Apple should buy back their stock & go private again, then they can actually focus on innovation instead of padding the pockets of their investors. This is such a joke, if anything catering to investors has stifled Apple's innovation not helped it.
Most of those are incremental updates and facelifts, not innovations. Most of those were developed under Jobs (the iPhone 5 was the last project that Jobs worked on to near completion). One of them was such a downgrade that Apple even had to apologize for it (Maps), but of course, they didn't go back to Google -- that's the only apology that I'd be willing to accept, because talk is cheap.
What Cook did, screwing up the company's stock value in the process, was to start giving out dividends (which Jobs was against) and launch the entire product line in September 2012, leaving them with almost nothing to launch for over a year following that and causing investors to lose confidence in the company.
You mean after Cook raised the price to record highs, after a record setting profitable year?
Didn't Jobs apologize for Mobile Me?
Short term, money grubbing, profit takers lost faith.
What do you suggest that Tim should have done to prevent being called to testify before Congress?
Well, ask yourself why Steve was never called, even though the same tax practices were going on. It's because the senators were afraid of him. Yes, really. They are political animals, and he was popular with the public, it would have been politically bad to be seen picking on him. He also said surprising (insightful) and sometimes blunt things. From the point of view of a politician, to drag someone like that in to a public hearing, the "surprising" part means you can't predict what he will say beforehand which is always dangerous for a stage-managed event, and the bluntness means if you say something stupid there's a good chance he'll embarrass you. The last thing a politician wants is to be made to look a fool by someone popular in a public hearing.
Compare with Tim, Mr Soft spoken, Mr Nice Guy, Mr liberal causes, Mr teary-eyed at every keynote. As soon as he failed to release any products for 6 months that was the final sign of weakness and they pounced. So to answer your question, how could he have avoided being called before congress? Be more inTimidating.
Well, ask yourself why Steve was never called, even though the same tax practices were going on. It's because the senators were afraid of him. Yes, really.
You could have just said you don't understand anything about US politics.
The Congressmen who called Cook to testify are not scared of Apple - and certainly weren't scare of Jobs, either. It's just that the tax issue was not visible enough 5 years ago and it is now. Not to mention that Apple's profits are several times higher now. There's no way of knowing if Jobs would have been called if he were still alive.
blah blah blah...
Compare with Tim, Mr Soft spoken, Mr Nice Guy, Mr liberal causes, Mr teary-eyed at every keynote. As soon as he failed to release any products for 6 months that was the final sign of weakness and they pounced. So to answer your question, how could he have avoided being called before congress? Be more inTimidating.
This proves you're more of moron than I originally thought.
You could have just said you don't understand anything about US politics.
The Congressmen who called Cook to testify are not scared of Apple - and certainly weren't scare of Jobs, either. It's just that the tax issue was not visible enough 5 years ago and it is now. Not to mention that Apple's profits are several times higher now. There's no way of knowing if Jobs would have been called if he were still alive.
There's always some issue of the day though isn't there? And yet Steve never got called.
Well, there was the banking mess in the middle of the last decade. And then the real estate mess late in the last decade. And Congress never called Jobs to testify on either of those.
Obviously, Cook is a wimp because Jobs was never called and Cook was called on taxation issues that had a direct impact on Apple. /s
Well, I happen to think proof constitutes observation, not fancy sounding arguments. So the fact that Steve was (i)CEO since 1997 and never got called, despite any number of recessions/economic troubles that senators like to blame the private sector for, and Tim was CEO since 2011 and already got called, *is* proof to me. But on such a fundamental disagreement as to what constitutes "proof" (observation or argument) I can not hope to convince you, since what would I base such an argument on? It would have to be observation. So believe what you want.
[QUOTE]Being superficially different is the goal of so many of the products we see. A preoccupation with differentiation is the concern of many corporations rather than trying to innovate and genuinely taking the time, investing the resources and caring enough to try and make something better.[/QUOTE]
Seems to me the chattering classes haven't figured out (or are being willfully obtuse in the name of click bait) that this is what Apple is about. It's not about being different for the sake of it; its not about flooding the market with product and spinning it as innovation. Apple knows what it is and what it's goals are. It would be nice if the media would get a clue.
