Apple needs to remember that it didn't get to where it is by satisfying stockholders.
Meeting customer wants and needs (even if it had to create them!) is what made (and makes) Apple great. Yeh, only a minority want a smaller phone. But likewise only a minority (8%) want a Mac.
I strongly doubt that Apple is losing money on the mini. Rather, because of lower demand they aren't making as much on it as a larger phone. If that assumption is true then Apple is putting the interests of stockholders above those of their customers -- and that is not a sustainable business plan.
Unfortunately Cook is all about two things - squeezing as much profit out of products as possible, with the sole aim of increasing share price to satisfy investors, and using Apple as a platform for his virtue signalling. He only cares about the products as much as he has to to ensure continued profit growth.
The HomePod was probably cancelled as it didn’t hit some return on investment metric. AppleTV+ on the other hand is being given a free pass as it’s Cook’s attempt at a legacy. They’ve spent billions on AppleTV+, likely much more than the HP, but barely anyone talks about it. When the HP was cancelled, the thread had more comments by non-regulars than I’ve seen in years. The threads on AppleTV+ get a couple of comments, if that.
As is often the case with postings like this, perception trumps reality. A simple Google search yields some interesting facts.
We can see that Apple's margins started their upwards trajectory under Jobs until they hit their peak in 2012 (peak iPhone?). They have since levelled off under Tim Cook. So what conclusions can we draw? SJ was a greedy S.O.B. and TC is level headed manager?
Apple needs to remember that it didn't get to where it is by satisfying stockholders.
Meeting customer wants and needs (even if it had to create them!) is what made (and makes) Apple great. Yeh, only a minority want a smaller phone. But likewise only a minority (8%) want a Mac.
I strongly doubt that Apple is losing money on the mini. Rather, because of lower demand they aren't making as much on it as a larger phone. If that assumption is true then Apple is putting the interests of stockholders above those of their customers -- and that is not a sustainable business plan.
Unfortunately Cook is all about two things - squeezing as much profit out of products as possible, with the sole aim of increasing share price to satisfy investors, and using Apple as a platform for his virtue signalling. He only cares about the products as much as he has to to ensure continued profit growth.
The HomePod was probably cancelled as it didn’t hit some return on investment metric. AppleTV+ on the other hand is being given a free pass as it’s Cook’s attempt at a legacy. They’ve spent billions on AppleTV+, likely much more than the HP, but barely anyone talks about it. When the HP was cancelled, the thread had more comments by non-regulars than I’ve seen in years. The threads on AppleTV+ get a couple of comments, if that.
As is often the case with postings like this, perception trumps reality. A simple Google search yields some interesting facts.
We can see that Apple's margins started their upwards trajectory under Jobs until they hit their peak in 2012 (peak iPhone?). They have since levelled off under Tim Cook. So what conclusions can we draw? SJ was a greedy S.O.B. and TC is level headed manager?
Correlate that with Apple's R&D spend and employee count which have both ballooned under Cook with little to show for it, and the $460bn they've spent (as of April 2020) on share buybacks. That's where a lot of profit is going, therefore keeping the margin flat but attempting to push the share price up. Apple was an efficient machine under Jobs, not so much now.
Apple needs to remember that it didn't get to where it is by satisfying stockholders.
Meeting customer wants and needs (even if it had to create them!) is what made (and makes) Apple great. Yeh, only a minority want a smaller phone. But likewise only a minority (8%) want a Mac.
I strongly doubt that Apple is losing money on the mini. Rather, because of lower demand they aren't making as much on it as a larger phone. If that assumption is true then Apple is putting the interests of stockholders above those of their customers -- and that is not a sustainable business plan.
Unfortunately Cook is all about two things - squeezing as much profit out of products as possible, with the sole aim of increasing share price to satisfy investors, and using Apple as a platform for his virtue signalling. He only cares about the products as much as he has to to ensure continued profit growth.
The HomePod was probably cancelled as it didn’t hit some return on investment metric. AppleTV+ on the other hand is being given a free pass as it’s Cook’s attempt at a legacy. They’ve spent billions on AppleTV+, likely much more than the HP, but barely anyone talks about it. When the HP was cancelled, the thread had more comments by non-regulars than I’ve seen in years. The threads on AppleTV+ get a couple of comments, if that.
