Apple has way more cash than Microsoft, and revenues are about the same. And the number of employees is irrelevant. Moreover, if engineering and design were so important, they could easily be built/bought with the resources (and capacity to attract top-notch human capital) that Apple has.
Again, goes to my point above about how how he does not think of himself as heading up the largest tech company in the world (and the second most valuable company in the US).
I stand corrected on the cash in the bank. I thought they were pretty close.
As far as employees go, some people use that as a way to cite the amount of resources Apple has. Their retail staff is something that doesn't add to their resources from an engineering and design perspective. I also think that Apple is more focused on their growth. They grow their teams at a slower pace then Microsoft and Google do. Just look at the number of acquisitions Google has had vs Apple in the past few years. In my opinion, slow, controlled growth, has worked to Apple's advantage. Just hiring more people or buying more companies doesn't solve anything. Building cohesive teams is an extremely difficult thing to do, especially as your company grows.
As far as him not thinking of himself as heading up the largest tech company, I think that isn't a bad thing. It's that type of arrogance that will get to upper managements heads. It is the attitude Microsoft has had for years. Just because of how big they were, they thought they were indestructible. It's that attitude that pushed Michael Dell to say that infamous quote. That grounded start-up mentality is something that people lose as they grow.
Apple has way more cash than Microsoft, and revenues are about the same. And the number of employees is irrelevant. Moreover, if engineering and design were so important, they could easily be built/bought with the resources (and capacity to attract top-notch human capital) that Apple has.
Again, goes to my point above about how how he does not think of himself as heading up the largest tech company in the world (and the second most valuable company in the US).
Because that is not his focus, he didn't deny they were larger than ms in market capitalisation, he downplayed it though because like I said I truly believe that is not his focus. Having come from the brink of bankruptcy, it's like coming from humble backgrounds and then making a fortune doing what you really love doing, the fortune amassed sometimes along the way isn't as important as that you are still doing what you like successfully.
Of course the number of employes is not irrelevant, and the op was right in that apple has much smaller design and engineering teams, and much larger retail teams than ms or google for example. The point he was making is that the good business strategy is to pick your battles, not expand with more personnel because you can, so you can tackle an issue that you have strategically decided is minor than other issues (getting a good custom design team e.g. for a mobile cpu).
In that sense apple doesn't indeed have the resources to spent. It doesn't matter if you have X or 100000X in the bank, at the end of the day for every Y amount you spent out of this it's always going to be a ratio of intended gain over Y. If the intended gain over Y is not something favourable you are better off spending the resources elsewhere.
Then there's also the issue of how any extra personnel can integrate within the company, which is always hard, especially when you grow so much in scale. That's why it's rational to be even more prudent the bigger you get and not the other way around.
Not sure how they missed this one but it sure seems like an important tidbit...
Steve @ All Things D. 2010
3 iPads a SECOND... now that can't be right if he is working on a 24 hour clock and in the past when he's given such sales records with a stat of X per SECOND it has been in a 24 hr setting..
86400 seconds in a day * 3 = 259,200 per day or 15.8m units calculated thru tomorrow... (from 4/3/10)
So that CAN'T be right...
How about an 8 hour day? (what are normal Apple store hours for non 24 hour stores)
60*60*8=28,800 seconds * 3 = 86,400 per day or 5.2m cal'd thru tomorrow.
Hmmm maybe he misspoke or was misquoted?
1 iPad every 3 seconds?
86400 sec / 3 is 28.800 per day or 1.75m calc'd thru tomorrow.
Now THAT seems to jive an awful lot closer to the 2m that they just reported. Tho... it sure is nice to think they're selling 3 per second now isn't it?
Wow! Seriously... DUDE YOU'RE TAKING THINGS TOO LITTERALLY.. You went thru all that trouble doing math. Damn man. Jobs just meant it's selling well.
Apple has way more cash than Microsoft, and revenues are about the same. And the number of employees is irrelevant. Moreover, if engineering and design were so important, they could easily be built/bought with the resources (and capacity to attract top-notch human capital) that Apple has.
