I see AAPL is down another 1% when the likes of Google, Microsoft and Amazon are all up on the day. Another analyst coming out and throwing cold water on the "iWatch" and that Apple's product cycle peaked with iPhone 6. Here's my question: all the rumors point to new product categories and new services like mobile payments. What more is Wall Street expecting Apple to do? And why are Apple's competitors priced as though they have limitless growth and upside but yet Apple is treated as though it has no place to go but down?
Apparently, except for the loyal Apple fans, have unrealistic expectations from the company, from product to earnings to cash positions. And when Apple again and again blow past those numbers, more hurdle is being thrown at them. Case in point, there has been so much talk about Apple TV, Apple iWatch, Apple Payment Services, etc. etc. from the analysts from the street, which has never been confirmed by the Apple. And when those same assumptions are being torn down by the same analysts, the stock takes beating. It is like Apple is paying for the crime committed where it was not even within a mile of the victim.
There was funny quote I read day or two ago where Samsung was claiming that the big screen phone was not working out for them - Huh! Just when Apple might be coming out with the big screen they are saying that. Until now the big screen was the reasons they were pushing their product. Ironic, isn't it?
In any case, Whatever Apple announces on Tuesday, the street will have an opinion and it will bring the stock down to 95 or so. But again, Apple will once again make the liar out of all the analysts and we will see the stock in 115-125 range before the year is done. Just hold on tight and ignore then noise.
Prior to Jobs return, Apple offered myriad beige boxes and couldn't even develop a successor to Mac OS. If you call that innovating, then you're stretching your cognitive capacity to it's breaking point.
Nah, You're just too young to fully appreciate a lot of the innovation that has always taken place at Apple with or without Jobs. (at least I hope that's the reason)
Case in point, there has been so much talk about Apple TV, Apple iWatch, Apple Payment Services, etc. etc. from the analysts from the street, which has never been confirmed by the Apple. And when those same assumptions are being torn down by the same analysts, the stock takes beating. It is like Apple is paying for the crime committed where it was not even within a mile of the victim
Nah, You're just too young to fully appreciate a lot of the innovation that has always taken place at Apple with or without Jobs. (at least I hope that's the reason)
Why don't you try listing a few of Apple's amazing innovations that took the world by surprise during Jobs absence?
As I remember it, Apple coasted on Mac OS until they bought NeXT and Jobs returned in the late 90s. Attempts at replacing Mac OS crashed and burned. Unprotected memory made using a Mac similar to working on a live bomb - you never knew when it would explode and take everything down with it. The PPC alliance was fast out of the gate but soon lagged pitifully behind Intel.
The only "innovation" I remember is the Newton. It was interesting, but failed to seize or redefine a market because it wasn't well executed. It was pretty clunky, too, hardly something the average person would want to carry.
Apple has had a shitload of innovations since Steve passed, and you'd be extremely superficial to ignore those. The first desktop class 64 bit mobile CPU, Touch ID- the first actually useable, reliable mass produced, consumer biometric system, duotone flash, the M7 motion coprocessor, the new Retina Macbook Pro line, the ridiculous advancements in the iPad line (thinness, weight, display resolution), the new Mac Pro, all the hundreds of software innovations in iOS and OSX, even a new programming language- the list goes on and on. Apple, and Tim, have been tested. And so far, they've succeeded with flying colors. "Innovation" isn't exclusive to a new product category. It also applies to the engineering and design of their existing product lines, through hardware and software, and a vision based on laying the foundation with all the above technologies and more.
Most of what you list are not innovations, and the few that are were developed and designed during Jobs' tenure as CEO. For example, the new Mac Pro was designed while Jobs was alive, but postponed due to Intel's countless delays on 12 core Xeon processors.
Anyways, most of what you list are technical advances. Specs. Apple's competitors have advanced tech, too, but that doesn't amount to innovation in the sense of the iPod or iPhone, or Mac OS X. Apple's innovations require advanced technology, but they are more about how the technology is implemented.
For example, nothing about the iPhone involved new technological advances, it was made out of parts freely available to other tech companies. Think about why the iPhone was so revolutionary, and you may begin to understand Apple's innovation under Steve Jobs.
