one could say that the huge increase in profit the ipod has brought apple called for a little more attention in the company scheme
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Creates New iPod Division
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Corporate Legal Strategy
Apple may be preparing for moving all music operations to a corporation which does NOT have APPLE in its corporate name or product names.
Gotta know what to do when you fold-em.
Apple may be preparing for moving all music operations to a corporation which does NOT have APPLE in its corporate name or product names.
Gotta know what to do when you fold-em.
~Shard~ said:
Why would it make sense for Apple to spin off it's most profitable division into a seperate entity? Doesn't make sense to me.
bar italia said:
*Sighs* Apple isn't spinning ANYTHING off. They are creating a new internal division for the iPod. Everything stays in-house. Everything is controlled by Apple. All profits remain Apple's. Nothing is changing other then Apple is doing some house cleaning to keep its business in order that and as others have said possibly to prep itself for the legal ramifications of Apple Music winning a lawsuit. Easier to spin-off a division into its own company then a product or in this case a series of products. Apple might be prepping for a worse case scenario.
some of the posts on here are surprising I think. Isn't it clear the iPod is very important to Apple? What is wrong with making money from the iPod? How does that hurt the Macintosh at all? Making more money is a good thing for Apple, right?
I see the split as good for both. It would have been easy to let the Mac just ride the iPod's coattails as the iPod was clearly boosting Apple's bottom line. Now the mac division has to stand on it's own, which is going to have to make it more aggressive. build market share, build more killer apps. I think putting the marketing guy in charge is a clear indication that they are finally going to try to grow market share. Now is the time - the transition to OS X is behind us (well, there are some people still using 9, but not the new customers), the app base for X is strong, the OS is mature, there is a multi-year window while Microsoft works on Longhorn, etc.
As for the iPod, I see this move as a clear indication that they are going to expand their product line (otherwise why is their industrial design guru in charge) and that they are going to be aggressive at keeping their 50-70% market share while the market itself grows.
I see the split as good for both. It would have been easy to let the Mac just ride the iPod's coattails as the iPod was clearly boosting Apple's bottom line. Now the mac division has to stand on it's own, which is going to have to make it more aggressive. build market share, build more killer apps. I think putting the marketing guy in charge is a clear indication that they are finally going to try to grow market share. Now is the time - the transition to OS X is behind us (well, there are some people still using 9, but not the new customers), the app base for X is strong, the OS is mature, there is a multi-year window while Microsoft works on Longhorn, etc.
As for the iPod, I see this move as a clear indication that they are going to expand their product line (otherwise why is their industrial design guru in charge) and that they are going to be aggressive at keeping their 50-70% market share while the market itself grows.
Tim Who?
Where did you get Tim Bucher? The press release said Tim Cook.
Tim Cook is a maketing guy at Apple and that has me very concerned.
Remember, it was the marketing people at Chrysler who were adamantly against the Caravan in the late 70's because none of their market research showed that anybody would want a minivan - noone was asking for it.
You need a visionary at the top to produce insanely great products. Marketing people produce Microsoft products.
dhdave said:
Where did you get Tim Bucher? The press release said Tim Cook.
Tim Cook is a maketing guy at Apple and that has me very concerned.
Remember, it was the marketing people at Chrysler who were adamantly against the Caravan in the late 70's because none of their market research showed that anybody would want a minivan - noone was asking for it.
You need a visionary at the top to produce insanely great products. Marketing people produce Microsoft products.
gop007 said:
Don't be so sure that Apple's future is the music. Apple is still cranking out good products, still producing profits, and has well just ok sales. Some things that Apple needs to do is get this new PowerMac and iMac released and keep the prices as low as they can possibly get them and still make a profit. We as mac fans all know why Macs are more expensive than PCs, but its getting to a point where as PC prices continue to fall, Apple's prices are staying the same. That will create a problem for Apple as people won't see the value in paying more for a computer. I also hope that IBM catches up with Intel with their clock speeds by the end of next year with the PPC980 (possibly called the G6?). Intel is kind stalled out right now and this is the perfect opportunity for IBM to really catch up with Intel.
whooleytoo said:The iPod's being IPO'd??
