Naturally Chromebooks are selling well - they are basically giving them away. If there is any profit on them, it is very slim. I certainly don't want Apple in the "giving away stuff" market.
Why? you a stockholder, I personally want Good value products not companies taking advantage sue to lack of competition. Personally I am tired of the Duopoly and an glad it is being unsettled if very much alive.
If nobody was buying, then the sales drop-off would be MUCH steeper.
The new reality is people are buying less Apple products all around, what is happening is good old fashioned competition, and I for one have missed it. Apple need to step up, with an innovative product...and I don't mean iTV or iWatch or iwearable...I mean old fashioned reinvent the MAC...and I don't mean making it less upgradable or less compatible.
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....
Steve Jobs disagrees "What ruined Apple was not growth They got very greedy Instead of following the original trajectory of the original vision, which was to make the thing an appliance and get this out there to as many people as possible they went for profits. They made outlandish profits for about four years. What this cost them was their future. What they should have been doing is making rational profits and going for market share.”"
The Chromebook is not in the same league as an Air.. they perform two different functions. If you don't have an internet connection then the Chromebook is somewhat crippled, whereas the Air is stand alone.
The Mac Air has 56% marketshare in the ultraportable segment
Surface RT has 100% of the hybrid desktop market, GNU/Linux had 100% chosen to install market. Chromebook is the bestselling PC (under $300). Again if according to Apples unaudited data summary sales are down 22%; 2% and 7% even with the opposition being mainly Windows 8, its iPAd is not selling as well either.
Losing 7% sales when global PC sales are down 12% is a net market share gain - and they are doing it all at the high end. I'm not sure that's a bad story.
Windows has its own problems with Windows 8. Saying others are doing worse...does not make Apple better. especially when its tablet sales are also taking a massive 14% drop.
Ironically the fasting growing point of the PC market is the sub $300 with chromebook...Linux is quietly gaining converts too.
Your house is not the whole world....apples business strategy is failing...however successful it is around your house. The fact that its computers are seeing a drop in sales 22%; 2% and 7% shows it needs a new one.
Mac is "mid range" for exciting premium products you have to look at companies like google with the Pixel http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromebook-pixel/, this low resolution laptop so electronics is not cutting it. no wonder Apple have had drops of 22%; 2; and 7% over the last three quarters...and the reason they are not selling is not the iPad which is down -14%.
Why is this news, this is just another none upgradeable, overpriced, unwanted connectors; low resolution laptop...sorry electronic trinket, that nobody wants...and the Apple brand is not enough to sell these, and now without a future second hand market.
Apples sales have dropped over the last three quarters 22%; 2%; 7% people are not buying.
The chromebook is exciting at the low end. The surface and windows 8 are exciting (for all the wrong reasons), There are a whole load of exiting cheap ARM devices.
Apple are simply the iPhone company..and even that has a limited shelf life; They should have kept computer in the name.
Not even close NVidia has 18% of the GPU market with Intel at 61.8% and AMD at 20.2%. NVidia is less prolific than you think. Basically 80% of the market can implement it without Nvidia. I don't think they want to do that.
Steve Jobs was responsible for Apple's 2013 bond issue? They've got better tech than I thought.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richkarlgaard/2012/12/10/steve-jobs-warns-apple-dont-be-greedy/ Steve Jobs 1995 "What ruined Apple was not growth They got very greedy Instead of following the original trajectory of the original vision, which was to make the thing an appliance and get this out there to as many people as possible they went for profits. They made outlandish profits for about four years. What this cost them was their future. What they should have been doing is making rational profits and going for market share.”
Apple is now in a market where its competitors have better products; in larger selections; at better prices, and its response...
So yeah when I say its revenues; profits; market share; technical edge; brand value; market cap are all down I tend to lay that responsibility square on Steve Jobs. Who should have embraced american manufacturing, made large sensible Acquisitions, planned for the maturing markets of its products...on the off chance it wasn't able to break into another new market, at an opportune time.
