Apple (AAPL) : Tim Cook announces iForum. Dodds and Bryant prepare shut down operations (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

I don't have any reason to think Apple is either. When the question was asked earlier in regards to Apple, the answer was watches, TVs, and new features in their existing products. Sounds pretty HP-ish to me.

if that's what you're saying, name a company in the tech consumer space that is innovating? in terms of innovation potential and the likelihood that one will come through with the next breakthrough product hp and apple are worlds apart. apple's cash flow alone gives them worlds of flexibility that hp just can't touch.

Three things off the top of my head HP is doing:

Electrophoretic liquid crystal displays
Print Biometrics
Line of sight signaling and positioning for mobile devices

All three are major frontiers for innovation. This doesn't include their continued R&D around 3D printers.

Major frontiers in terms of revenue generators or major just in their own specific technological space? None of those sound like actual products, but just smaller pieces of other products.

I don't know what you're getting at. Take iPhone for example...it's a product made up of all these pieces...without the pieces the iPhone wouldn't be the iPhone. Make sense? Touchscreens for example....they were innovated by companies not Apple, but Apple did the best job of putting the touch screen on mobile device with the original iPhone. Companies like HP make a ton of money off patents and generate good revenue off them. The last innovation that sticks out to me for Apple is the interactions with the mousepad....two finger operations etc. That was an innovation by Apple that everyone uses now and they all pay Apple to use it.

 

[culdeus]

Who said siri won't be included on the 5C? If true, that's pretty funny.

 

[Politician Spock]

I don't have any reason to think Apple is either. When the question was asked earlier in regards to Apple, the answer was watches, TVs, and new features in their existing products. Sounds pretty HP-ish to me.

if that's what you're saying, name a company in the tech consumer space that is innovating? in terms of innovation potential and the likelihood that one will come through with the next breakthrough product hp and apple are worlds apart. apple's cash flow alone gives them worlds of flexibility that hp just can't touch.

Apple's balance sheet is much more attractive than many other companies.

I wish people would use that as a reason they buy Apple instead of the ridiculous idea that Apple just naturally produces breakthroughs such that even though it doesn't look like they have any breakthrough on their roadmap, one MUST be coming soon.

How does one become privy to Apple's roadmap?

Where do you get off saying there is lots of money to be made because of lots of new products to be announced without having access to their roadmap?

Tim Cook said there were several new products to be announced in the fall of 2013 and early 2014.

How is that different than any technology company. My current employer says the same thing all the time... and yet there's mass exodus going on here right now. I received a verbal offer on Tuesday and will receive the official offer letter probably tomorrow. I'm out of here. Jumping off the sinking ship... yet the CEO is still preaching that we've got new products to be announced. I've worked with them. They're nothing special. Nothing that's going to revolutionize anything. Nothing that an investor would be excited about. But it's the CEO's job to excite investors. I honestly do not see, other than Apple's balance sheet, why people like Apple more than other technology companies. What I see is people who believe their recent success with revolutionary products makes them a company that will consistently release revolutionary products. I'm not saying Apple does not have another revolutionary product up their sleave. I don't know. The point is I don't know Apple does or doesn't anymore than I know any other technology company does or doesn't. Betting that Apple does is like playing the same number on roulette because it just hit a few times in a row.

 

[culdeus]

Their revolutionary idea lately is to buy a ####load of their own stock. And they have bandwidth to bounce themselves off 400 many times over. This takes a lot of the risk out of the equation for institutional investors.

 

[Sand]

Finally, an iWatch is dumb. What market research said this would be a good idea? **** Tracy was 50 years ago so unless they are looking at an iWatch/Phone/Calculator, there is no need for such a thing.

It's not really a watch, it's a wearable iPhone. For people who hate to carry around a phone in their pocket I think it's very attractive. Bring a iPad with you if you want games/internet/video but otherwise an iWatch would be all you need for calls and music.

If they released an iWatch with what I think should be in one I'd buy in a heartbeat. I see huge potential there.

 

[Sand]

I don't have any reason to think Apple is either. When the question was asked earlier in regards to Apple, the answer was watches, TVs, and new features in their existing products. Sounds pretty HP-ish to me.

if that's what you're saying, name a company in the tech consumer space that is innovating? in terms of innovation potential and the likelihood that one will come through with the next breakthrough product hp and apple are worlds apart. apple's cash flow alone gives them worlds of flexibility that hp just can't touch.

Apple's balance sheet is much more attractive than many other companies.

I wish people would use that as a reason they buy Apple instead of the ridiculous idea that Apple just naturally produces breakthroughs such that even though it doesn't look like they have any breakthrough on their roadmap, one MUST be coming soon.

Apple has a good balance sheet, but the fact they have to issue debt to return capital to shareholders is strange.

I'd be pissed if they weren't using borrowed money to do this. The return at the interest rates Apple can get (what, 2%?) is easily worth it.

 

[Politician Spock]

Their revolutionary idea lately is to buy a ####load of their own stock. And they have bandwidth to bounce themselves off 400 many times over. This takes a lot of the risk out of the equation for institutional investors.

The attractiveness of owning Apple is the lack of the degree of risk investing in other tech companies comes with. Apple has not cornered the market on innovating. If you're investing in a company because you believe they are about to release a revolutionary technology, you either have inside information, or are just playing roulette.

 

[lumpy19]

I rush to check the stock price everytime this thread is bumped

 

[The Commish]

Who said siri won't be included on the 5C? If true, that's pretty funny.

rumblings i've heard....don't follow it as closely as I used to though. may just be a lie

 

[tommyGunZ]

Their revolutionary idea lately is to buy a ####load of their own stock. And they have bandwidth to bounce themselves off 400 many times over. This takes a lot of the risk out of the equation for institutional investors.

The attractiveness of owning Apple is the lack of the degree of risk investing in other tech companies comes with. Apple has not cornered the market on innovating. If you're investing in a company because you believe they are about to release a revolutionary technology, you either have inside information, or are just playing roulette.

Is anyone doing this though Spock? I think I mostly agree with your position, but I think you're being a bit dismissive of Apple's recent history of innovation.

I doubt anyone is putting any real money into AAPL while completely ignoring their balance sheet. What's so enticing to investors is the prospect of getting a company that seems "extremely undervalued" per it's balance sheet, while having the upside of being the most innovative technology company in the world the past decade.

 

[hxperson]

Their revolutionary idea lately is to buy a ####load of their own stock. And they have bandwidth to bounce themselves off 400 many times over. This takes a lot of the risk out of the equation for institutional investors.

The attractiveness of owning Apple is the lack of the degree of risk investing in other tech companies comes with. Apple has not cornered the market on innovating. If you're investing in a company because you believe they are about to release a revolutionary technology, you either have inside information, or are just playing roulette.

Is anyone doing this though Spock? I think I mostly agree with your position, but I think you're being a bit dismissive of Apple's recent history of innovation.

I doubt anyone is putting any real money into AAPL while completely ignoring their balance sheet. What's so enticing to investors is the prospect of getting a company that seems "extremely undervalued" per it's balance sheet, while having the upside of being the most innovative technology company in the world the past decade.

I think the stock rallying on Icahn is pretty telling in terms of what hands it is in now...likely more GARP/income investors than growth guys, and of course, there is a significant retail component like you all.

 

[Politician Spock]

Their revolutionary idea lately is to buy a ####load of their own stock. And they have bandwidth to bounce themselves off 400 many times over. This takes a lot of the risk out of the equation for institutional investors.

