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 - Page 3

post #81 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

 

But of course. This naturally explains Apple's 40% gross profit margin... their pursuit of quality.

 

*rolls eyes*

 

I have no problem with corporations making money. Hell, that's what corporations are SUPPOSED to do, but it really irks me when folks like Ive try to have it both ways here. That's naturally what is spurring Apple's ridiculous litigious actions of the last few years: Quality. We can't have other companies making "quality" products for less, now, can we?

You missed the point completely. The point is if you go into a project with $$$$ on your mind, it tends to cloud your judgements and perceptions about the product and it's design. Design first. Make a good product first then worry about the finances after you have a good product.

post #82 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Are you really that obtuse?

Yes.

post #83 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

First, you are out of your depth.
Second, "fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit" is bandied about greatly and commonly assumed, but it need not be part of the articles of incorporation nor must it trump other goals of the company. People can chose not to buy the stock if they do not agree with the articles of incorporation.
Third, Apple as a company and Ive as a designer have always pursued a user-centered strategy. Most other companies pursue strategies that center on technology, marketing, or fiscal factors. All are important. But for companies that desire to innovate, only a design centered strategy is reliable and sustainable. It alone leads to a superior value proposition in the eyes of the user, and therefore justifies high margins.

First of all, you are out of your depth.( see what I did there?)

Second while what you say is literally true... I would presume the number one reason is to make money. Yes, there are the whole food type investors etc... but the majority or large percentage of investors invest because they like the 'philosophy' of a company ... Ain't buying that(although that is fine if people do). Majority of hareholders want increased value

Third. Design centered? Well, if used in a limited sense I disagree, but in broad sense I agree. The world is littered with great visual designs that have failed. And piss poor design that sells. Of course visual design is important, usability is important, but it's the 'value' of the whole product- the combination of price, cost, design, quality that's important. Plus some damn fine marketing/showmanship(Jobs knew this and practiced it every day, it should not to be under estimated in the success of Apple) IMO that's what Sir Jonny was really saying when he said great design is hard. Great visual design is easy(relatively speaking). Great design of the total product at a affordable price, that can be cheaply manufactured, and all the other factors that it takes to make product and still have margin for profit; that is hard... Really really hard.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #84 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post


First of all, you are out of your depth.( see what I did there?)
Second while what you say is literally true... I would presume the number one reason is to make money. Yes, there are the whole food type investors etc... but the majority or large percentage of investors invest because they like the 'philosophy' of a company ... Ain't buying that(although that is fine if people do). Majority of hareholders want increased value
Third. Design centered? Well, if used in a limited sense I disagree, but in broad sense I agree. The world is littered with great visual designs that have failed. And piss poor design that sells. Of course visual design is important, usability is important, but it's the 'value' of the whole product- the combination of price, cost, design, quality that's important. Plus some damn fine marketing/showmanship(Jobs knew this and practiced it every day, it should not to be under estimated in the success of Apple) IMO that's what Sir Jonny was really saying when he said great design is hard. Great visual design is easy(relatively speaking). Great design of the total product at a affordable price, that can be cheaply manufactured, and all the other factors that it takes to make product and still have margin for profit; that is hard... Really really hard.

Great and piss poor design depends on who you ask. Anyone can say anything. 

 

The bottom line is that Apple tries to make the best product they can. Then they go and figure out how to sell it and when they can sell it for the maximum impact. The focus for Apple really is great products. You make a great product and the money will take care of itself as long as they are efficient. I think what Jonathan said was perfectly reasonable and you are just nit picking. What Jonathan Ive said is the reason why Apple was able to create and/or redefine markets. If money is the focus then they would've never done an iPhone or an iPad or an iPod. 

post #85 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs View Post

Apple is not so not into cash that  it stashes most of its cash overseas to hide it from the Fed. Apple said it would defer "repatriating" this money until a new law is passed. I can see pig flies very soon. How about the interest that you so far amass for that big wad of cash during this "wait period"? Shouldn't you use the interest to better the lifes of your slaves working in [as most f4anbois refer to] the third world. Wait, as some f4nbois pointed out, Apple is not under any obligations to do any of this.

