backtop


Print 96 comment(s) - last by Any14Tee.. on Aug 16 at 11:21 AM

"We saw Apple without Steve Jobs. We saw Apple with Steve... Now, we’re gonna see Apple w/out Steve..."

In an interview with CBS Corp. (CBS) television host Charlie Rose, Oracle Corp. (ORCLchief executive Larry Ellison was eager to give his two cents about what the future held for Apple, Inc. (AAPL).

The top tech CEO was reverent in his tone when discussing marketing and bundling genius Steven P. Jobs, Apple's late CEO, who in October 2011 succumbed to a long battle with cancer.  He remarked:

He was brilliant... he was our Edison... he was our Picasso.  He was an incredible inventor.

As anyone who knows much about Thomas Edison's history can attest, that comparison seems reasonably apt.  Mr. Jobs, liked Mr. Edison considered genius 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration -- but both men were clever enough to make sure most of that perspiration was wrought on the backs of their engineering staff.

And like Mr. Edison, Mr. Jobs was a ruthless competitor, at times stealing, borrowing, and/or repackaging ideas into a product that outshone the competition.  


But all that aside, he drove his company to put out products that wowed the market and did things none his rivals could, like making the tablet appealing, and breaking the power of the Big Music industry via digital downloads.

Moving on, Mr. Ellison was asked what the future holds for Apple under the leadership of Mr. Jobs' quiet and reserved successor, Tim Cook.  Mr. Ellison didn't beat around the bush, commenting:

Well, we already know.  We saw... we conduct the experiment, it's been done.  We saw Apple with Steve Jobs. We saw Apple without Steve Jobs. We saw Apple with Steve Jobs. Now, we’re gonna see Apple without Steve Jobs.

Despite a seeming slowdown in new product and new ideas Apple remains one of the world's most profitable companies and is sitting on a huge pile of cash.  Apple is number one in the tablet market and number two in the smartphone market, behind only Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930).

Tim Cook
Larry Ellison isn't convinced new Apple CEO Tim Cook has the Jobsian magic.
[Image Source: Bloomberg]

 
Investors remain cautiously optimistic amid news that a long-awaited budget iPhone and iWatch (smart watch) are set to launch within the next month, in addition to the next flagship iPhone.  That hopeful sentiment has lifted Apple's stock up to around $470 USD/share.  While still far from its record highs of $700+ USD/share it saw last year, it's welcome news for investors who saw the stock dip down to $400 USD/share more than once as Apple's margins slid.

Source: CBS



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

As opposed to Oracle
By Sivar on 8/13/2013 12:01:24 PM , Rating: 5
As opposed to Oracle, whose software products have yet to achieve mediocrity.

Just yesterday I continued work documenting all of the Oracle crashes, connection-loss bugs, and other issues we've encountered in the last year and "workarounds" for them. Oracle DB is such unbelievably low quality, it amazes me that companies continue to be fooled by Oracle's salesmen.

They are like Bose: All marketing, bottom-end quality.




RE: As opposed to Oracle
By mik123 on 8/13/2013 12:32:12 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know about Oracle, but I did listen to Bose speakers at BestBuy showroom last week.
They had completely blown my mind. I just could not believe such realistic sound could come out of those tiny speakers.
I don't care for their marketing. I've experienced it myself.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By ExarKun333 on 8/13/2013 1:04:56 PM , Rating: 2
They are decent if you are used to crappy speakers, like most people are. Compared to the leaders in similar price brackets, however, they are VERY underwhelming.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Samus on 8/13/2013 3:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
I certainly wouldn't call them "crappy." Bose makes great sounding speaker systems.

Overpriced, ripoff, bent-over, are all more appropriate terms...

The problem with Bose is their competition. You can certainly get the same quality for much less.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By mik123 on 8/13/2013 3:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
Which ones provide the same sound as Bose?

I have more expensive speakers at home, so Bose would be a "downgrade" for me. However Bose sounded amazing in the showroom. My home speakers are good, but I could never feel they're "amazing".


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Mitch101 on 8/13/2013 5:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
Bose reproduces sound the way they believe consumers enjoy sound they do no reproduce sound exactly as the source material but that's not necessarily a bad thing. They do sound good but they cost a fortune.

Personally get a set of Energy Take and make sure to buy a high quality receiver. Get into the $599.00 receiver range and have your mind blown.

If you have money for Bose I seriously recommend you listen to a set of Boston Acoustics on something like a nice Yamaha receiver.

Heres a tip if you can tell where the subwoofer is instantly when it thumps its not a good subwoofer.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Mitch101 on 8/13/2013 5:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
Also bring in your own music to test on since that's what your going to be listening to when you own it.

Yamo Be There to the ground
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPEB30yZvAU


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By mik123 on 8/13/2013 8:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
I actually have an older top of the line Yamaha receiver ($999), and Angstrom Omega II 205 speakers ($1,399) in my living room. They sound good, but still it was with Bose when I noticed the fidelity of their sound. It was a surreal experience.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Mitch101 on 8/13/2013 8:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
By all means if you like it buy it and enjoy it and don't let anyone else tell you differently.

Many people get hooked on specs, sound curves, and true artist reproduction of sound etc but if you love the way they sound you found the speakers for you.

Since I saw Best Buy don't come back tomorrow and tell us all you bought monster cables because you heard a difference then you would be in trouble.

You did the right thing and bought audio speakers using your ears. Enjoy.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By mik123 on 8/13/2013 8:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
Well, a good thing about BB - I have 30 days to return them for a full refund if I don't like them.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2013 9:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many people get hooked on specs, sound curves, and true artist reproduction of sound etc but if you love the way they sound you found the speakers for you.