The attractiveness of owning Apple is the lack of the degree of risk investing in other tech companies comes with. Apple has not cornered the market on innovating. If you're investing in a company because you believe they are about to release a revolutionary technology, you either have inside information, or are just playing roulette.

Is anyone doing this though Spock? I think I mostly agree with your position, but I think you're being a bit dismissive of Apple's recent history of innovation.

I doubt anyone is putting any real money into AAPL while completely ignoring their balance sheet. What's so enticing to investors is the prospect of getting a company that seems "extremely undervalued" per it's balance sheet, while having the upside of being the most innovative technology company in the world the past decade.

You just did it in your post.

There is no more UPSIDE to owning the most innovative technology company in the world in the PAST decade than there is UPSIDE to betting on the number in roulette that has hit the most in the PAST ten turns of the wheel. The next great innovation could come from any company. Owning Apple doesn't give you any UPSIDE in that regard.

 

[The Commish]

Their revolutionary idea lately is to buy a ####load of their own stock. And they have bandwidth to bounce themselves off 400 many times over. This takes a lot of the risk out of the equation for institutional investors.

The attractiveness of owning Apple is the lack of the degree of risk investing in other tech companies comes with. Apple has not cornered the market on innovating. If you're investing in a company because you believe they are about to release a revolutionary technology, you either have inside information, or are just playing roulette.

Is anyone doing this though Spock? I think I mostly agree with your position, but I think you're being a bit dismissive of Apple's recent history of innovation.

I doubt anyone is putting any real money into AAPL while completely ignoring their balance sheet. What's so enticing to investors is the prospect of getting a company that seems "extremely undervalued" per it's balance sheet, while having the upside of being the most innovative technology company in the world the past decade.

You just did it in your post.

There is no more UPSIDE to owning the most innovative technology company in the world in the PAST decade than there is UPSIDE to betting on the number in roulette that has hit the most in the PAST ten turns of the wheel. The next great innovation could come from any company. Owning Apple doesn't give you any UPSIDE in that regard.

I feel like I'm back in Vegas trying to explain to my wife that the number board on the roulette wheel is of no use whatsoever.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Their revolutionary idea lately is to buy a ####load of their own stock. And they have bandwidth to bounce themselves off 400 many times over. This takes a lot of the risk out of the equation for institutional investors.

The attractiveness of owning Apple is the lack of the degree of risk investing in other tech companies comes with. Apple has not cornered the market on innovating. If you're investing in a company because you believe they are about to release a revolutionary technology, you either have inside information, or are just playing roulette.

Is anyone doing this though Spock? I think I mostly agree with your position, but I think you're being a bit dismissive of Apple's recent history of innovation.

I doubt anyone is putting any real money into AAPL while completely ignoring their balance sheet. What's so enticing to investors is the prospect of getting a company that seems "extremely undervalued" per it's balance sheet, while having the upside of being the most innovative technology company in the world the past decade.

You just did it in your post.

There is no more UPSIDE to owning the most innovative technology company in the world in the PAST decade than there is UPSIDE to betting on the number in roulette that has hit the most in the PAST ten turns of the wheel. The next great innovation could come from any company. Owning Apple doesn't give you any UPSIDE in that regard.

Yeah, I disagree with this completely. The idea that innovation is simply a game of chance, and that some companies aren't better positioned to innovate and more importantly, cash in on innovation, is silly.

 

[Politician Spock]

Their revolutionary idea lately is to buy a ####load of their own stock. And they have bandwidth to bounce themselves off 400 many times over. This takes a lot of the risk out of the equation for institutional investors.

The attractiveness of owning Apple is the lack of the degree of risk investing in other tech companies comes with. Apple has not cornered the market on innovating. If you're investing in a company because you believe they are about to release a revolutionary technology, you either have inside information, or are just playing roulette.

Is anyone doing this though Spock? I think I mostly agree with your position, but I think you're being a bit dismissive of Apple's recent history of innovation.

I doubt anyone is putting any real money into AAPL while completely ignoring their balance sheet. What's so enticing to investors is the prospect of getting a company that seems "extremely undervalued" per it's balance sheet, while having the upside of being the most innovative technology company in the world the past decade.

You just did it in your post.

There is no more UPSIDE to owning the most innovative technology company in the world in the PAST decade than there is UPSIDE to betting on the number in roulette that has hit the most in the PAST ten turns of the wheel. The next great innovation could come from any company. Owning Apple doesn't give you any UPSIDE in that regard.

Yeah, I disagree with this completely. The idea that innovation is simply a game of chance, and that some companies aren't better positioned to innovate and more importantly, cash in on innovation, is silly.

Depends on the innovation.

If you are talking about who is better positioned to develop new features and improve upon existing innovations that have already revolutionized the world, then yes larger, well financed comapnies are better positioned to do that.

But if you are talking about who is better positioned to develop the next innovation that revolutionizes the world, a person in their basement or garage is just as likely to come up with it as Apple is.

 

[The Commish]

Their revolutionary idea lately is to buy a ####load of their own stock. And they have bandwidth to bounce themselves off 400 many times over. This takes a lot of the risk out of the equation for institutional investors.

The attractiveness of owning Apple is the lack of the degree of risk investing in other tech companies comes with. Apple has not cornered the market on innovating. If you're investing in a company because you believe they are about to release a revolutionary technology, you either have inside information, or are just playing roulette.

Is anyone doing this though Spock? I think I mostly agree with your position, but I think you're being a bit dismissive of Apple's recent history of innovation.

I doubt anyone is putting any real money into AAPL while completely ignoring their balance sheet. What's so enticing to investors is the prospect of getting a company that seems "extremely undervalued" per it's balance sheet, while having the upside of being the most innovative technology company in the world the past decade.

You just did it in your post.

There is no more UPSIDE to owning the most innovative technology company in the world in the PAST decade than there is UPSIDE to betting on the number in roulette that has hit the most in the PAST ten turns of the wheel. The next great innovation could come from any company. Owning Apple doesn't give you any UPSIDE in that regard.

Yeah, I disagree with this completely. The idea that innovation is simply a game of chance, and that some companies aren't better positioned to innovate and more importantly, cash in on innovation, is silly.

What's your definition of innovation? This might be the problem. Is it innovating to put a touchscreen on a phone or is it innovating to create the touchscreen?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Their revolutionary idea lately is to buy a ####load of their own stock. And they have bandwidth to bounce themselves off 400 many times over. This takes a lot of the risk out of the equation for institutional investors.

The attractiveness of owning Apple is the lack of the degree of risk investing in other tech companies comes with. Apple has not cornered the market on innovating. If you're investing in a company because you believe they are about to release a revolutionary technology, you either have inside information, or are just playing roulette.

Is anyone doing this though Spock? I think I mostly agree with your position, but I think you're being a bit dismissive of Apple's recent history of innovation.

I doubt anyone is putting any real money into AAPL while completely ignoring their balance sheet. What's so enticing to investors is the prospect of getting a company that seems "extremely undervalued" per it's balance sheet, while having the upside of being the most innovative technology company in the world the past decade.

You just did it in your post.

There is no more UPSIDE to owning the most innovative technology company in the world in the PAST decade than there is UPSIDE to betting on the number in roulette that has hit the most in the PAST ten turns of the wheel. The next great innovation could come from any company. Owning Apple doesn't give you any UPSIDE in that regard.

Yeah, I disagree with this completely. The idea that innovation is simply a game of chance, and that some companies aren't better positioned to innovate and more importantly, cash in on innovation, is silly.

What's your definition of innovation? This might be the problem. Is it innovating to put a touchscreen on a phone or is it innovating to create the touchscreen?

