Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 27, 2013, 10:46 AM   #351
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
 
IJ Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Palookaville
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmunjal View Post
I don't advocate buying Disney except in a desperation move. As the largest shareholder, Jobs would have gotten it done by now. Cook doesn't have his will.
Cook doesn't have Steve's piece of Disney, but that's entirely beside the point. It would be a terrible move, and if it was done for the purpose of supporting the stock price, you can forget about that. The markets would be horrified, and for good reason.
__________________
*The season starts too early and finishes too late and there are too many games in between.
Bill Veeck
IJ Reilly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2013, 11:32 AM   #352
Dmunjal
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by lildimsum7 View Post
That's an incredibly naive assumption. Why the hell would it take more R&D to figure out how to make a phone bigger or how to make a new Mac Pro? Your logic makes absolutely no sense! And what do you think all the OS updates have been about? Realizing ideas takes time! Do you have any idea what they're doing with R&D? Nope! What they've been spending on R&D provides more than enough resources to do their job. Projects take a lot of time, not a lot of money!
I'm not being naive. I work in a high tech corporate environment and it costs money to develop new products. That money goes into R&D to bring it to market.

The fact that it was a conscious business decision not to do it doesn't mean that they could have done it with more R&D spending. They chose to save it instead.
Dmunjal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2013, 11:45 AM   #353
Dmunjal
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by IJ Reilly View Post
Cook doesn't have Steve's piece of Disney, but that's entirely beside the point. It would be a terrible move, and if it was done for the purpose of supporting the stock price, you can forget about that. The markets would be horrified, and for good reason.
Partnering, not buying Disney, would have helped get iTV off the ground. Just like partnering with AT&T got the iPhone off the ground. This was never about the stock price.
Dmunjal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2013, 11:50 AM   #354
StoneJack
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by LagunaSol View Post
I wish Tim had stuck with the usual "We don't comment on upcoming products" line. His implication that nothing was coming until fall was damaging in the short-term. Even if there wasn't anything due until fall, he didn't have to come right out and imply that.

Perhaps we can hope it was a feint to throw competitors off. Or I'll be spending a long, hot summer waiting for my AAPL to rebound.
Its actually a great business answer.
He knows that there is pent demand for Apple products so if he announces that new versions comes soon, no one would buy current stocked products. So anyone who wants Apple products better buy now.
And this means that no new version of iPhone, Macs, iPads and whatever will actually come before fall or September. Which is great for current sales. Very shrewd.
__________________
LC 630, Blue and White G3 350, iPad 1, iPad 2, iPad 3, iPod nano (2), iPodTouch 4, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4S, iPhone 4, iPhone 5, AppleTV HD, iPad mini
StoneJack is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2013, 12:30 PM   #355
Dmunjal
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneJack View Post
Its actually a great business answer.
He knows that there is pent demand for Apple products so if he announces that new versions comes soon, no one would buy current stocked products. So anyone who wants Apple products better buy now.
And this means that no new version of iPhone, Macs, iPads and whatever will actually come before fall or September. Which is great for current sales. Very shrewd.
Maybe he should just wait until 2014 to release new products then!
Dmunjal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2013, 12:51 PM   #356
StoneJack
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmunjal View Post
Maybe he should just wait until 2014 to release new products then!
Yes, its possible. Of course, we know that before Christmas Apple will release new versions of their electronics and computers, but not before fall, so if you want to buy Apple products, you buy and don't have to wait until Fall. Its just 4 months left.

And thats what exactly has been communicated. If you are not happy with that, you can wait until Fall to buy new versions.

Another read: Apple may release new versions of software in summer and that's what I am thinking of. Makes perfect sense as simultaneous software and hardware will put too much strain. So software in summer, two months from now, hardware in 4 months.
__________________
LC 630, Blue and White G3 350, iPad 1, iPad 2, iPad 3, iPod nano (2), iPodTouch 4, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4S, iPhone 4, iPhone 5, AppleTV HD, iPad mini
StoneJack is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2013, 12:54 PM   #357
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
 
IJ Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Palookaville
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmunjal View Post
Partnering, not buying Disney, would have helped get iTV off the ground. Just like partnering with AT&T got the iPhone off the ground. This was never about the stock price.
Okay, now I am confused by what you are saying. Earlier you were talking about Apple buying Disney. Partnerships are an entirely different deal, though even those can create difficult entanglements. It's way too soon to say that the TV project (assuming it is real) hasn't made progress on the content front, but it is also worth pointing out that the TV business is far, far more complicated than the mobile phone business, and it's a total hairball. Content alone is not the issue.
__________________
*The season starts too early and finishes too late and there are too many games in between.
Bill Veeck
IJ Reilly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2013, 01:48 PM   #358
Dmunjal
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by IJ Reilly View Post
Okay, now I am confused by what you are saying. Earlier you were talking about Apple buying Disney. Partnerships are an entirely different deal, though even those can create difficult entanglements. It's way too soon to say that the TV project (assuming it is real) hasn't made progress on the content front, but it is also worth pointing out that the TV business is far, far more complicated than the mobile phone business, and it's a total hairball. Content alone is not the issue.
I should be more clear. I believe technology is not holding back iTV but lack of content under terms that are attractive to Apple and its customers.

