Apple is on it's death bed

:smh: @kayanation......Stock is up over 60% since this dumb thread was created. And this shit is just getting started.

:lol:@ all the BGOL tech "Gurus". Get in line with the rest of the hacks w/ the decade long track record and counting.....




Apple stock hits all time high
on news of strong Q3 sales, promising Q4 guidance


By Mikey Campbell
Tuesday, August 01, 2017, 03:54 pm PT (06:54 pm ET)

Apple stock prices hit an all-time high in extended trading on Tuesday, flirting with the $160 mark, after the company reported better than expected earnings for its third fiscal quarter of 2017 and strong guidance for the coming quarter.

22238-26648-21902-25809-11197-3921-nasdaq-141125-l-l-l.jpg


In after hours trading, AAPL surged 6.1 percent or over $9 per share from the day's close at $150.05. Already the world's largest company by market value, the uptick left Apple with a market capitalization hovering above $800 billion.

The boost in stock price came after Apple turned in a strong performance for its third fiscal quarter of 2017, reporting $45.4 billion in revenue on sales of 41 million iPhones. As of this quarter, Apple has sold more than 1.2 billion iPhones, a watershed figure.

Healthy Mac numbers padded quarterly results, while iPad sales returned to growth for the first time since 2013. As usual, the company's services business continued to thrive and is raking in earnings revenue equivalent to a Fortune 100 company.

China was the lone blot on an otherwise stellar quarter, with revenue in the region dropping 10 percent year over year. CEO Tim Cook addressed the seemingly weak performance during an investor conference call, saying mainland China was actually flat year-over-year and up 6 percent on a constant currency basis.

Investors are looking ahead to the coming September quarter. The three-month period commonly includes initial next-generation iPhone sales, consequently boosting immediate revenues while offering a glimpse at what's to come in the lucrative holiday season.

This year, Apple is guiding for revenue between $49 billion and $52 billion and gross margin between 37.5 percent and 38 percent for its coming fourth fiscal quarter, big numbers even for the tech giant. The forward looking statement prompted speculation that Apple is indeed looking to launch a hotly anticipated "iPhone 8" in September alongside "iPhone 7s" models, bucking rumors of a potential delay.

The next-generation flagship smartphone has been all but confirmed by code discovered in an errant release of HomePod firmware. Analysis of the software this week revealed what appears to be a representation of "iPhone 8's" final design, confirmation of facial recognition features, screen specifications, potential tap to wake functionality and more.



 
Last edited:
Posted on April 26, 2016:
Apple is now the modern day Motorola and the iphone is now what the razor became.
:itsawrap:






The Present:

Apple announces it has now sold over 1.2 billion iPhones




iphone-mosaic.jpg


Tim Cook today touted that Apple has now sold over 1.2 billion iPhones, a milestone achieved in just a decade. The news was announced during Apple’s Q3 2017 earnings call and comes a year after Apple revealed it had sold 1 billion iPhones.

In July of 2016, Apple confirmed that it had sold 1 billion iPhones to date, with Tim Cook touting the device as a one of the most ‘important, world-changing and successful products in history.” Furthermore, this means that Apple has sold somewhere around 200 million iPhones in the last year, selling around 41 million units in Q3 2017.

Here’s what Cook said on today’s earnings call regarding iPhone:

iPhone results were impressive, with especially strong demand at the high end of our lineup. iPhone 7 was our most popular iPhone and sales of iPhone 7 Plus were up dramatically compared to 6s Plus in the June quarter last year. The combined iPhone 7 and 7 Plus family was up strong double digits year over year.

One decade after the initial iPhone launch we have now surpassed 1.2 billion cumulative iPhones sold.

Apple will further celebrate the 10-year anniversary of the iPhone later this year when it unveils the oft-rumored iPhone 8 (or whatever it will be called). The release of that device will only further increase Apple’s unit sales.

 
Last edited:
Looks liek Appe turned the corner.

Notice the increase in spending in R&D to look for the next big thing.


Apple's new reality
1502002883872.jpg

Tim Cook, chief executive of Apple, at the recent meeting of technology chiefs in Sun Valley, Idaho. Bloomberg
by Tim Bradshaw

Robot soldiers are patrolling the streets of a rainy east London. In a video filmed on a handheld iPhone, the armed machines march past graffiti-strewn walls and stand guard outside unmarked doors in Shoreditch, as pedestrians hurry past, huddled under their umbrellas.

As a vision of the distant future, the video is faintly dystopian, but as a preview of Apple's new product offering, it is more uplifting. The images use the new "augmented reality" effects that will launch next month with the latest version of Apple's iOS operating system for iPhones and iPads.

While the pedestrians in the video are genuine, the robots are not - an example of the way AR blends digital graphics with the real world.

