I get it. If Cook cant deliver in 18 months the board should hire the guy who still hasnt managed to execute on his first master plan after 10 years. The guy who has never run a profitable company other than a shitty online payments one. The guy who has to go to the stock market every year asking for money, and uses sharholder money to bail out his other failing businesses. It makes PERFECT sense. Why wouldnt a board that makes 40 billion in profit a year want a guy like that in charge?
Given the resources available to him and the challenging goals he has set for himself, I think Musk is doing an amazing job with Tesla -- better, in fact, than Steve Jobs did with NeXT.
Meanwhile, Cook has access to vastly greater resources but he seems to be having some difficulty making good use of those resources.
Putting Apple's resources behind Musk's vision is something that the board might want to start thinking about in 18 months if the Apple product lineup is still kind of stale.
My hope, though, is that the product lineup won't be stale and that Cook will have proved doubters like me totally wrong.
Any lack of resources at Musk's end is due entirely to the fact that even after 10-15 years his companies don't make a profit and are nowhere close to making one. His most recent manifesto was supposed to justify buying out Solar City, but the more sober truth is that Solar City needed a bailout (and SpaceX had bailed them out earlier this year too). So now Tela will burn an extra few hundred million in cash keeping Solar City running. Elon is depleting his resources rather than growing them and that should scare Apple's board. Everything he makes is sold at a loss in small quantities- also scary. Would Elon stop overpromising and underdelivering (late, over budget, over priced) if we'd throw more cash at him? Maybe, but why risk it? His genius plan "make more types of electric vehicles and try to catch up in self-driving" is friggin obvious and not worth risking Apple's fortune to acquire.
Meanwhile Apple spends billions on R&D and must have all kinds of stuff in the works. The fact that they aren't wasting their time on mature product lines like the Mac tells me they know how to focus on what matters. So it's time for you to shut the hell up and make some popcorn- Apple's next few years should be good.
So basically everyone just needs to cede the electronic vehicle market to Tesla because nobody can have a better/different idea than Musks grand plan? Or implement something at scale that he can't? It's amazing how people squawk about the need for competition except when it comes to EV, there Musk is untouchable.
The Tesla is a financial failure. Doesn't appear to have a chance of be making money in the future either. It's living on a rich man's toy bubble.
It is a money loser right now, which is why it's critical for Musk to have all the dominos lined up to achieve long term profitability. His investors are well aware of his plans.
Designing and building cars is easy. There are tons of people who do it everyday in F1, Indy, Nascar, and NHRA. The hard part is the software for autonomous driving. Bob is a hardware guy and arguably a pretty good manager as well, however I don't know how a hardware guy is going help all that much in the software aspect of the project. It has been reported that Apple has hired lots of really talented automobile engineers and clearly they already have some pretty savvy software people. It just seems odd to me that they are going to depend on a guy who obviously wants to retire, to head up a department that presumably, won't have a product release until 2021 at the earliest.
You assume that Mansfield doesn't know anything about software. He arguably could know more about software than the software managers at car companies, including Tesla. It's impossible for chip designers and computer designers at his level to not be exposed to the software that the hardware runs on, especially at Apple. Whether he can give the project the same energy that he gave computers in the aughts is another question. Who knows. He's in his mid-50s to high-50s. That's still very much a prime age for an engineering manager.
For cars, it's not software that is the hard part either. It will continue to be the mass manufacture of automobiles and the infrastructure for selling, driving and maintaining EVs.
Given the resources available to him and the challenging goals he has set for himself, I think Musk is doing an amazing job with Tesla -- better, in fact, than Steve Jobs did with NeXT.
Meanwhile, Cook has access to vastly greater resources but he seems to be having some difficulty making good use of those resources.
Putting Apple's resources behind Musk's vision is something that the board might want to start thinking about in 18 months if the Apple product lineup is still kind of stale.
My hope, though, is that the product lineup won't be stale and that Cook will have proved doubters like me totally wrong.