IBonds were a quick fix to its plummeting share price...the corporate rot is still there. Later I may be blaming the new Steve "I got rid of manufacturing" Cook for not stopping the rot, and squandering Billions too late.
Why the hate for iBonds? Is it a general dislike of debt or is there something specific?
Why would I hate that? Peoples language has just got so weak. iBonds were simply a way of limiting the damage of its falling knife share price. It has been fairly stable since...although we will see what happens after this quarters announcement in a couple of days time.
The reality is though I would have rather have seen Apple doing something interesting with their money instead of giving it back to shareholders (and attracting unwanted Government attention for not even paying token tax). Like in context of this article buy Dell and flood the market with good value iMac clones going straight for Microsoft throat just as it treats its hostages to its new tablet interface on the Desktop.
Apple took the safe option...my response is meh, but then this New Apple is all about meh...the magic(best drinking game ever) whether you fell for it or not is dead.
Anyone wanting to buy Dell should have to set up and use one of their awful products for 1 day
Ignoring the usual awful *car* analogy...I mean why describe one industry secondary I do understand with an analogy of one I don't. I bought a Dell monitor recently. It is a no frills,with money off trade in...and was head and shoulders cheaper than anything else in the market, and on the whole perfect.
That said every single person. I have ever spoken at Dell, was unpleasant and wanted to transfer me to someone else as soon as possible. Now here is the thing. that has become the behaviour of *every* company I deal with today.
I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders.
Ironically this was from a time when Apple had failed while wintel had won. Leaving Jobs begging to Microsoft resulting in a settled lawsuit a few million in the bank...and a crippled office port. It only sounds stupid in retrospect because Apple from that dark time (A time I repeatedly point out its returning to), by reinventing itself, doing exciting things, leading in new markets. It became something different...better.
The World has changed since then Wintel are bleeding the PC industry dry with Microsoft & Intel cashing on on 70% gross profit margins...in the Desktop Apps(The Desktop destroyed by Microsoft...living on only in name...Windows) market that is not sustaining it...and Dells slice of the pie (and the Pie) is shrinking...The Days of Dell earning more money than Microsoft are long gone.
This move is about Dell reinventing itself doing exciting things, leading in new markets without the quarterly shareholder distractions (allegedly) , Something Apple is going to learn from in 2 days time.
Hopefully they will have the good sense not to be remain reliant on Wintel.
I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders.
Ironically that is exactly what Apple did with iBonds. Foolishly for exactly the same reasons pursuit of short term profits over market share (long term profits).
Its odd that Apple fans remember this but fail to remember the young Jobs scathing comments regarding this very strategy when it was still a computing company...and then proceeding to follow the same path in his reinvention of Apple as an electronics company.
Apple that everyone loved. Today they're the company that many love to hate.
Except people aren't that emotional. Apple simply produced compelling products the iPod, iPhone and iPad and many here enjoyed their computers before Apple became an electronics company. They market well, and are popular in the media (and shareholders), They are out of favour as their product lines look tired compared to the competition, and the chance of repeated success in new markets looks increasingly unlikely (iwatch, itv, iconsole), and well the share price, profits, revenues, market share, technical edge, brand value are all down.
Pretending that people are randomly emotional about mega corporations is simply weird. People on the whole buy(and respond well to companies) of products which have reasonable value and quality...marketed well, and those products are coming from Google(and their OEMs) not Apple(or Microsoft) who foolishly think their users are cattle.
For their Choosing a Cloud-Based Office Systems http://rcpmag.com/articles/2013/04/23/google-apps-vs-microsoft-office.aspx "In terms of user numbers, Google Apps had about 10 percent of the cloud-office market in 2007, 20 percent in 2009, and between 33 percent and 50 percent in 2012, according to Gartner's analysis." Which again I am going to kindly call it draw.
That is without looking at the servers for Google+; YouTube; Play and Maps where Microsoft does not have a product, or at All those Microsoft servers that deal with activation and updates...and a whole host mysterious information.
The bottom line though is that 4X market share is not right for anything.
