Forums | MacLife

Bat · 2009-08-06 7:27 am

There is, tho, something of a 'new guard' at MS, exemplified by Sinofsky & the Win 7 team, and how well and quickly they got that done. Old perceptions about the Empire are likely not as true as formerly.

ScifiterX · 2009-08-06 7:54 am

Or as false as they'd like you to believe.

Bat · 2009-08-06 8:34 am

ScifiterX wrote:
Or as false as they'd like you to believe.

You are assuming, Sci, and are I think quite uninformed on this. I suggest perusing Alex St. John's column in the September CPU magazine for starters; hit a newstand. Knowledge is good; assumptions are weak.

This does not come from 'them.'

ScifiterX · 2009-08-06 9:00 am

It's a safe assumption, bat. I see significant evidence of various divisions within Microsoft improving, which is a good thing, but not a lot demonstrating that those improvements yet translate to the company as a whole. Also I would love for you to explain how an article from a man who developed a core Microsoft technology in a magazine with Microsoft sponsorship does not, indirect at least, from them. I know of know magazine which wishes to alienate it's sponsors and which wont bend over backwards to avoid doing so. Microsoft's PR department has proven all to often that they are willing to promote a magazine's "flexibility". Then again so has Apple's, so has Dell's, so has HP's, so has Sony's, so has Nintendo's, so has Google's...

ScifiterX · 2009-08-06 9:18 am

Then again "Microsoft Lowers The Bar With Windows 7" sounds suspiciously like a slam to me.

ukimalefu · 2009-08-06 9:54 am

See what is happening? Microsoft is stealing a thread about Apple. Typical!

frankly · 2009-08-06 9:57 am

Bat wrote:
There is, tho, something of a 'new guard' at MS, exemplified by Sinofsky & the Win 7 team, and how well and quickly they got that done. Old perceptions about the Empire are likely not as true as formerly.

What is your evidence? Personally, I'll wait until actual innovative products ship before I change my opinion about Microsoft not getting the same bang for their R&D buck.

Please tell me what is innovative about Win 7? I certainly don't consider their ability to get a working product out the door on schedule to be very innovative. How does Win 7 raise the bar from Vista and/or XP?

What about their languishing mobile OS division? What about their dying Zune development? What about the glut of software that has received updates that while making the interface look nicer actually made them less useable and didn't really add any innovative features? Office? MSN Messenger? IE 7?

robco · 2009-08-06 10:15 am

MS is like any large corporation - some groups are good, others not so much. Windows became bloated and has had a lack of clear direction. Security, as given by UAC, has been a joke. The major, fundamental changes that have needed to happen haven't occurred. Meanwhile Apple has been smaller and nimbler, but did "cheat" and use a lot of FOSS to hit the ground running (Darwin/OpenStep and Safari spring to mind), but by necessity as they don't have gobs of resources to throw at things like MS does.

I'm using the Win7 RC now and while it's certainly what Vista should have been, the major changes still aren't there. It's a stopgap because Vista was rushed out the door (worse than Leopard) and the rep has been too soiled to salvage (plus, it was a stupid name to begin with). If MS were smart, they'd follow the example Apple is setting with Snow Leopard and offer Win7 as an upgrade for a really cheap price.

frankly · 2009-08-06 10:17 am

robco wrote:
Meanwhile Apple has been smaller and nimbler, but did "cheat" and use a lot of FOSS to hit the ground running (Darwin/OpenStep and Safari spring to mind), but by necessity as they don't have gobs of resources to throw at things like MS does.

You could also say that Microsoft's fundamental opposition to FOSS has hurt them by requiring them to reinvent the wheel, and then having a wheel with a bunch of bumps in it wink

Kool-Aid Guzzler · 2009-08-06 10:55 am

Mr. T wrote:
Kool-Aid Guzzler wrote:
If you view their position strictly in terms of selling perhaps 1-2% of the cell phones made, then I am not surprised that you erroneously conclude that they are not significant. If you look at them as a company that delivers high value to the customers, while turning a healthy profit, and using those funds and their design skills to re-invest and develop new innovations, then they could be looked at as a very significant player - perhaps THE most significant. If I were RIM, Samsung, Nokia, or other makers, that stark fact is what would have me quacking in my boots.
We both seem to have a different idea of the word "significant." This is what I meant:

Everyone else in the industry accepts the fact that they can't sell a phone with a 3x profit margin in a large enough volume to make the kind of profit that Apple does. Before Apple entered the market, such a high-margin phone didn't exist --since then, nobody has attempted to compete with Apple on those terms. So as long as other phone makers aren't losing a lot of sales to Apple, they can keep on doing business just like they've always done --Apple isn't a threat. In the special case of smart phone makers, Apple is taking sales from its competitors, so they obviously need to keep on their toes.

