Execution doesn't denote overall focus. I've said that they are doing well.
Perhaps not. While they've done well with laptops, they haven't done well with anything else. Mac Pro sales are, well, barely hanging in. iMac sales have not gone up much. And now we here the rumor that they may discontinue the poorly selling (that is, compared to expectAtions) Mini.
Apple offers features long after everyone else does. They don't offer even minor things, such as enough USB ports, etc.
They don't seem to be on the same plane of existence as many of its potential customers. Listen to the complaints here about product design and availability.
Four years is a long time, and if it weren't for the luck of the iPod taking off more than even Jobs thought it would, where would Apple be now? He said in an interview several years ago, that they thought that it would be a "modest sucess".
The fact is that nothing else that Apple did after he came back was helping the company grow.
Even the iMacs were, at best, staving off the inevitable.
I could go on, but most people here already know the story.
If it wasn't for Microsoft Office and extortionist contract management to OEMs where would Microsoft be today?
Actually, it does. While Apple may not be 'satisfying' the technical pundits on forums like this they do seem to be satisfying the market.
But this is in support of their focus. They identified the market move to laptops before others and chose to focus resources and development there over the other areas. Their desktop sales have not grown as much as laptops but based on Apple's filings they are 'hanging in there' despite the overall shift in purchasing to laptops. I personally don't know what Apple's expectations were for the Mini but I never expected it to sell well (although I love it). It's not really aimed at where the rest of Apple marketing aims.
But as I've said before the size of this market is such that Apple would rather put resources on other things like iPods and iPhones. I believe that Apple consciously chooses NOT to follow these types of input - This is part of their focus. It may be argued they are wrong about this. I don't think so. Clearly many (if not most) on this forums believe they are. But they are still focussed.
So, you are ignoring OS X, retail, iLife, Final Cut Pro, the iMac, (which I disagree with your statement below), iTunes (which is different than iPod), Quicktime (part of iTunes), etc..... Taking just one of these, Apple retail has been a HUGE success despite the universal negative response to its inception. Once again Apple took an area and 'did it differently' and in a way the showed a deep understanding of the needs of the consumer. I think its clear that the Apple store retail experience is quite different than almost any other retail experience. Its been reported that Apple retails is the fastest to $1 billion in revenue is history.
The story here is usually technically driven, not market driven (ducks for cover). If the definition of focus and execution is technically best in class on each detail, I could agree that Apple 'is not focussed', but that's not where they should be focussed. They are a business.
What we're doing is looking at these areas with different eyes. I see what I see, and you see something else.
What I can tell, is that we won't agree on our interpretations.
That's fine.
I'm willing to let it go.
I will say one thing though, that we might agree on. I don't think that Apple moving to a phone, iPods, ATv itself indicates lack of focus. It's the way they have been doing it that I think does.
If it wasn't for Microsoft Office and extortionist contract management to OEMs where would Microsoft be today?
I'm not sure what this has to do with it though.
MS has always been focussed. OS and Office is the meat of the company, and they extend and protect it very well.
Are they always legal in doing that? Maybe not, but that doesn't change things. They know how important it is to them, and thety are willing to do whatever it takes to keep it that way. that certainlt doewsn't make them less locussed.
The X Box, Windows Mobile OS, and Zune, may seem to show that their focus is lessening, but I think not.
There has been agreement that there will be movement away from traditional computers, and MS is just trying to identify those areas, and can afford to move into them, and attempt to control them the way they control the computer market now.
What we're doing is looking at these areas with different eyes. I see what I see, and you see something else.
What I can tell, is that we won't agree on our interpretations.
That's fine.
I'm willing to let it go.
I will say one thing though, that we might agree on. I don't think that Apple moving to a phone, iPods, ATv itself indicates lack of focus. It's the way they have been doing it that I think does.
Agreed overall but now you make me comment on your last comment
With the exception of ATV, which, despite my experience with it being first class, seems to be a bastard child (which even SJ described as a 'hobby'), I think the way that they are doing both the iPod and iPhone are excellent examples of their focus. Each step in the iPod development has been deliberate and thought through. I already gave as example with the mini-nano transition. The iPhone introduction is another deliberate and thought-out step. What other company can generate the 'need for iPhone killers' even before its released. The focus here is in Apple not releasing something 1-2 years ago just to get something out there. They picked a target and a concept and, assuming its works as advertised (and I hope this thread won't digress into the umpteenth discussion of that), kept driving down that path to produce something that, at a minimum, is turning the perception of the cell phone market on its head. (yes a bit of hyperbole there but I'm trying to keep it short )
You've pointed out in other threads the diversion from Leopard to the iPhone as being a mismanaged step, and maybe a lack of focus (I'm putting those words in your mouth). I agree there must have been a miscalculation but to me the way they handled it again indicated a deep understanding of what Apple needs to do as a business and what their market requirements were, and then executed. That, to me is focus.
Maybe its the term 'focus' that's being missed here. To me focus is the accurate and specific understanding of the intersection of the target market requirements with the company's resources such that you get the maximum return on the minimum investment while you grow the business in both $ terms and capabilities. To be effective this needs to be followed by concentrated but flexible execution.
Again, assuming even a fraction of the predicted success for the iPhone this works. In addition to the (IMO) likely revenue that the iPhone will generate Apple has extended the capabilities of OS X and brought new technologies (multi-touch, cell phone basics, etc.) into their resource pool.
If the iPhone flops, then all of my arguments go out the window
My apologies for such a long response, and like you I understand we're seeing this differently and I respect that, but I just couldn't resist your last statement
Comments
Execution doesn't denote overall focus. I've said that they are doing well.
