What results? Wall Street still believes Apple is doomed due to companies like Xiaomi who have increased the quality of their smartphones so much as to put great pressure on iPhone sales. Analysts believe R&D is worth very little and Apple doesn't have enough money to build increasingly better products than their less wealthy rivals. Wall Street obviously doesn't think that high R&D spending can bring back "innovation" to Apple because "Apple innovation" was supposedly based on Steve Jobs' magic.
you listen too muck to the bearish commentators. Not every investors are that dumb.
It's true the boosters needed were a problem in the case of both disasters. Were the trade-offs worth it? I'd say ask the veteran crew members.
When Columbia came apart, several of my co-workers and I felt pretty sure that we would have gone up even if we knew what the outcome was going to be. What else is any of us going to do in our lives that would come close to the experience of a shuttle flight? We all gotta go sometime, and that would be one hell of a way to do it.
Was just reading this morning that NASA has budgeted 1.2 Billion to capture an asteroid, pull it into earths orbit and study it. And Apple spent 4 billion on RD just this fiscal year to date.
... I think Steve's real brilliance was his ability to lay out in succession all the things that needed to occur to move to the next level of whatever vision he had for the future of the company. And it played out flawlessly.
And I think Tim Cook is extremely competent and methodical and is pushing Steve's vision further, possibly further than Steve himself would have.
That's exactly what I think. I'd add that Steve was an expert in picking milestones between what Apple could ship now and what he wanted Apple to ship in the future. And in working with Jony Ive to make those milestones interesting and successful products. For example, the iMac's progression from CRT blob to all-in-one with LCD screen. I wouldn't be surprised if Steve and Jony decided that the ultimate goal would be a fully recyclable 5mm thick iMac, essentially just a screen, with wireless mouse and keyboard (and not just 5mm at the very edges). Might have been possible in 2001, but it would have cost $50K.
So what's the first practical step toward the ultimate iMac goal? Flat panel with an arm. Next step? All-in-one construction with plastic shell. Next step? Thinner all-in-one construction with aluminum shell. Next step? Thinner with no aluminum border around the screen bezel. And so it goes until the final goal is possible. Each generation makes the old one look terribly dated. Each generation is desirable and incorporates technological and design advances far beyond the previous. And I think that step-by-step development toward a pre-determined ultimate goal can be applied to iPad, iPhone, Apple TT, Beats, and all future Apple products.
At the moment, the one thing that would worry me about Apple's long term health (Tim Cook excepted) is the loss of Sir Jonathan Ive. Design is such a unique gift, like composition. Tiny changes can have a profound effect. I hope he still has many years left with Apple, and that at least one other person at Apple has the inspiration to achieve something of his brilliance.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">NASA has other, more important priorities.</span>
I’m quite bothered that our space program would do anything whatsoever but engender interest in space and work to expand human presence there. We have other agencies to manage Earth-based crap.
Seriously, I don't think you realise the gravity of the situation. The costs can be astronomical.
All right, now I have to work ‘apoapsis’ into a joke somehow.
Comments
Well said.
I know you get to write down your R&D, but I'm not sure it is fair that Apple deducts for them and Samsung also
What results? Wall Street still believes Apple is doomed due to companies like Xiaomi who have increased the quality of their smartphones so much as to put great pressure on iPhone sales. Analysts believe R&D is worth very little and Apple doesn't have enough money to build increasingly better products than their less wealthy rivals. Wall Street obviously doesn't think that high R&D spending can bring back "innovation" to Apple because "Apple innovation" was supposedly based on Steve Jobs' magic.
you listen too muck to the bearish commentators. Not every investors are that dumb.
It's true the boosters needed were a problem in the case of both disasters. Were the trade-offs worth it? I'd say ask the veteran crew members.
When Columbia came apart, several of my co-workers and I felt pretty sure that we would have gone up even if we knew what the outcome was going to be. What else is any of us going to do in our lives that would come close to the experience of a shuttle flight? We all gotta go sometime, and that would be one hell of a way to do it.
I want doesn't get.
How can you buy emptiness?
Funny, but coarse.
An alternative Google product:
iQuit.
At the moment, the one thing that would worry me about Apple's long term health (Tim Cook excepted) is the loss of Sir Jonathan Ive. Design is such a unique gift, like composition. Tiny changes can have a profound effect. I hope he still has many years left with Apple, and that at least one other person at Apple has the inspiration to achieve something of his brilliance.
Looking forward to your joke apropos apoapsis.