Don't you think a company might have higher motives than simply generating revenue? Don't you have any moral compass at all?
Uh, Apple is a public owned company. As such its only obligation is to make money for its shareholders, PERIOD.
Of course in doing such Apple must weigh the methods and long and short term decisions, as these can effect the long (and short) term gains its stockholders achieve.
It is to Apple's credit (and ingrained in it's culture) to best achieve long term gains to its stockholders by innovating great products and focus on innovation above most other methods. However, Microsoft certainly has not let its stockholders down over the decades. But their methods are catching up with them....
Apple's business is creating terrific customer experiences with consumer electronics and computers. Why are they buying an advertising business?
Apple has been distributing free apps for the iPhone/Touch with all the overhead yet others like AdMob were riding on that and taking the profit. Apple had to respond and this approach is no doubt preferable to ceasing free apps for many people.
Hopefully developers will make both 'free' (costs me time) and paid for (costs me money) versions of their apps.
The reason that advertising has become so ubiquitous is that it provides a means of micropayments that funds a lot of media. In the process it distorts the media, wastes my time and adds to the price of every product disproportionately to the benefit it gives. Advertising sucks big time, many advertised products are crap (aka poisonous) for example sugar water, junk food, drugs.
Apple has a micropayments system in place with iTunes and the app store so the opportunity is there for developers to take the sensible route especially considering that it has been reported that in-app adverts don't provide much revenue, Apple has created the situation where apps are low cost compared to other platforms due to the efficiency of the distribution network, longer term I would like to see people weaned off advertising by efficient micropayments.
There was a time when Apple was about the end-user, and I always felt like Windows products were more about the developers and businesses that wanted access to the end-user. This move by Apple is about buying a company whose business it is to find out as much private information about you as it can (what you rent, what you buy, what you watch, what you listen to, what you surf) and give that information to businesses that want to target you. Since Apple actively monitors your activities through its istores and devices like the iPhone, iPod Touch, and AppleTV, they're in a prime position to give up this information. This is about about sticking ads in front of the end-user of Apple devices. Maybe its just ads on video content, maybe its ads on streaming audio, maybe its in-game ads, I can gaurantee you most people don't want them. I realize there's an all-new Apple fanbase who base their opinions on nothing more than Apple's stock price, and they'll say this is great (you know, the ones who think Apple innovation means buying Kmart and adding an iShop to iTunes to take on Amazon and Walmart). As an old-time Mac fanboy I think this move sucks, and there's nothing that will come from this marriage that I'm interested in seeing. A tablet I can get excited about, this is just about companies wanting access to me, and Apple's willingness to give it to them.
Instead of the money going to AdMob/Google it can be directed to Apple to help recoup any distribution costs for free ad-supported iPhone applications.
From Engadget link: So seeing an Apple patent application for "Advertisement in Operating System" attributed to "Inventor" Steven Jobs himself is enough to send chills up the spine...the idea presented would offer "visual or audible" advertisements that "disables one or more functions while the advertisement is being presented." Ugh.
It's amazing that in these days Microsoft is so overshadowed in the media by other companies even with their well received operating system, Windows Leaven.
Don't you think a company might have higher motives than simply generating revenue? Don't you have any moral compass at all?
If Apple just wanted to make money there are thousands of other ways to go about it and hundreds of opportunities they already passed by in favour of adhering more closely to their stated goals. Why do you immediately assume that it's all about the revenue and that this is Apple's main focus?
If more companies were like Apple, and actually focussed on their customers, what the customers wanted, and making the best product they could make at the fairest prices they can, the world would be a lot better off.
Apple is a business. It's their goal to make money. Sometimes it may seems like they are in business for the benefit of the consumer, but they are required to show a profit for their owners and investors.
Interesting move. This together with the patent that forces uses to click on the ad before they can do anything with the computer (enforced at the operating system and not application level) will sure raise some eye brows.
It certainly makes me a little bit uneasy as Apple user.
apple should buy eudora and really bring it up to date. it was started by qualcomm and abandoned. it continues to be used and imo, still the best basic mail program. i use .mac and now mobile me as a back up.
