Phil Schiller Defends iPad Mini Pricing Decision

[JAT]

This is not selling access to you, or are you saying that Apple sells access to you with iAds?

Google's first line of business is to collect demographic and personal interest data and then target ads via that data so advertisers can get their ads directly in the face of individuals, with as specific a target as possible. The definition of "access" is covered, here.

I guess if you want to play your semantic games and use different words to describe this, that is your right. But then, state your own words, don't simply attack mine without basis.

Apple may do the same with iAds (I don't actually know offhand how it works), but it is not their primary focus, by far. They are 10 year old amateurs compared to Google in advertising sales. According to the news report yesterday, at least 91% of their revenue is from hardware sales.

 

[Oletros]

Google's first line of business is to collect demographic and personal interest data and then target ads via that data so advertisers can get their ads directly in the face of individuals, with as specific a target as possible. The definition of "access" is covered, here.

It is not access because Google (or Apple) doesn't give this information to the advertisers. They don´t have access to any information from the user that see the advert

 

[samcraig]

Apple may do the same with iAds (I don't actually know offhand how it works), but it is not their primary focus, by far. They are 10 year old amateurs compared to Google in advertising sales. According to the news report yesterday, at least 91% of their revenue is from hardware sales.

Ads not being Apple's primary business (and to date - not being very successful) doesn't negate how they operate iAds and what they collect/sell/target/etc.

If the music streaming service comes to fruition - it's very likely that their ad revenue will greatly increase. That means more "sharing"

 

[JAT]

It is not access because Google (or Apple) doesn't give this information to the advertisers. They don´t have access to any information from the user that see the advert

Correct, no "access to information", just to the users themselves. Seriously, what are you arguing? You spend most of your time here making snippy little comments about other people's posts. When I do it, you attack? What, am I too much of a competitor? Gotta shut me down? Go for it.

Ads not being Apple's primary business (and to date - not being very successful) doesn't negate how they operate iAds and what they collect/sell/target/etc.

If the music streaming service comes to fruition - it's very likely that their ad revenue will greatly increase. That means more "sharing"

I think you missed the beginning of this discussion, which was about Google. Oletros is trying to obfuscate the discussion by comparing to Apple. Which I really don't care about, Apple's activity in no way changes the facts of Google's activity. But, since you two seem to want it, once again I will point out that volume matters. If my OP had been about comparing the two companies' advertising revenue and methods, I would use such words as "primary business" to say Apple is a hardware company and Google is an advertising company.

 

[Oletros]

Correct, no "access to information", just to the users themselves.

My God, advertisers don´t have access to the users, only Google have access to the user. So no, I´m not making snippy little comments.

 

[samcraig]

Both Apple and Google operate their ad platforms the same. And both privacy statements are nearly identical. So I'm not sure what your point is other than to say that because Apple sells less ads, they aren't as bad as Google?

Correct, no "access to information", just to the users themselves. Seriously, what are you arguing? You spend most of your time here making snippy little comments about other people's posts. When I do it, you attack? What, am I too much of a competitor? Gotta shut me down? Go for it.

I think you missed the beginning of this discussion, which was about Google. Oletros is trying to obfuscate the discussion by comparing to Apple. Which I really don't care about, Apple's activity in no way changes the facts of Google's activity. But, since you two seem to want it, once again I will point out that volume matters. If my OP had been about comparing the two companies' advertising revenue and methods, I would use such words as "primary business" to say Apple is a hardware company and Google is an advertising company.

 

[JAT]

My God, advertisers don´t have access to the users, only Google have access to the user. So no, I´m not making snippy little comments.

And I said I am the one that began this with a snippy comment. I simply used you as an analog because I assumed you would be familiar with you. But also, if they don't have access....how do they sell anything through those ads? Did I miss Google selling stuff? I thought Ebay had the international market where you can buy almost anything.

Both Apple and Google operate their ad platforms the same. And both privacy statements are nearly identical. So I'm not sure what your point is other than to say that because Apple sells less ads, they aren't as bad as Google?

No, I have not been talking about Apple. That was Oletros. I have no points about Apple in this particular thread of posts. I also didn't say Google was "bad", for the record.

C'mon, you two. Pay attention.

 

[samcraig]

And I said I am the one that began this with a snippy comment. I simply used you as an analog because I assumed you would be familiar with you. But also, if they don't have access....how do they sell anything through those ads? Did I miss Google selling stuff? I thought Ebay had the international market where you can buy almost anything.

No, I have not been talking about Apple. That was Oletros. I have no points about Apple in this particular thread of posts. I also didn't say Google was "bad", for the record.

C'mon, you two. Pay attention.

I didn't say you said Google was bad. I posed it as a question

 

[JAT]

I didn't say you said Google was bad. I posed it as a question

Touché.

 

[unplugme71]

Please show us any examples of people "bitching" about high Nexus/Kindle prices, would you?

I can't show you but I sure as hell can have them call you on the phone. What's your number? Expect at least 2 dozen calls. Seriously.

And I never mentioned people bitching about price points on those devices. Just the iPad. And really, who cares about specs if the product performs well?

If my honda civic can out perform in acceleration, braking, and turning than a ferarri, who cares what specs the ferrari has.

----------

LOL +1, yes people will always complain. I know I am guilty from time to time.

I agree with you on all accounts. I have a 32 GB iPad 2 (so not the new iPad 2), and it works just fine. It runs all my apps without issue, I do not mind that it doesn't have a retina display because I haven't really used the new iPad.

My boss has an i7 PC with 16 GB of memory... This I consider a huge waste of money since his tasks on his computer involve email, skype, and microsoft office mainly. While... I am running AutoCAD, Excel, Outlook, and other engineering programs simultaneously on two screens everyday. Yet, I survive with 8 GB of memory without much issue.

Exactly. When I worked retail (Staples, Bestbuy, etc), PC users always shop by spec. And I don't blame them, that's how HP, Dell, etc try to market their products. I used to tell customers all the time, you don't need 16GB of memory or 2TB hard drive if all you use it for is Office.

However, when I worked at Apple, we sell you on value (how you use your computer) to match you with the right system.

 

[3282868]

Didn't read through to see if you were corrected or not. But in case you were not: there was no $200 Apple store credit. It was $100. I know I saved it and used it towards my 3GS (skipped the 3G).



Mike

It was $200 and I have the saved credit form as well. The price dropped by $200, initially Apple proposed and gave $100 but quickly changed it to $200 due to the publics outcry over the difference

Update: quick search, and yes, you are correct, however I received $200 due to my AmEx purchase with the phone. Some did receive $200 down the road due to "outrage", but initially, yes it was $100 store credit.

 

[G51989]

No, they don't sell access to you, where you have read such a wrong claim?

Because of news, and google hate.

Your bank, your credit card company, your insurance company, hell even most church's that people go to, telemarketers, ect.

Know WAY more about you than google.

Google doesn't even know/care who you are or what you do. They litterally couldn't give a **** less, your just a number that they can send Ads to. Just a number, thats it.

Advertisers do n ot have access to googles data.

 

[Jibbajabba]

How do you know it is the same people?

Look next to your avatar - it's called username and they are unique to ..... user

If you visit / read the site a lot you will get to 'know' certain individuals who always complain but at the same moment praise the products they bought but hated before. Hypocrits comes to mind.

Bear in mind - it's the intawebz so I couldn't care less really.

 

[Carouser]

Look next to your avatar - it's called username and they are unique to ..... user

If you visit / read the site a lot you will get to 'know' certain individuals who always complain but at the same moment praise the products they bought but hated before. Hypocrits comes to mind.

Bear in mind - it's the intawebz so I couldn't care less really.

No, they're not the same people, because I read this accusation time and time again, that there are posters who say somethig is dumb until Apple makes it and then they 180 and praise it as the best thing ever. If it's true (it isn't), prove it by naming those posters and quote their relevant posts. PM them to me if you want. If you're too lazy to do this, I'm too lazy to believe you. Back up your smears or stop making them.

 

[Jibbajabba]

If you're too lazy to do this, I'm too lazy to believe you. Back up your smears or stop making them.

Don't care what you think .. Don't care if you believe me or not ... I am not going through tons of posts just so you believe me ... so .... moving on ..

 

[techwhiz]

screen resolution

The Nexus 7 is not pentile; it's just a mediocre quality screen.

BTW, pentile has disadvantages, but they don't include colors being washed out or poor viewing angles. My Nexus 7's display looks like ass compared to my Galaxy Nexus', which itself looks worse than the S3 (both of those phones use pentile).

The Nexus 7 uses a 1280x800 IPS display. Definitely not junk and not mediocre.
You cannot compare a S3 with a screen size of 4.7" at 1280x720 to a similar resolution display that is about 100% more in area.

The 7 has a 216 ppi screen and the S3 with 306 ppi.
That's like saying a retina display is better than one that isn't. DUH!

Compare like devices to like devices.
The iPad Mini to the Nexus 7 and the iPad 4th Gen to the new Nexus 10 with a screen resolution of 2560x1600 which is in the same league as the iPad.

 

[ressac]

Get a job

i have a job, but apple is too overpriced , why i have to pay for ipad 500$ when i can pay 400$ for nexus 10 and it's even better?

and ipad not multitasking like nexus

so get a book and start read to get smart

 

[Deslock]

The Nexus 7 uses a 1280x800 IPS display. Definitely not junk and not mediocre.
You cannot compare a S3 with a screen size of 4.7" at 1280x720 to a similar resolution display that is about 100% more in area.

The 7 has a 216 ppi screen and the S3 with 306 ppi.
That's like saying a retina display is better than one that isn't. DUH!

Compare like devices to like devices.
The iPad Mini to the Nexus 7 and the iPad 4th Gen to the new Nexus 10 with a screen resolution of 2560x1600 which is in the same league as the iPad.

The Nexus 7's screen resolution is fine, but it's a low quality screen (with poor viewing angles and color saturation). Use it next to an iPad mini, and you'll notice just how inferior the Nexus looks.

I'm not criticizing the Nexus 7. I own one and enjoy using it, but they cut corner to lower the price, and it shows.

(please pardon the delayed response, I don't come here often)

 

[Oletros]

The Nexus 7's screen resolution is fine, but it's a low quality screen (with poor viewing angles and color saturation).

You have a defective one, it doesn't have poor viewing angles at all. And id doesn't have poor color saturation

 

[LagunaSol]

why i have to pay for ipad 500$ when i can pay 400$ for nexus 10 and it's even better?

1) Quality app selection.

2) Not funded by selling you to advertisers.

 

[Oletros]

2) Not funded by selling you to advertisers.

People have explained that to you a lot of times, please, don't spread wrong information

 

[samcraig]

1) Quality app selection.

2) Not funded by selling you to advertisers.

1) Which apps are you referring to specifically?

2) FUD

 

[xofruitcake]

People have explained that to you a lot of times, please, don't spread wrong information

heh heh, but google did benefited by being the search engine on all android device. Amazon broke that business model by developing their own App store, don't call Kindle Fire HD an android device and then sell the default search engine in Kindle fire HD to Microsoft. In an ideal world for Google, all mobile device has Google search as their default engine and Google kingdom is safe.


http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/06/two-down-one-to-go/

It’s believed that Google now pays Apple upwards of $1 billion a year as a result of being the main search engine for iOS. (Just two years ago, the number was believed to be closer to $100 million, which is insane growth and shows just how important this area is.) But $1 billion is a drop in the bucket of the $150 billion (!) Apple may bring in this fiscal year. Even if Microsoft offered $2 billion, or $5 billion — it still probably wouldn’t be enough to be meaningful to Apple’s bottom-line.

 

[LagunaSol]

People have explained that to you a lot of times, please, don't spread wrong information

Please enlighten me how Google makes its money?

(People haven't "explained" anything - they simply don't know what business Google is in.)

 

[Oletros]

heh heh, but google did benefited by being the search engine on all android device. Amazon broke that business model by developing their own App store, don't call Kindle Fire HD an android device and then sell the default search engine in Kindle fire HD to Microsoft. In an ideal world for Google, all mobile device has Google search as their default engine and Google kingdom is safe.


http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/06/two-down-one-to-go/

It’s believed that Google now pays Apple upwards of $1 billion a year as a result of being the main search engine for iOS. (Just two years ago, the number was believed to be closer to $100 million, which is insane growth and shows just how important this area is.) But $1 billion is a drop in the bucket of the $150 billion (!) Apple may bring in this fiscal year. Even if Microsoft offered $2 billion, or $5 billion — it still probably wouldn’t be enough to be meaningful to Apple’s bottom-line.

Perfect, but what has to do your answer with the OP claims?