I think the quote you're referring to and crediting SJ with is:
"You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.
It was actually originally made by poet John Lydgate and then made famous by persistent Abraham Lincoln.
As for Apple becoming complacent and slowing down with the innovation - we just have to trust that SJ has established a culture within Apple that will prevent that from ever happening. I think he did - but a lot of people look at what happened with Research In Motion and see it as a foregon conclusion and an inevitability that Apple will follow in their footsteps. RIM got lazy and greedy and failed to see Apple as a credible threat when they first appeared. They won the market through innovation and it was theirs to keep - but through greed and stupidity at the CEO level, they lost everything. A lot of people think that Apple is destined to follow in their footsteps - but I think Apple is smart enough to heed the RIM case study as a warning and learn from it - allowing them to thrive and prosper even as new competition comes and goes. The lesson is to NOT become too arrogant or too complacent. Other companies have strived to make and maximize profits - and they have done so by cost cutting - whether it be on build quality, downsizing or on R&D spending cutbacks (which has short term gains but drastically affects their future product pipeline) but Apple has always strived to create "the best" and to redefine what "the best" is and the profits have followed as a natural byproduct of creating something truly useful, desirable and by building a reputation of customer service and satisfaction.
What I'm trying to say is that Apple is a different company with a different culture and I think they have a very good chance of avoiding the problems other companies have had with complacency and greed. Even though there is a lot of room to grow in the smartphone market, there will eventually be a time when it becomes saturated and no more growth is possible. In order to grow beyond that, other product lines will need to be created - and we already see evidence of Apple exploring some of those markets. Whether it be cars, wearable technology, TV's or something completely different - there are a lot of industries that could really benefit from a disruption and I hope that Apple is the company that does it.
As for your other point about Apple intentionally holding back features - that is just speculation. I think that the reason some recent products have launched without features that look like they should have been included was because the features aren't ready yet. Samsung has rushed out many new features and technologies as soon as they have become available while Apple has held back for 1 or even 2 years - and we've seen what happens when Apple finally does release those features. Their implementation has always been far superior to the junk that has been rushed to market without thought to reliability, usability or integration with the rest of the phone and ecosystem. So I hope that's what's happening here. I don't believe that Apple is simply holding features back so they can compel people to upgrade in a year. They are still perfecting the implementation of those features so that when they do come out, they will work very well and integrate seamlessly with the rest of the platform.
Thank you for your elaborate response. I would agree to most of what you said and add: I hope you're right.
Just two things: Steve Jobs actually did say what I wrote:
And I specifically referred to items like amount of RAM or hard disk size/speed. These are arguably items of discussion.
I remember way back it was already the same. For example when they cut SCSI from a PowerMac (why I got my 4400 I still preferred my 7500 with upgraded cpu and memory - what a dream machine at that time! ) which was a few cents per part. You can argue that similar like dropping FireWire it was a consequence of a strategic decision. But it's not that Apple would have to live in fear of loosing mo eg if they'd double the ram in the iOS devices for the same money. Or offer memory upgrades for a reasonable price. I mean who on earth would order the memory from Apple when you'd get even Kingston modules for a fraction of the price? And what they'd lose if they would just do it?
For now, they don't in favor of profits and it seems obviously to work fine. And I'm also not saying that they should give away stuff for free. They are not in the welfare business. It's just what you said about RIM (which is also true for Microsoft btw except that they appear to have made the turn around) about getting greedy and lazy - as I said I just hope the "DNA" of Apple is strong enough to survive even a (quasi)monopoly.
Corporations do not have a conscience, morals, or ethics. Only money! Their single minded quest for money may force them to strategically use parts of those things (for example being pro-gay in order to sell to gays; and not be boycotted). Corporations will lie, cheat and steal for more money; and they do. They NEED to be limited by a strong consumer-focused government agency.
Corporations are best served by being quiet and avoiding any topics which divide people. For every person that is "pro-gay", you push away more people that are offended by being "pro-gay". I remember having a discussion from someone that was advocating boycotting Apple because of their spending and lobbying on gay issues.
