CEO Tim Cook's compensation cut by $1.5M following Apple's 2016 decline in sales

1468910

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 190
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    gatorguy said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Mikeymike said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    saarek said:
    I don't understand how they let the Mac lineup get in the state it's in.

    With their money they could easily have upgraded the line up with new internals whilst they finished off any innovations that they wanted to roll out.

    Piss poor management, very unusual.

    Apple doesn't like to use money from one division to prop up another one, especially if it's one as well established as the Mac division. Microsoft did that with Windows mobile, which is probably why it took them so long to realise it was failing. 



    The larger point is that , the iMac has been stagnating, and there is no reason it has needed to. (certainly not for lack of Apple monies)
    If Intels chips aren't producing significant speed gains then what is the point upgrading the machines? Well, there isn't any, unless you can come up with the tech to work around it. 
    Post #77 makes what seems like valid arguments. 
    Not really though. The chips didn't improve, so the suggestion here is that Apple takes the existing chips and pack more cores into a larger case. 
    ai46
  • Reply 102 of 190
    thedbathedba Posts: 762member
    I feel sorry for Tim and his family that he got a pay cut. But I feel more sorry for all of us who got a failed watch, delayed air pods, no more displays or airports, cancelled car, a 4 year old iPhone case design and a MBP with no ports and the wrong battery. I don't know what Tim's issue has been but I have faith he can turn it around this year, last year he made a lot of failed promises, this year I hope his actions speak louder than his words. Learning to type and use a Mac would be a great start, even just touching or holding a Mac at a keynote, that would make us happy.
    1) Failed watch? In what parallel universe are you living in? Before the first Apple Watch was announced, the company was being blasted for missing out on the wearables revolution. Then they release it, blow everyone out of the water and it is now being peddled as a failure?
    Only by comparing Apple watch market-share versus the entire rest of the industry (Fitbit + Garmin + Samsung +...) can its success be minimized. In terms of revenu only Rolex makes more.   Failed my a$$

    2) Delayed AirPods. OK but only slightly. We'll have a pretty good idea by April how well they're doing. I'm willing to bet they'll have more $$$ sold than the entire MS Surface line for the same period. 

    3) Cancelled car? For something to be cancelled, it has to first be in production or at the very least announced. You know something like the MS Courrier. 

    4) A four year old iPhone case design. And in the meantime they added nothing to the iPhone? No new technology? Change for the sake of change? Is that your great idea?

    5) A MBP with no ports? Really? Thunderbolt 3 capable of driving a 5K monitor and several USB3 peripherals including power for your MBP all through the same cable, is a non port in your opinion? And there are 4 of those.

    Want something real to complain about? Try this.
    1) 5GB iCloud default storage. They could and should do better than that. 
    2) 1 year limited warranty on Apple products. Even on $3000+ MBP's. Come on!
    Solidewmeequality72521StrangeDaysroundaboutnowration al
  • Reply 103 of 190
    Rayz2016 said:
    gatorguy said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Mikeymike said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    saarek said:
    I don't understand how they let the Mac lineup get in the state it's in.

    With their money they could easily have upgraded the line up with new internals whilst they finished off any innovations that they wanted to roll out.

    Piss poor management, very unusual.

    Apple doesn't like to use money from one division to prop up another one, especially if it's one as well established as the Mac division. Microsoft did that with Windows mobile, which is probably why it took them so long to realise it was failing. 



    The larger point is that , the iMac has been stagnating, and there is no reason it has needed to. (certainly not for lack of Apple monies)
    If Intels chips aren't producing significant speed gains then what is the point upgrading the machines? Well, there isn't any, unless you can come up with the tech to work around it. 
    Post #77 makes what seems like valid arguments. 
    Not really though. The chips didn't improve, so the suggestion here is that Apple takes the existing chips and pack more cores into a larger case. 
    Pardon Me?

    So what you are telling me is that there is no improvement in these processors.   That a 22 core E5v4 would render our scenes at roughly the same speed as a 12 core E5v2.  I think you need to do some more investigating on this before you continue spewing out your false assumptions.

    The socket and thermal properties are exactly the same.  Using the new chips is just a simple swap with no case design change required, you know like Dell and HP are able to do or are you saying Dell and HP have super case designs where they were able to update their workstations twice in this time but Apple can't.

    Are you also claiming there were no advancements in GPU's.   That the D-700 is equivalent to what HP and Dell offer in their workstations.  You know like the Nvidia Quadro line or even the low priced 1080 GTX.   Again I think you need to do some more investigating to see how behind Apple is on this.


  • Reply 104 of 190
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    thedba said:
    I feel sorry for Tim and his family that he got a pay cut. But I feel more sorry for all of us who got a failed watch, delayed air pods, no more displays or airports, cancelled car, a 4 year old iPhone case design and a MBP with no ports and the wrong battery. I don't know what Tim's issue has been but I have faith he can turn it around this year, last year he made a lot of failed promises, this year I hope his actions speak louder than his words. Learning to type and use a Mac would be a great start, even just touching or holding a Mac at a keynote, that would make us happy.
    1) Failed watch? In what parallel universe are you living in? Before the first Apple Watch was announced, the company was being blasted for missing out on the wearables revolution. Then they release it, blow everyone out of the water and it is now being peddled as a failure?
    Only by comparing Apple watch market-share versus the entire rest of the industry (Fitbit + Garmin + Samsung +...) can its success be minimized. In terms of revenu only Rolex makes more.   Failed my a$$
    ...we're guessing. Apple hasn't ever discussed unit numbers sold or the revenue connected with the Apple Watch AFAIK. Still likely it's been pretty successful despite lack of official comments.
    edited January 2017
  • Reply 105 of 190
    Rayz2016 said:
    Actually, the biggest foulup was missing Christmas for the AirPod launch. 
    I think the biggest foulup was eliminating the headphone jack, in the first place. My 6 will be the last iPhone I own if they don't bring back the jack. Airpods look incredibly dorky. When I see them dangling, cable-less, from people's ears I think of JarJar Binks. Wireless headphones look better.
  • Reply 106 of 190
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    gatorguy said:
    thedba said:
    I feel sorry for Tim and his family that he got a pay cut. But I feel more sorry for all of us who got a failed watch, delayed air pods, no more displays or airports, cancelled car, a 4 year old iPhone case design and a MBP with no ports and the wrong battery. I don't know what Tim's issue has been but I have faith he can turn it around this year, last year he made a lot of failed promises, this year I hope his actions speak louder than his words. Learning to type and use a Mac would be a great start, even just touching or holding a Mac at a keynote, that would make us happy.
    1) Failed watch? In what parallel universe are you living in? Before the first Apple Watch was announced, the company was being blasted for missing out on the wearables revolution. Then they release it, blow everyone out of the water and it is now being peddled as a failure?
    Only by comparing Apple watch market-share versus the entire rest of the industry (Fitbit + Garmin + Samsung +...) can its success be minimized. In terms of revenu only Rolex makes more.   Failed my a$$
    ...we're guessing. Apple hasn't ever discussed unit numbers sold or the revenue connected with the Apple Watch AFAIK. Still likely it's been pretty successful despite lack of official comments.
    Apple has been the sole company that would regularly discuss CE unit sales and I'm glad they're pulling away from that. All it does it make the stock price more volatile with a pointless metric.

    Let's remember Apple made this decision with this iPhone accessory (and now iPhone+Mac accessory), when they announced the product, which was well before it ever went on sale.

    It would be foolhardy to make Watch unit sales a constant because the end result would be for pundits to point out that Apple sucks because Rolex's ARP is considerably higher and then say Apple sucks because Fitbit sells more units even though their price points are much lower and aren't smartwatches. None of that benefits Apple and they still have to contend with it even when their revenues (and likely their profits) for that one product category is larger than most CE companies in their entirety.

