I would have to disagree with this. A business has to make a profit (or continually attract fresh investment capital) to stay in business, but that doesn't have to be its, or its owners/top executives, primary motivation. For example, many people start businesses to "be their own boss". Sure, they have to figure out a way to make some money so they can do that, but it's not necessarily their primary motivation. People start businesses because they are really in to something and want to be able to pursue it full time. Again, yes, they have to make some money, but pursuing their interest is their primary motivation. (Sometimes, people even accept huge reductions in their income to do this.)
There are all sorts of motivations for people running businesses. They may have shareholders to keep happy along the way, but that doesn't have to be their primary motivation. Power, empire building, avoiding the rat race and, sure, desire for money are some among many possible motivations, so why not to change the world?
I respect what you say. Have you ever started a business? I have... for many of the reasons you mention.
But when it comes down to it, a business needs a single overriding goal. That goal must be profit.Without profit, none of the other things are possible-- things like a "hobby" product, or a brazen entry into an established market.
You can't deliver the best products (or even mediocre products) if you don't make enough profit to stay in business. There are short and long term strategies, but the goal of each must be profit!
They really need more than one phone on the market right now. Frankly for the same reasons that they have more than one iPod. That is to serve different needs.
They are slowly moving in that direction. In reality the Touch is now more or less a WiFi based VoIP phone. Obviously somewhat limited because it is Facetime only with Apple supported hardware/software. But still it is a device serving a different need.
This is BS. It is very clear that Apple thinks about market share, but not without profitability. Brand awareness is something you create to get the other two. Market share means a lot to Apple as it helps a great deal when it comes to competitive even aggressive pricing on Apples part. In fact it has helped so much that many of the Macs have remained reasonably priced over the last couple of years. Not I said reasonably priced not bargain basement. Market share has helped with software costs too. Mac OS/X updates have gotten cheaper for one. Market share has also given them confidence to be very aggressive in pricing iPad software, for example look at Numbers or Pages for iPad.
Have you even looked seriously at the mess that is Android?
Nope not at the moment. However they need to get the ball in gear or the car rolling with products that more fully take advantage of their initiatives. In some ways they are slippin up here. IPad should have been rev'd already to support Facetime. Beyound that the new AppleTV is a big joke. Why they did not integrate FaceTime there is beyound me. AppleTV looks like a product built to meet a price point and not a vision.
So maybe they don't have to worry at the moment but they need to continually adjust stadegey. More products would help a great deal.
I support everything you say-- especially the last 2 paragraphs;
The iPad must support FaceTime. Note: this does not necessarily mean a built-in camera.
The ATV needs to be fleshed out to support apps-- especially games, and Family FaceTime.
It disturbs me that it has [will have] taken 11 months to bring iOS 4 features to the iPad.
What is with the market share obsession? Apple don't care about market share, they care about brand awareness and profitability.
I find it incredible that a company which produce only one phone a year can have even this much market share - when you count the number of devices out there that run Android compared to the one device that is iPhone, then iOS shouldn't even register as a percentage.
I don't think Apple have too much worry about.
Market share is important, but what market? Google can't claim much revenue much less profit from Android for the near future. And how many of these Android devices will be Marketplace accessible?
Look:
Google/Open Handset Alliance require 3G access for a device to have Marketplace access:
...this means recurring monthly charge for each device!!
GoogleVerizon is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the consumer and developer here. Android on TV, watches, media players will either be majorly gimped or massively costly in subscription fees.
Ultimately this will be self-correcting, and that's why this piece of drivel analysis from Gartner (best spin/PR money can buy!) is not meaningful. The iPad(wifi) and iPod Touch really have no equals now, or even when the Android notebooks hit the shelves. Either the notebooks will be gimped (these are not the droids you are looking for), or be prohibitively expensive in comparison to the iPad/iPod.
The iPhone is already on multiple carriers in most countries it's available. The big one of course where it isn't is the US. Even if (or I should say when) it goes multiple carrier here, Android is still going to outsell it. It won't be about carrier availability but quantity of models. Gazillion Android models to 1.
FYI, iPhone in Japan is locked, and the worst is it's locked to the carrier that has so so signal and coverage. Yet it dominates the market with 72% smartphone market share. Even Sony is burried in its home country. RIM is no contest here (owned only by some old geezer expats). Nokia's dumb phones are hopeless against local makers (Toshiba, Sanyo, Sony, etc), let alone its smartphones.
