Considering how small Computers have become, as a percentage of Apple's Revenue and Profits, it is indeed strange that Apple still insists on high margins in this space. In Apple's own reckoning, the PC market is a dying market, and the future is in tablets. Then why don't they lower their margins and make a play for increased marketshare?
Today, the barrier to developing iPhone and iPad software is significantly higher than the barrier to develop Android Software. You absolutely need a Mac to build iOS software. And with Apple's prices, this is a stiff entry barrier indeed.
Even if Apple lowers margins on Macs to 10%, it will not hurt their bottom line in a significant way. And in all likelihood, the resulting increase in sales will more than make up for the lower margins.
PC's are a dying market???? Where on earth did this come from. Trucks vs cars, yes... Dying??? no.
Yes Apple computers cost less than the cheapest pc stuff.... So what. A great car cost more than an econo box. Your point is???
What is this relentless push for market share?? Lets lose money so we can have bragging rights. I see how well market share has done for HP and DELL. Yep, they are doing great today. Buy your Dell yet??
I have a six year old iBook that is still running great. Apple products just work better and longer. Just a thought.
"Apple's 2012 profits forecast to be highest of any public company ever"
And the lowest in charitable giving - ever...
<div id="user_ynano_hooks_page" style="display:none;">
<div id="user_callsToClient_page" style="display:none;"> </div>
Giving away losts of money to charity is mostly a sign that the money isn't earned in an honest way; a way to buy back your soul so to say.
Now if it is done anonymously it could be another matter entirely.
It is indicated several times in the recent past that Apple does donate a lot of money, they just don't brag about it. But you seem to have proof that Apple doesn't do that?
Apple poised to post highest profit and revenue ever thanks to the perfect storm. As we see Apple has just released new hardware with more to follow, the New Ihone 5 coming this fall, a possible new TV or Ipanel, new operating systems for mobile and land............lets face it, it doesn't get any better than this. (I forgot to mention Apples upcoming deal with China Mobile)
My question is what does Apple do for an encore.
Some possibilities for an Apple encore:
1) An iPhone with camera quality approaching DLSR
2) Entry PayGo iPhone -- especially for India, Africa...
3) MVNO supplying consistent voice, data, text worldwide
4) OTPC (One Tablet Per Child) iPad
5) Expand iTunes online store for buying events, hard goods, reservations...
6) Pay for any/all of the above through iTunes 400 million (and growing) credit card accounts.
Because these companies consider their vehicle to be very proprietary. They have standard interfaces for entertainment systems, and they have been willing to provide a socket in those systems for an iPod. But to give a place on the steering wheel to a third party is unheard of. It also directly competes with their highly profitable
GPS upgrades.
The reason I ask is because I thought that such integration was obvious. Apple appears to be able to convince companies to partner with them in ways that are often manifest only in retrospect. In this instance; however, the integration seemed apparent due to companies desiring to benefit from the "reality distortion field." Considering the massive capital and effort Apple has expended on Siri and iCloud expansion of the Apple ecosystem to non-traditional (for Apple) markets.
I wish I'd poured all my retirement money into Apple back in the early 90s when I got my first real job and started dabbling in investing. As it is, I only bought a few dozen shares and have sold most of them over the years for things like a downpayment on a house. But I'm still bullish on Apple and acquire a share now and then when I can. Fortunately, many of my 401k funds have Apple as a large holding.
The only similar returns I've had was back in the tech bubble of the late-90s. I bought some Corning for around $15/share and it went up to $100/share. But I didn't sell at the top and it crashed down when the bubble popped - lesson learned about sell orders.
I can't understand why a company like Sony isn't Apple. Sony had a reputation for quality products. Has lots of engineering resources. Makes many of the components required for iPods, tablets, smart phones, etc. Plus they have their own media companies. Why aren't auto manufacturers putting a Sony button in their cars? They had all the resources and opportunity to create the products Apple has, yet didn't. There certainly must be some secret sauce at work with Apple.
I am not excited about seeing a Siri button in cars, though. When it comes to third-party integration I much prefer to see open standards used. Why should Ford, BMW, etc. let Apple use their cars as a profit center? I'd much rather see some kind of voice control protocol defined and see other providers compete.
Maybe when Nokia (and RIM) goes bankrupt in the next two years, Apple can scarf up the guys responsible for that 41 megapixel camera in that phone of theirs.
Apple is successful because the leave the crumbs for others.
Even with a small percentage of the PC market, they make most of the profits. Its the same for smart phones.
