By letting you know who's been stalking you, that makes it less creepy and more transparent than Facebook. So 10 recruiters and a handful of people with stealth accounts saw my LinkedIn profile.... I only use it to keep my resumé out there anyways. It's not like they're going to get the latest updates on what I think about [insert politically/socially charged topic here].
You claim that Apple's market-share is nowhere near collapsing while at the same time comparing them to RIM making money while their market share was collapsing. This seems like a faulty comparison to me. You shouldn't need to see explosive increases in revenue. Those are unsustainable over the long-term. Look at the raw numbers behind the percentages. Apple has grown significantly in terms of # of customers since the days when they had nearly 50% of the Smartphone and Tablet markets.
Comparing Apple (a single company) to all of Android (many Manufacturers) is faulty to start with. A fairer comparison would be Apple vs Samsung vs Motorola vs LG vs HTC vs....... Lumping them all together and then using that to judge the health of Apple is misleading and dishonest.
Market Share != Profit Share.... Hell Market Share doesn't even imply Profit Share. The two things are completely unrelated. Sometimes (maybe even most of the time) there is a correlation, but so far that has not held true in this particular market. Apple has never had more than 20% of the "PC" market and yet they're the most profitable (and in my mind, most successful) "PC" Manufacturer on the market (and I'm using "PC" in the Generic and not the Microsoft-specific form). They've proven you don't need to have 80%+ Market Share to be a success or a hit or wildly profitable. Android has proven the opposite in that having 80% market share doesn't mean it's a gigantic party for all involved.
Samsung makes money hand-over-fist by almost literally copying Apple. They focused on a handful of models that they update annually (the Galaxy S/Note/Tab lines), just like Apple has with the iPhone, iPad, and iPod. They started an Ad campaign poking fun at Apple, just like Apple did with the Mac vs PC ads back in the day. Samsung owns most of their own supply chain to minimize production costs, while Apple relies on bulk purchases and promises of future business to drive down prices in their supply chain (they both also use Foxconn for some of their manufacturing).
Everyone else in the smartphone and tablet market is struggling. Some are making money, but its pennies by comparison to Apple or Samsung.
Apple and Samsung had a combined Profit Share of 104% last quarter.... They have this impossible seeming share because most (read: not all) competitors are either making very little profit by comparison or are taking losses. In the case of LG, HTC, and Motorola, some of Samsung's "major" Android competitors, they're all skating on thin ice or have been taking losses for some time.
There is a reason Apple stopped focusing on Android in general when it comes to their Patent Litigation, and the same goes for Samsung.... They're focusing on each other and not the rest of the Android community. If it were Apple vs. Android in terms of Profit Share (Market Share is worth nothing if your Profit Share is shit), then Apple is winning.... If it were Apple vs. Samsung.... Then the battle is very close, and it is hard to determine a clear victor... and as a consumer and a software dev, I don't want there to be a clear winner. Competition is a GOOD thing. When will you jack-holes get that through your heads? Seriously. Android is all the better now BECAUSE of Apple, and the reverse is also true (iOS is better because competing with Android has forced it to be).
The problem with RIM was that their entire business was tied up in Mobile Devices. They were the "King of the Market" (meaning they had no real competition and could basically decide the market's direction at will) for a LONG time. Then, as if overnight, they weren't and they didn't know how do deal with that. They made a lot of bad moves. Apple has yet to go anywhere near that path. They know they aren't the "King of the Market", though they might like to be. The same goes for Samsung and Google... They know Android isn't the "King of the Market", but they want it to be. This is a good thing, as it forces both groups to innovate new software and hardware features.
How is Google profiting from Android? Maybe Google Play is profitable, but it's profits pale in comparison to the Apple App Store since most apps on Play are free and the one's that aren't don't see nearly the number of downloads they do from Apple.
And that's mostly because Samsung owns most of their supply chain (reducing production costs) and has started to focus on the Galaxy S/Tab/Note lines for mobile devices (reducing design costs). Everyone else has a bunch of different product lines and release new models every few months (reducing consumer confidence in them).
And yet most Android manufacturers are taking a loss right now... so having a larger market share isn't working out too well for them... The one exception seems to be Samsung, but only because they borrowed a page from Apple's Marketing department and started making fun of the competition (from a conceptual point-of-view the Samsung ad's making fun of the lines for the latest iDevice aren't that different from the Mac vs PC ads). Samsung is even starting to follow Apple's device announcement/release schedule.