    It's still the first thing I put on in the morning and the last thing I take off at night. I'm still using the original but I do plan to buy another—likely with their next HW upgrade.

    PS: I wonder if the Mac mini being milled from a single block of aluminum into a hollowed casing was a testing ground before the Watch casing was solidified for production. I wonder if the 2016 iPhone would be waterproof if they hadn't released the Watch in 2015.
    flaneurration al
  • Reply 107 of 190
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    lordvexen said:
    My 6 will be the last iPhone I own if they don't bring back the jack. 
    Then the iPhone 6 will be your last iPhone.
    SpamSandwichequality72521roundaboutnowration alibill
  • Reply 108 of 190
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Rayz2016 said:
    saarek said:
    macxpress said:
    Mikeymike said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    saarek said:
    I don't understand how they let the Mac lineup get in the state it's in.

    With their money they could easily have upgraded the line up with new internals whilst they finished off any innovations that they wanted to roll out.

    Piss poor management, very unusual.

    Apple doesn't like to use money from one division to prop up another one, especially if it's one as well established as the Mac division. Microsoft did that with Windows mobile, which is probably why it took them so long to realise it was failing. 



    The larger point is that , the iMac has been stagnating, and there is no reason it has needed to. (certainly not for lack of Apple monies)
    What processor was Apple going to use in an updated iMac? Did you want them to release something new with the same specs as today's iMac? I simply don't get why anyone doesn't take the time to understand what Apple is going through with this. I seriously doubt they're purposely not releasing new Macs. If you want the days of the G4 Apple could do that and people would still be seriously pissed off because the upgrades are basically meaningless. Its just an upgrade to say they upgraded them. Is that what you really want???
    There is more to a machine than the CPU, everything has moved on since the 2015 release.

    although you're being specific about the iMac the Mac Pro and Mac Mini's are a joke.

    It would take little investment to simple update the chips etc and keep the current designs, it's disgusting to keep selling these relics at full price and a great disservice to their brand.
    And what should they upgrade them with? The chips are part of a chipset which are part of a board that hasn't changed that much in years. 
    What about GPUs? Or can they only be upgraded when the CPU is upgraded? As I said in another post if it was as simple as Intel chips suitable for this product being delayed would there be this much complaining? I'm going to assume people like John Siracusa and Marco Arment are up to speed on Intel's roadmap and what chipsets are available.
    Yes there would, because all the rags would say its poor upgrade that doesn't bring much to the table, and folk round here (you included) would agree. 
    ration al
  • Reply 109 of 190
    yojimbo007yojimbo007 Posts: 1,165member
    ireland said:
    I wish the stock market somehow didn't exist. None of this crap matters.
    Being a public company is a pain the ass.. but then again if there was no such mechanism how would companies raise funds to grow and have the opertunity to become like Apple.
  • Reply 110 of 190
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    Rayz2016 said:
    What about GPUs? Or can they only be upgraded when the CPU is upgraded? As I said in another post if it was as simple as Intel chips suitable for this product being delayed would there be this much complaining? I'm going to assume people like John Siracusa and Marco Arment are up to speed on Intel's roadmap and what chipsets are available.
    Yes there would, because all the rags would say its poor upgrade that doesn't bring much to the table, and folk round here (you included) would agree. 
    Yep. Just like they do with every upgrade, no matter what Apple includes. A reported decades worth of development to get the T1-chip to control the Touch Bar, Touch ID, and Apple Pay, while running a new version of OS X to interact seamlessly with macOS and people bitch that the new MacBook Pros are a crap upgrade and that anything new is just a useless gimmick. Apple can't win.
    ration al
  • Reply 111 of 190
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,834member
    k2kw said:
    This brings up the question of which executive will Cook replace.   If he doesn't hold someone accountable then Come next year the board of directors need to replace him.

