iPhone review from 2007
09/02/12 17:49 Filed in: iPhone
We thought you need a bit of humour, so here is the Sunday Business Post’s review of the iPhone from 2007, just as it was about to be launched in Europe. We particularly like the references to “inevitable” scratches to the glass, the view that the iPhone will be “largely ignored” and that apparently Nokia and Sony-Ericsson will wipe the iPhone when it comes to music! Enjoy!
Reality Bytes: iPhone’s chances are doubtful in Europe
Sunday, June 24, 2007 - By Adrian Weckler
.
Reality Bytes: iPhone’s chances are doubtful in Europe
Sunday, June 24, 2007 - By Adrian Weckler
Later this week, Apple will release the year’s most-hyped gadget, the iPhone.
It could prove reasonably popular in the US, a low-tech cellular backwater where people still pull aerials out of their ‘cellphones’ and have to pay to accept calls.
In more modern Europe, the iPhone will be largely ignored.
There are several reasons for this. First, texting on the iPhone will be very difficult; it has no buttons and will have a Qwerty keyboard touchscreen layout, so thumbs cannot be used.
Secondly, there’s the touchscreen format itself. Despite its announcement that this will be glass and not plastic, irritating smudges and scratches are inevitable.
Then there’s the iPhone’s technology - or lack of it. Incredibly, the gadget has been made as a low-tech slow-band GPRS unit.
So browsing the internet on it - which is what it is trumpeting as a key feature - will take ages. Activities such as watching YouTube will prove juddery and stopstart. Then there is its music facility.
From what we know, there is no possibility of downloading music on it.
Instead, it will need to be connected to a computer anytime one wants to get music on or off it.
This is miles behind current technology and will certainly not appeal to the likes of Vodafone, O2 or 3, for whom revenue from music downloads is becoming crucial to their business models.
Ironically, in Ireland this could leave the iPhone’s success in the hands of Meteor, the only non-3G network which doesn’t have a big business in downloading music.
But a €600 phone on Meteor? The network of cheap calls, free texts and pre-paid customers?
That is a strange proposition.
It seems likely that a core of Apple fans will rush to buy the iPhone when it launches in Europe, whenever that is .
But this is a small number of people. With a hatful of powerful new music phones due out later this year from Sony Ericsson and Nokia - which can download music from revenue-thirsty operators - the iPhone’s chances in Europe look very weak, to say the least.
.
Comments
What a Difference 5 Years Makes…
Amazing what five years does. In the first half of 2007 Apple did not sell a mobile phone. In 2012, they control 75% of the profits of the entire mobile phone industry, and 40% of all revenues. This is today’s chart from Business Insider:
This shows two things. Firstly how Apple have come to dominate the industry, and they do this selling one model of phone, in three flavours (iPhone 4S, 4 and 3GS). The majority of their units and revenue come from just one model of iPhone, the new iPhone 4S. Apple don’t produce a myriad of handsets and configurations, and this helps to sharpen their image in the market. Everyone knows about the iPhone and most people either have one or intend to get one.
Secondly, Apple’s profit level on these phones far exceeds any other manufacturer. Many Android phone makes would envy the margins that Apple hold, while they pump pout low-cost handsets with thin dividends. Apple makes less than 10% of the total handsets sold, and yet rake in 75% of all of the profits.
It is an amazing story and shows just how far Apple Inc. have moved in the first five years. They have a sharp position in a crowded market, but manage to make their iPhone business one of the most profitable in the tech sector.
.
This shows two things. Firstly how Apple have come to dominate the industry, and they do this selling one model of phone, in three flavours (iPhone 4S, 4 and 3GS). The majority of their units and revenue come from just one model of iPhone, the new iPhone 4S. Apple don’t produce a myriad of handsets and configurations, and this helps to sharpen their image in the market. Everyone knows about the iPhone and most people either have one or intend to get one.
Secondly, Apple’s profit level on these phones far exceeds any other manufacturer. Many Android phone makes would envy the margins that Apple hold, while they pump pout low-cost handsets with thin dividends. Apple makes less than 10% of the total handsets sold, and yet rake in 75% of all of the profits.
It is an amazing story and shows just how far Apple Inc. have moved in the first five years. They have a sharp position in a crowded market, but manage to make their iPhone business one of the most profitable in the tech sector.
.
Sony vs Apple
John Gruber, of Daring Fireball, has summed up all that is wrong in the technology industry, and just how right Apple have been in their positioning and timing.
When Apple launched the iPhone in 2007, they knew this would hit sales of the iPod. In fact during the 2007 keynote, Jobs stated that the iPhone was three devices in one: an iPod, a phone and an internet device. Many CEOs would have worried about cannibalising their own products, but as Gruber points out, “Apple is skating to where the puck is heading; Sony is skating to where the puck is at the moment.”
Sony are looking to a drop in camera sales, probably directly dented by the great camera in the new iPhone 4S. How many iPhone users still buy a separate point and shoot camera, now that the 4S comes with an 8 megapixel camera? Sony still focusses on separate devices, instead of going where the market is aiming for. They are chasing the model of the past, and not moving to where people will be in five years time..
When Apple launched the iPhone in 2007, they knew this would hit sales of the iPod. In fact during the 2007 keynote, Jobs stated that the iPhone was three devices in one: an iPod, a phone and an internet device. Many CEOs would have worried about cannibalising their own products, but as Gruber points out, “Apple is skating to where the puck is heading; Sony is skating to where the puck is at the moment.”
Sony are looking to a drop in camera sales, probably directly dented by the great camera in the new iPhone 4S. How many iPhone users still buy a separate point and shoot camera, now that the 4S comes with an 8 megapixel camera? Sony still focusses on separate devices, instead of going where the market is aiming for. They are chasing the model of the past, and not moving to where people will be in five years time..
John Browett appointed Apple Senior VP of Retail
31/01/12 13:25 Filed in: Retail
Apple have announced that it has appointed John Browett as its Senior Vice-President of Retail, replacing Ron Johnson. Johnson had held for post of over ten years, before stepping down and taking up a new role as CEO of JC Penney last November.
Browett was head of tesco.com and his most recent post was as CEO of Dixons, the European electrical retailer. Indeed, Browett seems happy to step down as the head of Dixons to become a VP at Apple, and report to Tim Cook. Such is the size and status of Apple.
Here is hoping that Browett has the skills and has the feel for the Apple brand. Our instinct tells us to beware of any executive who has worked at Dixons, a company which also owns PC World. Our experience of PC World and their handling of Apple products is abysmal. Browett will have to move from a nuts and bolts tech retail store, with some of the poorest retail experiences for customers, through to one of the biggest brands and best customer experiences in retail..
Browett was head of tesco.com and his most recent post was as CEO of Dixons, the European electrical retailer. Indeed, Browett seems happy to step down as the head of Dixons to become a VP at Apple, and report to Tim Cook. Such is the size and status of Apple.
Here is hoping that Browett has the skills and has the feel for the Apple brand. Our instinct tells us to beware of any executive who has worked at Dixons, a company which also owns PC World. Our experience of PC World and their handling of Apple products is abysmal. Browett will have to move from a nuts and bolts tech retail store, with some of the poorest retail experiences for customers, through to one of the biggest brands and best customer experiences in retail..
Presswatch: Guardian's take on pay
11/01/12 18:00 Filed in: Tim Cook | Financial Results
The Guardian ran a story this week on pay compensation for Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO. We would be the last people to endorse huge salaries, but the tone and accuracy of this article needs attention.
From the outset, Juliette Garside’s piece is incorrect:
A few problems here. Firstly, Steve Jobs did not work for $5. Jobs received a jet from Apple and generous stock options, which had mixed values. Some proved almost worthless due to a fall in the company’s stock value in the mid ‘00s and some made him a lot of money. As for the comment about Tim Cook being unknown outside Silicon Valley, this seems very simplistic. Cook was Apple CEO twice before August 2011, as he stood in for Jobs when he took sick leave. He was well know to any market watchers, and indeed it was Cooks’ reputation on Wall Street which is one of the reasons that Apple now has such a good financial reputation.
However the line that …”Cook's 2011 rewards, disclosed yesterday, put him in pole position to become the year's highest boardroom earner” is simply untrue. The conditions on the stock options, as stated later in the article, only come to fruition in 2016 and 2021. In fact Garside directly contract’s the earlier point, and states that the (UK) FTSE’s average salary for a CEO is now £5.1m sterling, substantially more that Cook’s USD$1m in 2011, even after you add on his bonuses of $0.9m.
The article seems to use Cook as an example, but misses the point. Cook’s stock options, substantial and huge as they are, do not kick in until 2016, when 50% are released, and 2021, when the final 50% are handed over. At that point, who knows what value they will have. Apple is now above Exxon Mobil as the most valuable company in the US, and it can be argued that this is an investment in Apple and Cook. If he stays with Apple, he will become extremely wealthy. If however he leaves, or he fails and the stock price falls, he may find that his options are worth far less than expected. This is what happened to Jobs in 2003 [see here].
Presumably the reason why this substantial stock option was handed to Cook was to tie him to Apple for years to come. This is a good move. We can all argue about the size of this award, but its true value will only be know in 2016 and 2021.
So for the record, for now Cooks compensation stands at under $2m for 2011, split between salary and bonuses..
From the outset, Juliette Garside’s piece is incorrect:
Apple's late founder Steve Jobs created the world's most valuable company and was paid just $5 in the last years of his life – but his successor Tim Cook, unknown outside
Silicon Valley until his elevation to the top job last summer, has been awarded a $378m (£244m) pay jackpot.
A few problems here. Firstly, Steve Jobs did not work for $5. Jobs received a jet from Apple and generous stock options, which had mixed values. Some proved almost worthless due to a fall in the company’s stock value in the mid ‘00s and some made him a lot of money. As for the comment about Tim Cook being unknown outside Silicon Valley, this seems very simplistic. Cook was Apple CEO twice before August 2011, as he stood in for Jobs when he took sick leave. He was well know to any market watchers, and indeed it was Cooks’ reputation on Wall Street which is one of the reasons that Apple now has such a good financial reputation.
However the line that …”Cook's 2011 rewards, disclosed yesterday, put him in pole position to become the year's highest boardroom earner” is simply untrue. The conditions on the stock options, as stated later in the article, only come to fruition in 2016 and 2021. In fact Garside directly contract’s the earlier point, and states that the (UK) FTSE’s average salary for a CEO is now £5.1m sterling, substantially more that Cook’s USD$1m in 2011, even after you add on his bonuses of $0.9m.
The article seems to use Cook as an example, but misses the point. Cook’s stock options, substantial and huge as they are, do not kick in until 2016, when 50% are released, and 2021, when the final 50% are handed over. At that point, who knows what value they will have. Apple is now above Exxon Mobil as the most valuable company in the US, and it can be argued that this is an investment in Apple and Cook. If he stays with Apple, he will become extremely wealthy. If however he leaves, or he fails and the stock price falls, he may find that his options are worth far less than expected. This is what happened to Jobs in 2003 [see here].
Presumably the reason why this substantial stock option was handed to Cook was to tie him to Apple for years to come. This is a good move. We can all argue about the size of this award, but its true value will only be know in 2016 and 2021.
So for the record, for now Cooks compensation stands at under $2m for 2011, split between salary and bonuses..