Any lack of resources at Musk's end is due entirely to the fact that even after 10-15 years his companies don't make a profit and are nowhere close to making one. His most recent manifesto was supposed to justify buying out Solar City, but the more sober truth is that Solar City needed a bailout (and SpaceX had bailed them out earlier this year too). So now Tela will burn an extra few hundred million in cash keeping Solar City running. Elon is depleting his resources rather than growing them and that should scare Apple's board. Everything he makes is sold at a loss in small quantities- also scary. Would Elon stop overpromising and underdelivering (late, over budget, over priced) if we'd throw more cash at him? Maybe, but why risk it? His genius plan "make more types of electric vehicles and try to catch up in self-driving" is friggin obvious and not worth risking Apple's fortune to acquire.
Meanwhile Apple spends billions on R&D and must have all kinds of stuff in the works. The fact that they aren't wasting their time on mature product lines like the Mac tells me they know how to focus on what matters. So it's time for you to shut the hell up and make some popcorn- Apple's next few years should be good.
Your arguments are logically inconsistent. You criticize Musk for not making a profit on Tesla, yet Apple's automotive efforts and other R&D projects aren't currently making any money either. You praise Apple's ability to earn a profit, but encourage them to ignore their profitable products and instead focus on unprofitable R&D projects -- projects that we know substantially less about than what Musk is doing.
Apple could make substantial improvements in the Mac (and other product lines) with just a small sliver of the money spent on dividends and stock buybacks. Apple faces no resource constraints other than management focus.
Designing and building cars is easy. There are tons of people who do it everyday in F1, Indy, Nascar, and NHRA. The hard part is the software for autonomous driving. Bob is a hardware guy and arguably a pretty good manager as well, however I don't know how a hardware guy is going help all that much in the software aspect of the project. It has been reported that Apple has hired lots of really talented automobile engineers and clearly they already have some pretty savvy software people. It just seems odd to me that they are going to depend on a guy who obviously wants to retire, to head up a department that presumably, won't have a product release until 2021 at the earliest.
they aren't going to focus on autonomous driving for v1. it will surely be a straight EV, perhaps w/ some camera-assist features. but full-on self-driving car? no.
apple's a pretty secretive company. famously so. how on earth do you know that they dont seem to have a quality roster in place?
I'm just basing my post on the fact they have to keep hiring Bob back for these projects. This isn't the first time (more like the 2nd or 3rd). Why can't someone else at Apple do it then if they have so many quality people at Apple?
1) what do you mean rehiring him multiple times? there was the first retirement announcement in 2012, and then his decision to stay. when else are you referring to?
2) you claimed they dont have a quality roster, which doesnt have much to do w/ which senior executive is in charge of the project. do you think Mansfield is the only guy there, implementing everything himself? dont be silly. of course Apple has quality people. the best money can buy. that one of their best, most-respected engineers is rumored to be in charge of this new project doesnt suggest otherwise.
And perhaps they want a better "hardware" guy at this stage.
Manufacturing automobiles is not exactly rocket science but it does take a lot of specialized knowledge. Being a great engineer doesn't automatically mean you can easily switch industries, especially between those that are so radically different. I think Bob was probably given the job because of his management skills rather than actually getting involved with the engineering part.
exactly. he's a senior dude. the guys implementing this are going to be all of the LinkedIn hires we've been reading about the past few years.
they aren't going to focus on autonomous driving for v1. it will surely be a straight EV, perhaps w/ some camera-assist features. but full-on self-driving car? no.
Personally I'm not so keen on autonomous cars, but I think they will need to match or exceed the feature set of the top autos like what BMW, Mercedes and Tesla are likely to be shipping in 2021. BMW plans to dedicate 50% of their workforce into intelligent self driving cars within the next few years.
