"Think big" doesn't necessarily equate with either financials or size, that seem to cloud most people's judgements.
I'd wager he's referring to big ideas ... creating new futures and the products that will be part of those. Look at the iPad for example ... it's a new, simple way of accessing, well, pretty much anything. And that's why it's going to succeed in spades, if only because we don't even see the long-term vision yet of Apple with regards to this new device.
Steve's not in it for the money, anymore. That's long, long gone.
Ideas and creativity are/can be so much bigger than money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reliason
But let me ask you this, While I can find Luxembourg on a Globe, can you Find Nebraska?
Yes, I can in fact. Then again, I'm Canadian (with a degree in Geography too). Our education system isn't quite as broken.
. I had thought, several years ago, that buying Sun, when it was still doing well, would have given them the credibility in the back offices they don't have, and ownership of several technologies that they were using, or thinking of using, but that didn't happen.
... yeah, but Steve's [best] friend bought it instead!
Screw Fort Knox I'm gonna work up a Apple Heist. Just gotta find where they keep all that cash.. Probably under Steve's mattress. I may need some more manpower any takers??
Apple's Tim Cook (from AppleInsider Post a few days back):
Keeping it simple
One focus for Apple, Cook revealed, is to keep matters simple. The Cupertino, Calif., company hasn't been interested in doing large acquisitions because of value and compatibility issues.
"We've always been about making the best product, not having the highest market share or the highest revenue," he said. "And so acquiring a company so our revenue gets larger isn't something that drives us."
The same philosophy applies to Apple's product line. Cook said the company doesn't want to overextend itself, and noted that the company's entire line of products could fit on one table. The only other high-revenue, publicly traded companies that could likely say that would be oil companies, he said.
Most companies, he said, simply aim to get bigger as they become more successful, but Apple has intentionally avoided that approach.
"The management team at Apple would never let that happen," Cook said. "That's not what we're about."
Steve Jobs:
Jobs reportedly said Apple must "think big"
Huh, seems like opposite ends of the spectrum!
I think Jobs' "thinking big" is to see the whole picture, not to make silly investments or short-term decisions based on the quarter to quarter numbers.
Screw Fort Knox I'm gonna work up a Apple Heist. Just gotta find where they keep all that cash.. Probably under Steve's mattress. I may need some more manpower any takers??
AIR, Apple set up an investment company in Nevada (to avoid high taxes in California).
Why don?t spend some of those 40 billion in giving apple costumers a laptop with the latest processors technology like Intel i3 ?i5-i7 and a minimum of 512 mb video card
SJ says Apple need to think BIG? So does that mean no more "Hobbies" but instead deliver real ful fledged products, not betas. An AppleTV with a real TV screen perhaps. Scrap the old AYV completely and really deliver something and while your at it gives us a refund for that hot lemon jukebox disguised as something really uselful?
Come on Steve, Apple is now an electronics company now, right? You've forgone on computers the last 3 years. Where's our i5 laptops? Deliver the goods. Compete against SONY too just not Microsoft and Amazon.
If Apple's goal is to focus on quality and not marketshare then that's where their spending will go.
This is already noticeable with the iPad getting IPS screens and selling for under $500.
The laptop line should get the same treatment. Buying into exclusive deals with high-end display manufacturers. Buying up companies like Fingerworks and PA Semi for intellectual property and assets.
They've bought some of their biggest products. itunes used to be SoundJam (which I remember using on OS 9), Final Cut Pro was bought, Shake bought, Logic bought, OS X bought from Next.
Their pro apps could use some attention and they'd do well to buy up innovative smaller companies like The Foundry. There's also the little companies that make useful products like Transmit for FTP, Omni apps developers, Quicksilver maybe, Coda/Textmate, Pixelmator to rival MS Paint and bundled, even Skype.
All these refinements go into giving their products an edge over competing products.
Of course, the mindset can change as time goes on. Apple doesn't do mass-market because they have highly priced products. There will come a time very soon where something like the iPad will house a dual 2GHz CPU or more and be priced at $500 or less.
That's when things start to change dramatically because people stop buying the uber-expensive machines they don't need. The competition won't be able to match Apple's quality so they have the edge.