Lots of people love the way they "sound" in a rigged demo setting with source material chosen to highlight the speakers strong points.

Then you get Bose home, which has entirely different acoustics than the demo room, and use your own less-flattering source material, and you feel ripped off.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Mitch101 on 8/14/2013 12:20:52 AM , Rating: 2
Its why Im controlling every aspect of my theater room right down to the acoustic panels, bass traps, and their placement because sound is half the experience. Oh what a difference it makes.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By BRB29 on 8/14/2013 12:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
If you can do that then you will never choose Bose. What a difference it will make to your wallet and ears.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Mitch101 on 8/14/2013 2:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone can you just need to make a wooden frame and line it with acoustic wall insulation and fabric and a mirror to know where to place them. Its just sound dampners to keep sound from bouncing around like theaters line the walls to stop the sound bounce. Corners for keeping out stray bass.

Im an Energy Take, JBL (Subwooder Required), or Infinity (HK) kind of guy.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By tecknurd on 8/13/2013 9:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bose reproduces sound the way they believe consumers enjoy sound they do no reproduce sound exactly as the source material but that's not necessarily a bad thing. They do sound good but they cost a fortune.

BOSE's 201 and 301 series speakers sound good, but the rest of their products actually do suck compared to their competitors. All speaker manufactures do the exact thing what you said is produce sound in their own way. Each speaker company have a different characteristic of sound.

quote:
Personally get a set of Energy Take and make sure to buy a high quality receiver. Get into the $599.00 receiver range and have your mind blown.

A quality receiver does not translate into price. Any receiver will work, but have to look at the amount of power the receiver actually consumes. All companies will cheat of power output to all 7 speakers. The amplifiers inside the receiver may able to achieve what is advertise, but the power supply will not.

quote:
Heres a tip if you can tell where the subwoofer is instantly when it thumps its not a good subwoofer.

If you can hear where the subwoofer is, then the subwoofer is too far from the speakers and the crossover frequency is set too high.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By jimbojimbo on 8/13/2013 9:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
Every other reply here is good and the Element speakers are fantastic. However, also consider that a show room is just that a carefully constructed room with the sole purpose to show off the merchandise. Of course the sound is going to be better there compared to a normal living room.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By aliasfox on 8/14/2013 9:54:08 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know what system you looked at in the Best Buy showroom, but a few recommendations, depending on your price point:

- Energy Take 5: A small 5 speaker system that usually retails <$500. Pair it with a decent subwoofer and receiver and you have a nice home theater set up

- B&W M1: Small 5 speaker set up that goes for ~$2500 (I think). With a good sub should blow anything Bose makes out of the water. I use two M1 speakers as my surrounds.

- PSB Alpha B1: $300 stereo bookshelf speakers. Unlikely to blow you away in any single scenario, but faithfully and naturally reproduces good quality audio. My old roommate has a pair that he adores.

- Paradigm Studio series: $1-3k a pair (monitors up to floorstanders). Paradigm's 'slam' and very forward presentation may not work for all types of music, but if you want your music to be involving, these are a good choice. Also should be phenomenal if you buy a surround set up and use it to watch Michael Bay movies.

- B&W 600 series: $500 - $1500 a pair. Not as 'impressive' sounding as the Paradigm Studios, but more laid back and relaxing.

- PSB Imagine T2 floorstanders: $3k/pair. Stunned when I heard them in the showroom, I feel like they might be every bit the equal of my B&W 804s - though no way to know for sure unless I have them in the same room, same source, etc.

My personal system? B&W 804s fronts with M1 surrounds, hooked up to a McIntosh MC300 amplifier powering the fronts, Denon receiver acting as pre/pro and powering the rears. Oppo BD-83 providing my quality sources (Blu ray and CD), optical output from my Mac Pro providing most of the rest.

I'll say that Bose does have a few systems that are somewhat surprising. Their bluetooth speaker sounds good for its size, but at $200 is noticeably more expensive than much of its competition. The Wave Radio is the best clock radio I've ever heard, but all other clock radios I've listened to are <$20. Their Triport headphones work well, but do they work better than a pair of Sennheiser HD280 Pros for $50 less? How about their noise cancelling jobbies?


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Any14Tee on 8/16/2013 11:21:18 AM , Rating: 2
Bose is gadgetry in a small box and if you like the Kings Clothing - it must be good, yes?
When an Audiophile speaks, you listen - thank you bud, I thought the art of listening to real music on quality Hi-Fi kit, that relays real ambiance and timber that invokes the soul and in the end, you're crying like a wossy because it was so good.
I remember my first B&W BBC monitor studio, built my tube amps and Bridged my PMC floor standing speakings and listen music all day, spent sh*t load of money but then I got married and big boxes turned into tiny boxes, which didn't mess up the lounge and now I spend sh*t load of money on my missus.
Anyway, back to the main thread - Oracles claims about Jobsies, he made lots of money, brought Apple back from the brink but a genius? Little exaggeration think.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2013 5:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I certainly wouldn't call them "crappy." Bose makes great sounding speaker systems.


I would, and no they don't.

Just learn to Google. The truth is out there. Youtube has several eye-opening Bose speaker teardown's. You would be surprised how low quality the materials they use are for such a "premium" brand. Paper cones, I sh*t you not.

Bose wants you to believe they've done "research" in "technologies" that somehow allows a 2" driver to move as much air as a 6"+. It's all marketing BS.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Makaveli on 8/13/2013 6:19:23 PM , Rating: 2
There is a suck born ever day reclaimer.