They maintain their high margins by only selling the computers people are willing to buy despite the high margins. Also they make only a few SKUS with a great overlap in parts, software and engineering.
Covering all the things that are considered a part of the PC market (to get greater share) would blow the strategy that makes them money.
If the rest of the market wanted Macs instead of what they are now buying (the low margin stuff Apple doesn't make) they'd already be Apple customers.
Can't get blood from a turnip, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena
Considering how small Computers have become, as a percentage of Apple's Revenue and Profits, it is indeed strange that Apple still insists on high margins in this space. In Apple's own reckoning, the PC market is a dying market, and the future is in tablets. Then why don't they lower their margins and make a play for increased marketshare?
Today, the barrier to developing iPhone and iPad software is significantly higher than the barrier to develop Android Software. You absolutely need a Mac to build iOS software. And with Apple's prices, this is a stiff entry barrier indeed.
Even if Apple lowers margins on Macs to 10%, it will not hurt their bottom line in a significant way. And in all likelihood, the resulting increase in sales will more than make up for the lower margins.
I wish I'd poured all my retirement money into Apple back in the early 90s when I got my first real job and started dabbling in investing. As it is, I only bought a few dozen shares and have sold most of them over the years for things like a downpayment on a house. But I'm still bullish on Apple and acquire a share now and then when I can. Fortunately, many of my 401k funds have Apple as a large holding.
The only similar returns I've had was back in the tech bubble of the late-90s. I bought some Corning for around $15/share and it went up to $100/share. But I didn't sell at the top and it crashed down when the bubble popped - lesson learned about sell orders.
I can't understand why a company like Sony isn't Apple. Sony had a reputation for quality products. Has lots of engineering resources. Makes many of the components required for iPods, tablets, smart phones, etc. Plus they have their own media companies. Why aren't auto manufacturers putting a Sony button in their cars? They had all the resources and opportunity to create the products Apple has, yet didn't. There certainly must be some secret sauce at work with Apple.
I am not excited about seeing a Siri button in cars, though. When it comes to third-party integration I much prefer to see open standards used. Why should Ford, BMW, etc. let Apple use their cars as a profit center? I'd much rather see some kind of voice control protocol defined and see other providers compete.
Long Apple.
- Jasen.
No particular reason the "Eyes Free" feature can't be universal plug-n-play. "Eyes Free" is the likely reasoning (along with the European common External Power Supply (EPS) rule) behind the supposed new dock connector for the new iPhone (assuming the rumors are true).
Giving away losts of money to charity is mostly a sign that the money isn't earned in an honest way; a way to buy back your soul so to say.
Now if it is done anonymously it could be another matter entirely.
It is indicated several times in the recent past that Apple does donate a lot of money, they just don't brag about it. But you seem to have proof that Apple doesn't do that?
J.
He had the choice of using that line or the "at the expense of how many Chinese workers lives" line.
Considering how small Computers have become, as a percentage of Apple's Revenue and Profits, it is indeed strange that Apple still insists on high margins in this space. In Apple's own reckoning, the PC market is a dying market, and the future is in tablets. Then why don't they lower their margins and make a play for increased marketshare?
Today, the barrier to developing iPhone and iPad software is significantly higher than the barrier to develop Android Software. You absolutely need a Mac to build iOS software. And with Apple's prices, this is a stiff entry barrier indeed.
Even if Apple lowers margins on Macs to 10%, it will not hurt their bottom line in a significant way. And in all likelihood, the resulting increase in sales will more than make up for the lower margins.
In a mature market which is becoming commoditized, there are two options:
1. As you recommend, cut prices to try to increase market share. That cuts into your profits - and competitors generally do the same thing, leading to a downward spiral.
2. Focus on niches where you can obtain a nice margin. That is what Apple does.
Just curious. Are there private companies who make more profit than Apple?
The very fact that they're private means that you'll never know for sure. However, Saudi Aramco is widely recognized as perhaps the largest private company. However, reports I've seen of their revenues are that they're roughly half of Exxon's size. If their operations are similar to Exxon (which is a HUGE assumption), they would not earn more than Exxon or Apple. Of course, if their margins are much higher, it's possible that they could make more profit than Apple.
Don't you mean that Newton was the first true tablet from Apple? Weren't there others predating Newton that were equally (dys)functional?
The Newton was far ahead of its time and was a great device for its time, particularly by the time the second iteration came out. The only real problem with Newton was unrealistic expectations.