high value
Hmm... that sounds familiar.

while turning a healthy profit, and using those funds and their design skills to re-invest and develop new innovations, then they could be looked at as a very significant player - perhaps THE most significant.
There was an article a while back explaining that Apple's R&D costs are abnormally low. (I think it was a thread on this forum).

iPhone nano.

frankly · 2009-08-06 4:39 pm

Another company hurting because of their race to sell the lowest priced computer:

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/08/06/lenovo

Every bit of news that comes out proves that all those who said the recession was going to hurt Apple were exactly wrong. The exact opposite of their predictions keep coming true. Not only is Apple doing well but those selling low priced computers are hurting bad.

wellfleation · 2009-08-06 6:29 pm

It might not have effected their bottom line but it did cause Apple to lower prices accross the board.

frankly · 2009-08-06 6:56 pm

wellfleation wrote:
It might not have effected their bottom line but it did cause Apple to lower prices accross the board.

You're making an assumption to say that the recession is the sole reason they lowered prices. It could just as easily have been due to their consolidation of the MacBook and MacBook Pro lines, combined with a lowering of their component costs and a recoup of their initial investment in the new solid aluminum cases.

Apple has fluctuated the prices of their laptop line up and down over the years for a variety of reasons.

Last edited by frankly (2009-08-06 6:56 pm)

Mr. T · 2009-08-06 8:20 pm

frankly wrote:
There were plenty of phones being sold at a high margin before Apple entered the market. It's just that they weren't selling as many as Apple is selling. ... Kool-Aid Guzzler and you are missing something. RIM is also seeing high profits. In fact, an article that was released a few weeks ago speculated that Apple and RIM would combine to take 58% of the profits in the cell phone industry within a year.

You're probably right about there being other high-margin phones, though I still think Apple's margins are higher. But, my main point was that the iPhone poses no threat to the vast majority of phones on the market --Just as an Apple netbook would pose little threat to Acer or Asus.

Mr. T · 2009-08-06 8:29 pm

frankly wrote:
Every bit of news that comes out proves that all those who said the recession was going to hurt Apple were exactly wrong.

Glad I wasn't one of them. btw, a lot of Mac fans speculated the same. And as noted earlier, other "conventional" manufacturers have glided through the recession as well --Also against some analysts predictions.

I think you're overplaying your hand.

Kool-Aid Guzzler · 2009-08-06 9:19 pm

Mr. T wrote:
frankly wrote:
There were plenty of phones being sold at a high margin before Apple entered the market. It's just that they weren't selling as many as Apple is selling. ... Kool-Aid Guzzler and you are missing something. RIM is also seeing high profits. In fact, an article that was released a few weeks ago speculated that Apple and RIM would combine to take 58% of the profits in the cell phone industry within a year.
You're probably right about there being other high-margin phones, though I still think Apple's margins are higher. But, my main point was that the iPhone poses no threat to the vast majority of phones on the market --Just as an Apple netbook would pose little threat to Acer or Asus.

You'll be eating this words on both counts in the next 12 months.

Mr. T · 2009-08-06 9:50 pm

Kool-Aid Guzzler wrote:
Mr. T wrote:
frankly wrote:
There were plenty of phones being sold at a high margin before Apple entered the market. It's just that they weren't selling as many as Apple is selling. ... Kool-Aid Guzzler and you are missing something. RIM is also seeing high profits. In fact, an article that was released a few weeks ago speculated that Apple and RIM would combine to take 58% of the profits in the cell phone industry within a year.
You're probably right about there being other high-margin phones, though I still think Apple's margins are higher. But, my main point was that the iPhone poses no threat to the vast majority of phones on the market --Just as an Apple netbook would pose little threat to Acer or Asus.
You'll be eating this words on both counts in the next 12 months.

I would love to say "I told you so" in 12 months from now, but I'm sure that I will have forgotten by then...

If you've read my previous posts, then you must know exactly what I am talking about: Most companies sell large volumes at lower margins, while other companies sell in low volume at higher margins. For the past 10 years, Apple has indisputably followed the latter model. You're suggesting that Apple is, somehow, destined to achieve both large volume and large margins --something which has never been achieved in the history of free market economics. Keep drinking that Kool Aid wink

Last edited by Mr. T (2009-08-06 9:51 pm)

Metacell · 2009-08-06 10:53 pm

What about medium volumes at medium margins?

frankly · 2009-08-07 4:28 am

Mr. T wrote:
frankly wrote:
There were plenty of phones being sold at a high margin before Apple entered the market. It's just that they weren't selling as many as Apple is selling.
You're probably right about there being other high-margin phones, though I still think Apple's margins are higher. But, my main point was that the iPhone poses no threat to the vast majority of phones on the market --Just as an Apple netbook would pose little threat to Acer or Asus.