Thinking big really has to be outside of the space they are in right now. Energy is one area that's going to be huge and very important to all gadgets - battery technology is one thing. If Apple can make proprietary batteries that last 10-100x longer than they do now, they will make a killing selling them to their rivals. Wireless power transmission is another area.
Have you dealt with many C level people (CEO, CIO, etc)?
They all believe that they have the 'vision' and the ability to make something workable and want to leave their mark on the company.
Jobs has this trait in spades, but he is also focused enough to avoid some of the pitfalls [Dells PDAs and/or Phone? Gateway Computers 'Country Stores'? etc.]
I never understood this either until I worked for a company whom I won't mention in name. I could not believe how utterly stupid the morons who rose to the top were. These people were visionless, talentless, and the products stunk because of it.
I tried to make them see sense, but it was like banging my head against a brick wall. They made every textbook mistake at every given opportunity.
I left the company to wallow in it's own excrement.
Now it makes perfect sense as to how so many companies fail to produce quality goods.
AAPL could use a small portion of the $40B to build relationships with Netflix, Amazon Video, Sirius-XM, Hulu, etc. and put all those capabilities into Apple TV so it can graduate from Hobby to Money-Maker. If not, Wal-Mart with its new acquisition, Vudu, is going to eat a hole into iTunes movie sales and rentals and then have Apple TV for dessert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macshark
Ideas for Apple acquisitions:
1. Buy Netflix. Netflix is worth less than $3.5B and is a profitable company. This is the way to turn AppleTV from a hobby to an industry leading product.
2. Get into content distribution business by buying one or more content distribution companies.
3. Buy Adobe, though Adobe is nearly worth $18B and has a very high P/E ratio. This would settle any problems with flash and mobile MacOS devices once and for all. Apple ends up with a set of duplicate products on the CS side, but that can be fixed over time...
4. Buy Palm to consolidate the smart phone market. Palm is worth pocket change ($1B)
5. Buy Disney? Or another large media corporation like Liberty?
...In addition, Bloomberg reported that Jobs said Apple is holding on to its cash for "big, bold" risks. Apple revealed in its first quarter 2010 investor conference call that it had accrued $39.8 billion in cash by the end of the December quarter...
Bloomberg (link below) says, " The company had about $25 billion in cash and short-term investments as of December."
Apple's Tim Cook (from AppleInsider Post a few days back):
Keeping it simple
One focus for Apple, Cook revealed, is to keep matters simple. The Cupertino, Calif., company hasn't been interested in doing large acquisitions because of value and compatibility issues.
"We've always been about making the best product, not having the highest market share or the highest revenue," he said. "And so acquiring a company so our revenue gets larger isn't something that drives us."
The same philosophy applies to Apple's product line. Cook said the company doesn't want to overextend itself, and noted that the company's entire line of products could fit on one table. The only other high-revenue, publicly traded companies that could likely say that would be oil companies, he said.
Most companies, he said, simply aim to get bigger as they become more successful, but Apple has intentionally avoided that approach.
"The management team at Apple would never let that happen," Cook said. "That's not what we're about."
Steve Jobs:
Jobs reportedly said Apple must "think big"
Huh, seems like opposite ends of the spectrum!
There is a difference between big and wide .. chuckle
Basically they are thinking of big products that can sell 10s and 100s of millions. And reject good products (ideas) but less than a few millions. Ax example that has been stated multiple times is of Apple TV. Currently it is quoted as a hobby because it is <10m. But Apple will keep investing because they believe it can be much bigger later.
1. There is **nothing** that Netflix brings to the table that Apple couldn't replicate today, if it wanted to.
2. Attempts to marry content by hardware/software companies have invariably ended in disaster (e.g., Sony). Moreover, content is a slow-growth business.
3. See (1) above.
4. See (1) above. Also, could raise antitrust eyebrows.
5. See (2) above.
ok. but so you don't sound like a Republican nay-sayer, what do you propose? Let's hear something positive. Or perhaps your position is they should do nothing, which is ok but not stated in your reply above. You always have good ideas here. Share some!
When you buy a company (or hypothetically, a country), you don't buy it for the amount they took in last year, you generally buy it for many times that. For example, Apple's market capitalization is roughly four times last year's revenue.
Technically, you buy it for a multiple of earnings, rather than revenue.
Last I checked, Apple is trading at about 23X earnings.
Non publicly traded companies typically sell for 5 to 6 times earnings.
