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.
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
It is of course going up, as I said: "Apple's R&D spend and employee count which have both ballooned under Cook with little to show for it". You have proven my point, R&D is up as a percentage of revenue, and Apple has little to show for it. Higher margins that are made by squeezing suppliers and increasing ASP are being spent directly on stock buybacks and unproductive R&D; Cook maintains the margin at ~37% by adjusting stock buybacks and R&D spend.
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
It is of course going up, as I said: "Apple's R&D spend and employee count which have both ballooned under Cook with little to show for it". You have proven my point, R&D is up as a percentage of revenue, and Apple has little to show for it. Higher margins that are made by squeezing suppliers and increasing ASP are being spent directly on stock buybacks and unproductive R&D; Cook maintains the margin at ~37% by adjusting stock buybacks and R&D spend.
with little to show for it Really? Apple Watch, AirPods, Apple Music and the other services, Apple Silicon. That's your idea of little to show for it? Let's just ask Microsoft how easy it is to change architecture, shall we? But Apple came up with Rosetta 2 and have gotten all legacy 32 bit code out of MacOS.
Higher margins What higher margins? They've levelled off as my first chart clearly showed.
Increasing ASP Few people remember that iPhone 3G was selling for $599 or $736 of today's dollars. Compare that to todays iPhone 12 Mini which costs $649 no contract. How about today's entry level iPad is what, $329 and compare that to $499 for the original iPad and we haven't adjusted for inflation yet. So again while maybe brute dollars ASP may have gone slightly up in some cases, most complaining about it are not adjusting for inflation and are mostly not looking at the overall picture or are being totally unrealistic in wanting an iPad Pro for entry level iPad prices. Here's a source on adjusting for inflation: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com ;
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
It is of course going up, as I said: "Apple's R&D spend and employee count which have both ballooned under Cook with little to show for it". You have proven my point, R&D is up as a percentage of revenue, and Apple has little to show for it. Higher margins that are made by squeezing suppliers and increasing ASP are being spent directly on stock buybacks and unproductive R&D; Cook maintains the margin at ~37% by adjusting stock buybacks and R&D spend.
I never consider R&D spend an immediate indicator of much of anything. On the other hand, I don't dismiss the R&D spend as having "little to show for it" or "unproductive" as you do, given the obvious signs of future projects.
Your pessimism is certainly noted, as is your dislike for Tim's management.
Me, I'm excited by Apple Silicon announcements upcoming, as I'm old in the tooth on iMac, and I'll be happy to upgrade to that and the next 12.9 inch iPad Pro within the next couple of months. After that, its just a wait for the iPhone 13 as an upgrade to my 7 plus, and that ruggedized Watch that has been leaked.
But yeah, no R&D was required for any of that.../s
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.
Another dude who has absolutely no understanding of how Apple manages, or its relationship to the stock market. They are the opposite of a stock market darling.
As for virtual signaling, you really don't like equal civil rights, huh? Yeah see a lot of that on AI forums for some reason. Lotta angry dudes out there with axes to grind when it comes to gays, women, or minorities. Hint: it's not virtue "signaling" when it's actually something you care about.
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.
Little to show for it? Apple routinely hits quarterly records. As an anti-fanboy you have this quaint notion that R&D should produce a brand new device for you to be entertained by. The reality is Apple innovates at the product level but also at the component level -- they put a lot of work into new substrates and display technologies, things are only briefly mentioned in the keynotes but represent high investment and enable them to pursue their engineering goals.
Again, Apple does not manage to the stock price. Never has, which is why Mr. Market is unhappy w/ AAPL.
Sorry bro, but you have literally no idea what you're talking about. You can be a web hater all you want for kicks, but don't pretend you understand the financials.
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.
Except, that is literally the opposite of what Cook has done. You really don't know what you're talking about here. Cook does not manage to the stock price, or shareholder value. His most famous quote to an investor was literally "I don't care about the bloody ROI!" Seriously, you need to read up on Cook and his management style for the corporation.
The "customers in line" are mostly a metaphor now, as the fastest way to get the newest stuff is to pre-order -- and the products routinely sell out during pre-order, year after year.