Are you purposely ignoring what I post so that you can claim to be correct? I said that the discounted price of my Treo was $400. If you bought it without a contract it would cost you $700. And you think Apple's are higher than that? Just so we're clear, this was the norm for smart phones. Apple didn't invent this market, or the pricing model, they're just enjoying a huge amount of success compared to some that have been in the market for years. Apple is bringing a ton of people into this part of the cell phone market that were using regular phones before they bought an iPhone. This is why you see so many of these silly actual cost of an iPhone articles where they list the price of the phone and the plan for two years. They ignore the fact that ALL smart phones cost that much and it is likely because the people adding up those costs weren't using a smart phone prior to looking at the iPhone.

Mr. T wrote:
frankly wrote:
Every bit of news that comes out proves that all those who said the recession was going to hurt Apple were exactly wrong.
Glad I wasn't one of them. btw, a lot of Mac fans speculated the same. And as noted earlier, other "conventional" manufacturers have glided through the recession as well --Also against some analysts predictions.

I think you're overplaying your hand.

I never said otherwise and I'm not really talking about analysts. I don't pay attention to what they say because they are wrong most of the time. However, most of the people I was referring to that were spouting doom and gloom in regards to Apple are registered right here in these forums.

And yes, some other manufacturers have been making it through the recession but you have to ask yourself if their business model is sustainable. Selling a lot at the low end when other manufacturers seem hell bent on racing you to the basement does not seem to be a good idea if you want to stay in business. It obviously isn't working for Lenovo.

Mr. T wrote:
You're suggesting that Apple is, somehow, destined to achieve both large volume and large margins --something which has never been achieved in the history of free market economics. Keep drinking that Kool Aid

What market are you looking at? It seemed to work pretty damn well for 10+ years for the SUV market. They are among the highest margin vehicles sold and yet there are so many of them on the road now that if you try to drive a regular size car you can't see ahead of you.

Also, what do you consider large volume and large margins? Because Apple has sold a TON of iPhone and iPod touches at a high margin.

Let's see, what else...

most clothing, jewelery (HUGE margins, HUGE volume)
Olive Garden (and other similar restaurant chains). I just chose Olive Garden because I believe they are number one in sales.

But I guess, other than those it has never happened in the history of free market economics???

Mr. T · 2009-08-07 7:38 am

frankly wrote:
Mr. T wrote:
frankly wrote:
There were plenty of phones being sold at a high margin before Apple entered the market. It's just that they weren't selling as many as Apple is selling.
though I still think Apple's margins are higher. But, my main point was that the iPhone poses no threat to the vast majority of phones on the market --Just as an Apple netbook would pose little threat to Acer or Asus.
Are you purposely ignoring what I post so that you can claim to be correct? I said that the discounted price of my Treo was $400. If you bought it without a contract it would cost you $700. And you think Apple's are higher than that? Just so we're clear, this was the norm for smart phones. Apple didn't invent this market, or the pricing model, they're just enjoying a huge amount of success compared to some that have been in the market for years. Apple is bringing a ton of people into this part of the cell phone market that were using regular phones before they bought an iPhone. This is why you see so many of these silly actual cost of an iPhone articles where they list the price of the phone and the plan for two years. They ignore the fact that ALL smart phones cost that much and it is likely because the people adding up those costs weren't using a smart phone prior to looking at the iPhone.

No, I'm purposely ignoring your Temp Treo comment because:

#1, I agreed with you, that there were other high margin phones --so belaboring each of your sub-points seems redundant.
#2, it was completely irrelevant to the point I wanted to make.

I'm going to ignore it again, for both these reasons.

So once again, I agree with pretty much everything you're written. You're pretty much restating my argument against Kook Aid in different terms --the argument being that Apple isn't competing with 98% of the other phones on the market. The statement "Apple created a new market" isn't that much different from the statement "they're just enjoying a huge amount of success compared to some that have been in the [smart phone] market for years."

frankly wrote:
And yes, some other manufacturers have been making it through the recession but you have to ask yourself if their business model is sustainable. Selling a lot at the low end when other manufacturers seem hell bent on racing you to the basement does not seem to be a good idea if you want to stay in business. It obviously isn't working for Lenovo.