 

Apple is the most appalling company ever produced by capitalism, even worse than those big oils and major mines. It mirrors the founder who prolly didn't donate a single cent of his riches because he doesn't have any obligation to do so. I meant what do you expect from someone who even had stolen money from a close associate Woz during those Apple early days. Whatever his excuse was. All his early years of traveling and into Buddhism taught him nothing apparently. But, hey..., It's SJ, and he is God. He has his own fruity religion with devout followers who ready to part with their money for his designer's off-springs at a moment's notice. You have to have this kind of mentality to make Apple the company it is today after being on life support before His second coming.

 

 

 

What a filthy, despicable, vitriolic, and hateful post. Your rabid words make it clear that you have an axe to grind, and are devoid of even a shred of truth, reason, logic, objectivity or rationality, with your toxic sludge of ignorance, personal attacks on SJ, and anyone who has the nerve to buy an Apple product (ie. the hundreds of millions of people) and who are clearly part of the Apple 'cult'. 

 

Apple is the most appalling company produced by capitalism? Really? In the eyes of most sane people, Apple is the idealistic example of what capitalism should produce. A company that became successful through relentless innovation and passion, and which pulled itself out of the ashes again through innovation. A company that has revolutionized several industries, and forced all others to up their game in order to compete, benefitting everyone. A company that has propped up so many others with its success, and has created wealth and opportunities for so many other people, including single handedly creating the 'app economy', which includes thousands and thousands of developers, as well as people working in other companies made possible by Apple's success. A company that has literally changed the lives of many, including the disabled (physical, mental, visual), in so many ways. I've seen this first hand, so don't you dare belittle or mock the statement. A company that makes money solely by creating products and services that people love, and people CHOSE to spend their money on. Last I checked, capitalism has produced many entities that do not function on this business model, but instead play with others' money using underhanded tactics to create perceived wealth, and after their deception has been discovered and they lose their wealth they are bailed out , while their customers are drained of their bank accounts. Yet to you, Apple is the 'most appalling' creation of capitalism? A company that generates its revenue in the most honest and straight-forward way possible? Sure thing. 

 

The end of your post, mocking and deifying SJ is probably the most despicable part. I don't know a single person with an Apple product who worships, or even knows a damn thing about SJ- they don't give a shit, they don't buy Apple's products based on its dead ex-CEO. The only people that call SJ by these divine names are trolls like you. No, he wasn't a God, but anyone who is remotely objective will tell you he was indeed a genius and a visionary, and for you to talk about 'fruity religions' and all that horse-shit is beyond classless. What your post shows is that you're an incredibly unhappy, insecure person who gets joy out of trashing others, a troll, and someone who inexplicably spends his time visiting a site and posting on a forum devoted to rumors of a company that you despise, something that is sad and pathetic. Go find some joy in your life and spend your time posting on forums dedicated to things you like or enjoy, there's thousands of other companies and millions of other websites, instead of dedicating your time spreading hate and vitriol here, and attacking everyone who chooses to buy products that just happen to be the most highly reviewed, bestselling, and have the highest satisfaction ratings in the industry.  There's probably thousands of forums for Android/Windows phones or whatever the hell you're into. God knows how someone like you hasn't been banned, every single post of yours is nothing but hate towards Apple and attacks on everyone on this board. Mods, where the hell are you?

post #86 of 119
1. Personal attacks against Shaun earlier in the thread have been removed.

2. Slurpy, I like your post but not the last sentence or two. There's nothing in mcrs's post that warrants being banned, or even given an infraction. It is an expression of an opinion. Not one that I agree with in any way. But without contrary opinions a forum would be a dull place.

3. For the love of God people, "it's" doesn't mean "belonging to it". You want "its".
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #87 of 119
If you want an example of a company focusing on the bottom line over great product look no further than NBC's coverage of the Olympics. Tape delaying nearly everything so 20 minutes of each hour can be filled up with commercials. And then tweeting about how great ratings are. Well of course they would be when NBC's internet streams suck because they can't handle all the traffic. It's not like the viewing public has many other options.
post #88 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke View Post

 

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.


Ive's statement is bad. Utterly bad... at least as "reported".

 

United States's Supreme Court actually already ruled that a stock-exchanged company that _doesn't_ strive to make as much money as possible (which, strangely, means if breaking the law makes more money, counting fines, than not breaking the law, you have to break the law... uh?) can be brought (in the person of its Operating Officers) to court by the shareholders.