Quote:
1. The "breach" wasn't just with iCloud
2. There was no breach in security- you have moronic celebrities taking nude selfies, uploading them to the cloud, and using shitty and super-common password to protect their accounts.
iBrute. A brute force backdoor in iCloud. As you note, there is plenty of blame to go around, but Apple does deserve some of it, and as the most innovative computer company in the world, they should have known better.
Your defense sounds like the "You're holding it wrong" defense. So you know to select better passwords - so what? Not everyone cares as much about computers as those here at AI.
Quote:
At least your name matches the shitty quality of your posts.
Easy now, you wouldn't want this dawg to leave a turd on your car, would you?
Why the hell is 1. The FaceTime camera is smaller and 2. There are 3 holes on the top front Basel? Could there be a secret? Could it be face recognition? Could it be a dual 2 mp camera with enhanced FaceTime? What is it?
Nah, You're just too young to fully appreciate a lot of the innovation that has always taken place at Apple with or without Jobs. (at least I hope that's the reason)
Why don't you try listing a few of Apple's amazing innovations that took the world by surprise during Jobs absence?
As I remember it, Apple coasted on Mac OS until they bought NeXT and Jobs returned in the late 90s. Attempts at replacing Mac OS crashed and burned. Unprotected memory made using a Mac similar to working on a live bomb - you never knew when it would explode and take everything down with it. The PPC alliance was fast out of the gate but soon lagged pitifully behind Intel.
The only "innovation" I remember is the Newton. It was interesting, but failed to seize or redefine a market because it wasn't well executed. It was pretty clunky, too, hardly something the average person would want to carry.
Oh for crying out loud. I don't have all day:
PowerBook
PowerBook Duo
Track pad
MacTCP (openTCP)
OpenTransport
Built-in optical drive
And, right or wrong move; licensing Mac OS was an innovative move.
I could make a list 3 feet long, but it would be better if you just went to history class.
And, right or wrong move; licensing Mac OS was an innovative move.
I could make a list 3 feet long, but it would be better if you just went to history class.
I'll bet you could make a list 3 feet long, if you include stuff like OpenTransport and built-in optical drives.
Not sure how you figure licensing Mac OS was innovative, since Microsoft built Windows on the concept of licensing it to hardware vendors. I guess when Apple does something, it's innovative, because Apple.
I guess when Apple does something, it's innovative, because Apple.
No, you just want Apple to reinvent the wheel, or it's not "innovative". Unless of course, you want to call something like the iPhone innovative, then:
For example, nothing about the iPhone involved new technological advances, it was made out of parts freely available to other tech companies. Think about why the iPhone was so revolutionary, and you may begin to understand Apple's innovation under Steve Jobs.
it's how they put together existing parts. So you contradict yourself in the same post.
And, right or wrong move; licensing Mac OS was an innovative move.
I could make a list 3 feet long, but it would be better if you just went to history class.
I'll bet you could make a list 3 feet long, if you include stuff like OpenTransport and built-in optical drives.
Not sure how you figure licensing Mac OS was innovative, since Microsoft built Windows on the concept of licensing it to hardware vendors. I guess when Apple does something, it's innovative, because Apple.
Oh, I see. You're the one who decides what is innovation, and what is not. I got it.
Lets play by your rules (that's what one usually has to do with children).
Take out those items you mentioned (because there's nothing innovative about them). What about the others? Those are still only a tiny sample of what Apple was doing early / mid 90s. (You know; while you were busy watching "Barney").
No, you just want Apple to reinvent the wheel, or it's not "innovative".
I'd like them to perform at the same level as they did under Jobs. If that's too much to ask, then I guess Apple is done.
Quote:
it's how they put together existing parts. So you contradict yourself in the same post.
That's pretty much the whole point of my post. As I stated earlier in the post:
Quote:
Apple's competitors have advanced tech, too, but that doesn't amount to innovation in the sense of the iPod or iPhone, or Mac OS X. Apple's innovations require advanced technology, but they are more about how the technology is implemented.
Please try to read and understand the material before commenting.
Oh, I see. You're the one who decides what is innovation, and what is not. I got it.
