or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple focuses on quality products not money, says designer Jonathan Ive
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple focuses on quality products not money, says designer Jonathan Ive

post #1 of 119
Thread Starter 
In a speech at the British Embassy's Creative Summit on Monday, Apple's Senior Vice President of Industrial Design Sir Jonathan Ive gave an inside look at the company's design process and philosophy, two assets many have credited as being key to the iPhone maker's great success.

Ive compared and contrasted a near-bankrupt Apple circa the 90s to the company after co-founder Steve Jobs retook the reins in 1997, saying that "you learn a lot about vital corporations through non-vital corporations," reports Wired UK.

The design guru noted Jobs was successful in turning Apple around where others had failed because his approach focused on the products rather than financial minutiae.

"We are really pleased with our revenues but our goal isn't to make money," Ive said of Apple. "It sounds a little flippant, but it's the truth. Our goal and what makes us excited is to make great products. If we are successful people will like them and if we are operationally competent, we will make money."

Taking a page out of legendary Braun designer Dieter Rams, who was a major influence on Ive's work, the Apple SCP said "I refute that design is important. Design is a prerequisite. Good design -- innovation -- is really hard." Rams alluded to the same ethos in many quotes and writings.

Indeed, much of Apple's success has been attributed to its functionally simple and clean designs that a U.K. judge recently referred to as "cool."

Speaking as to whether mass-produced products can be beautiful, Ive said "[y]ou can make one chair carelessly, thoughtlessly, that is valueless. Or you can make a phone [that will eventually go on to be mass produced] and invest so many years of care and have so many people so driven to make the very best phone way beyond any sort of functional imperative that there is incredible value."

Jonathan Ive


Designing is no easy task, however, and Apple's design chief said being continuously innovative is a struggle.

"Really great design is hard. Good is the enemy of great," Ive said. "Competent design is not too much of a stretch. But if you are trying to do something new, you have challenges on so many axes."

Ive, who joined Apple in 1992 and became the company's lead designer in 1997, was recently quoted as saying the projects he's currently working on are "the most important and the best work" his team has ever done.
post #2 of 119

Thanks for the transparent background version of that image, guys! I could never get it to save properly and keep the transparency on my old one. Stupid TIFF-PNG conversions.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #3 of 119

Hurry up with those designs Johnny!!! Samsung needs to start their next iClone product line!

post #4 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Ive, who joined Apple in 1992 and became the company's lead designer in 1997, was recently quoted as saying the projects he's currently working on are "the most important and the best work" his team has ever done.

 

They must be trying to come up with a cover for the iPad that includes a keyboard.

Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
post #5 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"We are really pleased with our revenues but our goal isn't to make money," Ive said of Apple.

 

I would believe that more if they didn't make 40% Gross Margin on most of their products.

 

Of course it's all about making money. That's what public corporations do. Apple is not a charity building products for the good of humanity.

 

If it's not about the money why don't they donate all their profits to charity.

post #6 of 119
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

If it's not about the money why don't they donate all their profits to charity.

 

I wish the blink tag still worked. 


Then I could have just had ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NOT A BUSINESSMAN ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ in this post.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #7 of 119
Jony just wanted to hang out with Kate. 1biggrin.gif

29zu0wz.jpg
post #8 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

 

I would believe that more if they didn't make 40% Gross Margin on most of their products.

 

Of course it's all about making money. That's what public corporations do. Apple is not a charity building products for the good of humanity.

 

If it's not about the money why don't they donate all their profits to charity.

I'm guessing that was rhetorical, but I'll answer anyway.  Without profits, they cannot fund the research and development of future products.  I guess you could argue they make more money than is necessary for R&D.  However, the cash hoard has been used to create economies of scale necessary to bring the products to market at a price point that is required by the market.  So, I'd still argue the "excess" profit is part of the strategy to use money for the benefit of the product.  

 

Besides, the quote from Ive is a statement of priority and focus not absolutes.  Money exists to allow for the creation of products rather than products being produced for the creation of profit.   Both statements require two things - money and products.  The difference is one of priority and focus.