Apple's purchase of Quattro follows the acquisition of online music streaming service Lala in December. That deal, said to be valued at $85 million, is believed to pave the way for a cloud-based iTunes service.
I'm not sure why the end of the article mentions Lala when it has nothing to do with this acquisition. It has more to do with the Placebase acquisition and the future of location-based advertising.
Think maps + GPS + relevant advertisements.
Google has become very skilled at location based advertising. They can target advertisements to you based on your computers approximate location. Mobile devices like iPhones and tablets can take that even further by pin-pointing your location. This can open up the door to even more small businesses advertising.
Done with all the bickering with AT&T, Verizon and what have you!
I actually wrote an email to Steve Jobs nearly a year ago asking him if Apple has considered the purchase of a mobile telco in the near future in order to help the iPhone reach its true potential. As expected, I didn't get a reply. I'm just hoping that somehow that email reached Steve's eyeballs and made him consider that move in his head just one extra time. Maybe if enough people suggest it, he'll begin to see it as the way to go and consider the move more seriously.
Apple is a business. It's their goal to make money. Sometimes it may seems like they are in business for the benefit of the consumer, but they are required to show a profit for their owners and investors.
I didn't realize they were having such a big problem showing a profit, I guess their shareholders are pretty mad at them. Well maybe this acquisition can turn things around for them.
Seriously this argument could pretty much rationalize any company doing anything as long as their intention was to make money, and would seem to imply that every shareholder should agree with any move a company makes in the name of making more money. Also, try and find any company on the planet that's "required" to show a profit. I would love to see you show up at the next Apple shareholder meeting, walk up to the mic and announce "As a shareholder, I require you to show a profit!" Try it at any shareholder meeting for any company you own stock in, see what kind of reaction you get. Shareholders expect the board to act on their behalf, other than overthrowing a board and voting on proposals, the ability of the "owners and investors" (stockholders and stockholders?) to "require" anything is pretty much zip.
With all due respect, if you don't plan to cut and paste that same message into every thread regarding every business move by Apple, then maybe you should consider never using it again. It adds nothing to the discussion. It's no different than the brain dead guys who post "Well just excuse Apple for trying to make some money!" Just because it may make a company money doesn't mean it doesn't warrant discussion.
Uh, Apple is a public owned company. As such its only obligation is to make money for its shareholders, PERIOD.
That's not true at all. Like I said in another reply, try going to the Apple shareholder meeting and get in front of the mic and tell Steve Jobs, "Your obligation is to make money for me. PERIOD." See what kind of reaction you get. Since Apple doesn't pay out dividends, no one gets to share in the profits made by Apple except Apple. Apple has $39 billion in the bank, if their obligation was to make money for their shareholders why wouldn't they pay dividends on the interest on that money? It would make their shareholders a lot of money - wouldn't they be "obligated" to share the wealth (and that's just paying out on the interest on that money)? No of course not, and they're not going to either. Did they accept responsibility when the stock market crashed and investors lost millions? Of course not. Apple has no control over their share price, stock price drops on big earnings all the time. Shareholders in Apple take their chances just like everyone else, Apple isn't obligated to make you rich.
That's not true at all. Like I said in another reply, try going to the Apple shareholder meeting and get in front of the mic and tell Steve Jobs, "Your obligation is to make money for me. PERIOD." See what kind of reaction you get. Since Apple doesn't pay out dividends, no one gets to share in the profits made by Apple except Apple. Apple has $39 billion in the bank, if their obligation was to make money for their shareholders why wouldn't they pay dividends on the interest on that money? It would make their shareholders a lot of money - wouldn't they be "obligated" to share the wealth (and that's just paying out on the interest on that money)? No of course not, and they're not going to either. Did they accept responsibility when the stock market crashed and investors lost millions? Of course not. Apple has no control over their share price, stock price drops on big earnings all the time. Shareholders in Apple take their chances just like everyone else, Apple isn't obligated to make you rich.
His reply would likely be something like, "Yes, I know. And that is what we plan to do. The path Apple is choosing is the optimum way for Apple to increase your investment in our company."
Our mission states that Apple is committed to bringing the best personal computing experience to students, educators, creative professionals and consumers around the world through its innovative hardware, software and Internet offerings. In doing so we expect to meet the obligations to our shareholders and their investment.
