You can’t use that as a metric. Apple purchased iTunes, Final Cut, Logic, and Maps. They then built them, fully, into what we see today.
Having said that, I can’t think of a single successful product Google has created.
The difference is that each of these were developed to support a hardware product. With iTunes it made the iPod and iPhone possible. Final Cut, Logic, and Maps we developed because their partners refused to properly support their products on Apple's platform putting them at a disadvantage. Doing so forced them to either bring their offerings up to par or be pushed out of the Apple market.
I'll just post the link to what I wrote when the news broke that they're acquiring Beats for $3.2 billion. Perhaps, you'll start to understand how to really tell how bad Cook is.
So who is a better CEO for Apple? You have no idea of the intentions of that purchase. You're making accusations based on rumors and yet you want to think that Tim is a horrible CEO and Steve would be better as if Steve never made any boneheaded moves when he was CEO. Yes, Steve was an angle and never made any mistakes. Get over it, Steve isn't here and never will be. He wasn't always perfect either and made more than his share of mistakes. People praised him so much typically his mistakes got blown over. Thats the problem.
I guess I just don't understand the metrics that contribute to "brand value". I'm not sure anyone knows for sure exactly what goes in to determining the rankings, outside of the ad agency that does the rankings. I remember a year or two ago when Cisco was in the top ten, above Disney. When I saw that, it told me they were ranking the companies in some screwy way, because I'd wager 90% of the people in any local mall in the USA have never heard of Cisco (or they think it's a vegetable shortning). But 90% or more of any demographic knows Disney and their products. So what makes a brand valuable? To whom? And why should we even discuss it in AI?
So who is a better CEO for Apple? You have no idea of the intentions of that purchase. You're making accusations based on rumors and yet you want to think that Tim is a horrible CEO and Steve would be better as if Steve never made any boneheaded moves when he was CEO. Yes, Steve was an angle and never made any mistakes. Get over it, Steve isn't here and never will be. He wasn't always perfect either and made more than his share of mistakes. People praised him so much typically his mistakes got blown over. Thats the problem.
I don't think you understand. Steve was a startup founder. He knows all of the ins and outs that comes with that. Those quirks such as never paying a dividend, hoarding cash, keeping secrets, doing his own presentation, etc. Are all strategic. He's not doing it just because he's an a-hole. Cook on the other hand, has never build anything from the ground up. Therefore, he really has no idea, like the hundreds of other fortune 500 CEOs, how to think like a scrappy little startup CEO. Steve always did things that way. He prefers to do his own biz dev. He preferred to call on other CEO's directly to negotiate deals. Preferred to do his own demos. That's how startup CEOs do things. He always said that he considers Apple a startup.
Cook, as it increasingly appears to me, is more like Sculley. He's great at maintaining a business and running it but he can't actually build one. These are two completely different animals. When Sculley took over Apple, Apple was doing really well as well for a few years until it fell off a cliff because Sculley didn't know how to come up with the next thing. Cook seems destined to repeat that pattern. Thus far, Apple has been running on past successes. It remains to be seen whether or not he can create any of his own. As each year passes, it becomes increasingly likely that he's just another Sculley.
Smaller cans and a green can with a different type of artificial sweetener, Stevia which is apparently banned in the US which is why it is currently confined to Argentina and Chile.
And you DO know? How is what you just posted anything more than speculation? And how is it that only Apple seems to be constrained by technical issues? Complexity only rules for Apple? And complexity didn't exist when Apple had product releases scattered across the year?
Difference is Apple cares about compromises while the others release half-assed products.
I don't think you understand. Steve was a startup founder. He knows all of the ins and outs that comes with that. Those quirks such as never paying a dividend, hoarding cash, keeping secrets, doing his own presentation, etc. Are all strategic. He's not doing it just because he's an a-hole. Cook on the other hand, has never build anything from the ground up. Therefore, he really has no idea, like the hundreds of other fortune 500 CEOs, how to think like a scrappy little startup CEO. Steve always did things that way. He prefers to do his own biz dev. He preferred to call on other CEO's directly to negotiate deals. Preferred to do his own demos. That's how startup CEOs do things. He always said that he considers Apple a startup.
Cook, as it increasingly appears to me, is more like Sculley. He's great at maintaining a business and running it but he can't actually build one. These are two completely different animals. When Sculley took over Apple, Apple was doing really well as well for a few years until it fell off a cliff because Sculley didn't know how to come up with the next thing. Cook seems destined to repeat that pattern. Thus far, Apple has been running on past successes. It remains to be seen whether or not he can create any of his own. As each year passes, it becomes increasingly likely that he's just another Sculley.
Blah blah blah. So are you a start-up guy or a CEO headhunter? Is every company calling you for CEO advice? What, no? What a shocker.
You have no fucking clue what goes on at Apple.
Oh and btw, NeXT and Pixar weren't overnight successes. He relied on his team
Wasn't
Your concern trolling is getting so fucking old. There was a report about a week ago about how Apple is still the most valuable brand in the world by far, and has actually gone up in brand value the past year compare to other companies. You think these actually mean anything? You think Apple should release shit simply to "keep themselves in the news "? Thank god you have nothing to do with running the company, cause that's a shit mentality.
Since when has such a vulgar display of vocabulary been allowed on AI?
PAZUZU finds it most offensive.
I don't think you understand. Steve was a startup founder. He knows all of the ins and outs that comes with that. Those quirks such as never paying a dividend, hoarding cash, keeping secrets, doing his own presentation, etc. Are all strategic. He's not doing it just because he's an a-hole. Cook on the other hand, has never build anything from the ground up. Therefore, he really has no idea, like the hundreds of other fortune 500 CEOs, how to think like a scrappy little startup CEO. Steve always did things that way. He prefers to do his own biz dev. He preferred to call on other CEO's directly to negotiate deals. Preferred to do his own demos. That's how startup CEOs do things. He always said that he considers Apple a startup.
Cook, as it increasingly appears to me, is more like Sculley. He's great at maintaining a business and running it but he can't actually build one. These are two completely different animals. When Sculley took over Apple, Apple was doing really well as well for a few years until it fell off a cliff because Sculley didn't know how to come up with the next thing. Cook seems destined to repeat that pattern. Thus far, Apple has been running on past successes. It remains to be seen whether or not he can create any of his own. As each year passes, it becomes increasingly likely that he's just another Sculley.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Who do you think was right there with Steve every step of the way? Who helped him negotiate the pieces needed for the next thing? Who was 100% on-board with Steve's strategies and continues them even after his death? Steve hand picked Tim for a reason. He knew Apple was going into a new phase and needed someone who could handle it. Sculley was a corporate goon that didn't understand the Apple culture. He did stupid things like license Mac/OS to OEM's and cut back staff to make more profit. Research and development was at it's lowest. Sales, earnings per share, and profit were so poor the company was on the verge of collapsing. It was almost as if he was working for Microsoft or IBM (they still sold PC's back then) to get rid of Apple. Under Tim profits are the highest of any major corporation, earnings continue to be among the highest, and sales are still increasing in a market segment said to be saturated. Tim refuses to compromise Apple's reputation and lower it's standards and profits by competing in the low end, low cost phone and tablet market. This drives the analysts nuts because they say that Apple is losing market share. Steve once said "market share does not equal profit". I think Tim follows that same mantra. Even the so-called 5c "failure" sold more units that Blackberry, all Windows phones, and Samsung Galaxay S4's combined in the winter quarter with a healthy profit. Some companies would love to have such a failure. The iPhone 5s is a technology step forward that will set the standard toward future products. The iPhone 6 and iOS 8 will go even further. Tim follows Steve's rule about not compromising Apple's standards on sacrificing performance and usability for new products. Is there an iWatch in development? most likely but maybe battery life is an issue or connectivity or maybe biosensors, or who knows. A new Apple TV? We now know that Apple was working with Time Warner but since the merger talks it's on hold. Steve always had a dream of controlling the TV, obviously Tim has continued to pursue that. Cable/broadcast is the missing link. A lot has changed since Steve's death and Tim has had to change the ballgame to his own. Some say Apple isn't innovating. But are others doing it? Samsung's watch was a rush to market failure that if Apple had done it would have been seen as a colossal failure. Google comes out with glasses that cause massive headaches and aren't ready for primetime and may never be or the public might reject them. But they still seem to get press. Google talks about a secret jetpack program that was scrapped and the world goes gaga. Don't ever compare Tim Cook to Sculley. Compare Sculley to Ballmer.