Again, goes to my point above about how how he does not think of himself as heading up the largest tech company in the world (and the second most valuable company in the US).
i wouldn't call microsofts extra couple billion revenue and extra billion profit the same.
Their retail staff is something that doesn't add to their resources from an engineering and design perspective.
Not as creating but don't undervalue retail staff as a close ear to the ground. Well used they can learn alot about how their devices is used, missused and what problems people have. Having that inhouse vs having to rely on middle man such as BestBuy et al can be quite a huge advantage!
Not as creating but don't undervalue retail staff as a close ear to the ground. Well used they can learn alot about how their devices is used, missused and what problems people have. Having that inhouse vs having to rely on middle man such as BestBuy et al can be quite a huge advantage!
Absolutely. My statement was not made to diminish their value at all. In fact, I think Apple has one of the best retail teams. My statement was made in regards to technical innovation and growth.
I wish somebody would have asked him about why Apple and AT&T both refuse to unlock the iPhone after the contract has completed. Same in Canada, where the iPhone is also carrier-locked permanently, so even if you pay full price for an iPhone, it's still locked to one carrier.
Wow! Seriously... DUDE YOU'RE TAKING THINGS TOO LITTERALLY.. You went thru all that trouble doing math. Damn man. Jobs just meant it's selling well.
Are you SERIOUS?!?!
If Steve Jobs at a public conference said... "We are selling 3 iPads per second" that is not a 'selling like crazy' or 'selling like hotcakes' general comment.. that is a comment Steve has used BEFORE to indicate iPod sales and other things over the years... We're selling X iPods per second, X songs per second, etc etc etc... Wall Street would most certainly react AND IF that quote was left UNCORRECTED he and Apple and/or the NY Times and ATD would be in for some serious trouble if the stock skyrocket due to FALSE and misleading quotes from the CEO and or a story that didn't get proper fact checking. This was after the close and the mistake was fairly quickly corrected so no harm no foul but ... either way I most certainly NOT taking things TOO LITTERALLY. "Selling 3 every second" is a VERY literal statement.
When I read the story at the times web site... it was quoted as you see it..
"selling 3 iPads per second"
that quote was LATER fixed to say:
"selling 1 iPad every 3 seconds."
Which I even SAID was LIKELY what was said... but the initial 'transcribed quote' was 3 every second and THAT if true would have been an INSANE detail to learn and was WHY I figured out that it was clearly a mistaken quote.
It was clearly someone on the All Things Digital site who was tasked with transcribing the interview for the website too quickly (it was typed in live like other events that aren't available in live streaming... so typos were bound to happen)... but believe me when I say that had Steve actually said that HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO BACK IT UP or have LOTS of explaining to do to lots and lots of people.
yeah. I guess they already changed the article... It now says one sold every three seconds.
Really?!?!? I took your word for it but I just checked again and this is what I read:
6:32 pm: Walt: What if people demand Flash. What if they say the iPad is crippled without Flash. “We’re just trying to make great products,” says Jobs. “We don’t think Flash makes a great product, so we’re leaving it out. Instead, we’re going to focus on technologies that are in ascendancy. If we succeed, people will buy them and if we don’t they won’t….And, so far, I have to say, people seem to be liking the iPad. We sell like three iPads a second.”
So either my cache is wonky or they didn't fix it... okay I just installed Chrome.. and it STILL says it.
Someone at the site or from Apple should have that fix or people will read it and react to it. Tho he also says the iPad has sold 2m and that clearly isn't 3 every second but still people see what they wanna see ... ESPECIALLY when they are suing a company for improper stock manipulation.
90 days from bankruptcy to the largest tech company in the world?! Name me anybody else who would have been able to do that for this company. I know Jobs isn't a world leader or anything close to it, but in the world of business, I would argue anybody that he is the most influential and important person in any of our lifetimes.
I remember the day we found out about the 3 months left of capital like it was yesterday.
It is true that Apple didn't go into the search business, Google's real business is the ad business. And Apple has entered in the ad business recently.
