A $29.00 bumper isn't required to make an iPhone work.
Hehe, you do remember when they had to give away free iPhone bumpers to make their iPhone "work", don't you?
A $29.00 bumper isn't required to make an iPhone work.
Steve did say in Walter Isaacson's book that Jony understood Apple at its core better than anyone else. Are people here suggesting Steve was wrong?Ive is saying what Steve has been saying for nearly 30 years.
Great product first, everything else second.
: Minus being green all above serve as proof that Apple is not about making money a la Microsoft ( which tries HARD to PLEASE even the dead ).
: Yeah, if you are mad just NEVER buy an apple again. See?
: I doubt he/she can see!
Why not? Because those profits finance important aspects of Apple's business like capital investment--using CASH without incurring debt; like R&D which is VERY expensive, so that they can keep coming out with great products and improving existing profits.
Reasonable prices? They're ALREADY reasonable to anyone who appreciates the quality of Apple products.
And NO, those purchasing Apple products aren't INVESTING in Apple as such. A purchase implies an equitable exchange of money for product with NO future obligation other than limited warranty coverage.
Ignoring the Mac Pro, killing off the 17" MacBook Pro, Apple is not focused on Pro customers anymore, their focus is on profits -- and what is profitable for Apple is selling iDevices, iPhones, iPads, MacBooks, and the iTunes store. Solely that -- makes up over 90% of their profit. The desktop machines make up a fractional portion of maybe 1% of the total profit Apple makes now. It was not that way 15 or 20 years ago. Apple is a different company now. They used to be focused on making great computers, now they are mainly focused on purely making money, and tons of it. Sorry Jonathan, you got it wrong...YOU may be focused on great design work...but the driving forces that manage the sales, marketing, and distribution have turned Apple into a money-making machine-horse. Money has become the main focus of Apple over anything else, no matter what Tim Cook or Jonathan Ive or the Engineers say, it's easy to see through it all.
What I mean to say is, they are still making great products...but the focus is more on money, not being a niche, specialized company that caters to a professional and creative elite, that Apple once was. When you see Apple now selling stuff to mainland China -- they are doing this purely to make money. Apple once was a direct source of hardware support and all of their machines were made in the USA, in Freemont California. Now they are made in Shenzhen China!! -- yes, because Apple is greedy and focused on cheap labor to maximize their profits tenfold.
I still love the Mac, I still love Apple products, I still love the Mac OS -- but I am not as warm and fuzzy about the company as I was when I was growing up as a teenager.
Hehe, you do remember when they had to give away free iPhone bumpers to make their iPhone "work", don't you?
cheap labor is not the motivating factor why production was moved to China.
what an incorrect statement. Every competitive company's goal is to maximize profits. Their goal is to make money.
Jonny is trying to make it look like Apple is different than any other company, when in it's definition it's the same as Samsung, RIM, Google etc, ... their goal is to make money.
Apple makes great products to get money, but money is still the main driving force.
Also, if a two-toned iPhone is their 'best work yet'.. then i'm unpleasantly surprised.
I'm suggesting that Steve liked to bend the truth. Ive is a great designer, but he doesn't run Apple. He is a designer, so obviously his view of the company will be from a design standpoint. Just because he believes that that is Apples priority doesn't make it so.Steve did say in Walter Isaacson's book that Jony understood Apple at its core better than anyone else. Are people here suggesting Steve was wrong?
Profits secondary in a publicly traded company? Seems to not pass the stink test. Never-minding the legal responsibility to shareholders.
Take a view of the leaked iPhone, um, 6 along the bottom side (or top side). The lines coming together and the different materials kinda looks like some Frank Lloyd Wright art glass. Genius!
The headline made my laugh straight away
I don't think any number of marketing initiatives and quotes of Jonathan's "wisdom" will change public opinion about Apple's profit-focused strategy.
The USA cannot supply enough engineers, raw material, and factories to supply enough finished product to the world.
That i Microsoft OS can be installed in older hardware running good! No fake obsolesce! And that is be green not forcing people to buy new hardware!
supports open-source initiatives
Hehe, you do remember when they had to give away free iPhone bumpers to make their iPhone "work", don't you?
The USA supplied enough to keep Apple a vibrant company for many years...a great company. Who says they have to "deliver" to the world, why don't they just focus on the USA and stop being greedy? Move production back to the US and bring the jobs back here!! We don't need megafactories producing these aluminum machines in China...I liked the old Macs better anyways.
Ummm.... Given that Google and Apple are now key partners in many open-source and open-standard initiatives started by each other, both investing many engineers to work on these project full time. It would seem a little unfair to just write-off Apple contribution as nothing but profit making, Yet hold Google up as some great Bastian of freedom.
Both are in it for the pure simple reason that for those things the shared investment is more valuable then exclusive one. Google may see more value and has more investment going in but that doesn't make them more noble.