 

Ive probably said (or meant) that in order for Apple to meet that goal, Apple needs to focus on innovation and design, and not on immediate profit, which then turns "the focus of Apple" into "a way to generate maximal profit for the shareholders", which is ok.

 

Hence, poke, your statement is erroneous. Corporations have only one goal, profit. The means to get to that goal are multiple, and obviously Apple's strategy works fine, whereas RIM's seems to fail. Note that Yahoo!, for example, generates profit, but might generate more through another strategy...

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #89 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post


Ive's statement is bad. Utterly bad... at least as "reported".

 

United States's Supreme Court actually already ruled that a stock-exchanged company that _doesn't_ strive to make as much money as possible (which, strangely, means if breaking the law makes more money, counting fines, than not breaking the law, you have to break the law... uh?) can be brought (in the person of its Operating Officers) to court by the shareholders.

 

Ive probably said (or meant) that in order for Apple to meet that goal, Apple needs to focus on innovation and design, and not on immediate profit, which then turns "the focus of Apple" into "a way to generate maximal profit for the shareholders", which is ok.

 

Hence, poke, your statement is erroneous. Corporations have only one goal, profit. The means to get to that goal are multiple, and obviously Apple's strategy works fine, whereas RIM's seems to fail. Note that Yahoo!, for example, generates profit, but might generate more through another strategy...


Damned, I forgot to say "Sir", since he's a Knight ^^

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #90 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 can't wait until you get banned. It's annoying having to deal with your idiocy.

Apple never claimed that they didn't want to make money. They said that their first focus is on making great products. And that's generally a sign of a well run company.

A poorly run company makes every decision on the basis of short term profits. A well run company builds a business plan based on their strengths and meeting customer needs and then relentlessly focuses on the business plan. Day to day decisions are based on "does this fit our business plan" rather than "will this make money for us". Running around chasing every single dollar of profit they might be able to achieve simply dilutes the effort and creates the unorganized mess that constitutes most companies.

The long term goal is to make money, but you do that by focusing on the business plan and customer needs, not petty money grabs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


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

Of course. But see above.
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 you don't understand 'fiduciary responsibility'. Not surprising.

Fiduciary responsibility involves acting in the shareholder's behalf. First, it is rarely to maximize total profits. Rather, it normally involves maximizing total RETURN. Second, it never requires maximizing total immediate returns. Rather, it is an assessment from the management team and the board as to what constitutes the best use of company money to give the shareholders the best value. I can guarantee that the Apple board is in a better position to do this than you are. Finally, as pointed out above, a well-run company does not make day to day decisions based on profits. Rather, they build a powerful business model and day to day decisions are based on executing that model.
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.

Obviously you've never run a business considering that your statements are nonsensical. R&D is rarely a capital expenditure. 99% of the time, R&D is expensed. That means that gross profits DO fund R&D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

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.

Do you think anyone cares if you believe him?

See above. Apple has found a very successful business model and they succeed by relentlessly focusing on that model. That is, in fact, possibly the most important lesson from the Jobs era. Do not be distracted by nickels and dimes, but rather focus on producing an incredible product. How many times did Apple have a product that was 'good enough' and Jobs stopped it to make a relatively trivial change (font selection, for example)? Jobs clearly was driven by making insanely great products even when it meant delays or expenses that weren't strictly necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

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.

Yes, it is - and it proves the value of the principle. The principle that Apple uses is simple - yet few people practice it.

Take a similar principle in manufacturing - Lean Manufacturing. Toyota became the most efficient auto manufacturer in the world via Lean Manufacturing - which involves making thousands of incremental changes to make the process simpler and easier and more error-resistant. From a manufacturing perspective, the workers are trained in how to eliminate waste. They have a relentless focus on elimination of waste. Individually, the changes are insignificant (I read that Toyota implements many tens of thousands of process changes per year), but the end result is an incredibly efficient, low waste process. Few of those changes would justify much effort by themselves, but the overall program has saved them billions of dollars in manufacturing costs. If the workers were focused on saving nickels and dimes, they'd never get anywhere and many of the changes would never be approved because the value is too low to bother. Rather, it's the incredible focus on elimination of waste that makes sense in the long run.