Lets play by your rules (that's what one usually has to do with children).
Take out those items you mentioned (because there's nothing innovative about them). What about the others? Those are still only a tiny sample of what Apple was doing early / mid 90s. (You know; while you were busy watching "Barney").
We're talking about comparing Apple's innovation under Jobs versus other CEOs. So the bar is set high: innovation means "define a new market, or redefine a pre-existing market".
Other than the Powerbook and it's trackpad, which I concede reaches the level of Jobs era innovation, you listed a bunch of uninfluential technologies that had little impact on the market or Apple's sales. They certainly didn't define new markets. Those little technical advances are the building blocks of Apple's greatest innovations, but alone they are the stuff of your average successful tech company.
Edit: In 1990s Apple's case, I guess they were the stuff of your average doomed tech company. Heh.
So the bar is set high: innovation means "define a new market, or redefine a pre-existing market"
Yeah...you see, nobody on this planet is required to respect your...unique...definition of the word "innovation", so you're basically just talking to yourself.
Or a pair of (sapphire?) glasses that i-Watch everything through?
I'm obliged to point out that i've been saying this for some months now, some time after Apple trademarked "iWatch." No one picked up on it. You are the first to also espouse the idea. Great minds think alike, and all that. Samsung's Gear VR is maybe a forecopy. Apple's stereo glasses patents promise something much more wearable.
@Junkyard Dawg, are you saying Apple can't possibly innovate without Jobs?
I think the upcoming product announcements, which represent the first truly post-Jobs products, will be an interesting look at what Apple can do without Jobs. Apple's history shows that they did not fare well without Jobs, but today's Apple is a different company, infused with a corporate culture resulting from Jobs's leadership, the NeXT gurus he's put in places of leadership, and the new hires under his tenure. I think we're about to learn whether Jobs was able to build a company that could continue to thrive without him.
My primary concern is that people like Steve Jobs often do not abide the presence of other strong willed visionary leaders. They tend to select for people who are more deferential, the sort of people who may be be technically proficient, but are wont to improve on existing designs of their competitors.. On the other hand, Jobs wasn't like other people, and there are plenty of examples of him hiring and working with headstrong people. I wonder whether he left a company able to take the initiative, or a company of passive followers in search of a leader?
I don't know the answer. I think we need more data.
Comments
I see AAPL is down another 1% when the likes of Google, Microsoft and Amazon are all up on the day. Another analyst coming out and throwing cold water on the "iWatch" and that Apple's product cycle peaked with iPhone 6. Here's my question: all the rumors point to new product categories and new services like mobile payments. What more is Wall Street expecting Apple to do? And why are Apple's competitors priced as though they have limitless growth and upside but yet Apple is treated as though it has no place to go but down?
Apparently, except for the loyal Apple fans, have unrealistic expectations from the company, from product to earnings to cash positions. And when Apple again and again blow past those numbers, more hurdle is being thrown at them. Case in point, there has been so much talk about Apple TV, Apple iWatch, Apple Payment Services, etc. etc. from the analysts from the street, which has never been confirmed by the Apple. And when those same assumptions are being torn down by the same analysts, the stock takes beating. It is like Apple is paying for the crime committed where it was not even within a mile of the victim.
There was funny quote I read day or two ago where Samsung was claiming that the big screen phone was not working out for them - Huh! Just when Apple might be coming out with the big screen they are saying that. Until now the big screen was the reasons they were pushing their product. Ironic, isn't it?
In any case, Whatever Apple announces on Tuesday, the street will have an opinion and it will bring the stock down to 95 or so. But again, Apple will once again make the liar out of all the analysts and we will see the stock in 115-125 range before the year is done. Just hold on tight and ignore then noise.
Stretching a bit?
Apple did innovate without Steve J.
With Jobs it just reGained focus.
Prior to Jobs return, Apple offered myriad beige boxes and couldn't even develop a successor to Mac OS. If you call that innovating, then you're stretching your cognitive capacity to it's breaking point.