Apple's new 'ARKit' technology takes the complex combination of computer vision, tracking sensors and mapping software found in Pokémon Go or Snapchat and turns it into something that can be incorporated into any app.


"I wouldn't have been able to make that a couple of years ago," says Duncan Walker, a London-based independent developer behind Trashgames, who made the clip. The video was put together in a weekend - instead of the months it might take a Hollywood film-maker. "There are opportunities for [ARKit] to be massively disruptive."


For a company that is so secretive about its future plans, Tim Cook, Apple's chief executive, has found it hard to contain his enthusiasm about augmented reality. AR's impact will be "big and profound", he said this week on a conference call with analysts, as Apple released its quarterly results. "This is one of those things that we'll look back at and marvel on the start of it."

There has been a lot of marvelling recently about Apple after the strong sales figures it announced. But as the company navigates the 10-year anniversary of the launch of the first iPhone, Apple also faces another bout of speculation about where it goes from here.

In the immediate future, the issue is whether iPhone sales can continue to grow indefinitely. Beyond that, Apple's efforts in AR are being closely scrutinised because it is a test of the company's ability to keep producing a sense of wonder among its customers. Can Apple escape the fate of most Silicon Valley companies that become trapped by their size and bureaucracy, the disrupters eventually themselves disrupted?

These deeper questions are being asked of Apple at a time when some analysts believe the world's most valuable public company is poised to reach an even bigger milestone: becoming the first American business to be valued above $1 trillion.


"I fully understand a trillion seems like a big number," says Amit Daryanani, analyst at RBC Capital Markets, one of the first on Wall Street to suggest its shares might rise that high. "But it's not that unreasonable to think there's another 20 per cent upside in Apple's stock."

Brian White, analyst at Drexel Hamilton, whose $202 target price implies a $1trillion valuation, is betting that the next iPhone will prove more durable in its sales, after last year's declines. "I don't expect the boom-bust cycle that we saw in fiscal 2015, which really hurt Apple," he said. "It's still so cheap, for a company that generates this much cash."

Apple added almost $30 billion in market capitalisation in a single day on Wednesday - about as much as HP is worth and more than Dell's price tag when it was taken private a few years ago. Its shares jumped 5 per cent, briefly hitting a new all-time high of $159.75 and a valuation above $810 billion, after Tuesday night's forecast of accelerating sales growth.

To maintain this growth, some new innovations are already in the works. At least one model of the next iPhone is expected to include wireless charging, and 3D camera sensors that will allow owners to unlock the device simply by looking at it. Some features were apparently confirmed this week when Apple accidentally posted source code online.


Commodity products
Some in Silicon Valley, however, believe these represent merely incremental improvements and that the leading smartphone makers have become constrained by having to produce more than 200m devices a year.

"As Apple and Samsung have optimised for profitability, consumer choice has gone down and innovation has gone down," says Niccolo De Masi, president and chief operating officer of Essential, a new consumer electronics start-up co-founded by Android creator Andy Rubin.

"When the grandparents have the same phone as the grandkids, the phone is a commoditised utility."
With Apple's vast scale, though, comes vast resources. As the iPhone matures, Apple has begun to place bets on a wider range of markets, from wireless headphones and speakers to the automotive and robotics technology.


While Mr Daryanani believes Apple might reach that $1trillion valuation off the back of increased iPhone profits alone, Mr White says it needs to look beyond the smartphone to new innovations. "There has to be something on the horizon that people can dream about," he said.

Apple's annual R&D investment has increased tenfold since 2007. At $8.6 billion in the first nine months of the 2017 financial year, it is now 5 per cent of revenues, its highest ratio since 2005. In regulatory filings this week, Apple said the rise was "driven primarily by an increase in headcount-related expenses to support expanded R&D activities".


Mr Cook teased investors this week with a hint that its work on "autonomous systems", being tested on the roads of California in its self-driving car prototype, could be used in "a variety of ways - and a vehicle is only one". Apple is making a "big investment" in autonomy, he said. "We do have a large project going."

That had analysts speculating about what the mystery new project might be, from flying drone cameras to domestic robots.


A walking, talking Siri may be hard to envisage given Apple is seen as lagging behind rivals such as Amazon and Google in the trend for "smart speakers". Nonetheless, Apple often works on many different projects - and is not afraid to experiment internally and then kill some ideas before they ever see the light of day.

Former employees liken it to a venture capital company, rather than a traditional process-driven industrial conglomerate. While some worry that its increasingly broad product range risks diluting co-founder Steve Jobs' imperative to focus on doing a few things well, others argue Apple has retained his ability to say "no" to things in order to prioritise.

A particular area of experimentation, people familiar with the matter say, is a pair of AR glasses that might move cameras, sensors and screens from the smartphone to the face. Yet despite the excitement surrounding ARKit, internally the company is still not sure what the most compelling application for such a headset might be.