People keep saying Android is eating Apple's lunch, yet Apple had revenues of $35.6 Billion of which $6.9 Billion was profit... And that was during a down quarter when they had no new devices released and sales started to drop off as people wait for the next iDevice. $6.9 Billion... with a 'B'.... That's a lot of money. They're hardly in any financial pain over Android's growth.
There was a TED Talk on Motivation a few years ago... RSAnimate got a hold of it and made this YouTube video. It pretty much backs up everything you just mentioned.
Apple is dishonest for offering people pre-launch access to a new device for review purposes? Last I checked this is a common practice in consumer electronics. It's also something I've never heard of Apple actually doing. IIRC, for the first few iterations of the iPhone it was a cause for grumbles among the "media elite".
You mean like that shiny new Mac Pro they announced at WWDC last month? The machine for a niche market that Apple recognizes is an important niche for them to hold on to? There were some complaints about the lack of upgradability (have to my their specialized parts if you want to do it yourself), but Apple is also trying out modular, external upgrades via Thunderbolt. This is actually an old idea getting a refresh with some new technology that might make it more marketable/effective. Apple has been selling a ton of non-self-upgradable laptops & desktops for years... Why would they stop now? Obviously this is something that most average consumers don't care about (hint: they want the things they pay for to "just work").
You can only re-invent the wheel so many different ways.... They're trying to come out with new and more innovative ideas. Their product suite grows more interconnected/interoperable with every new release. Honestly, they're doing a better job of this than Google or Microsoft at the moment.
"Rational Profits" != Exponential Sales Growth over a Sustained Period of Time
They *have* Market Share right now. They're making *rational profits* right now. Sounds like the strategy is working as planned. Once market share stabilizes the number of sales/quarter should start to drop and eventually stabilize at a reasonable level.
Apple's Strategy has never been Sales Growth (as that's not a sustainable long-term strategy). It has always been to make quality products that customers will pay a premium for. This strategy dug the company out from near bankruptcy and molded it into the industry power-house it is today. They don't need to have more than a 50% Market Share in order to make a ton of money and they don't need their profits to grow every quarter. The fact that they still had a VERY profitable quarter compared to most of their competitors should be evidence enough of that.
If nobody was buying, then the sales drop-off would be MUCH steeper. I think the issue is that they didn't have any significant updates/upgrades released this quarter (the new Mac Pro was announced, but not actually released yet).
The rest of the drop is probably due to most of the market that was going to switch, already has... Apple Computers require replacement by the average consumer far less often than PC's from places like Dell. For example, my parents have had the same iMac since 2007. It has never needed to go into the Apple Store for service and still receives regular software updates (originally ran 10.5, currently running 10.6, but a direct upgrade to 10.8 is available should they ever need/want it.. not sure if 10.9 will be available for it or not). Given that it's now 2013, this is a 6-year-old machine. In the 6 years prior to this iMac they went through 2 different Dell Desktops and an HP Laptop (which each cost nearly as much as the iMac did in 2007). This kind of product longevity will lead to an eventual drop in sales as their market share begins to stabilize (ie: isn't seeing "start-up-like" growth). This at least explains the drop-off in their Mac sales; people expect a mid-year update sometime in the next quarter or two and are willing to either wait for the new model or for the sell-off price-drop that always precedes them. That or maybe they waited for the "Back-To-School" sales that typically start after the 2nd quarter ends.
When it comes to the decline in Mobile Sales... Not all their customers upgrade annually. Personally, I go for every-other release (effectively every 2 years) to maximize my carrier subsidy and get the most "bang" for my $. A lot of consumers will also hold off upgrading iOS devices if they expect a new model will be released soon, considering that September seems to be iOS Device Release/Announcement Month... that would explain a drop in sales both in the last quarter and in the current.
Which is why my all-time favorite Sci-Fi Movie is Forbidden Planet. Just great story telling. Even Star Trek took influences from it (those Stasis Beam things inspired the design of the Transporter), and occasionally made references to the Altair system.
That happened later, after Season 3. When Voyager started it was still Syndicated. Then with UPN, Paramount *WAS* the network, so not much really changed from that perspective.
The problem with Enterprise was the whole Temporal Cold War non-sense they were doing. I would have preferred something focusing on the clashing cultures of the races that would later found the Federation. Maybe do some time-jumps to get a couple seasons in the Romulan War, then end the series with the Founding of the Federation. Would have been interesting. The semi-loose affiliations in the early series could have been a means of commenting on modern international relations.
Some episodes were awful, it was the 60's and they were beholden to the network. Some episodes were really REALLY good. Both Pilots were really good (the first being turned into The Menagerie later in the 1st season). Obsession was particularly good. Yeah, ok, the cloud-of-doom enemy was cheesy, but that wasn't the point. The point was Kirk going all Ahab about it.