As is often the case with postings like this, perception trumps reality. A simple Google search yields some interesting facts.
We can see that Apple's margins started their upwards trajectory under Jobs until they hit their peak in 2012 (peak iPhone?). They have since levelled off under Tim Cook. So what conclusions can we draw? SJ was a greedy S.O.B. and TC is level headed manager?
Apple needs to remember that it didn't get to where it is by satisfying stockholders.
Meeting customer wants and needs (even if it had to create them!) is what made (and makes) Apple great. Yeh, only a minority want a smaller phone. But likewise only a minority (8%) want a Mac.
I strongly doubt that Apple is losing money on the mini. Rather, because of lower demand they aren't making as much on it as a larger phone. If that assumption is true then Apple is putting the interests of stockholders above those of their customers -- and that is not a sustainable business plan.
Unfortunately Cook is all about two things - squeezing as much profit out of products as possible, with the sole aim of increasing share price to satisfy investors, and using Apple as a platform for his virtue signalling. He only cares about the products as much as he has to to ensure continued profit growth.
The HomePod was probably cancelled as it didn’t hit some return on investment metric. AppleTV+ on the other hand is being given a free pass as it’s Cook’s attempt at a legacy. They’ve spent billions on AppleTV+, likely much more than the HP, but barely anyone talks about it. When the HP was cancelled, the thread had more comments by non-regulars than I’ve seen in years. The threads on AppleTV+ get a couple of comments, if that.
Apple needs to remember that it didn't get to where it is by satisfying stockholders.
Meeting customer wants and needs (even if it had to create them!) is what made (and makes) Apple great. Yeh, only a minority want a smaller phone. But likewise only a minority (8%) want a Mac.
I strongly doubt that Apple is losing money on the mini. Rather, because of lower demand they aren't making as much on it as a larger phone. If that assumption is true then Apple is putting the interests of stockholders above those of their customers -- and that is not a sustainable business plan.
Unfortunately Cook is all about two things - squeezing as much profit out of products as possible, with the sole aim of increasing share price to satisfy investors, and using Apple as a platform for his virtue signalling. He only cares about the products as much as he has to to ensure continued profit growth.
The HomePod was probably cancelled as it didn’t hit some return on investment metric. AppleTV+ on the other hand is being given a free pass as it’s Cook’s attempt at a legacy. They’ve spent billions on AppleTV+, likely much more than the HP, but barely anyone talks about it. When the HP was cancelled, the thread had more comments by non-regulars than I’ve seen in years. The threads on AppleTV+ get a couple of comments, if that.
As is often the case with postings like this, perception trumps reality. A simple Google search yields some interesting facts.
We can see that Apple's margins started their upwards trajectory under Jobs until they hit their peak in 2012 (peak iPhone?). They have since levelled off under Tim Cook. So what conclusions can we draw? SJ was a greedy S.O.B. and TC is level headed manager?
Apple needs to remember that it didn't get to where it is by satisfying stockholders.
Meeting customer wants and needs (even if it had to create them!) is what made (and makes) Apple great. Yeh, only a minority want a smaller phone. But likewise only a minority (8%) want a Mac.
I strongly doubt that Apple is losing money on the mini. Rather, because of lower demand they aren't making as much on it as a larger phone. If that assumption is true then Apple is putting the interests of stockholders above those of their customers -- and that is not a sustainable business plan.
Doesn’t the Mini sell as much as the SE? I haven’t seen any mention of the SE being axed.
I think the SE may be tied to and targeted at India
It’s about the Zoom and Macro these days. If Apple does not get a nice telezoom lens and macro lens it will still be lagging behind its competitors out of China.
And now 'microscope' too.
iPhones have improved a lot in recent years but smartphone cameras moved away from focusing (no pun intended) solely on image quality few years ago and brought the notion of 'versatility' to the table so I think you are correct and most people would have to agree with you.
Now, those added features that provided versatility are being honed on competing phones and rumours like this one seem to confirm Apple's plan to give users these features very, very slowly.