As an investor, my priority is the company that can monetize the innovation, regardless of whether the innovation was originally their brainchild.

 

[The Commish]

Their revolutionary idea lately is to buy a ####load of their own stock. And they have bandwidth to bounce themselves off 400 many times over. This takes a lot of the risk out of the equation for institutional investors.

The attractiveness of owning Apple is the lack of the degree of risk investing in other tech companies comes with. Apple has not cornered the market on innovating. If you're investing in a company because you believe they are about to release a revolutionary technology, you either have inside information, or are just playing roulette.

Is anyone doing this though Spock? I think I mostly agree with your position, but I think you're being a bit dismissive of Apple's recent history of innovation.

I doubt anyone is putting any real money into AAPL while completely ignoring their balance sheet. What's so enticing to investors is the prospect of getting a company that seems "extremely undervalued" per it's balance sheet, while having the upside of being the most innovative technology company in the world the past decade.

You just did it in your post.

There is no more UPSIDE to owning the most innovative technology company in the world in the PAST decade than there is UPSIDE to betting on the number in roulette that has hit the most in the PAST ten turns of the wheel. The next great innovation could come from any company. Owning Apple doesn't give you any UPSIDE in that regard.

Yeah, I disagree with this completely. The idea that innovation is simply a game of chance, and that some companies aren't better positioned to innovate and more importantly, cash in on innovation, is silly.

What's your definition of innovation? This might be the problem. Is it innovating to put a touchscreen on a phone or is it innovating to create the touchscreen?

As an investor, my priority is the company that can monetize the innovation, regardless of whether the innovation was originally their brainchild.

You didn't answer the question....was just trying to help...my bad. I will point out that innovations can't be monetized if they don't exist....carry on.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Their revolutionary idea lately is to buy a ####load of their own stock. And they have bandwidth to bounce themselves off 400 many times over. This takes a lot of the risk out of the equation for institutional investors.

The attractiveness of owning Apple is the lack of the degree of risk investing in other tech companies comes with. Apple has not cornered the market on innovating. If you're investing in a company because you believe they are about to release a revolutionary technology, you either have inside information, or are just playing roulette.

Is anyone doing this though Spock? I think I mostly agree with your position, but I think you're being a bit dismissive of Apple's recent history of innovation.

I doubt anyone is putting any real money into AAPL while completely ignoring their balance sheet. What's so enticing to investors is the prospect of getting a company that seems "extremely undervalued" per it's balance sheet, while having the upside of being the most innovative technology company in the world the past decade.

You just did it in your post.

There is no more UPSIDE to owning the most innovative technology company in the world in the PAST decade than there is UPSIDE to betting on the number in roulette that has hit the most in the PAST ten turns of the wheel. The next great innovation could come from any company. Owning Apple doesn't give you any UPSIDE in that regard.

Yeah, I disagree with this completely. The idea that innovation is simply a game of chance, and that some companies aren't better positioned to innovate and more importantly, cash in on innovation, is silly.

What's your definition of innovation? This might be the problem. Is it innovating to put a touchscreen on a phone or is it innovating to create the touchscreen?

As an investor, my priority is the company that can monetize the innovation, regardless of whether the innovation was originally their brainchild.

You didn't answer the question....was just trying to help...my bad. I will point out that innovations can't be monetized if they don't exist....carry on.

Sorry, but the whole "Apple doesn't really innovate" rabbit hole is tired. I see both sides. Obviously I see the value in the start-up rethinking a process and developing technology to take advantage of that inefficiency.

 

[Politician Spock]

Their revolutionary idea lately is to buy a ####load of their own stock. And they have bandwidth to bounce themselves off 400 many times over. This takes a lot of the risk out of the equation for institutional investors.

The attractiveness of owning Apple is the lack of the degree of risk investing in other tech companies comes with. Apple has not cornered the market on innovating. If you're investing in a company because you believe they are about to release a revolutionary technology, you either have inside information, or are just playing roulette.

Is anyone doing this though Spock? I think I mostly agree with your position, but I think you're being a bit dismissive of Apple's recent history of innovation.

I doubt anyone is putting any real money into AAPL while completely ignoring their balance sheet. What's so enticing to investors is the prospect of getting a company that seems "extremely undervalued" per it's balance sheet, while having the upside of being the most innovative technology company in the world the past decade.

You just did it in your post.

There is no more UPSIDE to owning the most innovative technology company in the world in the PAST decade than there is UPSIDE to betting on the number in roulette that has hit the most in the PAST ten turns of the wheel. The next great innovation could come from any company. Owning Apple doesn't give you any UPSIDE in that regard.

Yeah, I disagree with this completely. The idea that innovation is simply a game of chance, and that some companies aren't better positioned to innovate and more importantly, cash in on innovation, is silly.

What's your definition of innovation? This might be the problem. Is it innovating to put a touchscreen on a phone or is it innovating to create the touchscreen?

As an investor, my priority is the company that can monetize the innovation, regardless of whether the innovation was originally their brainchild.

IBM, HP, Oracle, etc... that's what they do. Not only do they monetize their own innovations, they buy other companies in order to monetize their innovations. For that to be the attraction of Apple seams, as a I said before, very HP-ish to me. And to be honest, I think it would disappoint a lot of Apple's investors if that is what Apple is now... a company that just moneizes innovation.

It's my opinion, and I know you disagree, that there are a lot of people invested in Apple because they believe Apple is on a streak of producing new, world changing innovation, and that streak is not over. My opinion, was probably more true when the stock was $700 than it was when it was $400. But given a lot of the comments in this thread, which I know is just anectdotal, there's still a lot of that mindset holding on, and I even classify you as one of them. I think you are reaching in suggesting monetizing the innovation is what you like about them, given that would make them more like HP and less like being Apple. Without new new, world changing innovation, Apple becomes another one of the hundreds of slow, steady income producing companies on the NASDAQ and NYSE, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Many of them are good investments. But there is a huge risk that the price of Apple right now is higher than it should be if it is now a monetizing the innovation company that both you and I believe it is, because those who believe the world changing innovation streak is not over yet are the roulette players he keep playing the same "hot" number, and they leave the table quickly when the "hot" number stops hitting.

 

[The Commish]

Their revolutionary idea lately is to buy a ####load of their own stock. And they have bandwidth to bounce themselves off 400 many times over. This takes a lot of the risk out of the equation for institutional investors.

The attractiveness of owning Apple is the lack of the degree of risk investing in other tech companies comes with. Apple has not cornered the market on innovating. If you're investing in a company because you believe they are about to release a revolutionary technology, you either have inside information, or are just playing roulette.

Is anyone doing this though Spock? I think I mostly agree with your position, but I think you're being a bit dismissive of Apple's recent history of innovation.

I doubt anyone is putting any real money into AAPL while completely ignoring their balance sheet. What's so enticing to investors is the prospect of getting a company that seems "extremely undervalued" per it's balance sheet, while having the upside of being the most innovative technology company in the world the past decade.

You just did it in your post.

There is no more UPSIDE to owning the most innovative technology company in the world in the PAST decade than there is UPSIDE to betting on the number in roulette that has hit the most in the PAST ten turns of the wheel. The next great innovation could come from any company. Owning Apple doesn't give you any UPSIDE in that regard.

Yeah, I disagree with this completely. The idea that innovation is simply a game of chance, and that some companies aren't better positioned to innovate and more importantly, cash in on innovation, is silly.

What's your definition of innovation? This might be the problem. Is it innovating to put a touchscreen on a phone or is it innovating to create the touchscreen?

