or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by bsimpsen

I might agree with this, but you've missed that, since losing the "PC War", Apple has become the worlds largest consumer of semiconductors and has the highest return on R&D in big business. We're already seeing hints of monopsony and competitors are having difficulty competing on price. Apple is now large enough that vertical integration doesn't lose volume efficiencies.Also note that Apple is overturning the status quo in computers, as the Mac is gaining market share....
The rumored acquisition of Anobit would bolster this view. If Apple is able to take the lead in cost/bit for large Flash systems (Anobit's forté), competitor's margins will be further squeezed while Apple enlarges the performance envelope of the Air family. Apple's manufacturing volumes are now sufficient to justify vertical integration into the silicon supply chain. Every additional disintermediation makes it that much harder for others to compete.
If Steve had done that, 95% of computer users would be using crappy MacO/iOS. The Apple ecosystem is what it is because the operating systems are NOT licensed out. Apple's mistake 25 years ago was in pricing their products too high. Being vertically integrated could have worked then as it's working now.
For applications written in Cocoa, a Rosetta type environment wouldn't be necessary. Recompile for ARM and redeploy. Rosetta would only be required for old binaries. When Apple switched from PPC to Intel, very few applications had been written in Cocoa and so could not be retargeted easily. Times have changed.
There's something missing here. I'm sure Apple ordered far more than 5 million iPad2 batteries for the quarter. They did more than 9 million in the previous quarter.
Cue would be correct.
This continues to baffle me. But then this same "don't bother to do the math" problem, applied to something much more expensive, resulted in the housing debacle, didn't it?
This same disconnect occurred for Pixar movies. Just prior to each new release, the "experts" would remind us all that Pixar was bound to produce a dud, as the "law of reversion to mean" is unbreakable. What they failed to consider was that the law of reversion to mean doesn't actually exist.
One thing I expect Apple (and Pixar) University to do is teach management how to hire the right people. My first few professional years were spent dying in a stodgy bureaucratic large company. I finally jumped ship to a small company that felt like a family driven to do great things. The CEO hated MBAs and never hired one. He wanted people who were inspired to do great work and gave them the leeway to do so. If you screwed up you took responsibility for it, your mess was...
This is, I think, somewhat at odds with Steve's believe that what you don't do is as important as what you do. I suspect there are already numerous skunkworks projects within Apple that we never hear about, and those are carefully winnowed. Apple University has probably codified this way of doing, and not doing things. If we start seeing big changes in the way Apple is run, it may be time to head for the exit.
New Posts  All Forums: