or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Cook being pushed to innovate by board of directors, FOX report says
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Cook being pushed to innovate by board of directors, FOX report says - Page 4

post #121 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post

So does everyone believe that Apple is still innovating?

 

Apparently not everyone.  But what people think or believe about what goes on inside one of the world's most secretive companies is not likely to be close to reality.

 

Why would Apple, known for innovation, suddenly decide to stop researching and innovating?  I can imagine a company without the means to pull the string would stop, but Apple has more financial resources than it needs, with which it can hire whatever human resources are necessary or desired (and evidence indicates they are doing exactly this).  I can imagine a company would stop because it sees no benefits from further innovation.  This is clearly not the case; there are innumerable directions in which computing and communication technology can advance.  

 

What is in people's minds?  That there has been three whole years since Apple's last major new market-creating product?  

 

How many years ago did Samsung create any market-creating product?  

 

Do people believe that Microsoft's xBox, a product that extended competition in the already well established game console market, was an innovation comparable to the iPad?  I'd argue it wasn't, and if not, how long has it been since Microsoft created a new market?  

 

Toshiba?  Sony?  LG?  Lenovo?

 

Where are the ground-breakers to compare with Apple, to suggest that Apple is falling short of some other, greater standard bearer?    

 

Google?  Okay, search.  That was ground-breaking.  But how long ago was that, and Google still nets 90%+ of it's revenue/profit from that segment.  Google Glass?  Sorry, it's still a niche.  If it ever goes mainstream, then Google will get the credit, but that's years away, so add those years to the years already passed since Search and Google will still have no record to match Apple's pace.

 

Anyone?  


Edited by RadarTheKat - 8/9/13 at 10:32am
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
post #122 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

Sadly, this is probably Fox "journalism" at its best...

Wait. "Fox" and "journalism"… Those words don't even belong together!

Anymore than 'Fox' and 'News'! 1wink.gif
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #123 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

@tribalogical
Absolutely. People who watch "professional" wrestling probably feel the same about the hooded villain, if they still do that sort of thing, when he shows up at the ring. I always like to read a crunchy Constable Odo post. Like I imagine fried grasshoppers are when you bite into them.

The others we have here just piss me off no end. Like you say, Odo is our Onion troll.

We should run a vote for your favorite troll. I like Gatorade, or whatever his name is, best. 1smile.gif

Maybe points for style, humor and audacity?
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #124 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


In all fairness, R&D expenditures is not the same thing as innovation.

Apple has revolutionized several industries while spending a lot less than the competition. You can's infer a 1:1 correlation.

 

Exactly.  It's all about focus.  I remember hearing that Apple has an annual summit, with its top talent present to present and share ideas, then Jobs (at that time) would narrow the field down to just three ideas they would focus on.  That is, I believe, how they wring so much (sales and profits) out of fewer R&D dollars versus the competition.

I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
post #125 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Apple doesn't throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks (in public). They do all of that behind the scenes and only release products when they're ready and products they think people will want to buy. Other companies flood the market with products (whether people want them or not) and call it innovation.

 

It is amazing how so many equate frenetic activity with innovation.

I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
post #126 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonX View Post

Oh boy! I'm so glad you are not in charged with Humanity progress and innovation, otherwise we should all still be living in caves saying: "What more do you want? Don't you have fire? Don't you have... sticks? How could other weapons exists besides sticks and stones? We can do the stones a little bigger, the sticks a little sharper, but other than that there really isn't anything!!!"

 

Um...  I think you might want to direct this to Samsung.  Look at their smartphones before the iPhone and after (a well circulated illustration of how Samsung 'innovates').  Or to Microsoft; when was their last market creating innovation?  Seems other companies get a pass for evolving existing concepts in existing markets while the world impatiently waits for only Apple to open up new frontiers.  

I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
post #127 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1randomreader View Post

Apple did to consumer applications what Microsoft did to business ones. But in all honesty, when I walk into an Apple store these days, there's nothing left I want to buy...

I have spent a small fortune over the years buying Apple gear, but there isn't really anything new for which I'd be willing to shell out more money.

I love their products and would like to buy more, but there hasn't really been much lately worth buying.

FYI - my latest purchase was the 27" iMac released in Jan 13 which I love. Also, I have no interest in the iWatch...