You continually show your ignorance. Yes bigger companies often lose focus, which is why Apple's mantra is "A thousand No's for every Yes". Despite that, Apple without question has more SKUs now, with both an array of varying sizes and variants, as well as some new entries. Which of course haters contradictory also use as evidence that Apple is losing its way -- too many products! lol. You guys need to get your stories straight.
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?
Hmm, can you quote me there? Because, actually, I didn't say that. What I did was correct your misguided notion that Apple manages to its stock price. Famously, they don't.
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
LOL, these fools won't let your "data" stand in the way of their made-up narratives about how Apple works. They have a mustache-twirling picture of Cook in their heads, counting beans and operating a slide ruler, while ignoring the fact that Apple is a famous pioneer in areas that work against profit and ROI motives, like environmentalism and accessibility.
Kids and retirees, neither of which know much of anything business wise IMO. All they know is 1) they're bored. 2) they expect Apple to alleviate their boredom w/ new shit.
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.
The fact that people are still buying HomePods *now* with a manufacture date of 2017 says everything you need to know about why it was discontinued. The "return on investment metric" you're referring to is a lack of sales.
"AppleTV+ on the other hand is being given a free pass as it’s Cook’s attempt at a legacy." Free pass? It's still in its infancy with most users on a literal free pass. Comments on a rumor site forum are not a meaningful metric for anything, ever.
Virtue signaling isn't virtue signaling if you truly believe what you're saying. You can argue for something that happens to make you look virtuous because you genuinely think it is the best solution. You're using this as a lazy ad hominem attack against someone because for some reason you're upset about how non-entertained you are by the company they run's products, or you're a bigot — either of which is pretty sad.
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
It is of course going up, as I said: "Apple's R&D spend and employee count which have both ballooned under Cook with little to show for it". You have proven my point, R&D is up as a percentage of revenue, and Apple has little to show for it. Higher margins that are made by squeezing suppliers and increasing ASP are being spent directly on stock buybacks and unproductive R&D; Cook maintains the margin at ~37% by adjusting stock buybacks and R&D spend.
BULL. SHIT. Watch, AirPods, HomePods, ATV+, Apple Silicon, miniLED, microLED, Project Titan,VR headsets, AR glasses, materials, and thousands of other little things that can easily be looked up because Apple's myriad patents are public and many of them are reported on right here, and those are only the things we know about coming from their R&D.
The mental gymnastics you go through to support your rose-tinted view of the Apple of yesteryear are impressive given how weak your arguments against today's Apple are in reality.
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.
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?
Hmm, can you quote me there? Because, actually, I didn't say that. What I did was correct your misguided notion that Apple manages to its stock price. Famously, they don't.
Don't quit your day jobs, boys.
Hmm, can you quote me there? Because, actually, I didn't say that.
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.
Macro you say?
I shot these on my iPhone 12 Pro Max.
Just bare the iPhone, no special lens attached. Check out the pollen particles on the last shot.
If you shoot at 2.5x, the camera and computational algorithms recognize flowers among other things and snaps into focus around approximately 6 inches away. Last years iPhone 11pro Max gave me nearly similar results with 2x lens.
I have professional gear as an NCAA Div I sports photographer (recently retired at 73). I have top of the line full frame cameras around $6000 each and a top of the line macro lens—its depth of field is so shallow that I’d have to focus stack to get these results or stop down so much I’d lose sharpness. If that doesn’t make sense, look it up—it’s about the physics of lenses small and large, focal length, build quality and in Apple’s case, computational photography.
I hope you enjoy these and are inspired to experiment.
P.S. These will likely not show at their full resolution on this comment page.
These shots transcend specs and make me just think how amazing nature is. And that’s been the iPhone’s forte all along; technology that gets out of your way.
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?
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?
Comments
Fixed it for you.
Really? Apple Watch, AirPods, Apple Music and the other services, Apple Silicon. That's your idea of little to show for it? Let's just ask Microsoft how easy it is to change architecture, shall we? But Apple came up with Rosetta 2 and have gotten all legacy 32 bit code out of MacOS.
