D.G.
Oct 24, 08:55 AM
I notice the apple store defaulted to a glossy screen, does anyone know if changing that to matte classes as a customization in the return policy?
Thanks!
Thanks!
FriarNurgle
Apr 13, 02:33 PM
I can see them licensing AirPlay to third party, but Apple would do best to stick with upgrading and expanding the functionality of the cute hockey puck sized ATV.
$99 is an amazing price point for the ATV and pretty much everyone has HDTVs. I would love to see a native screen mirroring function for iOS and Macs, but we are more likely to see an Apple branded subscription and iAd supplemented media streaming service to compete with Pandora and Netflix.
$99 is an amazing price point for the ATV and pretty much everyone has HDTVs. I would love to see a native screen mirroring function for iOS and Macs, but we are more likely to see an Apple branded subscription and iAd supplemented media streaming service to compete with Pandora and Netflix.
ZackaryVS
Apr 22, 07:05 PM
That thing is ugly! I hope the next iPhone doesn't look like that or I'm going to puke. I'd rather have an iPhone 4... anyways it doesn't look like something Apple would make, so I doubt that's the iPhone 5.
SAD*FACED*CLOWN
Apr 25, 07:57 AM
For all the T-Mobile users just keep your fingers crossed and hope that the merger doesn't pass. wouldn't it be really nice to finally have an iphone at an affordable rate.:o
why do people believe this is possible? Apple will not allow one carrier to undersell the other on the SAME DEVICE...just won't happen it's bad for sales...which is why there is no competition between AT&T and Verizon...similar plans on voice text and data...otherwise everyone would play carrier swap every few month to get the best deal...if Tmobile gets the iPhone while still independent from AT&T you better believe you won't get unlimited everything for 70 bucks
why do people believe this is possible? Apple will not allow one carrier to undersell the other on the SAME DEVICE...just won't happen it's bad for sales...which is why there is no competition between AT&T and Verizon...similar plans on voice text and data...otherwise everyone would play carrier swap every few month to get the best deal...if Tmobile gets the iPhone while still independent from AT&T you better believe you won't get unlimited everything for 70 bucks
more...
mdelvecchio
Apr 26, 04:40 PM
Just ruined my freakin day. I was really hoping it would be an added benefit instead of a paid feature.
why would you let an unconfirmed rumor ruin any day?
why would you let an unconfirmed rumor ruin any day?
TheMadCow
Jul 26, 01:08 PM
Quit trying to shuffle responsibility off on someone else for your mental shortcomings. Sure, people make mistakes, that's life. But to suggest that Apple guard you from your own idiocy - seriously? The current crop of gen XYZ'ers are stuck in that entitlement loop of, "I can do no wrong - it's obviously your fault for allowing it to happen to me."
When I was 11 I knew damn well what I was doing. I got my ass smacked when I got caught, too. It taught me not to get caught.
When I was 11 I knew damn well what I was doing. I got my ass smacked when I got caught, too. It taught me not to get caught.
more...
RoelJuun
Apr 15, 07:07 PM
Although I find the slider buttons pretty, I think these are just a step to touch-interface. It makes sense when you have to actually slide the button (with your fingers). But when using a mouse/trackpad, it is more logical to point at the option you want and the selection will slide to the requested option.
I think this will return when touch-based interface will make its entry.
I think this will return when touch-based interface will make its entry.
mozmac
Jul 28, 11:05 AM
A.K.A...."If Zune fails, you can't bash us in the media. We told you it wasn't going to be successful." And then when it's still unsuccessful after five years, they'll be like, "Forget about Zune, look at this new operating system we're releasing this year. It's called Vista. It has this new search feature called Floodlight. When you search for something it instantly floods you with results from your hard drive."
more...
mdntcallr
Oct 23, 10:21 AM
this is just microsofts way to stick it to the mac user who wants to use dual booting. not those who will use boot camp?
anyway you look at it, this is lame. Can't we just pay them and they accept our money? Now they will tell us it isn't enough, we have to pay more.
screw ms, people can't get a break FROM THESE LOSERS~!!
anyway you look at it, this is lame. Can't we just pay them and they accept our money? Now they will tell us it isn't enough, we have to pay more.
screw ms, people can't get a break FROM THESE LOSERS~!!
