Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

goonsquad

Members
  • Content Count

    8,587
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About goonsquad

  • Rank
    Think different.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    1 Infinite Loop

Recent Profile Visitors

11,386 profile views
  1. Universal Serial Bus. When has Apple ever designed a product that easily and universally accepted/connected to other manufacturers' devices? Apple is all about a controlled and closed ecosystem where you expand/upgrade by buying the next Apple release, not simply replacing or plugging in parts.Apple has included USB in every Mac released since the original bondi blue iMac in 1998.
  2. Honest answer: because blockbuster games cost so much to make they need to appeal to as wide of an audience as possible.
  3. I did do a full backup by USB and I still had this problem. When I went to do a restore from my backup, it didn't work. After I calmed down, I realized it was a partial restore, and was able to go thru the list of apps and iTunes still recognized which ones should have been on my phone, it just wouldn't install them. I then clicked on the apps I wanted to keep and double-clicked on those to get rid of. (or something like that.)The important thing is to make sure your photos are on the icloud function that allows them to be sent back to your computer when you take them, the same for your contacts and such. That way when things like this happen, replacing apps is all you have to do. NBD. Apparently so they can sell more apple care subscriptions. Crooks.Yes, it's Apple fault that you don't back up your data. Yes, you are correct, but is it Apple's fault when you DO backup your data and the upgrade screws up?!?Sure.
  4. Not exactly - that may be what Tim Cook is trying to say now, but I think Jobs looked at like this:iPod - cool device to hold music, replaces cd player - it evolves to be able to hold more than music iPhone - as iPods got bigger they approached the shape/form of a mobile phone - Iphone was essentially iPod with new functionality, and removing the "wheel" with more touch screen As App store grew, people's use of iPhone changed - from mostly phone, to mostly other stuff. People surfed the internet, downloaded stuff, watched videos, all on a 3.5 inch screen. I think, at that point, someone at Apple said, we should have a better platform for these mobile games, videos, internet surfing, etc -essentially replace the iphone as the hardware of choice for these functions when you are not truly mobile. IPad was developed as a larger iPod Touch (which was really a iPhone without the phone) - to replace recreational computer use. A size and shape were considered, and ultimately you got the iPad. AT that point, you had iPods for specific purposes, iPhone for other purposes, and iPad for still different purposes - some overlap certainly, but each had a primary function. I have not heard anything to describe what function the iPad mini is supposed to fulfill - other than a cheaper product - which is a very different reason than noted above. Even when you consider the different size ipods, each seemed to fulfill a particular niche. I am sure it has been said, but I don't know what niche the mini is supposed to fill. Technically, Steve Jobs stated that the iPad was developed before the iPhone. They decided that the technology would lend itself to the phone and launched iPhone first.
  5. Apparently so they can sell more apple care subscriptions. Crooks.Yes, it's Apple fault that you don't back up your data.
  6. Thats an interesting perspective - I wonder how Jobs would have attacked the same problem. I've never known Apple to focus on consumer demand as much as they are now. It seems that Apple would always put out a product and tell/market their story that this is the only way this product should be - anyone else is telling you differently does not know what they are talking about. I'd love to know how Jobs felt about a smaller iPad.I mean, they exploited an entire segment (tablets) when nobody was demanding such a product, nobody thought they needed/wanted such a product. The essentially proactively told the market what the market needed - instead of reacting to the market and competitors. Iphone was another example where someone at Apple had an idea and built it before there was really any consumer demand. If I was still a shareholder, I would be worried that they are becoming more like their competitors - and playing catch-up to consumer demand, rather than creating consumer demand. The value is in creating demand, not chasing demand - at that point almost all competitors are on equal footing, and then its just a race to the lowest price point (lowest margins) - and that hurts profits. "He would flip on something so fast that you would forget that he was the one taking the 180 degree polar [opposite] position the day before. I saw it daily. This is a gift, because things do change, and it takes courage to change. It takes courage to say, ‘I was wrong.’ I think he had that."-Apple CEO Tim Cook about Steve JobsWhat would Steve Jobs think of the Mini? He once said that he wasn't interested in making a smaller iPad because the 7" form factor didn't provide a good user experience. Of course, he also once stated that there was no reason to include video playback on an iPod because no one wanted to watch a movie on such a small screen. And that 3.5" was the ideal size screen for a phone. And that he wouldn't release an iOS SDK; all third party apps would be HTML apps. Reacting to consumer demand isn't an inherently bad thing, as long as Apple doesn't sacrifice quality and user experience in doing so. The key in all of these examples is that Apple had already defined each market and already created demand by becoming the standard by which their competitors are judged. As an investor and fan, I like to see Apple aggressively attack a market segment where their competitors are finding success as long as they don't sacrifice their core values in doing so.
  7. Despite introducing the 4 and the mini, they are still losing market share. I wouldn't say they are the clear leaders in the tablet sector. They used to have 100% as they basically created it, but their insistence on maintaining high margins is killing the stranglehold they had with the iPad innovation.Apple shipped a total of 22.9 million iPads last quarter. In second place, Samsung shipped 8 million tablets (Android + Win8 combined). By any sane definition, that's a "clear leader".This idea of market share "falling" as a sign of trouble for Apple is silly. The thing is, the markets for smart phones and tablets are still expanding. This isn't a zero sum game. Apple's iPad sales grew almost 50% y-o-y, even though their "market share" fell. There is still plenty of room to grow.Does that growth reflect the combined Ipad and Mini numbers? IIRC, last quarter, the bulk of tablet sales came from their Mini. There is no way to know what those sales would have been like without the Mini. The Mini could be seen as a value/budget/less-premium item in the Apple product line and - surprise! - consumers flocked to it. What is the takeaway from that for investors and Tim Cook alike?Yes, those numbers are combined. Apple doesn't break down sales numbers by model so we have no way of know what percentage of iPads were the Mini. We do know that Cook said they "couldn't make the Mini fast enough", so they obviously sold very well. Margins were down across the board, so the lower cost Mini obviously had some effect but I don't think you can safely say that the bulk of iPad sales were the Mini. It launched a month into the quarter and manufacturing ramp up usually takes time. I do expect the Mini to outsell the full-size iPad moving forward.One way to look at the Mini is that it is a threat to cannibalize full-size iPad sales. The other way to see it is that the Mini opens Apple up to a larger potential market. I think the truth is in the middle. At the end of the day, as Tim Cook said: Apple can't fear cannibalizing their own products because if they don't do it someone else will. It's a balancing act to be sure.
