Apple COO Jeff Williams 'Very Aware Of' Concerns Over Apple Product Cost

[KGBguy]

It seems that you failed Economy 101.

Recently Apple lowered guidance for future quarters
Reduce the production of iPhones
Lowered iPhone prices in Japan and China
Mac and iPads sales are down quarter over quarter.
Why do you think Apple is NOT reporting unit sales numbers anymore?

In addition, it is common sense that if Apple lower hardware prices and gains more marketshare on its products, its services income will increase. But it seems that greed and please the shareholders is more important.

It seems that you missed the point altogether, oh well!

But WOW your insights are so fascinating. I'll recommend you to Apple, they need such a great mind as yours.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

They *are* qualitatively different. Now that most posters are recent to Apple and have arrived post-iPhone, and many are Millenials, they are much more self-entitled than they used to be. It used to be "damn Apple, I wish you'd make a MacBook with an external scsi port. Nobody will buy this otherwise." Now it's "damn Apple. You are a bunch of evil idiots, and I am going to call your CEO 'Timmy' because he's gay and emasculating him is ok, and I am entitled to a replaceable battery in my mac and I am done with Apple, but I'm going to hang around here and keep posting anyway so everyone knows how done with Apple I am."

This isn't the difference. There is an objective basis for the complaints that wasn't there before. It was minor irritations before, now it is show stoppers. As far as the millenial bashing. I don't agree. Trolls are trolls, and most are probably older than millenial age.

 

[KGBguy]

That really is the bottom line. All companies (at least try to) price at what the market will bear. Who wants to leave money on the table?

Apple has plenty of customers who think Apple offers the best combination of hardware, OS, software, usability, ecosystem, warranty, quality, privacy, reliability, security, etc. and are willing to pay for that which they value.

Those who complain Apple products are “overpriced” are ignoring the most obvious proof that they’re wrong: 900 million active iPhones, 1.4 billion active devices.

Sure, Apple’s prices are high. But they (apparently) aren’t too high. Too high for some buyers, sure.

Exactly!

 

[Peperino]

Do I hate the MBP butterfly keyboards? Yep.
Do I DESPISE the Touch Bar and find it not only useless but worse than useless because of false touches? Yep.
Do I think Apple has done nothing to improve MacOS for the last two major releases? Yep. Do I wish they would? Yep.
Do I wish they still made a 17" MBP? Yep.
Do I wish iPhones cost a couple hundy less? Yep.
Do I think HomePod is worth the premium over Sonos? Nope.

Do I think that Apple has turned terrible, or, for that matter, changed in any substantial way since Tim Cook turned over? Nope.

Kind of inconsistent. All the top statement contradicts the last one.
I agree with you except the last one.
Tim Cook is a number guy, not an innovator. We can see how Innovation almost disappeared in the last 4 years.
Look how upgrade cycles 4 to 5 years to upgrade a computer line up, inconsistencies in design, and high prices vs. underspec computers tell you how little Apple-Cook care about innovation.
It is ok to care about making money, but under Cook, Apple stalled long time ago.

 

[tallscot]

$237 billion in cash – axed their $350 phone so now it's at least $450 to get an iPhone, then their iPhone sales went down. Ha! Blow me.

Yeah, my $6,000 2013 Mac Pro cost so much because Apple had to figure out how to make a black cylinder made out of plastic. :/
[doublepost=1551215601][/doublepost]

Apple has plenty of customers who think Apple offers the best combination of hardware, OS, software, usability, ecosystem, warranty, quality, privacy, reliability, security, etc. and are willing to pay for that which they value.

Yep. And about 82% of the public buys a different phone, and about 92% of the public buys a different computer.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Yes, but they shifted the entire computer line up, to make disposable non-upgradble computers, what actually is much worse. They are soldering what use to be easily upgradable components such as RAM and SSD. So if any component brakes, this creates much more trash, computers more prone to failure, and way more expensive materials. All those things are NOT the best possible products, but products that benefit Apple earnigns and rip-off users.
It makes no sense having to change a car every time you need to change tires...

Making it non-upgradable improves UX from Apple's perspective. Makes it thinner, lighter, reduces materials used, and Apple thinks that a typical user shouldn't worry about opening up the product.

