sacto joe

David H Dennis said:

I've read all these comments, and it really surprises me that everyone puts the blame for Apple's problems on Tim Cook.  Tim was never intended to be a product manager.  He was intended to be the one who made the company run smoothly.  Tim's responsible if the announced products don't show up on time, or if they are not easily available upon introduction, etc.  As far as I can tell, those essential functions are being executed better than ever.  I remember how difficult it was to get some iPhone models when they were introduced; now it's pretty easy because he's worked out supply chain kinks to perfection.  So all praise to Cook.

Steve's heir for product development is Jony Ive.   I don't think anyone disputes his product design chops, particularly in regard to the new iPhones and Apple Watches.  Apple Watch has been quite a success, although it's built more slowly than Apple's other products.  As I'm out and about in the USA, I'm seeing more and more of them around(*).

Let's consider Apple's breakthrough products.  iPhone was based on iPod.  iPad was based on iPhone.  Apple Watch was based on iPhone.  So we can see Apple's most revolutionary products actually evolved from previous successes.  It's logical to think that if Apple has a new breakthrough product, then, it will evolve from iPhone.  It's even possible that Apple's next breakthrough product could be an evolution of Apple Watch, made to be standalone instead of dependent on iPhone.  

Moving forward, we will always need something with iPhone's functionality, even if it is no longer an iPhone.  Apple seems like the logical company to produce that device, no matter what it may be. To be honest I think a watch-like device is more likely to be iPhone's successor than glasses or a VR headset.  

So the real question is whether Apple has lost its way in terms of breakthrough products.  Well, Apple Watch is a breakthrough product in that it has thoroughly disrupted the watch industry and left its Android-based competition reeling.  But it is not (yet) replacing iPhone in the hearts and pockets of customers.  It does show that Apple's product development team can in fact continue to develop fresh products people love.

What are the next future innovations?  Foldable phones seem interesting but nobody seems to have produced anything like a great one yet.  Apple certainly could.  5G phones are not going to have significant 5G networks for at least a year or two going forward, so I would say there's little point to a 5G Apple phone today.  I am confident that being slightly behind won't be much of a disadvantage since the full standards for 5G are not even set yet.  Better to have a 5G phone when the standards are set and the technology is ripe.

We are all looking forward to the next big thing.  Let's hope Apple produces it.  Even if it doesn't, it would be surprising if they had no entry into the market.  Sometimes being late to market even works better.  Consider the original iPhone.  It was far from first, but it was the best.  Maybe that's what will happen with the new, new thing.

Whatever it actually is.

(*) I am an expat spending most of my time in Costa Rica, which is a lower middle income country with a microscopic Apple market share.  There are iCon stores here, which look like 2/3 scale models of Apple Stores, and they cater mainly to the tourist and expat markets.  Prices are given in US dollars, not local currency, and are about 25% more than US prices.  As a result, almost everyone buys their Apple products in the US and brings them here.  The price difference in most cases easily pays for the round trip flight to the USA!

dysamoria said:

SpamSandwich said:

chasm said:

SpamSandwich said:

Being pro-environment, pro-immigration (not “illegal immigration”), capitalist, and a strong believer in privacy doesn’t automatically make one a politically Left progressive, but somehow I think Tim doesn’t understand that. The difference is a conservative believes individuals and businesses can do those things better which are not constitutionally assigned to government (national defense, etc.).

Yes, that is what conservatives used to believe, a very long time ago.

I would refer you to the voting record of "conservatives" in Congress since 1980 or so to see if that matches up to the doctrine you espouse, and also if -- when "businesses and individuals" do in fact get a chance to do some of the above-mentioned issues (environmental self-regulation, privacy self-regulation, immigration, capitalistic self-regulation) -- your theorem about their ability to do it better holds any water.

It’s not accurate to identify Republicans or the GOP as strictly conservative, just like it’s not accurate to label Democrats or the DNC as strictly liberal. For example, EACH of those parties when they control both House and Senate have proven they will spend recklessly and without concern for the national debt.

Vote third party. The only way to stop the domination of this nation by a duopoly is to stop voting for it.

entropys said:

...the other thing I am really uncomfortable with is this call for government regulation of Facebook and google.  These companies do what they do, people go along with it.  Let’s not pretend that Apple is calling for regulation that don’t just happen to also result in financial gain for Apple. Always be suspicious of companies calling for regulation of their competitors. That is the path to fascism.  

entropys said:

Well they shouldn’t be, Sacto Joe. The methods used by government to manage them are very political though. That’s why everyone is so often at vicious disagreement about it.
 I was taught when young that when you have a problem you look at as wide a range of possible solutions and pick the least cost one. But that’s engineering.
In politics, you choose the solution that accretes more power to you and your friends. This is rarely the least cost solution to other people.
On pollution, schemes always seem to be poorly targeted, and costs are imposed and lifestyles reduced for a broader section of the community that the point source of the pollution. But almost invariably the design of the scheme also happens to benefit certain business groups who then get rich on government subsidy and other approaches to shield them from the market which might prefer other outcomes.  
On equal rights, it isn’t equal if policies give automatic preference to particular entities. Such policies are by design, intended to give one identity group preference over another, the very crime they pretend to address.