Strong businesses require a strategy and matching business plan where every employee has a focus on executing the plan. That is vasty more powerful than simply focusing on pennies - as shown by Apple's and Toyota's results.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #91 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post


Ive's statement is bad. Utterly bad... at least as "reported".

United States's Supreme Court actually already ruled that a stock-exchanged company that _doesn't_ strive to make as much money as possible (which, strangely, means if breaking the law makes more money, counting fines, than not breaking the law, you have to break the law... uh?) can be brought (in the person of its Operating Officers) to court by the shareholders.

Ive probably said (or meant) that in order for Apple to meet that goal, Apple needs to focus on innovation and design, and not on immediate profit, which then turns "the focus of Apple" into "a way to generate maximal profit for the shareholders", which is ok.

Hence, poke, your statement is erroneous. Corporations have only one goal, profit. The means to get to that goal are multiple, and obviously Apple's strategy works fine, whereas RIM's seems to fail. Note that Yahoo!, for example, generates profit, but might generate more through another strategy...

That's misleading.

First, how about a reference to the Supreme Court case you're citing? I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than what you're saying.

In any event, "make as much money as possible" is a very vague statement for a number of reasons:
1. It doesn't mention time frame. If I can invest $1 M to earn $ 5 M over a few years, by your logic, I couldn't do that since it would reduce the amount of money I make this year. Obviously, that's not the case.
2. It doesn't consider that shareholders have the right to do what they want with their money. For example, Ben and Jerry's sets aside a significant percentage of profits for charity - with the shareholder's assent. That's perfectly legitimate. In fact, the shareholders could agree to give 100% of income to charity if they wished and the SEC would not be able to stop it.
3. Most importantly, management has very broad discretion in defining how to maximize shareholder return. For example, many companies make donations to charities of various types. The perception is that by being charitable, they will attract enough customers to pay for the contribution. It is perfectly acceptable to do so.

In the end, though, Apple has taken a very high level position that their shareholders are best served by focusing on manufacturing insanely great products. Essentially, they built a business plan based on a relentless focus on meeting customer needs and not allowing day to day profit concerns to interfere with that focus. In their opinion, that is the way to maximize shareholder returns rather than making every decision a purely financial decision. Their plan involves focusing on the product, the customer, and the supply chain - and the profits will flow. Their results for the past 15 years affirm the success of their business plan.

Ives' statement is completely consistent with that. He never said that Apple doesn't care about profits. That would be a stupid statement. He said that from an operational perspective, their motivation is making great products and executing their supply chain well - and the profits will result. That's a very reasonable and justifiable position to take.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #92 of 119
I swear people forget that there were times in the early 00's when Apple reported quarterly losses. Reading some of the stupid comments on tech blogs you'd think Apple was always making money hand over fist (by raping it's customers with overpriced junk of course).
post #93 of 119

I'd prefer this place to be a little on the boring side (or rather a different kind of boring) than to have to read the rubbish spouted by the same trolls (different usernames, of course) over and over in every thread. Then of course there's the new trolls recycling the topics that have been done to death, repeating the same falsehoods that have been debunked a thousand times over. I've been coming to this site for over 10 years, it's really hit a low point in recent months. Whilst on occasions the pc/Apple thing would flare up, generally we could discuss things Apple and, yes, even criticise Apple without everything turning into a 'religious' war. Now it's just a matter of how many posts before a discussion is derailed. No wonder some of the old posters are rarely seen now, which is a shame because they had some really interesting things to say. I do go elsewhere, but it's not much different elsewhere unfortunately.


Edited by sennen - 7/31/12 at 6:42am
"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 #94 of 119

Yeah, that's why they charge $30 for a $5 adapter and most of their products' profits are close to 50%...

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply

iPhone 4S 64GB, Black, soon to be sold in favor of a Nokia Lumia 920
Early 2010 MacBook Pro 2.4GHz, soon to be replaced with a Retina MacBook Pro, or an Asus U500

Reply
post #95 of 119
Originally Posted by Lukeskymac View Post
Yeah, that's why they charge $30 for a $5 adapter and most of their products' profits are close to 50%...

 

Thanks for not reading the thread at all and bringing up something so hilariously wrong.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #96 of 119

@ mstone, ClemyNX, Rogifan and Mr H

 

Thanks for your comments above.

post #97 of 119

Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
I can't wait until you get banned. It's annoying having to deal with your idiocy.