As a result, there are still several different kinds of prototype being experimented with, according to people close to the company. One group of engineers is said to be advocating for a pair of glasses that have 3D cameras but no screens, leaving the iPhone as the hub and main display.

Such a device might have more in common with Snapchat's $130 video-camera Spectacles than Microsoft's bulky and expensive HoloLens AR headset, which shows digital holograms which can be manipulated using hand gestures. However, no final decision has been made on the product's final formulation. Apple declined to comment.

"What Apple has is the capability to work on a certain type of product - now much more so than 10 years ago," says Benedict Evans, partner at Silicon Valley investor Andreessen Horowitz. "Glasses fit squarely into that capability but the self-driving part of cars, somewhat less so."

Unlike the development of the iPhone, when there was a single team working in secret on its breakthrough touchscreen technology, today's Apple has a broader distribution of the "computer vision" expertise that underpins both AR and autonomous systems, insiders say.

As it pours its resources into a wider range of core technologies, Apple's designers and engineers are content to wait for the right moment to launch a new product, rather than force it out to meet Wall Street's quarterly earnings schedule - but then move quickly when the moment arrives for Apple to make what it describes as a "meaningful contribution".


The team tinkering with a miniaturised hard drive, for instance, did not realise that it would one day upend the music industry as a key component of the iPod.

"Every handful of years, there is a window of opportunity," one former employee said, recalling a lesson taught at Apple University, its internal training scheme. "Our job at Apple was to be the best prepared, not to predict ahead of time what it will be. If you are the best prepared, you can dive into it."

Research firm IDC predicted this week that spending on AR and virtual reality products and services will soar from $11.4 billion in 2017 to $215 billion in 2021.

App developers such as Mr Walker are optimistic that AR could become the next big computing platform after smartphones. "I think glasses will be a new way of interacting like touchscreens were 10 years ago," he says.

However, Geoff Blaber, analyst at CCS Insight, predicts it could take another 10 years for AR glasses to become a mass-market product like the iPhone.

"I don't think we can rely upon a 'next big thing' in the next 12 months," he says. For now, Apple's next big thing is still the iPhone. For some investors eyeing that trillion-dollar valuation, that might be enough.



Read more: http://www.afr.com/technology/apples-new-reality-20170806-gxq863#ixzz4p1JrFgE7


In line with my thoughts from the very beginning of the thread.

:cool:
 
What the HACKS continue to FAIL at understanding is that when Steve came back, Apple was no longer a company that focused on technology, but a company that centered itself around INDUSTRIAL DESIGN.
 
:roflmao:Man, who was the IDIOT that created this thread when Apple was trading around $90?

And let's not forget all the jackasses that supported him?
*Looks at the 1st couple pages of thread*:lol:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technol...on-dollar-value-iphone-x-drives-leap-profits/


Apple close to trillion-dollar value after iPhone X drives leap in profits

TELEMMGLPICT000170350828_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqpVlberWd9EgFPZtcLiMQfyf2A9a6I9YchsjMeADBa08.jpeg




Apple is on the cusp of becoming the world’s first trillion-dollar company after smashing Wall Street forecasts with a leap in profits.

The US tech giant unveiled quarterly results revealing that iPhone sales had jumped to 41.3m, a slight increase on last year.

However, total iPhone revenues increased significantly, suggesting the company has lured its customers into paying more for its devices even in a slowing smartphone market.

The news sent shares climbing in after-hours trading to a record high that sent Apple within touching distance of reaching a one trillion dollar market capitalisation.

The company’s value had surpassed $960bn (£731bn) before the results were released, and shares climbed...

 
It should be bumped.

The OP swears he's an expert on everything from computer programming/infrastructure, finances, real estate, crypto/trading, tells lawyers who've been practicing for years how THEIR profession is on the rocks, etc...... He can tell EVERYONE how to perform their area of expertise better than they can.

I only have one apple product that was given to me (Gen 2 Ipod Touch for my car radio) and I'm FAR from an Apple fan.......but how short sighted do you have to be in order to say they were on their death bed? SMH!
 
It should be bumped.

The OP swears he's an expert on everything from computer programming/infrastructure, finances, real estate, crypto/trading, tells lawyers who've been practicing for years how THEIR profession is on the rocks, etc...... He can tell EVERYONE how to perform their area of expertise better than they can.