As an investor, my priority is the company that can monetize the innovation, regardless of whether the innovation was originally their brainchild.

You didn't answer the question....was just trying to help...my bad. I will point out that innovations can't be monetized if they don't exist....carry on.

Sorry, but the whole "Apple doesn't really innovate" rabbit hole is tired. I see both sides. Obviously I see the value in the start-up rethinking a process and developing technology to take advantage of that inefficiency.

No one's making this argument and I agree it's tired. What I'm getting at is you either have comfort in a company that innovates core technologies or the company that creates something (innovates) an end product that uses those core technologies. So, I'm trying to understand which category you fall into. Sounds like you'd rather be on the product end rather than the core technologies. If that's the case, it's easy to see why you and PS are talking past each other.

For me, I have much more interest in those at the ground level making it possible for Apple to do what they do. It's safer and much more steady. Time spent researching companies like Oracle, HP, IBM, Cisco will show you that. Yes, even these companies will buy a company here and there to monetize an area, but usually they buy it because it's not fully reached it's potential and the company seeks them out to help them over the "hump" if you will. There's the occasional "keeping down of the little man" purchase as well. My point is, you invest there, I guarantee you money will be made. I couldn't say the same thing about Apple back in 2006 because the consumer is pretty unpredictable. Fortunately, the gamble's worked out for me, but I'd be lying if I said I knew Apple would blow up like it did...it was a flyer based on nothing more than Jobs and his abilities.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Their revolutionary idea lately is to buy a ####load of their own stock. And they have bandwidth to bounce themselves off 400 many times over. This takes a lot of the risk out of the equation for institutional investors.

The attractiveness of owning Apple is the lack of the degree of risk investing in other tech companies comes with. Apple has not cornered the market on innovating. If you're investing in a company because you believe they are about to release a revolutionary technology, you either have inside information, or are just playing roulette.

Is anyone doing this though Spock? I think I mostly agree with your position, but I think you're being a bit dismissive of Apple's recent history of innovation.

I doubt anyone is putting any real money into AAPL while completely ignoring their balance sheet. What's so enticing to investors is the prospect of getting a company that seems "extremely undervalued" per it's balance sheet, while having the upside of being the most innovative technology company in the world the past decade.

You just did it in your post.

There is no more UPSIDE to owning the most innovative technology company in the world in the PAST decade than there is UPSIDE to betting on the number in roulette that has hit the most in the PAST ten turns of the wheel. The next great innovation could come from any company. Owning Apple doesn't give you any UPSIDE in that regard.

Yeah, I disagree with this completely. The idea that innovation is simply a game of chance, and that some companies aren't better positioned to innovate and more importantly, cash in on innovation, is silly.

What's your definition of innovation? This might be the problem. Is it innovating to put a touchscreen on a phone or is it innovating to create the touchscreen?

As an investor, my priority is the company that can monetize the innovation, regardless of whether the innovation was originally their brainchild.

IBM, HP, Oracle, etc... that's what they do. Not only do they monetize their own innovations, they buy other companies in order to monetize their innovations. For that to be the attraction of Apple seams, as a I said before, very HP-ish to me. And to be honest, I think it would disappoint a lot of Apple's investors if that is what Apple is now... a company that just moneizes innovation.

It's my opinion, and I know you disagree, that there are a lot of people invested in Apple because they believe Apple is on a streak of producing new, world changing innovation, and that streak is not over. My opinion, was probably more true when the stock was $700 than it was when it was $400. But given a lot of the comments in this thread, which I know is just anectdotal, there's still a lot of that mindset holding on, and I even classify you as one of them. I think you are reaching in suggesting monetizing the innovation is what you like about them, given that would make them more like HP and less like being Apple. Without new new, world changing innovation, Apple becomes another one of the hundreds of slow, steady income producing companies on the NASDAQ and NYSE, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Many of them are good investments. But there is a huge risk that the price of Apple right now is higher than it should be if it is now a monetizing the innovation company that both you and I believe it is, because those who believe the world changing innovation streak is not over yet are the roulette players he keep playing the same "hot" number, and they leave the table quickly when the "hot" number stops hitting.

But isn't it true that Apple didn't really create the technical innovations that make up the "world changing" products they eventually took to market? Apple didn't invent cell phones. They didn't invent touch screens. They didn't invent touch screens on phones. They put together a product that monetized all of those innovations in a way no one had before.

That's why I think it's an overreach to suggest that Apple's chances of producing the next world changing technological product is analogous to roulette.

 

[bagger]

Yeah, I disagree with this completely. The idea that innovation is simply a game of chance, and that some companies aren't better positioned to innovate and more importantly, cash in on innovation, is silly.

one of the biggest advantages apple has is that if a small company becomes an innovator apple can buy them with cash on hand.So not only does apple have the capability to innovate themselves, they are uniquely positioned to acquire start ups that may have done something innovative that would be a strategic fit for apple products, much more so than any other competitor.

 

[Politician Spock]

But isn't it true that Apple didn't really create the technical innovations that make up the "world changing" products they eventually took to market? Apple didn't invent cell phones. They didn't invent touch screens. They didn't invent touch screens on phones. They put together a product that monetized all of those innovations in a way no one had before.

That's why I think it's an overreach to suggest that Apple's chances of producing the next world changing technological product is analogous to roulette.

I know the iPhone (and all Smart Phones) are classified as cell phones, but to me the fact that an iPhone (or a Smart Phone) functions as a cell phone is a just a feature of the device.

Likewise, the touch screen is just a feature of the device.

Where Apple innovated was in creating an operating system that makes all the features that the hardware is capable extremely usable to the user. Microsoft had access to all the same hardware technology (they didn't invent the phone or the touchscreen either) but the useability of the Micorsoft's operating system on very similar devices to the iPhone was AWFUL!!!

This is also why Microsoft tablets failed well before Apple created the iPad.

It's the innovation of iOS that was world changing. Without that, Apple was just creating PalmPilots that can also make phone calls.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Yeah, I disagree with this completely. The idea that innovation is simply a game of chance, and that some companies aren't better positioned to innovate and more importantly, cash in on innovation, is silly.

one of the biggest advantages apple has is that if a small company becomes an innovator apple can buy them with cash on hand.So not only does apple have the capability to innovate themselves, they are uniquely positioned to acquire start ups that may have done something innovative that would be a strategic fit for apple products, much more so than any other competitor.

Agree 100%.

 

[culdeus]

But isn't it true that Apple didn't really create the technical innovations that make up the "world changing" products they eventually took to market? Apple didn't invent cell phones. They didn't invent touch screens. They didn't invent touch screens on phones. They put together a product that monetized all of those innovations in a way no one had before.

That's why I think it's an overreach to suggest that Apple's chances of producing the next world changing technological product is analogous to roulette.

I know the iPhone (and all Smart Phones) are classified as cell phones, but to me the fact that an iPhone (or a Smart Phone) functions as a cell phone is a just a feature of the device.

Likewise, the touch screen is just a feature of the device.

Where Apple innovated was in creating an operating system that makes all the features that the hardware is capable extremely usable to the user. Microsoft had access to all the same hardware technology (they didn't invent the phone or the touchscreen either) but the useability of the Micorsoft's operating system on very similar devices to the iPhone was AWFUL!!!

This is also why Microsoft tablets failed well before Apple created the iPad.

It's the innovation of iOS that was world changing. Without that, Apple was just creating PalmPilots that can also make phone calls.

The mobile OS was way ahead of it's time. Now it is stale and lifeless. The next innovation needs to come in the user experience as the hardware is fairly close to maxing out capability given cell data bandwidth limitations and battery limitations among other things.

