All of which is true. Part of me has always hoped that there are a few gems in the works cooked up by a still healthy Steve, awaiting technological advances to make them actual products. I fear without Steve there are no more industry level, paradigm shifts on the horizon from Apple, or anyone for that matter, for a long time to come with the possible exception of Elon.
Has anyone even given thought to the concept that without significant advances in some technologies, there will be no major product breakthroughs?
Google Glass is getting a lot of press for nothing much. No talk of processing power, memory, storage, battery life. It's been mentioned, but no real discussion.
These watches are pitiful in every way. Poor battery life or really dreadful performance, or some combo of the two. None do very much. Samsung willing be coming out with a second generation, but bets are that it still won't do all that much.
So what are we really expecting? I just don't see it. In car entertainment software? Not a major category, I'll bet, at least, not as far as income is concerned. A "real" Tv? I don't know. How many would Apple sell a year?
This is the problem I say Apple has. It's the same problem their competitors have as well. But their competitors can compete with a lot of products in a space, while Apple has just one or two hero products. That makes it hard to compete once they begin to catch up. We get so used to Apple's products needing to lead the field in sales that we forget they can have products that don't, but incrementally add to sales.
Other than demanding mythical new product lines, what would you suggest? I've given my suggestions.
I'd love to see Apple transition into something other than just products. Products have a short lifespan. I'd like to see a service as a revenue stream.
Payment services is a logical place to turn. The iTunes accounts and 700 million iOS devices (all of which might not be active... I know), tell me that Apple has a huge base to use to implement any strategy.
Would it be a drain on the account in the beginning? Sure. The stock price would most likely tank.
If Apple did get into payment transactions on its own then I'd like to see a "cheap" iPhone [let me change that to 'iDevice'] that would get even more people into the iOS sphere. Make it bare bones but with the ability to tap into the payment system.
The tv game is something that I think would be harder to crack and I don't think the returns would be as great. The mobile transaction business seems to be in its infancy, noticeable by the start ups that keep popping up and finding success.
[oh... and this watch thing... obviously I'm not Steve... but I think he'd view it with a jaundiced eye. I see less and less people wearing watches these days. If they are taking them off, what makes us believe that even Apple can get us to put them back on. I know I wouldn't do it. If Apple is heading into some other form of wearable computer I'd say it is something different than a watch... but I don't have enough of an imagination to say what... but it would be wearable as mentioned above, re: iDevice]
As I said, this goes back to the Jobs philosophy. It has nothing to do with Cook particularly. He's pretty much continuing on with Jobs's policies.
People need to stop blaming Cook for Apple's problems. I don't see Apple operating any differently now. New product categories will still take five, six, or even seven years to make an appearance.
They need to drop some of Jobs's policies. And the one they need to drop the most is the one of only buying smaller companies for purely technical purposes, or for incomplete software that Apple can enlarge upon. They need to buy bigger companies with well developed services, or even products.
Apple now needs to operate like a giant company, which it is. Giant companies rarely can grow quickly without buying into other areas. They also have to change some of their philosophy about product pricing. We see that the 5c didn't sell well. I can understand that. For the first time, Apple is telling people; "Hey, we've got a cheaper phone out, and everyone will know you bought that!"
Previously, people could buy the top line phone a year or two later, while knowing that it had been the top line phone, and people who didn't know when they bought it, could think they bought it at the full price, when it first came out. It's a matter of prestige. People actually do think that way. But the 5C doesn't offer that prestige. If Apple could have made it more cheaply, and sold it for $449 instead, the bigger differential might have made a difference, but the differential wasn't enough to make up for that fact that people would be saying; "I see you bought Apple's cheaper model." That even seems to be the case overseas.
We need new thinking, not more regurgitated Steve Jobs thought. That era is over.
1. Apple is still a small, disheveled company, scattered all over Cupertino. Yes, they have big money, but that's come from focusing very clearly and deeply on a few good products, and by thinking as they say like a small startup to squeeze these products out with a great deal of bleeding-edge pain: machined aluminum with glass inlays, exotic glass-to-film laminations, LCDs with LTPS or IGZO backplanes, etc. Let them get organized in their new headquarters before you ask them to be the new Toyota or General Motors.
