I still cling to the "Moon is made of cheese" theory, though the thought of two moons colliding does seem intriguing, especially if one was made of Colby and the other Monterey-Jack.
Why do you think that it is that Apple is not going after Microsoft at all on that one? Maybe because it's a radically different interface design, built from the ground up to occupy the same space without just copying the most popular platform.
My guess would be because Microsoft has a much deeper patent portfolio (believe it or not, Apple didn't invent EVERYTHING). Apple tangled with MS in court before and got their asses handed to them on a platter. Another reason could be the MS has not managed to garner enough of the market to pose a threat to Apple.
Apple fanbois like to have it both ways. First they say Android wholesale copied the iOS UI, then they rant on about how much better (inferring "different") the iOS UI is. I develop on both the iOS and Android platforms and there is absolutely nothing vaguely similar between the two at the API level, so sorry, your "copying" accusation just doesn't hold water.
Have you done any WP7 development? You're point about WP7 being "built from the ground up" is completely bogus. WP7 development is as close to Windows.Net development as possible, given the differences in devices.
My question to you is, do you dislike innovation? It seems to me that if you want Apple to continue to innovate, you would welcome the Android competition (including Samsung) because no other platform is in a position to place as much pressure on Apple to keep improving. Using the courts to shield them from competition is not my idea of innovation.
I can't help but think of how much I have to pay For microsoft office. You know, the product that used to come free with Windows?
hooray choices!
When did MSOffice ever come "free" with windows? I remember MS Works being free, and I've seen trial versions of MS Office preloaded, but I've never seen MSOffice given away for free.
100 billion in profits on 1 trillion in sales means you have 10% margin out of that 90% is overhead. And you are making 1% profit.
Not sure I follow your math here. 100 billion in profits on 1 trillion in sales means you have 10% margin, true. But the 90% overhead you speak of is not part of profits. Profits are what is left AFTER overhead. What did I miss?
Seriously, the volume of venom and vitriol whenever Apple does ANYTHING is ridiculous.
Agreed. You Apple fanbois should really take a chill pill.
There are a dozen handset and tablet makers whom Apple is not suing for anything
Really? Are you not aware of the Apple, Microsoft, Oracle alliance that purchased the Nortel patents with the intent of using them against Google? How about Apple and Microsoft's suit against Motorola?
That means that we'd be stuck spending over $400 for a 3-pack of licenses for machines that totaled $750 in hardware. That's not even remotely going to happen
Why don't you consider Mac as an option?
Maybe because if $400 is out of his budget on $750 in hardware, $3600 for 3 MBPs might be a little out of budget as well. Of course, when it comes to Apple, who cares how much it costs right?
So you're a sysadmin? Great! I have a couple of questions maybe you could help me with.
First, how do I work this foot-peddle thingy with the two buttons and a little roller on it?
Second, where can I get a new coffee cup holder? I broke mine off. You know, the cup holder that pops out of the computer when you press the little button thingy on the front.
I'm no M$ fanboi, but Bill Gates did give away most of his fortune and is trying to cure malaria and what not. Even if his business practices were a bit scummy that's gotta earn him some nice guy points!
Larry Ellison would be more likely to use his fortune to invest in a pharmaceutical company that makes malaria medicine and then start a bunch of mosquito farms...
Gave away most of his fortune? What? In 2010 he was the richest man in the world, for the 17th straight year!. So far in 2011, he's only the 2nd richest, coming in behind Carlos Silm. While I applaud and encourage his philanthropy, let's not get carried away. I once read that if you start from a point in time back in 1975 (when MS was founded), on average he's been making $300/second ever since. This means that if he sees a $1000 bill lying on the floor, it's not worth his time to pick it up!
Having said that however, I do agree that Larry raises the bar for greedy rich bastard to a whole new level.
The Tea Party is the best thing that could happen to Democrats. It's their secret weapon. By the 2012 elections, the Republican party will be down to only a handful of nutcases that can pass their litmus test.
What's the difference human beings and parasitic worms?
One lives in a world of shit, feeding on of the feces of it's host, devoid of intelligence and serving no useful purpose. The other is an invertebrate.
