You're right. I know there is a business cycle, but some recessions seem to made even worse worse as self-fulfilling prophesies. I think one could be manufactured if you have enough "experts" on TV declaring that there is a recession imminent, that can spook people into making drastic changes. If only more people had some self-discipline and saved planned ahead when the times were good, a lot fewer people would have to take drastic measures when there's a downturn.
I agree that the media can magnify the effect, thus making things worse.
I am an expert in ipod repair, including iphones and ipod touches. after the 3rd gen nano, ipods became uneconomically feasible to replace the battery - by design. Prove me wrong. 20,000+ posts dude? Somebody has a know-it-all complex. Get a life.
I don't have to prove you wrong. You have to prove you're right. We all know you're wrong. The companies who are making money on selling these batteries know you're wrong. You made the statement, you have to prove it. That's the way it works.
I agree that the media can magnify the effect, thus making things worse.
Blame the media? I don't think so, not really.
One of lessons from college economics that will stick with me forever was the rooster on Mt. Everest theory. If a rooster crowed on Mt. Everest, could that cause a depression? The answer is yes, if enough people believe it could. The moral of the story is that economics is fundamentally a behavioral science.
Except Apple has purchased their way into a lot of their product lines, sure they have developed them further, but they were not initially developed by Apple.
No really. They've only bought fledgling software products. These were either not finished, or marketed much before Apple bought them. Apple totally revised those products before releasing them. They also dropped the prices considerably, or gave them away for free.
When it comes to their main business, which is hardware, they've alway come up with their own products.
And if I were an investor, I'd be raising my eyebrow at their $0 debt. Debt is a double-edged sword in that yes, debt creates obligation to others, but is also a sign of healthy growth and business expansion.
I find it disgusting and telling that more investors don't raise eyebrows at companies with debt. Debt is never a good thing. Short term due to cash flow it can be a necessary evil, but I just can't fathom how otherwise smart people think that having debt is a sign of strength
I'd say their cash horde growing to it's present sign is a healthy sign of growth and business expansion, not a bunch of financial machinations on a balance sheet. Apple should be lauded for being debt free. If you don't agree with what they are doing, sell your stock in 'em (if you have any). I wish far more companies would tell investors and Wall Street to stick it. Part of the problem with companies in America is they are over-concerned with pleasing shareholders. Guess what - shareholders aren't your customers! They aren't buying your products or making you money! They are hitching on because they hope you will grow so they can grow their investment with you and make a profit one day - by dumping you! I can't think of anything better than leach, even though it seems a little harsh - but at their core, that's what many are.
Slavishly pandering to shareholders and Wall Street is NOT a recipe for success. Look at how many American companies are going down the drain by making foolish long term decisions in favor of bone-headed short term decisions that make shareholders happy?!?
Focusing on your customers is the real recipe for success. Apple does that (focusing on their REAL customers) better than anyone else and it's why they are insanely successful. As long as they ignore people like you and keep focusing on that which really matters they will continue to be insanely successful.
The Apple management is very good, but they are not infallible. As I mentioned above, a lot of people were saying much the same thing about Microsoft 15 years ago. They started believing their own hype and this I think led them to make big investments in other industries that I'm sure they were convinced gave them strategic advantages, and of course that illusive thing called synergy. Didn't work out. So I agree with your analysis of acquisitions.
Except I don't view the Apple culture as similar to Microsoft's culture in any way. Microsoft's' downfall is they got taken over by MBA's and ex-IBMers - who turned MS into a huge bureaucracy like IBM was (and still is somewhat, but nothing like they used to be).
Do you really think the AppleTV group could say "We aren't doing X because it would give an unfair advantage to the iPhone" or "We don't care if iTunes supports Y - we don't like it and aren't doing it"? Hell no! There is one master plan and it is executed. Not so at Microsoft right now. They are incredibly stratified and the infighting amongst groups is well serialized on the web - which has led to several very public blunders and miss-steps. They would have killed any other company that didn't have a default tap of OS and Office licensing for new machines like MS does. The biggest threat to MS is Mac OSX gaining market share - it's a hit to their default new machine tax. Even a 10% hit to that revenue stream would be VERY noticeable.
That's why I think the iPad could make things VERY interesting. If the halo effect for the iPad is 1/10th of what it was for the iPhone/iPod, we could see some very interesting rumblings out of Redmond. They are desperately trying to diversify with things like application hosting, but it will be interesting to see if they can compete and make money at it - it's not as simple as collecting $30 for every machine sold from the HP/ASUS/ACER/DELL of the PC world...
Apple doesn't develop all their products from scratch.
And what does it matter if they do other than geek bragging rights?