I only have one apple product that was given to me (Gen 2 Ipod Touch for my car radio) and I'm FAR from an Apple fan.......but how short sighted do you have to be in order to say they were on their death bed? SMH!
Lol he changed his name to water:lol:kayanation is no more:D
 
Apple's iPhone is no Blackberry: a closer look at AI and the world's biggest company
By Daniel Eran Dilger
Monday, May 30, 2016, 04:42 pm PT (07:42 pm ET)

Last week, developer Marco Arment suggested in a blog posting that if Apple were to fail to grasp the potential for voice-based Artificial Intelligence to change the nature of smartphone demand, the company's core revenue generator could suffer the same fate as RIM's Blackberry, which a decade prior had similarly failed to see the importance of iPhone's advanced multitouch experience until it was too late to do anything about it.

blackberry_vs_blackjack.jpg

Before the iPhone, Samsung had to copy RIM's Blackberry

Arment's think piece described Blackberry (which a decade ago was known as RIM) as the "king of smartphones" prior to the iPhone's introduction in 2007, writing that "they were the best and most successful at what most smartphones were for at the time: email and phone calls."

He then posited that "today, Amazon, Facebook, and Google are placing large bets on advanced AI, ubiquitous assistants, and voice interfaces, hoping that these will become the next thing that our devices are for. If they're right — and that's a big 'if' — I'm worried for Apple."

He added "... if Google's right, there's no quick fix. It won't be enough to buy Siri's creators again or partner with Yelp for another few years."

There are some core problems with piece, but the biggest one is that Biz Carson of Business Insider latched onto it to drive a fear mongering amplification for her own clickbait audience.

If Carson had put some thought into critically examining what Arment wrote, she might have realized how fragile the entire idea actually was. Instead, she just replicated it for her own audience next to her site's own ads (a sort of Google Verbatim Appropriation, you might say).

17045-14219-Screen-Shot-2016-05-30-at-31119-PM-l.jpg

Oh dear, is Tim Cook worried too?

Peak iPhone Panic

Stories of panic that paint a credible path to Apple's rapid demise have always been popular as link-bait, but today the attraction is simply off the charts, due to the fact that the Internet has shifted from an alternative way for print and television journalists to distribute their ideas into an ad-supported trough where the dumbest ideas which can generate the most outrage best serve as co-conduits for paid messages.

Welcome to Google's ad internet, where the New Content is ads and the headlines are just tricking you into reading them! This problem is tightly bound to another problem: a complete ignorance of why Apple, not Google, is generating so much free cash flow and how Apple ever got to its current position when everyone knows, via Google's ad supported news channels, that Android is winning!

Fortunately both ideas are so tightly bound together that they can be dissected in one article.


Peak iPhone? The consumption of computers is not over

There appears to be a broad consensus among pundits that iPhone growth is going away, and that without selling increasing volumes of iPhones each quarter—and without Steve Jobs to invent some new product category—Apple will be unable to maintain its position as the world's largest and most valuable tech company.


The idea that Apple could become a Blackberry is therefore a provocatively attractive one. However, once you begin taking a closer look at the history of Apple and RIM, the surface comparison begins to implode under the weight of facts.

First, take a look at where Apple was prior to the iPhone. Coincidentally, criticism of Apple back then was shockingly similar to where it is again today. One might say this all happened before.

Remember Peak iPod?

A year or two prior the point of Peak iPod—which in retrospect we know actually occured in 2008, based on unit sales figures—the storyline of Apple's impending demise began to orbit around how poorly positioned the company was because in comparison to iPods its Mac business almost didn't matter anymore (iPods were outselling Macs by 10x), and the core value of iPods at the time was centered on their ability to play MP3s, a feature that an emerging number of smartphones (and even feature phones) had already begun to deliver.

Apple is going to be stuck trying to sell iPods to a market already satisfied with their MP3-playing phones, pundits claimed in near perfect unison. Additionally, they claimed that Apple had no ability to enter the phone business because the market already had many experienced, entrenched players who were much larger than Apple and would offer fierce competition to any new upstart trying to muscle into their territory.

In hindsight, and equipped with our knowledge of how remarkably well Apple entered and then mastered the phone business, the idea that Apple would remain wedded to the past and fail to translate its past success into the future seems so wrong that it's almost hard to believe that anyone ever thought that.

patented-121008.jpg


Apple had previously made a series of transitions that were virtually unprecedented in the industry. It had switched the Mac's chip architecture twice already, once to PowerPC and then to Intel. It had also shifted its Mac platform OS from an embedded System Software to a "modern" Unix based OS using advanced developer frameworks and a futuristic vector graphics compositing engine.

And in iPods, it had also transitioned from high end hard-drive based designs to new generations of solid state flash storage, deftly conquering new segments of the market. And while doing that, it fended off competitive threats from much larger companies, ranging from the Walkman-originator Sony to Microsoft and its Windows Media Player licensees, which were almost universally expected to gobble up Apple's iPod sales via commodity devices.

Apple should have earned at least a little benefit of the doubt. Today however, that's even more true.

VR, AI and Peak iPhone

Yet virtually the exact same scenario is playing out today, where we are increasingly told that "everyone who wants an iPhone already has one," (even though that is obviously false) and that the future will be delivered by companies who are working on Virtual Reality and/or Artificial Intelligence concepts in public view, companies that have already shown some initial prototypes and even delivered consumer products fit for early adopters.