 

Of course, the simplest answer is that Ive is in a better position to speak about the goals and motivations of Apple than you or I.  Without real information to the contrary, I see no reason to doubt Ive's statement.

post #9 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

I would believe that more if they didn't make 40% Gross Margin on most of their products.

Of course it's all about making money. That's what public corporations do. Apple is not a charity building products for the good of humanity.

If it's not about the money why don't they donate all their profits to charity.

That's a stupid comment. There is a different between your focus being profit at the cost of quality profits and your focus being quality products that lead to huge sales.

Ives even went so far as to include "If we are successful people will like them and if we are operationally competent, we will make money." Apple is efficient which leads to a lot of their operating profits and why other vendors can't compete with them directly. Example, 7" tablets that cost more than the iPad that all failed.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #10 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

I would believe that more if they didn't make 40% Gross Margin on most of their products.

Of course it's all about making money. That's what public corporations do. Apple is not a charity building products for the good of humanity.

If it's not about the money why don't they donate all their profits to charity.
Are you really that obtuse?
post #11 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

 

I would believe that more if they didn't make 40% Gross Margin on most of their products.

 

Of course it's all about making money. That's what public corporations do. Apple is not a charity building products for the good of humanity.

 

If it's not about the money why don't they donate all their profits to charity.

 

The profits belong to the shareholders.

 

Anyway, I don't see how this is any different from a sportsman saying they're not in it for the fame and money, even if they have a lot of both. Fame and money are a byproduct of being good at something. Neither does the sportsman have to shun fame and donate all his money.

 

The idea that corporations exist only to generate profit is a recent and utterly disastrous invention. Corporations can have all sorts of goals, just like any other organisation. As long as they stay in business they can continue to pursue those goals.

post #12 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
 
"...our goal isn't to make money," 

 

 

And in other news, AppleFans swallow it hook, line and sinker. 

post #13 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmfe View Post

 I see no reason to doubt Ive's statement.

 

 

Because the statement  makes little or no sense in the context of a for-profit multinational corporation?

post #14 of 119
"We are really pleased with our revenues but our goal isn't to make money," Ive said of Apple. "It sounds a little flippant, but it's the truth. Our goal and what makes us excited is to make great products. If we are successful people will like them and if we are operationally competent, we will make money."
 

I don't believe this for one second. We've read here about how Apple store managers regularly push their salespeople to make more sales. If they weren't about making money then there would be no pressure on the Apple Store employees to constantly get their numbers up? If it weren't about money then they wouldn't have fought me about replacing a defective battery in my Mac Book nor the tens of thousands that were replaced back in 2007?

 

If it weren't about the money then why is Apple disputing the designs of Samsung and things related to Android?

 

If it weren't about the money then why aren't all of Apples products created and produced in the USA?

 

It's at least 80% about the money and just a few percent about the design and functionality. Fill in any other percentages about job creation, environmental concern, pushing technology forward, or whatever. It's about the money. If it isn't for Ive then how much of the millions of dollars he gets paid does he donate to other causes?

 

I'm not saying that anybody must do things with their money to benefit others, but; if you're  going to make a statement about it not being about the money then you should at least walk the walk if you're going to talk the talk.

post #15 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

 

 

Because the statement  makes little or no sense in the context of a for-profit multinational corporation?

Funny you left off the first part of the sentence.  Opinion is not a meaningful substitute for real information.

post #16 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

 

 

It's at least 80% about the money and just a few percent about the design and functionality.

 

 

 

 

The goal is 100% about money.  The means to that goal involves making products that people pay lots of money for.  

post #17 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Are you really that obtuse?

 

He came off as a bit obtuse, but his overall point is still valid.

 

It is completely ridiculous to say that Apple does not focus on money.  Certainly, Apple places a greater emphasis (both financial and cultural) on design than other companies. 

 

However, money is and has to always be the first consideration, even for Apple.  You know what would be a great design?  Carbon Fiber.  I would buy a Carbon Fiber iPad in a second . . . if it didn't cost me $3,000.

 

What happens at a company like Apple is that the initial components are sketched up by looking at cost factors.  IN other words:  at what price point is a potential product going to be successful, and how much can we spend to get there?  Once this is established, a list of workable materials, etc., is composed to fit within that price point.