I believe Apple's gear is top notch, but how much are people willing to pay for the small incremental gains? I think this is also the problem with the PC industry (along with Microsoft's inept ability to release new product launches).

 

 

You spent a small fortune over the years buying Apple gear.

 

Your latest purchase, the 27" iMac, came in 2013.

 

You are proof enough that Apple is doing just fine, thanks.

I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
post #128 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsico View Post

...the new iPod nano's value is completely lost on me, at least the old ones could be worn as watches...

 

 

The new Nano has Bluetooth so you can lave it in your pocket or gym bag and use it with wireless headphones, using the controls on the headphones to pause, skip or go back a track.  Much better to my mind than having the thing on my wrist with a wire tethering it to my headphones.

 

And if your car audio system is bluetooth enabled, you can connect to that too without a cable, and of course your home stereo or bluetooth speakers.


Edited by RadarTheKat - 8/9/13 at 10:34am
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
post #129 of 161
If true, this would be particularly ominous, in that the board is kept apprised of what Apple has in development.
post #130 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

That's not entirely correct. Chris Wallace has won the Peabody. He's won basically every broadcast news award. 

Not according to the Peabody Awards site. I searched both by 'fox news' and 'chris wallace' and no results were found. The Wikipedia page on Chris Wallace also does not say anything about a Peabody. Yet his own biography page does.

Hmmm. So maybe O'Reilly isn't the only one lying about a Peabody? Or perhaps he won his award before he joined Fox news?
"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 #131 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rough Cider View Post

 

Yes. you stand around in a circle, hands into trousers, then pop it out.

 

Now I hate facebook as much as the next man, but one cannot but admire the sales figures of Android phones over Apple in these graphs.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57554230/facebook-posters-push-employees-to-switch-to-android/

 

Reading the article tells you two things.  First, Facebook employees, on their own, prefer iPhones to such an extent that Facebook feels the need to launch a full on effort to get some to switch.  Second, the only reason Facebook was pressing its employees to switch was because the Facebook app sucked on Android phones, not because they actually felt their employees would be better off carrying such phones.  Two strikes against Android.

I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
post #132 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Sales IS the same thing as revenue. I'm guessing you are confused between revenue and profit.

Once again, simplified:

Revenue (or sales) - money that your company receives for a good or service

COGS (cost of goods sold) - direct manufacturing cost. That is, the variable cost of producing a product. Typically, includes raw materials and direct labor plus any overhead costs that would go away if the product were not manufactured.

Gross margin - Revenue minus COGS. This is the amount the company has left to pay overheads and profit.

Overhead costs - fixed costs that are there regardless of sales volume. For example, if you own a building, that building is a fixed cost since you have to pay the mortgage whether you sell anything or not. Sales and marketing costs are typically overheads (although commissions can sometimes be included in COGS). Research costs are overheads.

Operating income - Gross margin minus overhead costs. This is what most people refer to when they say 'profit'.

Other income or expense - income or expenses which don't fall into any of the above categories. For example Apple's interest income would fall here.

Net income - Operating income plus other income or minus other expense.

 

Clearly you understand that he meant Sales, as in units sold, versus revenues.  But you decided to climb into the saddle of your high horse regardless.  

I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
post #133 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Sales IS the same thing as revenue. I'm guessing you are confused between revenue and profit.

Once again, simplified:

Revenue (or sales) - money that your company receives for a good or service

COGS (cost of goods sold) - direct manufacturing cost. That is, the variable cost of producing a product. Typically, includes raw materials and direct labor plus any overhead costs that would go away if the product were not manufactured.

Gross margin - Revenue minus COGS. This is the amount the company has left to pay overheads and profit.

Overhead costs - fixed costs that are there regardless of sales volume. For example, if you own a building, that building is a fixed cost since you have to pay the mortgage whether you sell anything or not. Sales and marketing costs are typically overheads (although commissions can sometimes be included in COGS). Research costs are overheads.

Operating income - Gross margin minus overhead costs. This is what most people refer to when they say 'profit'.

Other income or expense - income or expenses which don't fall into any of the above categories. For example Apple's interest income would fall here.

Net income - Operating income plus other income or minus other expense.

 

Clearly you understand that he meant Sales, as in units sold, versus revenues.  But you decided to climb into the saddle of your high horse regardless.  

Calm down (unless you're his parent). People misuse these concepts all the time.

 

He's being helpful. You're not.

post #134 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post

Clearly you understand that he meant Sales, as in units sold, versus revenues.  But you decided to climb into the saddle of your high horse regardless.  

Wrong. Your interpretation doesn't make sense.

Someone said "you have to admire Android's sales figures". Phil said "sales, not revenues".

Now, since the ASP for Android phones is less than the ASP for iPhones, their lead would be even GREATER if you look at units sold. So if he had meant units sold, his comment would have made no sense at all. The only way it could have made sense is if he meant 'profit' - where Apple has a strong lead in spite of trailing in revenues.

Furthermore, I'm trying to educate people. Maybe you like it when people babble about things they don't understand and make it nearly impossible to understand what they're saying, but I believe it's easier to have a rational discussion if people use terminology correctly.
"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 #135 of 161
Poor wording on my part, yes, profit.

Thank you jragosta for setting it straight.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #136 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Not according to the Peabody Awards site. I searched both by 'fox news' and 'chris wallace' and no results were found. The Wikipedia page on Chris Wallace also does not say anything about a Peabody. Yet his own biography page does.

Hmmm. So maybe O'Reilly isn't the only one lying about a Peabody? Or perhaps he won his award before he joined Fox news?

My guess is that a show Chis Wallace worked on received a Peabody or two (or three according to a few articles) but not Chris Wallace himself. But that's just a guess... or he could be lying. Now his father on the other hand. . .
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #137 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSince86 View Post

If true, this would be particularly ominous, in that the board is kept apprised of what Apple has in development.

That's a mighty big "if true" there.
post #138 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

My guess is that a show Chis Wallace worked on received a Peabody or two (or three according to a few articles) but not Chris Wallace himself. But that's just a guess... or he could be lying. Now his father on the other hand. . .

If you think it's a simple mistake, all you have to do is show that a show that he was working on received a Peabody. So far, no one has done that. A search of the Peabody site shows nothing for either Chris Wallace or Fox News.
"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 #139 of 161
Apple should buy back their stock & go private again, then they can actually focus on innovation instead of padding the pockets of their investors. This is such a joke, if anything catering to investors has stifled Apple's innovation not helped it.
post #140 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


If you think it's a simple mistake, all you have to do is show that a show that he was working on received a Peabody. So far, no one has done that. A search of the Peabody site shows nothing for either Chris Wallace or Fox News.

 

Yep, I've searched in detail... I find George Wallace by name, even Stephen Colbert (!), but no sign of FOX "News" (although some of their other branches in entertainment were involved in awarded shows), "O'Reilly" ("William" or "Bill") and nothing related to Chris Wallace other than George.

 

So Chris Wallace, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News… none of those make an appearance in the Peabody Winners List so far as I can tell. Who's lying do you think?

 

Check for yourself if you like:

 

http://peabodyawards.com/past-winners/peabody-search/

 

Let us know if you find anything interesting.

 

 

[EDIT] Out of curiosity, I went to the Fox 'news' website to check what they were claiming, and sho'nuf...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/chris-wallace/bio/#s=r-z

 

I'm inclined to check the veracity of the rest of those awards claims… 

 

Is it just me, or is it absolutely telling that they refer to their stable of "journalists" as "On Air Personalities" instead of, you know, journalists? What was Walter Cronkite referred to as?

 

This is NOT a "news" organization by any real measure. It's purely an "entertainment network". Is any more proof really needed?


Edited by tribalogical - 8/9/13 at 2:14pm
post #141 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Oak View Post

Here is the list of significant launches under Cook's leadership.  I find it very impressive

 

My one concern is the iPhone product line.   I expect we will see that addressed very shortly.  I also have to believe they are investing heavily in a few great ideas which we'll  see over 2014   

 

 

========================

 

iMac

MacBook Pro
iPad Retina 
iPad mini
iPhone 5
iPod refresh   (including major iPod touch update)
AirPort Extreme and TC 
 
Siri
Maps
ITunes in iCloud
 
ITunes 11
iTunes - international rollouts 
iTunes Radio 
 
iOS 6 & 7
OSX ML and Mavericks 
 
LogicPro X
Final Cut Pro X 
 
EarPods 
Lightning ports 
Thunderbolt 
 
60 Retail  Store openings 
Store Checkout

Most of those are incremental updates and facelifts, not innovations.  Most of those were developed under Jobs (the iPhone 5 was the last project that Jobs worked on to near completion).  One of them was such a downgrade that Apple even had to apologize for it (Maps), but of course, they didn't go back to Google -- that's the only apology that I'd be willing to accept, because talk is cheap.