Do I wish I could upgrade a few of my Apple products? Sure, especially the iMac. There's no point in making the iMac thinner IMO. But Apple's demographic includes the 7 year olds and the 70 year olds that don't want to deal with upgrading. Building a product that you don't have to worry about upgrading has always been Apple's goal.

What you're saying is that Apple should allow you to upgrade the iPhone and iPad internals. That would be ridiculous.

Also, it does not make computers more prone to failure. Infact, opening up the computer and using third party parts makes it much more prone to failure.

Comparing it to a car doesn't make sense. Completely different products, price points, and usage.

This actually makes no sense. It actually creates more batteries trash, so it is not environmentally friendly.

No, it makes complete sense. Apple is essentially a tech UX company and making keyboards wireless solves a UX problem.

Apple recycles batteries and reuses the magnets and cobalt, so no, it's environmentally friendly. I mean, with your logic, you're saying that iPads shouldn't have batteries then. That would be ridiculous.

Sorry, Apple has NOT been building, neither designing the best products.
The Mac Pro trashcan was a failure. The Macbook Pro 2016+ was another failure with a keyboard that created a class action lawsuit, so those are not the best products. In addition, its quality control has also went down as well.

Not to mention that innovation has disappeared. While Apple used to be the leader, it is not anymore. Apple has been chasing other companies. Look at Home Pod (came to the market late and overpriced)...

Furthermore, what is even worse the upgrade cycles are ridiculous. 4 years to upgrade a computer is pathetic.
Mac Pro 5 years and counting, iMac 10 years and counting (external design same as 10 years ago), Mac Mini 4 years (and after 4 years, they use the same old 4 year-old case).

Sorry, but that shows how little Apple cares about the entire computer line up.

[/QUOTE]

Apple said they never were perfect. Look at MobileMe.

The keyboard issue is overblown. If every keyboard was affected, selling a MacBook with the same keyboard design would actually be netting a loss due to warranty repairs and they would have redesigned it by now. In reality, it's likely only a small percentage of people experience this so they're probably expediting their next full redesign of the MacBook which will include a redesigned keyboard to make everyone happy.

Judging by your tone, you're basically typing the same typical Apple-hater statements found on this forum. You should be more objective.

 

[tallscot]

Making it non-upgradable improves UX from Apple's perspective. Makes it thinner, lighter, reduces materials used, and Apple thinks that a typical user shouldn't worry about opening up the product.

Do I wish I could upgrade a few of my Apple products? Sure, especially the iMac. There's no point in making the iMac thinner IMO. But Apple's demographic includes the 7 year olds and the 70 year olds that don't want to deal with upgrading. Building a product that you don't have to worry about upgrading has always been Apple's goal.

What you're saying is that Apple should allow you to upgrade the iPhone and iPad internals. That would be ridiculous.

Also, it does not make computers more prone to failure. Infact, opening up the computer and using third party parts makes it much more prone to failure.

Comparing it to a car doesn't make sense. Completely different products, price points, and usage.

No, it makes complete sense. Apple is essentially a tech UX company and making keyboards wireless solves a UX problem.

Apple recycles batteries and reuses the magnets and cobalt, so no, it's environmentally friendly. I mean, with your logic, you're saying that iPads shouldn't have batteries then. That would be ridiculous.

Apple said they never were perfect. Look at MobileMe.

The keyboard issue is overblown. If every keyboard was affected, selling a MacBook with the same keyboard design would actually be netting a loss due to warranty repairs and they would have redesigned it by now. In reality, it's likely only a small percentage of people experience this so they're probably expediting their next full redesign of the MacBook which will include a redesigned keyboard to make everyone happy.

Judging by your tone, you're basically typing the same typical Apple-hater statements found on this forum. You should be more objective.

Worry about upgrading? My $6,000 2013 Mac Pro is slower with FCP X, Davinci Resolve, Motion...than a 2010 Mac Pro with an upgrade in the GPU. I don’t think those people who spend $700 and get a faster computer are worried.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Timmy and the board are well aware of it. But they really do care about nothing but short term profits, making their quick money and getting out. They have no passion or interest for Apple or tech products, they just want to bleed it for as much as they can as quickly as they can and then move on.

Your post makes no sense at all, and couldn’t be more wrong if you tried.

