2. $40B in cash and thinking big. Jobs point was that he wanted to have the cash on hand so if a big opportunity came up, apple would be in position to take action - there was no suggestion this would be in the form of aquiring another compnay. His point was it allows Apple to take big risks on things and if it does not work, it does not put the company at risk.
I doubt it. Try to imagine what would happen if Apple started showing any losses, not to mention, losses large enough to require that sort of cash backstop. What are they going to do, bet it all at the track? This is where I get the distinct impression that many people don't know what capital is for. It isn't for socking away in low-return investments just in case. It isn't for putting on the roulette wheel. It's for reinvesting in growth. So how is Apple going to reinvest anywhere close to $40 billion in growth for their investors? This is the question to which stockholder have never gotten any kind of straight answer. This one is just as evasive.
In the current environment they are safer then a bank.
I'm not so sure of that anymore. Apple has that money tied up in a variety of securities. If they bring them any sort of return, then they can't be completely safe.
The whole country looking like San Francisco. Sounds like a plan!
Actually if Apple run the country the first thing they need to do is cut off California and let it float out into the ocean and sink. I believe the state has a 41.8 billion dollar budget deficit.
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!
They are doing the right thing with it: Spend it, e.g., on server farms, semiconductor research and manufacturing, locking-in supplier agreements with upfront payments, and such.
Seems like a good strategy to me. There's no hurry for them to achieve anything.
I'd like to see them make a big investment in the next generation file system. Since ZFS fell through there has been a huge hole in the image of what OSX will be like in two or three years. Let us hear that they are going full steam ahead on that front!
I also still have a fondness for them owning Adobe. The problems with Adobe are really at the upper management level. An Apple owned Adobe could be a great great company. Imagine a new version of CS that you actually wanted to upgrade to!
I don't think they would want to buy into carrier networks. It is a whole new area of expertise, requires a different kind of management and would be very difficult to integrate into their current set-up. Apple's tremendous growth over the last decade has been organic - core competencies expanding outwards and upwards - a big leap sideways would break that mould and be a mistake in my view.
Aggressive expansion into games would work - iPhone, iPad, ATV plus the data centre puts the logistics in place, add in a games division and there is a lot of synergy - a 360˚ halo.
However, I think Apple are perfectly positioned to make a big move into enterprise. Not at the mega corporate level which is wedded to MS, but at the level of small business. They could offer a complete integrated system - servers, terminals, iPhone and iPad (even a POS system if there is a retail aspect) all synched to their work suite. A beefed up iWork, a bought in accounting software company and so on, all working seamlessly together. A big part of the Apple ethos, as re-iterated by Tim Cook the other day, is not just doing something for the sake of chasing profit, but to actually produce something that is better than currently exists. If they put their mind to it, they could produce a fantastic solution for small business, free of MS's onerous licensing and maintenance headaches, where the IT just fades into the background and the business can just get on with their business.
Oh, and laser-armed robotic sharks obviously, tirelessly working to keep our oceans Flash-free for ever.
Design a 30" iMac and a 30" monitor that look exactly like each other. B/c the 30" is wider they could get the guts in a slimmer 'chin.' The 30" monitor based on the 27" would be a pretty match.
Secondly, make the 13" MBA with a new one button glass track pad, add ram and the 'raccoon' screen trim. And make a 15' and 17" for a complete laptop line w/o superdrives and SSD's only
And lastly make a 50" TV with AppleTV inside it able to use a BT keyboard/with a side trackpad, TV version of Safari, and an TV App store a la the iPhone App store!
A TV with only one cable coming out the back (pwr) Only Apple could do this!
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!
Not at all. Cook is saying they don't want to acquire big companies. Steve is saying that they need to do big, bold projects. That makes a lot of sense. Those big projects don't have any competition and create a large barrier to entry for potential competitors. It turns out this also works in existing markets if that market is pretty stagnant and you overshoot them significantly with your initial offering. I would say both the iPod and the iPhone took that approach. There really are not enough companies doing this. Not to mention that this is both good for investors and makes the world a better place.
Design a 30" iMac and a 30" monitor that look exactly like each other. B/c the 30" is wider they could get the guts in a slimmer 'chin.' The 30" monitor based on the 27" would be a pretty match.