Well, I happen to think proof constitutes observation, not fancy sounding arguments. So the fact that Steve was (i)CEO since 1997 and never got called, despite any number of recessions/economic troubles that senators like to blame the private sector for, and Tim was CEO since 2011 and already got called, *is* proof to me. But on such a fundamental disagreement as to what constitutes "proof" (observation or argument) I can not hope to convince you, since what would I base such an argument on? It would have to be observation. So believe what you want.
Your "proof" is meaningless to me too, just for the record. Your argument hangs by a weak thread, and it is based on a superficial interpretation of Tim Cook's character, as well as something that didn't happen. The guy has a mind like a steel trap. You say something stupid, and all you get is, "i see it differently," and then an answer that shrivels your argument. He is a gentleman, and Steve had another approach, that's all.
I'd love to watch you try this "proof" out on him.
The quote below is from Jonathan Ive circa 2005.
Seems to me the chattering classes haven't figured out (or are being willfully obtuse in the name of click bait) that this is what Apple is about. It's not about being different for the sake of it; its not about flooding the market with product and spinning it as innovation. Apple knows what it is and what it's goals are. It would be nice if the media would get a clue.
Well, I happen to think proof constitutes observation, not fancy sounding arguments. So the fact that Steve was (i)CEO since 1997 and never got called, despite any number of recessions/economic troubles that senators like to blame the private sector for, and Tim was CEO since 2011 and already got called, *is* proof to me. But on such a fundamental disagreement as to what constitutes "proof" (observation or argument) I can not hope to convince you, since what would I base such an argument on? It would have to be observation. So believe what you want.
Wow. Just wow. So how did the economic collapse involve Apple as a primary player?
I know it's probably too much to ask, but why can't a company sitting on $145 billion spend a bit more on R&D than say most other companies on the entire planet. All Apple needs to do is focus on just a couple of technologies. Apple is already working on processors which is great but it really needs to sink more money into battery technology because mobile devices depend so heavily on batteries.
If Apple were to develop the tech for batteries that lasted just 15% longer than any other battery with similar charging properties for a particular size, it would almost be unbeatable as long as they could protect it with patents. It would be a very stealthy type of improvement and it would be useful in practically every product Apple makes. It would practically put Apple at the forefront of every mobile company around.
I believe the iPad batteries are designed in-house, so they are probably already spending a lot on battery R&D.
That is a joke. That is no new innovation. Cook better start to get his act together and introduce brand new concepts like Jobs did when he was in charge.INNOVATE !
That is a joke. That is no new innovation. Cook better start to get his act together and introduce brand new concepts like Jobs did when he was in charge.INNOVATE !
That is a joke. That is no new innovation. Cook better start to get his act together and introduce brand new concepts like Jobs did when he was in charge.INNOVATE !
Comments
You left the sarcasm tag off.
You mean after Cook raised the price to record highs, after a record setting profitable year?
Didn't Jobs apologize for Mobile Me?
Short term, money grubbing, profit takers lost faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Is one year a dry spell or a scheduled release cycle?
It doesn't matter in terms of what I was saying because they are indistinguishable at this point in time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
What do you suggest that Tim should have done to prevent being called to testify before Congress?
Well, ask yourself why Steve was never called, even though the same tax practices were going on. It's because the senators were afraid of him. Yes, really. They are political animals, and he was popular with the public, it would have been politically bad to be seen picking on him. He also said surprising (insightful) and sometimes blunt things. From the point of view of a politician, to drag someone like that in to a public hearing, the "surprising" part means you can't predict what he will say beforehand which is always dangerous for a stage-managed event, and the bluntness means if you say something stupid there's a good chance he'll embarrass you. The last thing a politician wants is to be made to look a fool by someone popular in a public hearing.
