I know. Isn't it annoying when the other party simply makes a contrary statement without any support for their position? Nudge nudge...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
They've specifically stated that's not what they're about.
When? Where? Who? How? Virtually every word of every conference call contradicts that. Apple's own remarks on the discontinuation of the 17" were that it just wasn't selling well enough (though I don't think they ever did issue an "official" statement -- it just quietly disappeared). Can you show me a quote or even give me an example of Apple's altruism towards users that did not benefit shareholders?
Spitballing here; 1996, 2001, 2005, 2008, 2011… More times.
Where?
Variety of locations, given the times.
Who?
Steve Jobs, et. al.
How?
Orally and written.
Virtually every word of every conference call contradicts that.
HOLY CRAP, THE SHAREHOLDER CONFERENCE CALLS, DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR SHAREHOLDERS, TALK ABOUT SHAREHOLDER STUFF.
???????????
Can you show me a quote or even give me an example of Apple's altruism towards users that did not benefit shareholders?
Plenty of quotes out there, and Steve stated outright (maybe it was only on one occasion, maybe he repeated himself; can't remember) that he didn't care about the stock price. So I guess as a CEO, he's terrible in your eyes. There's also good one from 1993 that simply hints at it, and he's not even at Apple then.
It was the foundation of how he worked. He didn't do it for the shareholders, period. He did it for the products and what they were. You can't really disagree with that. That they made money on every unit of every item they sold is just common (business) sense. Anything else from any other company should be considered unacceptable from shareholders, since that's apparently all they care about, too.
You'll notice Steve's dead. That's fine. He wasn't the only person on the planet—much less at the company—who cared more about the products than the stock price. Not to say that can't change, just that the tree will have to be uprooted rather than the seed planted, you see.
[...] You'll notice Steve's dead. That's fine. He wasn't the only person on the planet—much less at the company—who cared more about the products than the stock price. Not to say that can't change, just that the tree will have to be uprooted rather than the seed planted, you see.
The answer to the question of whether or not financial success is a driving force at Apple seems to vary according to who you ask. On one hand you have Jony stating unequivocally that it is not:
“Our goal at Apple is absolutely not to make money,” he said in July. “Our goal, and what makes us excited, is to make great products.”
But then you get the "cagey" answer from Tim Cook:
“I just want to build great products,” Cook says. “I think if we do that, then the other things follow.” Companies can get lost, he says, focusing on revenue, profit or stock price. “You have to focus on the things that lead to those,” he says.
On the surface that sounds like he's saying products matter more than money, but what he actually said was that you have to focus not on the money but on doing the things that lead to money. He recognizes that great products are a key ingredient to success, but as a means to an end, which is, obviously, to make money,
There's obviously nothing wrong with that and I have no issue with it. I'm simply saying that sometimes that means products get axed not because they're no good, but because they don't make enough money. The quote above tends to support that position. If the point of making great products is to make money, then products that don't make enough money are replaced with ones that do.
Finally, what Apple execs say and what they do isn't always completely consistent either. That's not necessarily a failure or fault, it just means that statements made to the media are a form of advertising and may not always accurately portray the realities of how the business has to be run when the lights are off and the cameras are gone. Others are also noticing a shift in how decisions are made at Apple:
"Now that Steve is gone, the voice that constantly pushed people to do the impossible is being replaced by voices that say, 'This works well for our business'"
None of this makes Apple evil, of course. They're not doing anything wrong. They're doing what any company that wants to make money SHOULD be doing. Which brings us back to my original point: decisions ARE made on the basis of what's profitable, not what makes users feel warm and fuzzy. Often the two overlap, and Apple's strategy is to make users feel warm and fuzzy in order to sell their products, but when a product line is only making $X and something else can make $X+, making users feel warm and fuzzy isn't enough to save it. All I said was that I *wish* reality was different so that I, and others like me, could still buy 17" MacBook Pros.
On the surface that sounds like he's saying products matter more than money, but what he actually said was that you have to focus not on the money but on doing the things that lead to money.
That's not at all what he's saying. He's saying that by making the best products, they won't have to worry about making the money. The products will inherently bring the money thereafter.
Look at it like an entrepreneuring restauranteur. He has an idea for a new kind of restaurant, but he's worried about the money it would take to build and run it, so he doesn't do it. Tim's saying that he shouldn't be worried. If the idea is truly good, by its very nature it will bring in the required money, since people will be stumbling over themselves for this new eating experience. Just like buying new Apple products.
Steve has said—almost word for word—what Cook did. Which makes sense, given.