If it weren't for the component shortage and and politics, the P50 series would already be here and that is widely recognised the industry benchmark series for new advances in smartphone camera technology, and will probably widen the divide when it arrives.
I'm very skeptical that Samsung will fab the Kirin 9000L;
"Does Samsung use American technology in its manufacturing process? Probably Yes. Does Samsung have a 5nm manufacturing process that does not use American technology? Probably No. So, how can Samsung work for Huawei with the U.S. ban in place? This is the most important question that has no answer for now. We can not tell if Samsung has permission from the US to produce the chips for Huawei.
Samsung can not anger the new US administration unnecessarily. In all honesty, it is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the American ban on Huawei. In the coming weeks, we will get more information regarding the status of this report. Keep a tab with us and we will update you with the latest information."
More to the point, there is still unmet demand for Samsung's 5nm process without Huawei. Why would Samsung help a direct competitor of its own smartphones in that case?
It’s about the Zoom and Macro these days. If Apple does not get a nice telezoom lens and macro lens it will still be lagging behind its competitors out of China.
And now 'microscope' too.
iPhones have improved a lot in recent years but smartphone cameras moved away from focusing (no pun intended) solely on image quality few years ago and brought the notion of 'versatility' to the table so I think you are correct and most people would have to agree with you.
Now, those added features that provided versatility are being honed on competing phones and rumours like this one seem to confirm Apple's plan to give users these features very, very slowly.
If it weren't for the component shortage and and politics, the P50 series would already be here and that is widely recognised the industry benchmark series for new advances in smartphone camera technology, and will probably widen the divide when it arrives.
I'm very skeptical that Samsung will fab the Kirin 9000L;
"Does Samsung use American technology in its manufacturing process? Probably Yes. Does Samsung have a 5nm manufacturing process that does not use American technology? Probably No. So, how can Samsung work for Huawei with the U.S. ban in place? This is the most important question that has no answer for now. We can not tell if Samsung has permission from the US to produce the chips for Huawei.
Samsung can not anger the new US administration unnecessarily. In all honesty, it is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the American ban on Huawei. In the coming weeks, we will get more information regarding the status of this report. Keep a tab with us and we will update you with the latest information."
More to the point, there is still unmet demand for Samsung's 5nm process without Huawei. Why would Samsung help a direct competitor of its own smartphones in that case?
What does any of that have to do with this thread?
The Kirin 9000L (if it exists) would probably be destined for lower end phones like the Nova Series (which is what your link refers to).
The photography rumours surrounding the P50 Series have centered on the latest (huge) Sony sensor and liquid lens.
It’s about the Zoom and Macro these days. If Apple does not get a nice telezoom lens and macro lens it will still be lagging behind its competitors out of China.
And now 'microscope' too.
iPhones have improved a lot in recent years but smartphone cameras moved away from focusing (no pun intended) solely on image quality few years ago and brought the notion of 'versatility' to the table so I think you are correct and most people would have to agree with you.
Now, those added features that provided versatility are being honed on competing phones and rumours like this one seem to confirm Apple's plan to give users these features very, very slowly.
If it weren't for the component shortage and and politics, the P50 series would already be here and that is widely recognised the industry benchmark series for new advances in smartphone camera technology, and will probably widen the divide when it arrives.
I'm very skeptical that Samsung will fab the Kirin 9000L;
"Does Samsung use American technology in its manufacturing process? Probably Yes. Does Samsung have a 5nm manufacturing process that does not use American technology? Probably No. So, how can Samsung work for Huawei with the U.S. ban in place? This is the most important question that has no answer for now. We can not tell if Samsung has permission from the US to produce the chips for Huawei.
Samsung can not anger the new US administration unnecessarily. In all honesty, it is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the American ban on Huawei. In the coming weeks, we will get more information regarding the status of this report. Keep a tab with us and we will update you with the latest information."
More to the point, there is still unmet demand for Samsung's 5nm process without Huawei. Why would Samsung help a direct competitor of its own smartphones in that case?
What does any of that have to do with this thread?
The Kirin 9000L (if it exists) would probably be destined for lower end phones like the Nova Series (which is what your link refers to).
The photography rumours surrounding the P50 Series have centered on the latest (huge) Sony sensor and liquid lens.
