or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Tim Cook makes rare TV appearance to hype Apple-China Mobile deal
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tim Cook makes rare TV appearance to hype Apple-China Mobile deal

post #1 of 69
Thread Starter 
In an effort to drum up enthusiasm among investors for his company's new agreement with China Mobile, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook participated in a rare TV interview on Wednesday, sharing the spotlight with Xi Guohua, the chairman of the world's largest wireless carrier.

Cook


Both Cook and Xi spoke with CNBC, and though the two parties revealed little, China Mobile's chairman did disclose that the carrier had netted 1.2 million total preorders for the iPhone 5s and iPhone 5c as of Jan. 13. Both devices are set to launch on China Mobile this Friday.

Cook referred to the agreement as a "watershed day," and praised China Mobile for having a "very fast network." It was a rare television interview appearance by the Apple CEO, who participated in a high-profile appearance on NBC in late 2012.



In his latest appearance, Cook spoke of the "deep respect" he and Apple have for China Mobile, saying he has been "incredibly impressed" with them thus far. Unsurprisingly, neither Xi nor Cook opted to give estimates on how many iPhones they believe China Mobile could sell in its first year.

"We see this as bringing the world's best smartphone to the very largest and now the fastest network in China," Cook told CNBC.

Both men also sat down for an interview with The Wall Street Journal this week, in which Cook hinted that both companies could expand their partnership in the future. While Cook declined to get into specific plans, it's likely that Apple will introduce cellular-capable iPads on China Mobile, as it has done on other partner carriers' networks.
post #2 of 69

I wish Tim Cook wouldn't give interviews to CNBC. They are so anti-Apple it isn't even funny. This morning they had Walter Isaacson on to tell us that Google has taken the innovation crown from Apple.

post #3 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I wish Tim Cook wouldn't give interviews to CNBC. They are so anti-Apple it isn't even funny. This morning they had Walter Isaacson on to tell us that Google has taken the innovation crown from Apple.

Isaacson has been on an anti-Apple crusade lately. I think the guy's ingratiating himself for his next book. Looks like he'd love to do one on Musk or Bezos or Page.

He used to have something interesting to say, but not anymore.
post #4 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Isaacson has been on an anti-Apple crusade lately. I think the guy's ingratiating himself for his next book. Looks like he'd love to do one on Musk or Bezos or Page.

He used to have something interesting to say, but not anymore.

And just because he wrote a book on Steve Jobs doesn't make him  an authority on Apple the company.

post #5 of 69
"neither Xi nor Cook opted to give estimates on how many iPhones they believe China Mobile could sell in its first year."

Don't even care about that. I just want to know what the iPhone price is, and how much of that price goes to Apple.
post #6 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
 

I wish Tim Cook wouldn't give interviews to CNBC. They are so anti-Apple it isn't even funny. This morning they had Walter Isaacson on to tell us that Google has taken the innovation crown from Apple.

 

Apple are involved with Pro Desktops, Standard Desktops, Laptops, Tablets and Mobile Phones. Google are involved with Laptops, Tablets, Mobile Phones, GoogleGlass, Self-drive cars, Robotics and now Networked Home Accessories - and, of course, Search. Google's portfolio is more varied. Self-drive cars and Robotics have an exciting flare to them, a flare that Apple seems to lack at the moment. There is a lot of expectation for Apple to develop disruptive technology. They have earned that from past performance. It seems any development less than being market-disruptive, no matter how it may reflect admirable advances over previous iterations, gets a 'meh' from many Tech media sources.  

 

post #7 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
 

I wish Tim Cook wouldn't give interviews to CNBC. They are so anti-Apple it isn't even funny. This morning they had Walter Isaacson on to tell us that Google has taken the innovation crown from Apple.

google bought it, any company with more money than they know what to do can buy what they can not do themselves. 

post #8 of 69

Btw, AI, Tim was not 'hyping' anything. Lousy headline.

 

He talked about how important the China market is, the role of China Mobile within that, the fact that they have (now) the largest and fastest network in the world, and how much respect he has for them. He pointedly refused to answer any questions on sales estimates. (The CM head said that there were 'millions in pre-orders', that was about the extent of it).

post #9 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
 

google bought it, any company with more money than they know what to do can buy what they can not do themselves. 

 

Should I trot out this line every time that Apple buys a company...

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #10 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I wish Tim Cook wouldn't give interviews to CNBC. They are so anti-Apple it isn't even funny. This morning they had Walter Isaacson on to tell us that Google has taken the innovation crown from Apple.