Designing and building cars is easy. There are tons of people who do it everyday in F1, Indy, Nascar, and NHRA. The hard part is the software for autonomous driving. Bob is a hardware guy and arguably a pretty good manager as well, however I don't know how a hardware guy is going help all that much in the software aspect of the project. It has been reported that Apple has hired lots of really talented automobile engineers and clearly they already have some pretty savvy software people. It just seems odd to me that they are going to depend on a guy who obviously wants to retire, to head up a department that presumably, won't have a product release until 2021 at the earliest.
they aren't going to focus on autonomous driving for v1. it will surely be a straight EV, perhaps w/ some camera-assist features. but full-on self-driving car? no.
Depends on the release date if there even is an Apple Car. If it's released around 2019 or later, it will have to have fairly robust self-driving capability. The Tesla vehicles will only continue to improve going forward and the chess pieces of companies involved in the sort of onboard intelligence for cars are getting snapped up quickly by already existing car manufacturers.
The next 18 months are going to be critical for Tim Cook. ... <snip>
I agree with your full and balanced sentiment. Apple's reputation as an innovator has taken a hit in the court of Public Relations -- justified or not -- and some action will be necessary to reshape that perspective.
It's all in perception. Apple constantly hit the highest marks for brand recognition and customer satisfaction. Only a small number of people looking at the lower half of the glass.
You never call anymore, and you don't write. The Mansfield move is a positive one, no doubt. And while I don't doubt that Apple has a roster full of qualified people (still not sure about Angela Burberry Lady--trees in the store, really?), I haven't seen any evidence of superstars in the making, or even sufficient staffing. Instead, I see teams moving off of one project onto another to make up time, projects wither and die, rolling along without substantial improvement, or lying there, ill-conceived and fruitless. It's not like you can't afford to go all in. What are you saving it for?
I love cars, and I want an Apple Car to wow me, and I don't even care about the MSRP. But this project is rudderless and listing badly, based on hirings for positions that should have been filled in the first year of development so that the focus was sharper. Maybe Mansfield can figure this out, but right now it's 50-50 that this project fails in two years. It's doable, but not the way it's being done now.
Is there any reason Siri is as limited as she is, after all these years, time wasted while others caught up and went ahead. Why can't she do more? Why doesn't she talk more normally at this point? Who was in charge of that and why are they still employed at Apple?
Who was in charge of the Mac Pro (PRO: Pile of Related Objects), a very innovative, cool-looking cylinder and an absolute mess of cables and components everyone needs to be "Pro" hanging out the back. By the way, Apple, did you not even consider making a separate enclosure / rack (optional at extra cost to be sure) that might be a companion to that cylinder design? You didn't understand your market. I won't even mention the professional software you just drop without adequate notice--the economics or lack thereof are understandable, but at least treat your customers like you value them.
Apple had the patents and ideas for combination tablet/laptops with keyboard covers several years ago. And they did what with that? Surface is crap, as I have personally seen on numerous occasions over the last three years, but you owned the concept and you let morons steal your lunch money. Maybe it's a nothing market that Microsoft has realized to its detriment, or maybe it's the next big thing.
You brought out Apple Watch before it ripened, because you had nothing else ready to go apparently and hedge funds and corporate investors were getting antsy. I like the idea, but it's only now getting a well-thought out OS that should have been there on Day One.
Macbooks...well, they're a mess, and overdue, again. I wouldn't go after the $500 market either, but at least bring some upmarket capability to go with the prices. Sometimes, and this is just a thought, you can even go overboard and give your customers more than they expect (retina screens all the way around maybe, or more GBs or RAM). Toss 'em a bone once in a while, you can afford it.
One more thing: could you, for the love of whatever god/s you pray to, give us a "select all, delete" option in iOS Mail. Cripes
tht said: You assume that Mansfield doesn't know anything about software. He arguably could know more about software than the software managers at car companies, including Tesla. It's impossible for chip designers and computer designers at his level to not be exposed to the software that the hardware runs on, especially at Apple. Whether he can give the project the same energy that he gave computers in the aughts is another question. Who knows. He's in his mid-50s to high-50s. That's still very much a prime age for an engineering manager.
For cars, it's not software that is the hard part either. It will continue to be the mass manufacture of automobiles and the infrastructure for selling, driving and maintaining EVs.