    Yes this is a sign that the quarterly results will look horrible.

    Apple desperately needs Forestal back.
    Someone with passion and vision other than thinner.   

    They need someome to me to kick start Siri development.   she's (Siri) has turned into the Oldsmobile of AI.
    OK, you do realize Scott Forstall was a software head, and has nothing to do w/ hardware design, right? Are you saying Craig Federighi doesn't have talent and passion and is doing a poor job and needs to be fired? By what metric do you base this off of?

    I have to wonder how much business experience the "XXXX needs to be fired! Off with their heads!" crowd actually has...
    roundaboutnow
  • Reply 112 of 190
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    It's pretty bad when Rene Ritchie is luke warm something Apple related.

    http://www.imore.com/lg-5k

    "I bought the LG UltraFine 5K display because there simply is no other option from Apple. If there had been, though, I would have bought it in a heartbeat."

    It's fine if Apple decided it wasn't in its strategic interests to be in the monitor business but they seriously couldn't be bothered to work with LG on a design that matches Apple's aesthetic? I remember the days when Apple was praised for its superior design and the competition panned for cheap plastic.  To me this reeks of laisness on Apple's part. And the sad thing is the competition is upping it's design. This is a new 8K monitor from Dell. Looks way nicer than what LG and Apple produced.



    Even Microsoft's Surface line looks sleek and cohesive. The days of the competition producing cheap plastic looking garbage is long gone.


    " . . . couldn't be bothered." Arrogant assumption again.

    YOU DON'T KNOW whether LG was interested or willing to give in to Apple's design desires, if any. Suppose, for the fifth time I've mentioned it here, that LG wants to make back an expensive IGZO development outlay by selling their own brand "retail," instead of wholesaling to Apple for a superior design that would kill LG's cachet, what little there is with this design. YOU DON'T KNOW how many IGZO monitors LG can make beyond the ones they already supply to Apple for their iMacs.

    Soliequality72521StrangeDaysration al
  • Reply 113 of 190
    Rayz2016 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    saarek said:
    macxpress said:
    Mikeymike said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    saarek said:
    I don't understand how they let the Mac lineup get in the state it's in.

    With their money they could easily have upgraded the line up with new internals whilst they finished off any innovations that they wanted to roll out.

    Piss poor management, very unusual.

    Apple doesn't like to use money from one division to prop up another one, especially if it's one as well established as the Mac division. Microsoft did that with Windows mobile, which is probably why it took them so long to realise it was failing. 



    The larger point is that , the iMac has been stagnating, and there is no reason it has needed to. (certainly not for lack of Apple monies)
    What processor was Apple going to use in an updated iMac? Did you want them to release something new with the same specs as today's iMac? I simply don't get why anyone doesn't take the time to understand what Apple is going through with this. I seriously doubt they're purposely not releasing new Macs. If you want the days of the G4 Apple could do that and people would still be seriously pissed off because the upgrades are basically meaningless. Its just an upgrade to say they upgraded them. Is that what you really want???
    There is more to a machine than the CPU, everything has moved on since the 2015 release.

    although you're being specific about the iMac the Mac Pro and Mac Mini's are a joke.

