sleepy

Apple May Find Itself at Risk in Legacy Core Business

The author is mindlessly regurgitating competitor propaganda.

How does this desirable "poised" state occupied by Google and Microsoft have any significance to Apple or its customers?

What exactly is "proprietary" about anything an Apple customer is tied to? Not video, audio, pictures, mail, calendar, address book. It's Microsoft that's proprietary and near universal, but Apple also takes the trouble to buy licenses and interoperate out of the box with Microsoft's proprietary Office, Exchange and and SMB. All built on an open source OS foundation.

Even the iPhone App store is open to all. But it does guarantee that the provenance of your software is traceable, and that the performance and battery life of your gadget is predictable. If you think Android is so open, how can it be that Android phones are even carrier locked at all? And wait till you see what you can and can't do with a Verizon Android phone.

These are all design decisions made by Apple, and they are proving to be the right ones.

AT&T OKs VoIP For the iPhone, Too Bad Google Voice Isn't VoIP

On yer bike and go home, TechCrunch. Spoiled brat whingeing instead of any kind of insight about what's really happening here.

The End of Exclusive: How Apple Plans to Grow Market Share

Actually, iPhone is a commodity handset; it's just a commodity with its own category, and a relatively high price. What makes it a commodity is (1) quantity sold/in use, (2) they are all iPhones with uniform device and global service specified and part implemented by Apple (via iTunes and MobileMe), (3) universal software update keeping them all in step.

Apple have created a product in its own generic market space, which is a business proposition for a carrier very similar to a basic voice+SMS phone, except for the higher ARPU it generates. It thus offers large and immediate growth for the carriers out of the saturated voice market. Apple's largest current business is selling growth to the carriers.

Google Releases a Nuke, Apple Won’t Win This Fight

Consider the possibility that Google knew perfectly well they could revise and resubmit despite the initial version having been rejected, but are playing to win acceptance of the app in its current form. That could be a reason to conflate a specific rejection with total rejection, and a reason to redact those parts of its letter to better catch Apple off guard with the FCC.

If Google can show they asked Apple "can we revise and resubmit", and Apple said "no, the app is unacceptable in any form", then yes, Apple lied. Otherwise, don't take it personally, it's just business.

Whatever you think is going on, sooner or later a stake will be driven through the heart of the mobile voice cartels, and both Google and Apple will be big winners when it happens.

Google Releases a Nuke, Apple Won’t Win This Fight

Firstly, Google can, by definition, offer this as a web app. Mobile Safari supports local storage and the HTML5 goodness.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if Apple's process included a flat out rejection. Their openly published FCC plainly told Google and us that revision and resubmission (like any other developer) is what Apple expects, with some prospect of being successful.

Thirdly, this isn't a serious dispute between the two; it's artificial. They want to goad the regulator into swiftly diminishing the power to veto applications exercised by carriers and devolved to Apple by AT&T in the case of iPhone. If the regulator forces Apple to accept Google's app, that would be equally applicable to all carriers, and both Google and Apple are ready to jump in to voice services with both feet if that happens.

Bing's Phenomenal New Visual Search

Kinda looks more like a portal than a search engine to me. Then there's the bandwidth needed for a responsive experience. Then there's the fact that you need to install Silverlight. Flash is already a blight on the browsing experience. Do we really want another proprietary blight?

Like Wolfram Alpha, it's impressive, but it doesn't remotely replace Google. And Microsoft is astroturfing again by hijacking and bending the word "search", just as they did with "windows", and "word". It's not search, it's a dog and pony show to draw you in to Bing and SIlverlight. Don't let them mess with your mind yet again.

Seems to have this writer fooled that it's search. It's not, even if it is pretty.

Buying Apple Today: Like Buying Microsoft in 1998?

One way I like to look at this is to consider the market cap of whole markets that Apple is in (PC's; cellphones; music and video players; music and video distribution; web services; retail; music, photo and video creation) and estimate the smallest market cap Apple might take from incumbents in each market. The answer gives a surprisingly large total, even without Apple being a dominant player in any market. (And that's before you consider retail banking as a possible market for Apple - give it a few moments thought. A hundred million credit cards registered could become a hundred million retail banking customers.)

Apple knows full well that the market is more powerful than itself (unlike Microsoft, although Microsoft may finally be learning). So Apple can't rush off into the distance with innovation; to move the whole market they have to keep their innovation bottled up and let the competition get close enough to keep up. Some read this as risk from competition and falling margins but it's simply Apple playing its unbeatable hand for maximum long term gain.

What’s Really Going on with Apple, Google, AT&T and the FCC

Apple is tied by exclusive carrier agreements. These exclusive carrier agreements are the means whereby Apple did the FCC's job for it, and bust wide open the mobile internet (making a financial killing at the same time). Apple achieved this by demanding affordable unmetered mobile internet access, while protecting the carrier partner's high margin voice revenues; in exchange the carrier partners got growth in a saturated market.