 

AT THAT POINT, once the groundwork has been set, then the designers shift the focus away from money.  And I do believe that Apple gives its designers tremendous freedom, and that it does encourage great design over cost savings more than most companies.  But at the end of the day, the cost drives the device.  This is why you don't see lightweight titanium iphones, or Carbon Fiber laptops.  More importantly, this is why components are designed in certain ways, such as the soldered-in memory of the more recent Macbook Airs and Macbook Pros.

 

But for those of you that think Apple exists for the sole purpose of design over all else -- you are quite simply wrong.  Such an entity would be constructed (probably) as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation (perhaps 501(c)(4)), and would thereby have no shareholders with no profit motive.

 

I will say it again:  I do not doubt that apple emphasizes purity of design moreso than any other company out there.  But it is most certainly about money, from beginning to end.  It's about maximizing form and function while minimizing costs.

post #18 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmfe View Post

Funny you left off the first part of the sentence.  Opinion is not a meaningful substitute for real information.

 

 

Well, unless and until there is real information, I'll assume that Apple is a typical for-profit corporation with fiduciary responsibilities to maximize total profits.

 

And no, some design guy's PR stunt does not count as "real information".

post #19 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


There is a different between your focus being profit at the cost of quality profits and your focus being quality products that lead to huge sales.

 

And you called my statement stupid.

 

Profit is profit. It doesn't matter if you make cheap shit or expensive designer products. The aim is the same. To make a profit. That's what corporations do. Apple is no different.

 

If you don't build a product or service that people want to buy then you go out of business. THAT IS THE SAME FOR EVERY BUSINESS ON THE PLANET.

 

Do you honestly think that Jony Ive and Steve Jobs would sit down and say hey lets build the best product we can regardless of whether anyone buys it or not? That's what they did in the late 80's and 90's and they nearly went bankrupt. Of course it's all about the money. Money makes the world go round or didn't they teach you that in class.

post #20 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke View Post

The idea that corporations exist only to generate profit is a recent and utterly disastrous invention. Corporations can have all sorts of goals, just like any other organisation. As long as they stay in business they can continue to pursue those goals.

 

Are you serious? This is THE principle on which capitalism is founded. Without profits any company will not stay in business however well intentioned their goals.

post #21 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

I don't believe this for one second. We've read here about how Apple store managers regularly push their salespeople to make more sales. If they weren't about making money then there would be no pressure on the Apple Store employees to constantly get their numbers up? If it weren't about money then they wouldn't have fought me about replacing a defective battery in my Mac Book nor the tens of thousands that were replaced back in 2007?

 

If it weren't about the money then why is Apple disputing the designs of Samsung and things related to Android?

 

If it weren't about the money then why aren't all of Apples products created and produced in the USA?

 

It's at least 80% about the money and just a few percent about the design and functionality. Fill in any other percentages about job creation, environmental concern, pushing technology forward, or whatever. It's about the money. If it isn't for Ive then how much of the millions of dollars he gets paid does he donate to other causes?

 

I'm not saying that anybody must do things with their money to benefit others, but; if you're  going to make a statement about it not being about the money then you should at least walk the walk if you're going to talk the talk.

 

- Pushing sales is an Americanism, work for any retail company in the US, or any Retail company in a foreign country owned by a US company, and the management is the same "make these impossible metrics, or you're fired", any wonder why Americans need so much medication and caffeine just to function. I'm being facetious.

 

Not being about the money means that they're not letting Wall St pull their strings, pushing quantity instead of quality. You see this with the latest "earnings miss" which isn't a miss, it's Wall St's estimates being about producing unicorns that shoot rainbows and being disappointed when no unicorns appear. If Wall St had their way, you'd see new plastic throw-away products every quarter, and iOS and OS X being licensed to every vendor to get more imaginary market share. If Apple goes from 60% to 20% market share of smartphones. So what? They're still making more money than the 80% smartphones being sold and get five times revenue from the iOS ecosystem than all the competition.

post #22 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

And you called my statement stupid.