TEG
Jan 25, 07:43 PM
Apple reported a great previous quarter, but thinks that the next quarter may see fewer sales due to a perceived slowdown in the US economy (even though anyone with even a gnat's knowledge of economy would know that it is not a big deal). The stock market is a bet on future performance, not past performance, therefore people who have no idea what they are doing [read: most investors] dumped the stock to make their profits. I have 50 shares at a split adjusted cost of $10, so I'm holding on to it for the long run.
TEG
TEG
more...
ikir
May 4, 12:58 AM
iPhone 4 is more than enough, probably they will update at the end of the year or September. Live with it nerds.
SandynJosh
Apr 29, 10:24 PM
How stupid can Jeff Bozo be?!
By undercutting the already cheap ala cart business model the record labels and the artist and writers etc are going to fell the pain right down to their pockets.
I'm not sure at what price point predatory pricing becomes an issue, but I would think that Amazon may have crossed that line.
Now, it may be possible that Amazon is not offering the same product at $.69 a song. For example I have downloaded a song from Amazon that I paid $.99 for, and was surprised to see it did not have the same sample rate as my iTunes songs.
At some point I can't see the studios nor the artists wanting to take an income-per-song hit without having their say about it. If Amazon is selling music at a loss per song, then the FTC might have a say about that.
By undercutting the already cheap ala cart business model the record labels and the artist and writers etc are going to fell the pain right down to their pockets.
I'm not sure at what price point predatory pricing becomes an issue, but I would think that Amazon may have crossed that line.
Now, it may be possible that Amazon is not offering the same product at $.69 a song. For example I have downloaded a song from Amazon that I paid $.99 for, and was surprised to see it did not have the same sample rate as my iTunes songs.
At some point I can't see the studios nor the artists wanting to take an income-per-song hit without having their say about it. If Amazon is selling music at a loss per song, then the FTC might have a say about that.
more...
Dubthedankest
Mar 15, 09:35 AM
Be sure to let us know if any of those stores have product. Out of all the stores I've seen that have opened early today, none have had product. Which, of course, begs the question 'why in the hell are you opening early then?'
wedge antilies
Jul 11, 06:30 PM
The XBox seems to be doing pretty well.
The following is from Gamespot. com
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6148512.html?page=3
"But as a result of increased production and marketing costs of the Xbox 360, on which Microsoft currently loses an estimated $126 per unit, its Home and Entertainment division found itself in an unenviable position. Despite the fact the division's quarterly revenue went from $571 million in 2005 to $1.056 billion in all its new income evaporated. Its quarterly operating loss went from $175 million in 2005 to $388 million in 2006."
However with the Games console Microsoft can make money from Game sales and liscensing. Since Apple has already admitted that the iTMS has razor thin profits, they won't be able to duplicate that revenue stream in this area.
The following is from Gamesarefun.com
http://www.gamesarefun.com/gamesdb/editorial.php?editorialid=4
"Since the Xbox launched, the Home and Entertainment Division has seen financial losses approaching $1 billion per year. The losses are $880 million and $990 million per fiscal year, respectively. Add in the $273 million lost in Microsoft's fiscal Q1 (calendar Q3), and $241 million lost in fiscal Q2 (calendar Q4) and we get $2.384 billion lost since the launch of the Xbox".
The argument some people are making is that if Microsoft is willing to put up with losses like this, they can do the same in the "iPod-like" market. However, the markets are truly different in a few ways - a) there is no razor/razorblade economic model b) there are VERY FEW barriers to entry c) The upgrade cycle is MUCH faster.
I think this a threat, but I think Apple may have this covered.
-Red 2.
The following is from Gamespot. com
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6148512.html?page=3
"But as a result of increased production and marketing costs of the Xbox 360, on which Microsoft currently loses an estimated $126 per unit, its Home and Entertainment division found itself in an unenviable position. Despite the fact the division's quarterly revenue went from $571 million in 2005 to $1.056 billion in all its new income evaporated. Its quarterly operating loss went from $175 million in 2005 to $388 million in 2006."
