As long as Apple's MO is to go 6-9 months with no new products that warrant a keynote or media attention this will continue. Under Steve Apple was given the benefit of the doubt that really cool stuff was always being cooked up in the Cupertino labs. Under Cook Apple isn't given that same benefit of the doubt. So silence basically equates to Apple out of ideas, can't innovate anymore, etc.
Apple wasn't given the benefit of the doubt under Jobs, quite the opposite. Apple's stock peaked a year after Jobs's death, under Cook. The P/E has never been great, except for a brief period when the stock rallied under Cook. Apple is always discounted in the media.
So long as tech media are dependent on Google search results for traffic and ad dollars you can expect this lie to continue. People are afraid (and with good reason) of Google retaliation.
Hopefully the EU gets after Google more on the Android front and really bears its teeth. Google's monopoly on search must not continue unchecked and that is why I am really hoping for a resurgent Yahoo and Facebook and Twitter to start gobbling up mobile ad revenues and starve the Google beast as the transition to mobile continues..
Apple fanboy blogs seem to love talking about Google and what google does, yet google, android fanboy blogs seem to not give a dam. Sites like android central, Google os, literally pretends apple doesn't exist and Apple blogs seem to have this weird hatred for Google, its weird.
I don't like the division of Apple's history in to BCE and CE eras, as if Tim was the real reason for Apple's turnaround in the 90s and not Steve. If you think that, then you are making the same mistake as the tech media who love Google so much.
Because, those other journalists think that if you can get a big enough market share, you can afford to make such a tiny margin on each device, that no one will be able to compete with you, and it's only a matter of time before you smash your competition. That is why they are always expecting Google to smash Apple any minute. But the underlying error they are making is thinking price is the sole determinant of success/failure, and quality differences don't count for much.
And the reason the BCE/CE distinction makes the same mistake, is that Tim Cook is a logistics genius, and what he gave to Apple was unheard of efficiency. But what Steve gave it was an insane obsession with quality, even to the point of making sure the unseen inside of products looked good. BCE/CE is an example of thinking efficiency (Tim) is what causes companies to rise and fall and quality (Steve) not so much. But if that were true, then why is Apple getting the results it's getting? Clearly quality does matter to people.
Weird that the site crashes on my MBA (late 2011) consistently, yet is rock-solid on my 2009 iMac. Both running Mavericks. Figure that.
This site works great with my 2011 iMac running Mavericks and on my late-2005 intel MBP running 10.4.11 — I suspect your browser may have an add-on or two that is fighting with this site. The ONLY time this site is acting wonky for me is when I'm on here with my iPad using AI's own app, which they intend to hit me up for money to use in a couple weeks... at which time I'll drop-kick that app into the iCloud for keeps.
It's just unfortunate that big investors have no faith in Apple or Tim Cook. Apple shareholders will continue to lose out for whatever reasons. Over the past year or so, Apple's percentage institutional investors hasn't budged. It's still around 61% according to Google's financial data, down from 68% in early 2012. Even long-term institutions think owning Apple is a waste of money. I guess Apple's dividend isn't even large enough to make the institutional investors salivate. I really just don't understand how Apple became so toxic to investors considering the fundamentals are still very good, no layoffs, openings of more retail stores, getting the iPhone on more carriers, etc.
Apple can do no right and Google can do no wrong. Every single day, Google's share price climbs higher and higher and it doesn't even seem as if they're doing anything special except for acquiring robot-connected companies. I guess Google shareholders and investors believe Google is going to corner the robotics industry in a few years, leap-frogging over all the other established robotics companies. Absolutely nothing spooks Google investors. Google's 3 Stooges, Schmidt, Page and Brin now have Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field working for them. Tim Cook is doing nothing effective enough to pull in investors or to slow down Google's rapid growth. Apple can't stop Android from growing exponentially, either.
As an Apple shareholder, I've pretty much resigned myself that Google will eventually pass Apple in market cap and have a P/E of around 40 while Apple's P/E continues to compress around to where Exxon Mobil's P/E is at the mid 12s. Apple's share price can't hold onto any sort of momentum. It goes up a bit and then just collapses every quarter. Considering Apple is sitting on so much reserve cash and has so many options to choose from it's really rather disheartening. I know Apple isn't going out of business for a long time but it appears the share price has been capped below $600 and there's nothing much more to look forward to.
And the reason the BCE/CE distinction makes the same mistake, is that Tim Cook is a logistics genius, and what he gave to Apple was unheard of efficiency. But what Steve gave it was an insane obsession with quality, even to the point of making sure the unseen inside of products looked good. BCE/CE is an example of thinking efficiency (Tim) is what causes companies to rise and fall and quality (Steve) not so much. But if that were true, then why is Apple getting the results it's getting? Clearly quality does matter to people.
You're fussing over semantics. The question is, "Did Apple's management inculcate his genius or did it get buried with his body?" Steve spent a lot of time passing along the culture of innovation and a sense of values to his management team. If they "got it," then Apple will continue just fine, if not, then Apple will soon flounder. This article seems to say that CE, Apple's management, headed up by Tim, "Got it!"
To some degree there is a parallel between Apple and IBM on this matter. If you look at what IBM did to preserve what Watson brought to the company, and what Apple has done as well with Jobs.
Apple fanboy blogs seem to love talking about Google and what google does, yet google, android fanboy blogs seem to not give a dam. Sites like android central, Google os, literally pretends apple doesn't exist and Apple blogs seem to have this weird hatred for Google, its weird.
ROFLMAO
Short memory problem or playing dumb like all android fanboys?!! Google os was built by copying iOS fully and completely. Remember this from that arrogant f**** ... the so-called father of android?
It's almost hard to imagine how much Google would have to screw up before the world could realize that the company is as dependent upon yesterday's PCs as Microsoft, and just as incompetent at making any progress in actually profiting on mobile as Steve Ballmer's decade long train wreck.
The $64K question, eh? Excellent article and spot on. Actually I think it would be great if Apple's stock price would fall further - it would let them buy more back and further reduce Wall Streets influence. Idiotic, short sighted parasites....
Apple can do no right and Google can do no wrong. Every single day, Google's share price climbs higher and higher and it doesn't even seem as if they're doing anything special except for acquiring robot-connected companies. I guess Google shareholders and investors believe Google is going to corner the robotics industry in a few years, leap-frogging over all the other established robotics companies. Absolutely nothing spooks Google investors. Google's 3 Stooges, Schmidt, Page and Brin now have Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field working for them. Tim Cook is doing nothing effective enough to pull in investors or to slow down Google's rapid growth. Apple can't stop Android from growing exponentially, either.
There will come a day of reckoning on Google's stock prices and it won't be pretty. What you bemoaned in your post is a good example of how emotional investors will make what they think is a rational decision based on the "group think" of analysts and market drivers making kiss kiss with darling stocks. We've all seen it. Stocks that defy the numbers keep rising until one day, they are worthless. Want some Enron stock? How about some of Bernie Madoff's hot stock?
By owning Apple stock, you are owning an undervalued stock that some day will pay off. I've watched Eastman Kodak and Xerox (and even Google) squander their market positions and become more and more irrelevant over time. Eventually they implode.
You know I don't want to sound like a 100% Fan Boy Fool.
But the more you think about if you had to pick a complete eco-system, for let's say an entire "Spaceship" type platform, one with reliability, durability, ease of use, technologies, etc, these conversations are quite trivial. Honestly.
This was another wrap up article of the smart phone segment, and pretty on point.
But after you read this you just say to yourself, in the past 30 years there was a serious "Olympics of computing going on" and if you say to yourself hey I have a circuit board and I want to put an OS on it sure, jump for windows or linux. But if you want a livable, breathable, environment and you ask yourself who would you plunk all your chips down on?
Call it what you will - rant, diatribe, screed - this certainly qualifies as one of DED's best. I'm guessing that he writes stuff like this the day after a meal that's been kicked up several notches with lots of sriracha. When it reaches the other end of his digestive tract, it makes him really crabby!
"Ze coffee she only burn wance ... Ze peppers zey always burn twice!!
