No product will see the light of day at Apple if it does not provide a basis for adequate potential profits.
They cant tell beforehand, and I doubt the profits on the Air are stellar. They are there, but mediocre. Apple TV, the same. So this hinges on the definition of the word "adequate". Clearly Jobs likes the Air.
In any case this topic has veered off onto profit and it motives because people deny that Apple would take a hit to profit to grow ( i.e. hit margins) and some are arguing that Apple are happy with great profits from small marketshare. As profit is the primary motivating factor.
I disagree - since nobody at Apple wants to fail, particularly since they have tasted success - Also since they are not a dividend paying company the stock price depends on anticipated future growth.
So they have to grow to succeed at the cost of margins. That or innovate. Or both. But they need to maintain their market share in the mobile platform wars, and most importantly, they want to.
Why would you think that the two goals (great products and profits) are antagonistic to each other? They can coexist, you know, which results in Apple's success.
They are not antagonistic to each other. One is a goal. The other is a means.
If, for example, if one has a goal of being an olympic athlete, one likely would choose a sport that one excels at. Apple's goal is to maximize profits, and they excel at selling expensive consumer electronics.
They are not antagonistic to each other. One is a goal. The other is a means.
If, for example, if one has a goal of being an olympic athlete, one likely would choose a sport that one excels at. Apple's goal is to maximize profits, and they excel at selling expensive consumer electronics.
This shit ain't very complicated.
There are two strategies which lead to profitability.
In the first, profitability is an inevitable consequence adding value. Value-add is a natural side-effect of creating great products. Great designs which deliver more value to consumers than the base cost of their parts and which find an audience.
In this model the pursuit of great products will lead directly and inevitably to profitability.
But there is another strategy to generate profits. Some companies aim to become profitable, not by making great products but simply by making average products - and squeezing every dime out of the supply chain. Dell, for instance, used to be good at this.
Now, of the two strategies, which is Apple following?
If Apple were a person, then perhaps your point would be valid.
But it ain't.
No, Apple isn't a person, it's a group of persons. A corporation does not have a real (as opposed to a paper/legal) existence outside of the people who work their and its shareholders. The point about what makes them get up in the morning and go to work is entirely to the point, and while there are certainly people who do this for money, I don't think this is true of Jobs, or most of the employees at Apple.
No product will see the light of day at Apple if it does not provide a basis for adequate potential profits.
No matter how great it is. Apple does not exist to make great products. They exist to make large profits. The products are a means to an end, and not an end in and of themselves.
Again: No matter how great a product idea may be, if it is not likely to earn substantial profits, it will never see the light of day. The products are a means. The profits are the goal.
This will drive you all crazy...
I mostly agree withe second paragraph... with the possible exception of "testing the market" for a new concept.
I disagree with the third paragraph. It is too absolute. Apple does exist to make great products as well as profits... Otherwise. why bother? The inspiration to create a business usually comes from things like: survival, "be my own boss", "fill a need that's not being addressed", "do it my way", and, yes "to build great products".
That's the inspiration! The next step is the execution. This is where you recognize that in order for your business to allow you realize your inspirations/aspirations that it needs to make a profit.
I disagree with the last paragraph. It is too absolute! There are things like "placeholders" that are not meant to be profitable -- just keep the options open. The products can (and often. are) a goal. too. I think that this is especially true of companies like Apple.
When we opened our computer stores, we had 3 corporate objectives (I posted them earlier}. Actually, there was a fourth (it was 1978! Microcomputers were new, unproven! We opened the 5th computer store in Silicon Valley. The major users of microcomputers were techie, roll-your-own, hobbyists)
Here's our Corporate Objectives
1. return a fair profit to our investors
2. provide the best possible products and services to our customers
3. have fun
4. promote the use of microcomputers in home and business
The last was somewhat idealistic... but, in truth, those market segments offered the most profit/growth potential.
Hobbyists, then as today, offered no profit potential. But we supported and nurtured our relationship with hobbyists as they were a source of information, technical expertise, assistance, etc.
... I know these two girls... I have confidence in Faith, but there's no hope for Esperanza!
Let me try and put it another way. If Apple were a person, what would be making it get up in the mornings? $ signs or the thought of developing and delivering world-changing products?
If M. Apple were head of household with hungry mouths to feed-- what do you think?
It's apparently full of Right Wing Econ 101 robots whose only thought is profit for shareholders.
Where do you get that? It seems very far off the mark to me.
Why do you think apple employees are right wing? I've seen nothing to indicate that.