PC's are a dying market???? Where on earth did this come from. Trucks vs cars, yes... Dying??? no.
'Dying' is far too strong a word. 'Mature' is far more accurate. Maybe even 'commoditized'. The market's growth has essentially stopped even with Apple included. Without Apple, sales are declining. And there is less and less difference between the brands and less differentiation - which ultimately leads to reduced margins.
Considering how small Computers have become, as a percentage of Apple's Revenue and Profits, it is indeed strange that Apple still insists on high margins in this space. In Apple's own reckoning, the PC market is a dying market, and the future is in tablets. Then why don't they lower their margins and make a play for increased marketshare?
Today, the barrier to developing iPhone and iPad software is significantly higher than the barrier to develop Android Software. You absolutely need a Mac to build iOS software. And with Apple's prices, this is a stiff entry barrier indeed.
Even if Apple lowers margins on Macs to 10%, it will not hurt their bottom line in a significant way. And in all likelihood, the resulting increase in sales will more than make up for the lower margins.
As a business owner I'd rather sell 1 @ $100 if it costs me $50 than 5 @ $60, essentially for the same profit. Most profitable companies that "get it" like Apple does would rather also.
Most will agree that there is great potential for Apple profits with iPads.
It appears that the competition cannot match the iPad in quality, price, ecosystem...
What is amazing to me is that this is an un-subsidized market. Apple is not beholden to any carriers (or third-parties) to sell the iPad.
Hopefully, the next iPhone (the LTE) will run on any carrier. If so, the potential exists, for the first time (in the US), for the iPhone buyer to pay full price for the device -- then negotiate among the carriers for the best service packages to satisfy their current and changing needs.
We have ATT family plan with 3 iPhones and 2 feature phones. The big impediment to going "all iPhone" is the price of an individual data plan for each phone.
When the next iPhone arrives, we will have only 1 iPhone under contract. We would gladly pay the ETF on a single iPhone if we could negotiate voice/text/data service tailored to our needs -- rather than tailored to the carriers needs.
Finally, I can see the day where you could purchase and pay for your iPhone and services with a single monthly payment to the iTunes store.
Giving away losts of money to charity is mostly a sign that the money isn't earned in an honest way; a way to buy back your soul so to say.
Now if it is done anonymously it could be another matter entirely.
It is indicated several times in the recent past that Apple does donate a lot of money, they just don't brag about it. But you seem to have proof that Apple doesn't do that?
J.
There's also the fact that Apple's technology has been so innovative and enabling that the value they have delivered to their customers (and the rest of the world, by simply spurring greater innovation in personal information tools) has far exceeded what people have paid for their Apple products.
Education, culture, economics, etc,— many things have been richly enhanced by Apple's leadership in making technology generally usable and ubiquitous.
There's also the fact that Apple's technology has been so innovative and enabling that the value they have delivered to their customers (and the rest of the world, by simply spurring greater innovation in personal information tools) has far exceeded what people have paid for their Apple products.
Education, culture, economics, etc,— many things have been richly enhanced by Apple's leadership in making technology generally usable and ubiquitous.
Exactly! Apple is enabling the world to do more than fish. Let them concentrate on that.
As a business owner I'd rather sell 1 @ $100 if it costs me $50 than 5 @ $60, essentially for the same profit. Most profitable companies that "get it" like Apple does would rather also.
From the perspective of a [former] business owner selling Apple products.
What you say has a greater advantage than only the profit $.
You and your $100 customer have a $50 relationship -- that is understood and appreciated by each party.
Your competitor has a $10 relationship, each, with 5 parties -- understood by each, for what it is worth.
You are selling solutions, relationships, repeat business, reference sales...
There's also the fact that Apple's technology has been so innovative and enabling that the value they have delivered to their customers (and the rest of the world, by simply spurring greater innovation in personal information tools) has far exceeded what people have paid for their Apple products.
Education, culture, economics, etc,— many things have been richly enhanced by Apple's leadership in making technology generally usable and ubiquitous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Exactly! Apple is enabling the world to do more than fish. Let them concentrate on that.
These 2 posts are so cogent!
If Apple had done nothing else -- the iPhone, alone, has given more [computer] solutions and opportunities to more people than everything that came before.
Yes, other devices and services have followed the iPhone -- but, they, too, can be considered as benefiting from the opportunity created by Apple.