Those same companies also previously introduced NFC payments, fingerprint scanners, music subscriptions, voice services and a variety of other concepts years in advance of Apple, without actually holding on to their lead once Apple began competing in those same fields. In part, that's because Apple worked on its own solutions in private, and delivered them once they were ready.

There are some other key differences between today and decade ago. This time around, Apple is bigger and more powerful than every other company in the industry, even while it remains unique in its ability to make money (in PCs, phones, tablets, smartwatches, Apple sells virtually all of the products that are actually profitable).

In 2006, there were a broad array of profitable smartphone makers; building smartphones was considered to basically be picking money off trees. Today, most of the smartphone makers are losing money.

Apple doesn't look like Blackberry at all

Also, the product that is now supposedly going to turn Apple into a Blackberry is not an existing device that virtually everyone already owns but which Apple does not make (a 2006 mobile phone), but rather an application of the device that everyone owns and which Apple already makes.

Apple's iPhone overwhelmingly dominates premium smartphone sales. No previous competing feature has ever threatened that, despite many being clearly valuable (such as having support for LTE mobile networks, a feature Apple belatedly joined years after its rivals). A key reason is Apple's vast scale.

When Apple launches a new iPhone, it now sells about 70 million during its launch quarter (most of those are the newest model; all of them are premium smartphones). When Apple's next largest competitor launches a new Galaxy S, it ships out 10 million or fewer in the launch quarter, along with a huge volume of devices that are not premium smartphones capable of demanding a significant profit.

Samsung's premium smartphone sales peaked a few years ago and its IM Mobile profits haven't recovered since. Samsung has experienced two years' worth of quarters where profits haven't come close to what they once were at Peak Galaxy, a fact that nobody likes to talk about (because why kick a company when its down?).

Apple has had one quarter that was down from its year-ago surge related to the mega-launch of iPhone 6. It's currently impossible to write about Apple without noting that Apple's Q1 sales (and perhaps its next quarter of sales) were down, the first time this has happened since something like 2003.

But it's okay to kick Apple because it's not really down. Even with a temporary drop in quarterly sales, Apple still makes more money than the rest of the smartphone industry combined. That's an important detail.

14965-10909-CanaccordGenuitySmartphoneprofitshare-l.jpg

Source: CanaccordTenuity

Apple's sales would have to collapse by about 75 percent for Apple to even be at the level of Samsung. A few years ago, Samsung Mobile shipped twice as many phones as Apple but made about the same amount of money. Today it sells about half again as many more, but brings in profits that are a quarter of Apple's.

Apple is not in a downward spiral. Comparing Apple with its current competition and looking for ways Apple could be outmaneuvered requires some seriously naive leaps of logic, simply because Apple is not just larger, but also far better managed, focused and competent at delivering its objectives.


Five years of iPhone

That's a radically different competitive environment from 2006. Back then, Apple's annual profits were $2.4 billion, and the company was valued at around $60 billion, roughly equal to Dell. Blackberry maker RIM was valued at $16 billion, just over a third more than Apple.

Blackberry didn't have the best phones nor was it the "king of smartphones." Blackberry's devices were also not "the best and most successful at what most smartphones were for at the time."

What the company uniquely had was the Blackberry Enterprise Server (BES), a proprietary messaging infrastructure that made its devices very sticky to enterprise customers. That's where most of the company's profits came from.

RIM's share of the 2006 smartphone market was just 8.3 percent, not all much larger than Motorola or Palm.

Today, Apple sells nearly twice as many iPhones per quarter in its slowest quarter than all smartphone vendors combined did back in 2006. Apple didn't just convert RIM users to iPhone users; it dramatically expanded the smartphone market by making iPhones attractive to vast new audiences.

17045-14218-r2007024-l.jpg

Source: Canalys

The real king of smartphones was Nokia, with a market cap of $100 billion—nearly as big as Google at $120 billion. Microsoft (whose share of smartphones was scattered among its licensees) was valued at almost $240 billion. Looking at those numbers, it's not extremely hard to understand why nobody expected Apple to replicate its iPod magic in phones, given the size of its rivals.

Apple's primary apparent competition was not really Blackberry, but rather Nokia's Symbian and Microsoft's Windows Phone platform—which was benefitting from its connection to the successful Windows PC platform (and a recent deal that had converted about half of Palm's users to Windows Mobile-powered Palm smartphones).

Five years later, after the launch of iPhone and iPad, Apple's profits had ballooned to more than $16 billion annually, and its market valuation had soared to $323 billion. RIM's valuation had only grown slightly, to less than $26 billion.

It's not hard to understand how the once-important Blackberry failed to replicate Apple's iOS when it finally woke up years later and began assembling the components of its own QNX-based BB10 starting in 2010. By that time, it was less than a tenth Apple's size, and it had wasted four years in me-too surface competition.