First, it's not "low-end" or racing to the basement, but "all-ends" in the case of HP, and Toshiba, "all but high" in the case of Acer. So in those terms, yes this model has been working fantastic, fairly consistently, since the dawn of personal computing.

frankly wrote:
Mr. T wrote:
You're suggesting that Apple is, somehow, destined to achieve both large volume and large margins --something which has never been achieved in the history of free market economics. Keep drinking that Kool Aid
What market are you looking at? It seemed to work pretty damn well...SNIP...But I guess, other than those it has never happened in the history of free market economics???

That's not quite what I meant, but since you're feeling so cocky today, I'll let you get in on this too: Kool Aid either thinks that the iPhone is going to dominate the cell market in the next 12 months, or that an Apple netbook will dominate the netbook market. What say you?

Last edited by Mr. T (2009-08-07 7:40 am)

wellfleation · 2009-08-07 8:14 am

frankly wrote:
wellfleation wrote:
It might not have effected their bottom line but it did cause Apple to lower prices accross the board.
You're making an assumption to say that the recession is the sole reason they lowered prices. It could just as easily have been due to their consolidation of the MacBook and MacBook Pro lines, combined with a lowering of their component costs and a recoup of their initial investment in the new solid aluminum cases.

Apple has fluctuated the prices of their laptop line up and down over the years for a variety of reasons.

I wouldn't use the word "fluctuate". Their prices are pretty stern for many years before they change, usually. Apple usually keeps their process as high as possible for as long as possible. They have lowered prices on everyone of their products line over the last six months besides the mini. Very un-Apple like, and therefore, can be attributed to the economy mostly with other factors (as you have already mentioned) thrown in that favor them lowering their prices to begin with.

avkills · 2009-08-07 8:35 am

If your products are selling well, why lower prices? Apple should only lower prices if products stop selling at the volume they want.

-mark

ScifiterX · 2009-08-07 9:13 am

Maybe because they see an opportunity to further increase sales and profits by doing so or foresee not doing so will hurt profitability in this economy. Sound business strategies anticipate changes in the market the company services rather than reacting to past changes.

Mr. T · 2009-08-07 10:16 am

ScifiterX wrote:
Maybe because they see an opportunity to further increase sales and profits by doing so or foresee not doing so will hurt profitability in this economy. Sound business strategies anticipate changes in the market the company services rather than reacting to past changes.

Indeed.

Last edited by Mr. T (2009-08-07 10:16 am)

avkills · 2009-08-07 10:46 am

ScifiterX wrote:
Maybe because they see an opportunity to further increase sales and profits by doing so or foresee not doing so will hurt profitability in this economy. Sound business strategies anticipate changes in the market the company services rather than reacting to past changes.

Well yes, but the current trends show that Apple's products are selling just fine. Maybe they are happy with the volume they have already.

-mark

Forums | MacLife

#51 2009-08-06 7:27 am

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

#52 2009-08-06 7:54 am

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

#53 2009-08-06 8:34 am

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

ScifiterX wrote:

#54 2009-08-06 9:00 am

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

#55 2009-08-06 9:18 am

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

#56 2009-08-06 9:54 am

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

#57 2009-08-06 9:57 am

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

Bat wrote:

#58 2009-08-06 10:15 am

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

#59 2009-08-06 10:17 am

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

robco wrote:

#60 2009-08-06 10:55 am

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

Mr. T wrote:

Kool-Aid Guzzler wrote:

#61 2009-08-06 4:39 pm

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

#62 2009-08-06 6:29 pm

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

#63 2009-08-06 6:56 pm

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

wellfleation wrote:

#64 2009-08-06 8:20 pm

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

frankly wrote:

#65 2009-08-06 8:29 pm

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

frankly wrote:

#66 2009-08-06 9:19 pm

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

Mr. T wrote:

frankly wrote:

#67 2009-08-06 9:50 pm

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

Kool-Aid Guzzler wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

frankly wrote:

#68 2009-08-06 10:53 pm

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

#69 2009-08-07 4:28 am

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

Mr. T wrote:

frankly wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

frankly wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

#70 2009-08-07 7:38 am

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

frankly wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

frankly wrote:

frankly wrote:

frankly wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

#71 2009-08-07 8:14 am

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

frankly wrote:

wellfleation wrote:

#72 2009-08-07 8:35 am

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

#73 2009-08-07 9:13 am

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

#74 2009-08-07 10:16 am

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

ScifiterX wrote:

#75 2009-08-07 10:46 am

Re: I thought this economy was supposed to hurt Apple???

ScifiterX wrote:

Board footer