 

What Cook did, screwing up the company's stock value in the process, was to start giving out dividends (which Jobs was against) and launch the entire product line in September 2012, leaving them with almost nothing to launch for over a year following that and causing investors to lose confidence in the company.

post #142 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezetation View Post

Apple should buy back their stock & go private again, then they can actually focus on innovation instead of padding the pockets of their investors. This is such a joke, if anything catering to investors has stifled Apple's innovation not helped it.

You left the sarcasm tag off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsico View Post

Most of those are incremental updates and facelifts, not innovations.  Most of those were developed under Jobs (the iPhone 5 was the last project that Jobs worked on to near completion).  One of them was such a downgrade that Apple even had to apologize for it (Maps), but of course, they didn't go back to Google -- that's the only apology that I'd be willing to accept, because talk is cheap.

What Cook did, screwing up the company's stock value in the process, was to start giving out dividends (which Jobs was against) and launch the entire product line in September 2012, leaving them with almost nothing to launch for over a year following that and causing investors to lose confidence in the company.

You mean after Cook raised the price to record highs, after a record setting profitable year?

Didn't Jobs apologize for Mobile Me?

Short term, money grubbing, profit takers lost faith.
post #143 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Is one year a dry spell or a scheduled release cycle?

It doesn't matter in terms of what I was saying because they are indistinguishable at this point in time.

post #144 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


What do you suggest that Tim should have done to prevent being called to testify before Congress?

Well, ask yourself why Steve was never called, even though the same tax practices were going on. It's because the senators were afraid of him. Yes, really. They are political animals, and he was popular with the public, it would have been politically bad to be seen picking on him. He also said surprising (insightful) and sometimes blunt things. From the point of view of a politician, to drag someone like that in to a public hearing, the "surprising" part means you can't predict what he will say beforehand which is always dangerous for a stage-managed event, and the bluntness means if you say something stupid there's a good chance he'll embarrass you. The last thing a politician wants is to be made to look a fool by someone popular in a public hearing. 

 

Compare with Tim, Mr Soft spoken, Mr Nice Guy, Mr liberal causes, Mr teary-eyed at every keynote. As soon as he failed to release any products for 6 months that was the final sign of weakness and they pounced. So to answer your question, how could he have avoided being called before congress? Be more inTimidating.

post #145 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Well, ask yourself why Steve was never called, even though the same tax practices were going on. It's because the senators were afraid of him. Yes, really.

You could have just said you don't understand anything about US politics.

The Congressmen who called Cook to testify are not scared of Apple - and certainly weren't scare of Jobs, either. It's just that the tax issue was not visible enough 5 years ago and it is now. Not to mention that Apple's profits are several times higher now. There's no way of knowing if Jobs would have been called if he were still alive.
"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 #146 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

blah blah blah...
Compare with Tim, Mr Soft spoken, Mr Nice Guy, Mr liberal causes, Mr teary-eyed at every keynote. As soon as he failed to release any products for 6 months that was the final sign of weakness and they pounced. So to answer your question, how could he have avoided being called before congress? Be more inTimidating.

This proves you're more of moron than I originally thought.
post #147 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


You could have just said you don't understand anything about US politics.

The Congressmen who called Cook to testify are not scared of Apple - and certainly weren't scare of Jobs, either. It's just that the tax issue was not visible enough 5 years ago and it is now. Not to mention that Apple's profits are several times higher now. There's no way of knowing if Jobs would have been called if he were still alive.

There's always some issue of the day though isn't there? And yet Steve never got called.

post #148 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

There's always some issue of the day though isn't there? And yet Steve never got called.

So? That proves......absolutely nothing.
"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 #149 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

There's always some issue of the day though isn't there? And yet Steve never got called.

Like what?
post #150 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Like what?

Well, there was the banking mess in the middle of the last decade. And then the real estate mess late in the last decade. And Congress never called Jobs to testify on either of those.