Secondly, make the 13" MBA with a new one button glass track pad, add ram and the 'raccoon' screen trim. And make a 15' and 17" for a complete laptop line w/o superdrives and SSD's only
Any thoughts?
Yes. What would Apple do with the remaining $39.799 billion?
Although I wouldn't put it past MS to blow $40 billion on just such a hardware project...
Just steadily plowing along, with their eyes clearly focused on the ball.
One has to wonder: Why do others have such a tough time replicating this? There is so much talent with the money out there in the tech world that could be creating more value for their investors.
Apple has taken ten years to get here. Other companies are trying to do the same in 1-3 years, so they will fail. It's leveraged one product after another starting with the iMac and Ti Powerbook, OS X, Apple Retail Stores, iTunes, iPod, iTunes Store, etc., and built up its experience, expertise, ecosystem, supply chain. As Jobs has quoted Gretzky, Apple skated to where the puck was going - mobile consumer devices. It dropped hints (opening stores, investing in Flash RAM, acquiring multi-touch, unibody enclosures) but most people still didn't see where it was going.
What a competitor needs to do is forecast where the puck will be 5-7 years from now; see what other markets/products will converge into mobile devices, and start building up the needed pieces in those places where Apple and other competitors are not, or where it can have a small but profitable business. That's what Apple did during 2000-2007, it built up media content sales, retail stores, OS/SDK tech, mobile gadget design/production through these other efforts before getting into phones/tablets/App stores.
I think Google with ads/search, OSes, maps, and web apps, Nokia with maps and supply chain, and Microsoft with Xbox and Office/enterprise are Apple's biggest threats if they can figure out where the puck is going. They all have sheer size that will give them time to withstand many assaults, and the ability to just buy any technology/service they need. Right now, it seems Google has an idea, Nokia possibly but it's fairly quiet, and Microsoft not so much (at least by what can be seen).
Comments
2. $40B in cash and thinking big. Jobs point was that he wanted to have the cash on hand so if a big opportunity came up, apple would be in position to take action - there was no suggestion this would be in the form of aquiring another compnay. His point was it allows Apple to take big risks on things and if it does not work, it does not put the company at risk.
I doubt it. Try to imagine what would happen if Apple started showing any losses, not to mention, losses large enough to require that sort of cash backstop. What are they going to do, bet it all at the track? This is where I get the distinct impression that many people don't know what capital is for. It isn't for socking away in low-return investments just in case. It isn't for putting on the roulette wheel. It's for reinvesting in growth. So how is Apple going to reinvest anywhere close to $40 billion in growth for their investors? This is the question to which stockholder have never gotten any kind of straight answer. This one is just as evasive.
In the current environment they are safer then a bank.
I'm not so sure of that anymore. Apple has that money tied up in a variety of securities. If they bring them any sort of return, then they can't be completely safe.
Think big: Market a version of OSX for system builders and push Windows out of the market!
FOR FUCKS SAKES, LET US RUN OSX ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN AN APPLE COMPUTER
terrible idea. And self defeating.
Have you dealt with many C level people (CEO, CIO, etc)?
Yes. Have you?
A sexier, more stylish America.
The whole country looking like San Francisco. Sounds like a plan!
Actually if Apple run the country the first thing they need to do is cut off California and let it float out into the ocean and sink. I believe the state has a 41.8 billion dollar budget deficit.
Non publicly traded companies typically sell for 5 to 6 times earnings.
Where did you come up with that nugget? Care to provide one credible cite?
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!
They are doing the right thing with it: Spend it, e.g., on server farms, semiconductor research and manufacturing, locking-in supplier agreements with upfront payments, and such.
Seems like a good strategy to me. There's no hurry for them to achieve anything.
I sure hope that was dripping with sarcasm!
Leader of the biggest scam since Jesus.
He invented the internet don't you know.
At least, he understood technology.
And, surely, you meant the 'internets'?
I also still have a fondness for them owning Adobe. The problems with Adobe are really at the upper management level. An Apple owned Adobe could be a great great company. Imagine a new version of CS that you actually wanted to upgrade to!
Apple could buy a bank. Come to think of it, too late -- they already are a bank.
Apple can be a money market mutual fund. Why didn't I buy this stock at $83...
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...] :-)
You don't want to buy Sudan even if it was being sold for $1.
