:no: Split Apple, kick out Jobs! (Bizarre article)

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Bizarre article from TheDeal.com



Did you know Apple is in a "going-out-of-business cycle"? Did you know Jobs is steering Apple into its grave?



Yes, I know we've heard it all before, but doesn't it seem a little untimely for such pessimistic prognostications when Apple is in better shape than it's been in years and is on the cusp of introducing its first genuinely powerful machines in years? The (long and) interesting article just leaves a funny taste in my mouth.



Like the author has an interest in Apple's price going down. Maybe he works at Merrill Lynch (who recently reissued their sell rating for Apple on its way to a 20% value increase :-).



The article is heavy on opinion and light on substance. Parts of the article (where he describes kicking Jobs off the board) that it reminds me of the days when the board did kick Jobs out of Apple, and Apple sunk like a rock. The author seems to have confused his opposites when recalling cause-and-effect board constituent effects.



Is it just me, or does this article just emanate negative karma, backwards analysis, and red flags?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 26
    kraig911kraig911 Posts: 912member
    Typical business karma, there is no consciousness only the bottom line... you have to remember these guys don't know what they are talking about, just numbers thats all that matters. No PC manufacturer stock price is doing good right now.
  • Reply 1 of 26
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    You really should read the comments about the writer on macnn.com



    To call this writer an person who does not know his subject matter would be generous in the eyes of many.
  • Reply 3 of 26
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    fud?

    nkbarf? \
  • Reply 4 of 26
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    Haven't we already learned that any article that uses Rob Enderle as its main source is not a worthwhile article?
  • Reply 5 of 26
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    I had to email that idiot. I don't know why,?? 8)
  • Reply 6 of 26
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    So long as Apple's "mac" market share keepe shrinking, he's right. Just a touch premature.
  • Reply 7 of 26
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    So long as Apple's "mac" market share keepe shrinking, he's right.



    So long as the number of Mac users is increasing, he's wrong.
  • Reply 8 of 26
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    But it isn't increasing. If market share continues to fall, regardless of the size of the installed base, a point is reached where too much owness falls on Apple. They become a second class citizen in terms of 3rd party app, peripheral, and service support. If it really drops, they become an afterthought no matter how many machines per year they sell. Apple would move to protect Apple, not neccessarily the "mac"



    However, this is all premature. If it comes to that, we're looking at 2010, not 2004/5/6.
  • Reply 9 of 26
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    Dumb article, idiot writer, moving to GD...
  • Reply 10 of 26
    Quote:

    Originally posted by KidRed

    Dumb article, idiot writer



    Wow, now that summed it up perfectly. Good job!
  • Reply 11 of 26
    macmediamacmedia Posts: 152member
    Notice that the article says "updated 5-12" but he neglects to point out that the Vivendi rumor was just that, a rumor and since then Apple's stock has gone up 42% since the rumor took it down to sub $13.



    A big pile of doggy doo, Apple is here to stay for a long time.
  • Reply 12 of 26
    robsterrobster Posts: 256member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    So long as Apple's "mac" market share keepe shrinking, he's right. Just a touch premature.



    Market Share, in the terms it's bandied about in the press, is meaningless....

    5% of the market, 10% of the market....half the equation is missing...



    The truth is that '3% of todays market' is more than double the size of '5% of the market' five years ago...
  • Reply 13 of 26
    gizzmonicgizzmonic Posts: 511member
    Why is it that all these tech and stock market writers want Apple to compete head-on with Microsoft?



    1)They hate Microsoft, but are too scared to actually switch over to the Mac.



    2)They hate Apple and want them to die for making them look so wrong in so many columns over the years.
  • Reply 14 of 26
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    3) Like too many people, they drone on like a broken record to self-justify a paycheck or worse, their existance.
  • Reply 15 of 26
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Far from meaningless. Because the "mac" is a platform, marketshare matters. This isn't just the marketshare of one of many suppliers feeding the platform, its devs, its support, this is the whole thing. That means that the platform as a whole becomes more fringe. It's fine to have even a tenth of the mac's market if you don't also have to do all the work of supporting the OS, the apps, etc etc... YOu can make a living as one of many competitors selling "compatible" systems. That situation does not describe the mac. This isn't like the difference between BMW and Ford, it's more like the divide between Gasoline and natural gas based vehicles.



    But, this is all premature. Rest assured, however, that there is a critical point below which no amount of installed base will allow a consumer platform to survive. Imagine selling 10 million macs into a market with a billion annual sales, and tell me that would change the complexion of the platform.
  • Reply 16 of 26
    gizzmonicgizzmonic Posts: 511member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    Far from meaningless. Because the "mac" is a platform, marketshare matters. This isn't just the marketshare of one of many suppliers feeding the platform, its devs, its support, this is the whole thing. That means that the platform as a whole becomes more fringe. It's fine to have even a tenth of the mac's market if you don't also have to do all the work of supporting the OS, the apps, etc etc... YOu can make a living as one of many competitors selling "compatible" systems. That situation does not describe the mac. This isn't like the difference between BMW and Ford, it's more like the divide between Gasoline and natural gas based vehicles.



    But, this is all premature. Rest assured, however, that there is a critical point below which no amount of installed base will allow a consumer platform to survive. Imagine selling 10 million macs into a market with a billion annual sales, and tell me that would change the complexion of the platform.