Any new big acquisition diffuses focus and causes distracting organizational headaches. You need a layer of supervision that the company is going to devote a whole slice of the wheel to in their new headquarters.
2. Yes they have to build data centers, as in your earlier post, but they have to be built the Apple way, as perfectly as possible, step by step, one at a time, until they learn how to get a system built to start replicating them, particularly in Europe, Asia, and other continents with their unique requirements. Focus applies to infrastructure building as well.
3. Steve Jobs was not only about a way of thinking, a compendium of thought, he bequeathed a method of operation. It became the way you can make 34 million iPhone 5ses with all that advanced sensor and processing technology fitting together almost flawlessly the first time out around the world in three months. This is like Buddhist practice: the making of the thing is just as important as the thing you make. If they lose this approach, they won't be Apple anymore.
4. With products like the 5c, they have a longer view and a more elaborate reasoning than we are privy to. To illustrate, my middle-aged neighbor who wears lots of silver and turquoise jewely, just went from a 4s to a 5c. The coral-colored one looks so good in her hand (and she knows it) that she may never be a candidate for the cold technoid anodized aluminum approach. The 5c is going to pay off later as the radios and the new production machinery are paid off, and the thing can be produced without limits as demand shits to those who buy for delight more than "the sharper image."
Excuse the tone, but I think it is unwise to counsel that Apple make itself into a big bad corporation just to please investors, rather than grow into a multifaceted start-up that hews to the principle of doing good for the world by augmenting the mind.
I only used it because you used it. Obviously it must mean something to you. What is it?
As I said... it's your expression... tell me what you meant by it... and that would be your answer.
What I meant by it is the constant slagging of Cook on sites like this or in the financial and tech press. Cook was running the show when the stock shot up to $700 and no one seemed to be complaining about him then.
What I meant by it is the constant slagging of Cook on sites like this or in the financial and tech press. Cook was running the show when the stock shot up to $700 and no one seemed to be complaining about him then.
... and there's your answer. Cook should be slagged upon for not maintaining a steady rate of growth... and I'm not talking about 40 or 50% yoy.
10% yoy would keep some folks happy... 15% would shut up anyone who would say otherwise.
If all that's available for Apple is making cheaper versions of existing products then they really are doomed. Those aren't new revenue streams. If anything that just makes Apple more of an iPhone company than anything else. How is it a good thing if 50-60% of Apple's revenues are tied to one product? They need new sources of revenue. Mobile payments is one area. Taking Apple to the next level and out of hobby status is another. Cook said on the earnings call that Apple doesn't have problems finding things to work on; the issue is knowing which ones to say yes to and to focus all their energies on. So unless he's just one big liar we have to assume Apple is working on completely new product and service lines.
The problem is 90% of their profits is from hardware.
YEAH. One hundred and fifty billion dollars in cash. That’s a real problem. Plenty of companies only make product and are just fine.
They need to diversify into services.
I’m pretty sure Apple’s payment system will be the Cialis that returns the raging stiffy Wall Street had for Apple in the early naughties.
At least, I’m hopeful for it. Revolutionizing what it means to buy something is about as big as it gets.
Why could they not do the same with Search?
Because there’s no money in search WHATSOEVER. There’s money in finding out what people search for and then whoring those people out to third party advertisers to spam them.
Apple getting into search is easier said than done. And how exactly would they make money off of it? Do people want Apple to turn into an advertising company?
YEAH. One hundred and fifty billion dollars in cash. That’s a real problem. Plenty of companies only make product and are just fine.
I’m pretty sure Apple’s payment system will be the Cialis that returns the raging stiff Wall Street had for Apple in the early naughties.
At least, I’m hopeful for it. :p Revolutionizing what it means to buy something is about as big as it gets.
Because there’s no money in search WHATSOEVER. There’s money in finding out what people search for and then whoring those people out to third party advertisers to spam them.
There’s no human benefit in search.
Yeah just look at Microsoft and the losses they've taken in their search business over the years.
Frugality is not always good business. Sometimes, you have to spend a lot upfront to get back even more later.
That's true, but large acquisition typically have a lot of baggage. Look at the Motorola/Google deal. There have been rumors about what lead up to the deal, but ultimately, it didn't work out.