And ignorance is bliss, most people don't know what good quality sound is or speakers.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Sivar on 8/14/2013 10:56:09 AM , Rating: 2
Whether or not Bose speakers are terrible is honestly a resolved debate. They use poor-quality materials, have measurably bad performance (not that you can read the specs since THEY DO NOT PUBLISH THEIR SPEAKER SPECS), and are generally thought of as for those who have more money than brains.

One needs only do some research. Please ask around on AVSForum.com, read any review from a trustworthy source (e.g. not CNET, nothing linked by a speaker company), and read http://nyet.org/bose/

Their demo systems, at least in large cities, are often connected to unrealistic equipment, e.g. to a Krell Reference amplifier ($26,000).

Bose has been debated and proven crap, by any measure, so many times that the discussion grows tiresome other than that I like to help others see through their bullshit.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By quiksilvr on 8/13/2013 1:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
Experience Klipsch or JBL speakers with a good Yamaha receiver that has a low THD (0.08% or less) and you'll have a new experience.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By mik123 on 8/13/2013 3:31:14 PM , Rating: 1
In my living room I have Angstrom Omega II 205 (and 209 for surround), connected to an older top of the line Yamaha RX-V995 receiver:
http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/floorstand...

Yet the sound I heard in that showroom was so amazing I had a hard time believing it was coming from Bose.

I don't want to argue, they don't pay me to promote their products. Just go and listen for yourself.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By BRB29 on 8/14/2013 9:20:14 AM , Rating: 2
Bro, Bose always have a showroom and separate their products from the rest of the other brands. You ever wondered why?

They set up their speakers and showroom to work in harmony with each other to provide the best sound. They use the best receivers and sound track. I was blown away too until I took it home to realize that I would need to spend a ton of money to get the same sound.

Their speakers are mediocre quality with high end pricing. What Bose does is make a convenient and simple package for people. Any person with knowledge in audio equipment and tech will tell you not to buy Bose. Google it yourself if you don't believe me. If you're so convinced then fork over $1500 like I did and disappoint yourself.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2013 1:47:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They had completely blown my mind. I just could not believe such realistic sound could come out of those tiny speakers. I don't care for their marketing. I've experienced it myself.


You cannot get great fidelity out of small speakers. Physics dictates that.

Well the truth is that those little cubes don't even come close to large speakers. In fact those little cubes even with the subwoofer dont' display a large portion of the audio spectrum that even the most inexpensive speakers give you. The Bose folks forgot to tell you that I bet. Did they also tell you that the inside of their speakers is VERY cheap. In fact I would be willing to bet they don't have more than $40 into their super expensive Acoustimass speakers.

Bose speakers are tuned, purposefully, to blast your ears with the high end spectrum while dumping the mids and lows. You think it "sounds good" because you're hearing crap-tons of treble, but it's smoke and mirrors I assure you.

And I'm not some preppy audiophile. I have a DIY home theater setup which costs me much less than a Bose system. But I assure you trounces any Bose system you could buy in audio quality and sound reproduction.

Don't just take my word for it. Home Theater Magazine and Audioholics.com and others have given Bose speakers the lowest ratings I have ever seen in pro reviews. When it comes to sound quality per dollar spent, Bose isn't even in the top 20.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By arazok on 8/13/2013 3:33:45 PM , Rating: 3
This.

I gut suckered into the Bose demo at BB. Sounded fantastic in the store. Brought em home, and I thought it sounded fantastic then as well.

It was only after a few months of movie watching between my house and a friends that I realized the mid’s are completely lacking with Bose. I heard sounds on his (larger speaker) system that were just non-existant or totally muted on my Bose. The mids are gone.

Most of the sound in the mids are more background filler. It’s what makes gunshots, male voices, car engines, etc sound like they have some weight to them.

You don’t notice it’s missing at first, but once you realize it, it will drive you nuts.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By mik123 on 8/13/2013 3:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting. I should have asked BB guys to switch the same sound over to some floorstanding speakers, to compare. But at the same time, after listening to Bose, you can say that other speakers totally lack highs, which is something I now miss when listening to my large home speakers.
Perhaps I should play with the equalizer on the receiver.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2013 5:20:56 PM , Rating: 1
Yup. Bose uses trickery instead of good quality sound reproduction. Let me put it this way, maybe it makes more sense:

Some relevant facts:
1. We can hear up to 10 octaves, from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz.
2. The larger the speaker, the better chance it has to be able to produce the lower frequencies, below 500 cycles. (Hz.)
3. Human hearing works best at 1000 cycles (a baby crying).
our hearing efficiency drops off above and below that.
4. Most music content is between 40 cycles and 2000 cycles.
5. subwoofers cut out 2 important intermediate octaves, between 80 Hz and below 500 Hz.
6. the lower the frequency (Hz.) the more power is needed.

This means that a small system with subwoofers really misses the mark for reproducing realistic music.
Bose specializes in small systems with subwoofers.
Subwoofers can sound impressive, but don't reproduce sound accurately.

So we see with Bose, like you discovered, the midrange is totally gone! The sub, especially the ones they use, sure as hell can't make up for the lack of fidelity from those tiny speakers.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By TSS on 8/14/2013 4:29:56 PM , Rating: 2
And that "few months" part is exactly why Bose speakers are so expensive.

Most people do not have one bit of a clue about sound. My dad used to sell speakers, while being a classically trained composer. Every setup in the store was tuned exactly to how they should be, and the first thing any person who listened to them did was crank up the bass on the equalizer. To the point where he just didn't reset the settings anymore.

Bose speakers are good enough if you can't tell the difference anyway. Most people don't buy them for the sound - they buy them for the brand. Like Apple, Nike, 99% of all perfumes etc.