I hate to keep pointing out the obvious, but you Apple fanbois just don't get it. Apple makes tons of money off their hardware (otherwise they wouldn't be in the #1 technology company position now would they?). Part of the reason they are successful in doing so is because there are so many apps for their devices. If I'm a customer trying to decide whether to buy an Android or iOS device, a large part of my criteria is what apps are available it. If the Android device has an app to let me purchase and read Amazon/Kindle books (and I happen to really enjoy that service) but iOS doesn't have that app, I might be inclined to go with Android rather that iOS. It's not about being generous, it's about encouraging app developers (including the big guys like Google and Amazon) to create an app for the iOS platform so customers will purchase more Apple devices. I have no doubt at all that Apple has actually done more damage to their bottom line by adopting these types of policies than they can ever hope to make up by squeezing developer or content providers for a piece of their action. In fact, Apple's policies are probably one of the main reasons for the success of Android.
Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck?
By your own statement, that 'someone else' makes 70%, with no marketing or distribution cost whatsoever.
I think you forgot that Apple is a for-profit enterprise, with public shareholder backing. If they aren't doing everything they can within the law to maximize their shareholder investment, then the management should be fired.
This applies to all corporations, private equity firms, and small businesses the world over. Right or wrong, it's called capitalism; you might have heard of it.
Yep. I've heard of it, perhaps you should learn about it rather than repeating untruths. First, the reality is that there is no legal requirement for corporations to maximize shareholder value. The only legal obligations corporations have to their shareholders is what they specify in their shareholder agreement (their so-called list of objectives). Their list of objectives can be any (legal) objective at all. Obviously most for-profit corporations do seek to maximize shareholder value because it they don't, their management will get canned by the shareholders. However, that's not even the reason for my objection. There are many ways corporations can go about pursuing the goal of increasing shareholder value. There is no legal requirement that Apple screw indy developers and squeeze them to the point where there is no profit to be made, simply because the app store already has enough apps to push their hardware, they don't really give a damn it there are any more. There are intangible items such as good will toward the developers that create the apps that make people want to purchase your product.
Second, if I perceive a corporation is abusing it's position or just being a dick by implementing draconian policies, I have the right (maybe even obligation) to speak out as loud as I can in hopes that enough people will see it, agree with it and raise enough hell it so the corporation changes their position. Maybe you're OK with their policies and that's fine. I'm not, and I intend to make that known as loudly as I can.
If Apple added the following to their EULA, I suppose you'd be just fine with it.
"By using this service, you agree that all future purchases of any kind will be conducted through the Apple App Store and that you agree to the terms and conditions therein. Any attempt to purchase goods or services through any other means, electronic or otherwise, is a violation of this agreement which could result in termination of this agreement, criminal prosecution, or euthanasia by suitable means as determined by management.
The act of reading this agreement is sufficient indication that you are using the device and are thereby legally bound to this agreement. Apple has already collected your device location and will use whatever means necessary to protect its interests up to and including euthanasia as outlined above. This legal remedy may also be extended to others within your vicinity at the sole discretion of Apple Corporation.
I don't about you but my impression is that building the data centers is not cheap. Since that report, Apple has building data centers for their App Store as well as the iCloud offering for estimates of $1B a piece.
I have no idea how much Apple will pay for their data centers (though 1B apiece seems to be a bit much), but I do know one thing. Apple would not be building them it if it were not expected to be a profitable venture. All I can say is WAKE UP! Apple has passed Microsoft in terms of Market cap. Microsoft employs 93,000 employees, has a widely diverse product line as well as service organizations as well as a fairly profitable gaming division. They provide enterprise software that runs a sizable portion of the worlds businesses and still maintain about 85% marketshare for desktop computers. Microsoft is just about everywhere.
Apple, on the other hand employs about 34,000 employees, has a primary product line of about a dozen desktop or laptop machines, an mp3 player, smartphone and tablet. Yet they were able to surpass Microsoft handily and continue on a rapid rise.
I'm all for companies doing well and it's good to see periodic shakeups in the industry just to keep things fresh, but I can only see one explanation for Apple's meteoric rise and that is an enormous profit margin on all their products. People who purchase a MacBook Pros actually feel good about paying $1300 for a 13" laptop with 250GB drive, 2GB RAM and a dual core CPU. OTOH one can pick up a DELL XPS with 17" display, 750GB drive, 6GB RAM and i7 quad core CPU for the same price. DELL is able to do this and still make a profit (even after paying MS the licensing fee for Win7). I realize that Apple puts it in a prettier box, but it ain't that damn much prettier. And spare me the fanboi rhetoric about how much better OSX is than Win7. That is a pile of steaming BS. I use both on a daily basis (because my work requires it) and I personally prefer the Win7 UI hands down to OSX, but I'm intelligent enough to realize that different people have different tastes (to be perfectly honest, I even prefer Ubuntu to OSX).