Off topic: I think it'll be the same people that will claim "Steve would have never done this" for anything Apple does that don't like (even if it happened during his watch), and that any positive changes that Apple makes since Steve's passing will be the result, not of Tim Cook's leadership of other people at Apple, but actions Steve put in place before he stepped down as CEO. Even if Apple becomes the first trillion dollar publicly traded company it'll just a be a fluke and/or have nothing to do with the current efforts from Apple. Can Apple ever win?
Interesting. I think a lot of the hatred of Apple is focused on Steve Jobs. Ever since Jobs' death, I've wondered how the Steve-hating segment of the tech media would respond to Apple's successes and failures in his absence. Either way, whether Apple thrives or falters, there's going to be an anti-Steve sentiment buried in it. I figure it will go like this.
Apple announces record profits and sales.
"Ah, see, it was Tim Cook all along. Steve Jobs was just a poser, type-A personality putting himself out in front of the parade and taking credit for other people's work." (Have already seen a little bit of this, although not much. I suspect it will become a recurring theme.)
Apple announces decreased profits and sales.
"See, Steve Jobs was such a megalomaniacal control freak that his absence leaves the company in shambles and facing certain doom."
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena
Considering how small Computers have become, as a percentage of Apple's Revenue and Profits, it is indeed strange that Apple still insists on high margins in this space. In Apple's own reckoning, the PC market is a dying market, and the future is in tablets. Then why don't they lower their margins and make a play for increased marketshare?
Today, the barrier to developing iPhone and iPad software is significantly higher than the barrier to develop Android Software. You absolutely need a Mac to build iOS software. And with Apple's prices, this is a stiff entry barrier indeed.
Even if Apple lowers margins on Macs to 10%, it will not hurt their bottom line in a significant way. And in all likelihood, the resulting increase in sales will more than make up for the lower margins.
PC's are a dying market???? Where on earth did this come from. Trucks vs cars, yes... Dying??? no.
Yes Apple computers cost less than the cheapest pc stuff.... So what. A great car cost more than an econo box. Your point is???
What is this relentless push for market share?? Lets lose money so we can have bragging rights. I see how well market share has done for HP and DELL. Yep, they are doing great today. Buy your Dell yet??
I have a six year old iBook that is still running great. Apple products just work better and longer. Just a thought.
Giving away losts of money to charity is mostly a sign that the money isn't earned in an honest way; a way to buy back your soul so to say.
Now if it is done anonymously it could be another matter entirely.
It is indicated several times in the recent past that Apple does donate a lot of money, they just don't brag about it. But you seem to have proof that Apple doesn't do that?
J.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuxoM3
"Apple's 2012 profits forecast to be highest of any public company ever"
And the lowest in charitable giving - ever...
And the worst environmental record.
And they torture little Chinese babies!
/s
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuxoM3
"Apple's 2012 profits forecast to be highest of any public company ever"
And the lowest in charitable giving - ever...
And the worst environmental record.
And they torture little Chinese babies!
/s
Quote:
Originally Posted by BUSHMAN4
Apple poised to post highest profit and revenue ever thanks to the perfect storm. As we see Apple has just released new hardware with more to follow, the New Ihone 5 coming this fall, a possible new TV or Ipanel, new operating systems for mobile and land............lets face it, it doesn't get any better than this. (I forgot to mention Apples upcoming deal with China Mobile)
My question is what does Apple do for an encore.
Some possibilities for an Apple encore:
1) An iPhone with camera quality approaching DLSR
2) Entry PayGo iPhone -- especially for India, Africa...
3) MVNO supplying consistent voice, data, text worldwide
4) OTPC (One Tablet Per Child) iPad
5) Expand iTunes online store for buying events, hard goods, reservations...
6) Pay for any/all of the above through iTunes 400 million (and growing) credit card accounts.
The reason I ask is because I thought that such integration was obvious. Apple appears to be able to convince companies to partner with them in ways that are often manifest only in retrospect. In this instance; however, the integration seemed apparent due to companies desiring to benefit from the "reality distortion field." Considering the massive capital and effort Apple has expended on Siri and iCloud expansion of the Apple ecosystem to non-traditional (for Apple) markets.
I wish I'd poured all my retirement money into Apple back in the early 90s when I got my first real job and started dabbling in investing. As it is, I only bought a few dozen shares and have sold most of them over the years for things like a downpayment on a house. But I'm still bullish on Apple and acquire a share now and then when I can. Fortunately, many of my 401k funds have Apple as a large holding.