  8. The problem is that it is impossible for any company to disrupt a new market every three years, yet that is expectation placed on Apple (and only Apple). In truth, Apple is doing exactly what they have always done, even throughout the Jobs era: create a market-defining disruption, and then refine their products year after year. Innovate and then iterate, iterate, iterate. Every Apple product has followed this path: Mac, iMac, Mac OS, iPhone, iPad. The expectation that they now need to re-disrupt these markets every two years is completely unreasonable and borderline insanity.
  9. Despite introducing the 4 and the mini, they are still losing market share. I wouldn't say they are the clear leaders in the tablet sector. They used to have 100% as they basically created it, but their insistence on maintaining high margins is killing the stranglehold they had with the iPad innovation.Apple shipped a total of 22.9 million iPads last quarter. In second place, Samsung shipped 8 million tablets (Android + Win8 combined). By any sane definition, that's a "clear leader".This idea of market share "falling" as a sign of trouble for Apple is silly. The thing is, the markets for smart phones and tablets are still expanding. This isn't a zero sum game. Apple's iPad sales grew almost 50% y-o-y, even though their "market share" fell. There is still plenty of room to grow.
  10. This is the catch-22 the market places on AAPL. If Apple loses market share to the flood of cheaper devices, the market panics and AAPL falls. Yet if Apple launches devices at lower price points to gain market share, the market panics over "reduced margins" and AAPL falls. And god forbid Apple (or a third party retailer) cuts prices, that not only reduces margins but also causes a market panic over "failing consumer demand"... and AAPL falls.And just a nitpick: Apple has never been or wanted to be a "Rolls Royce", which is a brand only accessible to the very top 1% of the population. Apple has historically been more akin to a BMW or Audi; brands that represent higher-end style and engineering but is still within reach of a high percentage of consumers. They may refuse to compete for the bottom "value" shopper (where there is very little profit), but they are certainly not limiting themselves to only the top 1% either. Continuing to sell the iPhone 4/4S and the iPad Mini are recent examples of Apple competing at those lower tiers.
  11. Why do you think your buddy Al Gore just dumped ~60K shares last week? Actually, Al Gore bought 60k shares last week.Are you sure there shouldn't be a small * next to that?Whatever makes you feel good. Just correcting the statement that he "dumped" 60k shares when in fact he bought them, even if he got them on the cheap.
  12. Why do you think your buddy Al Gore just dumped ~60K shares last week? Actually, Al Gore bought 60k shares last week.
  13. this exchange with the typically clueless ihucks arguing trees/forest stuff again instead of the actual points.The iMac refresh suffered from extreme supply chain shortages; the wait for the 21" model is up to month or more and they had to completely push back the release of the 27" to January. They are selling every one they can make, they just can't make them fast enough. This has nothing to do with the Apple halo contracting; sales are down due to buyers waiting for/ unable to find the updated product. This is no different than the big lull in sales before the release of the iPhone 5.
  14. LOL, so misleading.http://gadgets.ndtv....analysts-320371 Android continues to grow it's marketshare, Apple should stop trying to focus on that battle, they've lost it...they should concentrate on fending off Windows phone, which is excellent and should chip away at both Android and Apple market share. Of course Android global market share is still growing; low end freebie phones pad the stats and are an area where Apple chooses to not compete. I've never argued otherwise. What are you attributing the stock price bombing to then?Market manipulation by institutional money managers. I covered that earlier.
  15. LOL, so misleading.http://gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/news/samsung-apple-dominate-smartphone-sales-in-q4-2012-nokia-and-rim-aim-to-catch-up-analysts-320371 Android continues to grow it's marketshare, Apple should stop trying to focus on that battle, they've lost it...they should concentrate on fending off Windows phone, which is excellent and should chip away at both Android and Apple market share. Of course Android global market share is still growing; low end freebie phones pad the stats and are an area where Apple chooses to not compete. I've never argued otherwise. Here's a good read on how Samsung has been spanking that ### lately http://beta.fool.com/aakanksha19/2013/01/22/smartphone-war-apple-vs-samsung/21836/ also takes you through a small timeline that shows how dominant the iPhone WAS at one time. Low end iPhones are free too, the iPhone 4 is free on most carriers and the 4s is only $99 Regardless of our back and forth, even you as Apple's most staunch supporter has to see that they need to make some serious changes to catch up technology wise to the rest of the market if they want to maintain the large share they have now. They'll ALWAYS have a share, but it continues to slip (especially worldwide). They will always show small boosts right around a release. Yes, in the U.S., which is why Apple is actually leading Android here. Worldwide, where the carriers don't subsidize the cost of the handset for a contract, the 4 & 4S are not free.I can't remember the last time Apple has lead in the US, it's been a while. http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2013/1/comScore_Reports_November_2012_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_Market_Share Yes, I meant Apple has been leading in US sales since the release of iPhone 5 when they finally began to compete at all price tiers (free, $99, $199+). I didn't mean overall established market share - I have never claimed Apple leads in that.