 

Just put me on ignore. Problem solved.

post #98 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

I suppose we could speak with vehemence about a company's "fiduciary responsibility to maximize value and usefulness for it's customers." [No reason it couldn't be a company goal.]

 

 

Corporations do not have fiduciary responsibilities to their customers unless they assume such responsibilities as a part of the services offered.

 

Maybe you need to look up the word to understand what it means?  Apple is not a bank or trust company.  They sell gadgets.  They have no fiduciary responsibility to their retail customers.

post #99 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukeskymac View Post

Yeah, that's why they charge $30 for a $5 adapter and most of their products' profits are close to 50%...

Does OWS pay you to spout nonsense.  I just paid $35 for an InCase iPhone case. Good accessories aren't always cheap - regardless if they're coming from Apple or a 3rd party.

post #100 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

 you have an axe to grind, and are devoid of even a shred of truth,

 

your toxic sludge of ignorance, 

 

you're an incredibly unhappy, insecure person

 

 

God knows how someone like you hasn't been banned, every single post of yours is nothing but hate

 

 

 Mods, where the hell are you?

post #101 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Does OWS pay you to spout nonsense.  I just paid $35 for an InCase iPhone case. Good accessories aren't always cheap - regardless if they're coming from Apple or a 3rd party.

Apple's cables are notoriously bad. I'm on the third cable for my iPhone and concerned about the power cable for my MBA. Never had any issue with Thinkpads...

 

If anyone knows of a good third party supplier?

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #102 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That's misleading.
First, how about a reference to the Supreme Court case you're citing? I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than what you're saying.
In any event, "make as much money as possible" is a very vague statement for a number of reasons:
1. It doesn't mention time frame. If I can invest $1 M to earn $ 5 M over a few years, by your logic, I couldn't do that since it would reduce the amount of money I make this year. Obviously, that's not the case.
2. It doesn't consider that shareholders have the right to do what they want with their money. For example, Ben and Jerry's sets aside a significant percentage of profits for charity - with the shareholder's assent. That's perfectly legitimate. In fact, the shareholders could agree to give 100% of income to charity if they wished and the SEC would not be able to stop it.
3. Most importantly, management has very broad discretion in defining how to maximize shareholder return. For example, many companies make donations to charities of various types. The perception is that by being charitable, they will attract enough customers to pay for the contribution. It is perfectly acceptable to do so.
In the end, though, Apple has taken a very high level position that their shareholders are best served by focusing on manufacturing insanely great products. Essentially, they built a business plan based on a relentless focus on meeting customer needs and not allowing day to day profit concerns to interfere with that focus. In their opinion, that is the way to maximize shareholder returns rather than making every decision a purely financial decision. Their plan involves focusing on the product, the customer, and the supply chain - and the profits will flow. Their results for the past 15 years affirm the success of their business plan.
Ives' statement is completely consistent with that. He never said that Apple doesn't care about profits. That would be a stupid statement. He said that from an operational perspective, their motivation is making great products and executing their supply chain well - and the profits will result. That's a very reasonable and justifiable position to take.

I basically agree with all you say, so I believe you misunderstand what I was trying to say, which boils down to "this report is quite inaccurately worded"+some considerations on economy that you've expanded on :D

 

About Ben&Jerry's, I did not know that. Yaye, good reason to buy ice cream :p

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #103 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

 

 

Corporations do not have fiduciary responsibilities to their customers unless they assume such responsibilities as a part of the services offered.

 

Maybe you need to look up the word to understand what it means?  Apple is not a bank or trust company.  They sell gadgets.  They have no fiduciary responsibility to their retail customers.


You just don't get it.  If that duty is added to the corporate bylaws, then the Board of Directors have a fiduciary responsibility to do just that since the Board's fiduciary responsibility applies to following the Corporate Bylaws.  So, if that is an express goal, by inclusion into the bylaws, then a fiduciary responsibility applies.

 

[edit:  If, It... they mean roughly the same thing]


Edited by hmmfe - 7/31/12 at 8:38am
post #104 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

He could be at the Olympics scoping out the talent for all we know.