You're right. Further, Mansfield doesn't have to know about software, he just has to know how to get them to finish it.
Any lack of resources at Musk's end is due entirely to the fact that even after 10-15 years his companies don't make a profit and are nowhere close to making one. His most recent manifesto was supposed to justify buying out Solar City, but the more sober truth is that Solar City needed a bailout (and SpaceX had bailed them out earlier this year too). So now Tela will burn an extra few hundred million in cash keeping Solar City running. Elon is depleting his resources rather than growing them and that should scare Apple's board. Everything he makes is sold at a loss in small quantities- also scary. Would Elon stop overpromising and underdelivering (late, over budget, over priced) if we'd throw more cash at him? Maybe, but why risk it? His genius plan "make more types of electric vehicles and try to catch up in self-driving" is friggin obvious and not worth risking Apple's fortune to acquire.
Meanwhile Apple spends billions on R&D and must have all kinds of stuff in the works. The fact that they aren't wasting their time on mature product lines like the Mac tells me they know how to focus on what matters. So it's time for you to shut the hell up and make some popcorn- Apple's next few years should be good.
Your arguments are logically inconsistent. You criticize Musk for not making a profit on Tesla, yet Apple's automotive efforts and other R&D projects aren't currently making any money either. You praise Apple's ability to earn a profit, but encourage them to ignore their profitable products and instead focus on unprofitable R&D projects -- projects that we know substantially less about than what Musk is doing.
Apple could make substantial improvements in the Mac (and other product lines) with just a small sliver of the money spent on dividends and stock buybacks. Apple faces no resource constraints other than management focus.
Apple's R&D budget is a good investment- it has made Apple shareholders hundreds of billions in profit. Tesla's R&D has never earned shareholders a nickel. Very different. You need to understand that Apple has people a lot smarter than you who've thought of these things. Apple can calculate, for example, that if they invest another billion in the Mac to make it super-fantastic sales will still only go up a couple hundred thousand units a quarter and that investment will not pay off. They allocate their money where it produces the most return, which is why they are fantastically profitable. The PC market simply isn't big enough to justify the kind of spending you're talking about. This isn't to say of course that Apple doesn't have some fantastic Macs built around Intel's next generation of chips waiting in the sidelines, but Apple is going to be careful with how much they spend on PC R&D and making sure any products they do release in that category are on the market a long time (to get a good return).
Now if you want to see a company with zero vision, let's look at the Tesla master plan
1) Add more cars to the lineup (Musk stayed up late thinking of that one)
2) Try to salvage some value after bailing out Solar City (duh)
3) Try not to get left in the dust by the autonomous vehicles everyone else is working on by making one yourself
4) Finish all the stuff from the first plan that they still can't execute on after 10 years. You know, like the $50,000 Model S, the Model X that they can barely build, and the always next year Model 3
If Mansfield is in charge, then for me, the Apple Car has become real to me. With Mansfield taking on the Car and Riccio taking on the microprocessors, I believe Apple will have a competitive-to-superior car entry. It just might be time for Musk to start planning his exit strategy (I just had to have a little dig at the man for claiming Apple or any company are too late to the car manufacturing industry). Go, Apple!
I'm not a huge Musk fan, but there is no way Apple will ever even match Tesla's meager success with cars. Not gonna happen. How in the hell is Appke going to maintain 30-40% margins on something that costs tens of thousands of dollars? It's a pipe dream.
Any lack of resources at Musk's end is due entirely to the fact that even after 10-15 years his companies don't make a profit and are nowhere close to making one. His most recent manifesto was supposed to justify buying out Solar City, but the more sober truth is that Solar City needed a bailout (and SpaceX had bailed them out earlier this year too). So now Tela will burn an extra few hundred million in cash keeping Solar City running. Elon is depleting his resources rather than growing them and that should scare Apple's board. Everything he makes is sold at a loss in small quantities- also scary. Would Elon stop overpromising and underdelivering (late, over budget, over priced) if we'd throw more cash at him? Maybe, but why risk it? His genius plan "make more types of electric vehicles and try to catch up in self-driving" is friggin obvious and not worth risking Apple's fortune to acquire.