Well, nothing to do with the thread, but everything to do with your P50 speculation. Without an SOC, there isn't any P50, and I doubt that there are very many Kirin 9000's left from 8 million produced by TSMC last fall, more or less.
It's nice to talk about vaporware, which is wha the P50 is right now, so as you would say, "let's wait and see".
Apple needs to remember that it didn't get to where it is by satisfying stockholders.
Dude you have a serious misunderstanding of how Apple manages itself. They are the poster child for "delighting the customer" management style, and specifically at odds with the "maximizing shareholder value" model. This is why they are as successful as they are -- the customer lines, the "take my money" thing, etc. Customers are happy. You can read more about this here:
Sure the nerds on tech sites get mad about stuff, but it's rarely what customers care about.
And due to Apple's massive success and ginormous sales numbers, they have to focus on scale. Smaller products that might be solid or niche hits with smaller companies just aren't weighted as heavily at Apple. A thousand No's for every Yes, etc.
Apple needs to remember that it didn't get to where it is by satisfying stockholders.
Dude you have a serious misunderstanding of how Apple manages itself. They are the poster child for "delighting the customer" management style, and specifically at odds with the "maximizing shareholder value" model. This is why they are as successful as they are -- the customer lines, the "take my money" thing, etc. Customers are happy. You can read more about this here:
Sure the nerds on tech sites get mad about stuff, but it's rarely what customers care about.
And due to Apple's massive success and ginormous sales numbers, they have to focus on scale. Smaller products that might be solid or niche hits with smaller companies just aren't weighted as heavily at Apple. A thousand No's for every Yes, etc.
From your own link: "A third example is Apple. Steve Jobs seemed to delight in signaling to shareholders that they didn’t matter much and that they certainly wouldn't interfere with Apple's pursuit of its original customer-focused purpose: ‘to make a contribution to the world by making tools for the mind that advance humankind.’"
That, unfortunately, is exactly the opposite to Cook, whose main aim is to increase Apple's profit and do exactly what that article says is the dumbest idea in the world: maximising shareholder value. He's a numbers guy, that's what they do - and he is extremely good at it. What he is not, is someone that pleases customers. I am a long time customer of Apple. I am right now, far from "delighted" with Apple's management.
I very much agree they used to have a "delighting the customer" management style, and whilst they do have lines for newer products, they're nothing like they were when people queued for several blocks for the latest Apple gear. People would literally camp out for days beforehand. Hell, I was in several of those lines in years past, now most of my Apple gear is fairly dated because whilst the products are still excellent, the excitement somehow doesn't exist anymore. I get the categories Apple is in are quite mature, but so was the Mac in the late 2000s and early 2010's, and I was still excited then for the keynotes. Jobs instilled excitement into everything, the keynotes, the products and the employees. The contemporary keynotes are immaculately presented, but Cook comes across as scripted, with forced enthusiasm, overused buzzwords (everything is "maaagical") and IMO appears pretty disinterested. The contrast when he introduced AppleTV+ was night and day, he could barely contain himself.
Bigger companies usually produce a bigger range of products, not less. We're not talking cars here that use vast amounts of space to transport, just a phone.
Apple needs to remember that it didn't get to where it is by satisfying stockholders.
Dude you have a serious misunderstanding of how Apple manages itself. They are the poster child for "delighting the customer" management style, and specifically at odds with the "maximizing shareholder value" model. This is why they are as successful as they are -- the customer lines, the "take my money" thing, etc. Customers are happy. You can read more about this here:
Sure the nerds on tech sites get mad about stuff, but it's rarely what customers care about.
And due to Apple's massive success and ginormous sales numbers, they have to focus on scale. Smaller products that might be solid or niche hits with smaller companies just aren't weighted as heavily at Apple. A thousand No's for every Yes, etc.
From your own link: "A third example is Apple. Steve Jobs seemed to delight in signaling to shareholders that they didn’t matter much and that they certainly wouldn't interfere with Apple's pursuit of its original customer-focused purpose: ‘to make a contribution to the world by making tools for the mind that advance humankind.’"