However with the Games console Microsoft can make money from Game sales and liscensing. Since Apple has already admitted that the iTMS has razor thin profits, they won't be able to duplicate that revenue stream in this area.
The following is from Gamesarefun.com
http://www.gamesarefun.com/gamesdb/editorial.php?editorialid=4
"Since the Xbox launched, the Home and Entertainment Division has seen financial losses approaching $1 billion per year. The losses are $880 million and $990 million per fiscal year, respectively. Add in the $273 million lost in Microsoft's fiscal Q1 (calendar Q3), and $241 million lost in fiscal Q2 (calendar Q4) and we get $2.384 billion lost since the launch of the Xbox".
The argument some people are making is that if Microsoft is willing to put up with losses like this, they can do the same in the "iPod-like" market. However, the markets are truly different in a few ways - a) there is no razor/razorblade economic model b) there are VERY FEW barriers to entry c) The upgrade cycle is MUCH faster.
I think this a threat, but I think Apple may have this covered.
-Red 2.
more...
gnasher729
Oct 24, 05:01 AM
I have no issues with having the software installed once, although Apple allowing certain products to be installed on a desktop AND a laptop is great. But, I do not steal software. I really like what Apple does with their 'Family Packs'. You can add ~ 25-30% to the price and install it on five machines. That is great marketing and very fair.
Since I don't have a "Family Pack": Could you have a look at the license and check whether it would allow installing on three Macs plus in a virtual machine on two of these Macs for a total of five copies?
Since I don't have a "Family Pack": Could you have a look at the license and check whether it would allow installing on three Macs plus in a virtual machine on two of these Macs for a total of five copies?
XnavxeMiyyep
Dec 1, 09:35 PM
F-Secure sells security software for getting rid of adware.
F-Secure claims to have found adware for Mac without providing evidence.
COINCIDENCE!?
I think not!
F-Secure claims to have found adware for Mac without providing evidence.
COINCIDENCE!?
I think not!
more...
bluebomberman
Jul 10, 05:00 PM
As for being harsh, it seems like every time a thread on subject gets started, someone says Pages is only really suitable for newsletters, and not for "serious" writing. I find that most of the people who say this haven't gotten much past the template selection window. They see all those newsletter and flier templates and assume that this all Pages is good for. They've probably never created a template of their own and so are missing one of Pages' most powerful features.
Part of the problem is the way they market it. There was such an emphasis on templates and graphic-intensive stuff when it was first demoed in MacWorld 2005 that it's hard to think it can be a good word processor. My first thought was how it looked 100x better than Microsoft Publisher.
Again, I think this latest rumor shows that Apple will address some of the perceptions (or misperceptions, depending on who you ask) by allowing people to dive into word processing mode and adding better search and research functions. It just might make me a convert.
Part of the problem is the way they market it. There was such an emphasis on templates and graphic-intensive stuff when it was first demoed in MacWorld 2005 that it's hard to think it can be a good word processor. My first thought was how it looked 100x better than Microsoft Publisher.
Again, I think this latest rumor shows that Apple will address some of the perceptions (or misperceptions, depending on who you ask) by allowing people to dive into word processing mode and adding better search and research functions. It just might make me a convert.
lofight
Jan 30, 09:32 AM
How does one buy stock anyway? (from the UK)
I have absolutely no idea on the subject, is it just a matter of buying a share at a couple of hundred dollars, watching Apple go through one of its "win" moments then selling it for a little profit ($50 or whatever) just as a starter? What about tax?
You can do this via your bank our internet, but i'm also a noob in this..
I have absolutely no idea on the subject, is it just a matter of buying a share at a couple of hundred dollars, watching Apple go through one of its "win" moments then selling it for a little profit ($50 or whatever) just as a starter? What about tax?
You can do this via your bank our internet, but i'm also a noob in this..