If people cannot recognise quality they just go with either the most expensive option or the person screaming the loudest they have the highest quality. It's been like that for decades, and probably the entirety of human history.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By mik123 on 8/13/2013 3:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry - I thought physics only dictates that deep bass cannot come out of small speakers. Care to explain your statement?

Fidelity is a great word to describe my experience with Bose - it was by far the most detailed surround sound I've ever heard (and I've heard much more expensive speakers than Bose). That sound made me forget I was in a room.

I could not care less about how Bose do it, and I definitely don't give a rat's ass about reviews in audio magazines. I trust my own ears, and my ears enjoyed the sound. By the way, when I sat down in that showroom, I didn't know which speakers were playing. There were a bunch of floorstanding models in front of me. Only after I was impressed with sound quality, I stood up and found the source of the sound.

You might be right about them emphasizing higher end spectrum - if so, great! I liked it!


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2013 5:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
Jesus you're hopeless. Go buy some goddamn Bose then, you sucker. Make sure you get Monster Cable speaker wire to go with them! They're the best!!!

quote:
I could not care less about how Bose do it


You don't care that you're not actually hearing the full spectrum of the music/movies being played? Okay that makes a lot of sense....


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By rsmech on 8/13/2013 7:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure he's sorry he didn't agree with you the first time so relax. Sometimes you sound like an opinionated a$$. Even when I want to agree with you I can't. Sometimes you even make Tony look good.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Dug on 8/13/2013 7:26:04 PM , Rating: 3
I love Monster Cable!!!!!! The copper in that cable is so much better than copper used in any other cable!!!!

I'd be willing to pay 10x more than their already 10x over priced cable.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By mik123 on 8/13/2013 8:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
You're funny. I told you I've listened to them with my own ears, and I liked the sound. And you're telling me to go read reviews? Why?

The ultimate goal is to enjoy the sound.
Why would I care about anything else about those speakers?


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2013 8:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not the only person here who's tried to help you. Look, you're right. I don't care, buy what you want.

Just know that you "liking" something doesn't refute the guy you responded to who, rightfully, called out Bose for being junk.

I believe enjoyment is based on the source material. The ultimate goal for any audio system should be as accurate sound reproduction as possible. In this regard, Bose fails horribly. And that's not an opinion.

Bose - all highs no lows.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By mik123 on 8/13/2013 10:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
You have a point when you say it's possible that when I bring Bose home, they might sound different than they did in the showroom.

If that happens, I will again trust my own ears - if I don't like what I hear, I will return them. Thankfully, BB offers 30 days return policy.

My point is that's how you should choose audio speakers - listening to them, and deciding if you like them or not. Ignore everything else.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By ProZach on 8/14/2013 2:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, sure, picking speakers by listening, lol.

But if I was musically inept and/or tone-deaf I guess I would buy the overpriced speakers with all the warm-and-fuzzy marketing terminology and "ignore everything else."

Maybe I could be smart enough to do (blind) comparisons with equal testing conditions and an impartial/unbiased sales representative, but if my auditory perception sucked I might still pick the over-contoured sounding speakers instead of ones that faithfully reproduced the ACTUAL sound of the material without extra chicanery.

Another chance for me to drop "Xiph Neil Young 24/192" for people to search, it addresses several audio facts that effectively busts some hype like cheap balloons.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Solandri on 8/14/2013 4:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The ultimate goal is to enjoy the sound.
Why would I care about anything else about those speakers?

For a speakers, the ultimate goal is to faithfully reproduce the sound signal transmitted to them. All the other things that make the sound "enjoyable" should be done outside the speakers - by modifying the sound/phase through an equalizer, speaker placement, cutoff frequencies, etc.

If you have speakers which faithfully and accurately reproduce sound, then you basically eliminate them as a variable. You tweak the equalizer and that tweak gets played back accurately by the speakers. You want to increase the 1 Hz frequencies by 10%, you raise the 1 Hz equalizer setting by 10%, and the speakers play back 1 Hz sounds 10% louder.

If your speakers don't accurately reproduce sound (e.g. are pre-tuned like those stupid Beats audio systems on some laptops), then your ability to modify the sound is severely hampered by secondary effects. You increase the 1 kHz frequency on your equalizer by 10%, and 1 kHz goes up by 10% but 500 Hz and 2 kHz also go up by 2%. You lower 500 Hz and 2 kHz by 2% to try to correct this, and it lowers 1 Hz by 1%, and 200 Hz and 5 kHz also decrease by 0.5%. And so on.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2013 1:27:04 PM , Rating: 4
That may be, but it doesn't mean they are wrong about Apple.

Frankly I think all this Jobs-worship is getting a bit out of hand. The guy had a few good ideas, but his best trait was fooling the faithful and marketing smoke and mirrors.

I don't think Apple magically needs Steve Jobs to succeed. A lot of companies would die to have their numbers. I do think the philosophy that Steve built Apple around, closed-source in-house everything standards be damned, eliminates growth options and invariably leads to Apple being a niche company.

Extremely profitable, but a niche all the same.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Bateluer on 8/13/2013 2:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
Extremely profitable in the short term. Not long term viable. Closed platforms rarely are.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By BSMonitor on 8/13/2013 3:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting that the PC market is in decline. Open hardware platform.

Where as the Mac market is actually growing. Closed hardware platform.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By inperfectdarkness on 8/13/2013 3:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm assuming you're basing that off all iOS sales & only off Desktop PC sales--because that's the only way in which your logic might make sense.

There's a heck of a lot more growth between Android/Win8/WinMo than there is with Apple.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By BSMonitor on 8/13/2013 3:46:01 PM , Rating: 1
No idea what post you read. The man said closed system approaches inevitably fail... I pointed out the exact opposite to be true.