But Apple has a complete monopoly of the iOS device market
By definition, they are allowed to control their own products. That is not called a monopoly. Otherwise the term "monopoly" becomes meaningless, since every company would be a monopoly.
Ummm, I recall Microsoft being called up on antitrust charges because they tried to give preferential treatment to IE on THEIR product and discouraged other browsers. I agreed with the charges at the time because I did think it to be unfair. I guess this doesn't apply to Apple because, well because they're Apple. Praise be to Jobs.
Hold on there mister. Did you just type that particular configuration of letters "A p p l e" together in a word? I regret to inform you that you have now violated Apple's trademark and can expect notification from our legal council.
BTW, if anyone hasn't seen this, ya gotta take a look (not a goatse, I promise). I especially got a kick out of the last part (NAZI impersonation)
Apple runs the app store (like the regular iTunes store) at near break even levels.
And you have the temerity to claim I'm ignorant? Even the citation you give shows that the app store made has contributed $189 Million since it opened. Granted, for a company with its revenues that may be small change, but only a lunatic can claim that a $189 Million profit is "just breaking even". Poor apple. Maybe, we should all chip in to support this charitable organization.
I wonder how many iPhones would have sold if there were no independent apps available for it? I'd credit the apps in the app store at least as much as Apples hardware for catapulting the company to the top of the food chain. True to Apple's image, they stick their finger in the eye of the indy developers that helped make them a success.
AFAIK, Microsoft hasn't changed anything. I still consider them as evil as ever. It's just that Apple has surpassed them on the list of companies I'd like to see burn in hell.
Slashdot Mirror
I still cling to the "Moon is made of cheese" theory, though the thought of two moons colliding does seem intriguing, especially if one was made of Colby and the other Monterey-Jack.
Why do you think that it is that Apple is not going after Microsoft at all on that one? Maybe because it's a radically different interface design, built from the ground up to occupy the same space without just copying the most popular platform.
My guess would be because Microsoft has a much deeper patent portfolio (believe it or not, Apple didn't invent EVERYTHING). Apple tangled with MS in court before and got their asses handed to them on a platter. Another reason could be the MS has not managed to garner enough of the market to pose a threat to Apple.
Apple fanbois like to have it both ways. First they say Android wholesale copied the iOS UI, then they rant on about how much better (inferring "different") the iOS UI is. I develop on both the iOS and Android platforms and there is absolutely nothing vaguely similar between the two at the API level, so sorry, your "copying" accusation just doesn't hold water.
Have you done any WP7 development? You're point about WP7 being "built from the ground up" is completely bogus. WP7 development is as close to Windows .Net development as possible, given the differences in devices.
My question to you is, do you dislike innovation? It seems to me that if you want Apple to continue to innovate, you would welcome the Android competition (including Samsung) because no other platform is in a position to place as much pressure on Apple to keep improving. Using the courts to shield them from competition is not my idea of innovation.
I can't help but think of how much I have to pay For microsoft office. You know, the product that used to come free with Windows?
hooray choices!
When did MSOffice ever come "free" with windows? I remember MS Works being free, and I've seen trial versions of MS Office preloaded, but I've never seen MSOffice given away for free.
100 billion in profits on 1 trillion in sales means you have 10% margin out of that 90% is overhead. And you are making 1% profit.
Not sure I follow your math here. 100 billion in profits on 1 trillion in sales means you have 10% margin, true. But the 90% overhead you speak of is not part of profits. Profits are what is left AFTER overhead. What did I miss?
Seriously, the volume of venom and vitriol whenever Apple does ANYTHING is ridiculous.
Agreed. You Apple fanbois should really take a chill pill.
There are a dozen handset and tablet makers whom Apple is not suing for anything
Really? Are you not aware of the Apple, Microsoft, Oracle alliance that purchased the Nortel patents with the intent of using them against Google? How about Apple and Microsoft's suit against Motorola?
Apple has a very big and growing market in the hole world that is increasing day by day.
I'm glad I don't live in the "hole" world. Sounds like a bad porn movie.
Three words.
Pot
Kettle
Black
I would put them in a sentence for you, but I'm afraid I might get sued by Apple.