What an absolute crock of BS - very few people even know about these mentioned "innovations"by Google, much less care. The continued high purchase intent and usage patterns of the iPhone alone are a clear indication that this brand analysis is laughable.
Two things Apple should have sued Google when they had a chance. Apple should have bought a studio as Hollywood has shut them out of content. Every blu-ray purchased the last 2 years includes an Ultra-Violet copy NOT an iTunes copy. Beats is not the answer.
What an absolute crock of BS - very few people even know about these mentioned "innovations"by Google, much less care. The continued high purchase intent and usage patterns of the iPhone alone are a clear indication that this brand analysis is laughable.
Somewhat related: Google does unique and creative little links above the search box each day, Underneath today's is a shortcut to "50 things you didn't know you could do with Google". One that caught my eye right away was recalling a sent email. There's been a few times that would have been useful.
Two things
Apple should have sued Google when they had a chance.
Apple should have bought a studio as Hollywood has shut them out of content. Every blu-ray purchased the last 2 years includes an Ultra-Violet copy NOT an iTunes copy. Beats is not the answer.
1. Nope. A studio doesn't do Apple any good
2. Disney blurays comes with iTunes copy. You can also go to iTunes directly.
3. Rumor isn't confirmed but I trust Apple has its reasons.
I'll just post the link to what I wrote when the news broke that they're acquiring Beats for $3.2 billion. Perhaps, you'll start to understand how to really tell how bad Cook is.
Why would I understand anything from something you wrote based on conjecture for a deal that hasn't been finalized and the intentions of how Beats will be integrated into Apple are known only to a few within Beats and Apple.
I've read stories of good and bad. The bad seem to be somewhat misinformed about the capabilities of Beats and it's founders. Some are interesting and very possible and well worth the money paid. One strategy that I've seen is that Apple will rebrand Beats to take it's iTunes Radio to other platforms like Android and Windows Phone and get better pricing from the music industry. One rumor, which I don't give a lot of credibility right now, is to bring the iTunes Store to other platforms to expand the iTunes music ecosystem to Android and Windows Phone. Microsoft and Apple have been playing nice lately so it could come to Windows Phone first to see if it helps boost sales.
We will all have to wait and see what happens. In the near term when the transaction is final I don't think anything will change except maybe the headphones might be rebranded with Apple in some way. Tim Cook has been pretty frugal with acquisition money so this must be pretty strategic whether you believe it or not.
So I guess in your eyes its perfectly okay for Apple to continuously release nothing from January-September and then in Oct, release everything they've been working on? I do realize things take time and you want to get it mostly right from the start but you have to release things throughout the year. Not everyone is going to wait until Oct to buy the next iPhone, or whatever other thing they're looking to get. Some will just say screw it and either buy the current Apple product, or buy the next best thing (or something better than what Apple offers) because they don't want to always wait until the end of the year.
Didn't you know there are all these technical complexities that prevent Apple from announcing things other than in September and October? /s
Google has a clear strategy: they want to collect as much data and display as many relevant ads as possible. Then they want to free you of doing stuff like driving so you can keep providing data and looking at ads. That is why google wants innovation and content outside around their core strategy to be FREE.