Not too long ago, the media said Apple was financially unstable (which was never true). You can google "beleaguered Apple Computer Corp" and mouth breathing idiots were actually saying Apple had no future.
Comments
Steve Jobs:
Jobs reportedly said Apple must "think big"
Huh, seems like opposite ends of the spectrum!
"Think big" doesn't necessarily equate with either financials or size, that seem to cloud most people's judgements.
I'd wager he's referring to big ideas ... creating new futures and the products that will be part of those. Look at the iPad for example ... it's a new, simple way of accessing, well, pretty much anything. And that's why it's going to succeed in spades, if only because we don't even see the long-term vision yet of Apple with regards to this new device.
Steve's not in it for the money, anymore. That's long, long gone.
Ideas and creativity are/can be so much bigger than money.
But let me ask you this, While I can find Luxembourg on a Globe, can you Find Nebraska?
Yes, I can in fact. Then again, I'm Canadian (with a degree in Geography too). Our education system isn't quite as broken.
Steve and Apple management, would you take a couple of years off and run the country?? Please
Does that include iGore?
No thank you.
. I had thought, several years ago, that buying Sun, when it was still doing well, would have given them the credibility in the back offices they don't have, and ownership of several technologies that they were using, or thinking of using, but that didn't happen.
... yeah, but Steve's [best] friend bought it instead!
*
Steve and Apple management, would you take a couple of years off and run the country?? Please
There's an app for that.
Apple's Tim Cook (from AppleInsider Post a few days back):
Keeping it simple
One focus for Apple, Cook revealed, is to keep matters simple. The Cupertino, Calif., company hasn't been interested in doing large acquisitions because of value and compatibility issues.
"We've always been about making the best product, not having the highest market share or the highest revenue," he said. "And so acquiring a company so our revenue gets larger isn't something that drives us."
The same philosophy applies to Apple's product line. Cook said the company doesn't want to overextend itself, and noted that the company's entire line of products could fit on one table. The only other high-revenue, publicly traded companies that could likely say that would be oil companies, he said.
Most companies, he said, simply aim to get bigger as they become more successful, but Apple has intentionally avoided that approach.
"The management team at Apple would never let that happen," Cook said. "That's not what we're about."
Steve Jobs:
Jobs reportedly said Apple must "think big"
Huh, seems like opposite ends of the spectrum!
I think Jobs' "thinking big" is to see the whole picture, not to make silly investments or short-term decisions based on the quarter to quarter numbers.
Screw Fort Knox I'm gonna work up a Apple Heist. Just gotta find where they keep all that cash.. Probably under Steve's mattress. I may need some more manpower any takers??
AIR, Apple set up an investment company in Nevada (to avoid high taxes in California).
*
PLEASE!!!
Come on Steve, Apple is now an electronics company now, right? You've forgone on computers the last 3 years. Where's our i5 laptops? Deliver the goods. Compete against SONY too just not Microsoft and Amazon.
This is already noticeable with the iPad getting IPS screens and selling for under $500.
The laptop line should get the same treatment. Buying into exclusive deals with high-end display manufacturers. Buying up companies like Fingerworks and PA Semi for intellectual property and assets.
They've bought some of their biggest products. itunes used to be SoundJam (which I remember using on OS 9), Final Cut Pro was bought, Shake bought, Logic bought, OS X bought from Next.
Their pro apps could use some attention and they'd do well to buy up innovative smaller companies like The Foundry. There's also the little companies that make useful products like Transmit for FTP, Omni apps developers, Quicksilver maybe, Coda/Textmate, Pixelmator to rival MS Paint and bundled, even Skype.
All these refinements go into giving their products an edge over competing products.
Of course, the mindset can change as time goes on. Apple doesn't do mass-market because they have highly priced products. There will come a time very soon where something like the iPad will house a dual 2GHz CPU or more and be priced at $500 or less.
That's when things start to change dramatically because people stop buying the uber-expensive machines they don't need. The competition won't be able to match Apple's quality so they have the edge.
Thinking big really has to be outside of the space they are in right now. Energy is one area that's going to be huge and very important to all gadgets - battery technology is one thing. If Apple can make proprietary batteries that last 10-100x longer than they do now, they will make a killing selling them to their rivals. Wireless power transmission is another area.
Have you dealt with many C level people (CEO, CIO, etc)?
