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.
Jobs never ever said, "We well like three iPads as second."
The videos have been up for hours and if you had taken the time to watch them you wouldn't have made such an ass of yourself. IMO.
Hell, the videos probably wouldn't have changed much for you. IMO.
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.
Jobs started well before Google acquired…
Quote:
…In 2002, shortly after the first iPod was released, Jobs started thinking about developing a phone. He saw millions of Americans lugging separate phones, BlackBerrys, and — now — MP3 players; naturally, consumers would prefer just one device. He also saw a future in which cell phones and mobile email devices would amass ever more features, eventually challenging the iPod's dominance as a music player. To protect his new product line, Jobs knew he would eventually need to venture into the wireless world.
If the idea was obvious, so were the obstacles. Data networks were sluggish and not ready for a full-blown handheld Internet device. An iPhone would require Apple to create a completely new operating system; the iPod's OS wasn't sophisticated enough to manage complicated networking or graphics, and even a scaled-down version of OS X would be too much for a cell phone chip to handle. Apple would be facing strong competition, too: In 2003, consumers had flocked to the Palm Treo 600, which merged a phone, PDA, and BlackBerry into one slick package. That proved there was demand for a so-called convergence device, but it also raised the bar for Apple's engineers.
Then there were the wireless carriers. Jobs knew they dictated what to build and how to build it, and that they treated the hardware as little more than a vehicle to get users onto their networks. Jobs, a notorious control freak himself, wasn't about to let a group of suits — whom he would later call "orifices" — tell him how to design his phone.
By 2004 Apple's iPod business had become more important, and more vulnerable, than ever. The iPod accounted for 16 percent of company revenue, but with 3G phones gaining popularity, Wi-Fi phones coming soon, the price of storage plummeting, and rival music stores proliferating, its long-term position as the dominant music device seemed at risk.
So that summer, while he publicly denied he would build an Apple phone, Jobs was working on his entry into the mobile phone industry. In an effort to bypass the carriers, he approached Motorola. It seemed like an easy fix: The handset maker had released the wildly popular RAZR, and Jobs knew Ed Zander, Motorola's CEO at the time, from Zander's days as an executive at Sun Microsystems. A deal would allow Apple to concentrate on developing the music software, while Motorola and the carrier, Cingular, could hash out the complicated hardware details.…
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.
I don't think even that is the point- at least not directly.
Look at Apple's R&D expenditures. During the past 6 or 8 years, Microsoft out-spent Apple about 5 to 1. Yet look at what Apple has developed vs. what Microsoft has developed. Let's see. In the past 6 years, Microsoft released Vista and then fixed Vista. And they added ribbons to Office. Apple, on 1/5 the R&D expense, created the entire iPhone multibillion dollar business. Then they created the iPad business which is over a billion dollars in the first 2 months. Not to mention the continued improvements in their other products that keep them #1 in customer satisfaction. Apple has done an incredible job of using resources wisely - and part of the culture that Jobs is creating is one of innovation on a budget. Bragging about their huge resources is counterproductive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless
Exactly. Those are facts that can be proven. It just shows what kind of liar Jobs is.
Care to be specific? You're accusing one of the top CEOs of a felony (intentionally lying about material issues). Let's lear some specifics. Tell us exactly where Jobs has lied.
In the video on the origins of the iPhone, Steve says Apple started on the tablet first - actually the multi-touch display for typing on. Which some UI guy(s) put inertial scrolling on, which gave Jobs the "Aha!" moment to do a phone based on this inertial scrolling tech. Then, when the phone was done, Apple turned their attention back to the tablet.
This snippet gave me the feeling that Apple is a team. Jobs picks a few general directions to go in, and the team pulls together behind that vision to develop insanely great products. Compare this with what I've heard about MS. They have lots of teams working on lots of different things, and teams compete with each other in the same market-spaces. It is a much more "Darwinian", dog-eat-dog, environment. (See the articles on Pink.)
IMHO, MS's environment sounds like a nightmare to work in. Yes, they may be much larger and have more R&D power, but they are splintered, fighting each other, without cohesive leadership. MS has dozens (hundreds?) of products, all vying for the limelight. Apple releases fewer products with more focus on each one.
Apple's strategy seems to be working very well for them.
I find the "we didn't go into Search. Google came into mobiles..." comments a little strange. What does search have to do with any of this? Did they have an agreement to stay out of each other's fields? Why does he keep bringing this up?