The only similar returns I've had was back in the tech bubble of the late-90s. I bought some Corning for around $15/share and it went up to $100/share. But I didn't sell at the top and it crashed down when the bubble popped - lesson learned about sell orders.
I can't understand why a company like Sony isn't Apple. Sony had a reputation for quality products. Has lots of engineering resources. Makes many of the components required for iPods, tablets, smart phones, etc. Plus they have their own media companies. Why aren't auto manufacturers putting a Sony button in their cars? They had all the resources and opportunity to create the products Apple has, yet didn't. There certainly must be some secret sauce at work with Apple.
I am not excited about seeing a Siri button in cars, though. When it comes to third-party integration I much prefer to see open standards used. Why should Ford, BMW, etc. let Apple use their cars as a profit center? I'd much rather see some kind of voice control protocol defined and see other providers compete.
Long Apple.
- Jasen.
Maybe when Nokia (and RIM) goes bankrupt in the next two years, Apple can scarf up the guys responsible for that 41 megapixel camera in that phone of theirs.
Apple is successful because the leave the crumbs for others.
Even with a small percentage of the PC market, they make most of the profits. Its the same for smart phones.
They maintain their high margins by only selling the computers people are willing to buy despite the high margins. Also they make only a few SKUS with a great overlap in parts, software and engineering.
Covering all the things that are considered a part of the PC market (to get greater share) would blow the strategy that makes them money.
If the rest of the market wanted Macs instead of what they are now buying (the low margin stuff Apple doesn't make) they'd already be Apple customers.
Can't get blood from a turnip, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena
Considering how small Computers have become, as a percentage of Apple's Revenue and Profits, it is indeed strange that Apple still insists on high margins in this space. In Apple's own reckoning, the PC market is a dying market, and the future is in tablets. Then why don't they lower their margins and make a play for increased marketshare?
Today, the barrier to developing iPhone and iPad software is significantly higher than the barrier to develop Android Software. You absolutely need a Mac to build iOS software. And with Apple's prices, this is a stiff entry barrier indeed.
Even if Apple lowers margins on Macs to 10%, it will not hurt their bottom line in a significant way. And in all likelihood, the resulting increase in sales will more than make up for the lower margins.
No particular reason the "Eyes Free" feature can't be universal plug-n-play. "Eyes Free" is the likely reasoning (along with the European common External Power Supply (EPS) rule) behind the supposed new dock connector for the new iPhone (assuming the rumors are true).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
Giving away losts of money to charity is mostly a sign that the money isn't earned in an honest way; a way to buy back your soul so to say.
Now if it is done anonymously it could be another matter entirely.
It is indicated several times in the recent past that Apple does donate a lot of money, they just don't brag about it. But you seem to have proof that Apple doesn't do that?
J.
He had the choice of using that line or the "at the expense of how many Chinese workers lives" line.
In a mature market which is becoming commoditized, there are two options:
1. As you recommend, cut prices to try to increase market share. That cuts into your profits - and competitors generally do the same thing, leading to a downward spiral.
2. Focus on niches where you can obtain a nice margin. That is what Apple does.
The latter is almost always a better option.
The very fact that they're private means that you'll never know for sure. However, Saudi Aramco is widely recognized as perhaps the largest private company. However, reports I've seen of their revenues are that they're roughly half of Exxon's size. If their operations are similar to Exxon (which is a HUGE assumption), they would not earn more than Exxon or Apple. Of course, if their margins are much higher, it's possible that they could make more profit than Apple.
Absolutely. However, some of the other figures weren't all that long ago so it might not change things.
The Newton was far ahead of its time and was a great device for its time, particularly by the time the second iteration came out. The only real problem with Newton was unrealistic expectations.
'Dying' is far too strong a word. 'Mature' is far more accurate. Maybe even 'commoditized'. The market's growth has essentially stopped even with Apple included. Without Apple, sales are declining. And there is less and less difference between the brands and less differentiation - which ultimately leads to reduced margins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena
Considering how small Computers have become, as a percentage of Apple's Revenue and Profits, it is indeed strange that Apple still insists on high margins in this space. In Apple's own reckoning, the PC market is a dying market, and the future is in tablets. Then why don't they lower their margins and make a play for increased marketshare?
Today, the barrier to developing iPhone and iPad software is significantly higher than the barrier to develop Android Software. You absolutely need a Mac to build iOS software. And with Apple's prices, this is a stiff entry barrier indeed.