Profit is profit. It doesn't matter if you make cheap shit or expensive designer products. The aim is the same. To make a profit. That's what corporations do. Apple is no different.

If you don't build a product or service that people want to buy then you go out of business. THAT IS THE SAME FOR EVERY BUSINESS ON THE PLANET.

Do you honestly think that Jony Ive and Steve Jobs would sit down and say hey lets build the best product we can regardless of whether anyone buys it or not? That's what they did in the late 80's and 90's and they nearly went bankrupt. Of course it's all about the money. Money makes the world go round or didn't they teach you that in class.

Your statement is stupid. You wouldn't dare say same thing about the production quality of the cheapest and most exquisite Samsung devices. That means you are purposely trolling or are so delusional that you can't tell that there is a difference in the way companies do business.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #23 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

 

 

Well, unless and until there is real information, I'll assume that Apple is a typical for-profit corporation with fiduciary responsibilities to maximize total profits.

 

And no, some design guy's PR stunt does not count as "real information".

So in your world, your assumptions are much more important than the express statements of a senior executive with direct knowledge of the goals of the company.   Got it.

post #24 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchnellFowVay View Post

He came off as a bit obtuse, but his overall point is still valid.

It is completely ridiculous to say that Apple does not focus on money.  Certainly, Apple places a greater emphasis (both financial and cultural) on design than other companies. 

However, money is and has to always be the first consideration, even for Apple.  You know what would be a great design?  Carbon Fiber.  I would buy a Carbon Fiber iPad in a second . . . if it didn't cost me $3,000.

What happens at a company like Apple is that the initial components are sketched up by looking at cost factors.  IN other words:  at what price point is a potential product going to be successful, and how much can we spend to get there?  Once this is established, a list of workable materials, etc., is composed to fit within that price point.

AT THAT POINT, once the groundwork has been set, then the designers shift the focus away from money.  And I do believe that Apple gives its designers tremendous freedom, and that it does encourage great design over cost savings more than most companies.  But at the end of the day, the cost drives the device.  This is why you don't see lightweight titanium iphones, or Carbon Fiber laptops.  More importantly, this is why components are designed in certain ways, such as the soldered-in memory of the more recent Macbook Airs and Macbook Pros.

But for those of you that think Apple exists for the sole purpose of design over all else -- you are quite simply wrong.  Such an entity would be constructed (probably) as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation (perhaps 501(c)(4)), and would thereby have no shareholders with no profit motive.

I will say it again:  I do not doubt that apple emphasizes purity of design moreso than any other company out there.  But it is most certainly about money, from beginning to end.  It's about maximizing form and function while minimizing costs.
Where did Ive say that Apple's focus is on design over all else? He said their focus is making great products. There's more to making great products than just design (or at least the design craft Ive practices). Ive also said "if we are operationally competent we will make money". Everything you mentioned falls under making great products and being operationally competent in my book. If you get those two right the money will follow. Seems to me that was Ive's point. Its almost a Doh! statement, IMO.

Unfortunately we don't get the entire context of his statement or the question that was asked to generate his response as Apple wouldn't allow his interview to be streamed live like everyone else's. So we get bits and pieces to generate page clicks/views.
post #25 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post

700

Thanks for all your hard work Jony!

 

Nice!

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #26 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmfe View Post

So in your world, your assumptions are much more important than the express statements of a senior executive with direct knowledge of the goals of the company.   Got it.

 

 

No, in my world, the normal way that big companies do things makes more sense than someone claiming nonsensical platitudes.  Especially when he is on a PR mission.

post #27 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmfe View Post

I'm guessing that was rhetorical, but I'll answer anyway.  Without profits, they cannot fund the research and development of future products.  I guess you could argue they make more money than is necessary for R&D.  However, the cash hoard has been used to create economies of scale necessary to bring the products to market at a price point that is required by the market.  So, I'd still argue the "excess" profit is part of the strategy to use money for the benefit of the product.  

 

Besides, the quote from Ive is a statement of priority and focus not absolutes.  Money exists to allow for the creation of products rather than products being produced for the creation of profit.   Both statements require two things - money and products.  The difference is one of priority and focus.