It is important to know why Google grew 40%, clearly they most be doing some stuff right. Not that here in AI we can find what, we focus mostly on the things they do wrong or what evil they do. They have had a fair share of failure, but they attempt to get into as many things as possible to see were they can be successful. Success for them is collect data and print ads.
So I guess in your eyes its perfectly okay for Apple to continuously release nothing from January-September and then in Oct, release everything they've been working on? I do realize things take time and you want to get it mostly right from the start but you have to release things throughout the year. Not everyone is going to wait until Oct to buy the next iPhone, or whatever other thing they're looking to get. Some will just say screw it and either buy the current Apple product, or buy the next best thing (or something better than what Apple offers) because they don't want to always wait until the end of the year.
What are you, 3 years old? If I can't have it now I don't want it! Is that how you see the rest of the world too! Apple is going to release products on their schedule not yours. Product releases depend on a lot of factors and I'm guessing Apple is not trying to punish you or anyone else or are they trying to screw up. A once a year release cycle is not unheard of for quality products. Other low cost phone vendors release more often because they add a new feature for a carrier or a design change to take care of a faulty part.
Any attempt to assess brand value is subjective. Some data and methodology is used in an attempt to make it look scientific, but in the end it is very similar to People Magazine's Most Beautiful People Award. It is nice to be on the list but it means nothing.
Since you are a research agency.. Can u please research where they sell these wonderful innovations by google.. And how much sales they have had through these phenomenal innovations ?
Another paid PR article by a pimple nosed Bogus Research firm . Amazing how theses people can actually stay in business !
How many products is apple researching in their labs?
Comments
I'll just post the link to what I wrote when the news broke that they're acquiring Beats for $3.2 billion. Perhaps, you'll start to understand how to really tell how bad Cook is.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/179233/apple-reportedly-nearing-3-2b-acquisition-of-beats-electronics/160#post_2530005
So who is a better CEO for Apple? You have no idea of the intentions of that purchase. You're making accusations based on rumors and yet you want to think that Tim is a horrible CEO and Steve would be better as if Steve never made any boneheaded moves when he was CEO. Yes, Steve was an angle and never made any mistakes. Get over it, Steve isn't here and never will be. He wasn't always perfect either and made more than his share of mistakes. People praised him so much typically his mistakes got blown over. Thats the problem.
I guess I just don't understand the metrics that contribute to "brand value". I'm not sure anyone knows for sure exactly what goes in to determining the rankings, outside of the ad agency that does the rankings. I remember a year or two ago when Cisco was in the top ten, above Disney. When I saw that, it told me they were ranking the companies in some screwy way, because I'd wager 90% of the people in any local mall in the USA have never heard of Cisco (or they think it's a vegetable shortning). But 90% or more of any demographic knows Disney and their products. So what makes a brand valuable? To whom? And why should we even discuss it in AI?
So who is a better CEO for Apple? You have no idea of the intentions of that purchase. You're making accusations based on rumors and yet you want to think that Tim is a horrible CEO and Steve would be better as if Steve never made any boneheaded moves when he was CEO. Yes, Steve was an angle and never made any mistakes. Get over it, Steve isn't here and never will be. He wasn't always perfect either and made more than his share of mistakes. People praised him so much typically his mistakes got blown over. Thats the problem.
I don't think you understand. Steve was a startup founder. He knows all of the ins and outs that comes with that. Those quirks such as never paying a dividend, hoarding cash, keeping secrets, doing his own presentation, etc. Are all strategic. He's not doing it just because he's an a-hole. Cook on the other hand, has never build anything from the ground up. Therefore, he really has no idea, like the hundreds of other fortune 500 CEOs, how to think like a scrappy little startup CEO. Steve always did things that way. He prefers to do his own biz dev. He preferred to call on other CEO's directly to negotiate deals. Preferred to do his own demos. That's how startup CEOs do things. He always said that he considers Apple a startup.