They all believe that they have the 'vision' and the ability to make something workable and want to leave their mark on the company.
Jobs has this trait in spades, but he is also focused enough to avoid some of the pitfalls [Dells PDAs and/or Phone? Gateway Computers 'Country Stores'? etc.]
I never understood this either until I worked for a company whom I won't mention in name. I could not believe how utterly stupid the morons who rose to the top were. These people were visionless, talentless, and the products stunk because of it.
I tried to make them see sense, but it was like banging my head against a brick wall. They made every textbook mistake at every given opportunity.
I left the company to wallow in it's own excrement.
Now it makes perfect sense as to how so many companies fail to produce quality goods.
So, Steve, what are you going to do with that $40 Billion war chest that Apple has...
I'm thinking of buying a small developing nation and making myself god emperor....
Something like the Sudan, Luxembourg or Slovinia... [three random countires with a GDP LESS than 40 Billion...] :-)
Maybe you meant Slovenia
Ideas for Apple acquisitions:
1. Buy Netflix. Netflix is worth less than $3.5B and is a profitable company. This is the way to turn AppleTV from a hobby to an industry leading product.
2. Get into content distribution business by buying one or more content distribution companies.
3. Buy Adobe, though Adobe is nearly worth $18B and has a very high P/E ratio. This would settle any problems with flash and mobile MacOS devices once and for all. Apple ends up with a set of duplicate products on the CS side, but that can be fixed over time...
4. Buy Palm to consolidate the smart phone market. Palm is worth pocket change ($1B)
5. Buy Disney? Or another large media corporation like Liberty?
...In addition, Bloomberg reported that Jobs said Apple is holding on to its cash for "big, bold" risks. Apple revealed in its first quarter 2010 investor conference call that it had accrued $39.8 billion in cash by the end of the December quarter...
Bloomberg (link below) says, " The company had about $25 billion in cash and short-term investments as of December."
Can anyone reconcile those two reports?
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update1-.html
Apple's Tim Cook (from AppleInsider Post a few days back):
Keeping it simple
One focus for Apple, Cook revealed, is to keep matters simple. The Cupertino, Calif., company hasn't been interested in doing large acquisitions because of value and compatibility issues.
"We've always been about making the best product, not having the highest market share or the highest revenue," he said. "And so acquiring a company so our revenue gets larger isn't something that drives us."
The same philosophy applies to Apple's product line. Cook said the company doesn't want to overextend itself, and noted that the company's entire line of products could fit on one table. The only other high-revenue, publicly traded companies that could likely say that would be oil companies, he said.
Most companies, he said, simply aim to get bigger as they become more successful, but Apple has intentionally avoided that approach.
"The management team at Apple would never let that happen," Cook said. "That's not what we're about."
Steve Jobs:
Jobs reportedly said Apple must "think big"
Huh, seems like opposite ends of the spectrum!
There is a difference between big and wide .. chuckle
Basically they are thinking of big products that can sell 10s and 100s of millions. And reject good products (ideas) but less than a few millions. Ax example that has been stated multiple times is of Apple TV. Currently it is quoted as a hobby because it is <10m. But Apple will keep investing because they believe it can be much bigger later.
All unwise, unnecessary, or unfocused.
1. There is **nothing** that Netflix brings to the table that Apple couldn't replicate today, if it wanted to.
2. Attempts to marry content by hardware/software companies have invariably ended in disaster (e.g., Sony). Moreover, content is a slow-growth business.
3. See (1) above.
4. See (1) above. Also, could raise antitrust eyebrows.
5. See (2) above.
ok. but so you don't sound like a Republican nay-sayer, what do you propose? Let's hear something positive. Or perhaps your position is they should do nothing, which is ok but not stated in your reply above. You always have good ideas here. Share some!
When you buy a company (or hypothetically, a country), you don't buy it for the amount they took in last year, you generally buy it for many times that. For example, Apple's market capitalization is roughly four times last year's revenue.
Technically, you buy it for a multiple of earnings, rather than revenue.
Last I checked, Apple is trading at about 23X earnings.
Non publicly traded companies typically sell for 5 to 6 times earnings.
"Apple's iPod spurs mixed reactions -- 2001"
http://news.cnet.com/Apples-iPod-spu..._3-274821.html
Et cetera