My Photo

Ordering Information

Tomi on Twitter is @tomiahonen

  • Follow Tomi on Twitter as @tomiahonen
    Follow Tomi's Twitterfloods on all matters mobile, tech and media. Tomi has over 8,000 followers and was rated by Forbes as the most influential writer on mobile related topics

Book Tomi T Ahonen to Speak at Your Event

  • Contact Tomi T Ahonen for Speaking and Consulting Events
    Please write email to tomi (at) tomiahonen (dot) com and indicate "Speaking Event" or "Consulting Work" or "Expert Witness" or whatever type of work you would like to offer. Tomi works regularly on all continents

Tomi on Video including his TED Talk

  • Tomi on Video including his TED Talk
    See Tomi on video from several recent keynote presentations and interviews, including his TED Talk in Hong Kong about Augmented Reality as the 8th Mass Media

Subscribe


Blog powered by Typepad

« Time For 2016 Total Mobile Numbers: The update to my most popular blog article in any year | Main | USA Election Update for mid-May: The Summer Doldrums for Trump and Hillary »

May 13, 2016

Comments

Per "wertigon" Ekström

@Lullz:

The problem is still one of cognitive bias.

Imagine a company. A new position higher up just opened up. There are five really good candidates, four male, one female. Let's say the company makes the decision solely based on merits, and each candidate has an equal chance to get the job.

Now, if the company selects the female as the higher up, then it will be applauded for being modern and looking at the gender gap and everything.

If the company should choose one of the four males, it'll get a shitstorm about how women are still marginalized in 2016. Even though this is not the case. A huge debate blossoms where feminists from everywhere claims the female is set aside because of the male chauvanist world.

But that is not the case. The female had a 20% chance of being selected, had it been 3 females and 2 males the chance of a female being selected would raise to 60%. It's not that the female is not a valued employee - it's just that the opposition did in fact happen to be male, and in greater numbers, thus decreasing the chance . Rolling a five-sided dice would've netted the same result here, most probably to the favor of one of the males. So a dice roll would be fair from an individual perspective, but unfair in the ways the feminists sees it.

Simply put, the feminists are blind to the other side of the story. Just as you, as an Apple Paladin, is blind to the other side of the story. Saying "Just get a different phone" isn't solving the problem, it's a workaround to said problem, and the problem is this fundamental principle:

It's my property, and I should be able to do whatever I wish with my property as long as it does not hurt anyone else.

iLullz

@PER

Talk tired. iLullz is iSheep. He deaf
He troll only. He not listen. He iSheep
You not need waste energy. He iSheep

Huber

@Wayne: "Now,the genuine counter argument is security"

Before I unlocked my LG G5, I had to register it. When you don't register it and lose it, in theory somebody else could unlock it. But:

1) All data on the phone gets wiped during the unlocking process

2) It is not without risk to register a device you don't own

As a side note, iPad Pro 9.7 get bricked after iOS update: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/05/apple-pulls-ios-9-3-2-update-for-9-7-inch-ipad-pro-after-reports-of-bricking/?comments=1&start=40

OH, how the mighty have fallen.

Per "wertigon" Ekström

@Lullz:

So if I sell a phone where, upon purchasing my phone, you agree to give me your firstborn child to slavery, that contract would be uphold in a US court?

Interesting.

Per "wertigon" Ekström

@Wayne:

If I have the right to root the phone then Apple must by law make it possible to root the phone. Else they would be violating that law, yes?

Hence, Apple must be able to surrender their keys to me, the owner of said phone as long as I can prove that I own that phone. Not doing so circumvents the law and is therefore a crime yes?

And yes, Apple may very well be following the letter of the law... But most definitely not the spirit of it. And thus, that law will sooner or later have to be changed to amend this. The sooner Apple and other vendors realise the error of their ways the sooner we can move on.

The only reason it hasn't happened already is because no law firm has been bitten by the upgrade bug yet. :)

Per "wertigon" Ekström

@Lullz:

I just gave you a perfectly valid example of why your reasoning is flawed. Any post-sale restrictions made must be justified and within reasonable limits. There is no justification for Apple keeping these keys when an owner of an Apple-manufactured device specificly asks for them. None.

Same goes for everyone having post-sale restrictions that infringe on my rights to do whatever I want with my property.

Per "wertigon" Ekström

@Wayne:

Why does Apple have the privilege to do the equivalent of welding the hood to my car shut?

Abdul Muis

@Tomi,

It seems one of Seeking Alpha writer, Michael Blair, read your blog
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3977536-apple-iphone-7-enough

According to Michael Blair
* Samsung sold 8.5 million Galaxy S5 each month since April 2015
* Apple sold 10 million iPhone 6 each month for the last 21 months.
* (Device in use) Apple premium (US$400+) vs. Android premium (US$400+) = 437million vs. 420million.
* In May 2013, he estimated, that Apple only got 38% of Premium market.
* It's only 3.4% Premium market in India, which Apple would need to share with other brand. Thus, Tim Cook is wrong about India will rescue.