They did, after all, invent the touchscreen. Hell, they invented the screen itself. They probably invented glass and maybe even the finger.
That means that we'd be stuck spending over $400 for a 3-pack of licenses for machines that totaled $750 in hardware. That's not even remotely going to happen
Why don't you consider Mac as an option?
Maybe because if $400 is out of his budget on $750 in hardware, $3600 for 3 MBPs might be a little out of budget as well. Of course, when it comes to Apple, who cares how much it costs right?
So you're a sysadmin? Great! I have a couple of questions maybe you could help me with.
First, how do I work this foot-peddle thingy with the two buttons and a little roller on it?
Second, where can I get a new coffee cup holder? I broke mine off. You know, the cup holder that pops out of the computer when you press the little button thingy on the front.
Thanks in advance.
I'm no M$ fanboi, but Bill Gates did give away most of his fortune and is trying to cure malaria and what not. Even if his business practices were a bit scummy that's gotta earn him some nice guy points! Larry Ellison would be more likely to use his fortune to invest in a pharmaceutical company that makes malaria medicine and then start a bunch of mosquito farms ...
Gave away most of his fortune? What? In 2010 he was the richest man in the world, for the 17th straight year!. So far in 2011, he's only the 2nd richest, coming in behind Carlos Silm. While I applaud and encourage his philanthropy, let's not get carried away. I once read that if you start from a point in time back in 1975 (when MS was founded), on average he's been making $300/second ever since. This means that if he sees a $1000 bill lying on the floor, it's not worth his time to pick it up!
Having said that however, I do agree that Larry raises the bar for greedy rich bastard to a whole new level.
You forgot:
Going away anytime soon? Nope.
That place is entirely dysfunctional since the last election.
No really unexpected. Republicans can't afford to allow Obama to be successful, even if it means destroying the country in the process.
The Tea Party is the best thing that could happen to Democrats. It's their secret weapon. By the 2012 elections, the Republican party will be down to only a handful of nutcases that can pass their litmus test.
Right. Out the entire diatribe, the "Christ on a fucking pogo stick" was the only thing that made any sense.
...and quiet filled the room as Nemo picked himself off the floor, wiping the sweat from his brow
"I'm rubber and your glue, anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you" he shouted as he picked up his marbles and ran out the door.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Atheism dates back at least to 500 BCE
Interesting. I would have thought Atheism has been around for about 12 billion years - right up until the time someone thought up the "god" idea.
What's the difference human beings and parasitic worms?
One lives in a world of shit, feeding on of the feces of it's host, devoid of intelligence and serving no useful purpose. The other is an invertebrate.
I hate to keep pointing out the obvious, but you Apple fanbois just don't get it. Apple makes tons of money off their hardware (otherwise they wouldn't be in the #1 technology company position now would they?). Part of the reason they are successful in doing so is because there are so many apps for their devices. If I'm a customer trying to decide whether to buy an Android or iOS device, a large part of my criteria is what apps are available it. If the Android device has an app to let me purchase and read Amazon/Kindle books (and I happen to really enjoy that service) but iOS doesn't have that app, I might be inclined to go with Android rather that iOS. It's not about being generous, it's about encouraging app developers (including the big guys like Google and Amazon) to create an app for the iOS platform so customers will purchase more Apple devices. I have no doubt at all that Apple has actually done more damage to their bottom line by adopting these types of policies than they can ever hope to make up by squeezing developer or content providers for a piece of their action. In fact, Apple's policies are probably one of the main reasons for the success of Android.
Would it really f'in kill them if they let someone else make a buck? By your own statement, that 'someone else' makes 70%, with no marketing or distribution cost whatsoever.
I think you forgot that Apple is a for-profit enterprise, with public shareholder backing. If they aren't doing everything they can within the law to maximize their shareholder investment, then the management should be fired.
This applies to all corporations, private equity firms, and small businesses the world over. Right or wrong, it's called capitalism; you might have heard of it.
Yep. I've heard of it, perhaps you should learn about it rather than repeating untruths. First, the reality is that there is no legal requirement for corporations to maximize shareholder value. The only legal obligations corporations have to their shareholders is what they specify in their shareholder agreement (their so-called list of objectives). Their list of objectives can be any (legal) objective at all. Obviously most for-profit corporations do seek to maximize shareholder value because it they don't, their management will get canned by the shareholders. However, that's not even the reason for my objection. There are many ways corporations can go about pursuing the goal of increasing shareholder value. There is no legal requirement that Apple screw indy developers and squeeze them to the point where there is no profit to be made, simply because the app store already has enough apps to push their hardware, they don't really give a damn it there are any more. There are intangible items such as good will toward the developers that create the apps that make people want to purchase your product.