That content has to come from studios who are hesitant to follow the same path as the music studios did.

Being the largest shareholder of Disney allowed Jobs to influence the company more than otherwise. Without that partnership, an outright acquisition might make sense to jump start the platform and show what could be done. Yes, it would upset the other studios but the other option is status quo and let other smaller players build a competitive platform.
Dmunjal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2013, 01:52 PM   #359
satcomer
macrumors 68040
 
satcomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Upstate NYS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmunjal View Post
I should be more clear. I believe technology is not holding back iTV but lack of content under terms that are attractive to Apple and its customers.

That content has to come from studios who are hesitant to follow the same path as the music studios did.

Being the largest shareholder of Disney allowed Jobs to influence the company more than otherwise. Without that partnership, an outright acquisition might make sense to jump start the platform and show what could be done. Yes, it would upset the other studios but the other option is status quo and let other smaller players build a competitive platform.

Ding, Ding, Ding. We have a winner in this post!
__________________
Mac Pro Dual 2.8 Quad(Rev B.), 16 G RAM, OS X 10.9, 23'' LCD
Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz, SuperDrive, 2G RAM, OS X 10.7.5
iPad 3, 32 black
satcomer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2013, 04:19 PM   #360
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
 
IJ Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Palookaville
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmunjal View Post
I should be more clear. I believe technology is not holding back iTV but lack of content under terms that are attractive to Apple and its customers.

That content has to come from studios who are hesitant to follow the same path as the music studios did.

Being the largest shareholder of Disney allowed Jobs to influence the company more than otherwise. Without that partnership, an outright acquisition might make sense to jump start the platform and show what could be done. Yes, it would upset the other studios but the other option is status quo and let other smaller players build a competitive platform.
An acquisition would far more than upset them, it would automatically make everyone else Apple's competitors and natural non-partners from word go. Apple would be distributing Disney product, and very likely nothing else. And that works how, exactly?

Of course it's more about content than technology, but the content issue is extremely complicated in TV, far more so than it was in music. And to repeat, if Apple had gone the route you suggest in music, the chances that the iTunes store later carries competitor's product is almost nothing. You will notice that they did not do what you suggest for music. Any alternative theories as to why?

Maybe you just don't understand why I'm saying that TV is far complicated than music. Not sure.
__________________
*The season starts too early and finishes too late and there are too many games in between.
Bill Veeck
IJ Reilly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2013, 04:29 PM   #361
Dmunjal
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by IJ Reilly View Post
An acquisition would far more than upset them, it would automatically make everyone else Apple's competitors and natural non-partners from word go. Apple would be distributing Disney product, and very likely nothing else. And that works how, exactly?

Of course it's more about content than technology, but the content issue is extremely complicated in TV, far more so than it was in music. And to repeat, if Apple had gone the route you suggest in music, the chances that the iTunes store later carries competitor's product is almost nothing. You will notice that they did not do what you suggest for music. Any alternative theories as to why?

Maybe you just don't understand why I'm saying that TV is far complicated than music. Not sure.
I get that it is a lot more complicated. But you can't stand still either. Do you agree that Jobs would have gotten a partnership done by now? Maybe Apple needs to enlist Laurene?
Dmunjal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2013, 07:45 PM   #362
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
 
IJ Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Palookaville
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmunjal View Post
I get that it is a lot more complicated. But you can't stand still either. Do you agree that Jobs would have gotten a partnership done by now? Maybe Apple needs to enlist Laurene?
I don't imagine Steve would have made this happen any sooner. In fact I suspect Tim Cook might have a better shot at getting it done. Steve's huge Disney holding was a conflict of interest. At least that's how Disney's competitors would have to view it.

They aren't standing still, of that you can be certain. Some huge hurdles must be jumped. Making sense of the live sports mess is massive heavy lifting all by itself. A lot of those media rights are owned by the cable companies and even if you could seduce them into licensing their rights, then you'd have to amend their contracts with the sports franchises. Probably over 100 of them in the "big four" sports in the U.S. alone. So I don't see how that gets done at all, and without sports, you can have all the rest of the programming in the world, and you still have nothing.
__________________
*The season starts too early and finishes too late and there are too many games in between.
Bill Veeck
IJ Reilly is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Reports Strongest Ever Quarterly Earnings: $13.1 Billion Profit on $57.6 Billion in Revenue in Q1 2014 MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 409 Feb 1, 2014 06:43 AM
Apple Reports Q4 2013 Year-End Results: $7.5 Billion Profit on $37.5 Billion in Revenue [Call Concluded] MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 193 Oct 30, 2013 11:57 AM
Apple Reports Q3 2013 Quarterly Results: $6.9 Billion Profit on $35.3 Billion in Revenue [Call Concluded] MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 269 Jul 25, 2013 12:30 PM
Apple Reports Best Quarterly Results Ever in Q1 2013: $13.1 Billion Profit on $54.5 Billion in Revenue [Call Ended] MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 381 May 22, 2013 02:56 PM
Apple Reports Results for Q3 2012: $8.8 Billion Profit on $35 Billion in Revenue MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 274 Jul 27, 2012 08:06 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:18 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC