I’ve been thinking similarly, but in the end I’ll go for the bigger screen, I think. Being able to see more of documents for work, etc. is helpful.
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.
Tim Cook: iPhone X is a 'Super Bowl Winner' Even if You Wanted It to Win 'By a Few More Points'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’ve been thinking similarly, but in the end I’ll go for the bigger screen, I think. Being able to see more of documents for work, etc. is helpful.
Because platforms are sticky whereas car brands are not.
One platform =80% and growing
Other platform =15%
One took over the world and the other is a minor player.
I don't give a heck whose factory they came out of.
Google killed Apple at their own game.
[doublepost=1525443811][/doublepost]
The same was true of blackberry in 2008.
They made most of the money and they thought that meant they were the best at smartphones.
Even windows mobile outsold iOS and Android for awhile.
The only thing I care about is whose platform has the best future and is most likely to change the world.
And Apple with their 15% iOS penetration is not looking good.
Just a note here:
What you've stated is true, but Google is more of a platform whereas Apple is more of a single physical product. Google may not have as much profit as Apple, but they undoubtedly have the most penetration into the most markets globally on many services (way more than Apple).
I think what we're seeing here are 2 different business models with different interpretations of success. Some see profit as the sole indicator of success, whereas others rank market penetration higher.
In the other hand, buying a $50 throwaway android phone is not how an android manufacturer increases their revenue from hardware and revenue from services.
But great analogy to blackberry, I’m still waiting for Apple to fall in its face as it continues to break revenue and service records.
Counterpoint. Putting cheap $50 devices in hands DOES help services. Especially with Googles business model. THe more people who are using any google device, the more their services work. Android manufacturers aren't going for the most profitable companies in the world. They're going for sustained profitability (some have failed, some are doing well). This notion that every year must be the most profitable year ever, is very very much an Apple thing. Many android devices have much lower profit margins because Android (especially at the high end flagships) put more "stuff" in the phones. whether or not this matters to you is personal, but by having more "stuff", it increases the costs of manufacturing and lowers the profit margins.
one could argue that Apple continuously having record profits and margins that seem to increase without significant regular improvements to much of their hardware irks many of us who look at Apple now as a company who is more motivated by profitability than the actual products themselves. Apple bake the profitability margin into the cost of the device manufacturing, this means that in order to hit a specific margin and price point, Apple "takes out" other costs, such as lower RAM capabilities, lower resolution displays, took years to include things like NFC hardware.
(This is NOT saying the iPhone is bad or subpar, it's just different business model than the rest of the industry)
Counterpoint: putting cheap phones out there helps only Google’s business mode not the device manufacturers. Oppo producing a phone should help oppos’ business model not Google’s. And it’s tough for (sustained) profitability at selling a $50 phone and no services.
Nobody said Apple has to year over year of record breaking revenues, just pointing out that is what is happening.
As far as andoit putting more stuff, it depends on what you value as the “more stuff” including the 5 years of iOS updates. For example to me, oled is not “more stuff” because apple’s lcd imo beats a lot of the oled competition. Ymmv.
yes, it's really a YMMV, thing. I'm just pointing out that Apple's boasts about revenues / profits is not necessarily the bright #1 winner badge that people like to tought as too much profit can often be seen negatively by consumers (Profiteering is the extreme end, and often angers customers)
And yes, I was only talking about Google's business model regarding low end cheap device. However, if Oppo selling a $50 phone makes $1 profit on that phone, and that's what they've accounted for, and budgetted for, than they are no more a failure than Apple. we often tend to make a mistake where we equate profit to quality. If that's the case, BackStreet boys were the one of the best musicians of all time
what it really comes down to is perceived value for the individual. A consumer shouldn't be buying a device just beause it's the most profitable in the industry. Only shareholders honestly should be caring about that metric. For the rest of us, what should matter is if the value is there. Does the phone do what you want it to. Does it achieve the necessary activities within a price point that you as the consumer are willing to spend? if the X for example fits within that, than that's great. it's a personal decision. if Apple's products don't, thats also ok. If you're perfectly content with using a $50 phone that does 100% of what you want it to? than thats perfectly OK too.
That's what went into my decision process - I just couldn't see enough in the X to upgrade from my 7.
The Manufacturers of Android handsets starve to death and who cares.
The manufacturer of ANDROID has a thousand dollar share price and a $722 Billion dollar market cap. And they run 4 out of 5 smartphones sold -- smartphones which drive users to their other services. Which are really good and really widely adopted.
Not sure how you can say they failed at anything.
Google has >1 billion users of services. How do you think they got them.
I’m not seeing Apple boasting, I’m seeing them disclose their revenues. And if people want to leave Apple due to excessive profiteering, you can’t stop them. (Judging by the last earnings call, they have plenty of business)yes, it's really a YMMV, thing. I'm just pointing out that Apple's boasts about revenues / profits is not necessarily the bright #1 winner badge that people like to tought as too much profit can often be seen negatively by consumers (Profiteering is the extreme end, and often angers customers)
And yes, I was only talking about Google's business model regarding low end cheap device. However, if Oppo selling a $50 phone makes $1 profit on that phone, and that's what they've accounted for, and budgetted for, than they are no more a failure than Apple. we often tend to make a mistake where we equate profit to quality. If that's the case, BackStreet boys were the one of the best musicians of all time
what it really comes down to is perceived value for the individual. A consumer shouldn't be buying a device just beause it's the most profitable in the industry. Only shareholders honestly should be caring about that metric. For the rest of us, what should matter is if the value is there. Does the phone do what you want it to. Does it achieve the necessary activities within a price point that you as the consumer are willing to spend? if the X for example fits within that, than that's great. it's a personal decision. if Apple's products don't, thats also ok. If you're perfectly content with using a $50 phone that does 100% of what you want it to? than thats perfectly OK too.
If oppo is lucky enough to make the $1 on a phone that they sell but only sell half the amount budgeted, that’s where the the comments about “tablescraps” come into play. But my main point still stands, it’s google that reaps the benefit of the $50 phone, not oppo. Oppo only has to pay for the o/s.
As far as profit = quality. Profit is objective, while quality is subjective. (I may have already said that).
I know very few Apple customers that examine the financials prior to purchase of an iPhone or any other phone for that matter...they all have one thing in common and that is they post here.
The conversation is not about you should use what phone you want, that goes without saying. The conversation is about how Tim Cook views the iPhone X.
[doublepost=1525453954][/doublepost]
Right and thank you, you proved my point. Only google makes out selling android, the manufactures starve while google gets rich. Maybe except for Samsung.
But then there is Apple, low market penetration, most valuable company. Maybe market share doesn’t really mean anything.
I think this is arrogance speaking. Maybe you want it to win by a few more points but it is a winner and end of story. They could at least say they will try and win by those extra few points next time around.
No it definitely means something.
Apple started selling 100% of the "iOS era" or modern era of smartphone OSes.
In 2007 every modern smartphone was sold by Apple because Android didn't exist yet and all other phones were Blackberry/Windows Mobile has-beens.
Fast forward 11 years and Apple has gone from 100% of the sales to 15%. Beaten at their own game by a different but very credible single competitor.
Not sure how you think they're doing just hunky dory.
I agree that they milk the heck out of their customers financially; way more than any competitor. Good for them for taking.
But regardless of how easy it is for them to empty their modest-sized customer base's pockets, they are not going in a good direction sales-wise.
Good sales numbers are like "last year we sold 40% of units but this year we will see 55%".
Bad sales numbers are "we used to own 100% of the market and now we are eking out 15%."
No market share doesn’t really mean anything. Apple made a paltry 62b this quarter with 15% market share. Market share is irrelevant unless you are google collecting royalties from android manufacturers.
Apple is doing just fine. You can worry about sales numbers but you’ll be one of the few that do. And if you’re a shareholder you can communicate your worries. But everybody obsesses over everything Apple.
Analysts are worried.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-01/apple-jumps-after-missing-iphone-sales-adds-100bn-buyback
I hate Apple's new direction as a technologist. I think it's a recipe for irrelevance but that the timeline is TBD. It will probably take lots of years and will just be sad to watch
But if I were a shareholder I would be sweating bullets.
Seems more than a few people are worried.
https://apple.slashdot.org/story/18/05/04/200206/growing-petition-requests-apple-recall-macbook-pro-with-defective-keyboard?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Slashdot/slashdot+(Slashdot)
A few hundred million customers, and a billion devices. How many analysts are worried vs how many are not. What does the best stock picker in the world say, buffet say?
Get the point?
It's saying this if I understand correctly-----https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/05/04/buffett-buys-75-m-more-shares-apple-stock/579974002/
[doublepost=1525475009][/doublepost]
You I do't know, I don't know what your experience or background is.
However, I do know a little more about this gentleman and he thinks IS looking good. ----- https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/05/04/buffett-buys-75-m-more-shares-apple-stock/579974002/
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/an...largely-avoid-investing-technology-sector.asp
"Warren Buffett has often said that he avoids investing in the technology sector because he does not like to own stocks in companies whose business he does not understand."
Buffett buys reliable, well-managed commodity producers. Literally Doritos and Pepsi. Because he know they will churn away building value no matter what the broader economy does.
Technology markets have never worked that way and never will. They swing wildly and are wildly divorced from fundamentals.
Buffett had a horrible 2017 because the entire market was overvalued. He needed to do something.
That doesn't mean that a guy WHO DOESN'T HAVE A COMPUTER can suddenly predict the trajectory of mobile OSes. That would be ridiculous.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/22/surprising-things-in-warren-buffetts-office.html
Last edited:
Bingo.
It's not market share that's relevant, but usage share.
I can also pose the same question back to the critics. What exactly does Google have to show for their greater market share? Newer apps still come to iOS first, their non-phone projects such as tablets and smartwatches have gone nowhere, Google can't even push for their own messaging standard, and google's apps are still available on iOS anyways.
All the market share in the world is useless if it doesn’t let you turn a meaningful profit. That’s what people don’t seem to grasp, when they cite examples like Xiaomi shipping more phones than Apple as evidence that Apple is somehow doomed.
Apple has both where it counts. Yes, its market share is miniscule compared to android, but it’s still a very large number in an absolute sense, more than enough to sustain its own ecosystem.
Not to mention that on average, each Apple customer has a higher propensity to spend. So by virtue of the iPhone, Apple owns the best customers. This then extends to every other aspect of the Apple ecosystem. They will go on to spend more on apps, subscription services, and accompanying hardware such as AirPods and Apple Watches. Which by extension sucks the profits out of the market for the competition, as they cannot compete on price, and Apple guards its customer base very jealously.
Profit-less market share is the only metric android phone users can use to show that they are anything but losing the smartphone race. People like to retort "And how does Apple's profits benefit you?". Now let me throw the same question back to you - How does Android's market share benefit you, because I am not seeing what Android has to show for its overwhelmingly larger market share, vis-a-vis what I am currently enjoying in the Apple ecosystem.
What this just goes to show is that Apple and Google have very differing business models, and it's not possible to do an apples-to-apples comparison. Google is based on scale, and thus benefits from greater market share. Apple doesn't need that much market share, because at the end of the day, it's still selling a crapton of devices (sometimes even faster than Apple can make them), and being insanely profitable for it.
Right, he has a sizable position in Apple that I believe has increased in value. So whatever is quoted he didn’t feel like Apple wasn’t worth buying. But back to the point, you have your own opinion about Apple, others have theirs.
And yet yesterday he did this, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/05/04/buffett-buys-75-m-more-shares-apple-stock/579974002/ which, by the way, he added to the 166.7M shares he already owned. Go ahead and post whatever it is you are going to post. As another poster put in a different post, your postings have fallen into the "sure bud" category AFAIAC.
Nope, it means that two different phones combined outsold the iPhone X but the iPhone X sold more than every model individually.
Yes and he has no idea about technology.
He just saw Apple selling well for so many years and figures it will keep going.
Same logic people had buying blackberry shares for $150. A few years later they were under ten bucks and the investors were SHOCKED.
Things move pretty fast in technology. And Tim Cook moves pretty slow.
And Louis gerstner when he took over ibm knew nothing about technology either.
And I think it says something when so many self-styled tech blogs and analysts continue to get Apple so wrong.
Maybe Apple is just one of those tech companies where conventional tech wisdom just doesn’t apply. Like how in 2013, people were claiming left and right how Apple would be disrupted by cheaper android phones that were supposedly good enough. Yet Apple would go on to introduce more expensive phones, and proceed to sell more iPhones as a result. Everything Apple has done seems to defy traditional disruption theory. They have done the opposite of what many a critic claimed they ought to do, and prospered for it.
Something for the naysayers to reflect upon, perhaps?