Tim Cook: Apple's 'closer than it's ever been' to releasing new product range Tim Cook has claimed that Apple is "closer than it's ever been" to the release of a new product range. Ignoring the fact that the nearest Apple was to releasing some new iStuff was, well, the last time it released some, Cook claimed exciting new things were in the offing. Dodging questions about exactly what sort of products …
what a crap article... putting a bad spin on someone saying that only release product when they are happy with what they release. Apple should be applauded for it.
Look at all the useless stuff released in the last few years... things rushed to market. The iPad was nearly a decade in development. Result : a success.
> The iPad was nearly a decade in development
Working on it since before 9/11, have they?
> Apple usually do it right
Serial blunders and market failures omitted
> and usually do it first as well
Generally they are at best second
Also, Microsoft invented Internet, Apple invented Ethernet etc..
Microsoft did not invent the internet....... In fact their amazing leader predicted its demise and like with most of their products of the last decade ended up playing catchup with the market because they realised to late that they were wrong.
Allow me to introduce you to a concept called "satire."
sat·ire: n. the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
It's pretty clear DAM was making fun of the previous post.
No, they didn't invent the first PC. They popularised it, which is what they do with everything. They take someones elses idea, make a product out of it and sue the living bejesus out of anyone else who tries to make a similar product, including the person whose idea it was in the first place
They neither invented nor popularized the first PCs. That would be Olivetti, HP, Xerox PARC, and IBM. Quit drinking Apple's kool-aid. They make good equipment, but they really didn't do much aside from making devices to steal telephone calls until long after there were already what we'd call PCs now that were on the market.
May I be so bold as to suggest that it was Alan Sugar (in the UK at least) and his Amstrad PC1512 range that popularised the PC.
I could and did afford that. At that time there may have been a handful of Apple's in the UK so their contribution to the popularisation of PC's in the UK is negligible if not totally insignificant.
Come on, give credit where credit is due.
• Which computer company was successful with a WIMP system before the Macintosh?
• What product(s) did the Newton copy?
• Which companies were already very successful with laser printers when they first came out?
• Which products did the Apple II rip off?
@deadlockvictim
Exactly. The commentaries on this thread are so driven by fanboyism they either have no idea of computer history or are simply prepared to lie. It is the achievement Steve Jobs and Steve Wosniac were famous for and that set Steve Jobs on the sometimes rocky road to massive success. They launched the first home computer, plain and simple. Before that it was all electronics kits or machines costing $19,000. No one can present any counter examples or justify their counter claims because there are non and there are no counter claims that stand up to even cursory examination.
I know, I can still remember the moment the Apple II arrived like it was yesterday, staring longingly at through the window of my local electronics store. There is even a commenter above quoting the PCW 8256, which was launched in 1985 a full 8 years after the Apple II (the Apple I was made of wood to order and was never manufactured in bulk).
There were in fact two others launches in 77 after the Apple II but neither were as good. The other two other launches being the TRS-80 and the Commodore PET. The TRS-80 was the better of the two. The Commodore PET was hampered by an unimpressive text display resolution so low as to seriously compromise what it could be used for. Don't get me wrong, in those days any such machine with a CRT display output and that could be used for programming was legendary. My first computer was the ZX81, followed by the Oric1 and the Commodore 64.
quote: "Is that an American 'fanny' or a British fanny that you're thinking about?"
Both, that way they can capitalise on 2 demographics, and also be seen to be anti-discriminatory ;)
quote: "Apple has never been first to market with anything; it looks for an establishing market and attempts to launch a sufficiently significant product to capitalise on the initial growth."
Which I usually mention when people bring up the iPod / iPhone / iPad as "firsts", and then they look at me funny. Apple don't do untested markets, they wait for profitability to be established first and then barrel in after someone else has made all the initial mistakes (it gives them time to engineer out those obvious mistakes).
Brilliant strategy, but then (IMO) they spoil it by writing all the future marketing to imply that they did it first. The products are solid enough on their own merits to not warrant attempting re-writing of history, but Apple apparently try anyway :/
"Apple don't do untested markets, they wait for profitability to be established first and then barrel in after someone else has made all the initial mistakes (it gives them time to engineer out those obvious mistakes)."
Not being snotty, but could you give me some of these engineering mistakes which Apple improved upon ?
Their design is nice though, and that's point.
They barrelled in (PAST TENSE) with itunes and their appstore - that's what makes them the money - innovation in making money and marketing - not in innovation in products.
I got an iBead (Rio SU30 in Japan) in 2003 and I still use it for the Gym / Cycling / Jogging - it is physically and technically perfect, plug it into your computer to charge, drop the music you want to listen to on it if not already there and sorted. No drivers no fuss. Once battery is dead for MP3 playback FM radio lasts another couple of hours. What Apple did here was jump in and say we need to control the physical and software interface to devices and get 30% of all music that can be played on these devices. To help this we will fund investigation into getting trot of napster and equivalents. Oh, while we are doing it, someone draw a picture of something and give it the the lab in China to make, cheers.
