zak_mckraken
Distinguished
- Jan 16, 2004
- 868
- 0
- 18,930
- Status
darkavenger123
Distinguished
- Feb 22, 2010
- 107
- 0
- 18,630
What's the fuss?? I download all my Blurary HD movies into a server and can play anytime i want, stream it to anywhere in the house (even in the toilet, where i can watch it on my Samsung Galaxy S2 while doing a big job!). Can iFong or iTV do this?? No??? FAIILLLLEEDD!
Seriously, i just don't watch TV anymore....
Seriously, i just don't watch TV anymore....
TV does not need a update, content providers do. I want to watch whatever show I want to watch, when I want to on any device I want to see it on. Cable companies and content creators just need to realize that the business model of people waiting for a certain time and date to see what they want is just not viable anymore. Look at the success of services like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon they all understand this but they are hindered by the studios. That's why we can't get new releases streamed over the web and it drives me crazy because I would be willing to pay for it.
I can see the use of siri for television viewing. It could go like this....
Me: Are there any hockey games on tonight
Siri: I found 3 hockey games tonight. Here they are (shows game times on screen).
... or like this ...
Me: Are there any hockey games on tonight
Siri: I do not know what a "hot key gay song" is.
Me: Nevermind. Where is the remote?
Me: Are there any hockey games on tonight
Siri: I found 3 hockey games tonight. Here they are (shows game times on screen).
... or like this ...
Me: Are there any hockey games on tonight
Siri: I do not know what a "hot key gay song" is.
Me: Nevermind. Where is the remote?
[citation][nom]Kevin Anti-Apple Parish[/nom]
The magazine points out that most of what was discussed in the Wall Street Journal's report is already available in other services and devices: whatever Apple is brewing isn't necessarily new and innovative at this point. Hulu Plus and Netflix allow users to start on one device and continue on another. The Xbox 360 with Kinect has already mastered the voice and gesture aspect. DirecTV subscribers can even control their content via an Android smartpohne or tablet.
[/citation]
Hulu Plus, Netflix.... available, where exactly? Oh yes, that's right, the USA, not in the UK. Very useful..
XBox 360? Really? Comparing a male-teenage-boy device to a mainstream device such as a television? Yeah, I'm sure I can convince my gran that what she needs is in fact a games console to add features to her TV... /end sarcasm.
And ROFL @ 'not really innovative' - you list a few isolated cases of where certain features are implemented currently, but where are they all brought together in a user friendly way? Answer, they aren't. When will you guys realise that the way the technology is brought together is the innovation itself.
It's like every new ferrari which comes out, you guys would be like 'OMG there are engines and wheels in other cars so omfg where is the innovation?!?!'
Get a clue please thanks
The magazine points out that most of what was discussed in the Wall Street Journal's report is already available in other services and devices: whatever Apple is brewing isn't necessarily new and innovative at this point. Hulu Plus and Netflix allow users to start on one device and continue on another. The Xbox 360 with Kinect has already mastered the voice and gesture aspect. DirecTV subscribers can even control their content via an Android smartpohne or tablet.
[/citation]
Hulu Plus, Netflix.... available, where exactly? Oh yes, that's right, the USA, not in the UK. Very useful..
XBox 360? Really? Comparing a male-teenage-boy device to a mainstream device such as a television? Yeah, I'm sure I can convince my gran that what she needs is in fact a games console to add features to her TV... /end sarcasm.
And ROFL @ 'not really innovative' - you list a few isolated cases of where certain features are implemented currently, but where are they all brought together in a user friendly way? Answer, they aren't. When will you guys realise that the way the technology is brought together is the innovation itself.
It's like every new ferrari which comes out, you guys would be like 'OMG there are engines and wheels in other cars so omfg where is the innovation?!?!'
Get a clue please thanks
[citation][nom]rawful[/nom] Is he an Apple employee or just an idiot? There is no way to tell for sure, but I am guessing both. Apple sucks. I am still amazed that the company was saved by an overpriced mp3 player.[/citation]
Lets consider the case:
You are the idiot, not him.