Nah, You're just too young to fully appreciate a lot of the innovation that has always taken place at Apple with or without Jobs. (at least I hope that's the reason)
Case in point, there has been so much talk about Apple TV, Apple iWatch, Apple Payment Services, etc. etc. from the analysts from the street, which has never been confirmed by the Apple. And when those same assumptions are being torn down by the same analysts, the stock takes beating. It is like Apple is paying for the crime committed where it was not even within a mile of the victim
Ming Chi Kuo is the man.
"one-handed mode"
?pffft… Lame… What about people who only have one hand? What are they supposed to do??
?Wait a minute… what??? uh…
Nah, You're just too young to fully appreciate a lot of the innovation that has always taken place at Apple with or without Jobs. (at least I hope that's the reason)
Why don't you try listing a few of Apple's amazing innovations that took the world by surprise during Jobs absence?
As I remember it, Apple coasted on Mac OS until they bought NeXT and Jobs returned in the late 90s. Attempts at replacing Mac OS crashed and burned. Unprotected memory made using a Mac similar to working on a live bomb - you never knew when it would explode and take everything down with it. The PPC alliance was fast out of the gate but soon lagged pitifully behind Intel.
The only "innovation" I remember is the Newton. It was interesting, but failed to seize or redefine a market because it wasn't well executed. It was pretty clunky, too, hardly something the average person would want to carry.
Apple has had a shitload of innovations since Steve passed, and you'd be extremely superficial to ignore those. The first desktop class 64 bit mobile CPU, Touch ID- the first actually useable, reliable mass produced, consumer biometric system, duotone flash, the M7 motion coprocessor, the new Retina Macbook Pro line, the ridiculous advancements in the iPad line (thinness, weight, display resolution), the new Mac Pro, all the hundreds of software innovations in iOS and OSX, even a new programming language- the list goes on and on. Apple, and Tim, have been tested. And so far, they've succeeded with flying colors. "Innovation" isn't exclusive to a new product category. It also applies to the engineering and design of their existing product lines, through hardware and software, and a vision based on laying the foundation with all the above technologies and more.
Most of what you list are not innovations, and the few that are were developed and designed during Jobs' tenure as CEO. For example, the new Mac Pro was designed while Jobs was alive, but postponed due to Intel's countless delays on 12 core Xeon processors.
Anyways, most of what you list are technical advances. Specs. Apple's competitors have advanced tech, too, but that doesn't amount to innovation in the sense of the iPod or iPhone, or Mac OS X. Apple's innovations require advanced technology, but they are more about how the technology is implemented.
For example, nothing about the iPhone involved new technological advances, it was made out of parts freely available to other tech companies. Think about why the iPhone was so revolutionary, and you may begin to understand Apple's innovation under Steve Jobs.
1. The "breach" wasn't just with iCloud
2. There was no breach in security- you have moronic celebrities taking nude selfies, uploading them to the cloud, and using shitty and super-common password to protect their accounts.
iBrute. A brute force backdoor in iCloud. As you note, there is plenty of blame to go around, but Apple does deserve some of it, and as the most innovative computer company in the world, they should have known better.
Your defense sounds like the "You're holding it wrong" defense. So you know to select better passwords - so what? Not everyone cares as much about computers as those here at AI.
Easy now, you wouldn't want this dawg to leave a turd on your car, would you?
Nah, You're just too young to fully appreciate a lot of the innovation that has always taken place at Apple with or without Jobs. (at least I hope that's the reason)
Why don't you try listing a few of Apple's amazing innovations that took the world by surprise during Jobs absence?
As I remember it, Apple coasted on Mac OS until they bought NeXT and Jobs returned in the late 90s. Attempts at replacing Mac OS crashed and burned. Unprotected memory made using a Mac similar to working on a live bomb - you never knew when it would explode and take everything down with it. The PPC alliance was fast out of the gate but soon lagged pitifully behind Intel.
The only "innovation" I remember is the Newton. It was interesting, but failed to seize or redefine a market because it wasn't well executed. It was pretty clunky, too, hardly something the average person would want to carry.
Oh for crying out loud. I don't have all day:
PowerBook
PowerBook Duo
Track pad
MacTCP (openTCP)
OpenTransport
Built-in optical drive
And, right or wrong move; licensing Mac OS was an innovative move.
I could make a list 3 feet long, but it would be better if you just went to history class.