Meanwhile Apple spends billions on R&D and must have all kinds of stuff in the works. The fact that they aren't wasting their time on mature product lines like the Mac tells me they know how to focus on what matters. So it's time for you to shut the hell up and make some popcorn- Apple's next few years should be good.
Your arguments are logically inconsistent. You criticize Musk for not making a profit on Tesla, yet Apple's automotive efforts and other R&D projects aren't currently making any money either. You praise Apple's ability to earn a profit, but encourage them to ignore their profitable products and instead focus on unprofitable R&D projects -- projects that we know substantially less about than what Musk is doing.
Apple could make substantial improvements in the Mac (and other product lines) with just a small sliver of the money spent on dividends and stock buybacks. Apple faces no resource constraints other than management focus.
His argument was pretty sound.
You need to realise the difference between investment in R&D and selling a product. Apple is (allegedly) investing in automotive R&D. Tesla is selling cars.
People expect Tesla to make money selling cars. They aren't. Apple is making money on everything it sells.
How does it make sense to remove a CEO who is generating more money than any other CEO and replace him with a person who is losing money on everything he sells?
You make the assumption that Apple is ignoring all its products. You think a company so big has no roadmaps for all its lines? Do you have any evidence that Apple has removed engineers from the Mac, iPhone and iPad lines to work on Project Titan? How can you suggest they are ignoring revenue generating products for unprofitable R&D products?
You suggest that Apple has enough money to make substantial improvements in the Mac. Your bad assumption here is that throwing money at things will solve problems. Anyone working on projects knows that simply throwing money and people at a project isn't going to make it faster.
Your arguments are logically inconsistent. You criticize Musk for not making a profit on Tesla, yet Apple's automotive efforts and other R&D projects aren't currently making any money either. You praise Apple's ability to earn a profit, but encourage them to ignore their profitable products and instead focus on unprofitable R&D projects -- projects that we know substantially less about than what Musk is doing.
Apple could make substantial improvements in the Mac (and other product lines) with just a small sliver of the money spent on dividends and stock buybacks. Apple faces no resource constraints other than management focus.
Apple's R&D budget is a good investment- it has made Apple shareholders hundreds of billions in profit. Tesla's R&D has never earned shareholders a nickel. Very different. You need to understand that Apple has people a lot smarter than you who've thought of these things. Apple can calculate, for example, that if they invest another billion in the Mac to make it super-fantastic sales will still only go up a couple hundred thousand units a quarter and that investment will not pay off. They allocate their money where it produces the most return, which is why they are fantastically profitable. The PC market simply isn't big enough to justify the kind of spending you're talking about. This isn't to say of course that Apple doesn't have some fantastic Macs built around Intel's next generation of chips waiting in the sidelines, but Apple is going to be careful with how much they spend on PC R&D and making sure any products they do release in that category are on the market a long time (to get a good return).
Now if you want to see a company with zero vision, let's look at the Tesla master plan
1) Add more cars to the lineup (Musk stayed up late thinking of that one)
2) Try to salvage some value after bailing out Solar City (duh)
3) Try not to get left in the dust by the autonomous vehicles everyone else is working on by making one yourself
4) Finish all the stuff from the first plan that they still can't execute on after 10 years. You know, like the $50,000 Model S, the Model X that they can barely build, and the always next year Model 3
Genius. Pure genius.
Apple's R&D spending on EVs has resulted in $0. But Apple is an older company that operates in more mature markets, so Apple has had time to recoup earlier R&D investments. Tesla is a much newer company, focused *only* on the EV market. So, in the markets where they both have R&D expenditures, Tesla is actually doing better -- at least they have revenue in that market!
Solar City is a similar story -- a young company operating in a new market.
I think there is definitely a parallel between Tesla and NeXT -- both bet big on new technologies in order to leap frog an entrenched industry. NeXT flamed out as an independent company, but once combined with the resources of Apple, NeXT's technology flourished. Of course, Apple's resources back then were meager compared to today.