You're fussing over semantics. The question is, "Did Apple's management inculcate his genius or did it get buried with his body?" Steve spent a lot of time passing along the culture of innovation and a sense of values to his management team. If they "got it," then Apple will continue just fine, if not, then Apple will soon flounder. This article seems to say that CE, Apple's management, headed up by Tim, "Got it!"
To some degree there is a parallel between Apple and IBM on this matter. If you look at what IBM did to preserve what Watson brought to the company, and what Apple has done as well with Jobs.
Ok, if you believe that Tim and other Apple employees/execs are still inculcated with Steve's quality obsession, then surely we are still in the Steve Era? Because when people face a decision, they decide according to their values, and you are saying they still hold Steve's values. So even from that perspective the BCE/CE thing is still a division by non-fundamentals.
Was there a conclusion to this rant not to mention a point? I mean I get it and all […] but I felt like there were a couple paragraphs missing about what we'd see in the next five years. If you're going to go, go all out right?
He wrote about facts from the past and present so for DED to write about the next five years he's going to have to make shit up. I much prefer him sticking to the facts here, but if he wants to weigh in on how he thinks these companies will evolve I would welcome its own separate article.
As long as Apple's MO is to go 6-9 months with no new products that warrant a keynote or media attention this will continue. Under Steve Apple was given the benefit of the doubt that really cool stuff was always being cooked up in the Cupertino labs. Under Cook Apple isn't given that same benefit of the doubt. So silence basically equates to Apple out of ideas, can't innovate anymore, etc.
Personally I'd like to see Apple get on a schedule where new products are spaced out over the year rather than all being crammed in to the second half of the year. Announcing products in October and then being basically silent until the following June just allows for a huge vacuum that gets filled with D&G and FUD.
Bottom line is, the way Apple turns this around is with great new products.
Adding to hill60 and poke's comments there have been industry leading changes under Cook that are still not copied or copied well from other vendors.
I think we may have discussed this before but there have been no new product categories which is different from "no new products" being released. I am not a fan of the huge gaps within the year with no products or events but the changes that have been made under Cook have been great. WWDC should be in about 4 months demoing iOS 8 and a few month after that we should definitely have new Macs, iPods (since they skipped last year) and a new version of Mac OS X. I wouldn't be surprised if the new Apple TV hits this year along with a new product category, but if a new product category doesn't arrive I am fine with that. Measure twice, cut once.
this may be a good article, but i can't get past the 3rd paragraph. can somebody please proof read? <<That lost was accompanied by an layoff restructuring of 1,300 employees>>
And the reason the BCE/CE distinction makes the same mistake, is that Tim Cook is a logistics genius, and what he gave to Apple was unheard of efficiency. But what Steve gave it was an insane obsession with quality, even to the point of making sure the unseen inside of products looked good. BCE/CE is an example of thinking efficiency (Tim) is what causes companies to rise and fall and quality (Steve) not so much. But if that were true, then why is Apple getting the results it's getting? Clearly quality does matter to people.
Ok, if you believe that Tim and other Apple employees/execs are still inculcated with Steve's quality obsession, then surely we are still in the Steve Era? Because when people face a decision, they decide according to their values, and you are saying they still hold Steve's values. So even from that perspective the BCE/CE thing is still a division by non-fundamentals.
Cook clearly isn't the showman Jobs was but I've never gotten the impression that Cook had a far inferior desire for quality and precision. In fact, I would argue that Cook's drive for unheard of efficiency is part of the same psychology that was present in Jobs, and probably why Cook was the primary choice as CEO. As an owner of a Retina MBP and an iPhone 5S I see no evidence that attention to detail has waned.
Comments
As long as Apple's MO is to go 6-9 months with no new products that warrant a keynote or media attention this will continue. Under Steve Apple was given the benefit of the doubt that really cool stuff was always being cooked up in the Cupertino labs. Under Cook Apple isn't given that same benefit of the doubt. So silence basically equates to Apple out of ideas, can't innovate anymore, etc.