1) Mr. Cook has been with Apple for over twenty years. He last received a stock award in 2011 when he became CEO, with 1/2 vesting at 5 years and the remaining 1/2 five years later, in 2021. In 2013 Cook voluntarily agreed to put 50% of this previously granted equity award at risk on a year-to-year basis, such that he collects the full original amount only if Apple finishes in the top 1/3 of the S&P 500 in the metric of total shareholder return. (He forfeits 25% if they finish in the middle third, and forfeits 50% if they finish in the bottom third.) So beyond the 10-year vesting timeline, Cook now has much more incentive to do everything he can to increase share price over the long term. Goosing profits in the short term, at the expense of future growth, would be working against his own best interests.

(And please keep in mind Cook is the one who requested that his previously guaranteed equity grant be converted into an incentive-based award—and one with only downside risk, you may further note. No upside potential at all. That’s what you call putting your money where your mouth is.)

2) Board members are paid a rather modest sum relative to their considerable individual net worth: $100,000 cash and $250,000 worth of stock annually. If they turn around and sell those shares, their return will be rather limited. It’s only by holding their shares—and having the share price increase as much as possible—that they might realize a considerably greater return. For example, $250,000 worth of stock awarded 10 years ago on 2/26/09 would be worth over $3.8 million today (assuming dividends were reinvested).

In summary, Apple’s executive/board compensation plan is well-aligned with the interests of shareholders, and functionally incentivizes greater return on equity over the long term rather than a short term increase in stock price.

Apple has its problems, but having executive management and board members out to “bleed it for as much as they can as quickly as they can and then move on” is not one of them.

 

[DevNull0]

1) Mr. Cook has been with Apple for over twenty years. He last received a stock award in 2011 when he became CEO, with 1/2 vesting at 5 years and the remaining 1/2 five years later, in 2021. In 2013 Cook voluntarily agreed to put 50% of this previously granted equity award at risk on a year-to-year basis, such that he collects the full original amount only if Apple finishes in the top 1/3 of the S&P 500 in the metric of total shareholder return.

2) Board members are paid a rather modest sum relative to their considerable individual net worth: $100,000 cash and $250,000 worth of stock annually.

1) It's just plain sad that you think 8 years from 2013 to 2021 is the long term. Let's see where Apple is in 2023-2025.

2) The fact that you seem to imply board members have no other financial stake in the company than their compensation makes me believe you are either trolling or woefully misunderstanding the financial world.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Worry about upgrading? My $6,000 2013 Mac Pro is slower with FCP X, Davinci Resolve, Motion...than a 2010 Mac Pro with an upgrade in the GPU. I don’t think those people who spend $700 and get a faster computer are worried.

Apple actually intended for the Mac Pro 2013 to be upgradable, but they couldn't figure out the thermal issue. So it's not that they didn't want users to upgrade the Mac Pro, they couldn't do it.

Also, you can get an EGPU and a TB3 -> TB2 adapter to increase your Mac Pro performance. There's a patch to allow TB2 EGPUs on macOS. Google it.

 

[LordVic]

In 2013 Cook voluntarily agreed to put 50% of this previously granted equity award at risk on a year-to-year basis, such that he collects the full original amount only if Apple finishes in the top 1/3 of the S&P 500 in the metric of total shareholder return. (He forfeits 25% if they finish in the middle third, and forfeits 50% if they finish in the bottom third.)

So what you're saying is Tim Cook's self worth is entirely linked to the stock performance and not necessarily long term company direction and performance.


I have problems with tht. What Stock and portfolio investors want is often not in tune with the overall best decisions of a company. It changes his motivation in the job he does.

Companies that traditionally focus on stock value over companies real performance tend to run into problems when the "wallstreet" folk start demanding constant growth that is no longer feasible. This tends to force them to make decissions that affect product quality due to maximization of profits above ensuring quality.

that's the crux of the price debate. it seems like currently Apple's prime directive is the maximization of profits for revenue growth to appease wallstreet (and Tim Cooks personal wealth) and NOT ensuring that the products are the best they can be at price points that are sustainable for long term growth.

 

[tallscot]

Apple actually intended for the Mac Pro 2013 to be upgradable, but they couldn't figure out the thermal issue. So it's not that they didn't want users to upgrade the Mac Pro, they couldn't do it.

Also, you can get an EGPU and a TB3 -> TB2 adapter to increase your Mac Pro performance. There's a patch to allow TB2 EGPUs on macOS. Google it.