I am sure Apple is ready and waiting for regulators to take over this unacknowledged public service, so Apple can move forward itself with internet based voice services. Equally I am sure Apple does not want to be holding the door open for Google and others while still pinned down by these exclusive carrier contracts. Regulation on this would mandate that third party internet based voice services must be permitted on any mobile data contract, and that's a tough rule for the lazy carriers to swallow. All the players (Apple, Google, FCC, AT&T) must know this is what underlies the public role-playing.

I find Mr Arrington's take on it superficial and unnecessarily offensive to Apple.

What Will the Next iPod Touch Offer?

Move on - nothing to see here. What was the education that informed the guesswork?

It's true that the back to school promotion helps clear inventory of the current iPod model, but there's no rigid link synchronizing iPod transition; could be before or after.

You can play your iPod touch through external stereo speakers several ways: wired from the headphone socket; wired from the dock connector or wirelessly via bluetooth. Most dock solutions also recharge the iPod.

App approval isn't arbitrary. Here's a kind-of-obvious starter for what you can't have: apps that replace Apple-designed core functions (eg email and iPhone telephony); apps that are illegal (eg stolen content); encourage illegal activity (eg unlicensed music broadcasting); may be offensive (but now there's a rating system).

Anyone desperate to do any of these things can write a Palm Pre style web app to run under Safari - there are no Apple controls over that. These days web apps are pretty powerful.

Not keeping your main copy of your music in iTunes is perverse in the extreme. The way normal humans play their music at home using their iPod touch is to use the free Remote app to stream it from iTunes to (multiple) external speakers. Also check out Simplify on the App store.

Blackberry’s 26 Advantages over iPhone

RIM, weaker in the market, has to concede all these points to remain competitive and has moved to near-saturation market share, destroying margins, unit sales growth opportunity, and forward control of their own platform. Might look good to an individual user for now, but it's not attractive to an investor.

Apple, immensely strong in market, hugely bigger margins, in tight control of their platform and carrier relationship going forward, can go wherever they like, including picking off any of your "disadvantages" that are real, whenever they want.

It's Time to Build a Real Mobile Web

I think Apple wants openness too, but it's a long term goal. Meantime, for at least five years, they have to work with carrier cartels. Exclusive carrier deals, including the Apple imposed condition that the standard contract for iPhone must have unlimited data, and insisting that that data transport is neutral and not linked to carrier walled gardens for content delivery, navigation etc. are far bigger issues that Apple has achieved for us. The penalty (for now) is that they protect the carriers voice revenues.

Why the FCC Wants to Smash Open the iPhone

Apple wants to control the core functionality of the iPhone, and it's not finished developing it yet. Don't underestimate the scope and timescale of Apple's strategic thinking. This is an issue that needs to be resolved, so Apple needs to be somewhat abrasive; that doesn't mean that their stated current position is the desired end state; they just aren't ready to have part of the voice telephony application veer off at a tangent.

Looking at it another way, the voice network will inevitably be subsumed into the internet, but that would cripple carrier revenues today. Apple and others have to continue working with the carriers for a few years more, because of the way politicians have set up mobile communications licensing.

Running The Numbers - why Microsoft ($MSFT) is a BUY

Valuations like this are based on the idea that the future consists of endless re-runs of the past. But it doesn't; dictators die or fall from power. Microsoft's ability to get taxation-like revenue at zero marginal cost via near-universal use of MS proprietary formats is crumbling. "Only works with IE" has already all but disappeared from public web sites; the fear that led MS to illegally crush Netscape has come true anyway. The twin revenue engines of Windows and Office are faltering, and they drive most of the rest of Microsoft. When client pricing power is lost, MS may quite quickly be reduced to a server-side enterprise software business a fraction of its current size.

Dell Aims to Diversify Away from PCs, But How?

According to the slides, Dell actually says it is "without legacy profit pools to constrain our thinking".

Bean-counter-in-denial speak for "we don't actually know why anyone buys anything from us, and it's beginning to look like we're going bust".

The EU Sticks A Knife Into Apple

Catchy headline, but a non-story.

Contrary to many people's ideas, Apple supports standardisation and relies on innovation and design skills to create its place in the market and on ADDITIONAL proprietary IP to protect that place. The iPhone already charges via USB, and iPod and iPhone chargers have delivered their power from a USB connector for years.

The dock connector isn't going away; USB connectors will be replaced by a micro connector. Apple will comply with the standard, and the solution will be well designed.

Non-iPhone users might be buying Apple chargers if they are better designed or made, but more likely there will still be scope for proprietary fast-charge algorithms that make a matching charger a better choice. Let's wait and see.