I came to a different conclusion(spin) to the summary presented by the New York Times; this is not about protecting "software designers, smartphone makers and the like" (and definitely not in the case of Microsoft, Apple and Nokia who are both PAE as described in the article and form have created mega patent pools with each other).
This is about those same companies (Microsoft, Apple and Nokia) attacking start-up companies; stillborning competition; competition within the IT industry or as the linked article describes outside the industry for simply purchasing consumer products...or building a web page(the example is one that includes a calorie counter). Ballmer threatening Linux users...like that.
I find it depressing that Intellectual Ventures are being scapegoated...when as I see it the worst offenders of the computing Industry(with their own PAE) are portrayed as Victims when they are the worst offenders, and is not the thrust what Edith Ramirez says http://ftc.gov/speeches/ramirez/130620paespeech.pdf
Slashdot Mirror
I think you missed a word. Its computers are seeing a drop in sales growth
Those are unit percentages. Its the opposite of growth. The word is decline.
So you agree that you're wrong, then. Good. Clearly if 56% of consumers are buying the Mac Air instead of an Ultrabook, they're selling a lot of them.
No I think the market segment is a bit of a failure.
Ultra-hyped ultrabooks ultra-flopped in 2012 http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/010713-ultrabooks-265469.html
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/are-ultrabooks-an-epic-failure/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/are-ultrabooks-an-epic-failure/
A year on, Ultrabooks are a worse disaster than most expected http://semiaccurate.com/2012/10/02/a-year-on-ultrabooks-are-a-worse-disaster-than-most-expected/
Remember Ultrabooks? Yeah, That Was A Good Time http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/01/remember-ultrabooks-yeah-that-was-a-good-time/
as I said apples sales are down 22%, 2% and 7%
Naturally Chromebooks are selling well - they are basically giving them away. If there is any profit on them, it is very slim. I certainly don't want Apple in the "giving away stuff" market.
Why? you a stockholder, I personally want Good value products not companies taking advantage sue to lack of competition. Personally I am tired of the Duopoly and an glad it is being unsettled if very much alive.
Yeah, but he's dead now so it doesn't matter what he thinks.
DOJ Wins Ebook Antitrust Case: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2013/07/10/doj-wins-ebook-antitrust-case-whats-next-will-apple-appeal/ "Judge Denise Cote has ruled against Apple in the closely watched ebook price-fixing antitrust case that played out in lower Manhattan in June. The company has been found guilty by the court of colluding with trade book publishers to raise the prices of ebooks at the detriment to consumers."
If nobody was buying, then the sales drop-off would be MUCH steeper.
The new reality is people are buying less Apple products all around, what is happening is good old fashioned competition, and I for one have missed it. Apple need to step up, with an innovative product...and I don't mean iTV or iWatch or iwearable...I mean old fashioned reinvent the MAC...and I don't mean making it less upgradable or less compatible.
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....
Steve Jobs disagrees "What ruined Apple was not growth They got very greedy Instead of following the original trajectory of the original vision, which was to make the thing an appliance and get this out there to as many people as possible they went for profits. They made outlandish profits for about four years. What this cost them was their future. What they should have been doing is making rational profits and going for market share.”"
Wow, I wish my business strategy were failing as successfully as theirs.
I have a feeling that Steve cook and you have a different opinion...stockholders already do.
The Chromebook is not in the same league as an Air .. they perform two different functions. If you don't have an internet connection then the Chromebook is somewhat crippled, whereas the Air is stand alone.
Chrome OS does not require an internet connection
The Mac Air has 56% marketshare in the ultraportable segment
Surface RT has 100% of the hybrid desktop market, GNU/Linux had 100% chosen to install market. Chromebook is the bestselling PC (under $300). Again if according to Apples unaudited data summary sales are down 22%; 2% and 7% even with the opposition being mainly Windows 8, its iPAd is not selling as well either.
Losing 7% sales when global PC sales are down 12% is a net market share gain - and they are doing it all at the high end. I'm not sure that's a bad story.
Windows has its own problems with Windows 8. Saying others are doing worse...does not make Apple better. especially when its tablet sales are also taking a massive 14% drop.
