The link you provided doesn't give exact sales numbers, but it is a fairly common tactic to limit the supply of expensive items artificially to keep them expensive and exclusive. iPhones are aspirational purchases, if they were cheap and plentiful it would take the shine off.
Sure, many companies play the "limit the supply" game, but given that the WSJ says that they've increased production of the iPhone 5s, I don't think that Apple is playing this game.
If you're comparing size and weight you need to take into account the important pieces that contribute to those stats: the display and the battery. The iPad Air has a 2048x1536 display vs 1920x1200 on the Xperia. According to the product page, the iPad Air has approx 10 hour battery life, while the Xperia doesn't specify battery life on its product page (some reviews are quoting 8 hours). I don't see Xperia as having "about the same" specs at all.
You are speaking rationally... perception is what matters in stock valuations, especially a stock as widely held by "enthusiast investors" as AAPL. Part of the valuation perception in AAPL is the unusually high profit margin, merge them with a nice profitable entity like Archer Daniels Midland and it will muck up that crystal clear picture of what makes AAPL such a desirable stock to hold.
So AAPL, being 68% held by institutions, is considered "widely held by 'enthusiast investors'"? How about MSFT which is 65.3%? I guess that's also an enthusiast stock, and let's see MCD which is 66.3%. I guess enthusiasts love their Big Macs...
The paperback was $38 shipped and the downloadable version was $97. Excuse me but that's insane.
This is probably an extreme example of the difference between the wholesale vs the agency model pricing. The retailer sets the price under the wholesale model, while the publisher set the price for the agency model. In this case the publisher wanted to sell at $97 while the retailer, with its deep wholesale discount, chose to sell it at $38.
One of the things that might bury Apple is the "you cant have your ebook priced cheaper anywhere else" requirement - with the price including Apples cut.
The above clause doesn't seem to hurt consumers, we all get cheaper prices so why would the DoJ have an issue with it? The issue is whether the agency model of selling books is causing prices to be artificially inflated over the wholesale model.
It's the difference between wholesale and agency models that brings about the curious discrepancy in prices. Print books fall under the wholesale model: they are bought at a discount from the publisher and the retailer gets to set the price they sell at. Whereas for eBooks, sold under the agency model, publishers set the price on the book and the retailer gets a percentage of the sale. Under the wholesale model the retailer can choose to make a particular book a loss-leader or negotiate a deeper volume discount so that they can offer lower prices. The retailer has no control over the pricing for the agency model.
As a shareholder, of course I want Google to innovate. I'm willing to wait a few years to see some of that innovation turn into profit, but look at the trend, GOOG stock has barely moved for the past 5 years. Whereas a company like Apple has grown five-fold. Google neither pays a dividend nor is there much share price appreciation, which makes it a bad investment. As a shareholder I would much rather hold Microsoft, which at least pays a 2.6% dividend each year.
Take a look at the website, it doesn't have a specific name for the new iteration. With all the trademark issues, it's probably best to just keep the name simple and refer to each iteration by the year they were released much like the way it's done with Macs.
Given the amount of media exposure Jobs had, anyone else under the same spotlight would appear sociopathic. Media loves to focus on faults and sensationalize even the smallest issues. It's doubtful that any typical slashdotter would look saintly under that amount of scrutiny.
Silly statements that get blown out of proportion like bankrupting his company to avenge a theft, that's buying into the idiocy of mass media... right, because Jobs "bankrupted" Apple all the way to becoming the largest company in the world. Jobs was a fabulous marketer who stretched the truth where it benefited the company. He wasn't a saint nor the devil-incarnate, he was just a guy who sold you shiny toys, just like the rest.
Why the jab against the fanboys? Fanboys will also look at such information with a more critical eye and help dispel the sensationalism in these articles.
Probably because they didn't want to be viewed as just another Android handset; they wanted to have some differentiating factor. Unfortunately they don't have the talent pool to pull-off such an ambitious undertaking.
You miss the point. Enterprise isn't interested in coolness factor, they want legacy support. Stunts like discontinuing production of Xservers and shafting existing users of Final Cut Pro are examples why enterprise would be reluctant to make use of Apple's products. If Apple truly wants to see their iOS devices used in enterprise they'll have to start supporting older versions of iOS, and soon they'll be saddled with the same legacy support issues that plague Microsoft.