The companies investing in AI today are not ten times bigger than Apple, and they haven't successfully deployed a universally attractive new product that Apple has ignored for the last four years.


Apple's iPhone disrupted RIM's BES

Additionally, Apple didn't disrupt RIM by launching an iPhone with apps. Blackberry had apps. RIM didn't fail to recognize the importance of a third party app store.


Blackberry OS had been a Java Mobile platform, similar in some respects to Nokia's Symbian. Windows Mobile had apps. Palm OS had apps. All of those platforms could run Java apps. Apple didn't invent the idea of a smartphone and outsmart companies who didn't see the value of running third party software. Apple was actually late to that party.

But when Apple did arrive, it brought a vastly more powerful operating system, more powerful development frameworks and more powerful hardware to run them, delivered as the premium-priced iPhone. Blackberry, Nokia and Microsoft literally laughed off Apple's approach, until they belatedly realized it was working.

What Apple did do is target where RIM was making its money: BES. It did this by partnering with Microsoft to deliver ActiveSync push messaging, along with its own push notifications and MobileMe (remember that huge failure that pundits like to mock?) to erase the value BES was providing to Blackberry users.

iphoneenterprise3.jpg

BES vs Apple's ActiveSync

That factual context is lethal to the idea that Apple is fated to experience Blackberry's demise if it fails to join Google in talking about its plans for AI. Apple didn't just introduce a new way to interact with smartphones. It radically revolutionized how phones were sold, who was in control of the user experience, and how money could be made in the industry. That's something its competitors, including Blackberry, failed to grasp soon enough back then, and it's something Apple's smartphone rivals still haven't matched.

The Apple of 2010

Across those same five years of iPhone (and iPad) that earned Apple a market cap of $323 billion, Google's valuation had only grown to $172 billion, and Microsoft had actually fallen backward to just below $220 billion. Nokia, once the leader of smartphones globally, had collapsed to just above $30 billion.


Apple's development of iOS, and its successful deployment of it on a phone and a tablet, wasn't just a successful event. It radically changed the playing field. The much smaller Blackberry failed to similarly radically turn the industry around, and even Microsoft completely bungled two attempts to match the iPhone and iPad: first in porting its own Windows to ARM to battle the iPad with Surface RT, and secondly to establish Windows Phone as a contender on phones.

The ability for a new company to break into phones and radically change the landscape (and steal away a significant portion of Apple's premium market) was even by 2011 an exponentially more difficult leap than Apple's own play in turning its advanced OS X development tools and the iPod's high volume premium hardware business into mass market hit.

Android: today's Netscape

Apple's iPhone so devastated the existing players in the smartphone market that the only technology anyone else could use ended up being Google's poorly managed, technically inferior Android experiment, which was run like an arrogant pirate startup so assured of its victory that it laughed off its most serious competitor as a befuddled relic stuck in an anachronistic Walled Garden.


Android became the Netscape of the 2010 decade. Back in 1996, Netscape had similarly expected to destroy Microsoft's ubiquitous Windows platform by simply showing up and offering an "open" alternative, with only a weak idea about how it would fund that initiative if it gave away its web browser.

Despite the fact that Microsoft had initially completely failed to recognize the rise of the web, once it identified the much smaller Netscape as a threat it decisively leveraged its size, power and position to obliterate its rival and turn the web into another feature of Windows via Internet Explorer—which was an acquisition of the sort that Arment imagined today's Apple will be unable to similarly master in the realm of AI.

Targeting the profit center

Microsoft erased Netscape's power by effectively targeting its profit center: sales of web servers. Microsoft's own "good enough" IIS web server was bundled for free with Windows, sort of like how Apple bundled its own Maps and Spotlight search in iOS, erasing Google's ability to get paid for supplying search results.


And really, if you want to talk about potential for disruption, Apple has far more power to leverage its platform of a billion active devices to cut the advertising pipe supplying Google's revenues than Google or other AI vendors have in trying to get users to leave iOS for a new platform with a verbal interface talking them through paid placement results.

Apple doesn't even have to do this on its own. European carriers are already looking at filtering out mobile ads on the network level in response to the massive data impact that surveillance-based advertising and user-tracking places on their networks.

Ten years of iOS

Fast forward to today—another five years later—and Apple's market cap is now about $540 billion (and that's over $200 billion less than its peak valuation reached last year, thanks to the current irrational stock panic cycle). The former RIM is now valued at less than $4 billion. Google's valuation is $503 billion (just $30 billion from its peak), and Microsoft is valued at $411 billion.


Those are all market caps, which reflect the mindset of investors and short term traders. Looking at revenues and profit, Apple brought in $227.5 billion over the last four quarters, and earned over $50 billion. Despite having a valuation near Apple's (and having briefly passed it on two occasions over the past quarter), Google only brought in $78 billion, and earned just $17 billion over the same period, close to 1/3 of Apple's actual profitability and revenues.

Microsoft earned just over $10 billion on sales of almost $87 billion. That's a fifth of Apple's profits, despite carrying a valuation three-fourths of Apple's. Also, Microsoft has slightly more employees than Apple's 110,000, while Google has roughly 55 percent as many.

Overall, that tells us that Apple has maintained a decade of solid growth while maintaining a rapidly expanding platform of mobile devices. No other vendor of smartphones or tablets or more conventional PCs has performed anything like Apple has over the past decade.

Google's incompetent handling of Android

While Android enthusiasts like to talk about Google maintaining some important share (or even market dominance!) of smartphones with Android, the reality is that Google has failed to benefit very much from the trend toward mobile devices over the past decade, both as an advertiser and most certainly as an aspiring hardware maker—a role it has performed so poorly at that it has all but abandoned its hardware hopes.


For Google to really transform the demand for smartphones, it needs to have some real power in the industry. But what it has done is actually fail repeatedly to deliver its ideas, first with Nexus, then using Motorola, then Android Silver and most recently Android One. Google's software platform exerts very little of the power Microsoft Windows had over PCs.

Over the past year, Google failed to even roll out its latest Android Marshmallow software to even a tenth of its users. Offering an AI app isn't going to dramatically shift its licensees' hardware from low end "carrier friendly, good enough" devices into profitable hardware on the level of iPhone.

Facebook and Amazon's epic failures in smartphones

Facebook and Amazon, two other AI espousing companies, feature stratospheric valuations and very little real profitability, but more importantly have dramatically failed to sell hardware or influence the smartphone market as intended. Facebook Phone and Facebook Home for Android were spectacular failures, and Amazon's own flopped effort to launch Fire Phone was just as poorly executed.


fb-home-1-130404.jpg

Facebook couldn't even take over Android after lining up lots of partners

Even if Facebook, Amazon, Google or another competitor were able to launch a new product that did manage to begin changing the smartphone market and seriously threatening Apple's iPhone business, Apple would have years and scores of billions of dollars to leverage against them.

Did anyone notice what just occured in the "smartwatch" business? Apple showed up two years late and obliterated Android Wear and Samsung Tizen with its own much more expensive Apple Watch, paired with fashion styling that nobody in the commodity hardware business even thought about.


The future of computers

A decade ago, Apple was increasingly seen as "the iPod maker," to the point where Apple itself ditched "Computer" from its corporate name in 2007 when it introduced iPhone. Since the rise of iPhones, Apple has increasingly taken on the identity of the iPhone maker, and indeed iPhones now account for the majority of Apple's sales.

A key aspect of the iPhone's success is that Apple built it on top of its existing computing platform. Prior to iOS, Apple's product mix included ARM-based iPods and Airport Base Stations that were essentially standalone embedded computers with a singular purpose, but iPhone was a general purpose computing platform. So was iPad.

Today, Apple is a much larger computer maker than it was ten years ago, when it was still known as Apple Computer. Instead of making around 6 million Macs and an array of simpler, peripherals (including iPod), Apple now sells about 20 million Macs, 50 million iPads and around 250 million iPhones per year, along with about 12-15 million first-year sales of Apple Watch. Those ~340 million devices are all computers based on a similar core operating system.

Who will muscle into Apple's computing empire? Microsoft has proven that it can barely sustain its partners' Windows ecosystem, and its own Surface sales are hovering around 5 million annually, after three years of trying.

Google and its Android partners have done little but copy Apple's product for sale to a lower end demographic. However, that demographic is feeding iOS because an increasing number of Android users have been migrating to iPhones.

The consumption of computers is not going to end. It may shift, as it clearly has from desktop Windows PCs to handheld mobile computers (where Android plays the broad funnel feeding Apple's premium, profitable iPhone sales) and tablets (where Apple not only leads volume sales, but also makes virtually all the available profits).


It may also change slightly in character, as it has from PCs and tablets what IDC like to call "Detachables," a "new" category that Apple has already dominated with iPad Pro sales within its first three months—in competition against Microsoft's third year of Surface.

The computing market may also expand, as it has with wearables, which Apple also dominated with Apple Watch, already an even larger market than IDC's hybrid tablet-laptops.

And now that Apple has a variant of iOS working on both on a wearable device and in a home-oriented box with Apple TV, it has the potential to identify new kinds of small, dedicated computer devices that would benefit from the app platform and development tools its owns, and the Continuity features it has already used to stitch together Macs, iPods, iPhones and Apple Watch into a connected mesh.