One of the reasons Paramount went with pure Syndication for TNG, DS9, and Voyager was that they wouldn't be beholden to Network Execs. They were free to make the show they wanted, how they wanted it. After they got through the initial growing pains, the show really started to shine. It's entertaining and engaging, even in Season 2's "The Measure of a Man"... An episode with absolutely no action. It's almost purely dialog, but damn is it good dialog and largely considered one of the best episodes of the series. DS9 Season 1 ended with "In the Hands of the Prophets"... Still one of my favorite episodes (along with "Far Beyond the Stars" and "In the Pale Moonlight").
I'll wait until it's on Netflix.... "Generic Sci-Fi Action Thriller" just isn't something I'm willing to pay to see in the theaters. Not worth the time or money.
I would rather have no Trek for ~20-ish years than bad Trek. Bad Trek lowers the standards and takes a shit on the legacy of TOS, TNG, DS9, etc..
IMHO The best two of the "Main Universe" movies were Wrath of Khan and First Contact. Both had a lot of tense action and fantastic (for the time) special effects, but they still had fantastic writing and plots that included ethical and moral dilemmas as well as emotional ones. That, to me, is what a good Star Trek movie should strive to do.
That was also before both Cable and Satellite were as widely available as they are now (rare in 1980, almost ubiquitous now), so PBS arguably had a larger and more diverse viewer-base back in 1980 (and even 1990).
... that a dude who is totally obsessed with space and Sci-Fi in general would be producing this? Especially when said dude clearly has the pull needed with Fox to get this off the ground; something Neil deGrasse Tyson and Ann Druyan clearly lack. Without MacFarlane this project would have, at best, been produced by PBS and seen by relatively few people.
Critically acclaimed but didn't do well in ratings. One of the problems is that it really was a show structured for binge watching. Sometimes they would setup a joke in an episode that wouldn't pay off until 3 episodes later.
Personally, I loved it, but I caught it after it was cancelled when I rented it on DVD.
Slashdot Mirror
By letting you know who's been stalking you, that makes it less creepy and more transparent than Facebook. So 10 recruiters and a handful of people with stealth accounts saw my LinkedIn profile.... I only use it to keep my resumé out there anyways. It's not like they're going to get the latest updates on what I think about [insert politically/socially charged topic here].
You claim that Apple's market-share is nowhere near collapsing while at the same time comparing them to RIM making money while their market share was collapsing. This seems like a faulty comparison to me. You shouldn't need to see explosive increases in revenue. Those are unsustainable over the long-term. Look at the raw numbers behind the percentages. Apple has grown significantly in terms of # of customers since the days when they had nearly 50% of the Smartphone and Tablet markets.
....... Lumping them all together and then using that to judge the health of Apple is misleading and dishonest.
Comparing Apple (a single company) to all of Android (many Manufacturers) is faulty to start with. A fairer comparison would be Apple vs Samsung vs Motorola vs LG vs HTC vs
Market Share != Profit Share.... Hell Market Share doesn't even imply Profit Share. The two things are completely unrelated. Sometimes (maybe even most of the time) there is a correlation, but so far that has not held true in this particular market. Apple has never had more than 20% of the "PC" market and yet they're the most profitable (and in my mind, most successful) "PC" Manufacturer on the market (and I'm using "PC" in the Generic and not the Microsoft-specific form). They've proven you don't need to have 80%+ Market Share to be a success or a hit or wildly profitable. Android has proven the opposite in that having 80% market share doesn't mean it's a gigantic party for all involved.
Samsung makes money hand-over-fist by almost literally copying Apple. They focused on a handful of models that they update annually (the Galaxy S/Note/Tab lines), just like Apple has with the iPhone, iPad, and iPod. They started an Ad campaign poking fun at Apple, just like Apple did with the Mac vs PC ads back in the day. Samsung owns most of their own supply chain to minimize production costs, while Apple relies on bulk purchases and promises of future business to drive down prices in their supply chain (they both also use Foxconn for some of their manufacturing).
Everyone else in the smartphone and tablet market is struggling. Some are making money, but its pennies by comparison to Apple or Samsung.
Apple and Samsung had a combined Profit Share of 104% last quarter.... They have this impossible seeming share because most (read: not all) competitors are either making very little profit by comparison or are taking losses. In the case of LG, HTC, and Motorola, some of Samsung's "major" Android competitors, they're all skating on thin ice or have been taking losses for some time.