Apple wasn't given the benefit of the doubt under Jobs, quite the opposite. Apple's stock peaked a year after Jobs's death, under Cook. The P/E has never been great, except for a brief period when the stock rallied under Cook. Apple is always discounted in the media.
Hopefully the EU gets after Google more on the Android front and really bears its teeth. Google's monopoly on search must not continue unchecked and that is why I am really hoping for a resurgent Yahoo and Facebook and Twitter to start gobbling up mobile ad revenues and starve the Google beast as the transition to mobile continues..
I don't like the division of Apple's history in to BCE and CE eras, as if Tim was the real reason for Apple's turnaround in the 90s and not Steve. If you think that, then you are making the same mistake as the tech media who love Google so much.
Because, those other journalists think that if you can get a big enough market share, you can afford to make such a tiny margin on each device, that no one will be able to compete with you, and it's only a matter of time before you smash your competition. That is why they are always expecting Google to smash Apple any minute. But the underlying error they are making is thinking price is the sole determinant of success/failure, and quality differences don't count for much.
And the reason the BCE/CE distinction makes the same mistake, is that Tim Cook is a logistics genius, and what he gave to Apple was unheard of efficiency. But what Steve gave it was an insane obsession with quality, even to the point of making sure the unseen inside of products looked good. BCE/CE is an example of thinking efficiency (Tim) is what causes companies to rise and fall and quality (Steve) not so much. But if that were true, then why is Apple getting the results it's getting? Clearly quality does matter to people.
GEWG is a fabrication.
This site works great with my 2011 iMac running Mavericks and on my late-2005 intel MBP running 10.4.11 — I suspect your browser may have an add-on or two that is fighting with this site. The ONLY time this site is acting wonky for me is when I'm on here with my iPad using AI's own app, which they intend to hit me up for money to use in a couple weeks... at which time I'll drop-kick that app into the iCloud for keeps.
It's just unfortunate that big investors have no faith in Apple or Tim Cook. Apple shareholders will continue to lose out for whatever reasons. Over the past year or so, Apple's percentage institutional investors hasn't budged. It's still around 61% according to Google's financial data, down from 68% in early 2012. Even long-term institutions think owning Apple is a waste of money. I guess Apple's dividend isn't even large enough to make the institutional investors salivate. I really just don't understand how Apple became so toxic to investors considering the fundamentals are still very good, no layoffs, openings of more retail stores, getting the iPhone on more carriers, etc.
Apple can do no right and Google can do no wrong. Every single day, Google's share price climbs higher and higher and it doesn't even seem as if they're doing anything special except for acquiring robot-connected companies. I guess Google shareholders and investors believe Google is going to corner the robotics industry in a few years, leap-frogging over all the other established robotics companies. Absolutely nothing spooks Google investors. Google's 3 Stooges, Schmidt, Page and Brin now have Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field working for them. Tim Cook is doing nothing effective enough to pull in investors or to slow down Google's rapid growth. Apple can't stop Android from growing exponentially, either.
As an Apple shareholder, I've pretty much resigned myself that Google will eventually pass Apple in market cap and have a P/E of around 40 while Apple's P/E continues to compress around to where Exxon Mobil's P/E is at the mid 12s. Apple's share price can't hold onto any sort of momentum. It goes up a bit and then just collapses every quarter. Considering Apple is sitting on so much reserve cash and has so many options to choose from it's really rather disheartening. I know Apple isn't going out of business for a long time but it appears the share price has been capped below $600 and there's nothing much more to look forward to.
You're fussing over semantics. The question is, "Did Apple's management inculcate his genius or did it get buried with his body?" Steve spent a lot of time passing along the culture of innovation and a sense of values to his management team. If they "got it," then Apple will continue just fine, if not, then Apple will soon flounder. This article seems to say that CE, Apple's management, headed up by Tim, "Got it!"
To some degree there is a parallel between Apple and IBM on this matter. If you look at what IBM did to preserve what Watson brought to the company, and what Apple has done as well with Jobs.
Apple fanboy blogs seem to love talking about Google and what google does, yet google, android fanboy blogs seem to not give a dam. Sites like android central, Google os, literally pretends apple doesn't exist and Apple blogs seem to have this weird hatred for Google, its weird.