Why do you think their only thought is profit for shareholders? My guess is that they rarely think about that. I think that they usually think about doing their jobs.
Where do you get that? It seems very far off the mark to me.
Why do you think apple employees are right wing? I've seen nothing to indicate that.
Why do you think their only thought is profit for shareholders? My guess is that they rarely think about that. I think that they usually think about doing their jobs.
No, Apple isn't a person, it's a group of persons. A corporation does not have a real (as opposed to a paper/legal) existence outside of the people who work their and its shareholders. The point about what makes them get up in the morning and go to work is entirely to the point, and while there are certainly people who do this for money, I don't think this is true of Jobs, or most of the employees at Apple.
Apple does not get up in the morning. Apple is a company.
If Steve's intent were other than maximizing profits for the company, the BOD would fire his ass and hire a CEO who's intent is in line with that of the owners of the company.
Apple does not get up in the morning. Apple is a company.
If Steve's intent were other than maximizing profits for the company, the BOD would fire his ass and hire a CEO who's intent is in line with that of the owners of the company.
The owners would fire Jobs ( via the BOD) if they wanted their investment to drop 90% the next day.
If M. Apple were head of household with hungry mouths to feed-- what do you think?
.
If M. Apple represents the shareholders of the company and had no other resource then he would be starving as they company he owns retains profits and pays no dividends.
Apparantly M. Apple has other resources and is hoping to sell the company at a large profit in the future. For that reason M. Apple is clearly less concerned with quarterly profitability - particularly since the company he owns has resources and cash and pays hum no profit - and is more concerned with making a profit on sale of stock. For that reason he could take a hit on profitability, and margins per quarter, to gain future capital gains.
No, Apple isn't a person, it's a group of persons. A corporation does not have a real (as opposed to a paper/legal) existence outside of the people who work their and its shareholders. The point about what makes them get up in the morning and go to work is entirely to the point, and while there are certainly people who do this for money, I don't think this is true of Jobs, or most of the employees at Apple.
I disagree... more correctly worded: For Jobs and many of the employees at Apple do this for more than just the money.
Do a Yahoo, Bing, etc. search for Apple Layoffs...
I have no recent experience, but in the 1978-1989 timeframe, Our Sunnyvale Computer store was 7/10 of a mile from Apple headquarters.
We knew hundreds of Apple employees at all levels from CEOs, Top Management, Middle Management, grunts and temps.
We knew the Mac team that changed the world!
We were the best Apple dealer around, and would regularly have Apple "people" in our store.
Several Apple people moonlighted for us in our service department.
Several of our top employees went to work for Apple.
Many of our customers' employees went to work for Apple.
To many, Apple was the company that represented the "ideals" people ascribe to them!
To others, it was just a job-- a paycheck!
I am reminded of the middle manager at Apple that told the story:
"Do you know the difference between Apple and the Boy Scouts? One of them has Adult management!
Don't get me wrong! Apple is a great company! They make great products! I have made a lot of money selling their products and investing in their stock.
But, when it comes down to it, Apple is just a company! They must make a profit to survive. If that means laying off people, cutting projects, etc. -- they will do what's necessary.
They won't like the cutbacks-- nobody does! But they will make sound business decisions based on profitably.
I am having trouble understanding Gartner's basic numbers, which show a 2010 forecast of 41.46M units of iOS devices sold.
Jobs, in his recent keynote, said that there were 230,000 new activations of iOS devices per day, i.e., 230,000*365 ~ 84 million per year. That does not even include the sales from upgrades.
What am I missing?
Gartner funded and powered by Google.
Isn't all these research firms have their research funded by some one. Google spends a bunch of money for lobbying etc., no wonder where that goes.
Comments
No product will see the light of day at Apple if it does not provide a basis for adequate potential profits.
They cant tell beforehand, and I doubt the profits on the Air are stellar. They are there, but mediocre. Apple TV, the same. So this hinges on the definition of the word "adequate". Clearly Jobs likes the Air.
In any case this topic has veered off onto profit and it motives because people deny that Apple would take a hit to profit to grow ( i.e. hit margins) and some are arguing that Apple are happy with great profits from small marketshare. As profit is the primary motivating factor.
I disagree - since nobody at Apple wants to fail, particularly since they have tasted success - Also since they are not a dividend paying company the stock price depends on anticipated future growth.
So they have to grow to succeed at the cost of margins. That or innovate. Or both. But they need to maintain their market share in the mobile platform wars, and most importantly, they want to.