Cook, as it increasingly appears to me, is more like Sculley. He's great at maintaining a business and running it but he can't actually build one. These are two completely different animals. When Sculley took over Apple, Apple was doing really well as well for a few years until it fell off a cliff because Sculley didn't know how to come up with the next thing. Cook seems destined to repeat that pattern. Thus far, Apple has been running on past successes. It remains to be seen whether or not he can create any of his own. As each year passes, it becomes increasingly likely that he's just another Sculley.
Stevia banned in the US?:err:
I've bought it at Publix, branded as Truvia IIRC, and there's products on US shelves using it as one of the "sweeteners". With that said I don't care for the taste of stevia myself.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/33964734?wmlspartner=wlpa&adid=22222222227022680111&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=35387096821&wl4=&wl5=pla&wl6=63904556581&veh=sem
http://www.beveragedaily.com/Manufacturers/Soda-fizz-or-fizzle-out-Stevia-sweetened-Dr-Pepper-a-US-litmus-test
How are they screwing up?
Difference is Apple cares about compromises while the others release half-assed products.
Blah blah blah. So are you a start-up guy or a CEO headhunter? Is every company calling you for CEO advice? What, no? What a shocker.
You have no fucking clue what goes on at Apple.
Oh and btw, NeXT and Pixar weren't overnight successes. He relied on his team
Since when has such a vulgar display of vocabulary been allowed on AI?
PAZUZU finds it most offensive.
I don't think you understand. Steve was a startup founder. He knows all of the ins and outs that comes with that. Those quirks such as never paying a dividend, hoarding cash, keeping secrets, doing his own presentation, etc. Are all strategic. He's not doing it just because he's an a-hole. Cook on the other hand, has never build anything from the ground up. Therefore, he really has no idea, like the hundreds of other fortune 500 CEOs, how to think like a scrappy little startup CEO. Steve always did things that way. He prefers to do his own biz dev. He preferred to call on other CEO's directly to negotiate deals. Preferred to do his own demos. That's how startup CEOs do things. He always said that he considers Apple a startup.
Cook, as it increasingly appears to me, is more like Sculley. He's great at maintaining a business and running it but he can't actually build one. These are two completely different animals. When Sculley took over Apple, Apple was doing really well as well for a few years until it fell off a cliff because Sculley didn't know how to come up with the next thing. Cook seems destined to repeat that pattern. Thus far, Apple has been running on past successes. It remains to be seen whether or not he can create any of his own. As each year passes, it becomes increasingly likely that he's just another Sculley.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Who do you think was right there with Steve every step of the way? Who helped him negotiate the pieces needed for the next thing? Who was 100% on-board with Steve's strategies and continues them even after his death? Steve hand picked Tim for a reason. He knew Apple was going into a new phase and needed someone who could handle it. Sculley was a corporate goon that didn't understand the Apple culture. He did stupid things like license Mac/OS to OEM's and cut back staff to make more profit. Research and development was at it's lowest. Sales, earnings per share, and profit were so poor the company was on the verge of collapsing. It was almost as if he was working for Microsoft or IBM (they still sold PC's back then) to get rid of Apple. Under Tim profits are the highest of any major corporation, earnings continue to be among the highest, and sales are still increasing in a market segment said to be saturated. Tim refuses to compromise Apple's reputation and lower it's standards and profits by competing in the low end, low cost phone and tablet market. This drives the analysts nuts because they say that Apple is losing market share. Steve once said "market share does not equal profit". I think Tim follows that same mantra. Even the so-called 5c "failure" sold more units that Blackberry, all Windows phones, and Samsung Galaxay S4's combined in the winter quarter with a healthy profit. Some companies would love to have such a failure. The iPhone 5s is a technology step forward that will set the standard toward future products. The iPhone 6 and iOS 8 will go even further. Tim follows Steve's rule about not compromising Apple's standards on sacrificing performance and usability for new products. Is there an iWatch in development? most likely but maybe battery life is an issue or connectivity or maybe biosensors, or who knows. A new Apple TV? We now know that Apple was working with Time Warner but since the merger talks it's on hold. Steve always had a dream of controlling the TV, obviously Tim has continued to pursue that. Cable/broadcast is the missing link. A lot has changed since Steve's death and Tim has had to change the ballgame to his own. Some say Apple isn't innovating. But are others doing it? Samsung's watch was a rush to market failure that if Apple had done it would have been seen as a colossal failure. Google comes out with glasses that cause massive headaches and aren't ready for primetime and may never be or the public might reject them. But they still seem to get press. Google talks about a secret jetpack program that was scrapped and the world goes gaga. Don't ever compare Tim Cook to Sculley. Compare Sculley to Ballmer.