I think Apple is frugal for a few reasons but the primary reason is the fact that they are a pretty focused company. They invest in things that they need. They will spend billions on data centers, the sapphire plant in Tuscon, Arizona, their new headquarters, and acquisitions that make sense.
Beyond that, I think the main reason right now is that since Steve's death, the company has been in transition. From Forstall getting the boot, to their retail situation, things have been a little nuts. Things have been tightening up with a tighter core and the hire of a new retail SVP. I think they are gearing up for a huge year and I mostly say that because Time Cook doesn't seem like the type of guy to just drop statements of big things coming just to appease the stock market or general public.
I don't think we need too much "new stuff" though. Apple's stock plummeted, not because there was no new stuff, but because the stuff they have didn't sell as well as we ALL were expecting it would. That's the key; growth to at least equal that of the industry, not significantly below it.
So why punish Apple when everyone was wrong for their GUESSES!
If all that's available for Apple is making cheaper versions of existing products then they really are doomed. Those aren't new revenue streams. If anything that just makes Apple more of an iPhone company than anything else. How is it a good thing if 50-60% of Apple's revenues are tied to one product? They need new sources of revenue. Mobile payments is one area. Taking Apple to the next level and out of hobby status is another. Cook said on the earnings call that Apple doesn't have problems finding things to work on; the issue is knowing which ones to say yes to and to focus all their energies on. So unless he's just one big liar we have to assume Apple is working on completely new product and service lines.
Apple is the biggest self product killer. They always say it - they are willing to cannibalize their own products. Hell, they knew iPhone would kill iPod when they launched it. I think that some folks base their opinion on stock performance as a real indicator of what Apple is doing. Others think that repatriating the cash hoard is a good idea even if they have to pay crazy taxes. If Apple did that, the market would crucify Tim Cook. I, like you, am more patient. As far back as I can remember, people have been telling Apple what to do, and Apple does whatever it sees fit for its business. So far, it's them well.
YEAH. One hundred and fifty billion dollars in cash. That’s a real problem. Plenty of companies only make product and are just fine.
I’m pretty sure Apple’s payment system will be the Cialis that returns the raging stiff Wall Street had for Apple in the early naughties.
At least, I’m hopeful for it. :p Revolutionizing what it means to buy something is about as big as it gets.
Because there’s no money in search WHATSOEVER. There’s money in finding out what people search for and then whoring those people out to third party advertisers to spam them.
There’s no human benefit in search.
Correct, correct, and maybe correct. I mean, there should be a human benefit in search, but it's been pre-verted by the parasitic model. Imagine if there could be some combination of search results and Wikipedia, for example. I don't know how it would work, but it seems like Google's short-cicuited machine could be repurposed to serve humans rather than advertisers.
Has anyone even given thought to the concept that without significant advances in some technologies, there will be no major product breakthroughs?
Google Glass is getting a lot of press for nothing much. No talk of processing power, memory, storage, battery life. It's been mentioned, but no real discussion.
These watches are pitiful in every way. Poor battery life or really dreadful performance, or some combo of the two. None do very much. Samsung willing be coming out with a second generation, but bets are that it still won't do all that much.
So what are we really expecting? I just don't see it. In car entertainment software? Not a major category, I'll bet, at least, not as far as income is concerned. A "real" Tv? I don't know. How many would Apple sell a year?
This is the problem I say Apple has. It's the same problem their competitors have as well. But their competitors can compete with a lot of products in a space, while Apple has just one or two hero products. That makes it hard to compete once they begin to catch up. We get so used to Apple's products needing to lead the field in sales that we forget they can have products that don't, but incrementally add to sales.
I agree this is the real issue. We have a couple of breakthroughs in displays that are going to impact battery life tremendously, and shrinkage in processors, both leading to wearable computing. Apple's patents on wearable displays are very interesting, much moreso than the Oculus Rift approach, which people are crazy for even though you are agreeing to wear a box on your face. Google Glass is a very fragrant red herring, only they don't seem to know that, characteristically, because it's monocular and therefore insanity inducing.
The problem is 90% of their profits is from hardware.
They need to diversify into services.
They're a hardware company. Always have been. No-one's seriously suggesting Samsung diversify into services, so why does Apple have to?
