Need more? Ask anyone who used to own Nortel or Enron stock.
I keep forgetting how Apple is known for razor thin margins on all of its products and it doesn't add billions in cash to its stockpile every quarter.....
Apple is not a computer company. All their profit comes from the Apple Store and from the iPhone, iPad and iPods. Have a look at the numbers for their Mac sales and you will see that they are not a big computer company. Never been.
Apple will probably have $100 billion in revenues for this fiscal year. Around 18% - 20% of that comes from Macs. Their Mac business alone would put them around 130 on the Fortune 500.
Forgive me for appreciating organisations that value their customers and don't seek every possible opportunity to boost profits at their expense.
Maybe I buy my hardware from companies that give me good value and yet manage to make sufficient profits anyway. Both parties benefit, and everyone is happy. Funny how that works.
Hardly anything, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was cheaper; an ARM capable of acting as a USB host controller costs less than a 555 timer. Economics of scale can do funny things.
So you expect every dumb accessory including a $3 iPod line-out to RCA cord to come with an ARM chip and someone to program it?
I also don't recall suggesting the iPhone cost more than an equivalent alternate device. I merely suggested that Apple could significantly reduce their prices to give their customers better value.
Yes and every other profit seeking corporation could also reduce their prices and every consumer could voluntarily walk into their bosses office and voluntarily take a pay cut to increase their value to their employee. But that's not how things work in the real world. Companies also don't give away free flying ponies....
The thing is, I don't want my hardware supplier to be making more profit than their competitors. I want my hardware supplier to drop their prices and give me the product at a better price.
It's called better execution. If any other hardware manufacturer could do it. They would too.
But as far as price, I paid $200 for my iPhone 4 -- the same price as a similar Android device at the time and pay the same monthly service charge. Why do I care if the carrier had to pay a larger subsidy?
This is what an Android phone looked like before the iPhone:
"With so many free applications on the Android Market, itâ(TM)s clear that consumers are becoming more accustomed to free (potentially ad-supported) apps. As developers, this creates a bigger challenge if we want to sell apps to generate revenue"
Since Android has more free and ad-supported apps and fewer commercial developers, inevitably the total revenue for the entire market is going to be lower. To look at which platform is more profitable for developers, you need to look at actual profit figures for individual developers. Some developers now make more money on Android than on iOS.
So don't you think there would be more commercial developers if Android users actually paid for stuff?
28% of iOS apps are free versus 58% of Android apps -- which doesn't count for the 1750% difference in revenue.
I mean, it's like saying that the Windows software market is 100x bigger than the Mac software market, therefore Windows developers must make 100x more profit than Mac developers. It just doesn't follow.
Do you have statistics showing Windows users buy 1750% more software than Mac users?
then those of us in the streaming video world also had to build specific streaming solutions just for IOS devices when Android, Windows, and Linux devices can all use the same streams.
They didn't have to build a "custom solution". All they had to do was stream H.264 using a standard HTML 5 video tag (like Vudu did). They chose to use an app for DRM. Hulu and Netflix also use a custom app for Android and WM.
Windows Phones also don't support Flash.
Then there is the reality that only a few developers make a lot of money from the app store and that's provided they don't violate secret app approval rules that have shown to be rather arbitrary.
If you mean by "secret", one that is clearly spelled out when you sign the developers agreement....
Additionally, Google's App market only pulls apps which either violate copyright or are malicious, you will be hard pressed to use that as an argument that Google is equally as anticompetitive as Apple as it's simply not true.
Trying to say developers make more money in one walled garden versus another doesn't really counter the argument presented that walled-gardens are bad ideas anyway.
Silly me for thinking it is actually good to be able to get paid for your work.....
've always loved how "it was because of the record companies". You know, that clearly was the truth, especially with how Apple refused to license their DRM to third parties which would have then allowed one to migrate their media collection to a non-Apple product. Yes, I'm certain that Apple had no interest what-so-ever in a vender lock-in, where if you moved away from their products your entire media collection, and all that money you spent would effectively have been thrown away. And Apple removed the DRM and all that media library vendor lock-in strictly from the kindness of their hearts and not in any way because they could see other competitors which were DRM free that were up and coming and feared losing their monopoly on digital music distribution.
Facts are your friends. Here is the real sequence of events....
1. Apple introduced iTunes. The labels insisted on DRM. SJ said that DRM "didn't work" and was able to negotiate a very lenient use model.
2. In early 2007, the music industry wanted Apple to license FairPlay. Apple said no and SJ posted his "Thoughs on Music" letter on the front page
The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.