To me it's really clear why Google launched Android. They saw the direction Apple was heading: exclusive OS, exclusive handset, exclusive carriers, native (instead of web) apps. They probably also saw Apple heading to control content on the platform (by censoring the App store) and start to dictate access to the web on their terms (ie. no Flash). I am willing to bet they looked at all that and saw a serious threat to their business model, which, focuses on getting as many people online as possible. For Google their ideal partner would have been somebody that made and sold smartphones for as little profit as possible. With Apple being a hardware maker, their interests just stopped lining up. Combine that with the fact that Symbian and Windows Mobile weren't really going to offer any competition to the iPhone and I'd say there's a pretty compelling case for Google to offer its own OS.
What Apple not entering search, has to do with any of that is beyond me.
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 totally disagree. Number of employees matters greatly, and here is why:
(These numbers are not accurate, but chosen to illustrate a point)
For the sake of discussion, lets say that Microsoft has 100 employees in their Research and Development, Engineering, and quality control teams. meanwhile, Apple has only 50 in these same departments.
Could Apple work their 50 employees to try to keep up with the 100 Microsoft employees? Of course they could, but I guarantee the resulting products would be less successful, and they would have high turnover rates. Apple certainly wouldn't remain as successful with this business model. This is also why they choose to eliminate certain technologies like floppy drives and flash. With fewer employees they have to focus their products to use the most important future-friendly components. They don't have enough employees to perfect every possible technology that any potential customer could want. They have to trim the fat as it were and make decisions to get rid of the things that are on their way out. This saves tons of time and money and is necessary. If they were to try to cover all options they would either go bankrupt making these live up to the Apple standard, or they would be half-assing all these things resulting in a crap product.
I totally disagree. Number of employees matters greatly, and here is why:
(These numbers are not accurate, but chosen to illustrate a point)
For the sake of discussion, lets say that Microsoft has 100 employees in their Research and Development, Engineering, and quality control teams. meanwhile, Apple has only 50 in these same departments.
Could Apple work their 50 employees to try to keep up with the 100 Microsoft employees? Of course they could, but I guarantee the resulting products would be less successful, and they would have high turnover rates. Apple certainly wouldn't remain as successful with this business model. This is also why they choose to eliminate certain technologies like floppy drives and flash. With fewer employees they have to focus their products to use the most important future-friendly components. They don't have enough employees to perfect every possible technology that any potential customer could want. They have to trim the fat as it were and make decisions to get rid of the things that are on their way out. This saves tons of time and money and is necessary. If they were to try to cover all options they would either go bankrupt making these live up to the Apple standard, or they would be half-assing all these things resulting in a crap product.
So yes, number of employees does matter.
I think his point is, if your pattern is squandering the potential of your work force, doubling the head count isn't going to help. You need good engineers and you need good management. Microsoft has not shown good management in a long time. There are also organizational issues to be concerned with, there is a point where adding another person to a project may slow down the process. I think all of this is covered in the book "Mythical Man-Month".
Jobs never ever said, "We well like three iPads as second." The videos have been up for hours and if you had taken the time to watch them you wouldn't have made such an ass of yourself. IMO. Hell, the videos probably wouldn't have changed much for you. IMO.
1. The videos were not up when I posted my first post
2. The quote came directly FROM the site AI linked in the story
3. The quotes didn't change.
4. My first post STATED that I was SURE the quote was mis-quoted and the sales were most assuredly 1 ever 3 seconds.
Calling me an ass is out of line.
My issues was this
1. All Things Digital a Times Sponsored Event Hosted the web site
2. The quote WAS incorrect and if left unfixed made it sound like Jobs was PUMPING AAPL STOCK.
When a New York Times related event has the text: S.Jobs said ".... we sell 3 ever second" when he didn't say it is a pretty major deal. It's not like AI writing Steve was rumored to say "#*%($& Google and their Searches".
1 - This is the NYTimes
2 - They are quoting Steve's comments on sales numbers that are NOT real.
3 - The AAPL stock forums started posting about the comment as if it was REAL
I totally disagree. Number of employees matters greatly, and here is why:
(These numbers are not accurate, but chosen to illustrate a point)
For the sake of discussion, lets say that Microsoft has 100 employees in their Research and Development, Engineering, and quality control teams. meanwhile, Apple has only 50 in these same departments.
etc etc
What part of my follow-on sentence: "Moreover, if engineering and design were so important, they could easily be built/bought with the resources (and capacity to attract top-notch human capital) that Apple has..." did you have trouble with?