Regarding the timeline of events, Google acquired Android (July 2005) before Eric Schmidt joined Apple's board (August 2006), and well before the iPhone announcement (Jan 2007).
The real concern is whether Schmidt misappropriated any knowledge gained from being on the board. Given that it still took them a couple years after the release of the first iPhone to come up with something competitive, it might not have mattered, the phone was out and not a secret for a long time, anyone could have bought one.
Exactly. Those are facts that can be proven. It just shows what kind of liar Jobs is.
Interesting how can't view the clips here without Flash. And this a site promoting Apple technology. Irony anyone?
I've gone to the AppleInsider site on my iPhone and all I get is iphone2.appleinsider.com. I guess the mobile site is down. Anyone know whether the video clips can be seen on AppleInsider's iPhone site?
Having a higher market cap, which is what Swisher mentioned, doesn't necessarily mean having more resources. Resources go beyond money. Microsoft is still a much larger company, from cash in the bank, the number of employees, etc. Apple is a large company, but a large number of their employees are actually part of their retail operations. Their engineering and design teams are smaller then Microsoft's. That is what Steve Jobs was talking about.
Resources do go beyond market cap. In terms of cash on hand, Apple has something like $39.8 billion and MS has $40.4 billion and google has $24.6. Their R&D teams might be smaller, but that is purely by choice, to stay lean. But they certainly have access to similar resources of their biggest rivals.
really not sure what he meant when he says Apple does have the resources other have. They actually have more than the vast majority...they just use them better.
Apple has way more cash than Microsoft, and revenues are about the same. And the number of employees is irrelevant. Moreover, if engineering and design were so important, they could easily be built/bought with the resources (and capacity to attract top-notch human capital) that Apple has.
Again, goes to my point above about how how he does not think of himself as heading up the largest tech company in the world (and the second most valuable company in the US).
I agree with all of your conclusions, except I don't think Apple has more. Certainly not way more. They are basically neck and neck.
I think MS might have more debt, but not sure about that.
Because that is not his focus, he didn't deny they were larger than ms in market capitalisation, he downplayed it though because like I said I truly believe that is not his focus. Having come from the brink of bankruptcy, it's like coming from humble backgrounds and then making a fortune doing what you really love doing, the fortune amassed sometimes along the way isn't as important as that you are still doing what you like successfully.
Of course the number of employes is not irrelevant, and the op was right in that apple has much smaller design and engineering teams, and much larger retail teams than ms or google for example. The point he was making is that the good business strategy is to pick your battles, not expand with more personnel because you can, so you can tackle an issue that you have strategically decided is minor than other issues (getting a good custom design team e.g. for a mobile cpu).
In that sense apple doesn't indeed have the resources to spent. It doesn't matter if you have X or 100000X in the bank, at the end of the day for every Y amount you spent out of this it's always going to be a ratio of intended gain over Y. If the intended gain over Y is not something favourable you are better off spending the resources elsewhere.
Then there's also the issue of how any extra personnel can integrate within the company, which is always hard, especially when you grow so much in scale. That's why it's rational to be even more prudent the bigger you get and not the other way around.
In other words, Apple absolutely has the same or more resources that other have, they have simply used the more effectively. Which is why his statement that Apple doesn't have the resources others have is strange. They have the resources. They use them better.
Exactly. Those are facts that can be proven. It just shows what kind of liar Jobs is.
That doesn't make him a liar. He is completely correct when he says that Apple released their phone first. Obviously, his feeling is that regardless of Google starting on theirs well before Apple released the iPhone (Apple may still have been developing their even earlier) that they should have halted theirs if they were friends of Apple. I don't agree with his sentiment, but he isn't lying.
The funny thing is the other people, outside of Apple, that take this statement and then continue to harp that Google stole the idea for Android when Schmidt joined Apple. Jobs hasn't said this, but many, many people here quote it like it is fact.
Comments
Apple has way more cash than Microsoft, and revenues are about the same. And the number of employees is irrelevant. Moreover, if engineering and design were so important, they could easily be built/bought with the resources (and capacity to attract top-notch human capital) that Apple has.