There has been basically nothing created on a the stock os anyone can point to as a game changer since 4.3 implemented some very useful bluetooth syncing controls.. You could argue IOS 5 and 6 primarily existed to monetize options that people had no interest in, plus siri which well, still blows. IOS7 looks like they are taking most of the good jailbreak features and rolling them into the stock platform, plus enabling wifi calling for all carriers plus an overlay change. Nothing gamechanging quite yet.

 

[cstu]

But isn't it true that Apple didn't really create the technical innovations that make up the "world changing" products they eventually took to market? Apple didn't invent cell phones. They didn't invent touch screens. They didn't invent touch screens on phones. They put together a product that monetized all of those innovations in a way no one had before.

That's why I think it's an overreach to suggest that Apple's chances of producing the next world changing technological product is analogous to roulette.

I know the iPhone (and all Smart Phones) are classified as cell phones, but to me the fact that an iPhone (or a Smart Phone) functions as a cell phone is a just a feature of the device.

Likewise, the touch screen is just a feature of the device.

Where Apple innovated was in creating an operating system that makes all the features that the hardware is capable extremely usable to the user. Microsoft had access to all the same hardware technology (they didn't invent the phone or the touchscreen either) but the useability of the Micorsoft's operating system on very similar devices to the iPhone was AWFUL!!!

This is also why Microsoft tablets failed well before Apple created the iPad.

It's the innovation of iOS that was world changing. Without that, Apple was just creating PalmPilots that can also make phone calls.

The mobile OS was way ahead of it's time. Now it is stale and lifeless. The next innovation needs to come in the user experience as the hardware is fairly close to maxing out capability given cell data bandwidth limitations and battery limitations among other things.

There has been basically nothing created on a the stock os anyone can point to as a game changer since 4.3 implemented some very useful bluetooth syncing controls.. You could argue IOS 5 and 6 primarily existed to monetize options that people had no interest in, plus siri which well, still blows. IOS7 looks like they are taking most of the good jailbreak features and rolling them into the stock platform, plus enabling wifi calling for all carriers plus an overlay change. Nothing gamechanging quite yet.

We're to the point where there's nothing gamechanging left to do with OS'es. Adding features, but nothing like when iOS first came out.

 

[cstu]

But isn't it true that Apple didn't really create the technical innovations that make up the "world changing" products they eventually took to market? Apple didn't invent cell phones. They didn't invent touch screens. They didn't invent touch screens on phones. They put together a product that monetized all of those innovations in a way no one had before.

That's why I think it's an overreach to suggest that Apple's chances of producing the next world changing technological product is analogous to roulette.

I know the iPhone (and all Smart Phones) are classified as cell phones, but to me the fact that an iPhone (or a Smart Phone) functions as a cell phone is a just a feature of the device.

Likewise, the touch screen is just a feature of the device.

Where Apple innovated was in creating an operating system that makes all the features that the hardware is capable extremely usable to the user. Microsoft had access to all the same hardware technology (they didn't invent the phone or the touchscreen either) but the useability of the Micorsoft's operating system on very similar devices to the iPhone was AWFUL!!!

This is also why Microsoft tablets failed well before Apple created the iPad.

It's the innovation of iOS that was world changing. Without that, Apple was just creating PalmPilots that can also make phone calls.

iOS without smooth touchscreens is nothing special. It's the combination of iOS with the first enjoyable touchscreen is what made Apple huge. Also, had Apple not purchased FingerWorks the iPhone wouldn't have been as revolutionary as it was.

 

[culdeus]

But isn't it true that Apple didn't really create the technical innovations that make up the "world changing" products they eventually took to market? Apple didn't invent cell phones. They didn't invent touch screens. They didn't invent touch screens on phones. They put together a product that monetized all of those innovations in a way no one had before.

That's why I think it's an overreach to suggest that Apple's chances of producing the next world changing technological product is analogous to roulette.

I know the iPhone (and all Smart Phones) are classified as cell phones, but to me the fact that an iPhone (or a Smart Phone) functions as a cell phone is a just a feature of the device.

Likewise, the touch screen is just a feature of the device.

Where Apple innovated was in creating an operating system that makes all the features that the hardware is capable extremely usable to the user. Microsoft had access to all the same hardware technology (they didn't invent the phone or the touchscreen either) but the useability of the Micorsoft's operating system on very similar devices to the iPhone was AWFUL!!!

This is also why Microsoft tablets failed well before Apple created the iPad.

It's the innovation of iOS that was world changing. Without that, Apple was just creating PalmPilots that can also make phone calls.

The mobile OS was way ahead of it's time. Now it is stale and lifeless. The next innovation needs to come in the user experience as the hardware is fairly close to maxing out capability given cell data bandwidth limitations and battery limitations among other things.

There has been basically nothing created on a the stock os anyone can point to as a game changer since 4.3 implemented some very useful bluetooth syncing controls.. You could argue IOS 5 and 6 primarily existed to monetize options that people had no interest in, plus siri which well, still blows. IOS7 looks like they are taking most of the good jailbreak features and rolling them into the stock platform, plus enabling wifi calling for all carriers plus an overlay change. Nothing gamechanging quite yet.

We're to the point where there's nothing gamechanging left to do with OS'es. Adding features, but nothing like when iOS first came out.

Apple still doesn't have a lock screen where you can pop your phone out of sleep see a preview of latest 3 emails, texts, weather, sports score up to date and next calendar appointment. In 2013. In one of their ####ty OS updates they released the notifier system, but this was a half assed approach to the problem.

They want to cling to this idea that all data comes from apps so it drives app store success. They don't even have a ####### weather widget that will change with the weather!!! The OS world has moved beyond apps and they are too scared to be seen as copying bits from MS and Android to do something about it citing how battery performance will suck ###, but yet they are content to push you notifications to fruit ninja constantly.

The OS world quickly will turn to widgets and a browser. The days of people having 100 apps for bull#### will be over soon enough.

 

[cstu]

Yeah, I disagree with this completely. The idea that innovation is simply a game of chance, and that some companies aren't better positioned to innovate and more importantly, cash in on innovation, is silly.

one of the biggest advantages apple has is that if a small company becomes an innovator apple can buy them with cash on hand.So not only does apple have the capability to innovate themselves, they are uniquely positioned to acquire start ups that may have done something innovative that would be a strategic fit for apple products, much more so than any other competitor.

I don't even think Apple NEEDS to innovate. What has made them special is having a vision for what products can be and purchase the necessary technology to make it happen.

 

[The Commish]

But isn't it true that Apple didn't really create the technical innovations that make up the "world changing" products they eventually took to market? Apple didn't invent cell phones. They didn't invent touch screens. They didn't invent touch screens on phones. They put together a product that monetized all of those innovations in a way no one had before.

That's why I think it's an overreach to suggest that Apple's chances of producing the next world changing technological product is analogous to roulette.

I know the iPhone (and all Smart Phones) are classified as cell phones, but to me the fact that an iPhone (or a Smart Phone) functions as a cell phone is a just a feature of the device.

Likewise, the touch screen is just a feature of the device.

Where Apple innovated was in creating an operating system that makes all the features that the hardware is capable extremely usable to the user. Microsoft had access to all the same hardware technology (they didn't invent the phone or the touchscreen either) but the useability of the Micorsoft's operating system on very similar devices to the iPhone was AWFUL!!!

This is also why Microsoft tablets failed well before Apple created the iPad.

It's the innovation of iOS that was world changing. Without that, Apple was just creating PalmPilots that can also make phone calls.