1. The videos were not up when I posted my first post
2. The quote came directly FROM the site AI linked in the story
3. The quotes didn't change.
4. My first post STATED that I was SURE the quote was mis-quoted and the sales were most assuredly 1 ever 3 seconds.
Calling me an ass is out of line.
My issues was this
1. All Things Digital a Times Sponsored Event Hosted the web site
2. The quote WAS incorrect and if left unfixed made it sound like Jobs was PUMPING AAPL STOCK.
When a New York Times related event has the text: S.Jobs said ".... we sell 3 ever second" when he didn't say it is a pretty major deal. It's not like AI writing Steve was rumored to say "#*%($& Google and their Searches".
1 - This is the NYTimes
2 - They are quoting Steve's comments on sales numbers that are NOT real.
3 - The AAPL stock forums started posting about the comment as if it was REAL
You're pissed because your tyraid was incorrect. We understand that it was based upon an incorrect quote. Perhaps you should just acknowledge your roll in perpetuating that incorrect info and move on.
Comments
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.
Jobs never ever said, "We well like three iPads as second."
The videos have been up for hours and if you had taken the time to watch them you wouldn't have made such an ass of yourself. IMO.
Hell, the videos probably wouldn't have changed much for you. IMO.
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.
Jobs started well before Google acquired… P.S. One would have to be brainless to call Jobs is a liar.
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.
I don't think even that is the point- at least not directly.
Look at Apple's R&D expenditures. During the past 6 or 8 years, Microsoft out-spent Apple about 5 to 1. Yet look at what Apple has developed vs. what Microsoft has developed. Let's see. In the past 6 years, Microsoft released Vista and then fixed Vista. And they added ribbons to Office. Apple, on 1/5 the R&D expense, created the entire iPhone multibillion dollar business. Then they created the iPad business which is over a billion dollars in the first 2 months. Not to mention the continued improvements in their other products that keep them #1 in customer satisfaction. Apple has done an incredible job of using resources wisely - and part of the culture that Jobs is creating is one of innovation on a budget. Bragging about their huge resources is counterproductive.
Exactly. Those are facts that can be proven. It just shows what kind of liar Jobs is.
Care to be specific? You're accusing one of the top CEOs of a felony (intentionally lying about material issues). Let's lear some specifics. Tell us exactly where Jobs has lied.
No wonder you call yourself brainless.
This snippet gave me the feeling that Apple is a team. Jobs picks a few general directions to go in, and the team pulls together behind that vision to develop insanely great products. Compare this with what I've heard about MS. They have lots of teams working on lots of different things, and teams compete with each other in the same market-spaces. It is a much more "Darwinian", dog-eat-dog, environment. (See the articles on Pink.)
IMHO, MS's environment sounds like a nightmare to work in. Yes, they may be much larger and have more R&D power, but they are splintered, fighting each other, without cohesive leadership. MS has dozens (hundreds?) of products, all vying for the limelight. Apple releases fewer products with more focus on each one.
Apple's strategy seems to be working very well for them.
- Jasen.
To me it's really clear why Google launched Android. They saw the direction Apple was heading: exclusive OS, exclusive handset, exclusive carriers, native (instead of web) apps. They probably also saw Apple heading to control content on the platform (by censoring the App store) and start to dictate access to the web on their terms (ie. no Flash). I am willing to bet they looked at all that and saw a serious threat to their business model, which, focuses on getting as many people online as possible. For Google their ideal partner would have been somebody that made and sold smartphones for as little profit as possible. With Apple being a hardware maker, their interests just stopped lining up. Combine that with the fact that Symbian and Windows Mobile weren't really going to offer any competition to the iPhone and I'd say there's a pretty compelling case for Google to offer its own OS.
What Apple not entering search, has to do with any of that is beyond me.
.
What a Joke
They don't show Videos continuous and uncut
Just fast food bite size sugar coated info-lite
Yes, is Steve and worth the hassle
But could have been something Real
.
Oh well, what can we expect from anyone who thinks Kara Couric is a "Journalist"
Or is that Katie Swisher
.
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 totally disagree. Number of employees matters greatly, and here is why:
(These numbers are not accurate, but chosen to illustrate a point)
For the sake of discussion, lets say that Microsoft has 100 employees in their Research and Development, Engineering, and quality control teams. meanwhile, Apple has only 50 in these same departments.