Aggressive expansion into games would work - iPhone, iPad, ATV plus the data centre puts the logistics in place, add in a games division and there is a lot of synergy - a 360˚ halo.
However, I think Apple are perfectly positioned to make a big move into enterprise. Not at the mega corporate level which is wedded to MS, but at the level of small business. They could offer a complete integrated system - servers, terminals, iPhone and iPad (even a POS system if there is a retail aspect) all synched to their work suite. A beefed up iWork, a bought in accounting software company and so on, all working seamlessly together. A big part of the Apple ethos, as re-iterated by Tim Cook the other day, is not just doing something for the sake of chasing profit, but to actually produce something that is better than currently exists. If they put their mind to it, they could produce a fantastic solution for small business, free of MS's onerous licensing and maintenance headaches, where the IT just fades into the background and the business can just get on with their business.
Oh, and laser-armed robotic sharks obviously, tirelessly working to keep our oceans Flash-free for ever.
Apple can be a money market mutual fund. Why didn't I buy this stock at $83...
A money market fund would have returned more over the last two years.
The reason why you didn't invest at $83 is the reason why it dropped to $83.
Imagine a new version of CS that you actually wanted to upgrade to!
Oh tell me about it. I recently purposely downgraded to CS3, as the awful UI and 'bugs' in Adobes latest atrocities were irritating the hell outta me.
Secondly, make the 13" MBA with a new one button glass track pad, add ram and the 'raccoon' screen trim. And make a 15' and 17" for a complete laptop line w/o superdrives and SSD's only
And lastly make a 50" TV with AppleTV inside it able to use a BT keyboard/with a side trackpad, TV version of Safari, and an TV App store a la the iPhone App store!
A TV with only one cable coming out the back (pwr) Only Apple could do this!
Any thoughts?
And Apple will be Heroes even to the Apple haters.
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!
Not at all. Cook is saying they don't want to acquire big companies. Steve is saying that they need to do big, bold projects. That makes a lot of sense. Those big projects don't have any competition and create a large barrier to entry for potential competitors. It turns out this also works in existing markets if that market is pretty stagnant and you overshoot them significantly with your initial offering. I would say both the iPod and the iPhone took that approach. There really are not enough companies doing this. Not to mention that this is both good for investors and makes the world a better place.
Design a 30" iMac and a 30" monitor that look exactly like each other. B/c the 30" is wider they could get the guts in a slimmer 'chin.' The 30" monitor based on the 27" would be a pretty match.
Secondly, make the 13" MBA with a new one button glass track pad, add ram and the 'raccoon' screen trim. And make a 15' and 17" for a complete laptop line w/o superdrives and SSD's only
Any thoughts?
Yes. What would Apple do with the remaining $39.799 billion?
Although I wouldn't put it past MS to blow $40 billion on just such a hardware project...
Yes. What would Apple do with the remaining $39.799 billion?
Just steadily plowing along, with their eyes clearly focused on the ball.
One has to wonder: Why do others have such a tough time replicating this? There is so much talent with the money out there in the tech world that could be creating more value for their investors.
Apple has taken ten years to get here. Other companies are trying to do the same in 1-3 years, so they will fail. It's leveraged one product after another starting with the iMac and Ti Powerbook, OS X, Apple Retail Stores, iTunes, iPod, iTunes Store, etc., and built up its experience, expertise, ecosystem, supply chain. As Jobs has quoted Gretzky, Apple skated to where the puck was going - mobile consumer devices. It dropped hints (opening stores, investing in Flash RAM, acquiring multi-touch, unibody enclosures) but most people still didn't see where it was going.
What a competitor needs to do is forecast where the puck will be 5-7 years from now; see what other markets/products will converge into mobile devices, and start building up the needed pieces in those places where Apple and other competitors are not, or where it can have a small but profitable business. That's what Apple did during 2000-2007, it built up media content sales, retail stores, OS/SDK tech, mobile gadget design/production through these other efforts before getting into phones/tablets/App stores.
I think Google with ads/search, OSes, maps, and web apps, Nokia with maps and supply chain, and Microsoft with Xbox and Office/enterprise are Apple's biggest threats if they can figure out where the puck is going. They all have sheer size that will give them time to withstand many assaults, and the ability to just buy any technology/service they need. Right now, it seems Google has an idea, Nokia possibly but it's fairly quiet, and Microsoft not so much (at least by what can be seen).