Alright, I’m going to go through your posts in here and try to figure out if there’s even a proper way to go against them.
A) Tie in will hinder services in the enterprise: Possibly true, but missing the point. Apple wants to be a full stack company, and some businesses (such as IBM) are okay with that. I don’t see this as a huge downside, even if it means their reach won’t be as far as Microsoft’s.
B) iMessage as a sticky platform. If Apple were to move iMessage to Android, for example, they’d do massive damage to their iPhone sales. And it isn’t like iMessage earns them any money. Like it or not, companies have to earn money to continue to function.
C) Apple can’t be a services first company without porting every service ever to every other platform: Not true. Apple just has to port the ones that make sense to them. And if they’re going to be a services first company, they can’t exactly port over things that won’t make money anyway. That’s a quick and easy way to get himself kicked out as CEO.
D) Is Apple Watch even successful: Why is it that everyone loves having this debate and throwing out their own metrics for success? Yes, it has been successful. That’s why they sell more wearables and make more money than anyone else in the market segment. And before you say “those are just sales”? That’s how you figure out if a product is a success.
E) SoC growth is meaningless, obvious, shouldn’t be given as TV success: Then why is it that the growth of the A series chips is outpacing the Snapdragon? And if we are saying it’s just the engineers and he gets no credit, then neither does any CEO because none of them actually design chips. So all those things we attribute to Steve Jobs? Let’s not attribute anything to him according to your logic.
Thank you, this is actually something we can converse about:
A) Agreed. the point I was trying to make. My comment on this was in counter to another poster who claimed that Apple was a service company now because they claimed it and then he brought up because of stock value. in another post also brought in the stock value proposition and then tried comparing it to MSFT' for example claiming MSFT was overvalued and Apple was undervalued. My point was to showcase WHY that was.
B) yes, iMessage was just an example and not the greatest. I'll admit that
C) Not every service, just the ones people use that would generate revenue. the interesting thing will be which services do get the treatment and which don't. As I said earlier, their attempts with Apple music is a great first step. They have some work to do in this regards (Like removing the reliance on iTunes)
D) sorry, Apple watch is a succesful apple accessory. no doubt. my point was more that it wasn't one of timmies great success stories as it doesn't fundamentally move the needle very much on the overal statements. regardless if the watch was released or not, we're talking about only a couple percentage points of Apples overall revenues. This in no way is meant to destract from the actual devices use and those who do enjoy it. because it's not 10, 50 or 100% revenue for Apple doesn't mean it's a bad prodduct.
E) you're misinterpreting what I said, that maybe on me. the growth of the Ax series of CPU's is not a TIMMY success. it's an Apple ssuccess. But as mentioned, once the project and division was setup to create and advance the CPU, tim cook never has to do anything. it's a given that the next model is faster than the previous. This is fundamentally different than say, the design of the iPhone which Timmy does have measure of control over. in fact, if the next iteration of the Ax CPU isn't faster than the current, there are even bigger problems than whose at the helm.
What im' tryin to essentially say, and maybe badly is Tim cook hasn't done much to Apple's actual products and technological direction to fundamentally have laid any significant mark on Apple's futures. he's been a good business stalwart and has been able to others in some cases do what they need to, but at the same time, he's also not pushed Apple forwards outside of the directions it was already on. STeve Jobs set Apple up for the meteoric rise. Tim Cook has just kept the pace. The concern that led to this conversation was all about point A. what happens should something happen to iPhone sales and they tank? under the current direction, that would have dire consequences for Apple. Tim Cook hasn't really done enough to protect against that. he's starting to NOW, well later than his competition. This is potentially dangerous.
again, i'm also no crystal ball. this is just my analysis and is open to my own errors in judgement, which is why I LIKE having these conversations. I do learn where I err, and also where i'm not clear enough.