Some other points:
1. You need to understand that Apple has always employed super smart people with great ideas. That was also true when they were teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. It was true when they were trying to convince the world that the G4 was a competitive processor. The mere presence of smart people at a company does not mean that management is effectively using them.
2. You need to understand that the tradeoff is not between investing in Macs vs investing in the Tesla market -- the tradeoff is between investing in the Mac and writing a dividend check. Obviously Apple needs to spend money in order to get the highest return. The return on writing a dividend check is $0. The return on share buybacks is about 2%. That's a very low bar. Improving Mac sales by a few hundred thousand units per quarter is very likely to yield a better return than those uses of money.
3. The PC market is a heck of a lot bigger than the EV market. I support Apple's R&D investment in the EV market, but that is a very risky investment in a largely unproven market. And again -- it's ironic that you criticize Tesla for investing in that market but when Apple does it you think it's genius.
Your arguments are logically inconsistent. You criticize Musk for not making a profit on Tesla, yet Apple's automotive efforts and other R&D projects aren't currently making any money either. You praise Apple's ability to earn a profit, but encourage them to ignore their profitable products and instead focus on unprofitable R&D projects -- projects that we know substantially less about than what Musk is doing.
Apple could make substantial improvements in the Mac (and other product lines) with just a small sliver of the money spent on dividends and stock buybacks. Apple faces no resource constraints other than management focus.
His argument was pretty sound.
You need to realise the difference between investment in R&D and selling a product. Apple is (allegedly) investing in automotive R&D. Tesla is selling cars.
People expect Tesla to make money selling cars. They aren't. Apple is making money on everything it sells.
How does it make sense to remove a CEO who is generating more money than any other CEO and replace him with a person who is losing money on everything he sells?
You make the assumption that Apple is ignoring all its products. You think a company so big has no roadmaps for all its lines? Do you have any evidence that Apple has removed engineers from the Mac, iPhone and iPad lines to work on Project Titan? How can you suggest they are ignoring revenue generating products for unprofitable R&D products?
You suggest that Apple has enough money to make substantial improvements in the Mac. Your bad assumption here is that throwing money at things will solve problems. Anyone working on projects knows that simply throwing money and people at a project isn't going to make it faster.
So, Apple is better because their R&D investment is generating 0 revenue. But Tesla, which is investing in exactly he same market, has positive revenue. So Tesla's losses in the EV market are smaller than Apple's, but you think Apple is doing better in that market than Tesla. I think the only reasonable conclusion is that Apple can do no wrong in your eyes, and you will come up with whatever argument best fits the facts to reach the conclusion that Apple is awesome.
Regarding Apple's treatment of their existing products -- go look at the MacRumors buyers guide, specifically the number of days since the last update. It's abysmal. My *hope* is that these numbers will soon become much less abysmal, and that we will see great new iterations of all these products. But if that hope is not realized in the next 18 months (and frankly, 18 months is extremely generous), then I think it will be a sign of serious dysfunction in senior management at Apple.
It just seems odd to me that they are going to depend on a guy who obviously wants to retire, to head up a department that presumably, won't have a product release until 2021 at the earliest.
Did he want to retire, or did just hate working with Scott Forstall?
Anyone who believes an Apple car will see the light of day before 2021, if ever, is kidding themselves.
And by then the big auto makers will have an insurmountable lead.
I wish they'd give up on it. All of them. Autonomous vehicles are a pipe dream without actual true artificial intelligence. This is a "reach exceeds grasp" scenario, and not in a good way (not inspiring).
Continuing to promote automobiles is also inefficient and illogical, but we don't have widespread and accessible mass transit infrastructure across the USA, so we are stuck with them.
Preferably not being guided by idiot software. I don't trust software as is. There's no reason or justification to trust it, nor trust the companies writing it, to take full responsibility for it. Computer security is a nightmare on top of that. Why do we want self-driving, pirate-able, easily-sabotaged-by-antisocial-12-year-old-hackers, intelligence-devoid cars?