Why doesn't Apple pay out their cash stock in dividends? Because that would hurt the long term health of Apple. People invested in Apple, expecting Apple to grow. Cash is needed to grow.
You seem to be getting confused with "instant return on investment" with "maximize return on investment." The second is not time based and indicates a maximization of ROI.
Comments
This all sounds totally evil to me.
Don't you think a company might have higher motives than simply generating revenue? Don't you have any moral compass at all?
Uh, Apple is a public owned company. As such its only obligation is to make money for its shareholders, PERIOD.
Of course in doing such Apple must weigh the methods and long and short term decisions, as these can effect the long (and short) term gains its stockholders achieve.
It is to Apple's credit (and ingrained in it's culture) to best achieve long term gains to its stockholders by innovating great products and focus on innovation above most other methods. However, Microsoft certainly has not let its stockholders down over the decades. But their methods are catching up with them....
This move scares me.
Apple's business is creating terrific customer experiences with consumer electronics and computers. Why are they buying an advertising business?
Apple has been distributing free apps for the iPhone/Touch with all the overhead yet others like AdMob were riding on that and taking the profit. Apple had to respond and this approach is no doubt preferable to ceasing free apps for many people.
Hopefully developers will make both 'free' (costs me time) and paid for (costs me money) versions of their apps.
The reason that advertising has become so ubiquitous is that it provides a means of micropayments that funds a lot of media. In the process it distorts the media, wastes my time and adds to the price of every product disproportionately to the benefit it gives. Advertising sucks big time, many advertised products are crap (aka poisonous) for example sugar water, junk food, drugs.
Apple has a micropayments system in place with iTunes and the app store so the opportunity is there for developers to take the sensible route especially considering that it has been reported that in-app adverts don't provide much revenue, Apple has created the situation where apps are low cost compared to other platforms due to the efficiency of the distribution network, longer term I would like to see people weaned off advertising by efficient micropayments.
Great, The iSlate is going to be a billboard
Apple builds its reputation around providing a superior user experience. Anything that impacts on it negativly doesn't make it out the door.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/22/a...os-armageddon/
From Engadget link: So seeing an Apple patent application for "Advertisement in Operating System" attributed to "Inventor" Steven Jobs himself is enough to send chills up the spine...the idea presented would offer "visual or audible" advertisements that "disables one or more functions while the advertisement is being presented." Ugh.
In 2010 we need to redefine the word "computer", or at least apply it to a broader range of devices.
Screw redefining it, educate the consumer instead.
In 2010 we need to redefine the word "computer", or at least apply it to a broader range of devices.
Looking at the Apple Dictionary, why would you need to redefine it?
computer |kəmˈpyoōtər|
noun
an electronic device for storing and processing data, typically in binary form, according to instructions given to it in a variable program.
? a person who makes calculations, esp. with a calculating machine.
Apple's gotta do what Apple's gotta do.
This all sounds totally evil to me.
Don't you think a company might have higher motives than simply generating revenue? Don't you have any moral compass at all?
If Apple just wanted to make money there are thousands of other ways to go about it and hundreds of opportunities they already passed by in favour of adhering more closely to their stated goals. Why do you immediately assume that it's all about the revenue and that this is Apple's main focus?
If more companies were like Apple, and actually focussed on their customers, what the customers wanted, and making the best product they could make at the fairest prices they can, the world would be a lot better off.
Apple is a business. It's their goal to make money. Sometimes it may seems like they are in business for the benefit of the consumer, but they are required to show a profit for their owners and investors.
It certainly makes me a little bit uneasy as Apple user.
Apple's purchase of Quattro follows the acquisition of online music streaming service Lala in December. That deal, said to be valued at $85 million, is believed to pave the way for a cloud-based iTunes service.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
I'm not sure why the end of the article mentions Lala when it has nothing to do with this acquisition. It has more to do with the Placebase acquisition and the future of location-based advertising.
Think maps + GPS + relevant advertisements.
Google has become very skilled at location based advertising. They can target advertisements to you based on your computers approximate location. Mobile devices like iPhones and tablets can take that even further by pin-pointing your location. This can open up the door to even more small businesses advertising.