The most profitable IT company in the world doesn't suck.
You understand what overpriced means, and realise that if the devices were, in-fact, overpriced, they wouldn't have outsold everything else.
You see - the reason he probably speaks out may not be anything to do with any allegiance with Apple, it may just be that the arguments criticising one of the most profitable companies in the world tend to be devoid of logic or basic understanding, usually fuelled by an irrational dislike of a company or ludicrous statements such as 'Apple sucks'
That, for example, is why I find myself replying to you.
Lets consider the case:
You are the idiot, not him.
The most profitable IT company in the world doesn't suck.
You understand what overpriced means, and realise that if the devices were, in-fact, overpriced, they wouldn't have outsold everything else.
You see - the reason he probably speaks out may not be anything to do with any allegiance with Apple, it may just be that the arguments criticising one of the most profitable companies in the world tend to be devoid of logic or basic understanding, usually fuelled by an irrational dislike of a company or ludicrous statements such as 'Apple sucks'
That, for example, is why I find myself replying to you.
del35
Distinguished
- May 22, 2009
- 495
- 0
- 18,930
Ummm soon we will be hit with a patent on the phrase: "Turn off tv"
How about making a remote control that can interpret human speech instead of bringing the trashy SIRI into the picture. The technology has been around for years, and please let people opt out of having to speak to their tv. I certainly don't want to wake up anyone that has gone to bed.
In passing let me just add that iRobbedyou is probably interested in bringing the cloud into the picture primarily because they can track and log your tv watching activity for marketing purposes.
How about making a remote control that can interpret human speech instead of bringing the trashy SIRI into the picture. The technology has been around for years, and please let people opt out of having to speak to their tv. I certainly don't want to wake up anyone that has gone to bed.
In passing let me just add that iRobbedyou is probably interested in bringing the cloud into the picture primarily because they can track and log your tv watching activity for marketing purposes.
[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Lets consider the case:You are the idiot, not him.The most profitable IT company in the world doesn't suck.You understand what overpriced means, and realise that if the devices were, in-fact, overpriced, they wouldn't have outsold everything else.You see - the reason he probably speaks out may not be anything to do with any allegiance with Apple, it may just be that the arguments criticising one of the most profitable companies in the world tend to be devoid of logic or basic understanding, usually fuelled by an irrational dislike of a company or ludicrous statements such as 'Apple sucks'That, for example, is why I find myself replying to you.[/citation]
I am happy you took the time to reply to me. Your argument is that Apple products are worth their prices because people buy them. Also, you say that getreal has no allegiance to Apple when he only posts in threads about Apple, and only posts to troll people who don't like what Apple does, or the overpriced products they make.
The most profitable IT company. Hmmm. Doesn't make overpriced products. Hmmm. Is their profit from extreme market saturation? Not really. You are telling me that they are not overpriced, yet they make the most profit on their products.
They were about to fail and cease to exist before making an EMM PEE THREE PLAYER. WOW!!!! So innovative!!!!!!!!!!
Get out of here.
I am happy you took the time to reply to me. Your argument is that Apple products are worth their prices because people buy them. Also, you say that getreal has no allegiance to Apple when he only posts in threads about Apple, and only posts to troll people who don't like what Apple does, or the overpriced products they make.
The most profitable IT company. Hmmm. Doesn't make overpriced products. Hmmm. Is their profit from extreme market saturation? Not really. You are telling me that they are not overpriced, yet they make the most profit on their products.
They were about to fail and cease to exist before making an EMM PEE THREE PLAYER. WOW!!!! So innovative!!!!!!!!!!
Get out of here.