Open platform PC market is in decline.
Closed platform "PC"-like Macs are gaining market share.

www.cnbc.com .. Do some research.

This is a simple fact.

Not sure what smart phone / tablet OS has to do with anything.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By retrospooty on 8/13/2013 3:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, wrong again...

Mac hasnt gained any market share for years. The "meteoric rise" was from 4% to 7% from the early 2000's to 2011-ish. Its been at about 7% for a few years now.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-m...

Mac sales arent growing either. Down slightly.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/23/apples-q3-2013-...


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By ritualm on 8/13/2013 4:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No idea what post you read. The man said closed system approaches inevitably fail... I pointed out the exact opposite to be true.

Open platform PC market is in decline.
Closed platform "PC"-like Macs are gaining market share.

www.cnbc.com .. Do some research.

This is a simple fact.

Not sure what smart phone / tablet OS has to do with anything.

You are wrong.

PC sales are in decline. <--- yes, this is correct.
Mac sales are growing. <--- no, this is wrong.

Apple's biggest sales drivers come from its iOS division, namely smartphones and tablets. iTunes is the other major driver. Its Mac computer division is actually in decline. How else would they kill off their 17" Macbook Pro in mid-2012, and not update their Mac Pro until a few months ago?

Anand himself wrote this below:
quote:
Apple makes the bulk of its revenue from devices that don’t look like traditional personal computers. For the past couple of years I’ve been worried that it would wake up and decide the traditional Mac is a burden, and it should instead be in the business of strictly selling consumer devices. With its announcements two weeks ago in San Francisco, I can happily say that my fears haven’t come true. At least not yet.

It’s been a while since Apple did a really exciting MacBook Pro launch. Much to my surprise, even the move to Sandy Bridge, the first quad-core in a MacBook Pro, was done without even whispers of a press conference. Apple threw up the new products on its online store, shipped inventory to its retail outlets, updated the website and called it a day. Every iPhone and iPad announcement however was accompanied with much fanfare. The MacBook Pro seemed almost forgotten.

Oh, and this needs to be noted. The previous generation Mac Pro has some replaceable and upgradeable components. The latest Mac Pro is literally an unupgradeable "trashcan".

Macbook Airs have not seen a major update since their initial release. Nada with classic Macbook Pros since unibody. I've seen more improvements of late out of such crap vendors as Acer than Apple.

Mac sales ARE in decline, that is a simple fact.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By jonm78 on 8/13/2013 9:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and not update their Mac Pro until a few months ago?


They typically release new MacBooks with new CPU releases. Intel did just release the 3rd generation Core i5/i7 processors to coincide with that.

quote:
Mac sales ARE in decline, that is a simple fact.


That's due to the rise of tablet sales, which is effecting PC/laptop sales as well. I travel frequently and tend to see more and more tablets at airports than laptops.

It was never the hardware that guided Apple. It was always the software, the experience of the device. The software is the reason for Apple's change with iOS 7. This will effect their mobile devices starting with the iPhone and eventually move to the iPad. This fall should be the release of a new iPad as well, which should re-establish the commanding tablet market share they already have.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By jimbojimbo on 8/13/2013 9:34:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel did just release the 3rd generation Core i5/i7 processors
If you believe this I have some Core i7 3000 model CPUs for sale for you at full retail price. Ignore the 4000 models that are out now and something about wells.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2013 5:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
The PC market is not "in decline". It's just not experiencing the growth it used to. Because EVERYONE IN THE WORLD HAS ONE. They're ubiquitous.

quote:
Where as the Mac market is actually growing. Closed hardware platform.


Uhhh at the Mac's rate of growth, it would take decades to eclipse the PC's numbers.

And how is the Mac "closed hardware" again? Last time I checked they ran Intel like everything else.

You're revisionist history is amazing. The Macintosh used to be a closed hardware proprietary platform. And it completely failed, they had to switch to PC parts to stay relevant.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By retrospooty on 8/13/2013 5:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
"You're revisionist history is amazing. The Macintosh used to be a closed hardware proprietary platform. And it completely failed, they had to switch to PC parts to stay relevant."

That is a good point too... The rise in marketshare from where is was in the the early 2000's (4%) until 2011 (7%) was after they switched to Intel chips/compatible parts.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2013 5:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I can't believe he can say half the crap he does with a straight face. Did he forget all about that little tidbit of facts? I don't see any PowerPC Mac's around, do you?

Another giant white flag Apple threw up to save their closed-source platform was allowing their computers to run Windows of all things.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By BSMonitor on 8/13/2013 3:10:31 PM , Rating: 1
Hmmm, what benchmark for success would the mightly Reclaimer suggest if not selling countless $B of dollars worth of product??

Revolutionizing the digital music and software marketplace??Establishing the current smart phone landscape??

Niche = Hundreds of Millions ehh? Wow

Smart guy here. Not at all biased.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By 91TTZ on 8/14/2013 11:28:03 AM , Rating: 3
You don't seem to be addressing Reclaimer's points. Instead, you throw in some Apple worship and leave it at that.

This is a tech forum where people are supposed to talk tech. If I wanted to see someone sing praises for someone else's work I'd turn on a politics channel with a bunch of useless talking heads stroking their favorite politician.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Ammohunt on 8/15/2013 10:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
Evidentially you don't remember the Jobless beige mac years. Apple doesn't have a visionary any more they are sunk.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Jeffk464 on 8/13/2013 3:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
Its not just the lack of steve jobs, its also google jumping into apple's market. Apple would still be strong if they only had to compete with MS and blackberry.


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By BSMonitor on 8/13/2013 3:16:10 PM , Rating: 1
RE: As opposed to Oracle
By kmmatney on 8/13/2013 5:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure why you got voted down. For sure, Google had to scramble like mad and completely revamp Android when the iPhone came out. You have to give them a lot of credit for doing it so quickly (compared to MS and Blackberry).