I don't think it would ever happen, if Apple ever didn't spin the iPod division off into it's own company, it would probably be a wholly owned subsidiary own Apple Computers and exist mainly to take the Apple brand off iTunes and iPod so that Apple Records could stop suing them.
That way Apple keeps all the money and the Apple Records people cannot get their hands on it.
ClimbingTheLog said:
Exactly! This is why this bothers me. With the iPod more a consumer product that the Mac (and already very technically advanced) should the heads have been set up the other way around?
Tim Cook is in charge of the Mac division. Tim Bucher is in charge of Mac Hardware Engineering.ClimbingTheLog said:
from the Reuter's story:
Timothy Cook, head of Apple's worldwide sales and operations, will lead a newly organized Macintosh division, Apple said. Tim Bucher, now in charge of Macintosh system development, will head up the Mac's hardware engineering.
ClimbingTheLog said:
Or maybe the marketing guy will look at the PC marketplace and say, "We need a $500 option that lives up to the Mac name."
Enter the headless iMac!
I think it's probably a good thing. But by saying this I'm giving apple the benefit of the doubt. They are trying to separate their R&D and business models which will most likely lead to an increase in productivity for computers as well- I think we all know that their computer line has taken a hit due to the ipod and ipod mini's success (where are the g5's? LCD displays? imacg5 ? etc. etc.)
this is a darn good thing! this will help different parts of the company keep focus on their specific products for apple. perhaps even some internal competition to see who can out do the other to make better apple products.
whooleytoo said:The iPod's being IPO'd??
pjkelnhofer said:
hu·mor (hyoomer)
- The quality that makes something laughable or amusing; funniness: could not see the humor of the situation.
- That which is intended to induce laughter or amusement: a writer skilled at crafting humor.
- The ability to perceive, enjoy, or express what is amusing, comical, incongruous, or absurd. See Synonyms at wit1.
- One of the four fluids of the body, blood, phlegm, choler, and black bile, whose relative proportions were thought in ancient and medieval physiology to determine a person's disposition and general health.
smart-ass (smärt as)
n. Slang
- A smart aleck. See: SiliconAddict
pjkelnhofer said:
(aside from the fact that my original post was just a play on words/letters..
)I doubt it's that simple. I doubt even spinning iPod/iTMS off now would stop the lawsuit, Apple Corps will still likely claim Apple Computers violated their previous agreement and continue the suit. It might strengthen Apple Computers' hand slightly, true.
SeaFox said:Let's see. You want Apple to concentrate on improving Macs rather than iPods, yet you just put the head of hardware on the iPod's team...
Meanwhile, you have a marketing guy heading a computer that has always been about quality rather than marketting to the mass consumer.
I see more advanced iPods in the coming years, along with cheaper Macs of inferior build quality rushed out of development to meet "buying seasons".
exactly my thought. i've got a love/hate relationship with the ipod these days. it seems like all apple cares about is them. also the apple name is being associated with ipod instead of their computers. if you say apple to most poeple they'll think ipod long before they think computer. kind of sad.
whooleytoo said:(aside from the fact that my original post was just a play on words/letters..
I doubt it's that simple. I doubt even spinning iPod/iTMS off now would stop the lawsuit, Apple Corps will still likely claim Apple Computers violated their previous agreement and continue the suit. It might strengthen Apple Computers' hand slightly, true.
Actually, I thought the pun aspect of the original post was quite funny, and I didn't mean to single you out, I was responding to the people who think they really are going to be buying iPod stock.
It would not help Apple Computers in the current lawsuit, but it would help prevent future lawsuits. Of course, it doesn't say anything about GarageBand, iTunes, etc. Which would still be likely sold under the Apple name and would be music related.
I actually don't think Apple would ever split off iPods into a seperate company. I suspect they will simply settle out of court (again) with Apple Records and then in about 10-15 they will introduce some new product that Apple Records thinks is infringing on the new agreement and we will go through this whole thing again.
Note there are many other record labels with Apple in the name they could after, but they are not dummies, they go after Apple Computers, because they have money to take.
pjkelnhofer said:
You cynic..