To me a lot of the perceived 'Noblity' of Google is just marketing. Google's initiatives play well in their target demo. Apple involvement with things like LLVM aren't.
----------
Yet you still see 1000's of people walking a round talking on their iPhones, at least half with on case at all.
If your goal isn't making money, then why not lower your profit margins and sell your stuff at a reasonable price?
Steve did say in Walter Isaacson's book that Jony understood Apple at its core better than anyone else. Are people here suggesting Steve was wrong?
cheap labor is not the motivating factor why production was moved to China.
Reasonable prices? They're ALREADY reasonable to anyone who appreciates the quality of Apple products.
Subtext: I'm angry! I hate the world! I hate you! I need a hug!!!
If your goal isn't making money, then why not lower your profit margins and sell your stuff at a reasonable price?
Yes, incorrect statement ....by you. He is not saying making money is unimportant.
He simply mentions that Apple's way of doing business is different. You can believe that or not. They just know that the money will come.
There is actually a proof that Jobs vision almost bankrupted them and they were saved by Microsofts money.
I see plenty of hair raising designs and products "designed" by US companies.
Take Black & Decker, Sunbeam, Broan, Faberware and the list goes on uurrrrgh
The phone is not out yet and as much as people hated the iphone 4, they will hate the next one too until they see it, hold it etc.
Ive likes the Rams design philosophy and simplicity is a beautiful thing.
Between the saturation in electronics and no real new idea around, I just hope Apple can keep things up for a while.
Apple has ALWAYS (well, at least since the late 90s) been driven by DESIGN, not by PROFIT - it's clear that Ive was referring to the fact that it's not about designing the cheapest crap at the lowest cost to sell it at high margin...it's about designing the BEST possible device and THEN reap the rewards.
If you can't understand this basic principle, you can't understand why Apple is successful nowadays.
You're absolutely crazy if you think Apple is anything close to the company that is Samsung, RIM, etc. Their views on everything are completely opposite. Apple has ALWAYS been about the superior product and user experience. You cannot argue this because they've never worried about market share in PCs or other products.
And RIM, that's a good one. Look where they are at now.
Of course Apple's goal is to make money...BUT instead of taking a money first, design second approach, they took the exact opposite...and you cannot argue this because it's working.
Look at MS...their goal is to make money. But it's their first goal. And here is the statement from Ballmer that explains why they are no longer the superior company...
There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance. It's a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get.
Apple created a superior device and the profits followed. Same with the iPad. Same with the iPod. Same with whatever else they come out with 90% of the time.
Meanwhile most of these other companies you mentioned are completely fine with putting out tons of versions of phones a year so they can maximize profits instead of developing and banking on ONE superior product. How many phones does Samsung make, have out on the market?
Game changing products don't come along every year. It's just not possible.
What Apple has done in the last 10 years is mind blowing from a business perspective and disruptive force.
iPod - Destroyed CD/portable market. Changed Music industry forever. New business model.
iPhone - Destroyed most phone makers. Only few remain. Smart phone era is born. Portable 'computer' in your hand.
iPad - Destroying PC/Laptop market. Individuals realizing that tablet is all they need vs bulky desktop/laptops.
That is all within a 10 year period. Staggering.
And this is why you're not in charge at Apple. Of course they care about their revenue--they can't go on as a company without it. But they are not thinking about revenue when they design products. They're just thinking about making the best product they can. Jony isn't paid to worry about exactly how many millions or billions the next iPad is going to bring in for Apple. He's paid to come up with the best design idea that he can.
LOL! What total BS. Profit margin is ridiculously high. What he really means is "great design is one of the many tools we employ in order to make sure we make a buttload of $."
As are many of the designers at Sony, Samsung, etc. Are you saying THEY are any different than Ives? Or is the difference in the other departments?
I am happy to pay for quality, and I do, but to try and say that Apple has not traditionally milked the crap out of its consumers is blind fanboi-ism. Although it's exactly that that allowed Apple to charge $80 for a keyboard because it was see-through plastic!
lol didn't hear that much missinformation in one post for a while. There are tons of competitive companies who do not care about profits at all because they are (owned/run by) foundations or very engaged in phelantropy. Heinz Ketchup, for example. There are companies which actually have that as their marketing concept e.g. Tom's Shoes. Sometimes, it is about market share, sometimes it's just the vision of the owner. Maximizing profits might be true for some but it's BS to drive it to an absolute. If that would be true, they would not build one car in Germany. It's way cheaper to build it elsewhere. Also, many communities own "companies" for a certain limited use - like a water supplier or a water treatment plan. Their goal is to keep it cost efficient and that's it. States own banks just to be able to stabilize markets or to govern transactions etc. The list can go on and on. My pointis: A company's primier goal is not only "not always profit maximization" but actually quite commonally somthing else.
PS: About the "best work yet" - did you all forget about the rumored TV/entertainment center?