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By inperfectdarkness on 8/13/2013 3:15:29 PM , Rating: 2
Correction. You mean "Beats by Monster", not Bose.

(Although TBH, Bose still sucks donkey-butt compared to Sennheiser).


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By kmmatney on 8/13/2013 5:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
I bought a pair of Bose speakers at a fire sale about 15 years ago about 15 years ago, and have to say they have been great. While they may be overpriced, they aren't that bad.

As for Oracle, I'm getting sick of always having to turn off the Ask.com toolbar option every time Java needs an update...


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By 91TTZ on 8/14/2013 11:24:10 AM , Rating: 2
You're taking his comments the wrong way. Larry Ellison isn't bashing Apple because he considers them an competitor or anything like that. He was good friends with Steve Jobs and knows that he was what made Apple magic.



RE: As opposed to Oracle
By japlha on 8/14/2013 2:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well I've been working as a DBA for over 10 years with both Oracle and SQL Server. I've experimented with other database products as well. Each have their strengths and weaknesses (like any software product). I'm certainly not "fooled" by Oracle's salesmen. I understand what the products do and have experience in using them.

What do you think a salesman tells us "Hey Oracle is super duper! You should buy it! Oracle is 200% better than any other RDBMS out there. Here's a graph that proves it".

Most of the issues I've seen are related to lack of experience with the database. I've seen people do some silly things with databases (not configured properly, "What's a backup?", "Indexes make things go fast right?")

Overall, Oracle has been quite stable for me throughout my career and in the current database environment I administer (we have hundreds of Oracle and SQL Server databases).


RE: As opposed to Oracle
By Ammohunt on 8/15/2013 10:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
Some of the criticism of oracle is warranted but a lot of it is not deserved. Two places are Oracle Database and Oracle Weblogic they are solid and best in class products overpriced for sure but unmatched.


Larry is a funny one.
By retrospooty on 8/13/2013 11:36:54 AM , Rating: 2
I think everyone can agree Apple isnt as strong without Jobs, but its not like they are going out of business. They can press the easy button and coast for a decade with minimal effort and still be making some money.

Coming from Oracle's leader this is hilarious. There is an old joke in the Silicon Valley, one of those "its funny becasue its true" things... Once a company chooses to go with Oracle, they will be closing the doors within 2 years. Someone told me that when the company I worked for went with Oracle for their primary data systems. I laughed it off until 18 months later they closed the doors and sold off the assets. LOL.




RE: Larry is a funny one.
By Tony Swash on 8/13/2013 12:24:18 PM , Rating: 1
I agree.

I think the death of Steve Jobs does leave a gap at Apple though, but it's way too early to tell whether that means less product innovation. Consider the list of major new product launches under Jobs.

iMac

??3 years 4 months later

??iPod??5 years

3 months later

iPhone??

3 years??iPad

So there were quite long periods, particularly after the iPod launch, when no new product was released for several years, the longest gap was over five years. I think it is too early to say whether major new product innovation has ended at Apple. Jobs was concerned about this for a long time before his demise and much of his work was aimed at not just re-engineering Apple but baking that re-engineering in via systems like the internal, and almost wholly secret, Apple university.

There is a big gap left by Jobs in terms of explaining and presenting what Apple is doing. Apple is not run like any other big tech company (although Microsoft have just re-orged to ape it) and it's product design strategy and the way it manages it's portfolio of products is very unusual. Combined with intense secrecy that makes it very difficult company for tech pundits and commentators to understand Apple. Jobs was not just a brilliant communicator, Cook by comparison is wooden, but he had enormous credibility because of his decades in the tech business and the turnaround he led at Apple. What Apple needs I think is someone to fill that space at Apple, to be it's public front end. Finding such a person will be very difficult and may be impossible.


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By retrospooty on 8/13/2013 1:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
"What Apple needs I think is someone to fill that space at Apple, to be it's public front end. Finding such a person will be very difficult and may be impossible"

That can't be done because it's about perception. Let's say hypothetically they found someone with the exact same intellect, opinions, drive, everything exactly like Jobs... Literally his brain-clone (in a different body). He still couldn't come out and do what Jobs did, because people would just say he is mimicking Jobs and trying to say what Jobs would say, which wouldn't be a good perception. Its about product now and Apple is strong there. Like I said, they can pretty much coast for a long time and still be profitable... If they decide to take some of that 100+ billion in the banks and heavily invest in R&D they can keep going indefinitely. Right now it looks like they arent doing that, just sort of coasting, but time will tell.


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By Tony Swash on 8/13/13, Rating: -1
RE: Larry is a funny one.
By BSMonitor on 8/13/2013 3:17:34 PM , Rating: 3
Then google can copy them again ;)


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By retrospooty on 8/13/2013 3:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
"Then google can copy them again"

You mean like how they copied Palm and Rimm in the first place with the iPhone and later they even copied Google? Yes. All companies build on the successful ideas of other companies and always have since the dawn of civilization. Get over it.


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By JackBurton on 8/13/13, Rating: -1
RE: Larry is a funny one.
By retrospooty on 8/13/2013 7:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
It was an improvement for sure. They were the first to release a good multitouch UI. That was their big improvement and they certainly reaped the profits from that, no doubt.

I would argue that adding the multitouch UI to a smartphone is far less of a functional addition than what they copied (the entire smartphone category). It just happened to be the tipping point feature that made smartphones fun and easy to use for the masses... Like I said, a great innovation and Apple profited MASSIVELY from it.