That, unfortunately, is exactly the opposite to Cook, whose main aim is to increase Apple's profit and do exactly what that article says is the dumbest idea in the world: maximising shareholder value. He's a numbers guy, that's what they do - and he is extremely good at it. What he is not, is someone that pleases customers. I am a long time customer of Apple. I am right now, far from "delighted" with Apple's management.
I very much agree they used to have a "delighting the customer" management style, and whilst they do have lines for newer products, they're nothing like they were when people queued for several blocks for the latest Apple gear. People would literally camp out for days beforehand. Hell, I was in several of those lines in years past, now most of my Apple gear is fairly dated because whilst the products are still excellent, the excitement somehow doesn't exist anymore. I get the categories Apple is in are quite mature, but so was the Mac in the late 2000s and early 2010's, and I was still excited then for the keynotes. Jobs instilled excitement into everything, the keynotes, the products and the employees. The contemporary keynotes are immaculately presented, but Cook comes across as scripted, with forced enthusiasm, overused buzzwords (everything is "maaagical") and IMO appears pretty disinterested. The contrast when he introduced AppleTV+ was night and day, he could barely contain himself.
Bigger companies usually produce a bigger range of products, not less. We're not talking cars here that use vast amounts of space to transport, just a phone.
I do agree that it’s a shame that the HomePod was discontinued and that more than likely the 12 mini won’t return soon, but I don’t think it’s anybody’s fault but Apple’s.
They priced the HP too high for what it does and how dumb Siri is on it and could have done so much better if they made Siri smarter, removed it completely, or incorporated some sort of airport style wifi technology with mesh in it, but then only if they could figure out how to have so many speakers in it without affecting wifi signal strength.
The 12 mini sales numbers were forecasted too high, just like they did with the 5c. They had so many of those unsold that most of them were repackaged to be used as service parts according to my Genius Bar buddies who noticed that the service replacements had the fake home screen films on them like they did in the retail units. The mini is a great phone, it’s just Apple made a miscalculation on how many they would sell and they had to stop the production of them and pay for shorting their order. I don’t think the public should be punished for Apple’s mistake.
Now they think that by creating an artificial shortage of Airpods Max, it will create more of a demand. Realistically, do they think this will sell more than the HP and the mini? How long will they sell this before it too gets discontinued?
Apple needs to remember that it didn't get to where it is by satisfying stockholders.
Dude you have a serious misunderstanding of how Apple manages itself. They are the poster child for "delighting the customer" management style, and specifically at odds with the "maximizing shareholder value" model. This is why they are as successful as they are -- the customer lines, the "take my money" thing, etc. Customers are happy. You can read more about this here:
Sure the nerds on tech sites get mad about stuff, but it's rarely what customers care about.
And due to Apple's massive success and ginormous sales numbers, they have to focus on scale. Smaller products that might be solid or niche hits with smaller companies just aren't weighted as heavily at Apple. A thousand No's for every Yes, etc.
From your own link: "A third example is Apple. Steve Jobs seemed to delight in signaling to shareholders that they didn’t matter much and that they certainly wouldn't interfere with Apple's pursuit of its original customer-focused purpose: ‘to make a contribution to the world by making tools for the mind that advance humankind.’"
That, unfortunately, is exactly the opposite to Cook, whose main aim is to increase Apple's profit and do exactly what that article says is the dumbest idea in the world: maximising shareholder value. He's a numbers guy, that's what they do - and he is extremely good at it. What he is not, is someone that pleases customers. I am a long time customer of Apple. I am right now, far from "delighted" with Apple's management.
I very much agree they used to have a "delighting the customer" management style, and whilst they do have lines for newer products, they're nothing like they were when people queued for several blocks for the latest Apple gear. People would literally camp out for days beforehand. Hell, I was in several of those lines in years past, now most of my Apple gear is fairly dated because whilst the products are still excellent, the excitement somehow doesn't exist anymore. I get the categories Apple is in are quite mature, but so was the Mac in the late 2000s and early 2010's, and I was still excited then for the keynotes. Jobs instilled excitement into everything, the keynotes, the products and the employees. The contemporary keynotes are immaculately presented, but Cook comes across as scripted, with forced enthusiasm, overused buzzwords (everything is "maaagical") and IMO appears pretty disinterested. The contrast when he introduced AppleTV+ was night and day, he could barely contain himself.
