Tim Cook says that Apple has bought 20 to 25 companies in the last six months

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 33
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 4,071member
    avon b7 said:
    R&D is generally more focused in smaller companies. Snapping up talent with something on the burner is a valid way to progress but I have wondered whether Apple itself has the necessary focus on the products it is currently shipping.
    Of course you're "conerned". LOL, yes, the handful of products that fit on a table, can Apple stay focused!? But but but they're doing...SERVICES now! Surely it's pandemonium over there!

    Please. How are your chinese knockoffs staying focused with ripoffs like their AirPod wannabes? Where is the "concern"?

    I'm not concerned in the slightest. 

    However, seeing that I brought 'focus' to the table, perhaps you should refine yours.

    Why not answer the points I raised when you posted the same comments in another thread?

    In the meantime, what I actually stated in this thread still stands.
  • Reply 22 of 33
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,208member
    Rayer said:
    zoetmb said:
    If Apple is buying these companies in large part to acquire talent and staffing, I ask the question again that I've asked before:   what the hell are those tens of thousands of employees at Apple doing?    They don't produce that many products, most of the hardware updates are incremental, they still rely upon Intel for processors (although that might change in the future) and while their products are great in some respects, they're highly flawed in others.   They abandoned servers and network devices.   HomePod and AppleTV aren't exactly taking over the market.   They've had big problems with keyboards.   They seem to have abandoned their desire to produce a smart automobile.   They haven't made any obvious movies into AI and robotics, which I have always thought would be the future of Apple 10-15 years from now.   Siri still sucks.   Each new OS update decreases prior compatibility and seems filled with more bugs.    The long promised new MacPro still isn't here.   And their products (IMO) are far too expensive. 
    Ah, the instant gratification crowd. If you want to know, just go to Apple’s jobs pages, search, and read the descriptions. I’m a software dev so I occasional scan them, and there’s all sorts of non-consumer-facing internal projects. Tools for themselves, and tools & portals for partners. Normal enterprise work. You’ve been shown performances where products appear out of thin air with software and services ready to go, but there are a ton of moving pieces behind the scenes to get it there and keep it going. 

    The rest of your rant is silly. Cars are incremental, and expensive, and come out once a year. What the hell are all those auto workers doing?! Right??

    Umm, auto workers are building the cars. Doing something. Something takes time. Cars are expensive, which is why you typically only buy one every 5 to 10 years (assuming you are a middle or low class worker and not a rich person who can change cars once every couple of years).

    Back to Apple. It really is an honest question. There is no reason that the Mac Mini, Mac Pro, and every other Apple computer to have gone more than a year without at least getting that years CPU model from Intel/AMD, that years Nvidia or AMD video card (for the Pro computers), the newest (or newer) RAM chips with faster speeds or newer versions of the same RAM that are more efficient, the latest SSD with better read/write speeds, etc. Between every major release of an Apple computer with big changes (1st-gen unibody, unibody without DVD drive, unibody with only USB-C ports for example) they could have and should have been releasing minor updates instead of charging people the same price for a four year old computer with 4+ year old hardware.

    I highly doubt that Apple mass produced enough Mac Minis and Mac Pros to last them until a refresh occurred, so that means Apple was ordering their manufacturing partners to build machines every year with dated hardware.

    When it comes to the Apple computers, yes they typically last longer than their Windows counterparts (I have a base model, 2013 Macbook Air still kicking), but people new computers a lot more often than they buy a new (or a used, but newer year to them) car. Also, $1000 to $2000 computer is not equatable to a $10,000+ car that requires a loan from most people with little to no down payment.
    Price as your sole reasoning for buying a product is a nonstarter. It's about need. By your own argument I should be buying a new silo of Morton salt and Arm & Hammer baking soda every time I go to the grocery store because it's so inexpensive… not once in a lifetime.





    YoY updates in the automobile industry is the definition of incremental. You're asking for "that year's CPU" when Intel hasn't even been putting out a new CPU for mobile devices each year that would work in their various levels of traditional mobile computing. That is one of many reasons so many of us want Macs to move to Apple silicon.

    If you want to continue with your car analogy, what is the average increase percentage for BHP for a given price point (i.e.: speed) and MPG for a given BHP (i.e.: efficiency) that you're seeing on automobiles YoY? I've seen nothing that resembles what you suggest is happening.

    Apple made (what?) 58 MILLION iPhones last quarter (a non holiday quarter). Do you know how many parallel lines of production need to be have to make that many devices. Have you done the math to figure out how many devices are made completed every SECOND?


