icing. Wall Street isn't about investing.



Well, then they are idiots. I want the companies I buy products from to make money, because then I get support and a long-term stable eco-system.

I design websites. Do I use the $3.95/mo hosting for my sites? Nope. I want my hosting provider to make money and provide me with great service and a great product. I'm also getting into podcasting. Am I going to use someone like Sound Cloud that's bleeding cash? Nope. I'm going without someone charging adequate money and providing good, stable, long-term service.

If you think you're 'pulling one over on the man' by buying some cheap-o product from a company (or getting it for free) that isn't making money... you'd better enjoy the junk while it briefly lasts.

1. I am working at one of Canadian largest bank. We have so many in house application that runs on Windows and we even use some DOS based application (by the way, I love these DOS based application, so much faster on doing stuff). Let me ask you, do you even know how much effort would be to port all application to MacOS? Do you know how hard is it to deploy all applications to MacOS? And let alone to make sure all application works correctly? We just switched from Windows XP to Windows 7 like 9 months ago.

What I can say is, switch to Mac makes zero sense to business perspective. It is pointless, costly and it will take long time for people to getting use to.

2. Android is backed by Google. Google is not going anywhere. This is beauty of open sourced software. Everyone can contributing to Android and Android is growing and getting better. For me, Android has much brighter future than closed sourced iOS.
 
Some crazy uses to prove android is better than iOS? Somehow I have never been limited to get "stuff" done on my iPhone
Probably because you do very limited stuff. If you're happy to just follow the use-cases that Apple envisaged for you, then it's fine. I am not, because I use many systems and I don't like to be locked in or told that I cannot do X or Y because the manufacturer doesn't get money out of it.
 
Probably because you do very limited stuff. If you're happy to just follow the use-cases that Apple envisaged for you, then it's fine. I am not, because I use many systems and I don't like to be locked in or told that I cannot do X or Y because the manufacturer doesn't get money out of it.
No because I have a surface pro 4 that I carry with me to do "real" stuff and not limited to what google or Apple says I can do or not. Using my personal hotspot means I can do things quickly, easily efficiently anywhere and type up long amounts of text and send the PDF to a client something can't be done easily on a phone But that's my use case. Ymmv and that's the slippery slope.
 
Agreed that Apple makes more total revenue and profit on equipment sales but future earnings growth is in services and for that market share is more important.

If you're targeting a market with a cheap android phone, should you really expect that same market to spend money on services?
 
This makes me laugh, in the UK city I live in, I literally don't know anyone who doesn't use an iPhone.
 
The Galaxy S7, which is soon to be replaced by a new and supposedly much improved model, still manages to beat the newest iPhone's camera, which is the biggest smart phone differentiator for many consumers.
It is only recently that Samsung phone camera have been marginally better than iPhones, it took Samsung seven models to achieve camera parity, that's hardly an achievement, but an achievement regardless. And I think we have reached a point of diminishing returns, there is only so much that can be done in terms of camera sensor size in phones to improve noise and DR. Manufacturers are exploring the design space for improvements by different means, such as dual cameras.
And why compare just the camera, why not also show the lagging part of Samsung S7, the processor, care to compare that to the processor of 6s and now the 7, in-spite of using lesser cores and clocked slower?
 
People seem mighty defensive about a number that has little to no effect on their lives. Just use the service that works for you. The way some people defend their platform of choice would make you think Apple/Google has them at gunpoint.
 
cd6059fb65f032d509e9bca6048fd1c1e77e7cd8f9d27afdc99a9385fa79151d.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveW928
I see tons of people with iPhones. 95% of people in public. I always see tons of Macs everywhere. I would also expect Mac marketshare to be 80%. It makes me wonder if people buy Windows and Android devices and put them in the closet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hanzu Lao
So what phone are you going to purchase that goes with your professional computer?

I believe that when you buy something it is essentially the same as voting, that is expressing an opinion of approval. I am not happy that Apple chose to ignore my computer needs and that means I will buy anything I want that is not Apple.
 
If you're targeting a market with a cheap android phone, should you really expect that same market to spend money on services?

Works for Walmart. They sell a lot of services, including money transfer, optical, tax return prep, etc..
 
You sound elitist

I hope you're not going to compare an iPhone to a Ferrari next lol

Thw iphone is not luxury - when someone who is lower middle class like yourself can buy one then it's definitely not luxury

I'm not lower middle-class. When you look at the average incomes and level discretionary income outside USA/Europe it's very different than USA/Europe. A $750+ device is not affordable on a global standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
With saturated phone markets I don't understand Apples hesitation to create a lower priced, but quality phone. Don't just offer last year's phone for cheap, actually produce an entry level phone for the ecosystem. Every luxury automaker does the same without diluting their brand.
Hello, called the iPhone SE. Excellent iPhone, $399 price, Apple environment, to name a few benefits. There are deals with trade-in, interest free payments, that can reduce the price more. No not your $50 phone, definitely a lower price quality phone.
 
With saturated phone markets I don't understand Apples hesitation to create a lower priced, but quality phone. Don't just offer last year's phone for cheap, actually produce an entry level phone for the ecosystem. Every luxury automaker does the same without diluting their brand.

