Longtime Apple PR head Katie Cotton officially retires

123578

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 146
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,385member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    You either don't know what a conditional clause is or this is simply the most pathetic trolling AI has ever seen. :no:
    Irony.

    I don't want to proof read every little thing. You get the point. I guess the illiteracy of rap music is rubbing off.

    I didn't say to re read for grammatical errors, but to cite your claims, because you made claims that aren't even close to what I said. Now, maybe you need to smoke some more pot or whatever it is that makes you completely misread everything I say.
  • Reply 82 of 146
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,385member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Several hundred thousand in a few months. What losers¡

    A start up running in the red within 6 months of launching? Stop the fucking presses!

    $500 million for less than 6 months on the market is a failure I'd like to have.

    A company that is losing money is not a successful company.   you would need a LOT more than $500 Million to dump in it to keep on going to HOPEFULLY reach profitability after potentially years of losing money.  So they aren't paying JUST $500 Million, that's just for starters.  How many paid subscribers does that business model NEED in order to make decent profits?  50 Million to just make a measly net profit?

    50,000,000 paid subscribers will take a LONG time if they only have 250K.  I don't know of anyone that uses Beats music that pays for it.  The problem is that NO ONE has proven that they can make a subscription service really profitable.  Spotify has 10 Mil users worldwide and I haven't heard of them making a profit, if they have, let me know.  And what Net Profit margin to Gross Sales are they? 1%, 2%?  I read that Spotify released a loss of $59 Million in 2012 and MAYBE they might have broken even in 2013, but 2013 profit statements haven't been released as of yet but they were supposed to reach $500 Mil in Gross Revenues, which is OK, but with no profits? Not OK.  So how many paid subscribers is it going to take to reach even a measly 5% Net Profit to Gross Revenues margin?  TBD.

     

    It's one of those businesses thats STILL in the proof of concept stage of profitable business model.   the thing is Apple can't have revenue streams that aren't profitable as it will lower their Net Profit margins.  Has anyone thought of what would happen if that was part of what Apple reports on the next earnings call?  I think that's why they are letting them run independently so maybe they don't have to fold the financials into what Apple reports, or do they?  Kind of like what Google was doing with Motorola.   Google was profitable but Motorola wasn't.

  • Reply 83 of 146
    dv8ordv8or Posts: 26member
    It is naive in the extreme to think or expect PR's to be honest. Katie presided over arguably the most successful period in Apple's growth so she gets a thumbs up from me for a job well done. Not an easy job under a boss like Jobs and a company that required secrecy.
  • Reply 84 of 146
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,385member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dv8or View Post



    It is naive in the extreme to think or expect PR's to be honest. Katie presided over arguably the most successful period in Apple's growth so she gets a thumbs up from me for a job well done. Not an easy job under a boss like Jobs and a company that required secrecy.

     

    She proved she could last 18 years at Apple doing pretty much the same job day in and day out.

  • Reply 85 of 146
    brlawyerbrlawyer Posts: 828member

    What really matters is that "Dr. Dre" is part of the company now - THAT sucks.

  • Reply 86 of 146
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    flaneur wrote: »
    Ooo, I see we have a new troll meme. Iovine suckered Apple. That should add to your credibility here.
    Like I care about that. :lol: anyway Iovine has been pretty clear that they were the ones approaching Apple, not the other way around.
  • Reply 87 of 146
    Proofread yourself¡ Since when is proofread a hyphenated word? ;)

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proofread

    I don't write article professionally. These guys do.
  • Reply 88 of 146
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    brlawyer wrote: »
    What really matters is that "Dr. Dre" is part of the company now - THAT sucks.
    Jon Fortt of CNBC tweeted this:
    What this costs (or adds to) Apple in time, focus, personnel and brand is far more important than a measly $3B.

    I'm not convinced this is going to add to Apple. I've seen some articles on Medium that Apple is going to try and save the music industry. Ben Thompson wrote on his blog Stratechery that this may be another signal that Apple is moving in the direction of a fashion company that just happens to sell technology. And the latest article from the NYTimes claims Apple is buying up 'tastemakers', essentially a group of people replacing what Steve Jobs was.

    http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/what-the-beats-deal-says-about-apple-it-loves-tastemakers/?_php=true&_type=blogs&hpw&rref=technology&_r=0

    I personally think this is Apple basically admitting they're way behind when it comes to music. But they're going to have to work fast because the competition isn't sitting back doing nothing. I'll be curious id they attempt to create a YouTube competitor.
  • Reply 89 of 146
    mnbob1mnbob1 Posts: 269member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mpantone View Post



    Good riddance, part of the Steve Jobs era that really deserves to be shown the door and handed her hat.



    She has been an unabashed, unapologetic and crushingly unconvincing liar on behalf of the company (primarily for Steve).



