Apple Makes $156.5 Billion in 2012; Sold 125 Million iPhones

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

DirectXtreme

Distinguished
Aug 31, 2011
53
0
18,630
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]to the point microsoft is throwing windows under the bus.[/citation]
Microsoft is not throwing Windows under the bus, but rather throwing those of us that wish to have the old Start menu back.

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]the way i see it apple is going to kill computers if they continue to be successful.
i need program compatibility, so linux is out, and if windows fails...
god i hope im dead by than... [/citation]
Apple will never kill computers, but they will transform the way we perceive personal computers and the open nature of operating systems in the worst case scenario. If you are referring to the death of the desktop, then it will not happen for a long time as desktops are still required for tasks that require high processing power and bandwidth. Even then they will most likely become a niche market aimed at users who need the horsepower. If you want program compatibility, there is a compatibility layer for Linux called WINE. If WINE doesn't work out for you, then I suggest you make a backup of your software installation files and your copy of Windows 7 or whatever OS you're currently using if you fear that software support your current hardware/software platform will fade away in the future.
 
[citation][nom]halcyon[/nom]I think that one of the problems is that the Apple's competition is not clearly clearly better than Apple's products to most people. I really like my SGS3, but most people wouldn't say its clearly better than an iPhone. I like my Asus Transformer Pad Infinity, but most people wouldn't say its clearly better than an iPad3 or iPad4. Now, what other phone and tablet are clearly better than the 2 non-Apple products I just named? ...and that's part of the issue. There's a lot of good competition, but nothing clearly better and very few, if any, that are as well known, to the masses, as Apple's products. This is a good chunk of why Apple is doing as well as they are and they're lawsuits are not hurting their profits too much either.[/citation]

Now that I can agree with. Overall, for most people, no smart phone is far better than the others and most phones that are better than others in some ways are worse than others phones in other ways AFAIK. Within certain contexts, some phones can be greatly superior to others, but not for most people in most common ways. For example, I may multitask and also run intensive stuff for a phone on my phones such as heavy emulators and more and thus be able to use quad core CPU SoCs quite well and I also like to modify and otherwise change things around a lot and thus be able to make far better use out of some Android phones than anything else, but the same simply isn't true for almost everyone else.
 

wemakeourfuture

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2011
601
0
18,980
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Apple has several times more lawsuits going on and almost all of them are frivolous bullshit. The same can not be said for the other companies. Apple most definitely is holding others back by trying to force them to not be able to compete.Furthermore, All that Apple has done is take what others make and change a few things. They did that with all of their products without any exceptions.[/citation]

I completely disagree.

The touch based smartphone and tablet market space had zero traction before Apple. The total sales and revenue generated is plain and simple to see. The numerous firms that entered that space to offer slightly differentiated products is further supporting evidence. It was their product that competitors followed.

But lemme guess, since someone was first to market with a product that sold basically nothing, had zero impact with the consumer, generated no tangible profit for their company, now that was the real catalyst!
 

wemakeourfuture

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2011
601
0
18,980
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Apple has several times more lawsuits going on and almost all of them are frivolous bullshit. The same can not be said for the other companies. Apple most definitely is holding others back by trying to force them to not be able to compete.Furthermore, All that Apple has done is take what others make and change a few things. They did that with all of their products without any exceptions.[/citation]

From my following of tech litigation I really don't see Apple having more patent disputes than other large tech firms. Apple's seems just to get more press since they revolve around really popular consumer items, iPhone + iPad vs. Galaxy.

Google has been sued by Oracle, Microsoft. Motorola has been suing Microsoft. Microsoft has been suing Android manufacturers, Nokia has sued RIM, HTC, etc, etc. Been happening for years and years. Nothing new here at all.

To say, Apple's are without merit is not accurate. Now since you are a patent law expert and/or jury member sitting on a trial, its kind of difficult for me to come to this conclusion from my understanding of the law. Perhaps you can shed more light for me. From my understanding Apple has been awarded patents from various nations legally. They have legally filed lawsuits in various jurisdictions. They have won and lost some cases. They've won in the USA (awarded $1 Billion, appeal is on the way), so that seems there's merit. In Germany they have successfully argued their case to block certain products for X many days. They have also lost in South Korea, U.K. I think they had mixed results in Australia.

Not sure how you came up with the "almost all of them are frivolous bullshit" lawsuits if they have won cases. Not saying they should or shouldn't win the case, stating through due process they have won some cases and been awarded damages. Appeals are eminent and possibility of no damages or reverse damages are possible.

I do not throw stones at just Apple but the entire industry. It's just as much the patent offices fault for giving what I view frivolous patents. All companies have a fiduciary responsibility which includes litigating and/or negotiating when they feel patent infringement exists. Otherwise they would not be in Executive positions or on the board.
 
I have to wonder why a company who makes such a huge profit has to outsource all their jobs to squeeze every penny they can out of each device. Back in the day, a company used to be responsible for their business and employees.
 
