|
Post by rickag on Jul 5, 2016 3:31:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by dmiller on Jul 5, 2016 5:46:31 GMT -8
I see articles this morning cheering Samsung by implying that the US Senate (thanks to the ousting of Blackberry) will at least in part be getting Samsung as well as iPhone; and that Samsung is being courted by enterprise as well.
Explain to me, in what world does a single Samsung unit sell this way, considering that encryption is either unusably slow (no hardware encryption) and even when used, is eminently breakable (no hardware encryption with secure enclave)
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Jul 5, 2016 6:31:41 GMT -8
I see articles this morning cheering Samsung by implying that the US Senate (thanks to the ousting of Blackberry) will at least in part be getting Samsung as well as iPhone; and that Samsung is being courted by enterprise as well. Explain to me, in what world does a single Samsung unit sell this way, considering that encryption is either unusably slow (no hardware encryption) and even when used, is eminently breakable (no hardware encryption with secure enclave) My company sells mobile hardware and software to Enterprise. I can tell you without a doubt that Samsung sells a lot of phones to Enterprise. Including companies with the most demanding security requirements anywhere. One of our customers is one of the worlds top aircraft manufacturers with crazy tough IT and security requirements. Some time back they outlawed all iOS devices and standardized on Samsung running Knox. They are by no means alone. We encrypt everything and see no real performance penalty on Android. This is based on validating on maybe the 20 most popular Android devices. Also, Apple still has a very weak Enterpise team. Not aggressive at all. In contrast, Samsung is hyper aggressive. We recently won a deal where the customer deployed on Samsung. This was a unique use case. Samsung jumped all over it. Spent six figures on promoting our app including creating a professional video. Apple talks to us once in a while, but basically does nothing. If anyone thinks that Apple has much of an advantage in Enterprise, they are wrong. We see more customers choosing Android than iOS now. It used to be different.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Jul 5, 2016 6:53:36 GMT -8
I see articles this morning cheering Samsung by implying that the US Senate (thanks to the ousting of Blackberry) will at least in part be getting Samsung as well as iPhone; and that Samsung is being courted by enterprise as well. Explain to me, in what world does a single Samsung unit sell this way, considering that encryption is either unusably slow (no hardware encryption) and even when used, is eminently breakable (no hardware encryption with secure enclave) My company sells mobile hardware and software to Enterprise. I can tell you without a doubt that Samsung sells a lot of phones to Enterprise. Including companies with the most demanding security requirements anywhere. One of our customers is one of the worlds top aircraft manufacturers with crazy tough IT and security requirements. Some time back they outlawed all iOS devices and standardized on Samsung running Knox. They are by no means alone. We encrypt everything and see no real performance penalty on Android. This is based on validating on maybe the 20 most popular Android devices. Also, Apple still has a very weak Enterpise team. Not aggressive at all. In contrast, Samsung is hyper aggressive. We recently won a deal where the customer deployed on Samsung. This was a unique use case. Samsung jumped all over it. Spent six figures on promoting our app including creating a professional video. Apple talks to us once in a while, but basically does nothing. If anyone thinks that Apple has much of an advantage in Enterprise, they are wrong. We see more customers choosing Android than iOS now. It used to be different. Thank you for your insight, since you are actively involved I tend to believe your comments over what I read on the Internet. So the reports of Samsung/Android slowdowns due to software encryption are at best inaccurate and at worst false. And the security flaws mentioned are not easily enabled if at all.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Jul 5, 2016 7:07:45 GMT -8
My company sells mobile hardware and software to Enterprise. I can tell you without a doubt that Samsung sells a lot of phones to Enterprise. Including companies with the most demanding security requirements anywhere. One of our customers is one of the worlds top aircraft manufacturers with crazy tough IT and security requirements. Some time back they outlawed all iOS devices and standardized on Samsung running Knox. They are by no means alone. We encrypt everything and see no real performance penalty on Android. This is based on validating on maybe the 20 most popular Android devices. Also, Apple still has a very weak Enterpise team. Not aggressive at all. In contrast, Samsung is hyper aggressive. We recently won a deal where the customer deployed on Samsung. This was a unique use case. Samsung jumped all over it. Spent six figures on promoting our app including creating a professional video. Apple talks to us once in a while, but basically does nothing. If anyone thinks that Apple has much of an advantage in Enterprise, they are wrong. We see more customers choosing Android than iOS now. It used to be different. Thank you for your insight, since you are actively involved I tend to believe your comments over what I read on the Internet. So the reports of Samsung/Android slowdowns due to software encryption are at best inaccurate and at worst false. And the security flaws mentioned are not easily enabled if at all. Agreed. It's easy for some of us to get trapped in the "Apple is stronger than they've ever been" mantra just because management says so but if you stray away from Apple Insider once in a while you'll see it's not true. Samsung has far better advertising and they will also compete much harder on price. In the enterprise, price is king. And yes, Android can be made secure enough.
|
|
|
Post by sponge on Jul 5, 2016 8:24:27 GMT -8
One must look at Apple growth in 2-5 year increments. They were times when Mac sales were down 20% and then up 20%.