Again, goes to my point above about how how he does not think of himself as heading up the largest tech company in the world (and the second most valuable company in the US).
I stand corrected on the cash in the bank. I thought they were pretty close.
As far as employees go, some people use that as a way to cite the amount of resources Apple has. Their retail staff is something that doesn't add to their resources from an engineering and design perspective. I also think that Apple is more focused on their growth. They grow their teams at a slower pace then Microsoft and Google do. Just look at the number of acquisitions Google has had vs Apple in the past few years. In my opinion, slow, controlled growth, has worked to Apple's advantage. Just hiring more people or buying more companies doesn't solve anything. Building cohesive teams is an extremely difficult thing to do, especially as your company grows.
As far as him not thinking of himself as heading up the largest tech company, I think that isn't a bad thing. It's that type of arrogance that will get to upper managements heads. It is the attitude Microsoft has had for years. Just because of how big they were, they thought they were indestructible. It's that attitude that pushed Michael Dell to say that infamous quote. That grounded start-up mentality is something that people lose as they grow.
Just my 2 pennies.
Apple has way more cash than Microsoft, and revenues are about the same. And the number of employees is irrelevant. Moreover, if engineering and design were so important, they could easily be built/bought with the resources (and capacity to attract top-notch human capital) that Apple has.
Again, goes to my point above about how how he does not think of himself as heading up the largest tech company in the world (and the second most valuable company in the US).
Because that is not his focus, he didn't deny they were larger than ms in market capitalisation, he downplayed it though because like I said I truly believe that is not his focus. Having come from the brink of bankruptcy, it's like coming from humble backgrounds and then making a fortune doing what you really love doing, the fortune amassed sometimes along the way isn't as important as that you are still doing what you like successfully.
Of course the number of employes is not irrelevant, and the op was right in that apple has much smaller design and engineering teams, and much larger retail teams than ms or google for example. The point he was making is that the good business strategy is to pick your battles, not expand with more personnel because you can, so you can tackle an issue that you have strategically decided is minor than other issues (getting a good custom design team e.g. for a mobile cpu).
In that sense apple doesn't indeed have the resources to spent. It doesn't matter if you have X or 100000X in the bank, at the end of the day for every Y amount you spent out of this it's always going to be a ratio of intended gain over Y. If the intended gain over Y is not something favourable you are better off spending the resources elsewhere.
Then there's also the issue of how any extra personnel can integrate within the company, which is always hard, especially when you grow so much in scale. That's why it's rational to be even more prudent the bigger you get and not the other way around.
Hmmm
Not sure how they missed this one but it sure seems like an important tidbit...
Steve @ All Things D. 2010
3 iPads a SECOND... now that can't be right if he is working on a 24 hour clock and in the past when he's given such sales records with a stat of X per SECOND it has been in a 24 hr setting..
86400 seconds in a day * 3 = 259,200 per day or 15.8m units calculated thru tomorrow... (from 4/3/10)
So that CAN'T be right...
How about an 8 hour day? (what are normal Apple store hours for non 24 hour stores)
60*60*8=28,800 seconds * 3 = 86,400 per day or 5.2m cal'd thru tomorrow.
Hmmm maybe he misspoke or was misquoted?
1 iPad every 3 seconds?
86400 sec / 3 is 28.800 per day or 1.75m calc'd thru tomorrow.
Now THAT seems to jive an awful lot closer to the 2m that they just reported. Tho... it sure is nice to think they're selling 3 per second now isn't it?
Wow! Seriously... DUDE YOU'RE TAKING THINGS TOO LITTERALLY.. You went thru all that trouble doing math. Damn man. Jobs just meant it's selling well.
Apple has way more cash than Microsoft, and revenues are about the same. And the number of employees is irrelevant. Moreover, if engineering and design were so important, they could easily be built/bought with the resources (and capacity to attract top-notch human capital) that Apple has.