"Not being snotty, but could you give me some of these engineering mistakes which Apple improved upon ?"
Find an old Windows Mobile phone of the sort that were being sold before the iPhone came out, such as the XDA/MDA range from HTC. Compare that with say the iPhone 2 or iPhone 3, or some of the Androids such as the original Galaxy S.
You will see very quickly what the improvements were.
Apple makes a single digit fraction of its profit from iTunes/App Store. Those are enablers, hardware is where they make the real money.
Why do you rag on Apple taking a 30% cut when Google takes exactly the same cut? If what Apple is doing taking 30% is so awful, shouldn't the great Google be showing the world how awful that is by taking less? Or hell, taking nothing, since they make their money by selling you, not by selling you stuff?
"""""
Apple's reclassification of its revenues to isolate iTunes' software, media and services separately from its hardware products has revealed the hidden billions of dollars in revenues the company has been earning on top of its hardware sales of computers and gadgets, revenues that now dwarf the company's iPod sales.
""""
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/01/28/apple-now-collecting-twice-as-much-from-itunes-software-services-as-from-ipod-sales
http://9to5mac.com/2013/06/21/apple-owns-75-percent-of-the-digital-music-market-but-apps-are-where-the-growth-is/#more-276455
I for one see few single digits here....
I don't recall Google having an App store when itunes was launched - I could be wrong... also... I don't recall 'ragging on' - I was pointing out that they didn't invent or engineer anything splendid APART from the their Stores, Cables and Interfaces to force people into their ecosystem and their marketing helped a great deal.
Has Paypal released a physical device that can be used instead of cash/card? They've got apps on phones, but not physical devices.
After a quick skim of the article, could this be an Apple bracelet/watch/phone that lets you pay for stuff direct from your iTunes account with a wave of your wrist? Yes, other phone manufacturers have NFC for payments, but it's not Apple iTunes in the back end sapping your bank account ...
Just imagine all those Apple fanbois frantically shaking their wrists to pay for porn by the minute/second/etc ... or maybe not imagine it ... where's the memory wipe button?
Already. Now.
As in Apple did not invent it.
Just leaving this here for posterity when someone gets vilified at some point in the future by AC's (Apple Cultists) for claiming that Apple did not actually invent it...
Maybe for the odd patent trial judge, too.
"Has Paypal released a physical device"
No, but this company called Visa have. Also American Express. They have great battery life, don't weigh much and fit nicely into your pockets. Security consists of using either a 4-figure PIN or by making a complex two dimensional gesture using a haptic input device called a 'pen'.
For those who struggle with the technology involved, there are also a number of devices which can also double as mobile phones, which can be linked to Paypal. Of course, that gives the customer both a choice of hardware and payment company, which can obviously be completely be re-invented by tying both hardware and payment platform to Apple, robbing customers of choice and interoperability. But hey 'It just works', or whatever.
>>which can obviously be completely be re-invented by tying both hardware and payment platform to Apple, robbing customers of choice and interoperability.
Hmm. "robbing". Your grasp of English is even worse than your grasp of reality: "Robbing" means stealing with the use of force or realistic threat of force. Apple gear is damned clever. But I had not realised it could apply physical force to make you use iTunes.
Somehow, such linguistic dexterity makes me doubt, even further, the validity of any opinion you may have.
"Hmm. "robbing". Your grasp of English is even worse than your grasp of reality: "Robbing" means stealing with the use of force or realistic threat of force."
Wow, are you actually having a go at me for using language loosely and in an evocative rather than strictly factual manner, while obviously making a joke?
Really?
"Apple gear is damned clever."
'Clever' would infer intelligence or original thought. In the literal sense it is not 'clever', because it has neither, being a machine. Because you misused a word I too think that you are mentally ill equipped to participate in debate.
See: Annoying and enormously, stupidly petty, isn't it?
And make sure you aren't in a greenhouse prior to throwing stones.
"Has Paypal released a physical device that can be used instead of cash/card? They've got apps on phones, but not physical devices."
Yes:
https://www.paypal.com/uk/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=xpt/Marketing/account/DCIntro-outside
Whats more it works in all shops that accept cards with no additional hardware needed, doesnt need a battery, its small, light and has curved edges - its practically an apple device already!
That's sort of bizarre, a Mastercard Debit card fed from Visa Credit card via PayPal.. Maybe useful for discovering in a shop that only takes Debit cards that my Bank Account is empty ... Except most shops that take Debit cards have an arrangement the Bank doesn't mention to you till you discover on the statement you can spend past the overdraft limit without knowing.
So many creative ways to get further in Debt!