I'm not as generous about their motives as you. They put out new Macs that can't be upgraded. It's been years since you could put a card into a slot and upgrade a Mac. That's on purpose, obviously.

And now they say they are working on a "modular" Mac and people think it might come out this year. We will see.

I still think they have the best desktop and mobile OS, but their hardware decisions over the last few years are crazy, in my humble opinion. A pro laptop that doesn't have USB? To be thin? I've been on many film sets, and in many studios and nobody cares how thin the laptop is that is transferring RED or ARRI footage, or RAW photos, to a hard drive. But they will need an adapter to use those USB 3.0 readers on the latest Macbook Pro. Insane.

I've seen benchmarks of eGPU on the Mac Pro 2013 and they aren't impressive to me. I think the dual 700 GPU in my Mac are faster in OpenCL apps like FCP X, going by memory. I wish I could upgrade to TB 3 with a card.

Thanks for the eGPU suggestion, though. Maybe a Vega II card, when it's supported by OS X, in eGPU will give my Mac a boost.

 

[sosumi99]

All we can do as customers is vote with our money. At the end of the day, if Apple can survive or even thrive with such ****** products, then I guess power to them. I am, however, still sad that the best laptop ever made will not see a successor from Apple.

 

[farewelwilliams]

I still think they have the best desktop and mobile OS, but their hardware decisions over the last few years are crazy, in my humble opinion. A pro laptop that doesn't have USB? To be thin? I've been on many film sets, and in many studios and nobody cares how thin the laptop is that is transferring RED or ARRI footage, or RAW photos, to a hard drive. But they will need an adapter to use those USB 3.0 readers on the latest Macbook Pro. Insane.

Adapters are temporary. There will be new equipment that supports USB-C natively. My Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4k has a USB-C port where I can record RAW footage natively to a Samsung T5 500GB drive. Had the new Macbook still stuck with USB-A, I'd have to carry a dongle around to transfer my RAW footage. Plus I can carry an actual USB-C battery to power my Macbook instead of an AC adapter and then spending time looking for an outlet. That same USB-C battery can power my camera and everything else in my bag. USB-C makes sense.

 

[KPandian1]

Had the new Macbook still stuck with USB-A, I'd have to carry a dongle around to transfer my RAW footage. Plus I can carry an actual USB-C battery to power my Macbook instead of an AC adapter and then spending time looking for an outlet. That same USB-C battery can power my camera and everything else in my bag.

MacBook (Air or Pro) was not going to reject USB-C; goin all-in with USB-C in 2015 and 2016 was the irritating, sales-killing move. In 2019 now, USB-C is still not ubiquitous - too many USB1-USB3.1 devices still around, including backup devices.

All Apple had to do was replace the two TB ports with USB-C ports; not all of them could be used at full speed on a laptop. One on either side would've eased the access.

USB-C cables are still a problem. I am not experimenting with Amazon cables (all easily confused for another speed) on my $2500+ laptop. If Apple did/does not see this inconvenience for its customers, it deserves the shunning of the newer laptops by enough buyers.

 

[PickUrPoison]

1) It's just plain sad that you think 8 years from 2013 to 2021 is the long term. Let's see where Apple is in 2023-2025.

2) The fact that you seem to imply board members have no other financial stake in the company than their compensation makes me believe you are either trolling or woefully misunderstanding the financial world.

1) Ten year vesting timeframes are indeed long term. I’m sure Mr. Cook will be awarded another huge chunk of equity in 2021 to entice him to stay for another ten years. That award will vest in 2026 and 2031, so I’m not at all concerned about the 2023-2025 time period.

2) Like I said, it’s in the board’s best interest to increase the share price as much as possible over the long term. To the extent board members hold Apple stock, they have even more incentive to do so. If you think any directors are profiting from short-term trades in Apple’s stock, feel free to examine their transactions; as I’m sure you’re aware, the SEC requires such disclosure. In addition, there’s no need to speculate on the board’s ownership of Apple stock, just take a look at their Form 5 filings.

3) Interesting you think my destroying your bogus claim that Cook and the board are “only interested in short-term profits, making their quick money and getting out” is somehow trolling. Project much?

4) I’m curious if you know why you refer to Mr. Cook as “Timmy”? Most adults leave childish name-calling on the grade school playground. Any idea when we might expect such personal growth on your part?

