No. You are saying that. I am saying Ferrari isn't a "for profit FIRST" company; of which the same has been said about apple based solely on their product line.
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 Design Chief Jony Ive Retaking Direct Control of Design Team [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Great point. Here is an excerpt from their corporate page.
http://corporate.ferrari.com/en/about-us/ferrari-dna
Notice nowhere on that page does it say the main purpose of Ferrari is to make a profit. And if you do a search for the word "profit" on that page there are no matches. Profit comes from selling a product that people want to buy at a price point they are willing to buy it at. You have to price your products accordingly and companies can't survive on "love" alone. But the main purpose of a company is to produce a product people want to buy, priced accordingly.
The main purpose of a "not-for-profit" company is to provide a service and not to make a profit.
From the start, Ferrari sold cars to the public in order to finance their racing endeavours, so they certainly are in the automotive industry for profit.
Doesn't contradict what was said, in fact reinforces it. A companies mission is to provide a service.
Riiight, and here's one from Comcast: "Inspired by a rich heritage, Comcast has the experience, creativity and leadership to shape the future of media and technology.", placing Your trust in the marketing language that makes out the corporate web page, doesn't do anything for me.
So let's try this one: "The Company also supports a community for the development of third-party software and hardware products and digital content that complement the Company’s offerings. The Company believes a high-quality buying experience with knowledgeable salespersons who can convey the value of the Company’s products and services greatly enhances its ability to attract and retain customers."
Guess who...
Honestly, Doesn’t matter whether you like it or not. If you or anyone wants to believe the “profit first” motive it doesn’t really change anything.
That’s all brand marketing. Do you really believe they will advertise something like this to the public? This happens behind the curtain. They aren’t goin to come clean on this.
Yes, as they continue to produce products that have incredible demand and lead the industry in sales in just about every category, and are the most valuable company in the world that keeps growing and will be first to hit a trillion dollars in valuation, they appear to have little left in the gas tank. Time to get Tim Cook and the others out before they are forced to have a fire sale.
You forgot one important thing: "... for You"
And that's fine, believe in the best motives all You want, few publicly traded companies (actually few companies at all) are focused on other things than the profits of their product lines. But let's just leave it that.
Sure. It’s a dirty secret right. Profits come first and the customer be damned. Well aren’t we all stooopid then.
[doublepost=1512926786][/doublepost]
Right and I may add “for YOU” as well. Believe that the first thing a company does when it is formed is to discuss profits.
[doublepost=1512926899][/doublepost]
They are comparable in that both have a corporate mission. Peter Drucker 101.
Yes. I’m on my second startup and nowhere are profits being discussed. It’s about providing a unique service that people will want to buy.
I'm pretty certain they went with facial recognition for a good reason--they think the phone ought to "just be ready to use" when you pick it up. They're right...but the technology wasn't ready. Sure they can kinda do it, but only at the price of a giant notch in their edge-to-edge first oled screen ever. They can do it, but there's still an awkward need to pause holding up to your face, waiting for it to unlock. Jobs would never have accepted the compromises, and everyone being honest should know it. Apple has really talented people but they no longer have "that guy" (and no, it need not be Jobs) who tells the excited team who've been working two years on FaceID that it's not good enough. Instead, they go with the compromised FaceID at the expense of their beautiful new screen, and an awkward interaction that is worse than the previous solution using a finger print. It's frustrating to be a fan of their designs anymore.
Yes! Yes! We can only hope he redesigns it. We are getting so bored with rectangles. What is your prediction- a triangle? Oval? Diamond perhaps? These rectangles just got to go. And no more of these glass and metal cases- so yesterday. Bring on the wood cases-in oak, fir and maple.
Please stop with the projection of Steve Jobs from the grave. Apple might have had a for sale on their doors in 2017 if he ran the company all these years. Who knows?
No, I appreciated the design and products Jobs brought. I've been disappointed his company hasn't been able to keep up with his vision, despite keeping nearly all the same people. It's fine you don't appreciate me speculating, but I find it very interesting to see how such a small difference at the top--after all Jobs didn't do the designing--has led to rather big changes in the products. This giant and successful company is trying to do what it's always done, but just missing that one piece of the puzzle means we get a compromised iPhone X with a big ugly notch, rather than what could have been an iconic and beautiful piece of hardware. And of course there are lots of these small compromises we've seen that many, including myself like to point out.
I appreciate you speak for many who don't want to speak of Jobs for some reason. I don't get it, though, or at least I don't agree. I loved so many of the products he helped make, and still spend and inordinate amount of money on the somewhat lesser products his company now sells.
Respectfully, I'm going to continue.
You’re entitled to your opinion of the current lineup and purchase accordingly.
However I speak only for myself and reality in 2017. You can keep projecting “Steve jobs would have done this or that” but it doesn’t change the present, not one iota.
This critique assumes that useful change can (and must) occur often for any given device. Do you agree with that thought, and would you say it's impossible for a certain design to reach a point where any "significant" change may feel forced, unnecessary, compromised, and/or even silly?
In related news, interesting to see that Apple still doesn't get that Good Design should include durability, flexibility, and convenience of use without having to overall most all accessories purchased to date.
deeper! we must go deeper!
[doublepost=1512932351][/doublepost]
let's go deeper!