Granting interviews is one way to make them pro-Apple.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #11 of 69
So buying a ac control and smoke derector company for 3bill make it better thank appl?

Who knows what apple is working on! google nust says every move they make.. apple can buy anything they want and then some..
post #12 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Granting interviews is one way to make them pro-Apple.
Doubt it. Larry Page doesn't give them interviews yet their coverage of Google is much more positive than Apple. Same with Amazon.
post #13 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by pembroke View Post
 

 

Apple are involved with Pro Desktops, Standard Desktops, Laptops, Tablets and Mobile Phones. Google are involved with Laptops, Tablets, Mobile Phones, GoogleGlass, Self-drive cars, Robotics and now Networked Home Accessories - and, of course, Search. Google's portfolio is more varied. Self-drive cars and Robotics have an exciting flare to them, a flare that Apple seems to lack at the moment. There is a lot of expectation for Apple to develop disruptive technology. They have earned that from past performance. It seems any development less than being market-disruptive, no matter how it may reflect admirable advances over previous iterations, gets a 'meh' from many Tech media sources.  

 

And out of all of these things, what has Google done to make these better? Absolutely nothing. From what I see, most of the crap they release are total flops. 

post #14 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by pembroke View Post

Apple are involved with Pro Desktops, Standard Desktops, Laptops, Tablets and Mobile Phones. Google are involved with Laptops, Tablets, Mobile Phones, GoogleGlass, Self-drive cars, Robotics and now Networked Home Accessories - and, of course, Search. Google's portfolio is more varied. Self-drive cars and Robotics have an exciting flare to them, a flare that Apple seems to lack at the moment. There is a lot of expectation for Apple to develop disruptive technology. They have earned that from past performance. It seems any development less than being market-disruptive, no matter how it may reflect admirable advances over previous iterations, gets a 'meh' from many Tech media sources.  


 

None of Google's many diversions are making them money. They are interesting, but interesting doesn't pay the bills.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #15 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Doubt it. Larry Page doesn't give them interviews yet their coverage of Google is much more positive than Apple. Same with Amazon.

"Hate the Leader" is America's favorite game.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #16 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


None of Google's many diversions are making them money. They are interesting, but interesting doesn't pay the bills.

 

Google's not paying its bills?

 

Apple isn't putting any money into diversions?

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #17 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Google's not paying its bills?

Apple isn't putting any money into diversions?

Apple spends considerably less on their R&D. We already know this is a fact. They are more focused. Google is a riot of diversions, reflecting the attentions of their founders.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #18 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


Apple spends considerably less on their R&D. We already know this is a fact. They are more focused. Google is a riot of diversions, reflecting the attentions of their founders.

 

... and, in the end, this might be Apple's downfall and Google's gain.

 

Apple could be focusing on the wrong things, while Google's diversions help it gain experience in other fields.

 

Only time will tell.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #19 of 69
Google makes big money doing one thing and one thing only, selling advertising.

They are like old school ABC or NBC.

Nothing else Google does is making the big bucks.
post #20 of 69

There's thought: Just give the phones away and make it up on volume.

post #21 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
 

I wish Tim Cook wouldn't give interviews to CNBC. They are so anti-Apple it isn't even funny. This morning they had Walter Isaacson on to tell us that Google has taken the innovation crown from Apple.

F**K Walter Isaacson and whoever agrees with him.

 

Don't worry about it.

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #22 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobSchlob View Post

"neither Xi nor Cook opted to give estimates on how many iPhones they believe China Mobile could sell in its first year."

Don't even care about that. I just want to know what the iPhone price is, and how much of that price goes to Apple.

Why on earth would you care how much "goes to Apple" ..... unless, of course, you get a cut on every iPhone's profit ???

See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #23 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disturbia View Post

F**K Walter Isaacson and whoever agrees with him.

Don't worry about it.

He's basically a very simplistic thinker, not bothered by things like how technology works, which is why he could crank out a readable biography in so short a time, and why so many insiders hated it.

He thinks Steve Jobs intended to be a "disrupter."

No he didn't.

He intended to be a maker of great new products, just like he said. "Disrupter' is a cliché that tech writers have cooked up to describe what happens when someone like Steve Jobs pushes out a great new product. It's just a simple-minded notation of a collateral effect.
post #24 of 69
"In an effort to drum up enthusiasm among investors for his company's new agreement with China Mobile, . . ."

OK - with Apple stock over $550 and nearly $1.0 Billion in the bank - you win the prize for the most idiotic statement by a tech journalist over the last 12 months. You will have challengers but your place is secure.

btw - unless the "investors" purchased treasury stock, they are playing the market - not investing in Apple.
post #25 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

He's basically a very simplistic thinker, not bothered by things like how technology works, which is why he could crank out a readable biography in so short a time, and why so many insiders hated it.

He thinks Steve Jobs intended to be a "disrupter."

No he didn't.

He intended to be a maker of great new products, just like he said. "Disrupter' is a cliché that tech writers have cooked up to describe what happens when someone like Steve Jobs pushes out a great new product. It's just a simple-minded notation of a collateral effect.

I don't agree with how Issacon appears to be using it but I do think Jobs wanted to disrupt even if Jobs never saw himself as such. My reasoning is Jobs wanted to change the world with "insanely great products." Revolutionary products. Neither of which can happen without disrupting the status quo. The difference I see is that Issacson pens it as Steve's goal, not as an artifact of making sweeping technological and cultural changes.

"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 #26 of 69
Keep him off TV. The last time Tim embarrassed himself when he butchered the pronunciation of Weibo while announcing the integration with Mac OS X.
post #27 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post
 

Why on earth would you care how much "goes to Apple" ..... unless, of course, you get a cut on every iPhone's profit ???

Apple is a public company.

 

I am a shareholder, so indirectly I do get a cut.  Sure, we can debate all day long about how that cut has been unfairly punished by Wall Street these days, and that the cut isn't tremendous, but you can't deny that if the margins show sign of decrease, my share values will too.

 

That's why on Earth I care about how much goes to Apple.

 

Thompson

post #28 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


He's basically a very simplistic thinker, not bothered by things like how technology works, which is why he could crank out a readable biography in so short a time, and why so many insiders hated it.

He thinks Steve Jobs intended to be a "disrupter."

No he didn't.

He intended to be a maker of great new products, just like he said. "Disrupter' is a cliché that tech writers have cooked up to describe what happens when someone like Steve Jobs pushes out a great new product. It's just a simple-minded notation of a collateral effect.

Jobs wanted to "put a dent in the Universe".  That's about as big a disruption as you can imagine.  

 

I think that Jobs was very driven by wanting to disrupt.  Your point is valid though, that another goal was to make insanely great products.  He probably would have been happy doing either one without the other, but happily enough he achieved both by focusing on the latter.

 

Thompson

post #29 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by fulldecent View Post

Keep him off TV. The last time Tim embarrassed himself when he butchered the pronunciation of Weibo while announcing the integration with Mac OS X.

Check out the interview.  Tim rocked it, in my opinion.  He gave face to the CEO of China Mobile and simultaneously inspired confidence in Apple's future.

 

Thompson

post #30 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by 512ke View Post

Google makes big money doing one thing and one thing only, selling advertising.

They are like old school ABC or NBC.

Nothing else Google does is making the big bucks.

Those barges aren't going to be huge profit centers?

 

Who knew?

post #31 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post
 

Check out the interview.  Tim rocked it, in my opinion.  He gave face to the CEO of China Mobile and simultaneously inspired confidence in Apple's future.

 

Thompson

It was Xi Guohua's appearance that lifted me up: CM so very visibly aligning itself with Apple looks like something they didn't have to do, yet did anyway.

post #32 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post
 

It was Xi Guohua's appearance that lifted me up: CM so very visibly aligning itself with Apple looks like something they didn't have to do, yet did anyway.

Indeed and agreed.  :)

 

Thompson

post #33 of 69
That's what I'm talking' about!
post #34 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

Should I trot out this line every time that Apple buys a company...

Yeah it works for apple as well. 

 

But look at what apple buys and their reason is not because they can not do it. This is one of the fundamental issues the investment community has with apple, they are not using their money to grow their business. Wall Street would rather see apple buy companies to grow market share to expend into other markets or (new revenue channels). They buy a solution to make their products better and reduce time to market on what they are already doing and not a product market to grow into new markets.

 

But most of Google big purchases have not created new revenue channels it has just allowed them burn cash. Google will never make back the $12M they spend for Motorola it will continue to drain capital. and Nest my not drain cash but they will never earn back what they paid for it, this not only is Android fragmented but the whole home automation is fragmented. Look at Google track record, have they done anything to consolidate and un-fragment a market segment.