All I am saying is you cannot trust a politician claiming to solve a problem for you. Always ask what is in it for them and their friends. Especially when they are claiming a noble cause. Inevitably, the politician will be rigging things to either on the one hand give their mates privileged preference, on the other hand make it easier for their mates’ businesses, or on the gripping hand, best of all is to make things harder for their mates’ competitors. 

Back on topic, of course this motion should be unsuccessful. It is no ones’ business what political preferences a director or executive has. It is about how good they are at their job.  Remember that works both ways of course. 

First, let me say I appreciate the reasonableness of your manner. It’s getting rarer all the time.

As regards the substance of your comment, let’s take a closer look:

“Well they shouldn’t be, Sacto Joe.”

We are in agreement that issues like pollution and equal rights shouldn’t be political. Tim Cook put it exactly right; they should be policy, not politics. Apple and Tim Cook do their level best to stay on the side of policy and avoid politics. The problem is, as you point out, that’s not always possible in the real world. 

“The methods used by government to manage them are very political though.”

Why? Because either “side” is free to politicise any issue.

Take humans and global warming: It’s absolutely possible and acceptable for folks to disagree on the extent to which humans contribute to it, although it’s becoming less possible to maintain it’s not occurring, and/or that humans are not contributing to some degree.

But what isn’t subject to simple opinion is the real possibility (increasingly a probability) that it may indeed be a fact. Unfortunately, when we turned to science to help us get an objective opinion, science itself was politicized!

Why? It doesn’t take a lot of brainpower to see that there are short term winners if global warming can be obfuscated (Putin, for example). But it also doesn’t take a lot of brainpower to see that, if global warming is really being exacerbated by humans, then ignoring it would be a huge mistake that future generations would end up paying for.

So why take the chance? Why not take out an insurance policy, especially since we can both afford it and make good jobs at the same time? It’s illogical to take any other position, and thus it supersedes politics. Hence, Apple’s “policy” on pollution.

“I was taught when young that when you have a problem you look at as wide a range of possible solutions and pick the least cost one. But that’s engineering.”

Well, actually, that’s not necessarily “engineering”. Engineering is problem solving, period. It doesn’t concern itself with only cost effectiveness. I remember the old machine shop joke: “You can have it right and cheap but it won’t be on time, or you can have it on time and cheap, but it won’t be right, or you can have it right and on time but it won’t be cheap. What you can’t have is all three.”

“In politics, you choose the solution that accretes more power to you and your friends. This is rarely the least cost solution to other people.”

Again, that’s the reality, not the ideal, and it doesn’t apply to all politicians all the time. We call those politicians “statesmen”.

“On pollution, schemes always seem to be poorly targeted, and costs are imposed and lifestyles reduced for a broader section of the community that the point source of the pollution.”

Why would you expect anything else coming from people who have different vested interests, thus leaving the only way forward a compromise? A camel, it is said, is a horse designed by a committee.

“But almost invariably the design of the scheme also happens to benefit certain business groups who then get rich on government subsidy and other approaches to shield them from the market which might prefer other outcomes.”

Government waste, like that of any large corporation, is inevitable. But you don’t shut down the company over that inevitability; you work to improve the efficiency and reduce the waste. Frankly, I’m old enough to remember the GOP when maximizing efficiency and limiting waste were their primary goals. Sadly, that’s long gone and sorely missed.

“On equal rights, it isn’t equal if policies give automatic preference to particular entities. Such policies are by design, intended to give one identity group preference over another, the very crime they pretend to address.”

The problem here is that, once again, it doesn’t take reality into account. We are a nation that in its early years grew prosperous on inequality, and sadly that hasn’t even come close to disappearing to this day. Hence, “policies” were initiated that attempted to even the scale after those great imbalances. That doesn’t mean two wrongs make a right. Injustice is still with us, and will be for more years than I’m happy about. But you can’t make a journey if you don’t take steps.

“All I am saying is you cannot trust a politician claiming to solve a problem for you. Always ask what is in it for them and their friends. Especially when they are claiming a noble cause. Inevitably, the politician will be rigging things to either on the one hand give their mates privileged preference, on the other hand make it easier for their mates’ businesses, or on the gripping hand, best of all is to make things harder for their mates’ competitors.”

I part ways on the “inevitably”. There are still statesmen around that put the people ahead of party or power.

(I get the “gripping hand” reference.... Good one!)

“Back on topic, of course this motion shoud be unsuccesful. It is no ones’ business what political preferences a director or executive has. It is about how good they are at their job.  Remember that works both ways of course.”

I concur. The whole idea of an “ideological test” is an oxymoron. We are none of us pure ideologies, just like we are none of us simple beings.

HeliBum said:

So, let me get this straight: Apple avoids appearing political by labeling certain social and environmental issues as non-political? Got it.