OK, that happened. Now, is it your assertion that no-one else should ever be able to use multi-touch because Apple was the first to market with it? Game over, everyone else close up shop? Apple owns that?


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By JackBurton on 8/13/2013 8:49:07 PM , Rating: 1
In short, no that's not what I'd like. What I'd like is for OTHER companies to do what Apple has done, to take the lead and create new innovative products. To this day, it is just companies like Samsung just riding on the iPhone's success and adding BS gimmicks. If Samsung or Google came out with a truly innovative product, I'd be the first one to say FINALLY, someone other than Apple coming out with a fresh new products.


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By retrospooty on 8/13/2013 9:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
You clearly have a much higher opinion of Apple than reality dictates. BBOS10, Android and WP8 have all surpassed IOS in almost every way. You are sitting there in 2013, drooling over 2007's top innovator and ignoring the fact that everyone else has already passed them by.


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By JackBurton on 8/13/2013 9:55:28 PM , Rating: 2
No, reality dictates a long list of BS "features" added to pad a spec sheet doesn't necessarily translate into a better user experience. As for the OS, iOS is just part of a larger system, and that is it's true strength. Unlike the fragmented junk on the other side of the pond. I'm not going to even mention iOS 7 that is just around the corner.


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By retrospooty on 8/13/2013 10:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yup... Confirmed. Like I said, you are sitting there in 2013, drooling over 2007's top innovator and ignoring the fact that everyone else has already passed them by.


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2013 9:07:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If Samsung or Google came out with a truly innovative product, I'd be the first one to say FINALLY, someone other than Apple coming out with a fresh new products.


Can you explain what, in your mind, would be an innovation or a new product?

Since in typical iTard style you've dismissed all non-Apple innovations as "gimmicks", I want you to tell me right here, specifically, what your criteria for that is.

Apple stood on the shoulders of giants to create the iPhone. It was revolutionary in that it was so different. But it was an amalgamation of Samsung and others technology and products that made it possible. All Apple did was repackage it, slapped their own OS on it, and viola.


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By JackBurton on 8/13/2013 10:17:22 PM , Rating: 2
Innovation is how Google came in and destroyed all other search engines by using a very simple web layout and superior search algorithms. Did Google invent the search engine? No. They defined it.

Innovation is how Google redefined maps. Did they invent the map? No. They defined it and are the standard all others and compared with now.

Innovation is how Google created an autonomous car. Did they invent the car? No. They took it to the next level.

I consider innovation as a game changer, and Apple has a LONG list of these. Once Google takes the phone to the next level, I'll consider it an innovation. However, adding some BS features to a phone like pausing a video when looking away or scrolling without touching the display are gimmicky features, at best.

IMO, if Google or MS what to take out the iPhone, they have to beat Apple's ecosystem, not just the phone which is a MUCH harder proposition.


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By retrospooty on 8/13/2013 10:53:46 PM , Rating: 3
"IMO, if Google or MS what to take out the iPhone, they have to beat Apple's ecosystem, not just the phone which is a MUCH harder proposition"

Considering that 80% of all smart phones sold now run Android and 13% are IOS, "Taking out the iPhone" isn't on anyone's agenda and doesn't need to be. Again, its not 2007 anymore. You should update your outdated fanboy rhetoric. Android has far more on IOS than a few features. So do WP8 and BBOS10.


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By Tony Swash on 8/14/2013 6:44:18 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Considering that 80% of all smart phones sold now run Android and 13% are IOS, "Taking out the iPhone" isn't on anyone's agenda and doesn't need to be. Again, its not 2007 anymore. You should update your outdated fanboy rhetoric. Android has far more on IOS than a few features. So do WP8 and BBOS10.


This is interesting but will probably not please you :)

http://stevecheney.com/on-the-future-of-ios-and-an...


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By retrospooty on 8/14/2013 8:04:19 AM , Rating: 2
Meh. Some cheap nearsighted blogger really doesn't bother me. Just another opinion.

I like the idea of a low cost iPhone. It's smart. If I were Apple I would do a larger higher end one too. More competition pushes all others to raise the game and/or lower prices. We all win.


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/2013 9:20:55 AM , Rating: 2
I made the mistake of reading the whole thing, ugh.

Just another person who wants to make some big boogeyman out of Android fragmentation, where no real evidence exists to say it's necessarily a bad thing or even an issue.

It's just armchair tech-ramblings of the worst kind. Predictions with nothing to back them up, proclamations based on his own bias, etc etc.


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By retrospooty on 8/14/2013 10:29:43 AM , Rating: 2
"Just another person who wants to make some big boogeyman out of Android fragmentation"

LOL... Yes, "Oh noooo, Android fragmentation. What will the 1.5 million people that activate new Androids every single day do?" Oh yeah... They will just use their phones.

If anyone is concerned about always getting the absolute latest version there are easy ways to accomplish. 1. Buy high end phones, not low end. 2. Buy Nexus phones. 3. Flash it your self. If you bought a low end phone and arent interested or confident enough in flashing it yourself you probably did make a bad choice. iPhone might be right for your next purchase...


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2013 11:37:39 PM , Rating: 2
*sigh*

Google makes a TON of money off the iPhone. In fact they just released their awesome Google Now for iOS in the newest Google Search app.

Why in the hell would Google want to "take out" the iPhone when they profit so handsomely from it? Google doesn't care where their add revenue comes from, as long as it keeps coming in.

quote:
Once Google takes the phone to the next level, I'll consider it an innovation. However, adding some BS features to a phone like pausing a video when looking away or scrolling without touching the display are gimmicky features, at best.


Ummm, Samsung added those features to their Galaxy phones. Not Google, they aren't in stock Android.

But again, you haven't answered my question. What exactly is the "next level" of the smartphone? And how will we know when we get there?


