Let's not forget all the money they're spending selling their own phone under their brand, instead of to another company. The marketing and infrastructure changes to make that happen can't be cheap either.
The company is still profiting in a down economy, and they have a strong plan for moving forward. Even with worse than expected performance, I wouldn't worry.
I seem to notice Android is only popular on the web. But beyond that, in real life...I only have 2 friends who has htc android phones while others carry either the iphone or a dump phone.
Edited by HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H. at 10/08/09 12:50 AM
HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H. was starred
HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H. was unstarred
@ok_go: I know 1 person with a G1 and one person with an iPhone. Everyone else has has dumb phones. If talking about people I work with, they all have dumb phones, BB's, Treo's, and Palms.
All they have to do is grab Microsoft's and Google's balls and tell them "Good Bye"... specially that stupid "With Google" tag and start developing Android by themselves.
Good lord, I didn't expect this comment to be so controversial. I thought this was common knowledge. I went to another site and then came back and everyone is bashing me. Anyway, Canalys reported earlier this year that the iPhone had passed Windows Mobile.
It's been that way a long time, guys. Here's the report.
@imTheKing: There hasn't been all that much news wise to talk about, but maybe the stuff I have been talking about was on LH lol
@Eulatos: OSX is better suited at dealing with less savvy people (unless they only know Windows obviously) and I think the whole thing started with artists that are clueless and could care less about how they get from A-B). Don't take it as a dig, it's a good thing. Everyone I know that uses a Mac is either an artist or curious. Personally I use a MB at home because I do IT for a living and keeping up on OSX is a must (if you loose your job the last thing you want to keep you from getting a new one is not knowing an OS).
As far as "tech pro's" go... Really, you run at home what you run at work. It's best to have as much exposure as possible and if you are a pro, you don't need to fight with your computer regardless of the OS. That is just fanboi propaganda.
The last time I had a problem was yesterday as a matter of fact (work lap runs Windows). Comodo pushed some POS update which was using 100% CPU and it took me a couple hours to figure it out because I couldn't login. That is the first problem I have had in over 2 years. I remember because it's when I bought my computer before last, I had a bad stick of ram which was causing issues, again, like this time, not Windows fault per say.
In terms of the "type" of people using Apple products, it definitely varies. But as you said, its easier for the less educated to use a Mac interface so that does to some extent stand true. I think more a more accurate description of Apple's consumer base would be: A) Wealthy Families, B) Graphical / Video / Audio Production workers and C) Less Educated. But really, the same apply across the board with "PC" (Windows) users as well.
@imTheKing: What people always miss about OS X though is it doesnt stop with the easy to use, there is so much power and versatility under the easy to use surface it would literally kill my workflow to switch back to windows, and ive only been using OS X for about 1.5 years. I used to be an extreme anti mac person, you would have thought my father beat me with a IIe when i was a kid. Most of that hate came from my college where they were running os9, which did suck pretty hard.
@Eulatos: Seriously man, it's just an OS. It boils down to what you like, but as I said OSX is much harder to break.
Personally, I don't care what it runs, as long as it does what I need. In some cases you don't have a choice (for work I have to have MMC, EM, Visio, PP, and internal windows only apps) so you run the OS that your applications dictate.
They should start small as we have a huge market in phones and sub 12" devices. Those by themselves are worth billions. As they ratchet up the supply for those markets they can improve as well as fund larger panel manufacturing.
@Noobs-R-Us: They should totally hire you. Those stupid Sony people... I'm sure no one over there has even looked at the market for sub 12" devices! You should ring them up and explain that they're overlooking BILLIONS in revenue!
That utilization # is waaaay off. It's worth way more than 3%. Think of it this way, if SWA is able to squeeze in 9 flights per day and AA only 8 (based on saving 20 minutes per turn-around, that's 160 minutes or 2.66 hours), SWA's fleet is 1/8th more productive in producing revenue (12.5%). When you add in seat density and no short "spoke" flights, this advantage gets multiplied.
Having worked in the aerospace industry the differences are very clear when you're a supplier to LCC versus traditional carriers: LCCs, while they care about the "purchase price" of the good or service they buy from you, they're also very concerned with how expensive it is to deploy / integrate your product or service (things like reliability, cycle time, etc.). Traditional carriers typically just want purchase price concessions and want to be on their way. SWA was always a tough customer, but you knew they'd find a way to get creative with you and get it done. AA was all about cost -- they'd hit you over the head repeatedly about price. It's like they had a script to read from.
Also the types of flights that easyjet and ryanair operate are much different than the types of flights the big guys operate. anything over 2 hours on ryanair or easyjet will make you want to kill someone.
@MrBlahBlah: I concur. They're a nice option to have, but if you have some slack in your budget, pay more for a "real" airline.
Of this article doesn't mention the 10 quid baggage fee, and like the 15kg limit per bag, which adds up quickly for anyone not doing a small weekend trip.
@OMG! Ponies!: It's not the production costs for the in-flight entertainment, it's the administration. They need a lot of people to ensure the right tapes (they still use tapes) make it on to each jet, every month. It adds minutes to the "turnaround" costs (SouthWest won't do anything that prevents them from changing a plane over in more than 20 minutes), and is one more thing for the flight attendant to deal with.
