awilliams87

thataveragejoe said:

I don't think it's the smartest move as it will send all these people back to Pandora..

Yeah but so what?

SpamSandwich said:

I don't use or pay for any streaming services, but they may have the right idea here. It's a value add for paying customers and Apple should not be subsidizing any money losing parts of their company.

Exactly. I never understood why Apple took that route to begin with.

rogifan_old said:

josephwinters said:

Asinine? Why? If anything it's forward thinking and progression. It's not like they ever compromise quality to be thin.  this makes sense to me.

They will conveniently provide an accessory solution that allows our phones plugin support to the existing audio headset format. It's not a huge deal in my opinion. Being Apple fans , investors, hobbyists, and supporters, we should be used to this paradigm by now. 

This absolutely is a risky move. That jack is used by millions of people every single day. Apple may have very good reasons for eliminating the headphone jack but those reasons better be immediately apparent and ones that people can easily understand and accept. Like making the phone as water resistant as possible, allowing for a bigger battery etc. If people think it's just so Apple could make the phone slightly thinner or sell them a pricey adapter it will be a huge turnoff and could impact iPhone sales.

I actually don't think it's that risky, especially if the iPhone 7 ships with wireless earpods. 

I have yet to understand why people care so much about Apple's stock price. It sees no profit or losses resulting from these fluctuations. And if you're an individual investor, you shouldn't get caught up investing in a single company anyway. As for issuing dividends: they're completely useless in my opinion. I 100% backed Steve Jobs decision to never issue them.  I'd much rather see Apple use that money to create another Rockstar Consortium shell company, or something. Every time I play a business simulation (like Capitalism 2), issuing a dividend was equivalent to burning money in my backyard.

ac1234 said:

awilliams87 said:

That isn't true. The CEO isn't necessarily in charge of the supply chain. Supply chain management involves mathematical and statistical modeling, which Cook, being an engineer, was qualified for. Steve Jobs wasn't.

You obviously have no corporate or management experience - the CEO IS RESPONSIBLE for everything within the corporation.

You don't know me dude. Nonetheless, I wasn't originally talking about responsibility. I was talking about what type of CEO I'd rather have in charge. I would much rather have someone who's an expert at supply chain management than someone who's good at investor/media relation. This is an "either or" proposition. It's impossible to be good at everything the CEO is "responsible" for.