Could Apple work their 50 employees to try to keep up with the 100 Microsoft employees? Of course they could, but I guarantee the resulting products would be less successful, and they would have high turnover rates. Apple certainly wouldn't remain as successful with this business model. This is also why they choose to eliminate certain technologies like floppy drives and flash. With fewer employees they have to focus their products to use the most important future-friendly components. They don't have enough employees to perfect every possible technology that any potential customer could want. They have to trim the fat as it were and make decisions to get rid of the things that are on their way out. This saves tons of time and money and is necessary. If they were to try to cover all options they would either go bankrupt making these live up to the Apple standard, or they would be half-assing all these things resulting in a crap product.
So yes, number of employees does matter.
I totally disagree. Number of employees matters greatly, and here is why:
(These numbers are not accurate, but chosen to illustrate a point)
For the sake of discussion, lets say that Microsoft has 100 employees in their Research and Development, Engineering, and quality control teams. meanwhile, Apple has only 50 in these same departments.
Could Apple work their 50 employees to try to keep up with the 100 Microsoft employees? Of course they could, but I guarantee the resulting products would be less successful, and they would have high turnover rates. Apple certainly wouldn't remain as successful with this business model. This is also why they choose to eliminate certain technologies like floppy drives and flash. With fewer employees they have to focus their products to use the most important future-friendly components. They don't have enough employees to perfect every possible technology that any potential customer could want. They have to trim the fat as it were and make decisions to get rid of the things that are on their way out. This saves tons of time and money and is necessary. If they were to try to cover all options they would either go bankrupt making these live up to the Apple standard, or they would be half-assing all these things resulting in a crap product.
So yes, number of employees does matter.
I think his point is, if your pattern is squandering the potential of your work force, doubling the head count isn't going to help. You need good engineers and you need good management. Microsoft has not shown good management in a long time. There are also organizational issues to be concerned with, there is a point where adding another person to a project may slow down the process. I think all of this is covered in the book "Mythical Man-Month".
Jobs never ever said, "We well like three iPads as second." The videos have been up for hours and if you had taken the time to watch them you wouldn't have made such an ass of yourself. IMO. Hell, the videos probably wouldn't have changed much for you. IMO.
1. The videos were not up when I posted my first post
2. The quote came directly FROM the site AI linked in the story
3. The quotes didn't change.
4. My first post STATED that I was SURE the quote was mis-quoted and the sales were most assuredly 1 ever 3 seconds.
Calling me an ass is out of line.
My issues was this
1. All Things Digital a Times Sponsored Event Hosted the web site
2. The quote WAS incorrect and if left unfixed made it sound like Jobs was PUMPING AAPL STOCK.
When a New York Times related event has the text: S.Jobs said ".... we sell 3 ever second" when he didn't say it is a pretty major deal. It's not like AI writing Steve was rumored to say "#*%($& Google and their Searches".
1 - This is the NYTimes
2 - They are quoting Steve's comments on sales numbers that are NOT real.
3 - The AAPL stock forums started posting about the comment as if it was REAL
I totally disagree. Number of employees matters greatly, and here is why:
(These numbers are not accurate, but chosen to illustrate a point)
For the sake of discussion, lets say that Microsoft has 100 employees in their Research and Development, Engineering, and quality control teams. meanwhile, Apple has only 50 in these same departments.
etc etc
What part of my follow-on sentence: "Moreover, if engineering and design were so important, they could easily be built/bought with the resources (and capacity to attract top-notch human capital) that Apple has..." did you have trouble with?
1. The videos were not up when I posted my first post
2. The quote came directly FROM the site AI linked in the story
3. The quotes didn't change.
4. My first post STATED that I was SURE the quote was mis-quoted and the sales were most assuredly 1 ever 3 seconds.
Calling me an ass is out of line.
My issues was this
1. All Things Digital a Times Sponsored Event Hosted the web site
2. The quote WAS incorrect and if left unfixed made it sound like Jobs was PUMPING AAPL STOCK.
When a New York Times related event has the text: S.Jobs said ".... we sell 3 ever second" when he didn't say it is a pretty major deal. It's not like AI writing Steve was rumored to say "#*%($& Google and their Searches".
1 - This is the NYTimes
2 - They are quoting Steve's comments on sales numbers that are NOT real.
3 - The AAPL stock forums started posting about the comment as if it was REAL
You're pissed because your tyraid was incorrect. We understand that it was based upon an incorrect quote. Perhaps you should just acknowledge your roll in perpetuating that incorrect info and move on.