    Do you know how long it takes from start to finish to make an iPhone? Considerably longer than you're thinking because you're thinking it about like you'd download an app: you click a button, it starts to download, it finishes, it installs. Before it can be assembled as a whole there are countless logistics that need to be done to source all the components. That can easily takes many months to set up. And these components are made by hundreds of contracted companies in dozens of countries, each with many other companies tech assembled on them as is the case with a circuit board. And then all that needed to be engineering and tested by Apple. That means that each iPhone starts years earlier. I know of know automative company that do what Apple does in that regard. No other tech company can either. Samsung you say? Sure, they sell more units in most things, but they source off the shelf parts for countless number of cheap models. Comparatively, Apple are making Bentley-quality devices with Ford numbers.
    edited May 6 StrangeDaysmacxpresssacto joefastasleep
  • Reply 23 of 33
    Rayer said:
    zoetmb said:
    If Apple is buying these companies in large part to acquire talent and staffing, I ask the question again that I've asked before:   what the hell are those tens of thousands of employees at Apple doing?    They don't produce that many products, most of the hardware updates are incremental, they still rely upon Intel for processors (although that might change in the future) and while their products are great in some respects, they're highly flawed in others.   They abandoned servers and network devices.   HomePod and AppleTV aren't exactly taking over the market.   They've had big problems with keyboards.   They seem to have abandoned their desire to produce a smart automobile.   They haven't made any obvious movies into AI and robotics, which I have always thought would be the future of Apple 10-15 years from now.   Siri still sucks.   Each new OS update decreases prior compatibility and seems filled with more bugs.    The long promised new MacPro still isn't here.   And their products (IMO) are far too expensive. 
    Ah, the instant gratification crowd. If you want to know, just go to Apple’s jobs pages, search, and read the descriptions. I’m a software dev so I occasional scan them, and there’s all sorts of non-consumer-facing internal projects. Tools for themselves, and tools & portals for partners. Normal enterprise work. You’ve been shown performances where products appear out of thin air with software and services ready to go, but there are a ton of moving pieces behind the scenes to get it there and keep it going. 

    The rest of your rant is silly. Cars are incremental, and expensive, and come out once a year. What the hell are all those auto workers doing?! Right??

    When it comes to the Apple computers, yes they typically last longer than their Windows counterparts (I have a base model, 2013 Macbook Air still kicking), but people new computers a lot more often than they buy a new (or a used, but newer year to them) car. Also, $1000 to $2000 computer is not equatable to a $10,000+ car that requires a loan from most people with little to no down payment.
    That isn’t true for me and off the top of my head I can think of two of my friends who it also isn’t true of.

    I’m currently using a 2012 iMac and I (or my spouse) haven’t purchased a computer since that one but I have had 3 new cars since 2012. A friend of mine (who is an air traffic controller for the FAA) is using a PC that’s at least 6 years old. Since 2012 he’s owned several different cars (including a Lamborghini Diablo), trucks and RVs and currently has a 7 Series BMW. He has no issue with getting a car loan but e refuses to purchase a new computer since his still works and is good enough for him even though he seems to be able to easily afford one.  On the flip side, another friend works in IT in the local school system (read, not earning at the same level as my ATC friend). She is also using an old, outdated PC that consistently has some issue that needs fixing. Yet, she’s on her third car since 2012 (keep in mind, in 2013 she replaced an old Explorer with a Rogue and just recently replaced the Rogue for a Subaru).

    As with pretty much everything, what is true for you isn’t necessarily true for everyone else.

    While I find it interesting that Apple is buying up smaller companies in a general sense it’s just a curiosity for me. Even though I may see the results of a certain purchase I rarely will be able to say, “Hey, xxx just happened and that’s because Apple integrated xxx’s product.” For instance, Laserlike is mentioned in this article. How many of us will know when the integration of their products or people makes a difference in Apple’s AI. Probably not very many. And then there are the companies Apple purchased that we can point to an actual product of (like Beddit). I’m guessing one day Apple will release some sort of sleep tracking product and we could reasonable say it came from that purchase. That isn’t the case for most of what we hear about, if we hear about it at all.
  • Reply 24 of 33
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 8,309member
    Rayer said:
    zoetmb said:
    If Apple is buying these companies in large part to acquire talent and staffing, I ask the question again that I've asked before:   what the hell are those tens of thousands of employees at Apple doing?    They don't produce that many products, most of the hardware updates are incremental, they still rely upon Intel for processors (although that might change in the future) and while their products are great in some respects, they're highly flawed in others.   They abandoned servers and network devices.   HomePod and AppleTV aren't exactly taking over the market.   They've had big problems with keyboards.   They seem to have abandoned their desire to produce a smart automobile.   They haven't made any obvious movies into AI and robotics, which I have always thought would be the future of Apple 10-15 years from now.   Siri still sucks.   Each new OS update decreases prior compatibility and seems filled with more bugs.    The long promised new MacPro still isn't here.   And their products (IMO) are far too expensive. 
    Ah, the instant gratification crowd. If you want to know, just go to Apple’s jobs pages, search, and read the descriptions. I’m a software dev so I occasional scan them, and there’s all sorts of non-consumer-facing internal projects. Tools for themselves, and tools & portals for partners. Normal enterprise work. You’ve been shown performances where products appear out of thin air with software and services ready to go, but there are a ton of moving pieces behind the scenes to get it there and keep it going. 