Why would you think that the two goals (great products and profits) are antagonistic to each other? They can coexist, you know, which results in Apple's success.
They are not antagonistic to each other. One is a goal. The other is a means.
If, for example, if one has a goal of being an olympic athlete, one likely would choose a sport that one excels at. Apple's goal is to maximize profits, and they excel at selling expensive consumer electronics.
This shit ain't very complicated.
. If Apple were a person, what would be making it get up in the mornings?
If Apple were a person, then perhaps your point would be valid.
But it ain't.
If Apple were a person, then perhaps your point would be valid.
But it ain't.
It's apparently full of Right Wing Econ 101 robots whose only thought is profit for shareholders.
They are not antagonistic to each other. One is a goal. The other is a means.
If, for example, if one has a goal of being an olympic athlete, one likely would choose a sport that one excels at. Apple's goal is to maximize profits, and they excel at selling expensive consumer electronics.
This shit ain't very complicated.
There are two strategies which lead to profitability.
In the first, profitability is an inevitable consequence adding value. Value-add is a natural side-effect of creating great products. Great designs which deliver more value to consumers than the base cost of their parts and which find an audience.
In this model the pursuit of great products will lead directly and inevitably to profitability.
But there is another strategy to generate profits. Some companies aim to become profitable, not by making great products but simply by making average products - and squeezing every dime out of the supply chain. Dell, for instance, used to be good at this.
Now, of the two strategies, which is Apple following?
C.
If Apple were a person, then perhaps your point would be valid.
But it ain't.
No, Apple isn't a person, it's a group of persons. A corporation does not have a real (as opposed to a paper/legal) existence outside of the people who work their and its shareholders. The point about what makes them get up in the morning and go to work is entirely to the point, and while there are certainly people who do this for money, I don't think this is true of Jobs, or most of the employees at Apple.
First ain't got nothing to do with importance.
No product will see the light of day at Apple if it does not provide a basis for adequate potential profits.
No matter how great it is. Apple does not exist to make great products. They exist to make large profits. The products are a means to an end, and not an end in and of themselves.
Again: No matter how great a product idea may be, if it is not likely to earn substantial profits, it will never see the light of day. The products are a means. The profits are the goal.
This will drive you all crazy...
I mostly agree withe second paragraph... with the possible exception of "testing the market" for a new concept.
I disagree with the third paragraph. It is too absolute. Apple does exist to make great products as well as profits... Otherwise. why bother? The inspiration to create a business usually comes from things like: survival, "be my own boss", "fill a need that's not being addressed", "do it my way", and, yes "to build great products".
That's the inspiration! The next step is the execution. This is where you recognize that in order for your business to allow you realize your inspirations/aspirations that it needs to make a profit.
I disagree with the last paragraph. It is too absolute! There are things like "placeholders" that are not meant to be profitable -- just keep the options open. The products can (and often. are) a goal. too. I think that this is especially true of companies like Apple.
When we opened our computer stores, we had 3 corporate objectives (I posted them earlier}. Actually, there was a fourth (it was 1978! Microcomputers were new, unproven! We opened the 5th computer store in Silicon Valley. The major users of microcomputers were techie, roll-your-own, hobbyists)
Here's our Corporate Objectives
1. return a fair profit to our investors
2. provide the best possible products and services to our customers
3. have fun
4. promote the use of microcomputers in home and business
The last was somewhat idealistic... but, in truth, those market segments offered the most profit/growth potential.
Hobbyists, then as today, offered no profit potential. But we supported and nurtured our relationship with hobbyists as they were a source of information, technical expertise, assistance, etc.
... I know these two girls... I have confidence in Faith, but there's no hope for Esperanza!
.
By "it", I meant the point I was trying to make.
I never said it doesn't.
Let me try and put it another way. If Apple were a person, what would be making it get up in the mornings? $ signs or the thought of developing and delivering world-changing products?
If M. Apple were head of household with hungry mouths to feed-- what do you think?
.
It's apparently full of Right Wing Econ 101 robots whose only thought is profit for shareholders.
Where do you get that? It seems very far off the mark to me.
Why do you think apple employees are right wing? I've seen nothing to indicate that.
Why do you think their only thought is profit for shareholders? My guess is that they rarely think about that. I think that they usually think about doing their jobs.
In this model the pursuit of great products will lead directly and inevitably to profitability.
C.
Bullshit. Nothing will lead directly and inevitably to profitability. Nothing.