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple decided to settle this issue once and for all - by trying to win in court; or a large once-off, out-of-court settlement; or just buying Apple Corps.
The music business is far too important for Apple now, to have a dispute still looming over their trading name, logo and business type.
whooleytoo said:You cynic..
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple decided to settle this issue once and for all - by trying to win in court; or a large once-off, out-of-court settlement; or just buying Apple Corps.
The music business is far too important for Apple now, to have a dispute still looming over their trading name, logo and business type.
I know that Sony actually owns the Beatles music catalog (they bought it from Michael Jackson). Does anyone know who owns Apple Corp (I assume McCartney, Ringo, and the estates of Lennon and Harrison)? I know that the Beatles are one of the top selling artist's every year. I wonder how much Apple Corp. makes in a year.
dstorey said:
I think that with the huge success that the ipod has become it is inevitable that it would take some focus away from the mac division. I would argue that in terms of "focus" what they're doing now is the best solution. Each product line is important enough to need a dedicated organizational structure and seperate strategy.
As for R&D I think that the ipod is certainly profitable enough that it more than finances its own R&D.
The best thing about this, I think, is that this probably seperates out the finances much better that they were before. That way R&D, other expenses etc. aren't in one big pot, so it is easier to see exactly how profitable each line is.
ClimbingTheLog said:
The way I see it, computer nerds run MS and marketing people run Apple.
Computer nerds, being that they don't know what the consumer wants and feel fine tweeking the OS to their delight
While marketing people look at something and try to make it easier to use. I've never thought of Steve Jobs as a computer person. I've always saw him as the sly marketing guy who could make ice cream sellable to eskimos. Hopefully this marketing guy will see what the consumer wants, and get Apple out there with the same recognition as Dell. Hell, turn a TV on and within 10 minutes you'll find a Dell commercial. It needs to be that way with Apple, and I don't mean iPods.
i hope...
I'll have to read the rest of the posts when I get home... but the talk of a "rift" makes me think that the iPod o.s. is making a huge transition! I think it's the birth of a new era! Mobile computing is the future, but it needs to be smaller than a powerbook. You know, like an iPod!
I'll have to read the rest of the posts when I get home... but the talk of a "rift" makes me think that the iPod o.s. is making a huge transition! I think it's the birth of a new era! Mobile computing is the future, but it needs to be smaller than a powerbook. You know, like an iPod!
7on said:
Wow, that's exactly the opposite of what people who work/have worked for Microsoft and Apple have related to me (I've worked for neither). At Microsoft the marketing people literally come up with lists of what's going to be in the next version and when it's going to ship. Microsoft Research isn't tied like that but they're not working on actual products.
At Apple the R&D lab (ATG) was disbanded. Each product group is responsible for doing some of it on their own. The developers have some freedom to be creative and make a system that they'd like to use. It's possible that Apple marketing came to R&D and asked for the Genie Effect on the Dock, but it's much more likely to me that a creative programmer thought it would be neat and others agreed. Noone in marketing said, "what would happen if we treated the entire screen raster as an OpenGL texture." But they came up with a name for it and sold it.
At Apple, Marketing comes down and says, "We need to support more printers" and "We need printer support that will scale to Enterprise workgroups" and R&D says, "OK, we'll switch to cups for Panther". Then the UI guys figure out how to make cups usable for Grandma. From the spec the programmers make it happen (but the programmers aren't forbidden from suggesting enhancements).
At Microsoft Marketing comes in with photoshopped mock-ups of what the screen is going to look like and hordes of contract and h1b programmers implement the spec. At least that's what I've been told. (The MacBU is somewhat immune from this treatment)
If Microsoft was indeed run by CS geeks, don't you think we'd have something a bit more solid by now? Linux is what you get when you follow that model.
What it really comes down to is corporate culture and the kind of people each culture attracts.
If I had to sum it up:
Microsoft - Marketing
Linux - Geeks
Apple - Collaboration
I'd like someone from inside either corporation to correct me, but this is how real employees have related it to me.