One of the big advantages to plane-enabled wifi is the ability for in-flight entertainment to be downloaded, TiVo style, onto a hard drive on the plane when it's at the gate instead of tranferrring physical media. Then all AA/UAL/etc has to do is sign a license agreement and the management is done by someone else.
@ripfire: Yes, and call me when it's economically viable to fly anybody anywhere for 25 bucks. Because apparently, jet engines will no longer be running on expensive fuel, but instead on magical fairy dust. And the metal frame will be replaced by wishes and dreams.
Wheeeee!
In all seriousness, if $50 is too expensive for you to fly somewhere, I think you're better off staying right where you are. It's safer for the rest of humanity.
@hypnotoad: SouthWest is the only airline I use. I'm paying them to take me somewhere, and if they can do it cheaper than the other guys by way of more seats, less entertainment, and no food, than fine. As long as I get to my destination. I can always listen to music, or - god forbid - talk to the person beside me.
@e-friend: I don't know why SouthWest is even in this comparison: they only fly within the US. Apples and oranges. Spending a couple hours in mild discomfort is one thing; flying across the atlantic is another, which is why Lufthansa and British Airways charge more and are still in business.
don't forget that for a long while southwest had a static fuel cost and everyone else had to suffer that huge jump in oil prices. southwest is really one smart cookie.
@Nick: I love Nick: Yep, fuel is one of the highest cost items in the airline budget, but isn't reflected here. Also, paying the company's debt. A lot of legacy carriers pay a lot of interest on their huge debts and pension plans.
10/08/09
10/07/09
10/08/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/08/09
All I'm saying is that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
10/08/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
It's been that way a long time, guys. Here's the report.
[www.canalys.com]
Apple is third place behind RIM and Nokia. Apple is at 13.7 worldwide and WinMo is at 9.0
10/07/09
Here you go:
[www.canalys.com]
10/08/09
10/08/09
@Chris Zetye: The title of the article actually says it's due to marketing.
10/08/09
10/08/09
@Eulatos: OSX is better suited at dealing with less savvy people (unless they only know Windows obviously) and I think the whole thing started with artists that are clueless and could care less about how they get from A-B). Don't take it as a dig, it's a good thing. Everyone I know that uses a Mac is either an artist or curious. Personally I use a MB at home because I do IT for a living and keeping up on OSX is a must (if you loose your job the last thing you want to keep you from getting a new one is not knowing an OS).
As far as "tech pro's" go... Really, you run at home what you run at work. It's best to have as much exposure as possible and if you are a pro, you don't need to fight with your computer regardless of the OS. That is just fanboi propaganda.
The last time I had a problem was yesterday as a matter of fact (work lap runs Windows). Comodo pushed some POS update which was using 100% CPU and it took me a couple hours to figure it out because I couldn't login. That is the first problem I have had in over 2 years. I remember because it's when I bought my computer before last, I had a bad stick of ram which was causing issues, again, like this time, not Windows fault per say.
10/08/09
In terms of the "type" of people using Apple products, it definitely varies. But as you said, its easier for the less educated to use a Mac interface so that does to some extent stand true. I think more a more accurate description of Apple's consumer base would be: A) Wealthy Families, B) Graphical / Video / Audio Production workers and C) Less Educated. But really, the same apply across the board with "PC" (Windows) users as well.
10/08/09
10/09/09
Personally, I don't care what it runs, as long as it does what I need. In some cases you don't have a choice (for work I have to have MMC, EM, Visio, PP, and internal windows only apps) so you run the OS that your applications dictate.
08/18/09
08/18/09
08/18/09
08/18/09
08/17/09
Having worked in the aerospace industry the differences are very clear when you're a supplier to LCC versus traditional carriers: LCCs, while they care about the "purchase price" of the good or service they buy from you, they're also very concerned with how expensive it is to deploy / integrate your product or service (things like reliability, cycle time, etc.). Traditional carriers typically just want purchase price concessions and want to be on their way. SWA was always a tough customer, but you knew they'd find a way to get creative with you and get it done. AA was all about cost -- they'd hit you over the head repeatedly about price. It's like they had a script to read from.
08/17/09
08/17/09
Of this article doesn't mention the 10 quid baggage fee, and like the 15kg limit per bag, which adds up quickly for anyone not doing a small weekend trip.
08/17/09
There was a nice fluff piece on McDonald's; I'd imagine that McDonald's paid AA to show it as part of the NBC/Universal in-flight entertainment.
08/17/09
One of the big advantages to plane-enabled wifi is the ability for in-flight entertainment to be downloaded, TiVo style, onto a hard drive on the plane when it's at the gate instead of tranferrring physical media. Then all AA/UAL/etc has to do is sign a license agreement and the management is done by someone else.
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
Wheeeee!
In all seriousness, if $50 is too expensive for you to fly somewhere, I think you're better off staying right where you are. It's safer for the rest of humanity.
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
Less seats per aircraft = more legroom, less feeling like you're stuck in a sardine can for hours
Bigger airports = better connections to your final destination
Long hauls = do you really want to save a few bucks by flying NY to LA via Chicago, Atlanta and Dallas?
Travel agencies = some are good and come in handy if you need to reschedule due to weather, illness, etc
Different aircraft = appropriate size aircraft to fit the flight (= more destinations)
Better salaries = happier staff = better service (sometimes)
Just my 2 cents' worth...
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/18/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/17/09