Per "wertigon" Ekström

Another blow for Apple - they will be unable to open their own stores in India. That, along with the no-refurbs rule, will seriously hurt their bottom line there.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-india-idUSKCN0YG2LW

Apple could solve this by opening a factory in India and assemble iPhones there, but...

Abdul Muis

@PWE.

Actually,Apple were allowed to open the store in India, but there were rules. The problem is
Apple want the store in India owned 100% by Apple. India ONLY allow 100% store own by foreign entity if it sell a product that have 30% of local content otherwise Apple must appoint India company to be the sole distributor for India, IN WHICH APPLE against it.

An example of other company that 'beat' this rule were suzuki. Suzuki sign an agreement with local company called maruti and create a sub brand marutisuzuki.

So, it's not 100% lost for apple. It just it's not THE WAY APPLE INTENDED TO BE.

So, what's the option for apple.

First,
If the product doesn't contain 30% of material made in India. Then Apple will got a (?20%?) PREMIUM TAX. This is the reason that Apple product in India WERE PRICIER than in other region. If Apple don't want to made factory in India and want to compete, it could LOWER IT'S PROFIT for India to compete the price with their competitor.

Second,
If Apple want to open factory in India, and fulfill the 30% requirement. It can open it's own store FULLY OWNED by Apple. Otherwise Apple could appoint some partner to be the distributor and open the store.... In which Apple against it. They don't want middle man to get profit from their product. They don't want 3rd party own an Apple Shop.

Third,
no-refurbs. I think Apple is crazy if they thought their product were non-competitive and want to import second hand junk to India. I agree this should not be allowed. Or be allowed with 200% TAX.

Abdul Muis

@PWE

from your link http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-india-idUSKCN0YG2LW
"They did ask for a waiver but didn't provide any material on record to justify it. The decision was taken only after a thorough examination of their application," the source said.

The waiver is available only for investment in "state of the art" or "cutting-edge technology", he added."


----
So, what's really happened behind the close door in India between Apple/Cook and India/Modi

Apple told the India PM that Apple were special and only made by Apple. That's why in order to get Apple product, it could only be bought from Apple..... UNLIKE ANDROID.... In which Apple Cook's said that have an India brand. So, for Android, it's understandable that the competitor (i.e. Samsung) need to fulfill the 30%. If the foreign brand don't sell android device in India, India could still buy Android device from India company... BUT (THE POINT HERE IS) Apple product can ONLY be bought from Apple. Thus the rules should not apply to Apple.... IN WHICH Modi's answer were smartphone were smartphone. Apple product were not different in functionality with Android. Thus is not special, and can't be exempt by the rule.

Abdul Muis

PS: My maruti-suzuki example were wrong. Sorry.

Abdul Muis

http://www.businessinsider.co.id/developers-have-cooled-on-apple-watch-2016-5
"“For every 1,000 new iOS apps being built, there are 10 tvOS apps and maybe 1 Watch app.”

There was a bit of a rush to write Watch apps when it first came out, but these days, it’s seen as merely a companion to the iPhone, and many developers aren’t seeing much money in Watch companion apps."

Per "wertigon" Ekström

http://9to5mac.com/2016/05/31/iphone-three-year-cycle-claim/

If this rumor is true, it means Apple is basicly admitting defeat on the innovation front.

So now they will build cool and sexy, but major features might lag behind for up to 4(!) years or more.

I'm sure as heck hoping this is just an unfounded rumor for Apples sake.

Per "wertigon" Ekström

@Abdul:

Yes, Apple is not completely out of it, but they will now have a much harder battle for India, that's for sure... :)

Abdul Muis

@PWE

So, it will be iPhone 6, iPhone 6S(econd version), then iPhone 6T(hird version).

I wonder what the impact on iPhone sales. A very deep down on the third year, and a very high spike in the new model?

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi everybody

On the Apple 3 year cycle rumor. Its quite likely. Apple has recently been hiring plenty of car industry people, including a bunch of Steve Zadesky's people at Ford. The US car design cycle has standardized onto a 3 year cycle. Any mass market car model gets a new design every 3 years, but the intermim two years they get a 'facelift'. So each year the car looks a bit different - to help sell the newest car, plus the minor tweaks and additions to their tech, but every 3 years they do a full redesign to the full model. Then with different models arranged into that pattern, one car gets its big change this year, another car type gets its redesign next year, while this car only gets its facelift next year, etc.

On Apple, its not a big 'issue' because the driver in our industry is the replacement cycle. While the global replacement cycle is getting longer, its still shortest at the top end of the price pyramid so the iPhone is at an approx 2 year replacement cycle. Those buyers will not 'delay' their new iPhone purchase, regardless of whether that model si the 'tick' or 'tock' version (or the new 3 year cycle). BUT with a 3 year cycle idea, consider it means Apple can shift its 3 models so that each year one model gets a total redesign, the other two get minor cosmetic and tech upgrades - three models being main iPhone flagship, phablet big-screen flagship, and C model cheap entry-level 'iPhone Nano' model. Each to have a 3 year lifespan in the model design, each year give each a minor update, and each year, give ONE of the three models a total redesign. It would mean that the phablet 6Plus would be split from the main iPhone 6 flagship model to have separate release pattern. I think this makes sense because the CASING ie the available space inside the iPhone IS different for the basic flagship and the phablet. No sense pushing both to be totally redesigned the same year, then wait 3 years for both to be again redesigned. Makes more sense to split that into two separate years, and give the nano model the third year.

The sensible way to do this would be to do the flagship main iPhone first. Then offer minor upgrades to the two other models. Then next year, do the phablet total redesign, but also of course minor updates to the two other models. Some that was exceptional to the main flagship last year, will now come to the phablet. The third year, bring those aspects to the Nano model with the smallest screen.

The more relevant thing to me, is how they do the two launch dates. As I've written many times, the best time to launch the flagship is the SPRING because die-hard Apple fans will buy them whenever they come. But Christmas is gift-giving time, that is the optimal time to bring the new Nano model, so the small-screen iPhone should be shifted to a September launch, while the flagship should be moved to a Spring launch. The phablet could be at either place but I'd put it not near Samsung's phablet which comes in the Autumn, so for that too, probably Spring launch would be be optimal.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Abdul Muis

I thought Japan/USA car have 4 years upgrade cycle? And German car have 6 years upgrade cycle?

Abdul Muis

Interesting graph from Counterpoint:
http://www.counterpointresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/USA-Q1-2016-Vendor-Growth-Rates-Counterpoint-Research.png-2-600x399.jpg

[my caption]
In USA Huawei, Asus, Blu, Coolpad see a big growth. Is this the era of Chinese phone?


from: http://www.counterpointresearch.com/press_release/1q2016us/

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi Abdul

On cars, may be. My recollection may be out of date by now, haven't looked into that part for literally more than a decade

On the US market changes - be VERY cautious, those are growth rate percentages, which as we remember.. distort numbers to look bigger for very small players and make big players look small. Absolute growth/decline numbers would be far more accurate than the growth percentage. But also remember, US is an increasingly small slice of global smartphone market so don't take these numbers as relevant to world market (Asus is not a Top 10 brand, Oppo, Vivo, Xiaomi are missing from chart, all are Top 10 global brands)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Available for Consulting and Speakerships

  • Available for Consulting & Speaking
    Tomi Ahonen is a bestselling author whose twelve books on mobile have already been referenced in over 100 books by his peers. Rated the most influential expert in mobile by Forbes in December 2011, Tomi speaks regularly at conferences doing about 20 public speakerships annually. With over 250 public speaking engagements, Tomi been seen by a cumulative audience of over 100,000 people on all six inhabited continents. The former Nokia executive has run a consulting practise on digital convergence, interactive media, engagement marketing, high tech and next generation mobile. Tomi is currently based out of Helsinki but supports Fortune 500 sized companies across the globe. His reference client list includes Axiata, Bank of America, BBC, BNP Paribas, China Mobile, Emap, Ericsson, Google, Hewlett-Packard, HSBC, IBM, Intel, LG, MTS, Nokia, NTT DoCoMo, Ogilvy, Orange, RIM, Sanomamedia, Telenor, TeliaSonera, Three, Tigo, Vodafone, etc. To see his full bio and his books, visit www.tomiahonen.com Tomi Ahonen lectures at Oxford University's short courses on next generation mobile and digital convergence. Follow him on Twitter as @tomiahonen. Tomi also has a Facebook and Linked In page under his own name. He is available for consulting, speaking engagements and as expert witness, please write to tomi (at) tomiahonen (dot) com

Tomi's eBooks on Mobile Pearls

  • Pearls Vol 1: Mobile Advertising
    Tomi's first eBook is 171 pages with 50 case studies of real cases of mobile advertising and marketing in 19 countries on four continents. See this link for the only place where you can order the eBook for download

Tomi Ahonen Almanac 2009

  • Tomi Ahonen Almanac 2009
    A comprehensive statistical review of the total mobile industry, in 171 pages, has 70 tables and charts, and fits on your smartphone to carry in your pocket every day.

Alan's Third Book: No Straight Lines

Tomi's Fave Twitterati