    She fulfilled an important role in the company at the time, although she largely fell silent about a year before Steve's passing, probably because no one sane would believe what she uttered, like the "Steve is out with a virus" B.S. which because increasingly shrill and ludicrous.



    But hey, high tech public relations is one of the most soulless careers on the planet, it's rather surprising that anyone can survive nearly two decades in such a soul-sucking role. Hopefully there's something still left in her heart.



    I sincerely wish her the best of luck on her future endeavors. For everyone's sake, let's hope it has nothing to do with public relations.

    Corporate public relations runs a fine line in what is released publicly. The slightest information that can be misinterpreted in a negative way can have a huge impact on the company's stock performance. How do you know that she was given all the correct information on Job's actual condition? The information could have been kept tightly among a select few and maybe even not within Apple executives.

     

    Retiring to spend time with her family is a good thing. Public relations is difficult and keeping Apple's information tight and without leaking future projects and products must have been one of the toughest in the industry. Most tech companies want to blab about vaporware well before it's introduction.  I think we will see this talented woman show up in again but maybe not in the tech industry.

  • Reply 90 of 146
    pfisherpfisher Posts: 758member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post





    You're right. I was just being nice because he and the other rappers call it music.

    It's too bad that some people don't appreciate hip hop. Dre is very well-regarded for producing and making great music. The records that he produces are very highly polished (in a good way). It's very good music.

     

    I could be wrong, like a former coworker said, and music must have guitars. 

     

    Even if one does not care for a particular brand of music, that's not to say it's not music or not good music. I'm not a big fan of "new" Country music (won't dial it up), but it's often very good music and there are some highly competent and passionate people playing it.

  • Reply 91 of 146
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    drblank wrote: »

    How can you be so sure on that? You own mentality? I think it's awfully coincidental since it's all happening within a month of the buyout when the company is in the midst of some "revolutionary" products. What has she done recently that so bad that she feels like retiring? PR isn't always direly responsible for what they tell the public, a lot what they say is what they are told by the lawyers and they just spin it to make their lawyers happy.

    They're retiring because ballmer bought the clippers.

    There, based on your logic- you can't disprove my theory either.
  • Reply 92 of 146
    pfisherpfisher Posts: 758member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post

     

    A company that is losing money is not a successful company.   you would need a LOT more than $500 Million to dump in it to keep on going to HOPEFULLY reach profitability after potentially years of losing money.  So they aren't paying JUST $500 Million, that's just for starters.  How many paid subscribers does that business model NEED in order to make decent profits?  50 Million to just make a measly net profit?

    50,000,000 paid subscribers will take a LONG time if they only have 250K.  I don't know of anyone that uses Beats music that pays for it.  The problem is that NO ONE has proven that they can make a subscription service really profitable.  Spotify has 10 Mil users worldwide and I haven't heard of them making a profit, if they have, let me know.  And what Net Profit margin to Gross Sales are they? 1%, 2%?  I read that Spotify released a loss of $59 Million in 2012 and MAYBE they might have broken even in 2013, but 2013 profit statements haven't been released as of yet but they were supposed to reach $500 Mil in Gross Revenues, which is OK, but with no profits? Not OK.  So how many paid subscribers is it going to take to reach even a measly 5% Net Profit to Gross Revenues margin?  TBD.

     

    It's one of those businesses thats STILL in the proof of concept stage of profitable business model.   the thing is Apple can't have revenue streams that aren't profitable as it will lower their Net Profit margins.  Has anyone thought of what would happen if that was part of what Apple reports on the next earnings call?  I think that's why they are letting them run independently so maybe they don't have to fold the financials into what Apple reports, or do they?  Kind of like what Google was doing with Motorola.   Google was profitable but Motorola wasn't.


    Sounds like Apple needed a streaming service, and were not up to stuff to buy one. Just like Dropbox was approached for their cloud storage. Or all of the dozens of companies Apple (and other companies) buy.

     

    Does it really need to make money? Why not have a loss leader? They didn't seem to pay too much for the streaming part of the business and they had to buy the whole package. I'm sure the headphones will improve and be on par with what they cost in comparison to other headphones.

     

    I bet most or many of the companies that Apple and Google and MS have bought were maybe not making a lot of money. And hopefully, they got their money's worth.

     

    MS bought Nokia - that company hasn't been doing so well. It was a strategic buy and a gamble, maybe. MS and Apple have deep pockets and they can invest at a loss for awhile.

     

    Any bet that Apple loses money for awhile on their new products? Until they ramp up and sell at volume? All the upfront costs?

  • Reply 93 of 146
    mnbob1mnbob1 Posts: 269member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post

     

    I'm wondering how many of these long timers that are retiring are related to the Beats buyout or their confidence in Cook. It would be an interesting read to have interviews with all of these people retiring would actually speak candidly as to why they are retiring, when they certainly are still young enough to continue working.