I'm of the opinion after years of watching and being involved in the tech industry that people who make forecasts on the technology market that are 4 years into the future are either mad, stupid or both.
Or visionary yet perceived as mad because visionless people can't understand them.
For a man who seems to know business you are asking a simple question. Were I the sole owner of a company the profits would be mine. Since the Apple shareholders would benefit from getting a dividend, but are not getting a dividend, it is safe to assume that the profit motive - which is all about getting money in the owner's hands, not keeping it in the company - is not what drives either Apple, or it's shareholders.
Here is something that Apple could do to maximise profitability.
1) Sell windows machines. Using their brand and industrial design these machines would sell.
2) Lose IOS and adopt Android. The cost of Android is free, and Apple could trade on it's undoubted industrial design skills to stay ahead of the competition while losing all the development costs.
That is what a profit maximising company would do. It is not what Apple are going to do, the motivation that Apple has is not profit but market share. There is another ideology about owning the whole widget ( which I think misguided) but all the engineers, all the managers, all the executives in Apple want to win the OS wars in the mobile space against Google.
A phone the size of an iPod Nano... Interesting idea! Clipped to your shirt!
If Apple could pull that off, what would be the other device that people would carry with them?
.
That would be a very interesting engineering feat! But it would all have to be voice commands. It would be a cool little device but very hard to use......
For a man who seems to know business you are asking a simple question. Were I the sole owner of a company the profits would be mine. Since the Apple shareholders would benefit from getting a dividend, but are not getting a dividend, it is safe to assume that the profit motive - which is all about getting money in the owner's hands, not keeping it in the company - is not what drives either Apple, or it's shareholders.
Here is something that Apple could do to maximise profitability.
1) Sell windows machines. Using their brand and industrial design these machines would sell.
2) Lose IOS and adopt Android. The cost of Android is free, and Apple could trade on it's undoubted industrial design skills to stay ahead of the competition while losing all the development costs.
That is what a profit maximising company would do. It is not what Apple are going to do, the motivation that Apple has is not profit but market share. There is another ideology about owning the whole widget ( which I think misguided) but all the engineers, all the managers, all the executives in Apple want to win the OS wars in the mobile space against Google.
Human beings are not that simple.
I think you are wrong on several levels.
I am currently an Apple customer an Apple Developer and an Apple investor.
In the past, I have been an Apple reseller (retail dealer), Apple supplier, and worked together on a joint project with Apple.
There are different types of investments -- Apple is considered a growth as opposed to an income investment.
Also, there are short term goals and long term goals. Apple tends to view the long term, rather than maximize profits for instant gratification.
I can assure you that Apple is now, and always has been motivated by the profit motive.
Were Apple to do what you propose, it would be the first step to going out of business.
I am currently an Apple customer an Apple Developer and an Apple investor.
In the past, I have been an Apple reseller (retail dealer), Apple supplier, and worked together on a joint project with Apple project.
There are different types of investments -- Apple is considered a growth as opposed to an income investment.
Also, there are short term goals and long term goals. Apple tends to view the long term, rather than maximize profits for instant gratification.
I can assure you that Apple is now, and always has been motivated by the profit motive.
.
You didnt really take my two thought experiments into account. Would it be cheaper to lose the iOS team and make money on handsets carrying Android. WOuld it make sense to use the Apple brand to sell Windows machine.
What would a profit maximising robot suggest that Steve Jobs do?
The idea the profit is the sole motivator, or even the secondary motivator of Jobs is nonsense.
He never mentions profit, or Apple's stock price at his events. He talks about the product.
Like any other business they cant survive a loss for very long, however that does not mean they mean to always maximise quarterly profit.
For that reason I think they will reduce margins on the iPhone, possibly by keeping a lower level model around after the refresh next year ( possibly the iPhone 3GS), as they have on the iPod.
Apple can win this iOs war. The idea that they need to licence is old school nonsense. It is all made by the same manufacturers anyway.
The Gartner numbers either are wrong or are only counting certain types of units.
iPhone is running about 8-9 million units going into the Christmas period. If flat, that equals about 32-36 million iPhones in 2010. iPad was about 3.2 million in the first quarter of release. That projects to 9-10 million without accounting for new markets and catching up to demand. iPod has been spitballed at about 4-5 million per quarter or 16-20 million more per year. All told that's about 57-66 million iOS units in 2010 without accounting for growth and the historically stronger Christmas quarter.