"So what's happened to the "reality distortion field" in these days of Peak Apple? Suddenly reality looks about as boring as we all knew it to be. So, if you don't mind waiting, we're off for a snooze until the fruity firm decide to do something interesting again. "
El Reg and the other media were the ones obsessing about the "reality distortion field". Good to see you finally caught up.
'...exactly what sort of products was set to roll out...'
Ignoring the (presumably) deliberate misinterpretation of the quotation which does imply the release of impending new iGoodies rather than any old ones, the sense of moral^h^h^h^h^h grammatical superiority didn't last long.
E&OE
The iPod wasn't new or innovative, just better marketed and more expensive. No Apple Tech. Only rip of Dieter Rams Braun styling.
The iPhone had a more slick GUI (but not actually new HW, nor as fully featured) and was better marketed and succeeded well due to bundled data package, no innovation or Apple HW Technology, SW a repackaged OS X (which wasn't actually Apple innovation). More expensive than competitors.
The iPad was a larger iPhone. Zero innovaton. More expensive than comparable competition.
Apple TV isn't a TV. It's a media Streamer which really needs and iPad or iPhone to get best value out of it thus in reality £400 more than a Roku, which doesn't need a tablet or phone for full value. There is zero innovation in an Apple TV.
Apple based on profits vs sales has about x3 margin, thus are obviously overpriced.
They are a Product appearance Design & marketing House with a nice "in house" GUI on the iOS and OSX. They are not a Technology company or innovator. They buy in the HW expertise and little SW innovation since they bought in OS X from Steve Job's Next to replace insecure, inflexible creaking OS9. OSX is not very innovative being largely based on BSD.
Apple do what they do very well. But unlike Samsung have developed very little. The original Mac was a "fixup" of the under spec'd Lisa (which was a cheap clone of the Xerox Star, which I played with). The current Mac is largely an Intel design. The Apple II was "ready to go", only needing a monitor on top but only 40 columns and slow non-standard 100k floppy. I believed the hype and bought one. Terrible waste of money.
Apple have always relied on customer perception. Not on technological innovation. Maybe the Newton and Pippin were innovative.
Or the round puck mouse with one button (but stupid).
To choose but one of the plethora of bullshit comments ... I choose this piece of shite.
"Apple based on profits vs sales has about x3 margin, thus are obviously overpriced."
I let it stand alone, in all its idiotic and illogical glory.
You might as well have written "I hate Apple" and have been done with it.
The word overpriced has more than one meaning.
If a product continues to sell well, and make money for its producers, yes, they haven't set a price that is too high for the purpose of maximizing profit.
If, however, other companies are making products that serve the same purpose just about as well, or maybe even better, for a vastly lower price, then clearly the product in question has a price too high in relation to the value it provides - at least from the perspective of the people who have chosen the alternatives.
Now, the question is: are the alternatives really better, or is it just sour grapes from people who would really love to be able to afford Apple? Unfortunately, that's the question that people can argue about forever in an unproductive fashion. I think there's some truth on both sides of it - Apple has provided many products which were superior in quality, but things like the restrictiveness of the App Store, or the smaller Mac software ecosystem really do impair value for many users of products in the respective genre.
If, however, other companies are making products that serve the same purpose just about as well, or maybe even better, for a vastly lower price, then clearly the product in question has a price too high in relation to the value it provides - at least from the perspective of the people who have chosen the alternatives.
Wait - are you saying there's a difference between utility and price? I always figured those two terms were precisely synonymous, and economists just used both to confuse other people.
(And you didn't even mention use value or exchange value. I won't either.)
The term "overpriced" is nearly always "from the perspective" of someone - it's a subjective evaluation. In theory there's an ideal price that maximizes net profit for product X in market Y, which would make any price over that ideal objectively "overpriced". But as behavioral economists keep demonstrating, markets aren't stable, actors aren't rational, and price itself is an intangible that affects demand, so that ideal price is generally impossible to determine and keeps changing.
This is particularly the case for products which have complex affordances ("do a lot of things"), are luxury items, and have other strong intangible price factors such as brand association; such products are not commodities (that is, most buyers do not regard similar products from other suppliers as interchangeable). And all of those apply to Apple products.
So Apple products are, and are not, overpriced. It's a function of who the potential buyer is.
One thing about the iPod was very new. You put a CD into iTunes, it ripped into your library, and the moment your iPod was plugged in the music transferred to it. Compared to the abysmal way the Creative players et al handled getting music onto their devices at the time and that alone was worth paying the extra for.
As for the iPhone, you can't seriously argue that it wasn't a game changer. Google certainly thought so. They threw out their Blackberry-like Android phone GUI and completely reworked it after the iPhone was demoed. Android wouldn't be a patch on what it is now had the iPhone not been invented.
Apple aren't the only player in town by a long way, but credit where credit's due. They've moved the field forward where others simply haven't had the bottle.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