Oh for crying out loud. I don't have all day:
PowerBook
PowerBook Duo
Track pad
MacTCP (openTCP)
OpenTransport
Built-in optical drive
And, right or wrong move; licensing Mac OS was an innovative move.
I could make a list 3 feet long, but it would be better if you just went to history class.
I'll bet you could make a list 3 feet long, if you include stuff like OpenTransport and built-in optical drives.
Not sure how you figure licensing Mac OS was innovative, since Microsoft built Windows on the concept of licensing it to hardware vendors. I guess when Apple does something, it's innovative, because Apple.
That you wear.
No, you just want Apple to reinvent the wheel, or it's not "innovative". Unless of course, you want to call something like the iPhone innovative, then:
it's how they put together existing parts. So you contradict yourself in the same post.
Oh for crying out loud. I don't have all day:
PowerBook
PowerBook Duo
Track pad
MacTCP (openTCP)
OpenTransport
Built-in optical drive
And, right or wrong move; licensing Mac OS was an innovative move.
I could make a list 3 feet long, but it would be better if you just went to history class.
I'll bet you could make a list 3 feet long, if you include stuff like OpenTransport and built-in optical drives.
Not sure how you figure licensing Mac OS was innovative, since Microsoft built Windows on the concept of licensing it to hardware vendors. I guess when Apple does something, it's innovative, because Apple.
Oh, I see. You're the one who decides what is innovation, and what is not. I got it.
Lets play by your rules (that's what one usually has to do with children).
Take out those items you mentioned (because there's nothing innovative about them). What about the others? Those are still only a tiny sample of what Apple was doing early / mid 90s. (You know; while you were busy watching "Barney").
I'd like them to perform at the same level as they did under Jobs. If that's too much to ask, then I guess Apple is done.
That's pretty much the whole point of my post. As I stated earlier in the post:
Please try to read and understand the material before commenting.
Oh, I see. You're the one who decides what is innovation, and what is not. I got it.
Lets play by your rules (that's what one usually has to do with children).
Take out those items you mentioned (because there's nothing innovative about them). What about the others? Those are still only a tiny sample of what Apple was doing early / mid 90s. (You know; while you were busy watching "Barney").
We're talking about comparing Apple's innovation under Jobs versus other CEOs. So the bar is set high: innovation means "define a new market, or redefine a pre-existing market".
Other than the Powerbook and it's trackpad, which I concede reaches the level of Jobs era innovation, you listed a bunch of uninfluential technologies that had little impact on the market or Apple's sales. They certainly didn't define new markets. Those little technical advances are the building blocks of Apple's greatest innovations, but alone they are the stuff of your average successful tech company.
Edit: In 1990s Apple's case, I guess they were the stuff of your average doomed tech company. Heh.
Yeah...you see, nobody on this planet is required to respect your...unique...definition of the word "innovation", so you're basically just talking to yourself.
Oh, boy... THAT is cool.
I'm obliged to point out that i've been saying this for some months now, some time after Apple trademarked "iWatch." No one picked up on it. You are the first to also espouse the idea. Great minds think alike, and all that. Samsung's Gear VR is maybe a forecopy. Apple's stereo glasses patents promise something much more wearable.
@Junkyard Dawg, are you saying Apple can't possibly innovate without Jobs?
I think the upcoming product announcements, which represent the first truly post-Jobs products, will be an interesting look at what Apple can do without Jobs. Apple's history shows that they did not fare well without Jobs, but today's Apple is a different company, infused with a corporate culture resulting from Jobs's leadership, the NeXT gurus he's put in places of leadership, and the new hires under his tenure. I think we're about to learn whether Jobs was able to build a company that could continue to thrive without him.
My primary concern is that people like Steve Jobs often do not abide the presence of other strong willed visionary leaders. They tend to select for people who are more deferential, the sort of people who may be be technically proficient, but are wont to improve on existing designs of their competitors.. On the other hand, Jobs wasn't like other people, and there are plenty of examples of him hiring and working with headstrong people. I wonder whether he left a company able to take the initiative, or a company of passive followers in search of a leader?
I don't know the answer. I think we need more data.