That is absolutely the best quote that I have heard that describes the post-Steve Apple. Not that it is doomed, but it's not business as usual. Or, actually, it is, now, business as usual.
I think more and more users are looking to Macbooks, iPads and iPhones for their Apple fix. Mobile has taken off on all fronts, and desktops are slowing for everyone, not just Apple.
This is silly. Between the Mini, the iMac, the Pro, and all the laptops, Apple offers a nice range.
So what are your super-special needs that Apple doesn't meet?
Point me to the mid range mid sized desktop Mac that offers me the choice of some internal expansion and the choice of monitor. Only the Mac Pro does that but it certainly isn't mid range or mid sized.
I might consider the mini but it will mean purchasing an external case to hold the additional devices I need. Which is really retarded when discussing a desktop computer. It would be like buying a small car and using a utility trailer hooked up to it each and every day in order to carry what you use all the time. Why not just buy a mid sized car to begin with that has the room you need each and every day?
I would jump all over a headless iMac. Put it in a case that is easy to open, has room for two hard drives and an optical drive (yes I really do use it) and let me choose my monitor. I would pay $1500 for that kind of Mac. Apple would make money because they would be saving them the cost of the built in monitor I do not want.
I have no need for a laptop and would never purchase one. I will admit that an iPad appears attractive but I need the desktop Mac first.
So many people believe that Apple offers a solution for everyone only because their own needs are met. There are many more that are either settling for a Mac model that is close but not really what they want, waiting, or switching.
I could buy an iMac and hate it, buy a mini and not be totally satisfied with it or chunk out big bucks for a Mac Pro and be pissed that I had to do it just because Apple refuses to offer a mid range product. I will wait to see what happens in 2013.
People will think me anal about all this but tough. I refuse to spend money on something that isn't what I need or want. Same way I'm holding out on buying any of Apple's iDevices. I don't really need them so why should I support Apple with purchases that mean nothing to me while I can't get the one product I really want and would really use? I came to Apple for computer use not music or phone calls.
I'm forced to use a windows machine at work and it isn't totally a bad experience but my heart is with Apple. Apple has the heart (OSX), the soul (good looking design) it just needs the right body (mid sized) to go with it.
I know it is out of my hands. Apple will do what it wants. I am just waiting to see if Apple still wants me as a customer. It might not.
The quad mac pro is basically Apple's offering in terms of a mid tower desktop. It's probably not that expensive to make either. Some of the minis have a higher cpu cost, and the 5770 was never a terribly expensive card. I felt its pricing was largely to space it from the imac and pace it with the rest of the mac pro line, but there really isn't a great deal of spec difference (or component teardown cost) between that one and a mid range desktop. Obviously the heavy aluminum case costs something in materials, but we're talking about maybe an extra $15 (or less) in aluminum. The stuff is cheap, and machining cases is arguably a more costly process.
I'm waiting for the comment of...well if Steve were alive this would have never happened! /sarcasm
Add that to the WIP: Troll thread if you haven't yet.
...
When calendar Q4 2012 is reported next year the markets are going to slam Apple bad because no iMacs until December, again, only the iMac 21". Might be a good chance then to get in again under $600.
Even though I prefer OSX? I love the hardware, I love the software. I just don't like how it is packaged to where usability of something as basic as a desktop has been constrained.
Even though I prefer OSX? I love the hardware, I love the software. I just don't like how it is packaged to where usability of something as basic as a desktop has been constrained.
Interestingly the newest imacs appear to have easier access, as the display comes off as a single piece. If this is by design, it was likely to facilitate repairs. I've read complaints about smudges or dust under the screen on repaired units. If the changes eliminate that as a point of concern, it does make them easier for Apple or their contractor to service.
Interestingly the newest imacs appear to have easier access, as the display comes off as a single piece. If this is by design, it was likely to facilitate repairs. I've read complaints about smudges or dust under the screen on repaired units. If the changes eliminate that as a point of concern, it does make them easier for Apple or their contractor to service.
I'm surprised iFixit doesn't have a teardown of the 21.5" model yet.
Interestingly the newest imacs appear to have easier access, as the display comes off as a single piece. If this is by design, it was likely to facilitate repairs. I've read complaints about smudges or dust under the screen on repaired units. If the changes eliminate that as a point of concern, it does make them easier for Apple or their contractor to service.
One report said it's held on with double sided tape, so I don't know if it's an improvement in repairability or not. The previous iMac cover screen was held on by magnets, which I found to be trivial to peel off. I don't know about the tape.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ah, see, Apple isn't. So there goes your entire argument.
Of course it is.