[citation][nom]wemakeourfuture[/nom]From my following of tech litigation I really don't see Apple having more patent disputes than other large tech firms. Apple's seems just to get more press since they revolve around really popular consumer items, iPhone + iPad vs. Galaxy.Google has been sued by Oracle, Microsoft. Motorola has been suing Microsoft. Microsoft has been suing Android manufacturers, Nokia has sued RIM, HTC, etc, etc. Been happening for years and years. Nothing new here at all. To say, Apple's are without merit is not accurate. Now since you are a patent law expert and/or jury member sitting on a trial, its kind of difficult for me to come to this conclusion from my understanding of the law. Perhaps you can shed more light for me. From my understanding Apple has been awarded patents from various nations legally. They have legally filed lawsuits in various jurisdictions. They have won and lost some cases. They've won in the USA (awarded $1 Billion, appeal is on the way), so that seems there's merit. In Germany they have successfully argued their case to block certain products for X many days. They have also lost in South Korea, U.K. I think they had mixed results in Australia.Not sure how you came up with the "almost all of them are frivolous bullshit" lawsuits if they have won cases. Not saying they should or shouldn't win the case, stating through due process they have won some cases and been awarded damages. Appeals are eminent and possibility of no damages or reverse damages are possible.I do not throw stones at just Apple but the entire industry. It's just as much the patent offices fault for giving what I view frivolous patents. All companies have a fiduciary responsibility which includes litigating and/or negotiating when they feel patent infringement exists. Otherwise they would not be in Executive positions or on the board.[/citation]

They've won fewer cases than they lost globally and a win in the USA is hardly merit-worthy. It may be the country that I live in, but it's also the country with some of the worst patent systems in the world. Furthermore, cases about having square icons with rounded corners, rectangular phones with rounded corners, using the color black on a device with squares that have rounded corners, and more is bullshit because Apple got such patents in the first place.

Yes, Apple is not the only problem, but they are the largest problem. You can add up all of the lawsuits going on with other companies and sure, it might be more than Apple, but per company. Apple has several times more than any other.

Winning cases and whether or not they should have won are two very different things. That's where frivolous bullshit comes in at.

With some other companies, one should also realize that many of their cases are defensive cases against companies that are suing them for stupid things.

I agree that what is going on is just as much the patent offices' fault, but Apple is still 100% at fault for what they're doing, the patent offices are simply 100% at fault for allowing Apple to do what they're doing (same to other such companies).
 
[citation][nom]wemakeourfuture[/nom]I completely disagree. The touch based smartphone and tablet market space had zero traction before Apple. The total sales and revenue generated is plain and simple to see. The numerous firms that entered that space to offer slightly differentiated products is further supporting evidence. It was their product that competitors followed.But lemme guess, since someone was first to market with a product that sold basically nothing, had zero impact with the consumer, generated no tangible profit for their company, now that was the real catalyst![/citation]

It doesn't matter that it had little activity. Apple still didn't come up with totally new things, they took what was available and changed it. More importantly, they marketed better towards consumers (this was probably the greatest cause for these markets gaining traction). I never said that the previous stuff was the catalyst, I said that they were the originals. Don't confuse revolutionary with evolutionary. If what Apple did was revolutionary, then how Android came about and took the lead from Apple with better pricing and consistently offering more and higher end features at any given price point is also revolutionary by that same logic.
 
[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]I have to wonder why a company who makes such a huge profit has to outsource all their jobs to squeeze every penny they can out of each device. Back in the day, a company used to be responsible for their business and employees.[/citation]

Such corruption isn't new. It's been going on for thousands of years if our historians are accurate.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Such corruption isn't new. It's been going on for thousands of years if our historians are accurate.[/citation]
Never said it was, but it seems rather pointless to horde the money they do, while leaving the working class to scrape by. In the USA, we make the same money today, on average as we did 33 years ago, while costs of living are 2 to 3 times higher. You have to wonder how things would be if businesses continued to look after the welfare of their employees.
 
[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]Never said it was, but it seems rather pointless to horde the money they do, while leaving the working class to scrape by. In the USA, we make the same money today, on average as we did 33 years ago, while costs of living are 2 to 3 times higher. You have to wonder how things would be if businesses continued to look after the welfare of their employees.[/citation]

I don't believe that we make the same on average as we did 33 years ago. Where did you get such information? No offense intended, but I'll have to see that for myself to even consider it likely. It's most certainly not my experience.
 
Its never good for consumers when there is 1 big company that can bully others. Lucky, this aint a monopoly, and they dont own everything (plus their products are not exactly the best).

Now, lets see how things "work" if we compare American Government and apple with South Korea and Samsung.
Nah... better not do that, dont want to start a fight in the forum.
 
Natives are getting restless yet again.