3. The music industry wanted a deposit and variable pricing. Apple refused both.
4. EMI agreed to sell DRM free music.
5. Amazon, Walmart, etc. agreed to the industry terms but made no dent in iTunes market share. On the other hand Apple wanted license to sell songs over the cellular. Part of the compromise was variable price music and removing DRM.
Hardly. Does the Ipod use a USB port to play music or charge? It does! Does it use a standard USB connector? It does not! Hence an instant, enormous aftermarket for a proprietary piece of cabling that won't work with anybody else's anything and that gains no particular benefit from the difference
The iPod dock connector has pins for line-in, line-out, video-out, controlling playback etc that can be done by simple sending the correct electrical signals to the correct pins. How much more would it cost to implement that functionality if the accessory required a USB host controller? Any old dumb device can send electrical signals to a connector.
He suggested that Apple's walled garden with consistently anticompetitivever practices was bad for the overall market and becomes increasingly bad as it's popularity grows.
Bad for who? The developers who make over 17x more money on the Apple app store than the Google app market (which has also pulled apps such as emulators etc.)
Business isn't about being the Evil OverLord(tm) that dominates the world. Business is about making money. Apple makes 66% of every dollar in profit in the global phone industry.
If a business was successful based on market share the world's leading PC manufacturer(HP) wouldn't be trying to get out of the business.
It's not about "a warm and fuzzy". Te definition of "winning" for a profit seeking entity is profit. So how is a profit seeking entity that generates more profit than all of its competitors combined, "falling behind"?
I'd also guess that in comparing plans in the US, you're comparing the 4S with the Galaxy S2. However, I'd assume that you can get cheaper Android phones on cheaper plans over there? It'd be pretty crazy if you couldn't. Even on a plan here in Oz, the Galaxy S2 is substantially cheaper than an iPhone 4 (not S); and I can get a Nexus S on a plan cheaper than an iPhone 3GS.
Three of the four major carriers charge the same monthly whether you buy a phone with a subsidy or without. The fourth (struggling) carrier T-Mobile charges you $10/mo less if you bring your own phone.
As far as how the iPhone is doing overseas, Last quarter Apple sold about 21 million phones with around 6 million being activated in the US (according to the two carriers who carried iPhones at the time.
Because the PC market isn't growing, while the smartphone market is. The smartphone market now is the like the PC market back in the late 80s and early 90s.
So it couldn't have anything to do with the 4.9% operating margin of HP's PC division, could it?
Or just maybe -- unlike random Slashdot poster -- real business people know that profit is more important than market share?
I don't see Apple trying to get out of the PC business even though it has maybe 20% of the market share of HP.
"Winning" in business is making a profit. Apple + RIM makes 77% of all mobile profit.
Motorola -- loss money LG - loss money Sony Ericson -- loss money HTC -- made about $565 million (not great) Samsung -- who knows but some of their profit is coming from bada and dumb phones,,
this same cost of components applies equally to all the other tablets out there. so why in god's name are these manufacturers trying to sell these devices at a 300% markup? i don't understand.
Maybe, you're wrong?
Do you really think that if anyone could sell an iPad equivalent for $399 and still make a profit, they wouldn't?
Also, Apple's costs aren't other manufacturers costs....
1. Between iPhones, iPods, iPads, MacBook Airs, AppleTV's etc. Apple is the largest NAND buyer in the world. They get significant discounts from being able to pay cash for a ton on memory at once. It's been estimated that because of Apple's buying power, they get an average of a 15% discount on components over other manufacturers.
2. Speculation is that Apple is buying close to 80% of the current world's capacity of 10" capacity displays. Everyone else is having to fight over scraps at a higher cost.
3. Apple retail stores and online. Apple profits from both the wholesale and retail markups when your buy from Apple. No other manufacturer has 300+ retail stores that *only* sell their products. All of their profit comes from the wholesale markup.
Don't worry, you pay 100% the cost of your iPhone. Your mobile carrier is nice enough to loan you the bulk of the purchase price and then extract it from you over the course of a 2-year contract, at an unspecified interest rate. It's similar to loan sharking, except there's no disclosure.:)
How is that different from any other phone that the carrier sells? In fact, the carrier pays a larger subsidy for $200 iPhone than a $200 Android device and the customer still pays the same monthly amount for the same service.
Apple also comprehensively won the "profit" war back in the day with Mac computers. Guess which platform 94% of the world isn't using today?