    It would take little investment to simple update the chips etc and keep the current designs, it's disgusting to keep selling these relics at full price and a great disservice to their brand.
    And what should they upgrade them with? The chips are part of a chipset which are part of a board that hasn't changed that much in years. 
    What about GPUs? Or can they only be upgraded when the CPU is upgraded? As I said in another post if it was as simple as Intel chips suitable for this product being delayed would there be this much complaining? I'm going to assume people like John Siracusa and Marco Arment are up to speed on Intel's roadmap and what chipsets are available.
    Yes there would, because all the rags would say its poor upgrade that doesn't bring much to the table, and folk round here (you included) would agree. 
    That is your opinion.  Companies such as ourselves don't care about marketing speak.  I don't care about a big NEW MAC PRO announcement party and fancy video.   I don't see Dell and HP throwing parties every time they update something for their workstations.   They constantly and silently update their configure to order page as new parts become available, most of time offering both new and old parts at the same allowing customer decide what they want.   Waiting three plus years to do a single thing is unacceptable and incompetent. period.
    rogifan_new
  • Reply 114 of 190
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,152member
    jkichline said:
    There are legitimate questions about the Mac lineup. It's pretty bad when even John  Gruber is like WTF Apple regarding the Mac Pro. What reason do they have for not updating it for 3 years and not reducing the price? If Apple doesn't want to be in the pro market then discontinue the product. Same thing with the router business. Those products are woefully out of date. Either update them or kill them. But it does call into question why Apple seems to be struggling from a bandwith perspective. Other than the iPhone - which they have no choice but to update every year at the same time - it seems like it's a struggle to get stuff out the door. Is Apple's functional org structure hurting them? Would things be different if there was one person responsible for the Mac and nothing else?
    It's simple. The Skylake architecture for the E5 class of Xeon processors was originally road mapped for Late 2015 and haas been delayed by Intel until early 2017.  It has nothing to do with Apple, it has everything to do with their vendor, Intel.
    So, the CPU wasn't ready. Apple would be aware of this problem long before any of us. It could have chosen to upgrade any number of other features to provide a regular refresh of the product, or interesting periphals, like a matching expansion box (off the top of my head). The point is if you don't fill the PR bandwidth you get discontent, but worse, lack of refreshes makes your line up stale, less compelling and weak compared with the competition.

    not having regular refreshes not only loses sales, it makes supply chain management difficult when the few remaining loyalists all try to buy the product when it is finally updated, and fewer sales in between. Not so bad on the annual iPhone cycle, but three or four year cycles?
    edited January 2017 rogifan_newavon b7
  • Reply 115 of 190
    flaneur said:
    It's pretty bad when Rene Ritchie is luke warm something Apple related.

    http://www.imore.com/lg-5k

    "I bought the LG UltraFine 5K display because there simply is no other option from Apple. If there had been, though, I would have bought it in a heartbeat."

    It's fine if Apple decided it wasn't in its strategic interests to be in the monitor business but they seriously couldn't be bothered to work with LG on a design that matches Apple's aesthetic? I remember the days when Apple was praised for its superior design and the competition panned for cheap plastic.  To me this reeks of laisness on Apple's part. And the sad thing is the competition is upping it's design. This is a new 8K monitor from Dell. Looks way nicer than what LG and Apple produced.



    Even Microsoft's Surface line looks sleek and cohesive. The days of the competition producing cheap plastic looking garbage is long gone.


    " . . . couldn't be bothered." Arrogant assumption again.

    YOU DON'T KNOW whether LG was interested or willing to give in to Apple's design desires, if any. Suppose, for the fifth time I've mentioned it here, that LG wants to make back an expensive IGZO development outlay by selling their own brand "retail," instead of wholesaling to Apple for a superior design that would kill LG's cachet, what little there is with this design. YOU DON'T KNOW how many IGZO monitors LG can make beyond the ones they already supply to Apple for their iMacs.


    We've had this discussion before.  Do you have anything to back up your absurd claim that LG told Apple that they don't want to sell them IGZO panels even though Apple puts them in their iMacs?  Their are numerous companies selling IGZO displays.  This post even refers to an 8K display from Dell.   How is Dell able to design and get panels for their monitors, but Apple isn't?   You honestly think Apple is not big enough to obtain panels if they wanted to make monitors.  Thats proposterous.