Look what Apple did with Maps. Now 80% of iPhone users use Apple maps. Why could they not do the same with Search? How hard or expensive is it to make a decent search engine? They have already started with iRadio but there isn't much money in that in comparison to Search.
On maps: They did that because of what they saw to be unreasonable terms for licensing Google Maps into the future. And they may still have been a little upset over the whole Erich Schmidt/Android thing. But the main reason for Apple Maps was that they were dependent on a third party to provide what is seen as core functionality of the smart phone, and they wanted, for whatever reason, to bring that in house.
As for diversifying into Search - that's a whole lot of hurt for not much gain. Look at the anti-trust investigations Google is currently undergoing. Apple doesn't want that as well.
Plus everyone keeps complaining about Apple's services. I mean, I've had no problems personally with iCloud, but to listen to some pundits, the whole thing is a mess, and a failure. And look at the criticisms of Apple Maps. People are still complaining that it's not as good as Google Maps. A search service would have to go through a fairly long public growth phase to be comparable to the existing services out there, and I don't think they want the negative publicity associated with that.
Perhaps most importantly, Apple only offers services that help to support the hardware business. The iTunes store is there to provide infrastructure for their portable devices, iCloud is there to provide infrastructure that supports their computers and their mobile devices. If they introduced Search, it would be to provide infrastructure for something else, and I don't see anything that needs it.
There is no question in my mind that wearables and mobile payment system are part of the new categories Cook has talked about. Maybe the next product we see from Apple is iBank. :smokey:
That's true, but large acquisition typically have a lot of baggage. Look at the Motorola/Google deal. There have been rumors about what lead up to the deal, but ultimately, it didn't work out.
I think Apple is frugal for a few reasons but the primary reason is the fact that they are a pretty focused company. They invest in things that they need. They will spend billions on data centers, the sapphire plant in Tuscon, Arizona, their new headquarters, and acquisitions that make sense.
Beyond that, I think the main reason right now is that since Steve's death, the company has been in transition. From Forstall getting the boot, to their retail situation, things have been a little nuts. Things have been tightening up with a tighter core and the hire of a new retail SVP. I think they are gearing up for a huge year and I mostly say that because Time Cook doesn't seem like the type of guy to just drop statements of big things coming just to appease the stock market or general public.
i don't understand why Apple can't invest $20 Billion and compete in search
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
agree.
i don't understand why Apple can't invest $20 Billion and compete in search
What are you talking about? There are Yahoo and Google already at each other throats. The whole Google net profit is what, $3B? Suppose, by some miracle Apple will manage to get a small chunk of that. So what?
Comments
Has anyone even given thought to the concept that without significant advances in some technologies, there will be no major product breakthroughs?
Google Glass is getting a lot of press for nothing much. No talk of processing power, memory, storage, battery life. It's been mentioned, but no real discussion.
These watches are pitiful in every way. Poor battery life or really dreadful performance, or some combo of the two. None do very much. Samsung willing be coming out with a second generation, but bets are that it still won't do all that much.
So what are we really expecting? I just don't see it. In car entertainment software? Not a major category, I'll bet, at least, not as far as income is concerned. A "real" Tv? I don't know. How many would Apple sell a year?
This is the problem I say Apple has. It's the same problem their competitors have as well. But their competitors can compete with a lot of products in a space, while Apple has just one or two hero products. That makes it hard to compete once they begin to catch up. We get so used to Apple's products needing to lead the field in sales that we forget they can have products that don't, but incrementally add to sales.
Other than demanding mythical new product lines, what would you suggest? I've given my suggestions.
I'd love to see Apple transition into something other than just products. Products have a short lifespan. I'd like to see a service as a revenue stream.
Payment services is a logical place to turn. The iTunes accounts and 700 million iOS devices (all of which might not be active... I know), tell me that Apple has a huge base to use to implement any strategy.
Would it be a drain on the account in the beginning? Sure. The stock price would most likely tank.
If Apple did get into payment transactions on its own then I'd like to see a "cheap" iPhone [let me change that to 'iDevice'] that would get even more people into the iOS sphere. Make it bare bones but with the ability to tap into the payment system.
The tv game is something that I think would be harder to crack and I don't think the returns would be as great. The mobile transaction business seems to be in its infancy, noticeable by the start ups that keep popping up and finding success.