We must be patient. One negative year of iPhone sales does not predict the sky is falling.
We will continue to grow just a smaller rates.
I think the 7 will surprise many.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Jul 5, 2016 9:27:54 GMT -8
tuffet Not sure why you brought up Appleinsider. It is a known Apple centric site and the articles in general lean toward putting Apple in a good light. But regarding the security of Android, the Arstechinca article," Android’s full-disk encryption just got much weaker—here’s why", does raise questions, and Arstechnica can hardly be called an Apple Fan site. Lstream's comments help me understand that while Android has a problem, it may not be as large a security issue at first appearances. One final note: (and maybe Lstream can comment), when our government and major industries pick a mobile device, hackers are no longer some kid in their basement, but are certainly government sponsored in the countries like China, Russia and North Korea. In reading the Arstechnica article, which for the most part is above my knowledge level, it appears the hacker may have to have physical possession of the phone to compromise the phone which lowers the risk substantially.
|
|
|
Post by macster on Jul 5, 2016 10:10:34 GMT -8
Wouldn't mind getting some Color from on the progress of their relationship with IBM in the Enterprise space in light of the recent developments. If PR doesnt talk than its assumed not successful?
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Jul 5, 2016 12:02:28 GMT -8
I was reading some of the comments on Dan Dilger's article, that Ted shared with us over the weekend: Actually, there is something new about Apple's upcoming iPhone 7 , when I came upon this one by zoetmb. You'll be familiar with many, perhaps most, of these quotes but there may be some you've never read. With Apple negativity at a high point, even within this board, I think it's important to keep in mind all the Apple doomsday editorials/comments that have been written over the last 30+ years. "Experts" were writing Apple off even after Steve had returned and one possible takeaway is that it's never been obvious to everyone that Apple would succeed in whatever they attempted. Almost from the beginning of the company there were those that predicted a failure from Apple, whether it was an important individual product(like the iPhone) or the entire business. IMO, it's no different today and many of the negative articles and columns currently being written about Apple will fall into the same category as these small samples listed below. Cheers to the Apple Longs! ============================= zoetmb While I don't disagree with everything the writers and bloggers have to say (I do think it would be a huge mistake to drop the headphone port), journalists have been getting it wrong for decades. There's also this ridiculous attitude (also expressed by many on this forum) that if everyone doesn't want to upgrade every year, then Apple is doing something wrong. Some examples of past journalistic brilliance: John C. Dvorak, 1984“The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a "mouse". There is no evidence that people want to use these things. I don’t want one of these new fangled devices."
Former Apple VP Gaston Bastiaens, January 1996.
“Within the next two months, Sony will acquire Apple. … Sony will be the white knight who will step into the picture."
Michael Dell, October 1997
"I'd shut [Apple] down and give the money back to the shareholders."
Hiawatha Bray, Boston Globe, 1998. "The iMac will only sell to some of the true believers. The iMac doesn’t include a floppy disk drive for doing file backups or sharing of data. ... The iMac will fail.
10/5/2000 Michael S. Malone
Apple R.I.P.
… “Nevertheless, the bloom is off the rose. The incredible run-up Apple stock has enjoyed since Steve's return is over, and the sheen of success that had enveloped the company has been tarnished.
A temporary setback? Don't be too sure. Unlike, say, Hewlett-Packard, Apple has always been a company that deals poorly with failure. When things go bad at Apple, they go very bad. “
5/21/2001 Cliff Edwards
Commentary: Sorry, Steve: Here's Why Apple Stores Won't Work
“New retail outlets aren't going to fix Apple's sales “
12/23/2006 Bill Ray (Mobile)
“Why the Apple phone will fail, and fail badly”
It's the Pippin all over again”
1/14/2007 Matthew Lynn
Apple iPhone Will Fail in a Late, Defensive Move “…Don't let that fool you into thinking that it matters. The big competitors in the mobile-phone industry such as Nokia Oyj and Motorola Inc. won't be whispering nervously into their clamshells over a new threat to their business…
The iPhone is nothing more than a luxury bauble that will appeal to a few gadget freaks. In terms of its impact on the industry, the iPhone is less relevant”
3/28/2007 John Dvorak
Apple should pull the plug in the iPhone
Commentary: Company risks its reputation in competitive business
“… Now compare that effort and overlay the mobile handset business. This is not an emerging business. In fact it's gone so far that it's in the process of consolidation with probably two players dominating everything, Nokia Corp… and Motorola Inc.”
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Jul 5, 2016 12:50:09 GMT -8
Another way to look at it is that Apple would be a dead company had Steve Jobs not come back and turned the ship around. And Steve is now gone. My point is not that "Apple is doomed" or that Steve Jobs always knows best, but rather that it is very dangerous to rely on the past to predict future performance. To say that doubters have been wrong before and therefore they will always be wrong is a weak argument. It may or may not be true.