Skoal
Apr 13, 03:28 PM
GLEE! Ugh! 'Nuff said!
displaced
Jul 30, 06:32 AM
Well go and tell that to Dell and their massive market share and we'll see if they take you seriously and change their marketing strategy. Theres ideology and then theres reality, I suggest you take a trip into reality. People may think Apple is innovative but so what? Most people buy whats cheap, not whats innovative, and since Dell isnt innovative in anything they do they can afford to be cheap. We have solid proof that innovation doesnt sell as well as affordability, what is there to argue about exactly? I think Apple is perfectly fine with having such a tiny market share especially since iPod is keeping them afloat (how many billions does Jobs need? Hes probably in no rush to make mroe money), but if Apple fans expect Apple to try and get more market share then they should expect them to lower their prices and offer things like Dell.
This is why I'm not too concerned about Apple getting Dell-like levels of marketshare.
I see value in both Apple's hardware and their software. In fact, I see more value in the software than the hardware. However, they make most of the money from the hardware, so in effect I'm helping the continued development of Apple's software with my hardware purchases.
If Apple sold machines for Dell prices, they'd only be able to afford to produce machines and software like Dell. Goodbye iWork, OS X, CoreVideo, xnu, Darwin, Quartz, Cocoa, Carbon, Xcode, Filemaker, Safari, iChat, Final Cut, Aperture, iMovie, iDVD, QuickTime, GarageBand, AppleScript, Compressor, Motion, Soundtrack, Logic, Shake, Xsan, WebObjects, ARD, iTunes... Most of these products existed pre-iPod. Heck, the money for iPod development probably initially came from Mac and software sales.
Some of Apple's business does intersect with Dell's, but I don't think it's fair to compare the companies as a whole directly. What's good for Dell isn't necessarily good for Apple. Dell's business is low-margin, high-volume and is specialised(*). They integrate components, and shift boxes. If what you need is a box of parts that'll run Windows, then Dell's a good place to buy. But for a sizeable number of people (over a million per quarter), Apple's a better fit.
A 'large' market share isn't ideal for Apple's business, simply because of the concessions required to reach it would kill the company. What's ideal is a sustainable market share. I think they've got the strategy right: keep developing products which are attractive, price them according to the balance between customer acceptance and fiscal needs, and (above all) simply be around to provide a good platform which is self-sustainable.
Most people may well buy cheap. But there's a market for Apple's products, and it's looking stable, with signs of measured growth. Sounds good to me.
(* - it may seem odd to call Dell's products specialised. But they are. Dell's basically a one-trick pony. Their business model allows little else. Consider how long it took them to consider AMD processors. The contemporary wisdom has been that the reason was twofold. Firstly, they were quite likely getting superb prices for Intel processors, and advertising money from Intel that may have been threatened by including AMD models. But also, it was noted that adding AMD machines would introduce an amount of complexity to Dell's supply chain management that could impact their margins. They had to wait until the potential market for AMD-based Dell machines was guaranteed to be large enough that it would offset the costs of diversifying. Dell has very limited flexibility. It has historically worked for them, but investors have been twitch recently over multiple profit warnings from the company)
This is why I'm not too concerned about Apple getting Dell-like levels of marketshare.
I see value in both Apple's hardware and their software. In fact, I see more value in the software than the hardware. However, they make most of the money from the hardware, so in effect I'm helping the continued development of Apple's software with my hardware purchases.
If Apple sold machines for Dell prices, they'd only be able to afford to produce machines and software like Dell. Goodbye iWork, OS X, CoreVideo, xnu, Darwin, Quartz, Cocoa, Carbon, Xcode, Filemaker, Safari, iChat, Final Cut, Aperture, iMovie, iDVD, QuickTime, GarageBand, AppleScript, Compressor, Motion, Soundtrack, Logic, Shake, Xsan, WebObjects, ARD, iTunes... Most of these products existed pre-iPod. Heck, the money for iPod development probably initially came from Mac and software sales.