    The rest of your rant is silly. Cars are incremental, and expensive, and come out once a year. What the hell are all those auto workers doing?! Right??

    Umm, auto workers are building the cars. Doing something. Something takes time. Cars are expensive, which is why you typically only buy one every 5 to 10 years (assuming you are a middle or low class worker and not a rich person who can change cars once every couple of years).
    Um, IT workers are building the software and the backend systems that support them. Doing something. Something takes time. Systems are expensive.

    Seriously -- do you not understand products, which are a combination of hardware and software, frontend and backend systems, take time -- and *people* -- to create? They don't pop out of clamshells fully formed. Like I said, if you're unclear what corporate IT staffs do at any sizable organization, just go browse the job descriptions on apple.com. You can begin to get an idea of what people in my professional do all day.
    edited May 6 JWSCfastasleep
  • Reply 25 of 33
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 8,309member

    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    R&D is generally more focused in smaller companies. Snapping up talent with something on the burner is a valid way to progress but I have wondered whether Apple itself has the necessary focus on the products it is currently shipping.
    Of course you're "conerned". LOL, yes, the handful of products that fit on a table, can Apple stay focused!? But but but they're doing...SERVICES now! Surely it's pandemonium over there!

    Please. How are your chinese knockoffs staying focused with ripoffs like their AirPod wannabes? Where is the "concern"?

    I'm not concerned in the slightest. 

    However, seeing that I brought 'focus' to the table, perhaps you should refine yours.

    Why not answer the points I raised when you posted the same comments in another thread?

    In the meantime, what I actually stated in this thread still stands.
    Of course you're not concerned about what your chinese knockoff brand is doing, even when that thing is simply copying Apple (poorly at that, yikes those are fugly), but are concerned about Apple. That's your thing here. 

    As for your points on another thread, I have no idea what those may be -- after my initial hit of an article, I don't often return to find out what someone thought about something I thought. Especially if it's about some crappy knockoff brand.
    edited May 6
  • Reply 26 of 33
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 4,071member

    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    R&D is generally more focused in smaller companies. Snapping up talent with something on the burner is a valid way to progress but I have wondered whether Apple itself has the necessary focus on the products it is currently shipping.
    Of course you're "conerned". LOL, yes, the handful of products that fit on a table, can Apple stay focused!? But but but they're doing...SERVICES now! Surely it's pandemonium over there!

    Please. How are your chinese knockoffs staying focused with ripoffs like their AirPod wannabes? Where is the "concern"?

    I'm not concerned in the slightest. 

    However, seeing that I brought 'focus' to the table, perhaps you should refine yours.

    Why not answer the points I raised when you posted the same comments in another thread?

    In the meantime, what I actually stated in this thread still stands.
    Of course you're not concerned about what your chinese knockoff brand is doing, even when that thing is simply copying Apple (poorly at that, yikes those are fugly), but are concerned about Apple. That's your thing here. 

    As for your points on another thread, I have no idea what those may be -- after my initial hit of an article, I don't often return to find out what someone thought about something I thought. Especially when its dreck. 
    Not concerned about Apple either. Just wondering out loud.
  • Reply 27 of 33
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 512member
    Funny someone on another thread just last week was trolling Apple as not being the old Apple, not buying companies anymore...and here we see that’s not even true. Oops.
    For some, factoids have more appeal than facts.  Facts are so boring you know...  😆
  • Reply 28 of 33
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 3,109member
    Funny someone on another thread just last week was trolling Apple as not being the old Apple, not buying companies anymore...and here we see that’s not even true. Oops.
    First thing I thought of too, it was in the sapphire post thread about how that flop made Apple too spooked to buy new companies and try new materials. LOL.


  • Reply 29 of 33
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,307member
    Soli said:
    lkrupp said:
    Soli said:
    wood1208 said:
    Is it 20 or 25 companies? Can't be both numbers.
    I’m sure he means 20 to 25.
    It means he really doesn’t know how many Apple bought but it is in the 20-25 range.
    1) Yeah, that's what 'to' means in my comment.