[oh... and this watch thing... obviously I'm not Steve... but I think he'd view it with a jaundiced eye. I see less and less people wearing watches these days. If they are taking them off, what makes us believe that even Apple can get us to put them back on. I know I wouldn't do it. If Apple is heading into some other form of wearable computer I'd say it is something different than a watch... but I don't have enough of an imagination to say what... but it would be wearable as mentioned above, re: iDevice]
I said Cook shouldn't be nailed. You said he should so tell me in what way? Fire him? Demote him? Make him work for $1 with no stock options?
I only used it because you used it. Obviously it must mean something to you. What is it?
As I said... it's your expression... tell me what you meant by it... and that would be your answer.
1. Apple is still a small, disheveled company, scattered all over Cupertino. Yes, they have big money, but that's come from focusing very clearly and deeply on a few good products, and by thinking as they say like a small startup to squeeze these products out with a great deal of bleeding-edge pain: machined aluminum with glass inlays, exotic glass-to-film laminations, LCDs with LTPS or IGZO backplanes, etc. Let them get organized in their new headquarters before you ask them to be the new Toyota or General Motors.
Any new big acquisition diffuses focus and causes distracting organizational headaches. You need a layer of supervision that the company is going to devote a whole slice of the wheel to in their new headquarters.
2. Yes they have to build data centers, as in your earlier post, but they have to be built the Apple way, as perfectly as possible, step by step, one at a time, until they learn how to get a system built to start replicating them, particularly in Europe, Asia, and other continents with their unique requirements. Focus applies to infrastructure building as well.
3. Steve Jobs was not only about a way of thinking, a compendium of thought, he bequeathed a method of operation. It became the way you can make 34 million iPhone 5ses with all that advanced sensor and processing technology fitting together almost flawlessly the first time out around the world in three months. This is like Buddhist practice: the making of the thing is just as important as the thing you make. If they lose this approach, they won't be Apple anymore.
4. With products like the 5c, they have a longer view and a more elaborate reasoning than we are privy to. To illustrate, my middle-aged neighbor who wears lots of silver and turquoise jewely, just went from a 4s to a 5c. The coral-colored one looks so good in her hand (and she knows it) that she may never be a candidate for the cold technoid anodized aluminum approach. The 5c is going to pay off later as the radios and the new production machinery are paid off, and the thing can be produced without limits as demand shits to those who buy for delight more than "the sharper image."
Excuse the tone, but I think it is unwise to counsel that Apple make itself into a big bad corporation just to please investors, rather than grow into a multifaceted start-up that hews to the principle of doing good for the world by augmenting the mind.
What I meant by it is the constant slagging of Cook on sites like this or in the financial and tech press. Cook was running the show when the stock shot up to $700 and no one seemed to be complaining about him then.
... and there's your answer. Cook should be slagged upon for not maintaining a steady rate of growth... and I'm not talking about 40 or 50% yoy.
10% yoy would keep some folks happy... 15% would shut up anyone who would say otherwise.
Then allow this company to make 'cheap' phones for the chinese and indian markets using iOS
No. No. No.
Wait, was there a third question mark? Ah, well. For emphasis, then.
Are you insane?
Because money doesn’t fix problems and they don’t have a problem to begin with.
The problem is 90% of their profits is from hardware.
YEAH. One hundred and fifty billion dollars in cash. That’s a real problem. Plenty of companies only make product and are just fine.
I’m pretty sure Apple’s payment system will be the Cialis that returns the raging stiffy Wall Street had for Apple in the early naughties.
At least, I’m hopeful for it.
Revolutionizing what it means to buy something is about as big as it gets.
Because there’s no money in search WHATSOEVER. There’s money in finding out what people search for and then whoring those people out to third party advertisers to spam them.
There’s no human benefit in search.
Frugality is not always good business. Sometimes, you have to spend a lot upfront to get back even more later.
That's true, but large acquisition typically have a lot of baggage. Look at the Motorola/Google deal. There have been rumors about what lead up to the deal, but ultimately, it didn't work out.
I think Apple is frugal for a few reasons but the primary reason is the fact that they are a pretty focused company. They invest in things that they need. They will spend billions on data centers, the sapphire plant in Tuscon, Arizona, their new headquarters, and acquisitions that make sense.