Where do you get that? It seems very far off the mark to me.
Why do you think apple employees are right wing? I've seen nothing to indicate that.
Why do you think their only thought is profit for shareholders? My guess is that they rarely think about that. I think that they usually think about doing their jobs.
my.work.here = DONE;
No, Apple isn't a person, it's a group of persons. A corporation does not have a real (as opposed to a paper/legal) existence outside of the people who work their and its shareholders. The point about what makes them get up in the morning and go to work is entirely to the point, and while there are certainly people who do this for money, I don't think this is true of Jobs, or most of the employees at Apple.
Apple does not get up in the morning. Apple is a company.
If Steve's intent were other than maximizing profits for the company, the BOD would fire his ass and hire a CEO who's intent is in line with that of the owners of the company.
This will drive you all crazy...
I mostly agree withe second paragraph... with the possible exception of "testing the market" for a new concept.
I disagree with the third paragraph. It is too absolute. Apple does exist to make great products as well as profits...
.
Good points. I spoke too broadly.
Apple does not get up in the morning. Apple is a company.
If Steve's intent were other than maximizing profits for the company, the BOD would fire his ass and hire a CEO who's intent is in line with that of the owners of the company.
The owners would fire Jobs ( via the BOD) if they wanted their investment to drop 90% the next day.
he has a lot of potential to do what he wants.
If M. Apple were head of household with hungry mouths to feed-- what do you think?
.
If M. Apple represents the shareholders of the company and had no other resource then he would be starving as they company he owns retains profits and pays no dividends.
Apparantly M. Apple has other resources and is hoping to sell the company at a large profit in the future. For that reason M. Apple is clearly less concerned with quarterly profitability - particularly since the company he owns has resources and cash and pays hum no profit - and is more concerned with making a profit on sale of stock. For that reason he could take a hit on profitability, and margins per quarter, to gain future capital gains.
For that reason he could take a hit on profitability, and margins per quarter, to gain future capital gains.
Are you under the impression that stocks of companies with falling profitability and margins yield substantial capital gains?
Why? Don't see why you think more than one new device a year is necessary - there are a couple of models of the one device, it's more than adequate.
The iPhone 4 & iPhone 3GS currently (isn't that a multi device model). Now with facetime enabled iPod Touch they have 3rd category of device.
No, Apple isn't a person, it's a group of persons. A corporation does not have a real (as opposed to a paper/legal) existence outside of the people who work their and its shareholders. The point about what makes them get up in the morning and go to work is entirely to the point, and while there are certainly people who do this for money, I don't think this is true of Jobs, or most of the employees at Apple.
I disagree... more correctly worded: For Jobs and many of the employees at Apple do this for more than just the money.
Do a Yahoo, Bing, etc. search for Apple Layoffs...
I have no recent experience, but in the 1978-1989 timeframe, Our Sunnyvale Computer store was 7/10 of a mile from Apple headquarters.
We knew hundreds of Apple employees at all levels from CEOs, Top Management, Middle Management, grunts and temps.
We knew the Mac team that changed the world!
We were the best Apple dealer around, and would regularly have Apple "people" in our store.
Several Apple people moonlighted for us in our service department.
Several of our top employees went to work for Apple.
Many of our customers' employees went to work for Apple.
To many, Apple was the company that represented the "ideals" people ascribe to them!
To others, it was just a job-- a paycheck!
I am reminded of the middle manager at Apple that told the story:
"Do you know the difference between Apple and the Boy Scouts? One of them has Adult management!
Don't get me wrong! Apple is a great company! They make great products! I have made a lot of money selling their products and investing in their stock.
But, when it comes down to it, Apple is just a company! They must make a profit to survive. If that means laying off people, cutting projects, etc. -- they will do what's necessary.
They won't like the cutbacks-- nobody does! But they will make sound business decisions based on profitably.
.
I am having trouble understanding Gartner's basic numbers, which show a 2010 forecast of 41.46M units of iOS devices sold.
Jobs, in his recent keynote, said that there were 230,000 new activations of iOS devices per day, i.e., 230,000*365 ~ 84 million per year. That does not even include the sales from upgrades.
What am I missing?
Gartner funded and powered by Google.
Isn't all these research firms have their research funded by some one. Google spends a bunch of money for lobbying etc., no wonder where that goes.
Bullshit. Nothing will lead directly and inevitably to profitability. Nothing.
Nothing will inevitably lead to great products.
But great products will certainly lead to profitability.
Isn't that how great products are defined?
C.