My argument stands on its own anyway. It is not dependent on the first condition being true to be true itself.
Originally Posted by v5v
Of course it is.
Except it isn't. We can do this all day. They've specifically stated that's not what they're about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Except it isn't. We can do this all day.
I know. Isn't it annoying when the other party simply makes a contrary statement without any support for their position? Nudge nudge...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
They've specifically stated that's not what they're about.
When? Where? Who? How? Virtually every word of every conference call contradicts that. Apple's own remarks on the discontinuation of the 17" were that it just wasn't selling well enough (though I don't think they ever did issue an "official" statement -- it just quietly disappeared). Can you show me a quote or even give me an example of Apple's altruism towards users that did not benefit shareholders?
Originally Posted by v5v
When?
Spitballing here; 1996, 2001, 2005, 2008, 2011… More times.
Where?
Variety of locations, given the times.
Who?
Steve Jobs, et. al.
How?
Orally and written.
Virtually every word of every conference call contradicts that.
HOLY CRAP, THE SHAREHOLDER CONFERENCE CALLS, DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR SHAREHOLDERS, TALK ABOUT SHAREHOLDER STUFF.
???????????
Can you show me a quote or even give me an example of Apple's altruism towards users that did not benefit shareholders?
Plenty of quotes out there, and Steve stated outright (maybe it was only on one occasion, maybe he repeated himself; can't remember) that he didn't care about the stock price. So I guess as a CEO, he's terrible in your eyes. There's also good one from 1993 that simply hints at it, and he's not even at Apple then.
It was the foundation of how he worked. He didn't do it for the shareholders, period. He did it for the products and what they were. You can't really disagree with that. That they made money on every unit of every item they sold is just common (business) sense. Anything else from any other company should be considered unacceptable from shareholders, since that's apparently all they care about, too.
You'll notice Steve's dead. That's fine. He wasn't the only person on the planet—much less at the company—who cared more about the products than the stock price. Not to say that can't change, just that the tree will have to be uprooted rather than the seed planted, you see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
[...] You'll notice Steve's dead. That's fine. He wasn't the only person on the planet—much less at the company—who cared more about the products than the stock price. Not to say that can't change, just that the tree will have to be uprooted rather than the seed planted, you see.
The answer to the question of whether or not financial success is a driving force at Apple seems to vary according to who you ask. On one hand you have Jony stating unequivocally that it is not:
“Our goal at Apple is absolutely not to make money,” he said in July. “Our goal, and what makes us excited, is to make great products.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/new-establishment/2012/01-tim-cook-jonathan-ive
But then you get the "cagey" answer from Tim Cook:
“I just want to build great products,” Cook says. “I think if we do that, then the other things follow.” Companies can get lost, he says, focusing on revenue, profit or stock price. “You have to focus on the things that lead to those,” he says.
http://allthingsd.com/20120529/live-apple-ceo-tim-cooks-first-time-in-the-hot-seat-at-d/
On the surface that sounds like he's saying products matter more than money, but what he actually said was that you have to focus not on the money but on doing the things that lead to money. He recognizes that great products are a key ingredient to success, but as a means to an end, which is, obviously, to make money,
There's obviously nothing wrong with that and I have no issue with it. I'm simply saying that sometimes that means products get axed not because they're no good, but because they don't make enough money. The quote above tends to support that position. If the point of making great products is to make money, then products that don't make enough money are replaced with ones that do.
Finally, what Apple execs say and what they do isn't always completely consistent either. That's not necessarily a failure or fault, it just means that statements made to the media are a form of advertising and may not always accurately portray the realities of how the business has to be run when the lights are off and the cameras are gone. Others are also noticing a shift in how decisions are made at Apple:
"Now that Steve is gone, the voice that constantly pushed people to do the impossible is being replaced by voices that say, 'This works well for our business'"
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2d45243a-0988-11e2-a424-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2D47YAp8c
None of this makes Apple evil, of course. They're not doing anything wrong. They're doing what any company that wants to make money SHOULD be doing. Which brings us back to my original point: decisions ARE made on the basis of what's profitable, not what makes users feel warm and fuzzy. Often the two overlap, and Apple's strategy is to make users feel warm and fuzzy in order to sell their products, but when a product line is only making $X and something else can make $X+, making users feel warm and fuzzy isn't enough to save it. All I said was that I *wish* reality was different so that I, and others like me, could still buy 17" MacBook Pros.
Originally Posted by v5v
On the surface that sounds like he's saying products matter more than money, but what he actually said was that you have to focus not on the money but on doing the things that lead to money.