    You then claim that people are making "Arrogant assumptions" when there is no assumption to make.  Apple publicly stated they no longer want to make monitors.  You are the one that is arrogantly concocting a baseless story that Big Bad LG forced Apple out of the monitor business.  That is a slanderous statement with absolutely no merit.  Stop spreading your Fud.
    rogifan_new
  • Reply 116 of 190
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,075member
    altivec88 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    saarek said:
    macxpress said:
    Mikeymike said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    saarek said:
    I don't understand how they let the Mac lineup get in the state it's in.

    With their money they could easily have upgraded the line up with new internals whilst they finished off any innovations that they wanted to roll out.

    Piss poor management, very unusual.

    Apple doesn't like to use money from one division to prop up another one, especially if it's one as well established as the Mac division. Microsoft did that with Windows mobile, which is probably why it took them so long to realise it was failing. 



    The larger point is that , the iMac has been stagnating, and there is no reason it has needed to. (certainly not for lack of Apple monies)
    What processor was Apple going to use in an updated iMac? Did you want them to release something new with the same specs as today's iMac? I simply don't get why anyone doesn't take the time to understand what Apple is going through with this. I seriously doubt they're purposely not releasing new Macs. If you want the days of the G4 Apple could do that and people would still be seriously pissed off because the upgrades are basically meaningless. Its just an upgrade to say they upgraded them. Is that what you really want???
    There is more to a machine than the CPU, everything has moved on since the 2015 release.

    although you're being specific about the iMac the Mac Pro and Mac Mini's are a joke.

    It would take little investment to simple update the chips etc and keep the current designs, it's disgusting to keep selling these relics at full price and a great disservice to their brand.
    And what should they upgrade them with? The chips are part of a chipset which are part of a board that hasn't changed that much in years. 
    What about GPUs? Or can they only be upgraded when the CPU is upgraded? As I said in another post if it was as simple as Intel chips suitable for this product being delayed would there be this much complaining? I'm going to assume people like John Siracusa and Marco Arment are up to speed on Intel's roadmap and what chipsets are available.
    Yes there would, because all the rags would say its poor upgrade that doesn't bring much to the table, and folk round here (you included) would agree. 
    That is your opinion.  Companies such as ourselves don't care about marketing speak.  I don't care about a big NEW MAC PRO announcement party and fancy video.   I don't see Dell and HP throwing parties every time they update something for their workstations.   They constantly and silently update their configure to order page as new parts become available, most of time offering both new and old parts at the same allowing customer decide what they want.   Waiting three plus years to do a single thing is unacceptable and incompetent. period.
    Cook has committed Leadership Malpractice by not keeping the Pro and Mini updated.
    rogifan_new
  • Reply 117 of 190
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    altivec88 said:
    flaneur said:
    " . . . couldn't be bothered." Arrogant assumption again.

    YOU DON'T KNOW whether LG was interested or willing to give in to Apple's design desires, if any. Suppose, for the fifth time I've mentioned it here, that LG wants to make back an expensive IGZO development outlay by selling their own brand "retail," instead of wholesaling to Apple for a superior design that would kill LG's cachet, what little there is with this design. YOU DON'T KNOW how many IGZO monitors LG can make beyond the ones they already supply to Apple for their iMacs.

    Do you have anything to back up your absurd claim that LG told Apple that they don't want to sell them IGZO panels even though Apple puts them in their iMacs? 
    He never made any claim. You made plenty of unfounded claimed, he stated reasonable scenarios in an attempt to get you to use critical thinking so you'd reevaluate your unsubstanitated claims Clearly, he wasn't successful.
    StrangeDaysroundaboutnowration al
  • Reply 118 of 190
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    entropys said:
    jkichline said:
    There are legitimate questions about the Mac lineup. It's pretty bad when even John  Gruber is like WTF Apple regarding the Mac Pro. What reason do they have for not updating it for 3 years and not reducing the price? If Apple doesn't want to be in the pro market then discontinue the product. Same thing with the router business. Those products are woefully out of date. Either update them or kill them. But it does call into question why Apple seems to be struggling from a bandwith perspective. Other than the iPhone - which they have no choice but to update every year at the same time - it seems like it's a struggle to get stuff out the door. Is Apple's functional org structure hurting them? Would things be different if there was one person responsible for the Mac and nothing else?
    It's simple. The Skylake architecture for the E5 class of Xeon processors was originally road mapped for Late 2015 and haas been delayed by Intel until early 2017.  It has nothing to do with Apple, it has everything to do with their vendor, Intel.
    So, the CPU wasn't ready. Apple would be aware of this problem long before any of us. It could have chosen to upgrade any number of other features to provide a regular refresh of the product, or interesting periphals, like a matching expansion box (off the top of my head). The point is if you don't fill the PR bandwidth you get discontent, but worse, lack of refreshes makes your line up stale, less compelling and weak compared with the competition.