Ironically the fasting growing point of the PC market is the sub $300 with chromebook...Linux is quietly gaining converts too.
I got the 2012 Air when it was released. Since then, my parents each bought one, plus an iMac.
>
http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q1fy13datasum.pdf
http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q2fy13datasum2.pdf
http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q3fy13datasum.pdf
Your house is not the whole world....apples business strategy is failing...however successful it is around your house. The fact that its computers are seeing a drop in sales 22%; 2% and 7% shows it needs a new one.
IMHO the "Mac Premium"
Mac is "mid range" for exciting premium products you have to look at companies like google with the Pixel http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromebook-pixel/, this low resolution laptop so electronics is not cutting it. no wonder Apple have had drops of 22%; 2; and 7% over the last three quarters...and the reason they are not selling is not the iPad which is down -14%.
Why is this news, this is just another none upgradeable, overpriced, unwanted connectors; low resolution laptop...sorry electronic trinket, that nobody wants...and the Apple brand is not enough to sell these, and now without a future second hand market.
Apples sales have dropped over the last three quarters 22%; 2%; 7% people are not buying.
The chromebook is exciting at the low end. The surface and windows 8 are exciting (for all the wrong reasons), There are a whole load of exiting cheap ARM devices.
Apple are simply the iPhone company..and even that has a limited shelf life; They should have kept computer in the name.
NVidia, who own the 50% of the GPU market
Not even close NVidia has 18% of the GPU market with Intel at 61.8% and AMD at 20.2%. NVidia is less prolific than you think. Basically 80% of the market can implement it without Nvidia. I don't think they want to do that.
Steve Jobs was responsible for Apple's 2013 bond issue? They've got better tech than I thought.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richkarlgaard/2012/12/10/steve-jobs-warns-apple-dont-be-greedy/ Steve Jobs 1995 "What ruined Apple was not growth They got very greedy Instead of following the original trajectory of the original vision, which was to make the thing an appliance and get this out there to as many people as possible they went for profits. They made outlandish profits for about four years. What this cost them was their future. What they should have been doing is making rational profits and going for market share.”
Apple is now in a market where its competitors have better products; in larger selections; at better prices, and its response...
Designed by Apple in California http://www.apple.com/designed-by-apple/
So yeah when I say its revenues; profits; market share; technical edge; brand value; market cap are all down I tend to lay that responsibility square on Steve Jobs. Who should have embraced american manufacturing, made large sensible Acquisitions, planned for the maturing markets of its products...on the off chance it wasn't able to break into another new market, at an opportune time.
IBonds were a quick fix to its plummeting share price...the corporate rot is still there. Later I may be blaming the new Steve "I got rid of manufacturing" Cook for not stopping the rot, and squandering Billions too late.
At least you have the iPad Mini.
Why the hate for iBonds? Is it a general dislike of debt or is there something specific?
Why would I hate that? Peoples language has just got so weak. iBonds were simply a way of limiting the damage of its falling knife share price. It has been fairly stable since...although we will see what happens after this quarters announcement in a couple of days time.
The reality is though I would have rather have seen Apple doing something interesting with their money instead of giving it back to shareholders (and attracting unwanted Government attention for not even paying token tax). Like in context of this article buy Dell and flood the market with good value iMac clones going straight for Microsoft throat just as it treats its hostages to its new tablet interface on the Desktop.
Apple took the safe option...my response is meh, but then this New Apple is all about meh...the magic(best drinking game ever) whether you fell for it or not is dead.
Anyone wanting to buy Dell should have to set up and use one of their awful products for 1 day
Ignoring the usual awful *car* analogy...I mean why describe one industry secondary I do understand with an analogy of one I don't. I bought a Dell monitor recently. It is a no frills,with money off trade in...and was head and shoulders cheaper than anything else in the market, and on the whole perfect.
That said every single person. I have ever spoken at Dell, was unpleasant and wanted to transfer me to someone else as soon as possible. Now here is the thing. that has become the behaviour of *every* company I deal with today.
I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders.