Capitalism the ultimate evil, but without it you would probably end up driving a Yugo. Without capitalism you would not likely have a company like Apple.... There are hundreds of countries, but the vast majority of new innovative companies were created in the United States (at least in the tech industry).... though the US is trying hard to become just like all the rest in that regard -- killing innovation through government overreach.
Not long ago they were against it (or at least silent; remember that most Americans were against it) but once it became supported by over 51% of their customer base (via massive propaganda campaigns over the last 20 years) they openly support it. Always follow the money.
Lets say 20% of the user base are for it, 60% are ambivalent (Includes people that don't care one way or another when it comes to buying a companies products), and 20% are strongly against it as an example. Taking a stand (a change in policy or tenor) will always alienate a portion of the portion of your customer base, while not will not typically alienate anyone. So each time you take a stand you alienate a different group of people, each time some will feel strongly and feel betrayed. Taking a stand only loses you customers. It might gain you good will but good will does not replace good hard cash.
Lets say 20% of the user base are for it, 60% are ambivalent (Includes people that don't care one way or another when it comes to buying a companies products), and 20% are strongly against it as an example. Taking a stand (a change in policy or tenor) will always alienate a portion of the portion of your customer base, while not will not typically alienate anyone. So each time you take a stand you alienate a different group of people, each time some will feel strongly and feel betrayed. Taking a stand only loses you customers. It might gain you good will but good will does not replace good hard cash.
Not all issues are dividing issues to a customer base. For example, taking a stand against invasion of privacy, for green initiatives or against unfairly high roaming charges may alienate a government agency or two and several telecommunication companies - but I can't think of any portion of the customer base that would be alienated or upset by these stands - so taking a stand in itself is not always a bad thing. Companies just need to be very careful which things they do choose to speak out for or against.
Comments
Thank you for your elaborate response. I would agree to most of what you said and add: I hope you're right.
Just two things: Steve Jobs actually did say what I wrote:
And I specifically referred to items like amount of RAM or hard disk size/speed. These are arguably items of discussion.
I remember way back it was already the same. For example when they cut SCSI from a PowerMac (why I got my 4400 I still preferred my 7500 with upgraded cpu and memory - what a dream machine at that time!
For now, they don't in favor of profits and it seems obviously to work fine. And I'm also not saying that they should give away stuff for free. They are not in the welfare business. It's just what you said about RIM (which is also true for Microsoft btw except that they appear to have made the turn around) about getting greedy and lazy - as I said I just hope the "DNA" of Apple is strong enough to survive even a (quasi)monopoly.
Corporations do not have a conscience, morals, or ethics. Only money! Their single minded quest for money may force them to strategically use parts of those things (for example being pro-gay in order to sell to gays; and not be boycotted). Corporations will lie, cheat and steal for more money; and they do. They NEED to be limited by a strong consumer-focused government agency.
Corporations are best served by being quiet and avoiding any topics which divide people. For every person that is "pro-gay", you push away more people that are offended by being "pro-gay". I remember having a discussion from someone that was advocating boycotting Apple because of their spending and lobbying on gay issues.
Capitalism the ultimate evil, but without it you would probably end up driving a Yugo. Without capitalism you would not likely have a company like Apple.... There are hundreds of countries, but the vast majority of new innovative companies were created in the United States (at least in the tech industry).... though the US is trying hard to become just like all the rest in that regard -- killing innovation through government overreach.
Not long ago they were against it (or at least silent; remember that most Americans were against it) but once it became supported by over 51% of their customer base (via massive propaganda campaigns over the last 20 years) they openly support it. Always follow the money.
Lets say 20% of the user base are for it, 60% are ambivalent (Includes people that don't care one way or another when it comes to buying a companies products), and 20% are strongly against it as an example. Taking a stand (a change in policy or tenor) will always alienate a portion of the portion of your customer base, while not will not typically alienate anyone. So each time you take a stand you alienate a different group of people, each time some will feel strongly and feel betrayed. Taking a stand only loses you customers. It might gain you good will but good will does not replace good hard cash.