    not having regular refreshes not only loses sales, it makes supply chain management difficult when the few remaining loyalists all try to buy the product when it is finally updated, and fewer sales in between. Not so bad on the annual iPhone cycle, but three or four year cycles?
    I wonder if you might be among the first to complain that Apple dared to sell half-"refreshed" products within a few months of a major upgrade.

    If I were Apple, I'd let you guys bitch and moan (what's this new bullshit instant cliché "PR bandwidth"?) until you finally learn that they knew what they were doing all along.

    Of course, when they finally do a worthy redesign of the platform, you guys will still bitch and moan, like with the MacBook Pros.
    equality72521StrangeDaysration al
  • Reply 119 of 190
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    flaneur said:
    AI_lias said:
    jkichline said:
    There are legitimate questions about the Mac lineup. It's pretty bad when even John  Gruber is like WTF Apple regarding the Mac Pro. What reason do they have for not updating it for 3 years and not reducing the price? If Apple doesn't want to be in the pro market then discontinue the product. Same thing with the router business. Those products are woefully out of date. Either update them or kill them. But it does call into question why Apple seems to be struggling from a bandwith perspective. Other than the iPhone - which they have no choice but to update every year at the same time - it seems like it's a struggle to get stuff out the door. Is Apple's functional org structure hurting them? Would things be different if there was one person responsible for the Mac and nothing else?
    It's simple. The Skylake architecture for the E5 class of Xeon processors was originally road mapped for Late 2015 and haas been delayed by Intel until early 2017.  It has nothing to do with Apple, it has everything to do with their vendor, Intel.
    Just like between people, when something bad happens and you explain yourself, it makes whatever bad thing happened easier to deal with, same thing will Apple. Would it kill them to explain why they have not updated their Mac Pro?
    Apple has never ruined the surprise or uncovered the mystery around their strategic operations, nor should they. They wouldn't be Apple if they did.

    You might get an occasional explanation about something minor like the white iPhone 4, but on the major platform moves it seems Apple lets the handwringers have enough room to make themselves look stupid when the shoe finally drops.

    Trouble is, the handwringers never seem to learn that the company knows what it's doing. At least this means that the Maclope still has a job.
    I think the problem is they don't. Not long term. They seem to have one strategy track and that's pursuit of ever increasing profit margins. The product is suffering and they aren't responding to this. It's been three years of decline and no turnaround.
    asdasdavon b7
  • Reply 120 of 190
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    flaneur said:
    I wonder if you might be among the first to complain that Apple dared to sell half-"refreshed" products within a few months of a major upgrade.
    Within the last few days I've already seen (on this site) people complaining that the MBP that they bought could be refreshed again in first half of this year because Intel just started shipping the Kaby Lake processors that would work for these new MBP. This person also complained that the new MBP was crap and that the T1 chip with all that it controls was gimmicky, but they oddly kept the new MBP anyway and then also decided to complain about it not being "the new hotness" and that Kaby Lake won't do anything over Skylake. Apple can't win with some people.
    edited January 2017 StrangeDaysfastasleeproundaboutnowration al
Sign In or Register to comment.