Bigger companies usually produce a bigger range of products, not less. We're not talking cars here that use vast amounts of space to transport, just a phone.
Personally, I think there is a lot of speculation on your part. I do not agree with you, but I do not have any rebuttals to present, save one.
With respect to the long queues for Apple products, Apple consciously worked to ensure that people didn't have to queue up for new products. They made an effort to ensure availability of new products to as many people as possible, as painlessly as possible. That does sound like a company that is thinking about its customers.
The fact that there are no overnight queues does not mean people are not excited about their products. The long queues have now become virtual with everyone playing "fastest finger first" on launch day to get their desired configuration.
Apple is no longer a cult/ boutique company. They cater to a customer base that has grown by orders of magnitude. A recent survey (take it with a pinch of salt) showed that it is very popular with teens - which indicates a new generation of customers.
With such a large customer base, the decisions that need to be taken are totally different. So if it means that a popular item needs to be axed, then it will be. IIRC, even under Jobs, Apple axed the iPod Mini - which was a bestseller, to introduce the iPod Nano.
It’s about the Zoom and Macro these days. If Apple does not get a nice telezoom lens and macro lens it will still be lagging behind its competitors out of China.
And now 'microscope' too.
iPhones have improved a lot in recent years but smartphone cameras moved away from focusing (no pun intended) solely on image quality few years ago and brought the notion of 'versatility' to the table so I think you are correct and most people would have to agree with you.
Now, those added features that provided versatility are being honed on competing phones and rumours like this one seem to confirm Apple's plan to give users these features very, very slowly.
If it weren't for the component shortage and and politics, the P50 series would already be here and that is widely recognised the industry benchmark series for new advances in smartphone camera technology, and will probably widen the divide when it arrives.
I'm very skeptical that Samsung will fab the Kirin 9000L;
"Does Samsung use American technology in its manufacturing process? Probably Yes. Does Samsung have a 5nm manufacturing process that does not use American technology? Probably No. So, how can Samsung work for Huawei with the U.S. ban in place? This is the most important question that has no answer for now. We can not tell if Samsung has permission from the US to produce the chips for Huawei.
Samsung can not anger the new US administration unnecessarily. In all honesty, it is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the American ban on Huawei. In the coming weeks, we will get more information regarding the status of this report. Keep a tab with us and we will update you with the latest information."
More to the point, there is still unmet demand for Samsung's 5nm process without Huawei. Why would Samsung help a direct competitor of its own smartphones in that case?
What does any of that have to do with this thread?
The Kirin 9000L (if it exists) would probably be destined for lower end phones like the Nova Series (which is what your link refers to).
The photography rumours surrounding the P50 Series have centered on the latest (huge) Sony sensor and liquid lens.
Well, nothing to do with the thread, but everything to do with your P50 speculation. Without an SOC, there isn't any P50, and I doubt that there are very many Kirin 9000's left from 8 million produced by TSMC last fall, more or less.
It's nice to talk about vaporware, which is wha the P50 is right now, so as you would say, "let's wait and see".
So, wilfully off topic. Why?
Let me keep it short.
You have no idea how many Kirin 9000 series chips were manufactured. No one (apart from Huawei and TSMC) knows.
With the Mate 40 Series and P50 Series just six months apart, both were obviously very advanced in their respective development processes.
The most logical approach would NOT be to pump ALL the Kirin 9000s into the Mate 40 series. That would leave an almost finished phone with no chip to put into it. The logical step would be to hold some back and get the phone out and make the development effort worth it. Not sure why you are doubting this approach.
For it to be 'vapourware' they would have had to announce it. They haven't.
But then again, the notion of vaporware doesn't make any sense anyway. Following the habitual roll out of rumours, we 'know' enough already to be able to safely say the phone exists and are still in the normal release period of a P Series phone. Your glee at wanting to see it not released is getting ahead of you.
You are right with one thing though. We'll have to wait and see. That is logical.
Apple needs to remember that it didn't get to where it is by satisfying stockholders.