That's not at all what he's saying. He's saying that by making the best products, they won't have to worry about making the money. The products will inherently bring the money thereafter.
Look at it like an entrepreneuring restauranteur. He has an idea for a new kind of restaurant, but he's worried about the money it would take to build and run it, so he doesn't do it. Tim's saying that he shouldn't be worried. If the idea is truly good, by its very nature it will bring in the required money, since people will be stumbling over themselves for this new eating experience. Just like buying new Apple products.
Steve has said—almost word for word—what Cook did. Which makes sense, given.
That is absolutely the best quote that I have heard that describes the post-Steve Apple. Not that it is doomed, but it's not business as usual. Or, actually, it is, now, business as usual.
Duh? PC sales are down, imagine what the competition numbers are
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
This is silly. Between the Mini, the iMac, the Pro, and all the laptops, Apple offers a nice range.
So what are your super-special needs that Apple doesn't meet?
Point me to the mid range mid sized desktop Mac that offers me the choice of some internal expansion and the choice of monitor. Only the Mac Pro does that but it certainly isn't mid range or mid sized.
I might consider the mini but it will mean purchasing an external case to hold the additional devices I need. Which is really retarded when discussing a desktop computer. It would be like buying a small car and using a utility trailer hooked up to it each and every day in order to carry what you use all the time. Why not just buy a mid sized car to begin with that has the room you need each and every day?
I would jump all over a headless iMac. Put it in a case that is easy to open, has room for two hard drives and an optical drive (yes I really do use it) and let me choose my monitor. I would pay $1500 for that kind of Mac. Apple would make money because they would be saving them the cost of the built in monitor I do not want.
I have no need for a laptop and would never purchase one. I will admit that an iPad appears attractive but I need the desktop Mac first.
So many people believe that Apple offers a solution for everyone only because their own needs are met. There are many more that are either settling for a Mac model that is close but not really what they want, waiting, or switching.
I could buy an iMac and hate it, buy a mini and not be totally satisfied with it or chunk out big bucks for a Mac Pro and be pissed that I had to do it just because Apple refuses to offer a mid range product. I will wait to see what happens in 2013.
People will think me anal about all this but tough. I refuse to spend money on something that isn't what I need or want. Same way I'm holding out on buying any of Apple's iDevices. I don't really need them so why should I support Apple with purchases that mean nothing to me while I can't get the one product I really want and would really use? I came to Apple for computer use not music or phone calls.
I'm forced to use a windows machine at work and it isn't totally a bad experience but my heart is with Apple. Apple has the heart (OSX), the soul (good looking design) it just needs the right body (mid sized) to go with it.
I know it is out of my hands. Apple will do what it wants. I am just waiting to see if Apple still wants me as a customer. It might not.
Originally Posted by MacTac
I know it is out of my hands. Apple will do what it wants. I am just waiting to see if Apple still wants me as a customer. It might not.
Just go buy a PC already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Just go buy a PC already.
The quad mac pro is basically Apple's offering in terms of a mid tower desktop. It's probably not that expensive to make either. Some of the minis have a higher cpu cost, and the 5770 was never a terribly expensive card. I felt its pricing was largely to space it from the imac and pace it with the rest of the mac pro line, but there really isn't a great deal of spec difference (or component teardown cost) between that one and a mid range desktop. Obviously the heavy aluminum case costs something in materials, but we're talking about maybe an extra $15 (or less) in aluminum. The stuff is cheap, and machining cases is arguably a more costly process.
I'm waiting for the comment of...well if Steve were alive this would have never happened! /sarcasm
Add that to the WIP: Troll thread if you haven't yet.
...
When calendar Q4 2012 is reported next year the markets are going to slam Apple bad because no iMacs until December, again, only the iMac 21". Might be a good chance then to get in again under $600.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Just go buy a PC already.
Even though I prefer OSX? I love the hardware, I love the software. I just don't like how it is packaged to where usability of something as basic as a desktop has been constrained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTac
Even though I prefer OSX? I love the hardware, I love the software. I just don't like how it is packaged to where usability of something as basic as a desktop has been constrained.
Interestingly the newest imacs appear to have easier access, as the display comes off as a single piece. If this is by design, it was likely to facilitate repairs. I've read complaints about smudges or dust under the screen on repaired units. If the changes eliminate that as a point of concern, it does make them easier for Apple or their contractor to service.
I'm surprised iFixit doesn't have a teardown of the 21.5" model yet.
One report said it's held on with double sided tape, so I don't know if it's an improvement in repairability or not. The previous iMac cover screen was held on by magnets, which I found to be trivial to peel off. I don't know about the tape.