The mobile OS was way ahead of it's time. Now it is stale and lifeless. The next innovation needs to come in the user experience as the hardware is fairly close to maxing out capability given cell data bandwidth limitations and battery limitations among other things.

There has been basically nothing created on a the stock os anyone can point to as a game changer since 4.3 implemented some very useful bluetooth syncing controls.. You could argue IOS 5 and 6 primarily existed to monetize options that people had no interest in, plus siri which well, still blows. IOS7 looks like they are taking most of the good jailbreak features and rolling them into the stock platform, plus enabling wifi calling for all carriers plus an overlay change. Nothing gamechanging quite yet.

We're to the point where there's nothing gamechanging left to do with OS'es. Adding features, but nothing like when iOS first came out.

I'm not sure about this....there's a lot going on in biometrics at the moment. Who knows what will come from those rabbit holes.

 

[Slapdash]

But isn't it true that Apple didn't really create the technical innovations that make up the "world changing" products they eventually took to market? Apple didn't invent cell phones. They didn't invent touch screens. They didn't invent touch screens on phones. They put together a product that monetized all of those innovations in a way no one had before.

That's why I think it's an overreach to suggest that Apple's chances of producing the next world changing technological product is analogous to roulette.

I know the iPhone (and all Smart Phones) are classified as cell phones, but to me the fact that an iPhone (or a Smart Phone) functions as a cell phone is a just a feature of the device.

Likewise, the touch screen is just a feature of the device.

Where Apple innovated was in creating an operating system that makes all the features that the hardware is capable extremely usable to the user. Microsoft had access to all the same hardware technology (they didn't invent the phone or the touchscreen either) but the useability of the Micorsoft's operating system on very similar devices to the iPhone was AWFUL!!!

This is also why Microsoft tablets failed well before Apple created the iPad.

It's the innovation of iOS that was world changing. Without that, Apple was just creating PalmPilots that can also make phone calls.

The mobile OS was way ahead of it's time. Now it is stale and lifeless. The next innovation needs to come in the user experience as the hardware is fairly close to maxing out capability given cell data bandwidth limitations and battery limitations among other things.

There has been basically nothing created on a the stock os anyone can point to as a game changer since 4.3 implemented some very useful bluetooth syncing controls.. You could argue IOS 5 and 6 primarily existed to monetize options that people had no interest in, plus siri which well, still blows. IOS7 looks like they are taking most of the good jailbreak features and rolling them into the stock platform, plus enabling wifi calling for all carriers plus an overlay change. Nothing gamechanging quite yet.

We're to the point where there's nothing gamechanging left to do with OS'es. Adding features, but nothing like when iOS first came out.

Google has been doing a lot with their OS while Apple's has stood still.

 

[Slapdash]

But isn't it true that Apple didn't really create the technical innovations that make up the "world changing" products they eventually took to market? Apple didn't invent cell phones. They didn't invent touch screens. They didn't invent touch screens on phones. They put together a product that monetized all of those innovations in a way no one had before.

That's why I think it's an overreach to suggest that Apple's chances of producing the next world changing technological product is analogous to roulette.

I know the iPhone (and all Smart Phones) are classified as cell phones, but to me the fact that an iPhone (or a Smart Phone) functions as a cell phone is a just a feature of the device.

Likewise, the touch screen is just a feature of the device.

Where Apple innovated was in creating an operating system that makes all the features that the hardware is capable extremely usable to the user. Microsoft had access to all the same hardware technology (they didn't invent the phone or the touchscreen either) but the useability of the Micorsoft's operating system on very similar devices to the iPhone was AWFUL!!!

This is also why Microsoft tablets failed well before Apple created the iPad.

It's the innovation of iOS that was world changing. Without that, Apple was just creating PalmPilots that can also make phone calls.

The mobile OS was way ahead of it's time. Now it is stale and lifeless. The next innovation needs to come in the user experience as the hardware is fairly close to maxing out capability given cell data bandwidth limitations and battery limitations among other things.

There has been basically nothing created on a the stock os anyone can point to as a game changer since 4.3 implemented some very useful bluetooth syncing controls.. You could argue IOS 5 and 6 primarily existed to monetize options that people had no interest in, plus siri which well, still blows. IOS7 looks like they are taking most of the good jailbreak features and rolling them into the stock platform, plus enabling wifi calling for all carriers plus an overlay change. Nothing gamechanging quite yet.

We're to the point where there's nothing gamechanging left to do with OS'es. Adding features, but nothing like when iOS first came out.

Apple still doesn't have a lock screen where you can pop your phone out of sleep see a preview of latest 3 emails, texts, weather, sports score up to date and next calendar appointment. In 2013. In one of their ####ty OS updates they released the notifier system, but this was a half assed approach to the problem.

They want to cling to this idea that all data comes from apps so it drives app store success. They don't even have a ####### weather widget that will change with the weather!!! The OS world has moved beyond apps and they are too scared to be seen as copying bits from MS and Android to do something about it citing how battery performance will suck ###, but yet they are content to push you notifications to fruit ninja constantly.

The OS world quickly will turn to widgets and a browser. The days of people having 100 apps for bull#### will be over soon enough.

Love the new Multi-Window feature.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Apple still doesn't have a lock screen where you can pop your phone out of sleep see a preview of latest 3 emails, texts, weather, sports score up to date and next calendar appointment. In 2013. In one of their ####ty OS updates they released the notifier system, but this was a half assed approach to the problem.

They want to cling to this idea that all data comes from apps so it drives app store success. They don't even have a ####### weather widget that will change with the weather!!! The OS world has moved beyond apps and they are too scared to be seen as copying bits from MS and Android to do something about it citing how battery performance will suck ###, but yet they are content to push you notifications to fruit ninja constantly.

The OS world quickly will turn to widgets and a browser. The days of people having 100 apps for bull#### will be over soon enough.

Apple is playing catch-up now in the mobile OS game.

 

[cstu]

But isn't it true that Apple didn't really create the technical innovations that make up the "world changing" products they eventually took to market? Apple didn't invent cell phones. They didn't invent touch screens. They didn't invent touch screens on phones. They put together a product that monetized all of those innovations in a way no one had before.

That's why I think it's an overreach to suggest that Apple's chances of producing the next world changing technological product is analogous to roulette.

I know the iPhone (and all Smart Phones) are classified as cell phones, but to me the fact that an iPhone (or a Smart Phone) functions as a cell phone is a just a feature of the device.

Likewise, the touch screen is just a feature of the device.

Where Apple innovated was in creating an operating system that makes all the features that the hardware is capable extremely usable to the user. Microsoft had access to all the same hardware technology (they didn't invent the phone or the touchscreen either) but the useability of the Micorsoft's operating system on very similar devices to the iPhone was AWFUL!!!

This is also why Microsoft tablets failed well before Apple created the iPad.

It's the innovation of iOS that was world changing. Without that, Apple was just creating PalmPilots that can also make phone calls.

The mobile OS was way ahead of it's time. Now it is stale and lifeless. The next innovation needs to come in the user experience as the hardware is fairly close to maxing out capability given cell data bandwidth limitations and battery limitations among other things.

There has been basically nothing created on a the stock os anyone can point to as a game changer since 4.3 implemented some very useful bluetooth syncing controls.. You could argue IOS 5 and 6 primarily existed to monetize options that people had no interest in, plus siri which well, still blows. IOS7 looks like they are taking most of the good jailbreak features and rolling them into the stock platform, plus enabling wifi calling for all carriers plus an overlay change. Nothing gamechanging quite yet.

We're to the point where there's nothing gamechanging left to do with OS'es. Adding features, but nothing like when iOS first came out.