Again, goes to my point above about how how he does not think of himself as heading up the largest tech company in the world (and the second most valuable company in the US).
i wouldn't call microsofts extra couple billion revenue and extra billion profit the same.
MS has set a goal of 30 million WP7 Handsets by the end of 2011.
http://www.mobileshop.com/blog/mobil...e-end-of-2011/
that is a goal, not the actual figure....
Their retail staff is something that doesn't add to their resources from an engineering and design perspective.
Not as creating but don't undervalue retail staff as a close ear to the ground. Well used they can learn alot about how their devices is used, missused and what problems people have. Having that inhouse vs having to rely on middle man such as BestBuy et al can be quite a huge advantage!
Anyone know when or where a video of the event might be posted?
There's one here.
Not as creating but don't undervalue retail staff as a close ear to the ground. Well used they can learn alot about how their devices is used, missused and what problems people have. Having that inhouse vs having to rely on middle man such as BestBuy et al can be quite a huge advantage!
Absolutely. My statement was not made to diminish their value at all. In fact, I think Apple has one of the best retail teams. My statement was made in regards to technical innovation and growth.
Wow! Seriously... DUDE YOU'RE TAKING THINGS TOO LITTERALLY.. You went thru all that trouble doing math. Damn man. Jobs just meant it's selling well.
Are you SERIOUS?!?!
If Steve Jobs at a public conference said... "We are selling 3 iPads per second" that is not a 'selling like crazy' or 'selling like hotcakes' general comment.. that is a comment Steve has used BEFORE to indicate iPod sales and other things over the years... We're selling X iPods per second, X songs per second, etc etc etc... Wall Street would most certainly react AND IF that quote was left UNCORRECTED he and Apple and/or the NY Times and ATD would be in for some serious trouble if the stock skyrocket due to FALSE and misleading quotes from the CEO and or a story that didn't get proper fact checking. This was after the close and the mistake was fairly quickly corrected so no harm no foul but ... either way I most certainly NOT taking things TOO LITTERALLY. "Selling 3 every second" is a VERY literal statement.
When I read the story at the times web site... it was quoted as you see it..
"selling 3 iPads per second"
that quote was LATER fixed to say:
"selling 1 iPad every 3 seconds."
Which I even SAID was LIKELY what was said... but the initial 'transcribed quote' was 3 every second and THAT if true would have been an INSANE detail to learn and was WHY I figured out that it was clearly a mistaken quote.
It was clearly someone on the All Things Digital site who was tasked with transcribing the interview for the website too quickly (it was typed in live like other events that aren't available in live streaming... so typos were bound to happen)... but believe me when I say that had Steve actually said that HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO BACK IT UP or have LOTS of explaining to do to lots and lots of people.
EDIT...
AND WHAT DID I TELL YOU?!?!
"3 IPADS A SECOND - LISTEN FOOLS HE IS GIVING YOU NUMBERS- HUGE BUY - $500 IN NO TIME"
I'm telling ya people will try to make this NEWS and god help Apple if it incorrectly influences the APPL stock price...
yeah. I guess they already changed the article... It now says one sold every three seconds.
Really?!?!? I took your word for it but I just checked again and this is what I read:
6:32 pm: Walt: What if people demand Flash. What if they say the iPad is crippled without Flash. “We’re just trying to make great products,” says Jobs. “We don’t think Flash makes a great product, so we’re leaving it out. Instead, we’re going to focus on technologies that are in ascendancy. If we succeed, people will buy them and if we don’t they won’t….And, so far, I have to say, people seem to be liking the iPad. We sell like three iPads a second.”
So either my cache is wonky or they didn't fix it... okay I just installed Chrome.. and it STILL says it.
Someone at the site or from Apple should have that fix or people will read it and react to it. Tho he also says the iPad has sold 2m and that clearly isn't 3 every second but still people see what they wanna see ... ESPECIALLY when they are suing a company for improper stock manipulation.
90 days from bankruptcy to the largest tech company in the world?! Name me anybody else who would have been able to do that for this company. I know Jobs isn't a world leader or anything close to it, but in the world of business, I would argue anybody that he is the most influential and important person in any of our lifetimes.