There is a reason Apple stopped focusing on Android in general when it comes to their Patent Litigation, and the same goes for Samsung.... They're focusing on each other and not the rest of the Android community. If it were Apple vs. Android in terms of Profit Share (Market Share is worth nothing if your Profit Share is shit), then Apple is winning.... If it were Apple vs. Samsung.... Then the battle is very close, and it is hard to determine a clear victor... and as a consumer and a software dev, I don't want there to be a clear winner. Competition is a GOOD thing. When will you jack-holes get that through your heads? Seriously. Android is all the better now BECAUSE of Apple, and the reverse is also true (iOS is better because competing with Android has forced it to be).
The problem with RIM was that their entire business was tied up in Mobile Devices. They were the "King of the Market" (meaning they had no real competition and could basically decide the market's direction at will) for a LONG time. Then, as if overnight, they weren't and they didn't know how do deal with that. They made a lot of bad moves. Apple has yet to go anywhere near that path. They know they aren't the "King of the Market", though they might like to be. The same goes for Samsung and Google... They know Android isn't the "King of the Market", but they want it to be. This is a good thing, as it forces both groups to innovate new software and hardware features.
I can hate a product without hating the parent company that creates/owns the product.
Basic logic... Try it sometime.
How is Google profiting from Android? Maybe Google Play is profitable, but it's profits pale in comparison to the Apple App Store since most apps on Play are free and the one's that aren't don't see nearly the number of downloads they do from Apple.
And that's mostly because Samsung owns most of their supply chain (reducing production costs) and has started to focus on the Galaxy S/Tab/Note lines for mobile devices (reducing design costs). Everyone else has a bunch of different product lines and release new models every few months (reducing consumer confidence in them).
And yet most Android manufacturers are taking a loss right now... so having a larger market share isn't working out too well for them... The one exception seems to be Samsung, but only because they borrowed a page from Apple's Marketing department and started making fun of the competition (from a conceptual point-of-view the Samsung ad's making fun of the lines for the latest iDevice aren't that different from the Mac vs PC ads). Samsung is even starting to follow Apple's device announcement/release schedule.
People keep saying Android is eating Apple's lunch, yet Apple had revenues of $35.6 Billion of which $6.9 Billion was profit... And that was during a down quarter when they had no new devices released and sales started to drop off as people wait for the next iDevice. $6.9 Billion... with a 'B'.... That's a lot of money. They're hardly in any financial pain over Android's growth.
How does hating Java lead to hating Oracle?
There was a TED Talk on Motivation a few years ago... RSAnimate got a hold of it and made this YouTube video. It pretty much backs up everything you just mentioned.
Apple is dishonest for offering people pre-launch access to a new device for review purposes? Last I checked this is a common practice in consumer electronics. It's also something I've never heard of Apple actually doing. IIRC, for the first few iterations of the iPhone it was a cause for grumbles among the "media elite".
Yeah, they've never needed to upgrade the original HDD. They mostly use it for Internet, E-Mail, and MS Office, so an SSD wouldn't buy them much.
You mean like that shiny new Mac Pro they announced at WWDC last month? The machine for a niche market that Apple recognizes is an important niche for them to hold on to? There were some complaints about the lack of upgradability (have to my their specialized parts if you want to do it yourself), but Apple is also trying out modular, external upgrades via Thunderbolt. This is actually an old idea getting a refresh with some new technology that might make it more marketable/effective. Apple has been selling a ton of non-self-upgradable laptops & desktops for years... Why would they stop now? Obviously this is something that most average consumers don't care about (hint: they want the things they pay for to "just work").
You can only re-invent the wheel so many different ways.... They're trying to come out with new and more innovative ideas. Their product suite grows more interconnected/interoperable with every new release. Honestly, they're doing a better job of this than Google or Microsoft at the moment.
"Rational Profits" != Exponential Sales Growth over a Sustained Period of Time
They *have* Market Share right now. They're making *rational profits* right now. Sounds like the strategy is working as planned. Once market share stabilizes the number of sales/quarter should start to drop and eventually stabilize at a reasonable level.
Apple's Strategy has never been Sales Growth (as that's not a sustainable long-term strategy). It has always been to make quality products that customers will pay a premium for. This strategy dug the company out from near bankruptcy and molded it into the industry power-house it is today. They don't need to have more than a 50% Market Share in order to make a ton of money and they don't need their profits to grow every quarter. The fact that they still had a VERY profitable quarter compared to most of their competitors should be evidence enough of that.
If nobody was buying, then the sales drop-off would be MUCH steeper. I think the issue is that they didn't have any significant updates/upgrades released this quarter (the new Mac Pro was announced, but not actually released yet).