Comments
Meanwhile Apple spends billions on R&D and must have all kinds of stuff in the works. The fact that they aren't wasting their time on mature product lines like the Mac tells me they know how to focus on what matters. So it's time for you to shut the hell up and make some popcorn- Apple's next few years should be good.
You assume that Mansfield doesn't know anything about software. He arguably could know more about software than the software managers at car companies, including Tesla. It's impossible for chip designers and computer designers at his level to not be exposed to the software that the hardware runs on, especially at Apple. Whether he can give the project the same energy that he gave computers in the aughts is another question. Who knows. He's in his mid-50s to high-50s. That's still very much a prime age for an engineering manager.
For cars, it's not software that is the hard part either. It will continue to be the mass manufacture of automobiles and the infrastructure for selling, driving and maintaining EVs.
Apple could make substantial improvements in the Mac (and other product lines) with just a small sliver of the money spent on dividends and stock buybacks. Apple faces no resource constraints other than management focus.
1) what do you mean rehiring him multiple times? there was the first retirement announcement in 2012, and then his decision to stay. when else are you referring to?
2) you claimed they dont have a quality roster, which doesnt have much to do w/ which senior executive is in charge of the project. do you think Mansfield is the only guy there, implementing everything himself? dont be silly. of course Apple has quality people. the best money can buy. that one of their best, most-respected engineers is rumored to be in charge of this new project doesnt suggest otherwise.
exactly. he's a senior dude. the guys implementing this are going to be all of the LinkedIn hires we've been reading about the past few years.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/139084/20160307/bmw-at-100-carmaker-to-overhaul-workforce-to-build-most-intelligent-car.htm
You never call anymore, and you don't write. The Mansfield move is a positive one, no doubt. And while I don't doubt that Apple has a roster full of qualified people (still not sure about Angela Burberry Lady--trees in the store, really?), I haven't seen any evidence of superstars in the making, or even sufficient staffing. Instead, I see teams moving off of one project onto another to make up time, projects wither and die, rolling along without substantial improvement, or lying there, ill-conceived and fruitless. It's not like you can't afford to go all in. What are you saving it for?
I love cars, and I want an Apple Car to wow me, and I don't even care about the MSRP. But this project is rudderless and listing badly, based on hirings for positions that should have been filled in the first year of development so that the focus was sharper. Maybe Mansfield can figure this out, but right now it's 50-50 that this project fails in two years. It's doable, but not the way it's being done now.
Is there any reason Siri is as limited as she is, after all these years, time wasted while others caught up and went ahead. Why can't she do more? Why doesn't she talk more normally at this point? Who was in charge of that and why are they still employed at Apple?
Who was in charge of the Mac Pro (PRO: Pile of Related Objects), a very innovative, cool-looking cylinder and an absolute mess of cables and components everyone needs to be "Pro" hanging out the back. By the way, Apple, did you not even consider making a separate enclosure / rack (optional at extra cost to be sure) that might be a companion to that cylinder design? You didn't understand your market. I won't even mention the professional software you just drop without adequate notice--the economics or lack thereof are understandable, but at least treat your customers like you value them.
Apple had the patents and ideas for combination tablet/laptops with keyboard covers several years ago. And they did what with that? Surface is crap, as I have personally seen on numerous occasions over the last three years, but you owned the concept and you let morons steal your lunch money. Maybe it's a nothing market that Microsoft has realized to its detriment, or maybe it's the next big thing.
You brought out Apple Watch before it ripened, because you had nothing else ready to go apparently and hedge funds and corporate investors were getting antsy. I like the idea, but it's only now getting a well-thought out OS that should have been there on Day One.
Macbooks...well, they're a mess, and overdue, again. I wouldn't go after the $500 market either, but at least bring some upmarket capability to go with the prices. Sometimes, and this is just a thought, you can even go overboard and give your customers more than they expect (retina screens all the way around maybe, or more GBs or RAM). Toss 'em a bone once in a while, you can afford it.