So if market share is so important, then why is HP -- the worlds largest PC manufacturer --- trying to get rid if their PC business?
The current trend is looking very much like the 1990s all over again -- Apple with its superior UI getting overrun by a platform which isn't quite as nice, but is distributed amongst many manufacturers and is much cheaper for end users to purchase.
How is Apple getting "overrun" when it makes 2/3's of the world's mobile phone profit. Grosses 17x it's nearest competitor in app sales (see previous response), and makes more selling computers than anyone else in the world?
The fact that I'll be paying less dollars in doing so is just an added bonus:)
(I've never really understood the "more profit" argument from a fanboi perspective -- the fact that Apple is making users pay more for their phones is hardly a reason for the end users to brag. It's a great reason if you're seeking to buy Apple shares, it's not a good reason if you're in the market for a phone...)
How much "less" are you paying for your Android phone than the equivalent iPhone (if you're in the US)> The fact is, that the carrier is paying a higher subsidy for the iPhone and you're still paying the same amount for your Android as the equivalent iPhone and your monthly bill is the same.
Slashdot Mirror
You have heard of the iPod haven't you? How is Apple "losing ground", with 66% of the worldwide industry profits in cell phones?
Unlike you, I've actually read their financial statements....
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTA0NDQ2fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1
(Enterprise Servers, Storage and Networking + PSG) / Total Segments = 38%
So less than half of their "segment" income comes from computers.
HP is also not a computer company then since less than 6% of its profit comes from the Personal Systems Group.
I keep forgetting how Apple is known for razor thin margins on all of its products and it doesn't add billions in cash to its stockpile every quarter.....
Apple will probably have $100 billion in revenues for this fiscal year. Around 18% - 20% of that comes from Macs. Their Mac business alone would put them around 130 on the Fortune 500.
Yes, it's call trusting expert opinions more than non-expert opinions. That's how things work outside of Wikipedia.....
So should I trust the assessment of the Random_Slashdot_User_202216 or John Carmack and Rovio?
Which company would that be?
So you expect every dumb accessory including a $3 iPod line-out to RCA cord to come with an ARM chip and someone to program it?
Yes and every other profit seeking corporation could also reduce their prices and every consumer could voluntarily walk into their bosses office and voluntarily take a pay cut to increase their value to their employee. But that's not how things work in the real world. Companies also don't give away free flying ponies....
It's called better execution. If any other hardware manufacturer could do it. They would too.
But as far as price, I paid $200 for my iPhone 4 -- the same price as a similar Android device at the time and pay the same monthly service charge. Why do I care if the carrier had to pay a larger subsidy?
This is what an Android phone looked like before the iPhone:
http://gizmodo.com/334909/google-android-prototype-in-the-wild
Why did it take Apple to introduce the iPhone design if it were so obvious?
Right because the Android market has become such a developers paradise in the past year.....
http://makingmoneywithandroid.com/2011/05/google-android-marketplace-vs-apple-app-store-latest-report/
"With so many free applications on the Android Market, itâ(TM)s clear that consumers are becoming more accustomed to free (potentially ad-supported) apps. As developers, this creates a bigger challenge if we want to sell apps to generate revenue"
http://wmpoweruser.com/angry-birds-developers-paid-content-just-doesnt-work-on-android/
"Paid content just doesn't work on Android"
http://www.pcworld.com/article/212772/id_softwares_john_carmack_ios_vs_android.html
So don't you think there would be more commercial developers if Android users actually paid for stuff?
As far as the free versus paid....
http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/05/distimo-june-2010/
28% of iOS apps are free versus 58% of Android apps -- which doesn't count for the 1750% difference in revenue.
Do you have statistics showing Windows users buy 1750% more software than Mac users?
As far as your link. Google also pulled an app for allowing a third party in-app payment solution....
http://phandroid.com/2011/02/25/google-pulls-popular-voicemail-app-for-in-app-payment-violation/
They didn't have to build a "custom solution". All they had to do was stream H.264 using a standard HTML 5 video tag (like Vudu did). They chose to use an app for DRM. Hulu and Netflix also use a custom app for Android and WM.
Windows Phones also don't support Flash.
If you mean by "secret", one that is clearly spelled out when you sign the developers agreement....
So was this malicious?
http://phandroid.com/2011/02/25/google-pulls-popular-voicemail-app-for-in-app-payment-violation/
Silly me for thinking it is actually good to be able to get paid for your work.....