Even if Apple lowers margins on Macs to 10%, it will not hurt their bottom line in a significant way. And in all likelihood, the resulting increase in sales will more than make up for the lower margins.
As a business owner I'd rather sell 1 @ $100 if it costs me $50 than 5 @ $60, essentially for the same profit. Most profitable companies that "get it" like Apple does would rather also.
Most will agree that there is great potential for Apple profits with iPads.
It appears that the competition cannot match the iPad in quality, price, ecosystem...
What is amazing to me is that this is an un-subsidized market. Apple is not beholden to any carriers (or third-parties) to sell the iPad.
Hopefully, the next iPhone (the LTE) will run on any carrier. If so, the potential exists, for the first time (in the US), for the iPhone buyer to pay full price for the device -- then negotiate among the carriers for the best service packages to satisfy their current and changing needs.
We have ATT family plan with 3 iPhones and 2 feature phones. The big impediment to going "all iPhone" is the price of an individual data plan for each phone.
When the next iPhone arrives, we will have only 1 iPhone under contract. We would gladly pay the ETF on a single iPhone if we could negotiate voice/text/data service tailored to our needs -- rather than tailored to the carriers needs.
Finally, I can see the day where you could purchase and pay for your iPhone and services with a single monthly payment to the iTunes store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
Giving away losts of money to charity is mostly a sign that the money isn't earned in an honest way; a way to buy back your soul so to say.
Now if it is done anonymously it could be another matter entirely.
It is indicated several times in the recent past that Apple does donate a lot of money, they just don't brag about it. But you seem to have proof that Apple doesn't do that?
J.
There's also the fact that Apple's technology has been so innovative and enabling that the value they have delivered to their customers (and the rest of the world, by simply spurring greater innovation in personal information tools) has far exceeded what people have paid for their Apple products.
Education, culture, economics, etc,— many things have been richly enhanced by Apple's leadership in making technology generally usable and ubiquitous.
Exactly! Apple is enabling the world to do more than fish. Let them concentrate on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter
As a business owner I'd rather sell 1 @ $100 if it costs me $50 than 5 @ $60, essentially for the same profit. Most profitable companies that "get it" like Apple does would rather also.
From the perspective of a [former] business owner selling Apple products.
What you say has a greater advantage than only the profit $.
You and your $100 customer have a $50 relationship -- that is understood and appreciated by each party.
Your competitor has a $10 relationship, each, with 5 parties -- understood by each, for what it is worth.
You are selling solutions, relationships, repeat business, reference sales...
Your competitor is selling price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
There's also the fact that Apple's technology has been so innovative and enabling that the value they have delivered to their customers (and the rest of the world, by simply spurring greater innovation in personal information tools) has far exceeded what people have paid for their Apple products.
Education, culture, economics, etc,— many things have been richly enhanced by Apple's leadership in making technology generally usable and ubiquitous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Exactly! Apple is enabling the world to do more than fish. Let them concentrate on that.
These 2 posts are so cogent!
If Apple had done nothing else -- the iPhone, alone, has given more [computer] solutions and opportunities to more people than everything that came before.
Yes, other devices and services have followed the iPhone -- but, they, too, can be considered as benefiting from the opportunity created by Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
It would be interesting to put this is in better historical context by adjusting these numbers for inflation.
What numbers for inflation? That's not making much sense!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Off topic: I think it'll be the same people that will claim "Steve would have never done this" for anything Apple does that don't like (even if it happened during his watch), and that any positive changes that Apple makes since Steve's passing will be the result, not of Tim Cook's leadership of other people at Apple, but actions Steve put in place before he stepped down as CEO. Even if Apple becomes the first trillion dollar publicly traded company it'll just a be a fluke and/or have nothing to do with the current efforts from Apple. Can Apple ever win?
Interesting. I think a lot of the hatred of Apple is focused on Steve Jobs. Ever since Jobs' death, I've wondered how the Steve-hating segment of the tech media would respond to Apple's successes and failures in his absence. Either way, whether Apple thrives or falters, there's going to be an anti-Steve sentiment buried in it. I figure it will go like this.
Apple announces record profits and sales.
"Ah, see, it was Tim Cook all along. Steve Jobs was just a poser, type-A personality putting himself out in front of the parade and taking credit for other people's work." (Have already seen a little bit of this, although not much. I suspect it will become a recurring theme.)
Apple announces decreased profits and sales.
"See, Steve Jobs was such a megalomaniacal control freak that his absence leaves the company in shambles and facing certain doom."