Not necessarily. If you look at Jobs's private life, he was a modest CEO. No extravagant vacations, no huge mansion, ... He was dedicated to his job and his products.
Then of course as a corporate, to survive in this world, they have to master the finance. Operations, margins, etc. ... They built the Apple model on high margin versus high volume. Pretty successful. Cherry on the sunday, they got high volumes with the iproducts generation.
Not sure how any of you can doubt this is indeed how Apple works.
Of course they try to get the best prices on manufacturing and use economies of scale to further drive down prices; of course they try to out compete on price when they can --- the iPad is actually cheaper than comparable quality Android tablets; of course they go for as healthy a profit margin as they can command, etc. And they like to outsource manufacturer to China, where the very state subsidizes costs in order to keep all costs low for U.S. companies. Yes, Apple likes making money, and I can only imagine Apple has a few very smart MBAs in the supply chain.
...but what makes Apple different than other companies is the focus on creating a really great product that first and foremost, people want to buy! It must be eye catching and stand out from the crowd; it must be useful; it must be simple; it must be fun; it must exude quality; and when you put all of this together, it must be a product that is a status symbol that both rich and people of lesser means are willing -- eager!! -- to purchase. No one has ever done all of this by solely focusing on lowering labor costs and cost cutting, the MBA way.
Apple is very smart about their supply chain but they are just as smart not to skimp on creating highly usable, attractive and useful products. In this sense, Apple is the anti-MBA company in that they do not follow the MBA rulebook of spending as little as possible on creating great products (almost no one invests in usability anymore) or even trying to do genuine innovation (easier to wait and copy someone else). Under the MBAs, most companies push first for lower costs (labor, materials, services) and creating products people wants to buy a distant second.
And though manufacturing is all in China, don't be surprised if Apple will end up with as many U.S. employees as IBM or HP in a few years as these latter companies are working so hard to to shed as many American/Western employees as they can, being led by MBAs who only understand cost cutting and the 'bottom line' but have no idea how to make quality products someone wants to buy.
Bottom line is to make money, because a company can’t exist otherwise, but HOW you make that is what makes the difference.
But they're doing more than not operating at a loss. They're making record profits. Surely then their goal is making money. If They didn't care about the money they could easily drop their prices, and still continue to make make money.
I'm not knocking Apple for making money, I'm pointing out that what Ive said is BS. I appreciate the quality of Apple products, but I'd appreciate it equally if they knocked $100 off the price tag. The quality argument is played out, many tech companies make great quality stuff, but they still charge less for it.
But if you don't want to be poor, then one of your goals is to make money.
Presumably you think Apple want to churn out unicorn droppings and make rainbows of peace and love?...No..Apple absolutely is motivated by $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ !!! Do you get it?
"...instead of profits"?
That's either the most disingenuous comment in the history of American business or a bald faced lie.
Take your choice.
Does he think people are idiots?
Don't even bother answering that one.
Wow, how ill-informed you are!
I mean really? Really? You compare Apple to Google, and state that Google is the company that is driven by profit, not Apple?
Google is a million times more philanthropic (although that's mathematically incorrect, because if you multiply Apple's zero by a million you still get a zero...), supports open-source initiatives, start-ups, educational projects etc. etc.
And Apple? They're the ones who try to increase their profit margins everywhere.
I mean, dude, this: "let's get Android in front of as many people as we can so we can make more money on ads and drive them to more Google services" is just hilarious. Cause Apple doesn't want to have monopoly at all... no no no! (sarcasm)
It's just so funny how the opposite of what you said is true.
Some of these types of comments are pure comedy. Just last year Apple deliberately locked up the supply of screens for tablets forcing its competitors to wait for additional supply. Oh yes, changing the world one $ at a time.
I don't think you're quite right.
Every company has to bring in money to continue to exist.
That doesn't mean it has to be their primary focus in product development. He is saying Apple focuses on making great products rather than focusing on making products that will make money. It works out just fine from a business perspective because if you hand competent marketing, sales, production, and fulfillment groups a great product, they'll have no trouble making the money. All he's saying is the approach is different.
Also, he didn't mention those other companies--you did. You're trying to draw the conclusion that he is trying to make Apple seem different than those other companies, but that's coming out of your own head.
BTW, I'm almost 100% sure Apple has a different approach than RIM. You say making profits is the goal of every company and then say Apple is the same as RIM... I think you might be having some disorganized thoughts on this subject.
You say, "Apple makes great products to get money, but money is still the main driving force," but I don't think that squares with reality.
In his last years SJ had all the money he could possibly use or want. He also knew he was facing the end. Yet he still kept working at Apple to make great products.
* He could not benefit from more profits in any way.
* He knew it.
So: He had no possible profit motive but kept working to make great products anyway. Clearly profit was not the main driving force for him.
Steve did say in Walter Isaacson's book that Jony understood Apple at its core better than anyone else. Are people here suggesting Steve was wrong?