Wouldn't the iPhone SE qualify here? It's the least expensive phone Apple has ever made.
[doublepost=1478185383][/doublepost]
Because 95% of those funny conversation screenshots are fake, and created by a "Create a funny text message conversation" website that makes them look like an iPhone? :)
 
Wouldn't the iPhone SE qualify here? It's the least expensive phone Apple has ever made.
[doublepost=1478185383][/doublepost]
Because 95% of those funny conversation screenshots are fake, and created by a "Create a funny text message conversation" website that makes them look like an iPhone? :)
Not the point i'm trying to make.
 
Apple's challenge in the phone market is that the Android competition is turning out progressively better phones with a gradually improving OS at steadily lower prices over time.

Android phone makers' challenge is to make any serious profit.
 
This makes me laugh, in the UK city I live in, I literally don't know anyone who doesn't use an iPhone.
But even in the UK, Android phones have a bigger market share than the iPhone. So you just don't know that many people...
[doublepost=1478187341][/doublepost]
Wouldn't the iPhone SE qualify here? It's the least expensive phone Apple has ever made
Here in Switzerland an iPhone SE is CHF479, for the 16Gb model. That's crazy money to spend on a crappy little phone with iOS and a 4" screen. It cost me less to get a Huawei P9 + 128Gb SD card, and it has a beautiful 5.2" screen, an excellent camera, it's very fast and looks superb. Best of all, the battery life is great - just now, after 8h56min, has 75% battery left...
 
  • Like
Reactions: koigirl
After using Apple phone 1 thru 6S, I switched to Android. Was going to update to the Iphone7, the deletion of the headphone jack nuked that update and I picked up a Samsung 7 (not the one that starts fires). I've come to like Android, will be picking up a Google Pixel today.
 
Steve jobs is dead and this is now Tims company. Seems right putting Apple against the entirety of a competing o/s where many phones are for virtually free and having Apple garner the lions share of profits says what needs to be said. The only company that makes out on android market share is google.
Putting profits first isnt sustainable in the long run.iPad,iPhone,Mac and iPod were invented by You-know-who.Tim invented more emojis,Apple Watch and Watchbands.

All this emojis,the marketing and "courage" statements remind me of this famous Jobs quote

"When you have a market monopoly, the sales and marketing people end up running the company. The product people get run out of the company. Then the companies forget what it means to make great products. The [researchers] at Xerox PARC used to call the people who ran Xerox ‘toner heads.’ They just had no clue about a computer or what it could do…"


Tim Cook is the new Steve Ballmer.Here is an interesting tidbit which cements this


"After running Microsoft for 25 years, Bill Gates handed the reins of CEO to Steve Ballmer in January 2000. Ballmer
went on to run Microsoft for the next 14 years. If you think the job of a CEO is to increase sales, then Ballmer did a spectacular job. He tripled Microsoft’s sales to $78 billion and profits more than doubled from $9 billion to $22 billion. The launch of the Xbox and Kinect, and the acquisitions of Skype and Yammer happened on his shift. If the Microsoft board was managing for quarter to quarter or even year to year revenue growth, Ballmer was as good as it gets as a CEO. But if the purpose of the company is long-term survival, then one could make a much better argument that he was a failure as a CEO as he optimized short-term gains by squandering long-term opportunities."

"Despite Microsoft’s remarkable financial performance, as Microsoft CEO Ballmer failed to understand and execute on the five most important technology trends of the 21stcentury: in search – losing to Google; in smartphones – losing to Apple; in mobile operating systems – losing to Google/Apple; in media – losing to Apple/Netflix; and in the cloud – losing to Amazon. Microsoft left the 20th century owning over 95% of the operating systems that ran on computers (almost all on desktops). Fifteen years and 2 billion smartphones shipped in the 21st century and Microsoft’s mobile OS share is 1%. These misses weren’t in some tangential markets – missing search, mobile and the cloud were directly where Microsoft users were heading. Yet a very smart CEO missed all of these. Why?"

"Tim Cook has now run Apple for five years, long enough for this to be his company rather than Steve Jobs’. The parallel between Gates and Ballmer and Jobs and Cook is eerie. Apple under Cook has doubled its revenues to $200 billion while doubling profit and tripling the amount of cash it has in the bank (now a quarter of trillion dollars). The iPhone continues its annual upgrades of incremental improvements. Yet in five years the only new thing that managed to get out the door is the Apple Watch. With 115,000 employees Apple can barely get annual updates out for their laptops and desktop computers.

But the world is about to disrupt Apple in the same way that Microsoft under Ballmer faced disruption. Apple brilliantly mastered User Interface and product design to power the iPhone to dominance. But Google and Amazon are betting that the next of wave of computing products will be AI-directed services – machine intelligence driving apps and hardware. Think of Amazon Alexa, Google Home and Assistant directed by voice recognition that’s powered by smart, conversational Artificial Intelligence – and most of these will be a new class of devices scattered around your house, not just on your phone. It’s possible that betting on the phone as the platform for conversational AI may not be the winning hand.

It’s not that Apple doesn’t have exciting things in conversational AI going on in their labs. Heck, Siri was actually first. Apple also has autonomous car projects, AI-based speakers, augmented and virtual reality, etc in their labs. The problem is that a supply chain CEO who lacks a passion for products and has yet to articulate a personal vision of where to Apple will go is ill equipped to make the right organizational, business model and product bets to bring those to market.

https://steveblank.com/2016/10/24/w...allmer-and-why-he-still-has-his-job-at-apple/
 
Last edited:
I don't think Apple are bothered while they have a small but very profitable market share.

Interesting to see what Apple does if iPhone sales keep falling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.