Ironically this was from a time when Apple had failed while wintel had won. Leaving Jobs begging to Microsoft resulting in a settled lawsuit a few million in the bank...and a crippled office port. It only sounds stupid in retrospect because Apple from that dark time (A time I repeatedly point out its returning to), by reinventing itself, doing exciting things, leading in new markets. It became something different...better.
The World has changed since then Wintel are bleeding the PC industry dry with Microsoft & Intel cashing on on 70% gross profit margins...in the Desktop Apps(The Desktop destroyed by Microsoft...living on only in name...Windows) market that is not sustaining it...and Dells slice of the pie (and the Pie) is shrinking...The Days of Dell earning more money than Microsoft are long gone.
This move is about Dell reinventing itself doing exciting things, leading in new markets without the quarterly shareholder distractions (allegedly) , Something Apple is going to learn from in 2 days time.
Hopefully they will have the good sense not to be remain reliant on Wintel.
I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders.
Ironically that is exactly what Apple did with iBonds. Foolishly for exactly the same reasons pursuit of short term profits over market share (long term profits).
Its odd that Apple fans remember this but fail to remember the young Jobs scathing comments regarding this very strategy when it was still a computing company...and then proceeding to follow the same path in his reinvention of Apple as an electronics company.
Apple that everyone loved. Today they're the company that many love to hate.
Except people aren't that emotional. Apple simply produced compelling products the iPod, iPhone and iPad and many here enjoyed their computers before Apple became an electronics company. They market well, and are popular in the media (and shareholders), They are out of favour as their product lines look tired compared to the competition, and the chance of repeated success in new markets looks increasingly unlikely (iwatch, itv, iconsole), and well the share price, profits, revenues, market share, technical edge, brand value are all down.
Pretending that people are randomly emotional about mega corporations is simply weird. People on the whole buy(and respond well to companies) of products which have reasonable value and quality...marketed well, and those products are coming from Google(and their OEMs) not Apple(or Microsoft) who foolishly think their users are cattle.
...its cheaper
http://gs.statcounter.com/#search_engine-ww-monthly-201206-201306 A quick look at market share put Google at 90%...with Bing at less than 4% at least in the search arena. So about 22 times larger.
In areas such as online email outlook.com has 420 million (18 February 2013) vs Gmail 425 million (June 2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlook.com and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmail ...which I would kindly call a draw.
For their Choosing a Cloud-Based Office Systems http://rcpmag.com/articles/2013/04/23/google-apps-vs-microsoft-office.aspx "In terms of user numbers, Google Apps had about 10 percent of the cloud-office market in 2007, 20 percent in 2009, and between 33 percent and 50 percent in 2012, according to Gartner's analysis." Which again I am going to kindly call it draw.
That is without looking at the servers for Google+; YouTube; Play and Maps where Microsoft does not have a product, or at All those Microsoft servers that deal with activation and updates...and a whole host mysterious information.
The bottom line though is that 4X market share is not right for anything.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/492120/20130718/microsoft-takes-900-million-charge-surface-tablets.htm ...store of six million Surface tablets.
Perhaps they should install Android.
When dropped to the floor, will it melt and re-assemble?
...No it will bounce...really really well...and even though it won't melt and reassemble...it can me made into complex bends and shapes.
Its in the article.
I came to a different conclusion(spin) to the summary presented by the New York Times; this is not about protecting "software designers, smartphone makers and the like" (and definitely not in the case of Microsoft, Apple and Nokia who are both PAE as described in the article and form have created mega patent pools with each other).
This is about those same companies (Microsoft, Apple and Nokia) attacking start-up companies; stillborning competition; competition within the IT industry or as the linked article describes outside the industry for simply purchasing consumer products...or building a web page(the example is one that includes a calorie counter). Ballmer threatening Linux users...like that.
I find it depressing that Intellectual Ventures are being scapegoated...when as I see it the worst offenders of the computing Industry(with their own PAE) are portrayed as Victims when they are the worst offenders, and is not the thrust what Edith Ramirez says http://ftc.gov/speeches/ramirez/130620paespeech.pdf