Gartner has the number at 41 million. That would seem to include only iPhone not all of iOS.
PS: If you use the same percentage increases for 2011 and 2012 you're looking at about 186 million iOS units. But since analysts make this stuff up anyway, there is no saying they have any idea what to project into the future.
The profit motive does not drive Apple shareholders?
Is there much point in actually repeating what I said back to me?
Let me repeat. The profit motive does not drive Apple's shareholder because they do not get to see any profit - the company does not pay dividends. I have said that twice. Is that not too much? Do you like banging your head against a wall, because I dont.
Investors may be driven by future capital appreciation.... which isnt the same. If margins are reduced and profit sacrificed for future growth, so be it. Most would stay in the game ( not that Apple's share price has any effect on their on going business as they dont need to go to the market for money).
Is there much point in actually repeating what I said back to me?
Let me repeat. The profit motive does not drive Apple's shareholder because they do not get to see any profit - the company does not pay dividends. I have said that twice. Is that not too much?
Ah. You are using "profit" in an unusual manner. OK.
Both Apple and its shareholders seek to end up with more money than they started with, but neither cares about making a "profit". I get it now.
This is the fanboi's response. Unfortunately this is probably the attitude in the board room at Apple. And this attitude will bite the Apple's ass in a really big way.
One really easy way to increase iPhone sales is to...get ready, you knew someone was gonna bring this up...open the phone to other carriers. The public wants it, it will make everyone money and it's a good business decision.
But when you have a CEO with an ego as big as the North American continent you just don't do that. And if your a rabid fanboi you support that decision.
So live with the results.
Give me a break. The only reason the iPhone was locked to one carrier was because SJ was not willing to cave in to the usual carrier demands of forcing carrier solutions onto their customers. AT&T were the only ones who would meet SJ's demands and as a result a new paradigm shift was made in mobile services. Android, backed by the worlds largest Ad brokerage company, is now handing that power back to the carries (thanks heaps..not). I went with an iPhone because of what they have managd to do and what they continue to do (unfied solid platform and no bloatware). There is no fanboism involved in this decision....just good common consumer judgement.
You didnt really take my two thought experiments into account. Would it be cheaper to lose the iOS team and make money on handsets carrying Android. WOuld it make sense to use the Apple brand to sell Windows machine.
What would a profit maximising robot suggest that Steve Jobs do?
The idea the profit is the sole motivator, or even the secondary motivator of Jobs is nonsense.
He never mentions profit, or Apple's stock price at his events. He talks about the product.
Like any other business they cant survive a loss for very long, however that does not mean they mean to always maximise quarterly profit.
For that reason I think they will reduce margins on the iPhone, possibly by keeping a lower level model around after the refresh next year ( possibly the iPhone 3GS), as they have on the iPod.
Apple can win this iOs war. The idea that they need to licence is old school nonsense. It is all made by the same manufacturers anyway.
Are you at least 32 years old? I have been observing Apple for 32 years.
Your "thought experiments" are nonsense!
Apple management is better qualified than you or I to decide what Apple needs to do and when.
Apple's goal is to make as much profit as possible. Nothing else is a goal, but only a means to the goal of maximum profits.
Apple is not a foundation or a social club or a fraternal organization. They are a business.
You obviously understand nothing about Apple, marketing or business! Apple's goal is not maximum profits, it is merely an end result. Their goal, as stated repeatedly, is to give consumers the best possible experience, and to do it across every touch point - sales, service, usability, etc etc. That is what drives them, it is what drives consumers to their products, and it is what drives their incredible profits.
I said: "Apple's goal is to make as much profit as possible."
The exact opposite is "Apple's goal is to make as little profit as possible."
I stick by my original statement.
Opposite does not equal inaccurate. Relax man. Profits are important? yes. But how is profit truly made in a sustainable fashion? ___________________ (not even going to try, since everyone else has it has no effect)
Comments
That is the only reason why the other hardware makers could even dream of competing with Apple.
It already cost HP plenty of bucks buying WebOS just to TRY something different. (I personally think
Palm's OS is the second best out there.)
I am sure Google is just donating Androids OS to any and everyone, just waiting for the advertising
bonanza.
No one will be able to go head to head with Apple in the whole shebang.
I would have to disagree with this. A business has to make a profit (or continually attract fresh investment capital) to stay in business, but that doesn't have to be its, or its owners/top executives, primary motivation. For example, many people start businesses to "be their own boss". Sure, they have to figure out a way to make some money so they can do that, but it's not necessarily their primary motivation. People start businesses because they are really in to something and want to be able to pursue it full time. Again, yes, they have to make some money, but pursuing their interest is their primary motivation. (Sometimes, people even accept huge reductions in their income to do this.)
There are all sorts of motivations for people running businesses. They may have shareholders to keep happy along the way, but that doesn't have to be their primary motivation. Power, empire building, avoiding the rat race and, sure, desire for money are some among many possible motivations, so why not to change the world?
I respect what you say. Have you ever started a business? I have... for many of the reasons you mention.
But when it comes down to it, a business needs a single overriding goal. That goal must be profit. Without profit, none of the other things are possible-- things like a "hobby" product, or a brazen entry into an established market.
You can't deliver the best products (or even mediocre products) if you don't make enough profit to stay in business. There are short and long term strategies, but the goal of each must be profit!
.
They really need more than one phone on the market right now. Frankly for the same reasons that they have more than one iPod. That is to serve different needs.
They are slowly moving in that direction. In reality the Touch is now more or less a WiFi based VoIP phone. Obviously somewhat limited because it is Facetime only with Apple supported hardware/software. But still it is a device serving a different need.
This is BS. It is very clear that Apple thinks about market share, but not without profitability. Brand awareness is something you create to get the other two. Market share means a lot to Apple as it helps a great deal when it comes to competitive even aggressive pricing on Apples part. In fact it has helped so much that many of the Macs have remained reasonably priced over the last couple of years. Not I said reasonably priced not bargain basement. Market share has helped with software costs too. Mac OS/X updates have gotten cheaper for one. Market share has also given them confidence to be very aggressive in pricing iPad software, for example look at Numbers or Pages for iPad.
Have you even looked seriously at the mess that is Android?
Nope not at the moment. However they need to get the ball in gear or the car rolling with products that more fully take advantage of their initiatives. In some ways they are slippin up here. IPad should have been rev'd already to support Facetime. Beyound that the new AppleTV is a big joke. Why they did not integrate FaceTime there is beyound me. AppleTV looks like a product built to meet a price point and not a vision.
So maybe they don't have to worry at the moment but they need to continually adjust stadegey. More products would help a great deal.
I support everything you say-- especially the last 2 paragraphs;
The iPad must support FaceTime. Note: this does not necessarily mean a built-in camera.
The ATV needs to be fleshed out to support apps-- especially games, and Family FaceTime.
It disturbs me that it has [will have] taken 11 months to bring iOS 4 features to the iPad.
.
What is with the market share obsession? Apple don't care about market share, they care about brand awareness and profitability.
I find it incredible that a company which produce only one phone a year can have even this much market share - when you count the number of devices out there that run Android compared to the one device that is iPhone, then iOS shouldn't even register as a percentage.
I don't think Apple have too much worry about.
Market share is important, but what market? Google can't claim much revenue much less profit from Android for the near future. And how many of these Android devices will be Marketplace accessible?
Look:
Google/Open Handset Alliance require 3G access for a device to have Marketplace access:
http://blog.laptopmag.com/google-aug...t-unauthorized
...this means recurring monthly charge for each device!!
GoogleVerizon is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the consumer and developer here. Android on TV, watches, media players will either be majorly gimped or massively costly in subscription fees.
Ultimately this will be self-correcting, and that's why this piece of drivel analysis from Gartner (best spin/PR money can buy!) is not meaningful. The iPad(wifi) and iPod Touch really have no equals now, or even when the Android notebooks hit the shelves. Either the notebooks will be gimped (these are not the droids you are looking for), or be prohibitively expensive in comparison to the iPad/iPod.
The iPhone is already on multiple carriers in most countries it's available. The big one of course where it isn't is the US. Even if (or I should say when) it goes multiple carrier here, Android is still going to outsell it. It won't be about carrier availability but quantity of models. Gazillion Android models to 1.
FYI, iPhone in Japan is locked, and the worst is it's locked to the carrier that has so so signal and coverage. Yet it dominates the market with 72% smartphone market share. Even Sony is burried in its home country. RIM is no contest here (owned only by some old geezer expats). Nokia's dumb phones are hopeless against local makers (Toshiba, Sanyo, Sony, etc), let alone its smartphones.
The goal of any business is profit at the risk of a loss-- called the profit motive.
Emphasis changed.
Unless you are "too big to fail", then there is no risk, and the tax payer bails you out.
Emphasis changed.
Unless you are "too big to fail", then there is no risk, and the tax payer bails you out.
Sad... we saved the few, at the risk of the many!
... and may have learned nothing in the process...
.
I'm of the opinion after years of watching and being involved in the tech industry that people who make forecasts on the technology market that are 4 years into the future are either mad, stupid or both.
Or visionary yet perceived as mad because visionless people can't understand them.
How do you figure that?
For a man who seems to know business you are asking a simple question. Were I the sole owner of a company the profits would be mine. Since the Apple shareholders would benefit from getting a dividend, but are not getting a dividend, it is safe to assume that the profit motive - which is all about getting money in the owner's hands, not keeping it in the company - is not what drives either Apple, or it's shareholders.
Here is something that Apple could do to maximise profitability.
1) Sell windows machines. Using their brand and industrial design these machines would sell.
2) Lose IOS and adopt Android. The cost of Android is free, and Apple could trade on it's undoubted industrial design skills to stay ahead of the competition while losing all the development costs.
That is what a profit maximising company would do. It is not what Apple are going to do, the motivation that Apple has is not profit but market share. There is another ideology about owning the whole widget ( which I think misguided) but all the engineers, all the managers, all the executives in Apple want to win the OS wars in the mobile space against Google.
Human beings are not that simple.
A phone the size of an iPod Nano... Interesting idea! Clipped to your shirt!
If Apple could pull that off, what would be the other device that people would carry with them?
.
That would be a very interesting engineering feat! But it would all have to be voice commands. It would be a cool little device but very hard to use......
For a man who seems to know business you are asking a simple question. Were I the sole owner of a company the profits would be mine. Since the Apple shareholders would benefit from getting a dividend, but are not getting a dividend, it is safe to assume that the profit motive - which is all about getting money in the owner's hands, not keeping it in the company - is not what drives either Apple, or it's shareholders.
Here is something that Apple could do to maximise profitability.
1) Sell windows machines. Using their brand and industrial design these machines would sell.
2) Lose IOS and adopt Android. The cost of Android is free, and Apple could trade on it's undoubted industrial design skills to stay ahead of the competition while losing all the development costs.
That is what a profit maximising company would do. It is not what Apple are going to do, the motivation that Apple has is not profit but market share. There is another ideology about owning the whole widget ( which I think misguided) but all the engineers, all the managers, all the executives in Apple want to win the OS wars in the mobile space against Google.
Human beings are not that simple.
I think you are wrong on several levels.
I am currently an Apple customer an Apple Developer and an Apple investor.
In the past, I have been an Apple reseller (retail dealer), Apple supplier, and worked together on a joint project with Apple.
There are different types of investments -- Apple is considered a growth as opposed to an income investment.
Also, there are short term goals and long term goals. Apple tends to view the long term, rather than maximize profits for instant gratification.
I can assure you that Apple is now, and always has been motivated by the profit motive.
Were Apple to do what you propose, it would be the first step to going out of business.
.
I think you are wrong on several levels.
I am currently an Apple customer an Apple Developer and an Apple investor.
In the past, I have been an Apple reseller (retail dealer), Apple supplier, and worked together on a joint project with Apple project.
There are different types of investments -- Apple is considered a growth as opposed to an income investment.
Also, there are short term goals and long term goals. Apple tends to view the long term, rather than maximize profits for instant gratification.
I can assure you that Apple is now, and always has been motivated by the profit motive.
.
You didnt really take my two thought experiments into account. Would it be cheaper to lose the iOS team and make money on handsets carrying Android. WOuld it make sense to use the Apple brand to sell Windows machine.
What would a profit maximising robot suggest that Steve Jobs do?
The idea the profit is the sole motivator, or even the secondary motivator of Jobs is nonsense.
He never mentions profit, or Apple's stock price at his events. He talks about the product.
Like any other business they cant survive a loss for very long, however that does not mean they mean to always maximise quarterly profit.
For that reason I think they will reduce margins on the iPhone, possibly by keeping a lower level model around after the refresh next year ( possibly the iPhone 3GS), as they have on the iPod.
Apple can win this iOs war. The idea that they need to licence is old school nonsense. It is all made by the same manufacturers anyway.
iPhone is running about 8-9 million units going into the Christmas period. If flat, that equals about 32-36 million iPhones in 2010. iPad was about 3.2 million in the first quarter of release. That projects to 9-10 million without accounting for new markets and catching up to demand. iPod has been spitballed at about 4-5 million per quarter or 16-20 million more per year. All told that's about 57-66 million iOS units in 2010 without accounting for growth and the historically stronger Christmas quarter.
Gartner has the number at 41 million. That would seem to include only iPhone not all of iOS.
PS: If you use the same percentage increases for 2011 and 2012 you're looking at about 186 million iOS units. But since analysts make this stuff up anyway, there is no saying they have any idea what to project into the future.
it is safe to assume that the profit motive - ... - is not what drives either Apple, or it's shareholders.
The profit motive does not drive Apple shareholders?
The profit motive does not drive Apple shareholders?
Is there much point in actually repeating what I said back to me?
Let me repeat. The profit motive does not drive Apple's shareholder because they do not get to see any profit - the company does not pay dividends. I have said that twice. Is that not too much? Do you like banging your head against a wall, because I dont.
Investors may be driven by future capital appreciation.... which isnt the same. If margins are reduced and profit sacrificed for future growth, so be it. Most would stay in the game ( not that Apple's share price has any effect on their on going business as they dont need to go to the market for money).
Is there much point in actually repeating what I said back to me?
Let me repeat. The profit motive does not drive Apple's shareholder because they do not get to see any profit - the company does not pay dividends. I have said that twice. Is that not too much?
Ah. You are using "profit" in an unusual manner. OK.
Both Apple and its shareholders seek to end up with more money than they started with, but neither cares about making a "profit". I get it now.
This is the fanboi's response. Unfortunately this is probably the attitude in the board room at Apple. And this attitude will bite the Apple's ass in a really big way.
One really easy way to increase iPhone sales is to...get ready, you knew someone was gonna bring this up...open the phone to other carriers. The public wants it, it will make everyone money and it's a good business decision.
But when you have a CEO with an ego as big as the North American continent you just don't do that. And if your a rabid fanboi you support that decision.
So live with the results.
Give me a break. The only reason the iPhone was locked to one carrier was because SJ was not willing to cave in to the usual carrier demands of forcing carrier solutions onto their customers. AT&T were the only ones who would meet SJ's demands and as a result a new paradigm shift was made in mobile services. Android, backed by the worlds largest Ad brokerage company, is now handing that power back to the carries (thanks heaps..not). I went with an iPhone because of what they have managd to do and what they continue to do (unfied solid platform and no bloatware). There is no fanboism involved in this decision....just good common consumer judgement.
You didnt really take my two thought experiments into account. Would it be cheaper to lose the iOS team and make money on handsets carrying Android. WOuld it make sense to use the Apple brand to sell Windows machine.
What would a profit maximising robot suggest that Steve Jobs do?
The idea the profit is the sole motivator, or even the secondary motivator of Jobs is nonsense.
He never mentions profit, or Apple's stock price at his events. He talks about the product.
Like any other business they cant survive a loss for very long, however that does not mean they mean to always maximise quarterly profit.
For that reason I think they will reduce margins on the iPhone, possibly by keeping a lower level model around after the refresh next year ( possibly the iPhone 3GS), as they have on the iPod.
Apple can win this iOs war. The idea that they need to licence is old school nonsense. It is all made by the same manufacturers anyway.
Are you at least 32 years old? I have been observing Apple for 32 years.
Your "thought experiments" are nonsense!
Apple management is better qualified than you or I to decide what Apple needs to do and when.
.
Apple's goal is to make as much profit as possible. Nothing else is a goal, but only a means to the goal of maximum profits.
Apple is not a foundation or a social club or a fraternal organization. They are a business.
You obviously understand nothing about Apple, marketing or business! Apple's goal is not maximum profits, it is merely an end result. Their goal, as stated repeatedly, is to give consumers the best possible experience, and to do it across every touch point - sales, service, usability, etc etc. That is what drives them, it is what drives consumers to their products, and it is what drives their incredible profits.
I said: "Apple's goal is to make as much profit as possible."
The exact opposite is "Apple's goal is to make as little profit as possible."
I stick by my original statement.
Opposite does not equal inaccurate. Relax man. Profits are important? yes. But how is profit truly made in a sustainable fashion? ___________________ (not even going to try, since everyone else has it has no effect)