I remember the day we found out about the 3 months left of capital like it was yesterday.
It is true that Apple didn't go into the search business, Google's real business is the ad business. And Apple has entered in the ad business recently.
Regarding the timeline of events, Google acquired Android (July 2005) before Eric Schmidt joined Apple's board (August 2006), and well before the iPhone announcement (Jan 2007).
The real concern is whether Schmidt misappropriated any knowledge gained from being on the board. Given that it still took them a couple years after the release of the first iPhone to come up with something competitive, it might not have mattered, the phone was out and not a secret for a long time, anyone could have bought one.
Exactly. Those are facts that can be proven. It just shows what kind of liar Jobs is.
I've gone to the AppleInsider site on my iPhone and all I get is iphone2.appleinsider.com. I guess the mobile site is down. Anyone know whether the video clips can be seen on AppleInsider's iPhone site?
Having a higher market cap, which is what Swisher mentioned, doesn't necessarily mean having more resources. Resources go beyond money. Microsoft is still a much larger company, from cash in the bank, the number of employees, etc. Apple is a large company, but a large number of their employees are actually part of their retail operations. Their engineering and design teams are smaller then Microsoft's. That is what Steve Jobs was talking about.
Resources do go beyond market cap. In terms of cash on hand, Apple has something like $39.8 billion and MS has $40.4 billion and google has $24.6. Their R&D teams might be smaller, but that is purely by choice, to stay lean. But they certainly have access to similar resources of their biggest rivals.
really not sure what he meant when he says Apple does have the resources other have. They actually have more than the vast majority...they just use them better.
Apple has way more cash than Microsoft, and revenues are about the same. And the number of employees is irrelevant. Moreover, if engineering and design were so important, they could easily be built/bought with the resources (and capacity to attract top-notch human capital) that Apple has.
Again, goes to my point above about how how he does not think of himself as heading up the largest tech company in the world (and the second most valuable company in the US).
I agree with all of your conclusions, except I don't think Apple has more. Certainly not way more. They are basically neck and neck.
I think MS might have more debt, but not sure about that.
Because that is not his focus, he didn't deny they were larger than ms in market capitalisation, he downplayed it though because like I said I truly believe that is not his focus. Having come from the brink of bankruptcy, it's like coming from humble backgrounds and then making a fortune doing what you really love doing, the fortune amassed sometimes along the way isn't as important as that you are still doing what you like successfully.
Of course the number of employes is not irrelevant, and the op was right in that apple has much smaller design and engineering teams, and much larger retail teams than ms or google for example. The point he was making is that the good business strategy is to pick your battles, not expand with more personnel because you can, so you can tackle an issue that you have strategically decided is minor than other issues (getting a good custom design team e.g. for a mobile cpu).
In that sense apple doesn't indeed have the resources to spent. It doesn't matter if you have X or 100000X in the bank, at the end of the day for every Y amount you spent out of this it's always going to be a ratio of intended gain over Y. If the intended gain over Y is not something favourable you are better off spending the resources elsewhere.
Then there's also the issue of how any extra personnel can integrate within the company, which is always hard, especially when you grow so much in scale. That's why it's rational to be even more prudent the bigger you get and not the other way around.
In other words, Apple absolutely has the same or more resources that other have, they have simply used the more effectively. Which is why his statement that Apple doesn't have the resources others have is strange. They have the resources. They use them better.
Exactly. Those are facts that can be proven. It just shows what kind of liar Jobs is.
That doesn't make him a liar. He is completely correct when he says that Apple released their phone first. Obviously, his feeling is that regardless of Google starting on theirs well before Apple released the iPhone (Apple may still have been developing their even earlier) that they should have halted theirs if they were friends of Apple. I don't agree with his sentiment, but he isn't lying.
The funny thing is the other people, outside of Apple, that take this statement and then continue to harp that Google stole the idea for Android when Schmidt joined Apple. Jobs hasn't said this, but many, many people here quote it like it is fact.