The trick is Apple takes technologies that are often just floundering, polishes them up and bundles them with a cohesive story and bam! Something that before was someone interesting is now a heck of a lot more interesting and even useful.
I never understood this scorekeeping about "invented from scratch" or built upon. In the end it does matter. It's what you ultimately turn out that matters. Is the original iPod diminished any because the original OS was sourced from portal player? Heck no!
What a stupid fixation to have - who gives a crap if the technology in question was "made from scratch"
You neglected the fact that NeXT Computer was founded by Steve Jobs after he was forced to leave Apple in 1985. The NeXT OS, Unix based was an objects oriented program. Apple brought Jobs back to the company and bought NeXT as part of the deal.
I forgot that Steve gave NeXT to Apple for no money at all, oh that's right, he didn't, they purchased it. Remember Steve != Apple
Oy vey! I understand that you have a learning disability and I often try to give you a pass because of it, but if you are going to take an obviously jocose comment out of context to fuel your trollish desires then be prepared for your usual beat down.
I don't know why I bother replying to you, but from that post we have the proof that you are suffering from a serious medical condition, and I feel it is important that we continue to let you integrate into society.
No really. They've only bought fledgling software products. These were either not finished, or marketed much before Apple bought them. Apple totally revised those products before releasing them. They also dropped the prices considerably, or gave them away for free.
But that still makes your original statement of...
Quote:
they also grow by developing their own product lines, not by buying their way into them.
incorrect, doesn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
When it comes to their main business, which is hardware, they've alway come up with their own products.
Yes they have input into their hardware, but they also have also used others to assist them in this. But they also had to buy into the software line to help their hardware sales.
Hence his comment... " and bought NeXT as part of the deal."
I didn't neglect anything though, Apple wanted Steve, they wanted NeXT, they purchased them. Apple didn't develop the NeXT technologies, NeXT did, the fact that Steve was one fo the founders is not relevant
If you had bothered to follow that thread of conversation you would know why, and it has nothing to do with "geek bragging rights"
Oh, I understand fully your weak argument - but when you distill it down to it's component parts that's all it amounts to - geek pride.
In the real world acquired vs. home grown is irrelevant. It may matter to you but it doesn't matter to anyone who is more concerned with performance than some weird sense of ideals. Apple routinely leverages resources available to it to create products. Those may be 100% in house developed, or they may be a mixture of technologies they license or acquire. In the end the performance of what they ship is all that matters - people didn't buy the original iPods because their OS was developed by Portal Player - they bought them because they had the right combination of user experience, size, features and price. Less than 5% (and that's probably being VERY generous) of iPod users know or care who wrote the OS for the player.
I didn't neglect anything though, Apple wanted Steve, they wanted NeXT, they purchased them. Apple didn't develop the NeXT technologies, NeXT did, the fact that Steve was one fo the founders is not relevant
Actually, it's pretty clear at the time Apple management really didn't want Steve. Jean-Louis Gassée tried to overplay his hand and screwed himself out of what everyone at the time assumed was a sure thing.
But that still makes your original statement of...
incorrect, doesn't it?
No, it does not. To Apple, software is just a means to an end. The end being the other 90% of the business, which is selling hardware. And if you compare what Apple does when it does buy an incomplete software package, and develop it, it's still different from mot other companies, which buy entire companies with complete product lines, and simply keep selling them.
To all intents, The software that Apple did buy is still mostly their own product even with the 1.0 version.
Quote:
Yes they have input into their hardware, but they also have also used others to assist them in this. But they also had to buy into the software line to help their hardware sales.
You're splitting hairs. You know as well as I do that Apple puts out products that it develops. If it sees a kernel of a product somewhere else, and buys it, the development that Apple puts into it far exceeds what came before. Essentially, it's Apple's own product.
There were a number of Mac software products that Apple could have bought over the years for a song. Good programs too. When Corel bought Painter, and others, Apple could have bought them. It would have contributed greatly to Apple lines, but they didn't. It's too bad too.
I didn't neglect anything though, Apple wanted Steve, they wanted NeXT, they purchased them. Apple didn't develop the NeXT technologies, NeXT did, the fact that Steve was one fo the founders is not relevant
Yes. That was one time when Apple was in a quandary. Though in a way, it's odd. The work that NEXT had done was, after all, a furtherance of what Apple was doing when Jobs left. NEXT wasn't a success though until Apple bought it. Apple was even said to have paid too much.
Comments
You're right. I know there is a business cycle, but some recessions seem to made even worse worse as self-fulfilling prophesies. I think one could be manufactured if you have enough "experts" on TV declaring that there is a recession imminent, that can spook people into making drastic changes. If only more people had some self-discipline and saved planned ahead when the times were good, a lot fewer people would have to take drastic measures when there's a downturn.