    I don't know....Apple is much more profitable than its high market share brethren in the PC business. Stock analysts and tech writers, who don't understand Apple and why it's lasted so long, will hammer the market share point home.



    The Mac is not an "island" as a natural gas vehicle would be in a town with only gasoline. The Internet is still the 'killer app' of this computer era, and the Mac works just fine there.



    The main thing for me is that I want to keep seeing Adobe, Macromedia, and Microsoft products on the Mac. If market share matters enough to those companies, then it matters to me.



    Obviously I would like to see Apple get up to 10%, they need to work on their retail strategy (give up a little bit of control, for gosh sakes!), cut the prices of their line even if it eats into short-term margins, and address the compatibility issue. I heard a guy in Micro Center the other day; he was asking if Macs could surf the same Internet as everyone else...this ignorance is tough to fight.
  • Reply 17 of 26
    bodhibodhi Posts: 1,424member
    Marketshare. Apple splitting into two companies. Maybe new management and board? Apple operating more like Palm? Doesn't sound like Future Apple Hardware discussion to me....sending to GD.
  • Reply 18 of 26
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    The article is of of course complete and utter drivel. No doubt there is some purpose to it from the analyst's POV but its so wide of the mark that he should be deeply embarrased.



    I suspect many Apple shareholders are pretty well educated about the 'ethos' of the company. Analysts hate companies that aren't short term 'shareholder-value' centric. It means they aren't run by people who think like the analysts and it makes them harder to predict by simply looking at the numbers. It means they actually have to do a little work to understand the company and this guy clearly has done squat. Its a classic example if the present ills of corporate America.



    matsu, yes market share is important but its a bit more complex than you suggest. We all know that the marketshare figures bandied about are extremely imprecise and often skewed or incomplete. It also a legitimate argument that marketshare proportions for all 'computers' is a meaningless statistic. This is where your fuel analogy breaks down.



    The market would be better expressed as gasoline for luxury cars, gasoline for sports ut's, gasoline for people carriers, gasoline for town cars, gasoline for supercars, etc.



    Apple share of video editing could be expressed as, ooh...60% and rising? Music production, 60% and rising? Design graphics, 50% and stable? Pre-press, 40% and stable? (don't quibble with the figures, the only evidence we have is anectdotal).

    Apple has actually done remarkably well to maintain this sort of presence while its top line machines were simply not competitive in terms of raw speed. Now that that particular problem is going to go away in spectacular fashion its viability in these markets can only increase.



    Apple's strategy is clear, if never actually articulated in the open. 'Monopolise' those markets where it has a natural constituency and use that 'base of viability' to attack other related professional markets in a strategic and intelligent manner.
  • Reply 19 of 26
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Hey, no disagreement from me on that. But see, this already describes the different complexion I was talking about.



    There is the interesting niche described by Apple's consumer machines. They're kinda sorta dragged along by the much greater "Pro" presence that the mac has, which by software sales comes in between 25-60% depending, much much higher than the <3% overall.



    If apple can continue to jealously defend that, the "platform" can continue to make sense, and consumers can tag along on the tails of "Pro" market success. A beautiful niche for those cognoscenti who know enough to let pros subsidize their mac experience.



    In this way the consumer market may keep on keeping on for quite some time.



    But, I'm convinced that if overall market gets too small, the burden of supporting the platform will erode a future (non Jobsian) Apple's reslove to be all things to all (most) markets. A few conditions hae to be met fit : "If" marketshare gets to small. If the corporate climate changes enough, that is, no Jobs, no Schiller, no Ive, different focus. And, if despite that they are still strong in providing "turnkey" solutions for film/video/3-d/music and all manner f digital arts and scientific pros. Then APPL would change quite considerably.



    Like natural gas! It's far from discredited as an alt fuel. But to really make it work you need to have a fleet, and a private or semi private filling station. Makes sense for taxi companies, buses, delivery fleets, doesn't make sense for the average suburbanite. It may seem slightly counter intuitive, but it's the average consumer who loses first in any possible re-arrangement of Apple, unless the low end were handed off to a select cloner (NOT happening, and besides the point, so ignore this tangent)



    Anywhere between 5-10% APPL is golden, under 2%, thing get a little risky, under 1%, start worrying.
  • Reply 20 of 26
    taztaz Posts: 74member
    Seeing Apple gain market share would be great, but not necesariyl the be all end all of good business. Profit is what its about. If you can make a profit at 3% market you can still stay in business. The third party stuff is what worries me and here a shrinking market share would definitely make an impact, especiall for those modern fangled businesses with HUUUUUGE overheads and HIGH lesa costs. For these it would not makie sense to develop apps for Apples if they could not efficiently ammortize development costs. Nobody is going to pay $199 for Quicken. This is why I am somewhat excited about Apple doing some more development work, like they are doing with the iSuites. Keynote, Safari, Mail... If they can develop the software and the hardware then who cares if Microcrap makes Office, so long as Apple has its equivalent. Who cares if I cant get IE17, so long as I have Safari. I also think that Apple's profits would get better if they did in fact have more apps. Especially since most of their apps are far superior to anything Microcrap can out out.
Sign In or Register to comment.