Dude you have a serious misunderstanding of how Apple manages itself. They are the poster child for "delighting the customer" management style, and specifically at odds with the "maximizing shareholder value" model. This is why they are as successful as they are -- the customer lines, the "take my money" thing, etc. Customers are happy. You can read more about this here:
Sure the nerds on tech sites get mad about stuff, but it's rarely what customers care about.
And due to Apple's massive success and ginormous sales numbers, they have to focus on scale. Smaller products that might be solid or niche hits with smaller companies just aren't weighted as heavily at Apple. A thousand No's for every Yes, etc.
Dude, trying to say Apple only cares about its customers rather than its stock holders.... you serious? Seriously?
Apple needs to remember that it didn't get to where it is by satisfying stockholders.
Meeting customer wants and needs (even if it had to create them!) is what made (and makes) Apple great. Yeh, only a minority want a smaller phone. But likewise only a minority (8%) want a Mac.
I strongly doubt that Apple is losing money on the mini. Rather, because of lower demand they aren't making as much on it as a larger phone. If that assumption is true then Apple is putting the interests of stockholders above those of their customers -- and that is not a sustainable business plan.
Unfortunately Cook is all about two things - squeezing as much profit out of products as possible, with the sole aim of increasing share price to satisfy investors, and using Apple as a platform for his virtue signalling. He only cares about the products as much as he has to to ensure continued profit growth.
The HomePod was probably cancelled as it didn’t hit some return on investment metric. AppleTV+ on the other hand is being given a free pass as it’s Cook’s attempt at a legacy. They’ve spent billions on AppleTV+, likely much more than the HP, but barely anyone talks about it. When the HP was cancelled, the thread had more comments by non-regulars than I’ve seen in years. The threads on AppleTV+ get a couple of comments, if that.
As is often the case with postings like this, perception trumps reality. A simple Google search yields some interesting facts.
We can see that Apple's margins started their upwards trajectory under Jobs until they hit their peak in 2012 (peak iPhone?). They have since levelled off under Tim Cook. So what conclusions can we draw? SJ was a greedy S.O.B. and TC is level headed manager?
Correlate that with Apple's R&D spend and employee count which have both ballooned under Cook with little to show for it, and the $460bn they've spent (as of April 2020) on share buybacks. That's where a lot of profit is going, therefore keeping the margin flat but attempting to push the share price up. Apple was an efficient machine under Jobs, not so much now.
It's really easy to rant and provide absolutely zero facts while telling me to look it up or "correlate it" as you said. The posting I was replying to said that TC only cared about squeezing maximum profit. My chart actually proved over the years that margins were level. Now you come back with R&D spending. Well here it is over the years.
As for stock buybacks, we can argue the merits or pitfalls of this and we may even agree on many points, but keep in mind that they're all doing it, MS, Google etc.AAPL cannot operate outside of these market forces. Here's a chart of Googles stock buybacks. https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/stock_buyback
Comments
Which is why I block that guy's comments.
Damn! I so much wish I could argue with that!
How to lie with statistics
I think the SE may be tied to and targeted at India
https://www.gizchina.com/2021/03/25/huawei-gets-a-lifeline-samsung-may-fab-its-new-5nm-kirin-9000l/
"Does Samsung use American technology in its manufacturing process? Probably Yes. Does Samsung have a 5nm manufacturing process that does not use American technology? Probably No. So, how can Samsung work for Huawei with the U.S. ban in place? This is the most important question that has no answer for now. We can not tell if Samsung has permission from the US to produce the chips for Huawei.
Samsung can not anger the new US administration unnecessarily. In all honesty, it is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the American ban on Huawei. In the coming weeks, we will get more information regarding the status of this report. Keep a tab with us and we will update you with the latest information."
More to the point, there is still unmet demand for Samsung's 5nm process without Huawei. Why would Samsung help a direct competitor of its own smartphones in that case?
The Kirin 9000L (if it exists) would probably be destined for lower end phones like the Nova Series (which is what your link refers to).
The photography rumours surrounding the P50 Series have centered on the latest (huge) Sony sensor and liquid lens.
It's nice to talk about vaporware, which is wha the P50 is right now, so as you would say, "let's wait and see".