Monkey_Poo_for_you_pt1_by_Jays_Dood.jpg
 

maxinexus

Distinguished
Jan 1, 2007
1,101
1
19,360
[citation][nom]memadmax[/nom]I'm glad apple is doing well...But I'm not glad that they are not doing it in the US, I.E. creating manufacturing jobs here. Theres plenty of people here that will work even for min wage...Something is better than nothing....[/citation]

The thing is that people who are willing to work for minimal wage are simply not qualified (most of them). Apple needs skilled force not minimal wage force. Sadly it is the truth.
 

rosen380

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2011
422
0
18,780
"If you are referring to the death of the desktop, then it will not happen for a long time as desktops are still required for tasks that require high processing power and bandwidth."

Granted, I have a single core P4 with 1GB RAM on my desk at work. For any tasks that might get bogged down by this hardware, well that is when I remote into a powerful server and run it there. So long as the local machine has enough power to run a remote desktop session, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference of how powerful it is.

 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
[citation][nom]DirectXtreme[/nom]Microsoft is not throwing Windows under the bus, but rather throwing those of us that wish to have the old Start menu back. Apple will never kill computers, but they will transform the way we perceive personal computers and the open nature of operating systems in the worst case scenario. If you are referring to the death of the desktop, then it will not happen for a long time as desktops are still required for tasks that require high processing power and bandwidth. Even then they will most likely become a niche market aimed at users who need the horsepower. If you want program compatibility, there is a compatibility layer for Linux called WINE. If WINE doesn't work out for you, then I suggest you make a backup of your software installation files and your copy of Windows 7 or whatever OS you're currently using if you fear that software support your current hardware/software platform will fade away in the future.[/citation]

i see going from the desktop to a tablet interface as a major step backwards, but because apple has sucess doing it, windows wants in on it to.

sure there is still a desktop for now, but i hate to see in 10 years if this crap catches on hard, what will happend to system builders. i love building my computers, but if in 10 years everything is enterprise prices only, i cant afford it at all.
 

davidgermain

Distinguished
Nov 18, 2005
201
0
18,690
[citation][nom]maxinexus[/nom]The thing is that people who are willing to work for minimal wage are simply not qualified (most of them). Apple needs skilled force not minimal wage force. Sadly it is the truth.[/citation]

And minimum US wages is still much higher then wages in the far east manufacturing. $22/day 6 days a week. vs. US $5.15/hr 5 days a week.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/the-ieconomy-how-much-do-foxconn-workers-make/
 
[citation][nom]maxinexus[/nom]The thing is that people who are willing to work for minimal wage are simply not qualified (most of them). Apple needs skilled force not minimal wage force. Sadly it is the truth.[/citation]

Not for manufacturing, which was the point of the post that you replied to. It doesn't take skilled workers to work a simple assembly line or else going to China and such countries wouldn't be as great for companies who need manufacturing done. I highly doubt that the average Foxconn manufacturing employee in China is a particularly skilled worker.
 

baconeater

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2011
48
0
18,530
[citation][nom]pythy[/nom]wow, that's a lot of sheep with money[/citation]

Hmm? Being a "sheep" with Money or no money, but the self-assurance of being better than sheep by posting anti-apple remarks on forums?

I hate money also
 

mobrocket

Distinguished
Feb 28, 2011
591
0
19,010
Good for apple. hopefully they will pay their share of taxes and not find some loophole that lets them pay less then I do.

but then again when u have 40 billion to throw around in politics and now have the same rights as citizens...
 

robochump

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2010
968
0
18,980
[citation][nom]bllue[/nom]Apple is degrading the tech industry and holding it back[/citation]

How so? I love iHaters randomness. Apple has revolutionized the mobile music market, smart phone market, and reinvented the tablet market. Oh, not to mention nearly everyone is copying MAC hardware design. Get real u clowns.
 
[citation][nom]robochump[/nom]How so? I love iHaters randomness. Apple has revolutionized the mobile music market, smart phone market, and reinvented the tablet market. Oh, not to mention nearly everyone is copying MAC hardware design. Get real u clowns.[/citation]

Who's copying Macs? Other than Ultrabooks kinda copying the MacBook Air in that they're also thin and low power laptops, no economically successful Mac (if any at all) is in a form factor that wasn't started off with other companies nor did any of them use hardware designs that were first used by other companies. Apple may have gotten the smart phone and tablet industry moving, but they are not original in it. They most certainly didn't revolutionize the music market.

All they did was outsell other MP3 players (which they actually extensively copied at first, got sued for, and lost the lawsuits because their product was literally identical to preexisting MP3 players at first) and heck, they only use low quality audio anyway, so they most certainly didn't revolutionize that market, they simply convinced a lot of people to settle for overpriced MP3 players with expensive, low quality music.

On that note, the low quality music, among other things, is arguably "holding the industry back" and their attacks on Samsung that aren't even accurate in reasoning is also arguably another such example.

One of the few counterexamples is Apple's in-house designed SoCs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.