Perhaps not. While they've done well with laptops, they haven't done well with anything else. Mac Pro sales are, well, barely hanging in. iMac sales have not gone up much. And now we here the rumor that they may discontinue the poorly selling (that is, compared to expectAtions) Mini.
Apple offers features long after everyone else does. They don't offer even minor things, such as enough USB ports, etc.
They don't seem to be on the same plane of existence as many of its potential customers. Listen to the complaints here about product design and availability.
Four years is a long time, and if it weren't for the luck of the iPod taking off more than even Jobs thought it would, where would Apple be now? He said in an interview several years ago, that they thought that it would be a "modest sucess".
The fact is that nothing else that Apple did after he came back was helping the company grow.
Even the iMacs were, at best, staving off the inevitable.
I could go on, but most people here already know the story.
If it wasn't for Microsoft Office and extortionist contract management to OEMs where would Microsoft be today?
Actually, it does. While Apple may not be 'satisfying' the technical pundits on forums like this they do seem to be satisfying the market.
But this is in support of their focus. They identified the market move to laptops before others and chose to focus resources and development there over the other areas. Their desktop sales have not grown as much as laptops but based on Apple's filings they are 'hanging in there' despite the overall shift in purchasing to laptops. I personally don't know what Apple's expectations were for the Mini but I never expected it to sell well (although I love it). It's not really aimed at where the rest of Apple marketing aims.
But as I've said before the size of this market is such that Apple would rather put resources on other things like iPods and iPhones. I believe that Apple consciously chooses NOT to follow these types of input - This is part of their focus. It may be argued they are wrong about this. I don't think so. Clearly many (if not most) on this forums believe they are. But they are still focussed.
So, you are ignoring OS X, retail, iLife, Final Cut Pro, the iMac, (which I disagree with your statement below), iTunes (which is different than iPod), Quicktime (part of iTunes), etc..... Taking just one of these, Apple retail has been a HUGE success despite the universal negative response to its inception. Once again Apple took an area and 'did it differently' and in a way the showed a deep understanding of the needs of the consumer. I think its clear that the Apple store retail experience is quite different than almost any other retail experience. Its been reported that Apple retails is the fastest to $1 billion in revenue is history.
The story here is usually technically driven, not market driven (ducks for cover). If the definition of focus and execution is technically best in class on each detail, I could agree that Apple 'is not focussed', but that's not where they should be focussed. They are a business.
What we're doing is looking at these areas with different eyes. I see what I see, and you see something else.
What I can tell, is that we won't agree on our interpretations.
That's fine.
I'm willing to let it go.
I will say one thing though, that we might agree on. I don't think that Apple moving to a phone, iPods, ATv itself indicates lack of focus. It's the way they have been doing it that I think does.
If it wasn't for Microsoft Office and extortionist contract management to OEMs where would Microsoft be today?
I'm not sure what this has to do with it though.
MS has always been focussed. OS and Office is the meat of the company, and they extend and protect it very well.
Are they always legal in doing that? Maybe not, but that doesn't change things. They know how important it is to them, and thety are willing to do whatever it takes to keep it that way. that certainlt doewsn't make them less locussed.
The X Box, Windows Mobile OS, and Zune, may seem to show that their focus is lessening, but I think not.
There has been agreement that there will be movement away from traditional computers, and MS is just trying to identify those areas, and can afford to move into them, and attempt to control them the way they control the computer market now.
What we're doing is looking at these areas with different eyes. I see what I see, and you see something else.
What I can tell, is that we won't agree on our interpretations.
That's fine.
I'm willing to let it go.
I will say one thing though, that we might agree on. I don't think that Apple moving to a phone, iPods, ATv itself indicates lack of focus. It's the way they have been doing it that I think does.
Agreed overall
With the exception of ATV, which, despite my experience with it being first class, seems to be a bastard child (which even SJ described as a 'hobby'), I think the way that they are doing both the iPod and iPhone are excellent examples of their focus. Each step in the iPod development has been deliberate and thought through. I already gave as example with the mini-nano transition. The iPhone introduction is another deliberate and thought-out step. What other company can generate the 'need for iPhone killers' even before its released. The focus here is in Apple not releasing something 1-2 years ago just to get something out there. They picked a target and a concept and, assuming its works as advertised (and I hope this thread won't digress into the umpteenth discussion of that), kept driving down that path to produce something that, at a minimum, is turning the perception of the cell phone market on its head. (yes a bit of hyperbole there but I'm trying to keep it short
You've pointed out in other threads the diversion from Leopard to the iPhone as being a mismanaged step, and maybe a lack of focus (I'm putting those words in your mouth). I agree there must have been a miscalculation but to me the way they handled it again indicated a deep understanding of what Apple needs to do as a business and what their market requirements were, and then executed. That, to me is focus.
Maybe its the term 'focus' that's being missed here. To me focus is the accurate and specific understanding of the intersection of the target market requirements with the company's resources such that you get the maximum return on the minimum investment while you grow the business in both $ terms and capabilities. To be effective this needs to be followed by concentrated but flexible execution.
Again, assuming even a fraction of the predicted success for the iPhone this works. In addition to the (IMO) likely revenue that the iPhone will generate Apple has extended the capabilities of OS X and brought new technologies (multi-touch, cell phone basics, etc.) into their resource pool.
If the iPhone flops, then all of my arguments go out the window
My apologies for such a long response, and like you I understand we're seeing this differently and I respect that, but I just couldn't resist your last statement