I agree that the media can magnify the effect, thus making things worse.
I am an expert in ipod repair, including iphones and ipod touches. after the 3rd gen nano, ipods became uneconomically feasible to replace the battery - by design. Prove me wrong. 20,000+ posts dude? Somebody has a know-it-all complex. Get a life.
I don't have to prove you wrong. You have to prove you're right. We all know you're wrong. The companies who are making money on selling these batteries know you're wrong. You made the statement, you have to prove it. That's the way it works.
I agree that the media can magnify the effect, thus making things worse.
Blame the media? I don't think so, not really.
One of lessons from college economics that will stick with me forever was the rooster on Mt. Everest theory. If a rooster crowed on Mt. Everest, could that cause a depression? The answer is yes, if enough people believe it could. The moral of the story is that economics is fundamentally a behavioral science.
Except Apple has purchased their way into a lot of their product lines, sure they have developed them further, but they were not initially developed by Apple.
No really. They've only bought fledgling software products. These were either not finished, or marketed much before Apple bought them. Apple totally revised those products before releasing them. They also dropped the prices considerably, or gave them away for free.
When it comes to their main business, which is hardware, they've alway come up with their own products.
You don't know squat about geography if you compare Luxembourg to the Sudan
You don't know squat about replying to posts, because I never compared anything to the Sudan. Someone else did.
And if I were an investor, I'd be raising my eyebrow at their $0 debt. Debt is a double-edged sword in that yes, debt creates obligation to others, but is also a sign of healthy growth and business expansion.
I find it disgusting and telling that more investors don't raise eyebrows at companies with debt. Debt is never a good thing. Short term due to cash flow it can be a necessary evil, but I just can't fathom how otherwise smart people think that having debt is a sign of strength
I'd say their cash horde growing to it's present sign is a healthy sign of growth and business expansion, not a bunch of financial machinations on a balance sheet. Apple should be lauded for being debt free. If you don't agree with what they are doing, sell your stock in 'em (if you have any). I wish far more companies would tell investors and Wall Street to stick it. Part of the problem with companies in America is they are over-concerned with pleasing shareholders. Guess what - shareholders aren't your customers! They aren't buying your products or making you money! They are hitching on because they hope you will grow so they can grow their investment with you and make a profit one day - by dumping you! I can't think of anything better than leach, even though it seems a little harsh - but at their core, that's what many are.
Slavishly pandering to shareholders and Wall Street is NOT a recipe for success. Look at how many American companies are going down the drain by making foolish long term decisions in favor of bone-headed short term decisions that make shareholders happy?!?
Focusing on your customers is the real recipe for success. Apple does that (focusing on their REAL customers) better than anyone else and it's why they are insanely successful. As long as they ignore people like you and keep focusing on that which really matters they will continue to be insanely successful.
The Apple management is very good, but they are not infallible. As I mentioned above, a lot of people were saying much the same thing about Microsoft 15 years ago. They started believing their own hype and this I think led them to make big investments in other industries that I'm sure they were convinced gave them strategic advantages, and of course that illusive thing called synergy. Didn't work out. So I agree with your analysis of acquisitions.
Except I don't view the Apple culture as similar to Microsoft's culture in any way. Microsoft's' downfall is they got taken over by MBA's and ex-IBMers - who turned MS into a huge bureaucracy like IBM was (and still is somewhat, but nothing like they used to be).
Do you really think the AppleTV group could say "We aren't doing X because it would give an unfair advantage to the iPhone" or "We don't care if iTunes supports Y - we don't like it and aren't doing it"? Hell no! There is one master plan and it is executed. Not so at Microsoft right now. They are incredibly stratified and the infighting amongst groups is well serialized on the web - which has led to several very public blunders and miss-steps. They would have killed any other company that didn't have a default tap of OS and Office licensing for new machines like MS does. The biggest threat to MS is Mac OSX gaining market share - it's a hit to their default new machine tax. Even a 10% hit to that revenue stream would be VERY noticeable.
That's why I think the iPad could make things VERY interesting. If the halo effect for the iPad is 1/10th of what it was for the iPhone/iPod, we could see some very interesting rumblings out of Redmond. They are desperately trying to diversify with things like application hosting, but it will be interesting to see if they can compete and make money at it - it's not as simple as collecting $30 for every machine sold from the HP/ASUS/ACER/DELL of the PC world...
Apple doesn't develop all their products from scratch.
And what does it matter if they do other than geek bragging rights?
The trick is Apple takes technologies that are often just floundering, polishes them up and bundles them with a cohesive story and bam! Something that before was someone interesting is now a heck of a lot more interesting and even useful.
I never understood this scorekeeping about "invented from scratch" or built upon. In the end it does matter. It's what you ultimately turn out that matters. Is the original iPod diminished any because the original OS was sourced from portal player? Heck no!