    Steve is gone. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it. Katie Cotton's retirement plans for retirement was announced long before the Beats acquisition. Apple acquired Beats, get over it. Tim Cook has guided Apple to it's most profitable time in it's history. The iPhone, iPad, and Mac have made it the largest computer maker surpassing HP and Lenovo. (yes they also count their mobile devices) The iPhone 5s is considered one of the most advanced smartphones even 7 months after introduction. The 64-bit processor custom SoC, M7 coprocessor, advanced camera (number of pixels does not equal better pictures), Touch ID. The performance even blows away the brand new Samsung S5 in some performance tests and Touch ID is considered superior implementation. Cook follows Jobs philosophy of getting a new category right before it's introduction not being first at it. Who else are you talking about retiring? Any names?

  • Reply 94 of 146
    mnbob1mnbob1 Posts: 269member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post

     

    What really matters is that "Dr. Dre" is part of the company now - THAT sucks.




    What is the problem? Beats hardware business is profitable and the major part of the acquisition. The younger crowd buys the Beats headphones because they're cool to be seen with them and they have Dr. Dre's name associated with them. Apple can use some cool factor. I'm 57 and I have a pair of Beats headphones because I like the quality.

     

    Beats Music has every genre. Have you checked it out? I did. I thought it was awesome. Do you think at 57 I listen to hip hop? Don't jump to conclusions unless you know the facts. It just shows ignorance.

  • Reply 95 of 146
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,407member
    drblank wrote: »
     I know what i know and that's what I believe.

    All I can say is, sorry. And wish you good luck.
  • Reply 96 of 146
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    I would pay to see Dr Dre meeting drRacist.
  • Reply 97 of 146
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    mnbob1 wrote: »

    What is the problem? Beats hardware business is profitable and the major part of the acquisition. The younger crowd buys the Beats headphones because they're cool to be seen with them and they have Dr. Dre's name associated with them. Apple can use some cool factor. I'm 57 and I have a pair of Beats headphones because I like the quality.

    Beats Music has every genre. Have you checked it out? I did. I thought it was awesome. Do you think at 57 I listen to hip hop? Don't jump to conclusions unless you know the facts. It just shows ignorance.
    More lipstick on a pig. Apple made the deal so it has to be defended here no matter what. I'm sure we'll get an editorial this weekend from DED about how brilliant Apple is for making this deal and how SamsungGoogleAmazonMicrosoft ect. are screwed because of it.
  • Reply 98 of 146
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mnbob1 View Post

     



    What is the problem? Beats hardware business is profitable and the major part of the acquisition. The younger crowd buys the Beats headphones because they're cool to be seen with them and they have Dr. Dre's name associated with them. Apple can use some cool factor. I'm 57 and I have a pair of Beats headphones because I like the quality.

     

    Beats Music has every genre. Have you checked it out? I did. I thought it was awesome. Do you think at 57 I listen to hip hop? Don't jump to conclusions unless you know the facts. It just shows ignorance.


    Samsung is profitable too and young people buy phatPhones- your point?

  • Reply 99 of 146
    island hermitisland hermit Posts: 6,217member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    1) He's also insinuating that if they support Apple's decision they are must be lying. He's so wrapped up in his hatred for the certain type of individual and his successful companies being made a part of Apple that he can't bring himself to be objective or fair about Apple's decision.



    2) What he foolishly doesn't comprehend is that Apple has 80,000 direct employees worldwide so no matter what Apple does the odds that at least one employee won't be able to comprehend their corporate decisions. The odds are simply astronomical that at least one person from their retail store employee not understanding why one would use an iPod or iPad to some higher-ups in disagreeing with Ping, the iPod HiFi, getting rid of the Mac clones, or even the naming of products which there have been a few articles discussing how Steve wanted some really stupid names. For some unexplained reason he believes his comment is reasonable and sane.

     

    I'm not sure why you even bother with this guy other than a couple of little interjections for humor's sake.

     

    It sounds like the cheese slid off his cracker a long long time ago...

  • Reply 100 of 146
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    mpantone wrote: »
    Good riddance, part of the Steve Jobs era that really deserves to be shown the door and handed her hat.

    She has been an unabashed, unapologetic and crushingly unconvincing liar on behalf of the company (primarily for Steve).

    She fulfilled an important role in the company at the time, although she largely fell silent about a year before Steve's passing, probably because no one sane would believe what she uttered, like the "Steve is out with a virus" B.S. which because increasingly shrill and ludicrous.

    But hey, high tech public relations is one of the most soulless careers on the planet, it's rather surprising that anyone can survive nearly two decades in such a soul-sucking role. Hopefully there's something still left in her heart.

    I sincerely wish her the best of luck on her future endeavors. For everyone's sake, let's hope it has nothing to do with public relations.

    She's well regarded in her field, one that I doubt you work in. Why u mad bro
Sign In or Register to comment.