Apple is a company, and companies are always susceptible to failure - they are after all simply made up of people. One or two poor decisions can have huge positive or negative impacts on the future of the company. Add to that the extremely contentious issues that Apple is involved in (privacy/terrorism, tax law) and the tough macroevironment and it's hard for me to be confident that Apple will always outperform or be the best investment out there. It certainly hasn't been for a long time now.
I remain long term bullish on AAPL, but at the same time I'm intensely aware of the risks.
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Jul 5, 2016 14:00:01 GMT -8
Another way to look at it is that Apple would be a dead company had Steve Jobs not come back and turned the ship around. And Steve is now gone. My point is not that "Apple is doomed" or that Steve Jobs always knows best, but rather that it is very dangerous to rely on the past to predict future performance. To say that doubters have been wrong before and therefore they will always be wrong is a weak argument. It may or may not be true. Apple is a company, and companies are always susceptible to failure - they are after all simply made up of people. One or two poor decisions can have huge positive or negative impacts on the future of the company. Add to that the extremely contentious issues that Apple is involved in (privacy/terrorism, tax law) and the tough macroevironment and it's hard for me to be confident that Apple will always outperform or be the best investment out there. It certainly hasn't been for a long time now. I remain long term bullish on AAPL, but at the same time I'm intensely aware of the risks. tuffet, since you didn't mention it, I don't know if this post is in response to mine, but just in case it was_I didn't post those quotes because of YOUR previous comments but because of the articles I see every day and many of the negative Apple comments over on Seeking Alpha. Your most Apple critical posts on this board would be considered Pollyannish by many of the Apple commenters on SA. ".. it is very dangerous to rely on the past to predict future performance. To say that doubters have been wrong before and therefore they will always be wrong is a weak argument. It may or may not be true. " I read this all the time and I have to somewhat disagree. Much of my confidence in Apple/AAPL stems from how Apple management has run the business in the past and how the public has appreciated and purchased Apple products. I believe that Apple management will continue to make good decisions as they have in the past, people will continue to purchase Apple products and the stock will benefit from both. I'm not saying that doubters will be wrong because they've been wrong in the past. I'm saying that, potential AAPL investors should be careful not to take investment advice from folks like Michael "Shutdown Apple" Dell or John "Pull the plug on the iPhone" Dvorak_they may want to get some other opinions. Isn't all of our long term investing based on what a company has done previously and what we expect it to do in the future? Apple is a company, and companies are always susceptible to failure - they are after all simply made up of people. One or two poor decisions can have huge positive or negative impacts on the future of the company. Of course they're susceptible to failure_if someone doesn't understand that, they shouldn't be investing in stocks. Add to that the extremely contentious issues that Apple is involved in (privacy/terrorism, tax law) and the tough macroevironment and it's hard for me to be confident that Apple will always outperform or be the best investment out there. It certainly hasn't been for a long time now. Who expects Apple will always outperform and be the best investment out there? Certainly not me. I've been very happy with the returns from AAPL and don't spend a minute wishing, for example, I'd invested in PCLN since 2008, even though that stock has done very much better that AAPL over that period. And you seem to use Apple and AAPL interchangeably. You feel that Apple, the company, has performed, and is performing, badly. I do not. I think the company has done pretty well and it's AAPL that's not performed well over the last year or so. If AAPL were at $170 right now, would you be upset about Apple Inc.? I remain long term bullish on AAPL, but at the same time I'm intensely aware of the risks. I never get a "long term bullish on AAPL" vibe from any of your comments but do you think you're one of the few on the board that's aware of the risks? I would say that ALL of the AAPL Longs, if they've held the stock for a reasonable length of time, are aware of the risks. And certainly, all those who have lost thousands with AAPL options or other investment methods are aware of the risks. It's somewhat insulting to insinuate that folks who have a positive feeling about where Apple is and where it's going haven't considered the risks. I certainly have and have decided, as I have many times in the past, it's worth the risk. If I was in error, and your comment wasn't in reference to my earlier one at all, I apologize, and please ignore this one.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Jul 5, 2016 14:49:06 GMT -8
Another way to look at it is that Apple would be a dead company had Steve Jobs not come back and turned the ship around. And Steve is now gone. My point is not that "Apple is doomed" or that Steve Jobs always knows best, but rather that it is very dangerous to rely on the past to predict future performance. To say that doubters have been wrong before and therefore they will always be wrong is a weak argument. It may or may not be true. Apple is a company, and companies are always susceptible to failure - they are after all simply made up of people. One or two poor decisions can have huge positive or negative impacts on the future of the company. Add to that the extremely contentious issues that Apple is involved in (privacy/terrorism, tax law) and the tough macroevironment and it's hard for me to be confident that Apple will always outperform or be the best investment out there. It certainly hasn't been for a long time now. I remain long term bullish on AAPL, but at the same time I'm intensely aware of the risks. I Agee with all of the above, but have a little faith .
|
|