Higher margins
What higher margins? They've levelled off as my first chart clearly showed.
Increasing ASP
Few people remember that iPhone 3G was selling for $599 or $736 of today's dollars. Compare that to todays iPhone 12 Mini which costs $649 no contract. How about today's entry level iPad is what, $329 and compare that to $499 for the original iPad and we haven't adjusted for inflation yet. So again while maybe brute dollars ASP may have gone slightly up in some cases, most complaining about it are not adjusting for inflation and are mostly not looking at the overall picture or are being totally unrealistic in wanting an iPad Pro for entry level iPad prices.
Here's a source on adjusting for inflation: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com ;
Your pessimism is certainly noted, as is your dislike for Tim's management.
Me, I'm excited by Apple Silicon announcements upcoming, as I'm old in the tooth on iMac, and I'll be happy to upgrade to that and the next 12.9 inch iPad Pro within the next couple of months. After that, its just a wait for the iPhone 13 as an upgrade to my 7 plus, and that ruggedized Watch that has been leaked.
But yeah, no R&D was required for any of that.../s
Another dude who has absolutely no understanding of how Apple manages, or its relationship to the stock market. They are the opposite of a stock market darling.
As for virtual signaling, you really don't like equal civil rights, huh? Yeah see a lot of that on AI forums for some reason. Lotta angry dudes out there with axes to grind when it comes to gays, women, or minorities. Hint: it's not virtue "signaling" when it's actually something you care about.
Again, Apple does not manage to the stock price. Never has, which is why Mr. Market is unhappy w/ AAPL.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/28/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-dumbest-idea-in-the-world/
Sorry bro, but you have literally no idea what you're talking about. You can be a web hater all you want for kicks, but don't pretend you understand the financials.
Except, that is literally the opposite of what Cook has done. You really don't know what you're talking about here. Cook does not manage to the stock price, or shareholder value. His most famous quote to an investor was literally "I don't care about the bloody ROI!" Seriously, you need to read up on Cook and his management style for the corporation.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim-cook-doesnt-care-about-the-bloody-roi/?sh=587d13d555f2
The "customers in line" are mostly a metaphor now, as the fastest way to get the newest stuff is to pre-order -- and the products routinely sell out during pre-order, year after year.
You continually show your ignorance. Yes bigger companies often lose focus, which is why Apple's mantra is "A thousand No's for every Yes". Despite that, Apple without question has more SKUs now, with both an array of varying sizes and variants, as well as some new entries. Which of course haters contradictory also use as evidence that Apple is losing its way -- too many products! lol. You guys need to get your stories straight.
Hmm, can you quote me there? Because, actually, I didn't say that. What I did was correct your misguided notion that Apple manages to its stock price. Famously, they don't.
Don't quit your day jobs, boys.
LOL, these fools won't let your "data" stand in the way of their made-up narratives about how Apple works. They have a mustache-twirling picture of Cook in their heads, counting beans and operating a slide ruler, while ignoring the fact that Apple is a famous pioneer in areas that work against profit and ROI motives, like environmentalism and accessibility.
Kids and retirees, neither of which know much of anything business wise IMO. All they know is 1) they're bored. 2) they expect Apple to alleviate their boredom w/ new shit.
"AppleTV+ on the other hand is being given a free pass as it’s Cook’s attempt at a legacy." Free pass? It's still in its infancy with most users on a literal free pass. Comments on a rumor site forum are not a meaningful metric for anything, ever.
Virtue signaling isn't virtue signaling if you truly believe what you're saying. You can argue for something that happens to make you look virtuous because you genuinely think it is the best solution. You're using this as a lazy ad hominem attack against someone because for some reason you're upset about how non-entertained you are by the company they run's products, or you're a bigot — either of which is pretty sad.
The mental gymnastics you go through to support your rose-tinted view of the Apple of yesteryear are impressive given how weak your arguments against today's Apple are in reality.
Don't quit your day jobs, boys.
May I please have 2TB of storage with that 8K shooter?
thx
Radar
Better not to legitimize a lie by debating it.
I can see that we've entered flat earth territory now.