[citation][nom]rawful[/nom]I am happy you took the time to reply to me. Your argument is that Apple products are worth their prices because people buy them. Also, you say that getreal has no allegiance to Apple when he only posts in threads about Apple, and only posts to troll people who don't like what Apple does, or the overpriced products they make.The most profitable IT company. Hmmm. Doesn't make overpriced products. Hmmm. Is their profit from extreme market saturation? Not really. You are telling me that they are not overpriced, yet they make the most profit on their products.They were about to fail and cease to exist before making an EMM PEE THREE PLAYER. WOW!!!! So innovative!!!!!!!!!!Get out of here.[/citation]
Funny. It's almost like you are trying to be serious. It's not like any sensible person would think something is generally considered overpriced, yet generally that price is paid (by not just missions of people, but by a significant percentage of the potential market). It a logical contradiction that anyone would, of course, see. Also, if you do pare down the 'ecosystem' that Apple created (MP3 player, simplified system of getting content, service, walk-in service, etc.) to just the MP3 player, it does not seem innovative. Then again, if you only count a small part of anything, is seems smaller (because, coincidentally, it is). But as I said, it is humorous to see someone write down an argument acting as though these things are sensible assertions.
Funny. It's almost like you are trying to be serious. It's not like any sensible person would think something is generally considered overpriced, yet generally that price is paid (by not just missions of people, but by a significant percentage of the potential market). It a logical contradiction that anyone would, of course, see. Also, if you do pare down the 'ecosystem' that Apple created (MP3 player, simplified system of getting content, service, walk-in service, etc.) to just the MP3 player, it does not seem innovative. Then again, if you only count a small part of anything, is seems smaller (because, coincidentally, it is). But as I said, it is humorous to see someone write down an argument acting as though these things are sensible assertions.
[citation][nom]rawful[/nom]I am happy you took the time to reply to me. Your argument is that Apple products are worth their prices because people buy them. Also, you say that getreal has no allegiance to Apple when he only posts in threads about Apple, and only posts to troll people who don't like what Apple does, or the overpriced products they make.The most profitable IT company. Hmmm. Doesn't make overpriced products. Hmmm. Is their profit from extreme market saturation? Not really. You are telling me that they are not overpriced, yet they make the most profit on their products.They were about to fail and cease to exist before making an EMM PEE THREE PLAYER. WOW!!!! So innovative!!!!!!!!!!Get out of here.[/citation]
First of all, your 'mp3 player' argument is illogical, fundamentally incorrect, and absolutely irrelevant. First of all, the history of the company does not necessarily mean anything about where they are now. At some point, EVERY company simply did not exist. Does that mean they are all tiny companies? Please.
Secondly - I didn't say that he has no allegiance, at all. I said he 'may' not, you should learn to read more carefully and then you would realise that you could only possible object to what I said if you proved he has.
Thirdly - your misunderstanding of markets, product development, companies, just business in general, is starting to give me an insight into the conclusions you reach. A company does not have to have 'extreme market saturation' when combined with being the most profitable to not be overpriced, and here's why. The key factor you fail to consider is product quality. Much like Bentley may only sell 15,000 cars per year, yet make more profit than other companies who sell 100,000 per year - the reason they can achieve this is through offering something unique. Argue against Apple all you like, but even criticisms levelled at Apple are demonstrating it's uniqueness. Some say Apple store is 'closed', some realise that being 'closed' is the only way to offer a reasonable level of security. Some say that Apple interface is for 'idiots who don't use computers', others realise that a simple interface is key to any application aimed at any end user. Various other unique features such as Siri (which has no technical equivalent on Android), or being able to stream the screen wirelessly to HD, as well as the best customer satisfaction ratings of any company, extremely good battery life, and right now the fastest CPU/GPU combination of any smartphone ever released, the biggest app store in the world, are some of the many examples of this. The key phrase is product differentiation, and the key point is that the customers feel that what they get above and beyond what they get on an Android phone, justifies the price premium. Indeed, the reverse is true and Android is a perfect example of this. Many analysts have noted that what is lacking with Android is any real product differentiation - all the manufacturers basically offer the same thing, and so it becomes a price battle. Good for the consumer, and I have nothing against Android, but that competition means that any one company, be it Samsung, Motorola, HTC, is not unique, they are entirely replaceable, and they have more direct competition offering something similar to what they have.