ROFLMAO
Short memory problem or playing dumb like all android fanboys?!! Google os was built by copying iOS fully and completely. Remember this from that arrogant f**** ... the so-called father of android?
He was in a cab in Las Vegas, watching a webcast of the presentation. He made the driver pull over so he could see the whole thing. He said, "Holy crap, I guess we're not going to launch that phone."
Honestly, your post is so weird I suggest you google them yourself before rambling.
Funny how just about every game changing device has come from Apple in the past 10 years.
The $64K question, eh? Excellent article and spot on. Actually I think it would be great if Apple's stock price would fall further - it would let them buy more back and further reduce Wall Streets influence. Idiotic, short sighted parasites....
There will come a day of reckoning on Google's stock prices and it won't be pretty. What you bemoaned in your post is a good example of how emotional investors will make what they think is a rational decision based on the "group think" of analysts and market drivers making kiss kiss with darling stocks. We've all seen it. Stocks that defy the numbers keep rising until one day, they are worthless. Want some Enron stock? How about some of Bernie Madoff's hot stock?
By owning Apple stock, you are owning an undervalued stock that some day will pay off. I've watched Eastman Kodak and Xerox (and even Google) squander their market positions and become more and more irrelevant over time. Eventually they implode.
You know I don't want to sound like a 100% Fan Boy Fool.
But the more you think about if you had to pick a complete eco-system, for let's say an entire "Spaceship" type platform, one with reliability, durability, ease of use, technologies, etc, these conversations are quite trivial. Honestly.
This was another wrap up article of the smart phone segment, and pretty on point.
But after you read this you just say to yourself, in the past 30 years there was a serious "Olympics of computing going on" and if you say to yourself hey I have a circuit board and I want to put an OS on it sure, jump for windows or linux. But if you want a livable, breathable, environment and you ask yourself who would you plunk all your chips down on?
The choice is clear...
Apple.
"Ze coffee she only burn wance ... Ze peppers zey always burn twice!!
You're fussing over semantics. The question is, "Did Apple's management inculcate his genius or did it get buried with his body?" Steve spent a lot of time passing along the culture of innovation and a sense of values to his management team. If they "got it," then Apple will continue just fine, if not, then Apple will soon flounder. This article seems to say that CE, Apple's management, headed up by Tim, "Got it!"
To some degree there is a parallel between Apple and IBM on this matter. If you look at what IBM did to preserve what Watson brought to the company, and what Apple has done as well with Jobs.
Ok, if you believe that Tim and other Apple employees/execs are still inculcated with Steve's quality obsession, then surely we are still in the Steve Era? Because when people face a decision, they decide according to their values, and you are saying they still hold Steve's values. So even from that perspective the BCE/CE thing is still a division by non-fundamentals.
He wrote about facts from the past and present so for DED to write about the next five years he's going to have to make shit up. I much prefer him sticking to the facts here, but if he wants to weigh in on how he thinks these companies will evolve I would welcome its own separate article.
Adding to hill60 and poke's comments there have been industry leading changes under Cook that are still not copied or copied well from other vendors.
I think we may have discussed this before but there have been no new product categories which is different from "no new products" being released. I am not a fan of the huge gaps within the year with no products or events but the changes that have been made under Cook have been great. WWDC should be in about 4 months demoing iOS 8 and a few month after that we should definitely have new Macs, iPods (since they skipped last year) and a new version of Mac OS X. I wouldn't be surprised if the new Apple TV hits this year along with a new product category, but if a new product category doesn't arrive I am fine with that. Measure twice, cut once.
<<That lost was accompanied by an layoff restructuring of 1,300 employees>>
Cook clearly isn't the showman Jobs was but I've never gotten the impression that Cook had a far inferior desire for quality and precision. In fact, I would argue that Cook's drive for unheard of efficiency is part of the same psychology that was present in Jobs, and probably why Cook was the primary choice as CEO. As an owner of a Retina MBP and an iPhone 5S I see no evidence that attention to detail has waned.