abugida

Ah so Mac hardware is overpriced but Windows software is totally worth the extra price. Got it.

That was why they got into trouble in the 90s.

What he was trying to say was that for software, the variable costs are very low. Sure they have support costs for each customer, but there is almost no production or distribution cost.

That’s a complete misrepresentation of what he got. He will receive shares worth 0.05 % of the company in 2016 and again the same amount in 2021. How much those shares will be worth by then will be 100% tied to his performance and Apple’s profits in the coming years. 2016 is so far out technology-wise, it will have little to do with Apples products of today. 2021 even more so.

If Tim Cook can keep Apple running as strong as today over the next 10 years, he will indeed make $0.5 billion. But at the same time Apple will make $500 billion in profits. On the other hand, if he runs the company into the ground he will get nothing because his shares will be worthless. I think that’s totally reasonable.

They have a monopoly. They can charge whatever they want.

A copy of Windows is $100. Are you going to spend $1000 on the Windows Market place so Microsoft can make a $100 profits on that?

That’s not how it works. Microsoft is giving away other stuff so you keep buying Windows.

Snow Leopard was only $29. And I don’t think it works in Microsoft’s favor that it took them until 2009 to catch up to Mac OS X. When Apple was releasing those $129 updates in the mid-zeros, they were actually worth it because you couldn’t get anything like this from Microsoft.

Why would it be in Microsoft’s best interest to drop the price on their cash cow? Apple is making their money through hardware sales. They make $300 on every Mac they sell. Microsoft only has Windows and Office to make money on.

Well, this is all rumor, so… But based on Apple’s current policy, they will have phones at different price points. Are you suggesting they will offer 4" iPhones at every price point from $0 to $399? The “old” models will stick around to grow their customer base at the mid-market (especially internationally), because Apple already owns 70 % of the high end phone market and there’s not much more growth for them.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the UI. From here on out their main concern will be how to reach the 2 billion people that still want an iPhone but cannot afford it.

How can they be “wrong” about their personal preferences? What country is this? I know for a fact that I will keep buying those “small” iPhones even if a bigger model comes out. If others want a bigger iPhone, good for them. Apple is increasing choice. I thought you people like that.

My guess: Apple had to realize that a large part of the western male demogrpahic find the 3.5" seriously too small. It’s not like they would stop selling 3.5" models after a 4" comes out. I wouldn’t be surprised if 2 years later only 25 % of iPhone users will have the bigger models.

Remember how good iOS apps look running on their intended devices? Well, it is because iPhone apps do not have fluid layouts. Fixed layouts are one of the reasons why iOS has the best apps, and people love it more than their desktop apps. You cannot optimize the UI for resolution independence.

Asking Apple for resolution independent layouts is like asking for a hardware keyboard or a mouse pointer. That train is gone.

9:5 is even worse than 16:9.

If they bring out different sized iPhones they might give them some names similar to the nanos, minis, shuffles, airs and pros of other product lines.

How can you say they suck at naming things when the term “iPhone 5” was purely invented by the rumormills? Apple never strictly numbered ANY of their iOS devices EXCEPT for iPhone 4 and iPad 2. There was no iPhone 2 or iPhone 3, so there is no point in asking them why don’t have an iPhone 5 or iPhone 6.

Apple’s wiggle room is how far they say a user holds the device from their eyes. That’s how the new iPad received the Retina designation.

You completely misunderstand the nature of the contract. Sprint was not required to buy $15 bn worth of iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S in advance. For the next 4 years, they will need to buy at least 1.5 million iPhones every quarter. And of course they can choose from the lineup that is available at that point. Isn’t that obvious? Why would Apple require them to buy old phones?!

And you know what, I’m sure that most if not all carriers around the world have signed the same kind of contract with Apple. Yes, even AT&T and Verizon.

They don’t have the cash to pay the phones they sell? Then they should file for bancruptcy.

Wait, but you realize that Sprint didn’t have to pay $15 billion last quarter, right? The pay their phones on delivery like everybody else. What they did is signing a contract about how many phones they’ll be required to order in the future. As long as this is on a reasonable level relative to their respective subscriber bases, I don’t see why CSpire would not be able to sign a similar contract.

Sprint did not have to sign up for an insane amount of iPhones, about 1.5 million sold per quarter (and remember, smartphones sales are still growing in the US, so that number will be even less challenging a few years from now). All Apple asked of them was that they don’t just put an iPhone in the window and then try to push Androids on hapless customers, plus that they don’t change their minds and drop the iPhone on short notice. If they just sell the iPhone on a fair level they will never have to worry about their obligations at all.

I think Sprint are trotting out this story over and over again so people forget that the company has been unprofitable for several years before the iPhone. The fact is that every new phone is subsidized and it always takes a few months for the carrier to recoup that subsidy before profits are rolling in for the rest of the 2 year contract. To only mention this when talking about the iPhone is misleading.

What are you even talking about? The Zune Marketplace had the full song collection available for purchase, just like iTunes. Robbie Bach was thinking of trying out new ways to sell music. And Zune did have some features that iTunes didn’t have: You could lend songs, and there was also a subscription service. Obviously, he wanted to try even more stuff.

I was referring to the Zune HD, released in late 2009.

The Metro design language was first on the Zune Touch and look how far it’s come: It’s now on the flagship phones of Nokia, the biggest phone maker in the world for the last 12 years. And yet… Consumer interest is zero. In fact, Nokia lost its leadership position because consumers don’t care for Windows Phone. I think it’s pretty obvious that Microsoft’s new UI is not compelling.