What's to say that your current favorite site will not be sold to a foreign company in the future along with all your personal data? The only way to ensure your privacy is to never put the information on the internet.
All I expect from Apple during its vetting process is to determine if the app contains a trojan or virus, is legitimate and is not selling out my privacy without my consent. And even then I don't expect Apple to catch all the "bad" apps immediately. Why would you expect Apple to find specific bugs within an app? It's not reasonable to expect more than a cursory validation from any app marketplace.
They are very annoyed that they have to admit their products are built elsewhere. If you take a look on any device it'll always say where it was made or assembled. That is required by law. Almost all devices, that's all it says about that. However Apple stuff? Right before that they have to note "Designed in California by Apple." Reason is they want to try and deflect from the "Made in China" part. They don't want their Mac to be just another thing made in China.
My iPhone says "Design in California by Apple" and in the very next sentence it says "Assembled in China". I don't see how that deflects any information whatsoever. I could just as easily suggest that Apple is proud that their products are designed in America instead of outsourced to a foreign country.
The number of Kinect's sold by MS is definitely an impressive feat, but how profitable will it be for MS on the whole? When Apple sells an iDevice they also get software and media sales via iTunes. There is the so-called "halo-effect" of iDevice owners buying Macs (evidence by Macs growing sales while PCs are shrinking). Owners of iDevices tend to be repeat customers buying replacement iDevices each time. Are people going to repeatedly buy the Kinect? Arguably Kinect is driving some additional software sales for MS, but I have yet to hear of many Kinect games that are big hits. What I do hear is that hobbyists are buying up units to experiment with for entirely non-gaming purposes which won't add any additional revenue beyond the initial hardware sale to MS. And we haven't even mentioned that the Kinect is a device that is 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of an iDevice. Go ahead invest in MSFT, at least the Nasdaq rebalancing is on your side...
Slashdot Mirror
The link you provided doesn't give exact sales numbers, but it is a fairly common tactic to limit the supply of expensive items artificially to keep them expensive and exclusive. iPhones are aspirational purchases, if they were cheap and plentiful it would take the shine off.
Sure, many companies play the "limit the supply" game, but given that the WSJ says that they've increased production of the iPhone 5s, I don't think that Apple is playing this game.
If you're comparing size and weight you need to take into account the important pieces that contribute to those stats: the display and the battery. The iPad Air has a 2048x1536 display vs 1920x1200 on the Xperia. According to the product page, the iPad Air has approx 10 hour battery life, while the Xperia doesn't specify battery life on its product page (some reviews are quoting 8 hours). I don't see Xperia as having "about the same" specs at all.
Giving [idolized company] credit for things they didn't do is pretty much the point of an [idolized company] fan. FTFY.
You are speaking rationally... perception is what matters in stock valuations, especially a stock as widely held by "enthusiast investors" as AAPL. Part of the valuation perception in AAPL is the unusually high profit margin, merge them with a nice profitable entity like Archer Daniels Midland and it will muck up that crystal clear picture of what makes AAPL such a desirable stock to hold.
So AAPL, being 68% held by institutions, is considered "widely held by 'enthusiast investors'"? How about MSFT which is 65.3%? I guess that's also an enthusiast stock, and let's see MCD which is 66.3%. I guess enthusiasts love their Big Macs...
Given a choice of govt bonds or savings account at roughly 0% or APPL at a PE around 15, eh, I'd chose APPL.
I dunno about you, but I would choose AAPL instead of these guys APPL.
The paperback was $38 shipped and the downloadable version was $97. Excuse me but that's insane.
This is probably an extreme example of the difference between the wholesale vs the agency model pricing. The retailer sets the price under the wholesale model, while the publisher set the price for the agency model. In this case the publisher wanted to sell at $97 while the retailer, with its deep wholesale discount, chose to sell it at $38.
One of the things that might bury Apple is the "you cant have your ebook priced cheaper anywhere else" requirement - with the price including Apples cut.
The above clause doesn't seem to hurt consumers, we all get cheaper prices so why would the DoJ have an issue with it? The issue is whether the agency model of selling books is causing prices to be artificially inflated over the wholesale model.
It's the difference between wholesale and agency models that brings about the curious discrepancy in prices. Print books fall under the wholesale model: they are bought at a discount from the publisher and the retailer gets to set the price they sell at. Whereas for eBooks, sold under the agency model, publishers set the price on the book and the retailer gets a percentage of the sale. Under the wholesale model the retailer can choose to make a particular book a loss-leader or negotiate a deeper volume discount so that they can offer lower prices. The retailer has no control over the pricing for the agency model.