BTW, Thanks for making me aware of Michelle.

post #105 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

 

United States's Supreme Court actually already ruled that a stock-exchanged company that _doesn't_ strive to make as much money as possible (which, strangely, means if breaking the law makes more money, counting fines, than not breaking the law, you have to break the law... uh?) can be brought (in the person of its Operating Officers) to court by the shareholders.

I look forward to seeing your link to that ruling.

A corporation's officers have a fiduciary responsibility to stakeholders (not just stockholders) to act in their interests and within the guidelines laid out in the articles of incorporation and the law. This would prevent them from acting fraudulently but they do have great latitude in the strategy they pursue. Shareholders get to vote their stock, toss out the board members if they like them, sue them, etc. Despite the theory, stakeholders and stockholders often get screwed just the same. 

post #106 of 119

Considering Apple's Heavy Interest in Design through all of it's products(Anyone remember them telling Google to go fix the Yellow in their Logo?), I can side with Apple on this statement. While Money certainly has an influence in decision, the designers must have some sort of enjoyment in being part of a legacy, which easily has greater value than money itself.

post #107 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post
... I would presume . . .

I'll agree with you there.

post #108 of 119

It's no more complicated than the following.

 

Apple could cut corners and use cheaper parts, reduce their prices, offer less customer service and make more profit.

 

But they don't.

post #109 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


Corporations do not have fiduciary responsibilities to their customers unless they assume such responsibilities as a part of the services offered.

Maybe you need to look up the word to understand what it means?  Apple is not a bank or trust company.  They sell gadgets.  They have no fiduciary responsibility to their retail customers.

As usual, you're blathering about things you don't understand.

Apple most certainly does have a fiduciary responsibility to their customers.
http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/glossaryf/g/fiduciary.htm

For example, Apple carries a warranty for the products. That creates a fiduciary responsibility. There's also a warranty of mercantability which would add a fiduciary responsibility. And, then, of course, there's the responsibility to handle products properly and so on.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #110 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

It's no more complicated than the following.

 

Apple could cut corners and use cheaper parts, reduce their prices, offer less customer service and make more profit.

 

But they don't.

 

 

Bullshit, if Apple were to use cheaper parts, reduce their prices or offer less customer service, they would make LESS profits.

post #111 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


Bullshit, if Apple were to use cheaper parts, reduce their prices or offer less customer service, they would make LESS profits.

Now explain to us how companies that sell shit products are doing it because they are altruistic.

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #112 of 119

Human beings need food and water to survive.  If you don't have that you die.  Does that mean a human beings sole reason for existence is to intake food and water?  Of course not.  Same with companies.  Would be near impossible to stay in business without generating profits but is that why someone starts a business?  It's not because they have a passion for something, it's because they want to make sh*tloads of money?  I call BS on that.  Of course I'm not suggesting that people don't want to be well compensated for what they do but notion that money and profit is the sole motivation of the human race is ridiculous.

post #113 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

1. Personal attacks against Shaun earlier in the thread have been removed.
2. Slurpy, I like your post but not the last sentence or two. There's nothing in mcrs's post that warrants being banned, or even given an infraction. It is an expression of an opinion. Not one that I agree with in any way. But without contrary opinions a forum would be a dull place.
3. For the love of God people, "it's" doesn't mean "belonging to it". You want "its".

 

Let me understand this, you have a problem with my last sentence or two, which to most people points out the obvious, but absolutely no problem with his post, which you define as merely and 'opinion', including this piece:

 

 Shouldn't you use the interest to better the lifes of your slaves working in [as most f4anbois refer to] the third world. Wait, as some f4nbois pointed out, Apple is not under any obligations to do any of this.

 

ut, hey..., It's SJ, and he is God. He has his own fruity religion with devout followers who ready to part with their money for his designer's off-springs at a moment's notice. You have to have this kind of mentality to make Apple the company it is today after being on life support before His second coming.