Radically shifting Apple's customer base to a rival platform is going to be vastly more difficult than converting basic smartphone buyers to iPhone was for Apple in the last decade, or shifting conventional PC demand to a simpler, easier to manage iPad. Nobody assumed either of those migrations were even possible, let alone could be done so decisively within just a few years.


When a competitor introduces a new product that causes Apple's revenues to collapse by 75 percent (the way iPhone 6 gutted Samsung's entire mobile unit), we can start talking about the potential for Apple to retaliate with its massive cash hoard. Until then, the idea that the world will simply stop buying computers—because that's the only way Apple could fail—is hard to take seriously.


http://appleinsider.com/articles/16...ser-look-at-ai-and-the-worlds-biggest-company

​

​

Apple’s AI ambitions could include Google or OpenAI​

The iPhone-maker is in ‘active’ talks to bring Gemini to the iPhone, and has also considered using ChatGPT.​

By Jon Porter, a reporter with five years of experience covering consumer tech releases, EU tech policy, online platforms, and mechanical keyboards.
Mar 18, 2024, 5:30 AM EDT

The iPhone 15 Pro (blue titanium) and 15 Pro Max (white titanium) standing next to one another.

Last year’s iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max. Photo by Vjeran Pavic / The Verge
Apple is reportedly in “active negotiations” with Google to bring its Gemini generative AI technology to the iPhone, Bloomberg reports, and has also considered using OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

CEO Tim Cook has already confirmed that Apple is spending “a tremendous amount of time and effort” on artificial intelligence features, and plans to release them to its customers “later this year.” Bloomberg’s report suggests that the AI features built into Apple’s products could eventually be powered by a mix of first- and third-party AI models. Apple’s models could power on-device generative AI with iOS 18, releasing later this year, while cloud-based AI features like text- and image-generation could come via partnerships with the likes of Google.

Related​

If a Google deal comes to fruition, Apple wouldn’t be the first company to have tapped the search giant to provide AI features on its phones. Earlier this year Samsung added a series of Galaxy AI-branded features to its Galaxy S24 smartphones, which are powered by Google’s AI technology. Google’s AI also appears prominently on its own Pixel 8 devices. The potential branding or implementation of Google’s AI tech into Apple’s devices is yet to be decided.

The iPhone maker already has a longstanding deal with Google to make Google Search the default on its devices, in an agreement that’s believed to be worth $18 billion annually. But such deals have been increasingly contentious with regulators, with the US Department of Justice accusing Google of using them to unfairly entrench its search engine’s market position.

A potential AI deal between Apple and Google could expand the reach of Google’s AI tools to the over 2 billion iPhones Apple currently has in the market. But Bloomberg notes that it risks being a concession from Apple that its own generative AI technology is lagging behind its competitors. Apple employees have apparently been testing an in-house chatbot called Apple GPT, and the company reportedly has its own large language model codenamed Ajax, but Apple’s AI tech is said to be less advanced than the competition.

It sounds like we might have a while to wait to hear if Apple ends up signing its AI deal with Google, with Bloomberg noting that any such deal is unlikely to be announced before WWDC in June.

 
Apple is now the modern day Motorola and the iphone is now what the razor became.

:itsawrap:

LOL...

Uh not so fast buddy..... and I USED to hate Apple... but now they seem to be the blackberry of phones

when it comes to security and allowing third parties to have access to your information..props to apple

for telling the feds to kick rocks....
 
Apple was smart enough to go after hearts and minds especially with kids here in the US. Their walled garden formula does work even tho they got the US government breathing down their necks about it. iMessage really has a lock on people within the US vs outside of the US were WhatsApp and other messaging apps makes choices more robust.

 
Apple don't get points for telling the feds to fuck off. Your information is out there and it is so valuable that it is the number one commodity in the world. And all those mfers (Google, Microsoft, Instagram, the feds, etc) are involved in trading & sharing that information. That security situation was just a great advertisement opportunity provided by the feds.

Apple gonna be ok because it's in fad fashion & their product have class status. Like Tesla cars. From an IT perspective they keep their users dumb & apple keeps they hand in their users wallets. They about they money thats in their clients pocket.
 
Apple don't get points for telling the feds to fuck off. Your information is out there and it is so valuable that it is the number one commodity in the world. And all those mfers (Google, Microsoft, Instagram, the feds, etc) are involved in trading & sharing that information. That security situation was just a great advertisement opportunity provided by the feds.

Apple gonna be ok because it's in fad fashion & their product have class status. Like Tesla cars. From an IT perspective they keep their users dumb & apple keeps they hand in their users wallets. They about they money thats in their clients pocket.

They don't keep their users dumb.

Their users don't want to use their phones like a mainframe.

Apple understands people want to browse social media, snap pictures, watch content and listen to music. That's it.

The vast, vast majority of people are not trying to sideload apps, reconfigure the entire phone, and spend 100 hours on tinkering with it.
 
Back
Top