What a stupid fixation to have - who gives a crap if the technology in question was "made from scratch"
You neglected the fact that NeXT Computer was founded by Steve Jobs after he was forced to leave Apple in 1985. The NeXT OS, Unix based was an objects oriented program. Apple brought Jobs back to the company and bought NeXT as part of the deal.
I forgot that Steve gave NeXT to Apple for no money at all, oh that's right, he didn't, they purchased it. Remember Steve != Apple
And what does it matter if they do other than geek bragging rights?
If you had bothered to follow that thread of conversation you would know why, and it has nothing to do with "geek bragging rights"
I forgot that Steve gave NeXT to Apple for no money at all, oh that's right, he didn't, they purchased it. Remember Steve != Apple
Hence his comment... " and bought NeXT as part of the deal."
Oy vey! I understand that you have a learning disability and I often try to give you a pass because of it, but if you are going to take an obviously jocose comment out of context to fuel your trollish desires then be prepared for your usual beat down.
I don't know why I bother replying to you, but from that post we have the proof that you are suffering from a serious medical condition, and I feel it is important that we continue to let you integrate into society.
No really. They've only bought fledgling software products. These were either not finished, or marketed much before Apple bought them. Apple totally revised those products before releasing them. They also dropped the prices considerably, or gave them away for free.
But that still makes your original statement of...
they also grow by developing their own product lines, not by buying their way into them.
incorrect, doesn't it?
When it comes to their main business, which is hardware, they've alway come up with their own products.
Yes they have input into their hardware, but they also have also used others to assist them in this. But they also had to buy into the software line to help their hardware sales.
Hence his comment... " and bought NeXT as part of the deal."
I didn't neglect anything though, Apple wanted Steve, they wanted NeXT, they purchased them. Apple didn't develop the NeXT technologies, NeXT did, the fact that Steve was one fo the founders is not relevant
If you had bothered to follow that thread of conversation you would know why, and it has nothing to do with "geek bragging rights"
Oh, I understand fully your weak argument - but when you distill it down to it's component parts that's all it amounts to - geek pride.
In the real world acquired vs. home grown is irrelevant. It may matter to you but it doesn't matter to anyone who is more concerned with performance than some weird sense of ideals. Apple routinely leverages resources available to it to create products. Those may be 100% in house developed, or they may be a mixture of technologies they license or acquire. In the end the performance of what they ship is all that matters - people didn't buy the original iPods because their OS was developed by Portal Player - they bought them because they had the right combination of user experience, size, features and price. Less than 5% (and that's probably being VERY generous) of iPod users know or care who wrote the OS for the player.
I didn't neglect anything though, Apple wanted Steve, they wanted NeXT, they purchased them. Apple didn't develop the NeXT technologies, NeXT did, the fact that Steve was one fo the founders is not relevant
Actually, it's pretty clear at the time Apple management really didn't want Steve. Jean-Louis Gassée tried to overplay his hand and screwed himself out of what everyone at the time assumed was a sure thing.
I forgot that Steve gave NeXT to Apple for no money at all, oh that's right, he didn't, they purchased it. Remember Steve != Apple
Where did you get that out of his statement?
Oh yeah, you didn't!
But they also had to buy into the software line to help their hardware sales.
And that's a bad thing because?
But that still makes your original statement of...
incorrect, doesn't it?
No, it does not. To Apple, software is just a means to an end. The end being the other 90% of the business, which is selling hardware. And if you compare what Apple does when it does buy an incomplete software package, and develop it, it's still different from mot other companies, which buy entire companies with complete product lines, and simply keep selling them.
To all intents, The software that Apple did buy is still mostly their own product even with the 1.0 version.
Yes they have input into their hardware, but they also have also used others to assist them in this. But they also had to buy into the software line to help their hardware sales.
You're splitting hairs. You know as well as I do that Apple puts out products that it develops. If it sees a kernel of a product somewhere else, and buys it, the development that Apple puts into it far exceeds what came before. Essentially, it's Apple's own product.
There were a number of Mac software products that Apple could have bought over the years for a song. Good programs too. When Corel bought Painter, and others, Apple could have bought them. It would have contributed greatly to Apple lines, but they didn't. It's too bad too.
I didn't neglect anything though, Apple wanted Steve, they wanted NeXT, they purchased them. Apple didn't develop the NeXT technologies, NeXT did, the fact that Steve was one fo the founders is not relevant
Yes. That was one time when Apple was in a quandary. Though in a way, it's odd. The work that NEXT had done was, after all, a furtherance of what Apple was doing when Jobs left. NEXT wasn't a success though until Apple bought it. Apple was even said to have paid too much.