As a shareholder, of course I want Google to innovate. I'm willing to wait a few years to see some of that innovation turn into profit, but look at the trend, GOOG stock has barely moved for the past 5 years. Whereas a company like Apple has grown five-fold. Google neither pays a dividend nor is there much share price appreciation, which makes it a bad investment. As a shareholder I would much rather hold Microsoft, which at least pays a 2.6% dividend each year.
Take a look at the website, it doesn't have a specific name for the new iteration. With all the trademark issues, it's probably best to just keep the name simple and refer to each iteration by the year they were released much like the way it's done with Macs.
"largest company in the world"
By what measure?
By market capitalization.
Given the amount of media exposure Jobs had, anyone else under the same spotlight would appear sociopathic. Media loves to focus on faults and sensationalize even the smallest issues. It's doubtful that any typical slashdotter would look saintly under that amount of scrutiny.
Silly statements that get blown out of proportion like bankrupting his company to avenge a theft, that's buying into the idiocy of mass media... right, because Jobs "bankrupted" Apple all the way to becoming the largest company in the world. Jobs was a fabulous marketer who stretched the truth where it benefited the company. He wasn't a saint nor the devil-incarnate, he was just a guy who sold you shiny toys, just like the rest.
And that is why the altruistic Kodak sued RIM and Apple over patent infringement?
Why the jab against the fanboys? Fanboys will also look at such information with a more critical eye and help dispel the sensationalism in these articles.
Probably because they didn't want to be viewed as just another Android handset; they wanted to have some differentiating factor. Unfortunately they don't have the talent pool to pull-off such an ambitious undertaking.
A politician using a gimmick and the media to get himself more attention? Are you also on the PR department for this guy?
You miss the point. Enterprise isn't interested in coolness factor, they want legacy support. Stunts like discontinuing production of Xservers and shafting existing users of Final Cut Pro are examples why enterprise would be reluctant to make use of Apple's products. If Apple truly wants to see their iOS devices used in enterprise they'll have to start supporting older versions of iOS, and soon they'll be saddled with the same legacy support issues that plague Microsoft.
What's to say that your current favorite site will not be sold to a foreign company in the future along with all your personal data? The only way to ensure your privacy is to never put the information on the internet.
All I expect from Apple during its vetting process is to determine if the app contains a trojan or virus, is legitimate and is not selling out my privacy without my consent. And even then I don't expect Apple to catch all the "bad" apps immediately. Why would you expect Apple to find specific bugs within an app? It's not reasonable to expect more than a cursory validation from any app marketplace.
I was under the impression that the Pentium M CPU, which the latest Intel Core machines are based on, was designed in Israel.
They are very annoyed that they have to admit their products are built elsewhere. If you take a look on any device it'll always say where it was made or assembled. That is required by law. Almost all devices, that's all it says about that. However Apple stuff? Right before that they have to note "Designed in California by Apple." Reason is they want to try and deflect from the "Made in China" part. They don't want their Mac to be just another thing made in China.
My iPhone says "Design in California by Apple" and in the very next sentence it says "Assembled in China". I don't see how that deflects any information whatsoever. I could just as easily suggest that Apple is proud that their products are designed in America instead of outsourced to a foreign country.
Motorola sells more than just phones.
Does NB have a good vi plugin? The one for Eclipse is satisfactory, but I long to get back my ctrl commands.
Stop, breath, think. Turn off location services...
The number of Kinect's sold by MS is definitely an impressive feat, but how profitable will it be for MS on the whole? When Apple sells an iDevice they also get software and media sales via iTunes. There is the so-called "halo-effect" of iDevice owners buying Macs (evidence by Macs growing sales while PCs are shrinking). Owners of iDevices tend to be repeat customers buying replacement iDevices each time. Are people going to repeatedly buy the Kinect? Arguably Kinect is driving some additional software sales for MS, but I have yet to hear of many Kinect games that are big hits. What I do hear is that hobbyists are buying up units to experiment with for entirely non-gaming purposes which won't add any additional revenue beyond the initial hardware sale to MS. And we haven't even mentioned that the Kinect is a device that is 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of an iDevice. Go ahead invest in MSFT, at least the Nasdaq rebalancing is on your side...