 

Of course, the simplest answer is that Ive is in a better position to speak about the goals and motivations of Apple than you or I.  Without real information to the contrary, I see no reason to doubt Ive's statement.

 

Have you ever run a business? Gross Profits do not fund R&D. R&D is a capital expenditure which is accounted for in your business costs. Apple could spend billions on R&D and not declare a cent in profits.

 

I have a great deal of respect for Ive but I just don't believe him. Apple build the products they think people will want to buy. They may do that at the top end of the market but they are still building products with a view to possible sales.

 

Otherwise as Scnell says they would build an iPhone with every technological advance in it using the finest materials available and it would cost $3000 and nobody would buy it. Design is a trade off between what's achievable, what's desirable and what's profitable.

 

We are after all talking about the most profitable company in the world. That's some bi-product.

post #28 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Your statement is stupid. You wouldn't dare say same thing about the production quality of the cheapest and most exquisite Samsung devices. That means you are purposely trolling or are so delusional that you can't tell that there is a difference in the way companies do business.

 

Breaking News... Cheap Android phones make a profit for Samsung or they wouldn't continue to make the freaking things. Doh!

 

Profit is Profit - what part of that statement don't you understand?

 

I bet you still think Apple is some hippie commune making products for the benefit of mankind or to change the world. You really have bought into their marketing if you believe that crap.

post #29 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

 

Are you serious? This is THE principle on which capitalism is founded. Without profits any company will not stay in business however well intentioned their goals.

Actually, "THE" principle is, "private ownership of the means of production".  One of the means of production is capital (meaning liquid money).  Capitalism does not require the maximization of profit to the exclusion of other forms of value.  While not totally a new idea, Milton Friedman's idea that the only social responsibility of a corporation is to increase profits has not been the historic norm despite it being a very popular idea in recent decades.  

 

I believe it was Jack Welch that said, "Shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world".  

post #30 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmfe View Post

I'm guessing that was rhetorical, but I'll answer anyway.  Without profits, they cannot fund the research and development of future products.  I guess you could argue they make more money than is necessary for R&D.  However, the cash hoard has been used to create economies of scale necessary to bring the products to market at a price point that is required by the market.  So, I'd still argue the "excess" profit is part of the strategy to use money for the benefit of the product.  

Besides, the quote from Ive is a statement of priority and focus not absolutes.  Money exists to allow for the creation of products rather than products being produced for the creation of profit.   Both statements require two things - money and products.  The difference is one of priority and focus.

Of course, the simplest answer is that Ive is in a better position to speak about the goals and motivations of Apple than you or I.  Without real information to the contrary, I see no reason to doubt Ive's statement.

Well said
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

Profit is profit. It doesn't matter if you make cheap shit or expensive designer products. The aim is the same. To make a profit. That's what corporations do. Apple is no different.

If you don't build a product or service that people want to buy then you go out of business. THAT IS THE SAME FOR EVERY BUSINESS ON THE PLANET.

Can't you see that this is a very simplistic circular argument? You say that Apple's aim is to make a profit, as without profit, they go out of business (die). i.e. Apple's aim is to not die.

Is that your aim in life, to not die? Or do you have higher aims, which require you to not die in order to achieve said aims? Apple's aim is to make great products; that is their focus and it is a major part of why they have been so successful. Other companies are run by people with mindsets like yours where the focus is profit, and this tends to lead to short-sighted decisions with adverse profit consequences in the long run. The irony is that if you shift your focus to the quality of the product, whilst not ignoring the requirement to make a profit (if you don't make a profit you are no longer able to achieve your primary aim of making great products), you may well end up making more profit!
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #31 of 119

Have you ever run a successful business? Successful businesses start with ideas, innovations and passion - not a desire for the bottom line, accountants look after that. If you seriously believe that Jonathan Ive is purely driven by profits than you have an extremely cynical view of the world. It is to Apple's credit that they still have visionary genii, like Ive, working for them - and long may it continue - it is the key to the long-term success of the company.

post #32 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

 

Have you ever run a business? Gross Profits do not fund R&D. R&D is a capital expenditure which is accounted for in your business costs. Apple could spend billions on R&D and not declare a cent in profits.