Next purchase: a mobile phone company!
Done with all the bickering with AT&T, Verizon and what have you!
I actually wrote an email to Steve Jobs nearly a year ago asking him if Apple has considered the purchase of a mobile telco in the near future in order to help the iPhone reach its true potential. As expected, I didn't get a reply. I'm just hoping that somehow that email reached Steve's eyeballs and made him consider that move in his head just one extra time. Maybe if enough people suggest it, he'll begin to see it as the way to go and consider the move more seriously.
Just sayin'...
Apple is a business. It's their goal to make money. Sometimes it may seems like they are in business for the benefit of the consumer, but they are required to show a profit for their owners and investors.
I didn't realize they were having such a big problem showing a profit, I guess their shareholders are pretty mad at them. Well maybe this acquisition can turn things around for them.
Seriously this argument could pretty much rationalize any company doing anything as long as their intention was to make money, and would seem to imply that every shareholder should agree with any move a company makes in the name of making more money. Also, try and find any company on the planet that's "required" to show a profit. I would love to see you show up at the next Apple shareholder meeting, walk up to the mic and announce "As a shareholder, I require you to show a profit!" Try it at any shareholder meeting for any company you own stock in, see what kind of reaction you get. Shareholders expect the board to act on their behalf, other than overthrowing a board and voting on proposals, the ability of the "owners and investors" (stockholders and stockholders?) to "require" anything is pretty much zip.
With all due respect, if you don't plan to cut and paste that same message into every thread regarding every business move by Apple, then maybe you should consider never using it again. It adds nothing to the discussion. It's no different than the brain dead guys who post "Well just excuse Apple for trying to make some money!" Just because it may make a company money doesn't mean it doesn't warrant discussion.
Uh, Apple is a public owned company. As such its only obligation is to make money for its shareholders, PERIOD.
That's not true at all. Like I said in another reply, try going to the Apple shareholder meeting and get in front of the mic and tell Steve Jobs, "Your obligation is to make money for me. PERIOD." See what kind of reaction you get. Since Apple doesn't pay out dividends, no one gets to share in the profits made by Apple except Apple. Apple has $39 billion in the bank, if their obligation was to make money for their shareholders why wouldn't they pay dividends on the interest on that money? It would make their shareholders a lot of money - wouldn't they be "obligated" to share the wealth (and that's just paying out on the interest on that money)? No of course not, and they're not going to either. Did they accept responsibility when the stock market crashed and investors lost millions? Of course not. Apple has no control over their share price, stock price drops on big earnings all the time. Shareholders in Apple take their chances just like everyone else, Apple isn't obligated to make you rich.
That's not true at all. Like I said in another reply, try going to the Apple shareholder meeting and get in front of the mic and tell Steve Jobs, "Your obligation is to make money for me. PERIOD." See what kind of reaction you get. Since Apple doesn't pay out dividends, no one gets to share in the profits made by Apple except Apple. Apple has $39 billion in the bank, if their obligation was to make money for their shareholders why wouldn't they pay dividends on the interest on that money? It would make their shareholders a lot of money - wouldn't they be "obligated" to share the wealth (and that's just paying out on the interest on that money)? No of course not, and they're not going to either. Did they accept responsibility when the stock market crashed and investors lost millions? Of course not. Apple has no control over their share price, stock price drops on big earnings all the time. Shareholders in Apple take their chances just like everyone else, Apple isn't obligated to make you rich.
His reply would likely be something like, "Yes, I know. And that is what we plan to do. The path Apple is choosing is the optimum way for Apple to increase your investment in our company."
Our mission states that Apple is committed to bringing the best personal computing experience to students, educators, creative professionals and consumers around the world through its innovative hardware, software and Internet offerings. In doing so we expect to meet the obligations to our shareholders and their investment.
Why doesn't Apple pay out their cash stock in dividends? Because that would hurt the long term health of Apple. People invested in Apple, expecting Apple to grow. Cash is needed to grow.
You seem to be getting confused with "instant return on investment" with "maximize return on investment." The second is not time based and indicates a maximization of ROI.