 

[farewelwilliams]

MacBook (Air or Pro) was not going to reject USB-C; goin all-in with USB-C in 2015 and 2016 was the irritating, sales-killing move. In 2019 now, USB-C is still not ubiquitous - too many USB1-USB3.1 devices still around, including backup devices.

All Apple had to do was replace the two TB ports with USB-C ports; not all of them could be used at full speed on a laptop. One on either side would've eased the access.

USB-C cables are still a problem. I am not experimenting with Amazon cables (all easily confused for another speed) on my $2500+ laptop. If Apple did/does not see this inconvenience for its customers, it deserves the shunning of the newer laptops by enough buyers.

Had MacBook not go all in in 2015/2016, USB-C would be even worse off today.

I rather have you grab two USB-A to USB-C dongles instead of me having a MacBook that has USB-A and USB-C ports. I’d hate to have two different USB-A/USB-C dongles exist (male USB-A/female USB-c and vice versa). I mean, if you’re already confused now about USB-C, imagine USB 3.0/3.1 over USB-A. Can you connect a USB based display (the LG Ultrafine monitors) into USB-A? Can USB-A provide USB-PD? Better to just go USB-C only

 

[pmau]

It still has bugs from years ago that have never been patched, forget new features.

Absolutely true. 10.4 was the most stable. After 10.5 it went downhill quickly.

Why has the Mac Pro still not received an update?

It's worse. The MacPro cheese grader was a good enough design.
Just update the motherboard and support more GPU's.
Done.

That's all most people wanted.

 

[cmaier]

It's worse. The MacPro cheese grader was a good enough design.

Back in the day I had one of those. But I brought home a wheel of Gouda from up in Sonoma, and the MacPro cheese grader gave it a C+ when it clearly deserved at least a B, so I sold it.

 

[sosumi99]

It's worse. The MacPro cheese grader was a good enough design.
Just update the motherboard and support more GPU's.
Done.

That's all most people wanted.

Exactly! Instead, we got "can't innovate anymore, my ass" and the worst product since the G4 Cube.

 

[DevNull0]

Had MacBook not go all in in 2015/2016, USB-C would be even worse off today.

I'm not sure that's possible for USB-C to be worse off. USB-C today is every bit as obscure as firewire and ADB were at their peaks. USB-C is a DOA "standard" that will never take off. USB 3.2 is just a renaming of USB 3.1 and USB 3.0 and leaves USB-C in the same limbo.

Apple has deliberately crippled their computers just so they can sell adaptors for their braindead "standard".

 

[KPandian1]

I'm not sure that's possible for USB-C to be worse off.

Apple has deliberately crippled their computers just so they can sell adaptors for their braindead "standard".

Amusing but true. I am not swapping (spending money) my peripherals to USB-C anytime soon; definitely because Apple decided to be ahead of the loop. Traditionally they are slow to embrace the new things - waiting for others to release stuff and come in a few steps after and shine.

Apple's own brand dongle accessories are all that I'd buy - and they are not cheap, light or small. Well, maybe OWC.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Apple has deliberately crippled their computers just so they can sell adaptors for their braindead "standard".

You do know that adapters take up a tiny tiny tiny tiny percentage of their overall profit, right? This whole idea that Apple makes a ton of money off of adapters at the cost of their brand is flat out wrong.

 

[KPandian1]

You do know that adapters take up a tiny tiny tiny tiny percentage of their overall profit, right? This whole idea that Apple makes a ton of money off of adapters at the cost of their brand is flat out wrong.

True - for all I care Apple could be selling these adapters for a loss and altruism! They still took a great computer and crippled it in the name of USB-C adaption. It not Apple's job to accelerate the popularity of USB-C.

Apple did save a lot on production costs with the newer MacBooks - and sell them at a greater price. Almost a suicide mission for the Mac line-up.

 

[tallscot]

Adapters are temporary. There will be new equipment that supports USB-C natively. My Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4k has a USB-C port where I can record RAW footage natively to a Samsung T5 500GB drive. Had the new Macbook still stuck with USB-A, I'd have to carry a dongle around to transfer my RAW footage. Plus I can carry an actual USB-C battery to power my Macbook instead of an AC adapter and then spending time looking for an outlet. That same USB-C battery can power my camera and everything else in my bag. USB-C makes sense.

Oh, I'm not saying one or the other. I'm saying a pro laptop should have both.