Apple still doesn't have a lock screen where you can pop your phone out of sleep see a preview of latest 3 emails, texts, weather, sports score up to date and next calendar appointment. In 2013. In one of their ####ty OS updates they released the notifier system, but this was a half assed approach to the problem.

They want to cling to this idea that all data comes from apps so it drives app store success. They don't even have a ####### weather widget that will change with the weather!!! The OS world has moved beyond apps and they are too scared to be seen as copying bits from MS and Android to do something about it citing how battery performance will suck ###, but yet they are content to push you notifications to fruit ninja constantly.

The OS world quickly will turn to widgets and a browser. The days of people having 100 apps for bull#### will be over soon enough.

But isn't it true that Apple didn't really create the technical innovations that make up the "world changing" products they eventually took to market? Apple didn't invent cell phones. They didn't invent touch screens. They didn't invent touch screens on phones. They put together a product that monetized all of those innovations in a way no one had before.

That's why I think it's an overreach to suggest that Apple's chances of producing the next world changing technological product is analogous to roulette.

I know the iPhone (and all Smart Phones) are classified as cell phones, but to me the fact that an iPhone (or a Smart Phone) functions as a cell phone is a just a feature of the device.

Likewise, the touch screen is just a feature of the device.

Where Apple innovated was in creating an operating system that makes all the features that the hardware is capable extremely usable to the user. Microsoft had access to all the same hardware technology (they didn't invent the phone or the touchscreen either) but the useability of the Micorsoft's operating system on very similar devices to the iPhone was AWFUL!!!

This is also why Microsoft tablets failed well before Apple created the iPad.

It's the innovation of iOS that was world changing. Without that, Apple was just creating PalmPilots that can also make phone calls.

The mobile OS was way ahead of it's time. Now it is stale and lifeless. The next innovation needs to come in the user experience as the hardware is fairly close to maxing out capability given cell data bandwidth limitations and battery limitations among other things.

There has been basically nothing created on a the stock os anyone can point to as a game changer since 4.3 implemented some very useful bluetooth syncing controls.. You could argue IOS 5 and 6 primarily existed to monetize options that people had no interest in, plus siri which well, still blows. IOS7 looks like they are taking most of the good jailbreak features and rolling them into the stock platform, plus enabling wifi calling for all carriers plus an overlay change. Nothing gamechanging quite yet.

We're to the point where there's nothing gamechanging left to do with OS'es. Adding features, but nothing like when iOS first came out.

I'm not sure about this....there's a lot going on in biometrics at the moment. Who knows what will come from those rabbit holes.

What I mean to say is that the interface itself works as well as anyone could want. Biometrics offers potential for some interesting features but things like fingerprint scanners have been around a long time and never caught on. However, I'm sure Apple will do it right and it will catch on when people see the potential uses for it (beyond unlocking your phone).

 

[Mario Kart]

The "innovation" begins with the iOS. If Apple pushes this iOS out for this iPhone... okay, as there is not a new form factor but its not going to push much forward. Next year, if the iOS and form factor are not changed or "innovated" then Apple has lost touch big time. Then Apple is simply coasting along the Jobs' train and will fizzle.

 

[drummer]

But isn't it true that Apple didn't really create the technical innovations that make up the "world changing" products they eventually took to market? Apple didn't invent cell phones. They didn't invent touch screens. They didn't invent touch screens on phones. They put together a product that monetized all of those innovations in a way no one had before.

That's why I think it's an overreach to suggest that Apple's chances of producing the next world changing technological product is analogous to roulette.

I know the iPhone (and all Smart Phones) are classified as cell phones, but to me the fact that an iPhone (or a Smart Phone) functions as a cell phone is a just a feature of the device.

Likewise, the touch screen is just a feature of the device.

Where Apple innovated was in creating an operating system that makes all the features that the hardware is capable extremely usable to the user. Microsoft had access to all the same hardware technology (they didn't invent the phone or the touchscreen either) but the useability of the Micorsoft's operating system on very similar devices to the iPhone was AWFUL!!!

This is also why Microsoft tablets failed well before Apple created the iPad.

It's the innovation of iOS that was world changing. Without that, Apple was just creating PalmPilots that can also make phone calls.

The mobile OS was way ahead of it's time. Now it is stale and lifeless. The next innovation needs to come in the user experience as the hardware is fairly close to maxing out capability given cell data bandwidth limitations and battery limitations among other things.

There has been basically nothing created on a the stock os anyone can point to as a game changer since 4.3 implemented some very useful bluetooth syncing controls.. You could argue IOS 5 and 6 primarily existed to monetize options that people had no interest in, plus siri which well, still blows. IOS7 looks like they are taking most of the good jailbreak features and rolling them into the stock platform, plus enabling wifi calling for all carriers plus an overlay change. Nothing gamechanging quite yet.

We're to the point where there's nothing gamechanging left to do with OS'es. Adding features, but nothing like when iOS first came out.

Google has been doing a lot with their OS while Apple's has stood still.

To me, independent development is doing more for Google because of Open Source. Stripped down Android really isn't all that. The current flagship devices have an option for the manufacturer GUI or a purer Android platform. Android is driven by device and hardware selection. Samsung fragmented their Galaxy line to pieces this past year with several S4 variants. The reason why I use Android is because I can do what I want with it. Mostly due to independent development.

 

[[icon]]

But isn't it true that Apple didn't really create the technical innovations that make up the "world changing" products they eventually took to market? Apple didn't invent cell phones. They didn't invent touch screens. They didn't invent touch screens on phones. They put together a product that monetized all of those innovations in a way no one had before.

That's why I think it's an overreach to suggest that Apple's chances of producing the next world changing technological product is analogous to roulette.

I know the iPhone (and all Smart Phones) are classified as cell phones, but to me the fact that an iPhone (or a Smart Phone) functions as a cell phone is a just a feature of the device.

Likewise, the touch screen is just a feature of the device.

Where Apple innovated was in creating an operating system that makes all the features that the hardware is capable extremely usable to the user. Microsoft had access to all the same hardware technology (they didn't invent the phone or the touchscreen either) but the useability of the Micorsoft's operating system on very similar devices to the iPhone was AWFUL!!!

This is also why Microsoft tablets failed well before Apple created the iPad.

It's the innovation of iOS that was world changing. Without that, Apple was just creating PalmPilots that can also make phone calls.

The mobile OS was way ahead of it's time. Now it is stale and lifeless. The next innovation needs to come in the user experience as the hardware is fairly close to maxing out capability given cell data bandwidth limitations and battery limitations among other things.

There has been basically nothing created on a the stock os anyone can point to as a game changer since 4.3 implemented some very useful bluetooth syncing controls.. You could argue IOS 5 and 6 primarily existed to monetize options that people had no interest in, plus siri which well, still blows. IOS7 looks like they are taking most of the good jailbreak features and rolling them into the stock platform, plus enabling wifi calling for all carriers plus an overlay change. Nothing gamechanging quite yet.

We're to the point where there's nothing gamechanging left to do with OS'es. Adding features, but nothing like when iOS first came out.

Apple still doesn't have a lock screen where you can pop your phone out of sleep see a preview of latest 3 emails, texts, weather, sports score up to date and next calendar appointment. In 2013. In one of their ####ty OS updates they released the notifier system, but this was a half assed approach to the problem.

They want to cling to this idea that all data comes from apps so it drives app store success. They don't even have a ####### weather widget that will change with the weather!!! The OS world has moved beyond apps and they are too scared to be seen as copying bits from MS and Android to do something about it citing how battery performance will suck ###, but yet they are content to push you notifications to fruit ninja constantly.