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By retrospooty on 8/14/2013 12:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
There's no answer to that question. He's just another odd person that gets completely bent out of shape anytime anyone says anything that is complementary about Apple. People are just weird.


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By testerguy on 8/16/2013 9:02:17 AM , Rating: 2
Amazing how any article I go to I find you two arguing the most retarded things and calling anybody who disagrees with you Apple fanboys.

It's 'everybody else' right?

;-)


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By retrospooty on 8/16/2013 9:28:08 AM , Rating: 1
First off, my OP had nothing to do with any of that. I was actually being complimenary of Apple. Jack and BS dragged it down. I think you will find that most people here agree, and that angry trolls like you, BS monitor and JackBurton are the minority. See how you all rated down? That is because, and I repeat, you are obviously full of shit, and everyone sees that you are full of shit... People tell you that you are full of shit on a regular basis, yet you carry on as if you think no-one knows you are full of shit... Denial is a funny thing. Cheese even posted link of you doing the same thing to others on other sites LOL. Trollboy, get out of the closet.

Now, please on your reply, try to remember when you are typing, that everyone here knows you are full of shit


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By zero2dash on 8/14/2013 12:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To this day, it is just companies like Samsung just riding on the iPhone's success and adding BS gimmicks.


Not that anyone is going to get anywhere with you, but I'd say that the NFC/wireless sharing, the motion additions (including knowing when someone is looking at the screen and not dimming/stopping a video) were all very good additions to the smartphone ecosystem. The stuff you can do with the camera on the S4 is also pretty neat.

But since you'll probably write those off as "BS gimmicks", let me point out to you that they reinvented "phablets" with the S Pen. I was already sold on the Note/Note II due to the size and feature list, but the S Pen makes my Note II even more valuable to me.


RE: Larry is a funny one.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/2013 12:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
No, see, that's not an innovation because it's not on an iPhone.

Whenever Apple adds something to the iPhone, THEN we're talking about innovation!

/sarcasm


Edison?
By bah12 on 8/13/2013 11:35:31 AM , Rating: 4
I suppose that is an accurate comparison since he Job's didn't actually innovate at all rather ruthlessly stepped on the true talent.

Eddison had Tesla, Jobs had Woz. Without screwing over the real smart innovator, neither Eddison nor Jobs would be memorable at all.




RE: Edison?
By Solandri on 8/14/2013 4:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not Apple fan but I don't think you give Jobs enough credit. Woz was (is) brilliant, but he suffers from typical geek disease - he loves cool tech stuff, but has no idea how to convert it into something normal people can use and will enjoy using. With few exceptions, the Linux and Open Source community are rife with this disease, which is why they've mostly been limited to a few percent of the market.

Jobs was brilliant at exactly what Wozniak lacked - converting tech toys into a form that normal people can use and will enjoy using (which is why many technophiles revile him for "dumbing down" interfaces). The combination of Woz and Jobs was a perfect blend for tech success. Too many technophiles view marketing as evil. Too many marketers think they can run a succeessful company without a solid tech base (what happened to HP). Combine a good technophile with a good marketer and you get business magic.


Edison
By gamerk2 on 8/13/2013 4:32:22 PM , Rating: 3
Out of curiosity, what did Edison actually invent? I mean, the light bulb was around a good decade before Edison patented it. Edison simply took pre-existing products and ideas, took the next logical step to improve them, and then marketed them as "new". Edison wasn't an inventor, he was a businessman.

Huh, guess Jobs and Edison are about the same after all...




RE: Edison
By 91TTZ on 8/14/2013 11:40:40 AM , Rating: 2
If you look at history, not many people do both the inventing and then successfully sell products based on that invention.

Usually what happens is that a scientist will make a discovery, often unrelated to what he's actually looking for, and then documents the details. That discovery will sit around for a while until another group of scientists rediscovers it while they're working on something similar. They build off that information until they can duplicate and confirm the discovery. Then the idea sits around for a while until someone with business experience can bring the idea to market. That attempt usually fails because the market isn't ready for it yet. Finally someone else comes around later and tries it again and succeeds. Then they get all the glory.


Agree
By bobcpg on 8/13/2013 11:22:54 AM , Rating: 2
I just simply agree with this.

Jobs had the ability to break from the mold of standard business practices when necessary.

Now apple will just fall back into the realm of old business. Create a low risk, functional product with the apple logo. It will sell good for a few years until it gets assimilated into the fray.

Soon you'll start seeing bloatware on the iPhone/iPad. 17 different versions of the iPhone to attempting to appear to everyone. Commercials that ask you to buy Apple instead of telling you to buy it.

So sad...




IMPLIES, not INFERS.
By astralsolace on 8/13/2013 3:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you use "infer" when you clearly don't know the difference between implication and inference?

An inference is a conclusion that a listener or reader comes to, as a result of being presented with data. An implication is something a speaker subtly states.




By CharonPDX on 8/13/2013 5:24:52 PM , Rating: 2
Billionaire investor Carl Icahn just announced that he has purchased nearly $1 billion in Apple stock, and expects it to go up by at least $100/share in the next year.




By grant3 on 8/13/2013 5:48:57 PM , Rating: 2
the word is "implies" not "infers" ... why is it in the headline when you don't even know its definition?

Also please include the portion of the interview where he actually suggests anything about apple becoming obscure. (or was that merely an "inference" from Mick that is not actually supported by anything factual?)




samuel1chandel
By samuel1c.handel on 8/13/2013 4:56:14 PM , Rating: 1
what Jacob replied I'm shocked that anyone able to earn $8204 in one month on the internet. did you see this web site www.Work25.CoM




"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki