webOS Nation Forums >  webOS Discussion >  Open webOS General Discussion > WebOS goes Open source
WebOS goes Open source
  Reply
Like Tree46Likes

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12/13/2011, 12:50 AM   #161 (permalink)
Member
 
johncc's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by nusome4 View Post
Will people really be able to install WebOS on any smartphone, or will there be just certain phones that it will work on? Still learning about this open source thing.
In order to work on particular hardware it will require the software to interface with the components of the device, so it will be limited to devices that individuals or groups of individuals are motivated to customise it for.
johncc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/13/2011, 01:17 AM   #162 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by nusome4 View Post
Can you buy any other phone to use on T-Mobile that is not being offered by T-Mobile for the same subsidized price as offered on another carrier? I don’t think so. I don’t see the point you’re trying to make.

What proof do you have that the components in the iPhone are cheaper than what’s in the Galaxy S 2? Just because the screen on the Galaxy S 2 is larger does not make it better quality or more expensive. The screen on the iPhone 4 can cost more because it has to show more DPI than the Galaxy S 2.
Again with the subsidized price. Look at how much they are charging for the phone period. Subsidized pricing is meaningless because most of the world doesn't do subsidized pricing. Let's talk unlocked phones, because all the carriers were selling the top phones for $0 over Thanksgiving weekend, except for the Iphone, and that continues to erode your argument.

The Galaxy S2 hasn't had the bill of materials done yet but let's compare to another Android phone, the HTC Thunderbolt. The HTC Thunderbolt was $599 at MSRP and cost $262 to build, while the Iphone 4 had cost $177 to build and sold for $649. That's quite a markup by Apple.

There's nothing to argue about, every single tech site states that Apple has a much much higher profit margin per device than other manufacturers. They do the same thing with computers. If you think otherwise then you need to lay off of the Kool-aid.

Last edited by kalel33; 12/13/2011 at 01:22 AM.
kalel33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/13/2011, 10:11 AM   #163 (permalink)
Member
 
UncleVanya's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meltedwire View Post
I agree with auTONYmous, what killed webOS is the ability to hack it to death. Carriers don't want to allow users to bypass their money grabs such as tethering.
Really??? Android does this also with rooting - and the carriers are stomping this right and left. I think that's a red herring.
UncleVanya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/13/2011, 10:17 AM   #164 (permalink)
cgk
Member
 
cgk's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by inertia1 View Post
Does anyone else think it's odd that the voice of webOS is Meg Whitman, now? The guys over at the Verge brought this up on their video show. Where is Ruby? He's obviously been marginalized in a big way almost to the extent that you wonder why he is still at HP. I mean, if there was really a "roadmap" for open-source webOS, he would be logical guy to deliver the message to the media.
If you are trying to create a narrative based around success in the future, you don't wheel out the ghosts of the past. He's part of a failed regime, I doubt he will ever pop again in connection with WebOS.
cgk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/13/2011, 04:50 PM   #165 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalel33 View Post
Again with the subsidized price. Look at how much they are charging for the phone period. Subsidized pricing is meaningless because most of the world doesn't do subsidized pricing. Let's talk unlocked phones, because all the carriers were selling the top phones for $0 over Thanksgiving weekend, except for the Iphone, and that continues to erode your argument.

The Galaxy S2 hasn't had the bill of materials done yet but let's compare to another Android phone, the HTC Thunderbolt. The HTC Thunderbolt was $599 at MSRP and cost $262 to build, while the Iphone 4 had cost $177 to build and sold for $649. That's quite a markup by Apple.

There's nothing to argue about, every single tech site states that Apple has a much much higher profit margin per device than other manufacturers. They do the same thing with computers. If you think otherwise then you need to lay off of the Kool-aid.
There is more to a product than just the components.

Does HTC provide the cloud for free like Apple does for the iPhone?

Does HTC have to develop an OS for their smartphone like Apple does for the iPhone?

Does HTC have to develop a custom processor for their smartphone as Apple does?

Does HTC provide a Siri equivalent that Apple does for the iPhone 4S.

Does HTC have a gigantic data center somewhere that supports all the stuff that Apple does for the iPhone?

Do you think all that is developed for free?

Those tech sites you mentioned conveniently don't talk about any of that because it's really hard to quantify. But, all that stuff that Apple provides that HTC does NOT is added value for the iPhone. If HTC had to do all of the above, you can best believe that they would be charing more money for their phones OR users would be paying some type of monthly fee. HTC would not be providing all that because they want to be nice to the consumers, but because they want to charge more for their phones. But, you think Apple should not do the same?

It's not about drinking the Kool-Aid considering I don't even own an iPhone. Just interesting the incomplete/misinformation out there.
nusome4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Liked by independent1 likes this.
Old 12/13/2011, 04:53 PM   #166 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by johncc View Post
In order to work on particular hardware it will require the software to interface with the components of the device, so it will be limited to devices that individuals or groups of individuals are motivated to customise it for.
So, most likely the popular smart phones. I hope some of the new Nokia devices are part of that. I am liking the new stuff they are bringing out.
nusome4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/14/2011, 12:45 AM   #167 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by nusome4 View Post
There is more to a product than just the components.

Does HTC provide the cloud for free like Apple does for the iPhone?

Does HTC have to develop an OS for their smartphone like Apple does for the iPhone?

Does HTC have to develop a custom processor for their smartphone as Apple does?

Does HTC provide a Siri equivalent that Apple does for the iPhone 4S.

Does HTC have a gigantic data center somewhere that supports all the stuff that Apple does for the iPhone?

Do you think all that is developed for free?

Those tech sites you mentioned conveniently don't talk about any of that because it's really hard to quantify. But, all that stuff that Apple provides that HTC does NOT is added value for the iPhone. If HTC had to do all of the above, you can best believe that they would be charing more money for their phones OR users would be paying some type of monthly fee. HTC would not be providing all that because they want to be nice to the consumers, but because they want to charge more for their phones. But, you think Apple should not do the same?

It's not about drinking the Kool-Aid considering I don't even own an iPhone. Just interesting the incomplete/misinformation out there.
First you said the components of the Iphone were just as expensive and now it's a different reason. On development on the OS for HTC, the article didn't figure in the amount of time that HTC puts in to build the Sense overlay. Siri? Try Google voice or Vlingo...does mostly same thing, just doesn't state the answer in a woman's voice. Cloud for free? Try Dropbox....it's free on Android. I give up and you're completely right and EVERY single tech journalist is wrong that Apple profits much more per device than any other manufacturer, even Engadget who is in Apple love fest concedes that.

At least Apple saves money not having to develop an LTE radio in the phone like all the other top phones.

Last edited by kalel33; 12/14/2011 at 02:49 AM.
kalel33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/14/2011, 10:16 AM   #168 (permalink)
Member
 
UncleVanya's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,501
Has there been any indication of what open source license this brave new world will be released under? Here's hoping it is NOT GPL version 3.
UncleVanya is offline   Reply With Quote
Liked by Vistaus likes this.
Old 12/14/2011, 07:28 PM   #169 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalel33 View Post
First you said the components of the Iphone were just as expensive and now it's a different reason. On development on the OS for HTC, the article didn't figure in the amount of time that HTC puts in to build the Sense overlay. Siri? Try Google voice or Vlingo...does mostly same thing, just doesn't state the answer in a woman's voice. Cloud for free? Try Dropbox....it's free on Android. I give up and you're completely right and EVERY single tech journalist is wrong that Apple profits much more per device than any other manufacturer, even Engadget who is in Apple love fest concedes that.

At least Apple saves money not having to develop an LTE radio in the phone like all the other top phones.
No, I simply said the screen on the iPhone 4 could cost more because it has an higher DPI.

Here is the thing. You or any website can not just use the parts in a smartphone to figure out what something costs to manufacturer because a smartphone is more than just parts.

So, until Apple and HTC or any other manufacturer gives us all the details on what it actually costs to get a smart phone to the consumer in the state that they want we're just guessing. In Apple's case that would be the quantifiables (hardware) and the unquantifiables (the OS, iCloud, app store, data center, etc). So, it's silly to say that Apple is overcharging and another company is not when that other company may not offer all the non-hardware related stuff that Apple offers for the iPhone.

Oh, and Google voice and Vlingo and Drop Box are not done by HTC, but other companies. As I said above Apple offers way more with the iPhone than HTC provides for their smartphone. See, Apple spent billions to build a datacenter and hundreds of millions for Siri. Where is HTCís data center and Siri equivalent?

As far as the media goes, they may have one part of it right about Apple's profits if you're looking only at hardware, but what about the other parts??? If they included the non-hardware parts that allows the iPhone to offer the experience that it does, they may learn that Apple is not over charging and it could be HTC that is over-charging.

But, see the media is not about stating the WHOLE picture, just enough to get eyeballs on a web page and hope that you click on an advertisement. And no company can draw eyeballs like putting the word "Apple" in a web link.
nusome4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/15/2011, 04:12 AM   #170 (permalink)
Homebrew Developer
 
Vistaus's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,493
"In Apple's case that would be the quantifiables (hardware) and the unquantifiables (the OS, iCloud, app store, data center, etc). So, it's silly to say that Apple is overcharging and another company is not when that other company may not offer all the non-hardware related stuff that Apple offers for the iPhone."

Firstly: HTC does have to pay to ship the Android Market. So yes, the market costs them money, just like Apple for their market.
Secondly: No, HTC doesn't offer free cloud service, but for example Motorola does with their new Razr.

Heck, even the Pre 3 was cheaper should they actually shipped and the Pre 3 has a custom OS, custom processor, own app catalog, free box.net 50 GB Plus they used to have SWAT-teams for developer help (iOS, where?) and community-managers (iOS, where?). With all those added costs, it'll probably costs about the same or more than iOS. Still the Pre 3 would've been sold cheaper then the iPhone. So you're not making any sense, dude.
Vistaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/15/2011, 08:15 AM   #171 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 562
They have higher margins for one reason. It is the same reason w/ their mobiles as w/ their PCs - charge higher premiums against lower costs. Thats a big part of their equation - volume AND high margins. Their stock price and cash reserves would not have been where they're at w/ HTC- or Motorola-like margins. This has been made even clearer w/ their move from PPC to x86 PCs. A Mac Pro or MacBook w/ identical specs (CPU, mobo/chipset, RAM, GPU...) as a Windows-based PC would in fact carry a higher premium. Quite often, due to aesthetics or design philosophies, the Windows PC would out-spec the Mac... at a lower cost (SD card readers, HDMI, PC card slots, USB 3.0, etc).

Apple prides itself on bullying and hacking out deals w/ suppliers that just about no one else can. Their streamlined processes and attention to production guarantee that their competition will be decimated in the same areas. Who else can offer up billions of dollars in cash, up front in order to secure exclusive deals that effectively shut out their rivals? If you think thats by luck and chance then respond to my ad for that bridge I'm selling.

To be fair, their newly acquired chip business may not have the scale of other ARM designers, so that may have slightly higher associated costs. I say slightly because Steve could have easily dictated terms at the chip fab, for e.g., that would account for that difference. The bottom line is, when it comes to competition and sourcing, Apple is the Walmart of tech manufacturers. As far as margins go, they have no equal.
p41m3r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/15/2011, 04:19 PM   #172 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 83
Apple has this HTC has that. BUT, what we don’t have is the TOTAL outlay of what it cost for Apple and HTC to put their smart phones AND respective extras that comes with each phone out there for people to buy.

So, until we have ALL that info and not just one part of it I think it’s a bit silly to say that Apple is overcharging compared to someone else using only a part of the info to come to that conclusion.

I will admit that Macs cost more than a comparable PC. But when it comes to smart phones not so much because Apple offers a lot with their smartphone than just the hardware.
nusome4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/15/2011, 07:33 PM   #173 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by nusome4 View Post
...what we donít have is the TOTAL outlay of what it cost...
And who exactly outside of Apple or HTC accounting does? That being the case you'd be wise to heed your own advice. If, by your line of logic, one cannot make such an assertion w/o the figures, then by that same logic one cannot counter the assertion. For such would also be w/o basis in fact.

Quote:
So, until we have ALL that info and not just one part of it I think itís a bit silly to say that Apple is overcharging compared to someone else using only a part of the info to come to that conclusion.
I'm not sure it can be called 'overcharging'; the market is gladly bearing the price. Here's a simple metric: in the last quarter, more Android phones were sold in the aggregate than iPhones. If retail prices are the same, what exactly accounts for Apple's way higher profit? If their costs were a) in line with, or b) higher than another manufacturer's, then their margins would be a) the same or b) LOWER.

We dont need their statements for this discussion, we've got common sense and have read their results for the quarter. If we consider GAAP (accounting principles) we can conclude one important thing: that all costs associated w/ iPhone production - offset or not - were included here in each unit. They weren't spread across their MacBook lines, for e.g., just as the cost of Steve's or Tim's or Jon' Ives' business lunch was not included in each unit sold. The bottom line is if there are other costs it will only hurt your argument as higher costs will eat into margins. Yet Android sold twice the amount and it was Apple who laughed all the way to the bank.

Quote:
I will admit that Macs cost more than a comparable PC. But when it comes to smart phones not so much because Apple offers a lot with their smartphone than just the hardware.
Ok, so given your admission, what sense does it make for a boutique manufacturer, or any other, to use a different model for smartphones? Won't they want to be wildly profitable across all product lines? Fact: computer margins are not that wide; even for Macs. Dell has a 3% margin, HP 5%. They pretty much have to cut corners and bundle stuff to compete. Apple's PC margins are much higher but if you kept up w/ the company you'd know that their PCs were fading to ever-increasing smartphones and tablet profits. Profits that are obviously not solely based on volume.

Re the 'a lot' that Apple offers w/ its phone, those are accounted for separately. The iTunes store has its own figures (barely profitable), as does the app store and other services. They are separate units for business purposes and each has to be profitable on its own. Dont you remember accounting?
p41m3r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/15/2011, 08:11 PM   #174 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 511
Macs cost more because their software isn't hideous and functions correctly.
ursula is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/15/2011, 09:06 PM   #175 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 83
You contradict yourself. First you say that they want to be wildly profitable across all products lines. But, then later say that iTunes store is barely profitable. So, it seems to me that they are not wildly profitably across all lines.

And I do heed my advice. I don’t think Apple is overcharging which was the original charge that started all this. It’s not as black and white as is trying to be proved. There is a lot of grey areas.
nusome4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/15/2011, 09:13 PM   #176 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by ursula View Post
Macs cost more because their software isn't hideous and functions correctly.
Well, according to people on here that doesnít matter. Mac OS X is the same as Windows with all the viruses and spyware and they should be valued exactly the same and if OS X costs more then Apple is overcharging.

Wait, Mac OS X Lion or Snow Leopard is actually cheaper than Windows 7 when buying the software. Sshhh. Donít tell anyone because we wouldnít want the word get out that Microsoft is gouging the consumer by charging more for Windows 7 than Apple for Mac OS X Lion or Snow Leopard.
nusome4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/15/2011, 10:53 PM   #177 (permalink)
Banned
 
Posts: 1,706
yes i heard from somewhere that it costs over a billion a year to run itunes. i googled and here is one article that kinda says it too...

AppleInsider | Apple's iTunes Store, App Store now cost roughly $1.3 billion a year to operate

it's gotta be quite a balance of where to spend and break even and where to make money...

i mean all that fighting with labels to sell songs for 99 cents or movies for dollars where before itunes existed the labels made consumers pay much more... just to make enough to cover costs?

how about apps for 99 cents or dollars where before that if you wanted comparisions... think of the winmobile days where apps back then cost as much as desktop software sometimes.

if apple really wanted to make money, they could have set the prices initially at compareable rates to their competition at the time and clean up... you know their competitors would have if they were in the position.

so they make money on the hardware... but even then i argue they could have made more if they wanted to...

when 2g came out, i consider it compareable to the nokia n75(95) which they were selling for around $750 back then? and try to find a n95 at subsidized prices... and try to find data prices for $20 like apple pushed with ATT.

I expected the ipad to first come out at $1000 and bet all the competitors were too hoping to jump on that wagon and make money... i bet hp and the rest crapped their pants when the price came out of jobs mouth. i mean look at how much hp was selling the windows tablet at that time!

i guess everyone has their opinion on who overcharges who and such... but coming from the days of n95s that i feel were out of reach of the average people and smartphones were only for the business type that could afford it and the data charges, i think apple actually sold their stuff at a price that made mobile what it is and caused their competitors to compete at a level that if they had their choice would be much higher.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nusome4 View Post
You contradict yourself. First you say that they want to be wildly profitable across all products lines. But, then later say that iTunes store is barely profitable. So, it seems to me that they are not wildly profitably across all lines.

And I do heed my advice. I don’t think Apple is overcharging which was the original charge that started all this. It’s not as black and white as is trying to be proved. There is a lot of grey areas.

Last edited by donm527; 12/15/2011 at 11:38 PM.
donm527 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/16/2011, 08:49 AM   #178 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by nusome4 View Post
You contradict yourself. First you say that they want to be wildly profitable across all products lines. But, then later say that iTunes store is barely profitable.
Huh???
{Won't they want to be wildly profitable across all product lines?}

That was a rhetorical question; NOT a statement that I later contradicted. I'll ask it differently: isnt the primary goal of ALL businesses to maximize profits in every area that they operate? The fact that Apple's music store barely breaks even is irrelevant. The point is, they would like it to be a more successful model.

Look, things may not be black & white but there is such a thing as deductive reasoning. Are you gonna wait for manufacturer's financial statements to prove your point? That's like waiting for the homicide victim to tell you who killed him. If you have sufficient info and half of Homer's brain, the answer shouldn't be a mystery for too long. This should not even be a debate.

Do you know how many billions Sprint paid Apple for the iPhone? Look it up. AAMOF... from the Huffington Post/ Reuters:

...Sprint has committed to pay at least $15.5 billion to Apple in the next four years for iPhone, but it expects that amount to be even bigger...
(up to ~$20 billion)

Sprint, which started taking iPhone orders on October 7, said it would pay Apple a subsidy that is 40 percent higher, or $200 more per device, than what it pays for other phones.
(It caused such a stir that their stock temporarily fell 12%)

There it is... an extra $200 per device. I haven't even seen Verizon's or AT&T's figures, but since they gouge customers worse than Sprint does, that should say something. See what you can make of the MSRP and end user annual costs in this Engadget piece.

If it'll make ppl feel better, I'll put it differently: Apple gets much higher iPhone premiums from the carriers, who in turn shaft their subscribers to turn insanely healthy profits.
Now no one has to be upset at their darling Apple, or even feel like a sucka for subsidizing an iPhone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by donm527
...coming from the days of n95s that i feel were out of reach of the average people and smartphones were only for the business type... i think apple actually sold their stuff at a price that made mobile what it is and caused their competitors to compete at a level that if they had their choice would be much higher.
Partially true. W/ competition we generally tend to see lower prices. In this particular case nothing has changed because an unsubsidized phone (Android, iOS, webOS...) still costs hundreds over the contract price. An off-contract iPhone has a MSRP of $650 - $850 at Apple (it goes up over $1000 elsewhere but thats a function of market forces). So how is that different from the old N95 days? I recall paying about the same for a Sony Ericsson feature phone about a decade ago but part of it was an 'early adapter' thing.

Competition and cheaper NAND flash, RAM, labor, etc., didn't change much for anyone, and certainly not for Apple. Businesses always want to maximize profits.

What's confusing a lot of ppl is the fact that they can pick up a phone for $199 and go home w/ it. The phone does NOT cost $199 or whatever was paid at sign up. The carrier paid the manufacturer much more for each unit, and will use every trick to get much more back over the life of the contract that you signed. The terms of the 2-yr contract (like early termination fees, mandatory data plans, overage fees, late payment fees...) and the rates mean that you'll pay at least triple the MSRP after two years. If you paid the full MSRP for an iPhone or any other smartphone up front, you'd save hundreds over the same period. Sadly, not many ppl have the cash, discipline or insight.

Lastly, your point has some validity. Apple did in fact change the game but not in the way we're discussing here (margins). The app store model hurt devs initially on pricing but they soon reaped some benefit from volume sales and a general dumbing down of their apps (the average app today is more specialized and is no longer a full-featured suite of apps or tools. Therefore, less resources go into each app at development). The iTunes store also changed things, as did Apple's way of updating or cycling products. Their attn to design and detail also led to better devices overall from competitors. But the central point here is iPhone margins. Apple came to conquer and, as I've argued, they arent doing so by lowering margins. Good for them!

Last edited by p41m3r; 12/16/2011 at 09:21 AM.
p41m3r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/16/2011, 02:08 PM   #179 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 280
@ p41m3r

Just do what I did and just tell him he's absolutely right, and that logic and the tech world is wrong. I do like how he spun that I stated that "Apple is overcharging", which read my posts and I never said that. I said they charge much more per device than the Android manufacturers but Apple charges what they want. I never said they overcharged. They could put an Apple sign on a compressed brick of crap, price it for $200, and they'd still sell millions. It's not overcharging if the sheeple will buy it. Overcharging is what the Touchpad was when it first came out and that was dictated by the market, not by me.

On the Windows costing more than Mac OS, it's simple they don't get their money from the OS, it's from the hardware sales, but then again that's logic and common knowledge in the tech world, which means that so also must be wrong.
kalel33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/17/2011, 10:29 AM   #180 (permalink)
Member
 
Posts: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalel33 View Post
Just do what I did and just tell him he's absolutely right, and that logic and the tech world is wrong.
lol... I eventually realized that I was dealing w/ a bit of fanaticism, so that was going to be my next move... if I even bothered making one. Im sorry to have turned this thread into what it became.

You're absolutely right though. Those Apple-is-the-best types never cease to amaze me. Back when I consulted (about 15 years ago) I used to laugh - first, at them, then as I deposited the thousands they'd pay me for servicing Macs that they thought were superior. The price differential involved in simple tasks like setting up an AppleTalk network vs a Windows workgroup was astounding. And a lot of tasks were actually simpler on the Mac. Dont even get me started on parts replacement. Someone once asked me for 'genuine Apple SCSI cables.'
p41m3r is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

 

Thread Tools
Display Modes



 


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0