The OS world quickly will turn to widgets and a browser. The days of people having 100 apps for bull#### will be over soon enough.

I agree with this unfortunately. I'm a big fan of Apple (as you all know) but they've been treading water for about 2 years now. Incremental updates work fine in a mature market like PCs. That doesn't work in an emerging/growth market like Mobile. It's a horrible cliche but if you're not moving forward (quickly) then you're going backward.

Not to mention the one true strength I appreciated in the iPhone (stability/smoothUI) has been getting incrementally worse with each iOS update while Android has been steadily gaining ground.

I'm not totally ready to jump ship just yet, but if the new iPhone 5s or 6 or whatever they call it is simply a "50% improvement in camera resolution" and " 12% faster processor with 2% more battery life crap they've been pulling I'm going to start to be seriously tempted to move outside their mobile ecosystem with my next phone. (likely mid 2014ish).

(though I think touting the demise of Apps is a bit premature, as they offer a UI/interface premium over the browser).

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'm also in agreement that iOS has stalled. It still has some ecosystem advantages and fragmentation is still a problem for Android, but I don't think any Apple fan boy can legitimately claim that iOS is far better than Android at this point.

 

[drummer]

I'm also in agreement that iOS has stalled. It still has some ecosystem advantages and fragmentation is still a problem for Android, but I don't think any Apple fan boy can legitimately claim that iOS is far better than Android at this point.

You still stuck on fan boy?

 

[culdeus]

The demise of apps is something to watch and will gain traction slowly.

The OS of the future will be tiled pages where you have a home screen with your key info, maybe a page with your financial info (bank balance, stock performance, markets, etc.) a page with your social things you want, a page with your sports info, maybe one for your fitness pod sync, photo stuff etc. If you want more resolution tap on those widgets to open the full app.

What I mean to say is a phone where you see page after page of tiled app icons is going away, and quickly. It's just a matter of how soon Apple wants to deal with this reality. Some apps may be impractical to support in this manner, games, menu planners, I'm sure there are others.

 

[Fennis]

This is the reason to buy, not because you think Apple can innovate or not.

Hedge funds warm to Apple; Omega re-enters, Soros buys more

 

[drummer]

The demise of apps is something to watch and will gain traction slowly.

The OS of the future will be tiled pages where you have a home screen with your key info, maybe a page with your financial info (bank balance, stock performance, markets, etc.) a page with your social things you want, a page with your sports info, maybe one for your fitness pod sync, photo stuff etc. If you want more resolution tap on those widgets to open the full app.

What I mean to say is a phone where you see page after page of tiled app icons is going away, and quickly. It's just a matter of how soon Apple wants to deal with this reality. Some apps may be impractical to support in this manner, games, menu planners, I'm sure there are others.

All iOS has to do is be more open to 3rd party launchers. Which is really not that groundbreaking in itself.

 

[The Commish]

The demise of apps is something to watch and will gain traction slowly.

The OS of the future will be tiled pages where you have a home screen with your key info, maybe a page with your financial info (bank balance, stock performance, markets, etc.) a page with your social things you want, a page with your sports info, maybe one for your fitness pod sync, photo stuff etc. If you want more resolution tap on those widgets to open the full app.

What I mean to say is a phone where you see page after page of tiled app icons is going away, and quickly. It's just a matter of how soon Apple wants to deal with this reality. Some apps may be impractical to support in this manner, games, menu planners, I'm sure there are others.

All iOS has to do is be more open to 3rd party launchers. Which is really not that groundbreaking in itself.

And I'm really struggling to see why they continue to resist this. Even in the closed system they have today "it just works" has become a joke....they might as well open things up even if it's only a little bit.

 

[[icon]]

The demise of apps is something to watch and will gain traction slowly.

The OS of the future will be tiled pages where you have a home screen with your key info, maybe a page with your financial info (bank balance, stock performance, markets, etc.) a page with your social things you want, a page with your sports info, maybe one for your fitness pod sync, photo stuff etc. If you want more resolution tap on those widgets to open the full app.

What I mean to say is a phone where you see page after page of tiled app icons is going away, and quickly. It's just a matter of how soon Apple wants to deal with this reality. Some apps may be impractical to support in this manner, games, menu planners, I'm sure there are others.

In that regard yes I agree. Apps still there, just not with the menu system as top of the UI chart.

I can see a future where the mobile desktop acts in a semi-similar manner to a "traditional desktop meets minority report" in that you've got a couple pages of "widgets" that are preset to specific info and you can "Stretch" them to expand info (auto-reconfiguring remaining windows), swipe to scroll inside that window, or tap to open the app fullscreen. It would involve coding the app to display certain content configurations in a certain preset sizing orientations (and would require the expanded app window to "snap" to some sort of grid).... but it's certainly achievable.

Something like that would definitely turn the mobile "desktop" into a far more organic and customizable beast. I get that android is working toward this to some extent but not completely in the manner in which I envision.

This of course would relegate your base-level app list to require some sort of swipe or other interface gesture to access, but there's nothing wrong with that really.

 

[drummer]

The demise of apps is something to watch and will gain traction slowly.

The OS of the future will be tiled pages where you have a home screen with your key info, maybe a page with your financial info (bank balance, stock performance, markets, etc.) a page with your social things you want, a page with your sports info, maybe one for your fitness pod sync, photo stuff etc. If you want more resolution tap on those widgets to open the full app.

What I mean to say is a phone where you see page after page of tiled app icons is going away, and quickly. It's just a matter of how soon Apple wants to deal with this reality. Some apps may be impractical to support in this manner, games, menu planners, I'm sure there are others.

All iOS has to do is be more open to 3rd party launchers. Which is really not that groundbreaking in itself.

And I'm really struggling to see why they continue to resist this. Even in the closed system they have today "it just works" has become a joke....they might as well open things up even if it's only a little bit.

The Android stock launcher is pretty meh. I have three launchers that I choose from, and my setup with the Nova launcher is just one home screen with dock and my app drawer in list form. I still haven't found a useful widget other than Dashclock, and never use Live wallpapers. I use dark ones to save battery due the AMOLED screen.

It's all about the apps, not the screens. I am still waiting for AnyDo's Cal app for the Play store while it's on Apple's App store. Still don't have the Studio Six Digital suite outside of a single app for Play store. iOS has a way better app selection. Dancing widgets aren't necessary.

 

[Mario Kart]

Not sure how the iOS can be improved or bettered however an iOS that can be used in a similar way to Windows 8 would be great. Both a mobile OS and a computer OS on one device.

More customization for the user would be a benefit... and adding five colors is not customization.

Many other ways to improve. Maybe thumb print recognition will improve security which would allow for more private info on the phone... ie financials, credit cards and such.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Samsung to release their watch Sept 4th and beat Apple to the punch.

 

[Slapdash]

Samsung to release their watch Sept 4th and beat Apple to the punch.

 

[BoltBacker]

Samsung to release their watch Sept 4th and beat Apple to the punch.

When it comes to these wearable devices...

execution>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>timing

There have already been a ton of "smart watches" that frankly all kind of suck, maybe the Samsung will too, maybe the apple will too. I will say that I'd be willing to pay for the convenience of having a small, sleek, waterproof smartphone I could wear on my wrist instead of carrying around a phone in my pocket. So far Samsungs idea of innovation has been a 5"-6" screen that I have to carry in my pocket and that's going the wrong way imo. When I need to view a screen for extended periods of time the 7" tablets are just a much, much better experience than any phone.