Beyond that, I think the main reason right now is that since Steve's death, the company has been in transition. From Forstall getting the boot, to their retail situation, things have been a little nuts. Things have been tightening up with a tighter core and the hire of a new retail SVP. I think they are gearing up for a huge year and I mostly say that because Time Cook doesn't seem like the type of guy to just drop statements of big things coming just to appease the stock market or general public.
So why punish Apple when everyone was wrong for their GUESSES!
If all that's available for Apple is making cheaper versions of existing products then they really are doomed. Those aren't new revenue streams. If anything that just makes Apple more of an iPhone company than anything else. How is it a good thing if 50-60% of Apple's revenues are tied to one product? They need new sources of revenue. Mobile payments is one area. Taking Apple to the next level and out of hobby status is another. Cook said on the earnings call that Apple doesn't have problems finding things to work on; the issue is knowing which ones to say yes to and to focus all their energies on. So unless he's just one big liar we have to assume Apple is working on completely new product and service lines.
Apple is the biggest self product killer. They always say it - they are willing to cannibalize their own products. Hell, they knew iPhone would kill iPod when they launched it. I think that some folks base their opinion on stock performance as a real indicator of what Apple is doing. Others think that repatriating the cash hoard is a good idea even if they have to pay crazy taxes. If Apple did that, the market would crucify Tim Cook. I, like you, am more patient. As far back as I can remember, people have been telling Apple what to do, and Apple does whatever it sees fit for its business. So far, it's them well.
So why punish Apple when everyone was wrong for their GUESSES!
Is that what you honestly think? That it's about "guesses".
Correct, correct, and maybe correct. I mean, there should be a human benefit in search, but it's been pre-verted by the parasitic model. Imagine if there could be some combination of search results and Wikipedia, for example. I don't know how it would work, but it seems like Google's short-cicuited machine could be repurposed to serve humans rather than advertisers.
I agree this is the real issue. We have a couple of breakthroughs in displays that are going to impact battery life tremendously, and shrinkage in processors, both leading to wearable computing. Apple's patents on wearable displays are very interesting, much moreso than the Oculus Rift approach, which people are crazy for even though you are agreeing to wear a box on your face. Google Glass is a very fragrant red herring, only they don't seem to know that, characteristically, because it's monocular and therefore insanity inducing.
On maps: They did that because of what they saw to be unreasonable terms for licensing Google Maps into the future. And they may still have been a little upset over the whole Erich Schmidt/Android thing. But the main reason for Apple Maps was that they were dependent on a third party to provide what is seen as core functionality of the smart phone, and they wanted, for whatever reason, to bring that in house.
As for diversifying into Search - that's a whole lot of hurt for not much gain. Look at the anti-trust investigations Google is currently undergoing. Apple doesn't want that as well.
Plus everyone keeps complaining about Apple's services. I mean, I've had no problems personally with iCloud, but to listen to some pundits, the whole thing is a mess, and a failure. And look at the criticisms of Apple Maps. People are still complaining that it's not as good as Google Maps. A search service would have to go through a fairly long public growth phase to be comparable to the existing services out there, and I don't think they want the negative publicity associated with that.
Perhaps most importantly, Apple only offers services that help to support the hardware business. The iTunes store is there to provide infrastructure for their portable devices, iCloud is there to provide infrastructure that supports their computers and their mobile devices. If they introduced Search, it would be to provide infrastructure for something else, and I don't see anything that needs it.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2014/01/apple-introduces-us-to-a-major-financial-system-beyond-iwallet.html
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2014/01/apple-exploring-new-transparent-fiber-composite-materials-for-future-devices-including-wearable-computers.html
There is no question in my mind that wearables and mobile payment system are part of the new categories Cook has talked about. Maybe the next product we see from Apple is iBank. :smokey:
Exactly.
agree.
i don't understand why Apple can't invest $20 Billion and compete in search
agree.
i don't understand why Apple can't invest $20 Billion and compete in search
What are you talking about? There are Yahoo and Google already at each other throats. The whole Google net profit is what, $3B? Suppose, by some miracle Apple will manage to get a small chunk of that. So what?