've always loved how "it was because of the record companies". You know, that clearly was the truth, especially with how Apple refused to license their DRM to third parties which would have then allowed one to migrate their media collection to a non-Apple product. Yes, I'm certain that Apple had no interest what-so-ever in a vender lock-in, where if you moved away from their products your entire media collection, and all that money you spent would effectively have been thrown away. And Apple removed the DRM and all that media library vendor lock-in strictly from the kindness of their hearts and not in any way because they could see other competitors which were DRM free that were up and coming and feared losing their monopoly on digital music distribution.
Facts are your friends. Here is the real sequence of events....
1. Apple introduced iTunes. The labels insisted on DRM. SJ said that DRM "didn't work" and was able to negotiate a very lenient use model.
2. In early 2007, the music industry wanted Apple to license FairPlay. Apple said no and SJ posted his "Thoughs on Music" letter on the front page
http://macdailynews.com/2007/02/06/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_posts_rare_open_letter_thoughts_on_music/
The iPod dock connector has pins for line-in, line-out, video-out, controlling playback etc that can be done by simple sending the correct electrical signals to the correct pins. How much more would it cost to implement that functionality if the accessory required a USB host controller? Any old dumb device can send electrical signals to a connector.
Bad for who? The developers who make over 17x more money on the Apple app store than the Google app market (which has also pulled apps such as emulators etc.)
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/
Just maybe, people prefer Apple's approach to Google's....
Business isn't about being the Evil OverLord(tm) that dominates the world. Business is about making money. Apple makes 66% of every dollar in profit in the global phone industry.
If a business was successful based on market share the world's leading PC manufacturer(HP) wouldn't be trying to get out of the business.
It's not about "a warm and fuzzy". Te definition of "winning" for a profit seeking entity is profit. So how is a profit seeking entity that generates more profit than all of its competitors combined, "falling behind"?
Three of the four major carriers charge the same monthly whether you buy a phone with a subsidy or without. The fourth (struggling) carrier T-Mobile charges you $10/mo less if you bring your own phone.
As far as how the iPhone is doing overseas, Last quarter Apple sold about 21 million phones with around 6 million being activated in the US (according to the two carriers who carried iPhones at the time.
So it couldn't have anything to do with the 4.9% operating margin of HP's PC division, could it?
Or just maybe -- unlike random Slashdot poster -- real business people know that profit is more important than market share?
I don't see Apple trying to get out of the PC business even though it has maybe 20% of the market share of HP.
BTW, Apple is growing PC sales quite nicely.....
http://allthingsd.com/20110217/mac-growth-outpaces-market-for-19th-straight-quarter/
http://www.asymco.com/2011/07/29/apple-captured-two-thirds-of-available-mobile-phone-profits-in-q2/
"Winning" in business is making a profit. Apple + RIM makes 77% of all mobile profit.
Motorola -- loss money
LG - loss money
Sony Ericson -- loss money
HTC -- made about $565 million (not great)
Samsung -- who knows but some of their profit is coming from bada and dumb phones,,
Maybe, you're wrong?
Do you really think that if anyone could sell an iPad equivalent for $399 and still make a profit, they wouldn't?
Also, Apple's costs aren't other manufacturers costs....
1. Between iPhones, iPods, iPads, MacBook Airs, AppleTV's etc. Apple is the largest NAND buyer in the world. They get significant discounts from being able to pay cash for a ton on memory at once. It's been estimated that because of Apple's buying power, they get an average of a 15% discount on components over other manufacturers.
2. Speculation is that Apple is buying close to 80% of the current world's capacity of 10" capacity displays. Everyone else is having to fight over scraps at a higher cost.
3. Apple retail stores and online. Apple profits from both the wholesale and retail markups when your buy from Apple. No other manufacturer has 300+ retail stores that *only* sell their products. All of their profit comes from the wholesale markup.
How is that different from any other phone that the carrier sells? In fact, the carrier pays a larger subsidy for $200 iPhone than a $200 Android device and the customer still pays the same monthly amount for the same service.
So if market share is so important, then why is HP -- the worlds largest PC manufacturer --- trying to get rid if their PC business?
How is Apple getting "overrun" when it makes 2/3's of the world's mobile phone profit. Grosses 17x it's nearest competitor in app sales (see previous response), and makes more selling computers than anyone else in the world?
How much "less" are you paying for your Android phone than the equivalent iPhone (if you're in the US)> The fact is, that the carrier is paying a higher subsidy for the iPhone and you're still paying the same amount for your Android as the equivalent iPhone and your monthly bill is the same.