 

Google is an ad and marketing company and they buying things which has nothing to do with their core business. But Wall Street likes when companies spend their money on things they are not good at. 


Edited by Maestro64 - 1/15/14 at 11:09am
post #35 of 69

The same media which always played down anything Apple dared to release?

Please.

post #36 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

It was Xi Guohua's appearance that lifted me up: CM so very visibly aligning itself with Apple looks like something they didn't have to do, yet did anyway.

They didn't have to do it but it makes business sense for them to do it. The other two carriers in China have had the iPhone (and iPad?) for years now. This public appearance makes it look like Apple is more aligned with China Mobile in the public's eye which is usually good for business for those who are looking to buy an Apple product.

"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 #37 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

Google's not paying its bills?

 

Apple isn't putting any money into diversions?

yeah Motorola is not paying it bills, google ad $ are paying Motorola's Bills. Keep in mind Motorola is still a separate company form Google so it is responsible for itself. I believe if you looked into their other purchases it is probable also true, they buy looser not revenue generators. But you can hide this fact as long as the Mother ship is making money.

 

BTW Motorola phone business has been loosing money since the end of 2005 they are coming up on 9 yrs of losses (~$5B), most VC would have dumped an investment if it was not breaking even within 3 or 4 yrs, they usually dump it on the investment world so they could take the looses. The question is how long will google fund losers before they realize it is not going to add anything to the bottom line. The ad Google business slows down and the market turns on them you will see them shutting down these operations. I personally give Motorola to the end of 2014 if they do not turn a profit google will shut it down.

post #38 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
 

yeah it works for apple as well, but look at what apple buys and their reason is not because they can not do it. This is one of the fundamental issues the investment community has with apple, they not using their money to grow their business. Wall Street would rather see apple buy companies to grow market share to expend into other markets or (new revenue channels). They buy a solution not a product market to make their products better and reduce time to market on what they are already doing.

 

But most of Google big purchases have not created new revenue channels it has just allowed them burn cash. Google will never make back the $12M they spend for Motorola it will continue to drain capital. and Nest my not drain cash but they will never earn back what they paid for it, this not only is Android fragmented but the whole home automation is fragmented. Look at Google track record, have they done anything to consolidate and un-fragment a market segment.

 

Google is an ad and marketing company and they buying things which has nothing to do with their core business. But Wall Street likes when companies spend their money on things they are not good at. 

 

I guess you haven't been around that long. I heard the same things said about Apple... first with the iPod, then with the iPhone and then with the iPad. "Apple is a computer company. Do they really believe they can enter into these other markets?!"

 

I also heard a lot of discussion about how Brin and Page were going to fail when they went up against Yahoo over a decade ago.

 

Unless you have accurately predicted the future in the past (which I know you haven't), then I wouldn't go predicting the future now.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #39 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
 

yeah Motorola is not paying it bills, google ad $ are paying Motorola's Bills. Keep in mind Motorola is still a separate company form Google so it is responsible for itself. I believe if you looked into their other purchases it is probable also true, they buy looser not revenue generators. But you can hide this fact as long as the Mother ship is making money.

 

BTW Motorola phone business has been loosing money since the end of 2005 they are coming up on 9 yrs of losses (~$5B), most VC would have dumped an investment if it was not breaking even within 3 or 4 yrs, they usually dump it on the investment world so they could take the looses. The question is how long will google fund losers before they realize it is not going to add anything to the bottom line. The ad Google business slows down and the market turns on them you will see them shutting down these operations. I personally give Motorola to the end of 2014 if they do not turn a profit google will shut it down.

 

lol! Do you really think that the acquisition of Motorola Mobility was about making money. The first reason was about patents. It might not have helped Google much but the worst case scenario for Google would have been Apple purchasing Motorola Mobility.

 

The second reason is now coming into play. An in-house electronics manufacturer (in the same sense as Apple). Combine that with Nest, make a few mistakes, let stew for 3 or 4 years, and then see what develops.

 

Google is not in the business of checking its bottom line just yet. Google has much bigger plans. Whether they can pull it off is another thing. I wouldn't count them out, though. Ask Yahoo.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #40 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

And just because he wrote a book on Steve Jobs doesn't make him  an authority on Apple the company.

Correct. They are two separate topics. Which makes me wonder: then why is he even talking to CNBC about Apple?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Tim Cook makes rare TV appearance to hype Apple-China Mobile deal