Second, if I perceive a corporation is abusing it's position or just being a dick by implementing draconian policies, I have the right (maybe even obligation) to speak out as loud as I can in hopes that enough people will see it, agree with it and raise enough hell it so the corporation changes their position. Maybe you're OK with their policies and that's fine. I'm not, and I intend to make that known as loudly as I can.
If Apple added the following to their EULA, I suppose you'd be just fine with it.
The fact that you apparently only develop for Mac and/or Apple devices speaks volumes. You're breadth of experience is duly noted.
I don't about you but my impression is that building the data centers is not cheap. Since that report, Apple has building data centers for their App Store as well as the iCloud offering for estimates of $1B a piece.
I have no idea how much Apple will pay for their data centers (though 1B apiece seems to be a bit much), but I do know one thing. Apple would not be building them it if it were not expected to be a profitable venture. All I can say is WAKE UP! Apple has passed Microsoft in terms of Market cap. Microsoft employs 93,000 employees, has a widely diverse product line as well as service organizations as well as a fairly profitable gaming division. They provide enterprise software that runs a sizable portion of the worlds businesses and still maintain about 85% marketshare for desktop computers. Microsoft is just about everywhere.
Apple, on the other hand employs about 34,000 employees, has a primary product line of about a dozen desktop or laptop machines, an mp3 player, smartphone and tablet. Yet they were able to surpass Microsoft handily and continue on a rapid rise.
I'm all for companies doing well and it's good to see periodic shakeups in the industry just to keep things fresh, but I can only see one explanation for Apple's meteoric rise and that is an enormous profit margin on all their products. People who purchase a MacBook Pros actually feel good about paying $1300 for a 13" laptop with 250GB drive, 2GB RAM and a dual core CPU. OTOH one can pick up a DELL XPS with 17" display, 750GB drive, 6GB RAM and i7 quad core CPU for the same price. DELL is able to do this and still make a profit (even after paying MS the licensing fee for Win7). I realize that Apple puts it in a prettier box, but it ain't that damn much prettier. And spare me the fanboi rhetoric about how much better OSX is than Win7. That is a pile of steaming BS. I use both on a daily basis (because my work requires it) and I personally prefer the Win7 UI hands down to OSX, but I'm intelligent enough to realize that different people have different tastes (to be perfectly honest, I even prefer Ubuntu to OSX).
But Apple has a complete monopoly of the iOS device market
By definition, they are allowed to control their own products. That is not called a monopoly. Otherwise the term "monopoly" becomes meaningless, since every company would be a monopoly.
Ummm, I recall Microsoft being called up on antitrust charges because they tried to give preferential treatment to IE on THEIR product and discouraged other browsers. I agreed with the charges at the time because I did think it to be unfair. I guess this doesn't apply to Apple because, well because they're Apple. Praise be to Jobs.
Hold on there mister. Did you just type that particular configuration of letters "A p p l e" together in a word? I regret to inform you that you have now violated Apple's trademark and can expect notification from our legal council.
BTW, if anyone hasn't seen this, ya gotta take a look (not a goatse, I promise). I especially got a kick out of the last part (NAZI impersonation)
Richard Dreyfuss Reads the iTunes EULA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu0lqUlHEko&feature=related
Apple runs the app store (like the regular iTunes store) at near break even levels.
And you have the temerity to claim I'm ignorant? Even the citation you give shows that the app store made has contributed $189 Million since it opened. Granted, for a company with its revenues that may be small change, but only a lunatic can claim that a $189 Million profit is "just breaking even". Poor apple. Maybe, we should all chip in to support this charitable organization.
I wonder how many iPhones would have sold if there were no independent apps available for it? I'd credit the apps in the app store at least as much as Apples hardware for catapulting the company to the top of the food chain. True to Apple's image, they stick their finger in the eye of the indy developers that helped make them a success.
AFAIK, Microsoft hasn't changed anything. I still consider them as evil as ever. It's just that Apple has surpassed them on the list of companies I'd like to see burn in hell.