    2) He may know every single one but is using a range because exact statements like "we've bought 23 companies this year" or "we purchase an average of 5.75 companies per month" are not received well in the colloquial. In a quarterly conference call being precise would have more relevance. Or, there could be a range because of how one can measure a purchase. If there's an agreement in place but the paperwork has not been signed I can argue that it's both purchased and not purchased. Kinda like how buying a house can have that SOLD sign on it, but it's also still in the previous owners hands until all the paperwork has been signed. There could even be more steps if you involve lawyers to look over agreements or if gov't agencies have to be involved in the process.
    On point. 
    Soli
  • Reply 30 of 33
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,117moderator
    Soli said:
    lkrupp said:
    Soli said:
    wood1208 said:
    Is it 20 or 25 companies? Can't be both numbers.
    I’m sure he means 20 to 25.
    It means he really doesn’t know how many Apple bought but it is in the 20-25 range.
    1) Yeah, that's what 'to' means in my comment.

    2) He may know every single one but is using a range because exact statements like "we've bought 23 companies this year" or "we purchase an average of 5.75 companies per month" are not received well in the colloquial. In a quarterly conference call being precise would have more relevance. Or, there could be a range because of how one can measure a purchase. If there's an agreement in place but the paperwork has not been signed I can argue that it's both purchased and not purchased. Kinda like how buying a house can have that SOLD sign on it, but it's also still in the previous owners hands until all the paperwork has been signed. There could even be more steps if you involve lawyers to look over agreements or if gov't agencies have to be involved in the process.
    And also if you want to use that same statement multiple times.  Last six months is a rolling period.  Likely Cook doesn’t want to recalculate each time he says that to someone.  
    Soli
  • Reply 31 of 33
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,208member
    Funny someone on another thread just last week was trolling Apple as not being the old Apple, not buying companies anymore...and here we see that’s not even true. Oops.
    Funny someone on another thread just last week was trolling Apple as not being the old Apple, not buying companies anymore...and here we see that’s not even true. Oops.
    First thing I thought of too, it was in the sapphire post thread about how that flop made Apple too spooked to buy new companies and try new materials. LOL.
    I finally checked out that thread because of these comments. Too funny! I even made a comment in this thread about not assuming we know everything Apple is up to.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 32 of 33
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,407unconfirmed, member
    zoetmb said:
    If Apple is buying these companies in large part to acquire talent and staffing, I ask the question again that I've asked before:   what the hell are those tens of thousands of employees at Apple doing?    They don't produce that many products, most of the hardware updates are incremental, they still rely upon Intel for processors (although that might change in the future) and while their products are great in some respects, they're highly flawed in others.   They abandoned servers and network devices.   HomePod and AppleTV aren't exactly taking over the market.   They've had big problems with keyboards.   They seem to have abandoned their desire to produce a smart automobile.   They haven't made any obvious movies into AI and robotics, which I have always thought would be the future of Apple 10-15 years from now.   Siri still sucks.   Each new OS update decreases prior compatibility and seems filled with more bugs.    The long promised new MacPro still isn't here.   And their products (IMO) are far too expensive. 

    Personally, I think Apple is making itself too large to manage effectively.    On a much smaller scale, I've seen this before.   I worked for a company that had over 100 developers working on an e-commerce project and little got accomplished.   We got rid of the contractors and knocked the staff down to 22 and because 22 people could be easily managed, far more was accomplished.   

    Was the Beats acquisition really worth the $billions they paid?   Apple couldn't have instead produced headphones that competed with Beats and knocked them out of the market with superior marketing for far less money?    While Beats headphones are popular, it's not like they're actually any good.    They probably could have bought Sennheiser for a fraction of the cost or Grado for pocket change.   

    I have to wonder that with the speed that Apple is acquiring these companies, how many of them are successfully integrated into Apple where Apple actually makes use of the tech.   If they're buying them just to acquire patents as a protection against lawsuits, that's another matter. 

    With all of that cash and since Apple is emphasizing services because that's where the growth is, I also have to wonder if they shouldn't have attempted to buy 20th Century Fox (which went to Disney) or Warner (which went to AT&T).    
    Oh please, Apple is moving the entire tech industry forward. Those lazy bastards!

    "Apple couldn't have instead produced headphones that competed with Beats and knocked them out of the market with superior marketing for far less money?"

    Apple audio products still exist. They didn't buy Beats to run their audio department.

    1. AirPods
    2. 
    HomePod

    Hell, Apple even discontinued Beats Pill.

    " I also have to wonder if they shouldn't have attempted to buy 20th Century Fox (which went to Disney) or Warner (which went to AT&T)."

    Oxymoron considering the last sentence I quoted:

    "Apple couldn't have instead produced headphones that competed with Beats and knocked them out of the market with superior marketing for far less money?"

    So you're angry when Apple creates original content to compete(Apple TV+), but angry when they don't compete and acquire instead(Beats)? Typical Apple is doomed if they do, doomed if they don't post.
    edited May 7 Soli
Sign In or Register to comment.