The rest of the drop is probably due to most of the market that was going to switch, already has... Apple Computers require replacement by the average consumer far less often than PC's from places like Dell. For example, my parents have had the same iMac since 2007. It has never needed to go into the Apple Store for service and still receives regular software updates (originally ran 10.5, currently running 10.6, but a direct upgrade to 10.8 is available should they ever need/want it.. not sure if 10.9 will be available for it or not). Given that it's now 2013, this is a 6-year-old machine. In the 6 years prior to this iMac they went through 2 different Dell Desktops and an HP Laptop (which each cost nearly as much as the iMac did in 2007). This kind of product longevity will lead to an eventual drop in sales as their market share begins to stabilize (ie: isn't seeing "start-up-like" growth). This at least explains the drop-off in their Mac sales; people expect a mid-year update sometime in the next quarter or two and are willing to either wait for the new model or for the sell-off price-drop that always precedes them. That or maybe they waited for the "Back-To-School" sales that typically start after the 2nd quarter ends.
When it comes to the decline in Mobile Sales... Not all their customers upgrade annually. Personally, I go for every-other release (effectively every 2 years) to maximize my carrier subsidy and get the most "bang" for my $. A lot of consumers will also hold off upgrading iOS devices if they expect a new model will be released soon, considering that September seems to be iOS Device Release/Announcement Month... that would explain a drop in sales both in the last quarter and in the current.
She was big in the '90s and early 2000's. She was even in an episode of Buffy (IIRC it was Season 6 or 7 and she was the performer at some club).
Even if that were the case, MediaNet would still be responsible for damages. "There was a bug in the software" is a pretty flimsy excuse...
Which is why my all-time favorite Sci-Fi Movie is Forbidden Planet. Just great story telling. Even Star Trek took influences from it (those Stasis Beam things inspired the design of the Transporter), and occasionally made references to the Altair system.
That happened later, after Season 3. When Voyager started it was still Syndicated. Then with UPN, Paramount *WAS* the network, so not much really changed from that perspective.
The problem with Enterprise was the whole Temporal Cold War non-sense they were doing. I would have preferred something focusing on the clashing cultures of the races that would later found the Federation. Maybe do some time-jumps to get a couple seasons in the Romulan War, then end the series with the Founding of the Federation. Would have been interesting. The semi-loose affiliations in the early series could have been a means of commenting on modern international relations.
Some episodes were awful, it was the 60's and they were beholden to the network. Some episodes were really REALLY good. Both Pilots were really good (the first being turned into The Menagerie later in the 1st season). Obsession was particularly good. Yeah, ok, the cloud-of-doom enemy was cheesy, but that wasn't the point. The point was Kirk going all Ahab about it.
One of the reasons Paramount went with pure Syndication for TNG, DS9, and Voyager was that they wouldn't be beholden to Network Execs. They were free to make the show they wanted, how they wanted it. After they got through the initial growing pains, the show really started to shine. It's entertaining and engaging, even in Season 2's "The Measure of a Man"... An episode with absolutely no action. It's almost purely dialog, but damn is it good dialog and largely considered one of the best episodes of the series. DS9 Season 1 ended with "In the Hands of the Prophets"... Still one of my favorite episodes (along with "Far Beyond the Stars" and "In the Pale Moonlight").
I'll wait until it's on Netflix.... "Generic Sci-Fi Action Thriller" just isn't something I'm willing to pay to see in the theaters. Not worth the time or money.
I would rather have no Trek for ~20-ish years than bad Trek. Bad Trek lowers the standards and takes a shit on the legacy of TOS, TNG, DS9, etc..
IMHO The best two of the "Main Universe" movies were Wrath of Khan and First Contact. Both had a lot of tense action and fantastic (for the time) special effects, but they still had fantastic writing and plots that included ethical and moral dilemmas as well as emotional ones. That, to me, is what a good Star Trek movie should strive to do.
That was also before both Cable and Satellite were as widely available as they are now (rare in 1980, almost ubiquitous now), so PBS arguably had a larger and more diverse viewer-base back in 1980 (and even 1990).
... that a dude who is totally obsessed with space and Sci-Fi in general would be producing this? Especially when said dude clearly has the pull needed with Fox to get this off the ground; something Neil deGrasse Tyson and Ann Druyan clearly lack. Without MacFarlane this project would have, at best, been produced by PBS and seen by relatively few people.
Critically acclaimed but didn't do well in ratings. One of the problems is that it really was a show structured for binge watching. Sometimes they would setup a joke in an episode that wouldn't pay off until 3 episodes later.
Personally, I loved it, but I caught it after it was cancelled when I rented it on DVD.