Obviously, Cook is a wimp because Jobs was never called and Cook was called on taxation issues that had a direct impact on Apple. /s
"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 #151 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


So? That proves......absolutely nothing.

Well, I happen to think proof constitutes observation, not fancy sounding arguments. So the fact that Steve was (i)CEO since 1997 and never got called, despite any number of recessions/economic troubles that senators like to blame the private sector for, and Tim was CEO since 2011 and already got called, *is* proof to me. But on such a fundamental disagreement as to what constitutes "proof" (observation or argument) I can not hope to convince you, since what would I base such an argument on? It would have to be observation. So believe what you want.

post #152 of 161
The quote below is from Jonathan Ive circa 2005.
Quote:
Being superficially different is the goal of so many of the products we see. A preoccupation with differentiation is the concern of many corporations rather than trying to innovate and genuinely taking the time, investing the resources and caring enough to try and make something better.

Seems to me the chattering classes haven't figured out (or are being willfully obtuse in the name of click bait) that this is what Apple is about. It's not about being different for the sake of it; its not about flooding the market with product and spinning it as innovation. Apple knows what it is and what it's goals are. It would be nice if the media would get a clue.
post #153 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Well, I happen to think proof constitutes observation, not fancy sounding arguments. So the fact that Steve was (i)CEO since 1997 and never got called, despite any number of recessions/economic troubles that senators like to blame the private sector for, and Tim was CEO since 2011 and already got called, *is* proof to me. But on such a fundamental disagreement as to what constitutes "proof" (observation or argument) I can not hope to convince you, since what would I base such an argument on? It would have to be observation. So believe what you want.

Your "proof" is meaningless to me too, just for the record. Your argument hangs by a weak thread, and it is based on a superficial interpretation of Tim Cook's character, as well as something that didn't happen. The guy has a mind like a steel trap. You say something stupid, and all you get is, "i see it differently," and then an answer that shrivels your argument. He is a gentleman, and Steve had another approach, that's all.

I'd love to watch you try this "proof" out on him.
post #154 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

The quote below is from Jonathan Ive circa 2005.
Seems to me the chattering classes haven't figured out (or are being willfully obtuse in the name of click bait) that this is what Apple is about. It's not about being different for the sake of it; its not about flooding the market with product and spinning it as innovation. Apple knows what it is and what it's goals are. It would be nice if the media would get a clue.

Nice find, nice post.
post #155 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Well, I happen to think proof constitutes observation, not fancy sounding arguments. So the fact that Steve was (i)CEO since 1997 and never got called, despite any number of recessions/economic troubles that senators like to blame the private sector for, and Tim was CEO since 2011 and already got called, *is* proof to me. But on such a fundamental disagreement as to what constitutes "proof" (observation or argument) I can not hope to convince you, since what would I base such an argument on? It would have to be observation. So believe what you want.

Wow. Just wow. So how did the economic collapse involve Apple as a primary player?
post #156 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Well, I happen to think proof constitutes observation, not fancy sounding arguments.

That's because you failed Logic 101.

Look up 'proof' some time.
"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 #157 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

I know it's probably too much to ask, but why can't a company sitting on $145 billion spend a bit more on R&D than say most other companies on the entire planet. All Apple needs to do is focus on just a couple of technologies. Apple is already working on processors which is great but it really needs to sink more money into battery technology because mobile devices depend so heavily on batteries.

If Apple were to develop the tech for batteries that lasted just 15% longer than any other battery with similar charging properties for a particular size, it would almost be unbeatable as long as they could protect it with patents. It would be a very stealthy type of improvement and it would be useful in practically every product Apple makes. It would practically put Apple at the forefront of every mobile company around.

I believe the iPad batteries are designed in-house, so they are probably already spending a lot on battery R&D. 

post #158 of 161
Hey, aren't they introducing colored phones? Isn't this an innovation?
post #159 of 161

That is a joke. That is no new innovation. Cook better start to get his act together and introduce brand new concepts like Jobs did when he was in charge.INNOVATE !
 

post #160 of 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

That is a joke. That is no new innovation. Cook better start to get his act together and introduce brand new concepts like Jobs did when he was in charge.INNOVATE !

 

Not this again.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Cook being pushed to innovate by board of directors, FOX report says