 

I have a great deal of respect for Ive but I just don't believe him. Apple build the products they think people will want to buy. They may do that at the top end of the market but they are still building products with a view to possible sales.

 

Otherwise as Scnell says they would build an iPhone with every technological advance in it using the finest materials available and it would cost $3000 and nobody would buy it. Design is a trade off between what's achievable, what's desirable and what's profitable.

 

We are after all talking about the most profitable company in the world. That's some bi-product.

Not only have I, but I currently do.  A successful one too.   Again, contrary to your opinion or assumption, R&D is funded out of Gross Profit.   Gross profit less R&D, SG&A and other expenses gives you Net Profit. So, by definition R&D costs are deducted from Gross Profit (i.e. Gross Sales less COGS).

 

Interesting world you are living in.  What's the weather like?

post #33 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

Are you serious? This is THE principle on which capitalism is founded. Without profits any company will not stay in business however well intentioned their goals.
I think it's clear what Ive meant with his comments. I work for a very large health care company that employs a hundred thousand people. This is what our mission and values are per our company website. No where is money or profit mentioned. http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/AboutUs/MissionAndValues.aspx

I'm sure you'd find the same at any other company out there. Of course everyone knows a company has to be profitable to survive. But that's different than money/profit being your explicit goal above all else. Do you think Steve Jobs started Apple just to make money? Of course not. Apple created the iPod because they felt the portable music players on the market at the time were crap and they could produce a superior product. Same with the iPhone. Making money is a consequence of bringing products and services to market that the world wants. But I think you'll find very few companies who state that as their explicit goal and reason for being.
post #34 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Is that your aim in life, to not die? 

 

Well it's certainly up there in my top 3 priorities along with banging the girl next door and owning a Porsche  lol.gif

post #35 of 119
And let's say Apple reduced their margins a bit. Isn't it possible they would make up for the margin shortfall with more sales? If Apple really was all about profits wouldn't they have an iPad Mini and iPhone Nano on sale by now?
post #36 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


I think it's clear what Ive meant with his comments. I work for a very large health care company that employs a hundred thousand people. This is what our mission and values are per our company website. No where is money or profit mentioned. http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/AboutUs/MissionAndValues.aspx

 

That's because most private healthcare companies are charlatans whose sole aim is to pretend to be something they're not. They are just as much about profit as the next company, it would just bad marketing to shout about it.

 

If you don't care about profits, if you feel that strongly why don't you go work for the public health service. The NHS in the UK or whatever it is the US. 

post #37 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

 

Well it's certainly up there in my top 3 priorities along with banging the girl next door and owning a Porsche  lol.gif


Get a life Shaun, watch the Olympics, stop trolling here.

iMac 21.5" 2.7 GHz (2011), 1TB HDD, 8GB RAM; iPhone 5c 16GB White; iPod Touch 4G 8GB Black; iPod Touch 2G 8GB
Reply
iMac 21.5" 2.7 GHz (2011), 1TB HDD, 8GB RAM; iPhone 5c 16GB White; iPod Touch 4G 8GB Black; iPod Touch 2G 8GB
Reply
post #38 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

And let's say Apple reduced their margins a bit. Isn't it possible they would make up for the margin shortfall with more sales? If Apple really was all about profits wouldn't they have an iPad Mini and iPhone Nano on sale by now?

 

Err, they are the most profitable company on the planet. I think the current strategy is working just fine.

post #39 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

 

Have you ever run a business? Gross Profits do not fund R&D. R&D is a capital expenditure which is accounted for in your business costs. Apple could spend billions on R&D and not declare a cent in profits.

 

'nuff said ....

 

 

 

 

1000


Edited by silversquonk - 7/30/12 at 7:38pm
post #40 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Jony just wanted to hang out with Kate. 1biggrin.gif
29zu0wz.jpg
 

Johnny is thinking "oh shit I knew I should have shaved today" "oh wait I did.  I should have worn shorts."

An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple focuses on quality products not money, says designer Jonathan Ive