Some of Apple's business does intersect with Dell's, but I don't think it's fair to compare the companies as a whole directly. What's good for Dell isn't necessarily good for Apple. Dell's business is low-margin, high-volume and is specialised(*). They integrate components, and shift boxes. If what you need is a box of parts that'll run Windows, then Dell's a good place to buy. But for a sizeable number of people (over a million per quarter), Apple's a better fit.
A 'large' market share isn't ideal for Apple's business, simply because of the concessions required to reach it would kill the company. What's ideal is a sustainable market share. I think they've got the strategy right: keep developing products which are attractive, price them according to the balance between customer acceptance and fiscal needs, and (above all) simply be around to provide a good platform which is self-sustainable.
Most people may well buy cheap. But there's a market for Apple's products, and it's looking stable, with signs of measured growth. Sounds good to me.
(* - it may seem odd to call Dell's products specialised. But they are. Dell's basically a one-trick pony. Their business model allows little else. Consider how long it took them to consider AMD processors. The contemporary wisdom has been that the reason was twofold. Firstly, they were quite likely getting superb prices for Intel processors, and advertising money from Intel that may have been threatened by including AMD models. But also, it was noted that adding AMD machines would introduce an amount of complexity to Dell's supply chain management that could impact their margins. They had to wait until the potential market for AMD-based Dell machines was guaranteed to be large enough that it would offset the costs of diversifying. Dell has very limited flexibility. It has historically worked for them, but investors have been twitch recently over multiple profit warnings from the company)
spoonyfreshh
Sep 13, 11:01 PM
some new goodies i got today
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4128/4987561074_a20919b8fc_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4128/4987561074_a20919b8fc_b.jpg
localoid
Feb 12, 08:30 PM
... Such is life amongst the Bread & Circuses crowd in the U. S. of A.
Last timeline of history I looked at seemed to indicate that gluttony predated the establishment of the U.S. government.
Personally speaking though, I must say that I think that engaging the services of more than two or possibly three prostitutes at a time is absolutely boorish behavior...
Last timeline of history I looked at seemed to indicate that gluttony predated the establishment of the U.S. government.
Personally speaking though, I must say that I think that engaging the services of more than two or possibly three prostitutes at a time is absolutely boorish behavior...
twcbc
May 4, 07:07 PM
Maybe you misunderstood me... I don't care about market share... either hardware share or software share. I don't think it matters how much of one thing there are against another thing.
You're right... Apple cares about profit... mostly from selling hardware. Which they do... lots of hardware. I think that's more important for a company.
Apple is, and has always been, a hardware company.
Google went down the route of putting their software on any device that wanted it... which is why I hate when people compare Android vs the iPhone.
It's not about you, point is "market share is very important" to Apple. Saying market share is not a goal is just wrong.
You're right... Apple cares about profit... mostly from selling hardware. Which they do... lots of hardware. I think that's more important for a company.
Apple is, and has always been, a hardware company.
Google went down the route of putting their software on any device that wanted it... which is why I hate when people compare Android vs the iPhone.
It's not about you, point is "market share is very important" to Apple. Saying market share is not a goal is just wrong.
IJ Reilly
Jan 27, 11:35 AM
True, that's why I like to look at the PEG Ratio (P/E to Growth). If we take the current price of 130 minus cash net of payables and receivables (approx $17 a share), you get 113 for the "enterprise" value of Apple. I'll give it a conservative $5/share earnings this year, for a P/E of 23. According to Yahoo, we have an estimate of 30% growth this year, so we are getting a PEG of less than 1 for this year. Less than 1 is cheap, HOWEVER, it doesn't mean it can't/won't get cheaper.
Excellent comments. Long-time AAPL investors have seen these moments of despair before -- too many times before, to be honest. The markets have always treated Apple this way, unfortunately. It's difficult to imagine Apple's prospects being any brighter. The company is moving forward on all fronts. These are times when you have look down the road instead of at the potholes at your feet.
Excellent comments. Long-time AAPL investors have seen these moments of despair before -- too many times before, to be honest. The markets have always treated Apple this way, unfortunately. It's difficult to imagine Apple's prospects being any brighter. The company is moving forward on all fronts. These are times when you have look down the road instead of at the potholes at your feet.