As with any commodity, the rules of supply and demand govern value, not your personal perceptions. The fact that the iPhone range has outsold every single other smartphone and set records for the most ever sold, every step of the way, indicates that the market believes that they are not, in fact overpriced, because they are very much in demand, and the supply is simply one company. Conversely, take any one Android handset and it has not sold as many handsets, despite being cheaper - because there is less demand and there are tens of manufacturers who can produce equivalent products. This actually means that the market is telling you that any one Android handset is more overpriced than the iPhone - something for you to think about. If the iPhone was overpriced, you would see less profit as a result - since fewer people would buy it. The sweetspot between volume and price, the true value, is where profits are maximised - you make a reasonable profit but are still able to justify this cost based on your product and therefore sell a lot. That is the sweet spot Apple found.
To bring it all back round to your claim, the key is that the market (ie, the world population) has assigned a higher value to what Apple has offered than any other smartphone manufacturer thus far, by a long long way, and the profits Apple makes are a reflection of that, they are not indicative of being overpriced.
First of all, your 'mp3 player' argument is illogical, fundamentally incorrect, and absolutely irrelevant. First of all, the history of the company does not necessarily mean anything about where they are now. At some point, EVERY company simply did not exist. Does that mean they are all tiny companies? Please.
Secondly - I didn't say that he has no allegiance, at all. I said he 'may' not, you should learn to read more carefully and then you would realise that you could only possible object to what I said if you proved he has.
Thirdly - your misunderstanding of markets, product development, companies, just business in general, is starting to give me an insight into the conclusions you reach. A company does not have to have 'extreme market saturation' when combined with being the most profitable to not be overpriced, and here's why. The key factor you fail to consider is product quality. Much like Bentley may only sell 15,000 cars per year, yet make more profit than other companies who sell 100,000 per year - the reason they can achieve this is through offering something unique. Argue against Apple all you like, but even criticisms levelled at Apple are demonstrating it's uniqueness. Some say Apple store is 'closed', some realise that being 'closed' is the only way to offer a reasonable level of security. Some say that Apple interface is for 'idiots who don't use computers', others realise that a simple interface is key to any application aimed at any end user. Various other unique features such as Siri (which has no technical equivalent on Android), or being able to stream the screen wirelessly to HD, as well as the best customer satisfaction ratings of any company, extremely good battery life, and right now the fastest CPU/GPU combination of any smartphone ever released, the biggest app store in the world, are some of the many examples of this. The key phrase is product differentiation, and the key point is that the customers feel that what they get above and beyond what they get on an Android phone, justifies the price premium. Indeed, the reverse is true and Android is a perfect example of this. Many analysts have noted that what is lacking with Android is any real product differentiation - all the manufacturers basically offer the same thing, and so it becomes a price battle. Good for the consumer, and I have nothing against Android, but that competition means that any one company, be it Samsung, Motorola, HTC, is not unique, they are entirely replaceable, and they have more direct competition offering something similar to what they have.
As with any commodity, the rules of supply and demand govern value, not your personal perceptions. The fact that the iPhone range has outsold every single other smartphone and set records for the most ever sold, every step of the way, indicates that the market believes that they are not, in fact overpriced, because they are very much in demand, and the supply is simply one company. Conversely, take any one Android handset and it has not sold as many handsets, despite being cheaper - because there is less demand and there are tens of manufacturers who can produce equivalent products. This actually means that the market is telling you that any one Android handset is more overpriced than the iPhone - something for you to think about. If the iPhone was overpriced, you would see less profit as a result - since fewer people would buy it. The sweetspot between volume and price, the true value, is where profits are maximised - you make a reasonable profit but are still able to justify this cost based on your product and therefore sell a lot. That is the sweet spot Apple found.
To bring it all back round to your claim, the key is that the market (ie, the world population) has assigned a higher value to what Apple has offered than any other smartphone manufacturer thus far, by a long long way, and the profits Apple makes are a reflection of that, they are not indicative of being overpriced.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Old text messages not showing up on new android phone
- Started by Weathered95
- Replies: 48
-
-
Question Asus Tuff Fx507 not recognizing new WD_Black 4tb ssd in secondary m2 slot- Started by BelgradianSalsa
- Replies: 10
-
-
Facebook
Twitter