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/28/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-dumbest-idea-in-the-world/
And due to Apple's massive success and ginormous sales numbers, they have to focus on scale. Smaller products that might be solid or niche hits with smaller companies just aren't weighted as heavily at Apple. A thousand No's for every Yes, etc.
That, unfortunately, is exactly the opposite to Cook, whose main aim is to increase Apple's profit and do exactly what that article says is the dumbest idea in the world: maximising shareholder value. He's a numbers guy, that's what they do - and he is extremely good at it. What he is not, is someone that pleases customers. I am a long time customer of Apple. I am right now, far from "delighted" with Apple's management.
I very much agree they used to have a "delighting the customer" management style, and whilst they do have lines for newer products, they're nothing like they were when people queued for several blocks for the latest Apple gear. People would literally camp out for days beforehand. Hell, I was in several of those lines in years past, now most of my Apple gear is fairly dated because whilst the products are still excellent, the excitement somehow doesn't exist anymore. I get the categories Apple is in are quite mature, but so was the Mac in the late 2000s and early 2010's, and I was still excited then for the keynotes. Jobs instilled excitement into everything, the keynotes, the products and the employees. The contemporary keynotes are immaculately presented, but Cook comes across as scripted, with forced enthusiasm, overused buzzwords (everything is "maaagical") and IMO appears pretty disinterested. The contrast when he introduced AppleTV+ was night and day, he could barely contain himself.
Bigger companies usually produce a bigger range of products, not less. We're not talking cars here that use vast amounts of space to transport, just a phone.
The 12 mini sales numbers were forecasted too high, just like they did with the 5c. They had so many of those unsold that most of them were repackaged to be used as service parts according to my Genius Bar buddies who noticed that the service replacements had the fake home screen films on them like they did in the retail units.
The mini is a great phone, it’s just Apple made a miscalculation on how many they would sell and they had to stop the production of them and pay for shorting their order. I don’t think the public should be punished for Apple’s mistake.
Sometimes Apple’s logic doesn’t make sense.
With respect to the long queues for Apple products, Apple consciously worked to ensure that people didn't have to queue up for new products. They made an effort to ensure availability of new products to as many people as possible, as painlessly as possible.
That does sound like a company that is thinking about its customers.
The fact that there are no overnight queues does not mean people are not excited about their products. The long queues have now become virtual with everyone playing "fastest finger first" on launch day to get their desired configuration.
Apple is no longer a cult/ boutique company. They cater to a customer base that has grown by orders of magnitude. A recent survey (take it with a pinch of salt) showed that it is very popular with teens - which indicates a new generation of customers.
With such a large customer base, the decisions that need to be taken are totally different. So if it means that a popular item needs to be axed, then it will be.
IIRC, even under Jobs, Apple axed the iPod Mini - which was a bestseller, to introduce the iPod Nano.
Let me keep it short.
You have no idea how many Kirin 9000 series chips were manufactured. No one (apart from Huawei and TSMC) knows.
With the Mate 40 Series and P50 Series just six months apart, both were obviously very advanced in their respective development processes.
The most logical approach would NOT be to pump ALL the Kirin 9000s into the Mate 40 series. That would leave an almost finished phone with no chip to put into it. The logical step would be to hold some back and get the phone out and make the development effort worth it. Not sure why you are doubting this approach.
For it to be 'vapourware' they would have had to announce it. They haven't.
But then again, the notion of vaporware doesn't make any sense anyway. Following the habitual roll out of rumours, we 'know' enough already to be able to safely say the phone exists and are still in the normal release period of a P Series phone. Your glee at wanting to see it not released is getting ahead of you.
You are right with one thing though. We'll have to wait and see. That is logical.
The posting I was replying to said that TC only cared about squeezing maximum profit. My chart actually proved over the years that margins were level.
Now you come back with R&D spending. Well here it is over the years.
This says exactly the opposite of what you're claiming, the percentage of R&D spending is actually going up with respect to revenues.
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/03/apple-rd-spend-increases-fulfilling-tim-cook-doctrine.html
As for stock buybacks, we can argue the merits or pitfalls of this and we may even agree on many points, but keep in mind that they're all doing it, MS, Google etc.AAPL cannot operate outside of these market forces.
Here's a chart of Googles stock buybacks. https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/stock_buyback