 

 

 

Not only is the basis of his post slander and innuendo based on something Jobs may have done 30 years ago, he consistently and regularly defines someone who 1. Likes Apple, or 2. purchases something from Apple in the terms above- which I assume would be most people on this forum and visiting this site, not to mention knowingly spreading debunked lies  referring to Apple's 'slavery', the goal of which can only be to get a rise and nothing else. So using terms such as 'f4anbois', 'SJ is God', 'fruity religion' to define people here, not to mention provocative lies, etc constitutes someone who's intention is to have a real discussion, is 'opinion', and doesn't warrant even infraction? Really? I'd like you to clarify how you reconcile this, because I think to me and anyone else it's pretty black and white what this poster is and his intentions on this forum. Insulting everyone on this forum repeatedly, by denigration and mockery, and constantly showing extreme hatred towards this site and everything it stands for is not 'opinion' last time I checked. It's people like him that have turned this place to shit the past little while, before which it was one of the only bastions I can find online where one can have a reasoned, intelligent discussion regarding Apple without an ultra-high troll infestation that sidetrack the discussion with pure garbage like the above, like everywhere else online. 

 

Some more gems..oh, I mean opinion!

 

 

Quote:

 

'It's sad to think that these Apple f4nbois and Ish33ps fail to see that the engines used inside their Porsches and Ferraries are actually a Civic engines used by the masses, ARM chips.'

 

Apple users you are so proud of apparently are "illiterates"

 

This is so very funny and sad too. So, now I know who bought a bunch of Apple's products: a bunch of illiterates.

 

Hm..., lemme see..., somebody famous for wearing a turtleneck but now living nine-feet-under once quipped that the "death grip" issue hadn't been a design issue but rather Isheeps' fault for not holding the Iphone correctly

 

It goes to show how "innovative" Apple really is. Or, if you prefer you can fill in the blank below. 

Apple is "innovative" in .............[my personal favorite is: bastardizing other people's products]

 

This place used to have higher standards for posting. Sad that's not the case anymore and it now openly welcomes those who make it clear what their agenda is. 


Edited by Slurpy - 7/31/12 at 3:50pm
post #114 of 119
Slurpy, perhaps you have a point. I used to be a lot more active in moderating the forums and went to great lengths to ensure that discussion stayed on topic and to make sure that out-and-out trolls with no intention in engaging in reasoned debate were banned.

However, I am at a stage in my life where I simply cannot afford to freely give the time required to do that job properly. I asked the site's owners if they would be able to remunerate me but I never received a reply so now all moderation-related emails from this site go straight into my bin without me reading them.

Before yesterday, I hadn't performed any moderation at AI since the switch to the new board platform. I now regret getting involved because it's reminded me how much of my time it sucks up! If you have issues you need to talk to other moderators, sorry.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #115 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Slurpy, perhaps you have a point. I used to be a lot more active in moderating the forums and went to great lengths to ensure that discussion stayed on topic and to make sure that out-and-out trolls with no intention in engaging in reasoned debate were banned.
However, I am at a stage in my life where I simply cannot afford to freely give the time required to do that job properly. I asked the site's owners if they would be able to remunerate me but I never received a reply so now all moderation-related emails from this site go straight into my bin without me reading them.
Before yesterday, I hadn't performed any moderation at AI since the switch to the new board platform. I now regret getting involved because it's reminded me how much of my time it sucks up! If you have issues you need to talk to other moderators, sorry.

 

Still doesn't explain why you specifically took the time and effort to reprimand/threaten me for calling out the trolling, while ignoring the blatant trolls themselves. As for the other moderators you mention, doesn't seem to be any moderation going on whatsoever. The amount of new registrations with posts simply attacking/mocking Apple as well as everyone here the past month or so has been non-stop, as well as long time trolls that have hundreds of posts, completely unchallenged. 

post #116 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Still doesn't explain why you specifically took the time and effort to reprimand/threaten me

It seems you misinterpreted my tone. My intention was not to reprimand or threaten you. I was trying to compliment you on your post but make it clear that I didn't agree with all of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

the blatant trolls themselves

The point is that a single post doesn't make a troll. Like I said, I shouldn't have got involved if I didn't have the time to investigate mcrs's posting history. Again I apologise.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #117 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


He could be at the Olympics scoping out the talent for all we know.

After Effects?

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #118 of 119

If Apple's goal was to "make money" - as in, like Acer, HP, Samsung, and the other also-rans, they wouldn't engage in a vertical business model. 

 

A vertical business model is *rarely* a big money-maker, especially if you're unwiling to take huge risks. That's why so few in the industry (really, only Apple) have the guts to do it. 

post #119 of 119
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post
After Effects?

 

That or Motion/Shake, and quite obviously staged, given the ending.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
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