Compare with Tim, Mr Soft spoken, Mr Nice Guy, Mr liberal causes, Mr teary-eyed at every keynote. As soon as he failed to release any products for 6 months that was the final sign of weakness and they pounced. So to answer your question, how could he have avoided being called before congress? Be more inTimidating.
You could have just said you don't understand anything about US politics.
The Congressmen who called Cook to testify are not scared of Apple - and certainly weren't scare of Jobs, either. It's just that the tax issue was not visible enough 5 years ago and it is now. Not to mention that Apple's profits are several times higher now. There's no way of knowing if Jobs would have been called if he were still alive.
This proves you're more of moron than I originally thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You could have just said you don't understand anything about US politics.
The Congressmen who called Cook to testify are not scared of Apple - and certainly weren't scare of Jobs, either. It's just that the tax issue was not visible enough 5 years ago and it is now. Not to mention that Apple's profits are several times higher now. There's no way of knowing if Jobs would have been called if he were still alive.
There's always some issue of the day though isn't there? And yet Steve never got called.
So? That proves......absolutely nothing.
Like what?
Well, there was the banking mess in the middle of the last decade. And then the real estate mess late in the last decade. And Congress never called Jobs to testify on either of those.
Obviously, Cook is a wimp because Jobs was never called and Cook was called on taxation issues that had a direct impact on Apple. /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
So? That proves......absolutely nothing.
Well, I happen to think proof constitutes observation, not fancy sounding arguments. So the fact that Steve was (i)CEO since 1997 and never got called, despite any number of recessions/economic troubles that senators like to blame the private sector for, and Tim was CEO since 2011 and already got called, *is* proof to me. But on such a fundamental disagreement as to what constitutes "proof" (observation or argument) I can not hope to convince you, since what would I base such an argument on? It would have to be observation. So believe what you want.
[QUOTE]Being superficially different is the goal of so many of the products we see. A preoccupation with differentiation is the concern of many corporations rather than trying to innovate and genuinely taking the time, investing the resources and caring enough to try and make something better.[/QUOTE]
Seems to me the chattering classes haven't figured out (or are being willfully obtuse in the name of click bait) that this is what Apple is about. It's not about being different for the sake of it; its not about flooding the market with product and spinning it as innovation. Apple knows what it is and what it's goals are. It would be nice if the media would get a clue.
Your "proof" is meaningless to me too, just for the record. Your argument hangs by a weak thread, and it is based on a superficial interpretation of Tim Cook's character, as well as something that didn't happen. The guy has a mind like a steel trap. You say something stupid, and all you get is, "i see it differently," and then an answer that shrivels your argument. He is a gentleman, and Steve had another approach, that's all.
I'd love to watch you try this "proof" out on him.
Nice find, nice post.
Wow. Just wow. So how did the economic collapse involve Apple as a primary player?
That's because you failed Logic 101.
Look up 'proof' some time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo
I know it's probably too much to ask, but why can't a company sitting on $145 billion spend a bit more on R&D than say most other companies on the entire planet. All Apple needs to do is focus on just a couple of technologies. Apple is already working on processors which is great but it really needs to sink more money into battery technology because mobile devices depend so heavily on batteries.
If Apple were to develop the tech for batteries that lasted just 15% longer than any other battery with similar charging properties for a particular size, it would almost be unbeatable as long as they could protect it with patents. It would be a very stealthy type of improvement and it would be useful in practically every product Apple makes. It would practically put Apple at the forefront of every mobile company around.
I believe the iPad batteries are designed in-house, so they are probably already spending a lot on battery R&D.
That is a joke. That is no new innovation. Cook better start to get his act together and introduce brand new concepts like Jobs did when he was in charge.INNOVATE !
Not this again.
Originally Posted by marvfox
That is a joke. That is no new innovation. Cook better start to get his act together and introduce brand new concepts like Jobs did when he was in charge.INNOVATE !
Shut your mouth and hit the road. Worthless.