Apple should have sued Google when they had a chance.
Apple should have bought a studio as Hollywood has shut them out of content. Every blu-ray purchased the last 2 years includes an Ultra-Violet copy NOT an iTunes copy. Beats is not the answer.
https://www.google.com/get/googletips
1. Nope. A studio doesn't do Apple any good
2. Disney blurays comes with iTunes copy. You can also go to iTunes directly.
3. Rumor isn't confirmed but I trust Apple has its reasons.
I'll just post the link to what I wrote when the news broke that they're acquiring Beats for $3.2 billion. Perhaps, you'll start to understand how to really tell how bad Cook is.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/179233/apple-reportedly-nearing-3-2b-acquisition-of-beats-electronics/160#post_2530005
Why would I understand anything from something you wrote based on conjecture for a deal that hasn't been finalized and the intentions of how Beats will be integrated into Apple are known only to a few within Beats and Apple.
I've read stories of good and bad. The bad seem to be somewhat misinformed about the capabilities of Beats and it's founders. Some are interesting and very possible and well worth the money paid. One strategy that I've seen is that Apple will rebrand Beats to take it's iTunes Radio to other platforms like Android and Windows Phone and get better pricing from the music industry. One rumor, which I don't give a lot of credibility right now, is to bring the iTunes Store to other platforms to expand the iTunes music ecosystem to Android and Windows Phone. Microsoft and Apple have been playing nice lately so it could come to Windows Phone first to see if it helps boost sales.
We will all have to wait and see what happens. In the near term when the transaction is final I don't think anything will change except maybe the headphones might be rebranded with Apple in some way. Tim Cook has been pretty frugal with acquisition money so this must be pretty strategic whether you believe it or not.
It is important to know why Google grew 40%, clearly they most be doing some stuff right. Not that here in AI we can find what, we focus mostly on the things they do wrong or what evil they do. They have had a fair share of failure, but they attempt to get into as many things as possible to see were they can be successful. Success for them is collect data and print ads.
So I guess in your eyes its perfectly okay for Apple to continuously release nothing from January-September and then in Oct, release everything they've been working on? I do realize things take time and you want to get it mostly right from the start but you have to release things throughout the year. Not everyone is going to wait until Oct to buy the next iPhone, or whatever other thing they're looking to get. Some will just say screw it and either buy the current Apple product, or buy the next best thing (or something better than what Apple offers) because they don't want to always wait until the end of the year.
What are you, 3 years old? If I can't have it now I don't want it! Is that how you see the rest of the world too! Apple is going to release products on their schedule not yours. Product releases depend on a lot of factors and I'm guessing Apple is not trying to punish you or anyone else or are they trying to screw up. A once a year release cycle is not unheard of for quality products. Other low cost phone vendors release more often because they add a new feature for a carrier or a design change to take care of a faulty part.
Since you are a research agency.. Can u please research where they sell these wonderful innovations by google.. And how much sales they have had through these phenomenal innovations ?
Another paid PR article by a pimple nosed Bogus Research firm .
Amazing how theses people can actually stay in business !
How many products is apple researching in their labs?
Apple's research facility is more secretive than Google's.
Google is only open about research that's inconsequential... which is most of it.