One more thing: could you, for the love of whatever god/s you pray to, give us a "select all, delete" option in iOS Mail. Cripes
Now if you want to see a company with zero vision, let's look at the Tesla master plan
1) Add more cars to the lineup (Musk stayed up late thinking of that one)
2) Try to salvage some value after bailing out Solar City (duh)
3) Try not to get left in the dust by the autonomous vehicles everyone else is working on by making one yourself
4) Finish all the stuff from the first plan that they still can't execute on after 10 years. You know, like the $50,000 Model S, the Model X that they can barely build, and the always next year Model 3
Genius. Pure genius.
His argument was pretty sound.
You need to realise the difference between investment in R&D and selling a product. Apple is (allegedly) investing in automotive R&D. Tesla is selling cars.
People expect Tesla to make money selling cars. They aren't. Apple is making money on everything it sells.
How does it make sense to remove a CEO who is generating more money than any other CEO and replace him with a person who is losing money on everything he sells?
You make the assumption that Apple is ignoring all its products. You think a company so big has no roadmaps for all its lines? Do you have any evidence that Apple has removed engineers from the Mac, iPhone and iPad lines to work on Project Titan? How can you suggest they are ignoring revenue generating products for unprofitable R&D products?
You suggest that Apple has enough money to make substantial improvements in the Mac. Your bad assumption here is that throwing money at things will solve problems. Anyone working on projects knows that simply throwing money and people at a project isn't going to make it faster.
Solar City is a similar story -- a young company operating in a new market.
I think there is definitely a parallel between Tesla and NeXT -- both bet big on new technologies in order to leap frog an entrenched industry. NeXT flamed out as an independent company, but once combined with the resources of Apple, NeXT's technology flourished. Of course, Apple's resources back then were meager compared to today.
Some other points:
1. You need to understand that Apple has always employed super smart people with great ideas. That was also true when they were teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. It was true when they were trying to convince the world that the G4 was a competitive processor. The mere presence of smart people at a company does not mean that management is effectively using them.
2. You need to understand that the tradeoff is not between investing in Macs vs investing in the Tesla market -- the tradeoff is between investing in the Mac and writing a dividend check. Obviously Apple needs to spend money in order to get the highest return. The return on writing a dividend check is $0. The return on share buybacks is about 2%. That's a very low bar. Improving Mac sales by a few hundred thousand units per quarter is very likely to yield a better return than those uses of money.
3. The PC market is a heck of a lot bigger than the EV market. I support Apple's R&D investment in the EV market, but that is a very risky investment in a largely unproven market. And again -- it's ironic that you criticize Tesla for investing in that market but when Apple does it you think it's genius.
So, Apple is better because their R&D investment is generating 0 revenue. But Tesla, which is investing in exactly he same market, has positive revenue. So Tesla's losses in the EV market are smaller than Apple's, but you think Apple is doing better in that market than Tesla. I think the only reasonable conclusion is that Apple can do no wrong in your eyes, and you will come up with whatever argument best fits the facts to reach the conclusion that Apple is awesome.
Regarding Apple's treatment of their existing products -- go look at the MacRumors buyers guide, specifically the number of days since the last update. It's abysmal. My *hope* is that these numbers will soon become much less abysmal, and that we will see great new iterations of all these products. But if that hope is not realized in the next 18 months (and frankly, 18 months is extremely generous), then I think it will be a sign of serious dysfunction in senior management at Apple.
Did he want to retire, or did just hate working with Scott Forstall?
Continuing to promote automobiles is also inefficient and illogical, but we don't have widespread and accessible mass transit infrastructure across the USA, so we are stuck with them.
Preferably not being guided by idiot software. I don't trust software as is. There's no reason or justification to trust it, nor trust the companies writing it, to take full responsibility for it. Computer security is a nightmare on top of that. Why do we want self-driving, pirate-able, easily-sabotaged-by-antisocial-12-year-old-hackers, intelligence-devoid cars?