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 Had Long Planned to Leave Macworld
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's right. The support of MS, Adobe, Quark, etc has never had anything to do with Apple's survival.
oh, give me a break. Are we back in the seventies, now? Woah, man, heavy duty, take another hit......
Even if pulling out of the show was part of a longer master plan (which is perfectly reasonable), I still think the way apple announced it (i.e. at the last minute and that SJ won't be doing the last keynote) is very inelegant! Either they have absolutely no idea whatsoever about how to handle the press (which i struggle to believe) or something else has driven this... I'm not trying to say it's down to SJ's health, i'm just saying that IMHO something forced apples hand and they HAD to announce it when they did otherwise why do it the way they did? Could be designed to just annoy the Macworld organizers or just that SJ got pissed off with doing keynotes and they realized at the last minute they didn't really have anything to present.... Whatever the reason, i don't think the timing of this cludgy, rushed announcement was part of that grander plan!!
Or maybe he cares about his personal privacy more than he cares about answering to damned shareholders who think the fate of a single company rests on a single man's shoulders.
Sebastian
well maybe they had planned something to announce, but apple probably got some indication of the thanksgiving holiday sales, which are generally provide insight of the seasons sales in general, and decided against significant new product introductions.
due to the economic situation, early next year will generally not be the best time to announce or bring to market anything. the shops will be full of stuff from the holiday season that needs to be discounted and moved out of the stores and warehouses before it's reasonable to introduce anything new. it would just sell badly and possibly damage further the prices of the excess stock.
as for stock price, they had the choice of taking the hit now, or taking the hit later (when not introducing anything in macworld). if the assumption of low seasonal sales is right, apples stock is probably going to take another hit later on anyway. and if the there's significant amount of products unsold that needs to be discounted and sales jan-mar will dive because of that, apples stock might well take third hit.
Plus it could be absolutely anything. Major health scare. Minor health scare, but with advised bed-rest. Simple desire to hibernate during December. Family crisis.
It could simply be that something has cropped up that isn't earth-shattering but doesn't warrant public inspection. If he wants to keep to himself then he has every right to try. At least, unlike some TV/movie/music "stars" he's not crying for privacy at the same time as going out nightclubbing.
As the CEO of a coorporation and being on its Board of Directors, Steve Jobs has a direct responsiblility towards AAPL's shareholders, privacy or not. FYI, I own no AAPL shares.
While I also don't believe the fate of Apple falls directly on Jobs's shoulders, the leader of a company can certainly determines its fate. See: Jerry Yang.
Um...
If his financial security is tied to the share value, don't you think he'd be caring about the stock price?
Why is everyone so reactionary? I hope he is well but when you run a big company, you get to choose what you do.
I had a (non-IT) company and we attended trade shows. Over the past 7 years I saw every year the costs go up and the returns go down. This year the company didn't attend the largest industry event on the calender. Guess what? It was the worst trade show ever and those who did exhibit lost heaps of money.
Once upon a time trade shows were a great way to introduce yourselves to customers, convert fence-sitters and press the flesh with customers. These days, with daily blogs, online reviews, search engines, trial software trade events are no longer the best bang-per-buck. There's so little new for release at a show that most people dont want to travel or spend the money/effort to go along.
In hard financial times, it gets even harder to justify.
It's a good decision for Apple to pull out of trade shows and to concentrate on their own events. It's probably even good for the smaller companies who attend trade shows as their products won't be overshadowed by Apple.
On the downside, trade shows rely on pulling power. Without a major drawcard they might struggle and die. These things go in cycles.
If his financial security is tied to the share value, don't you think he'd be caring about the stock price?
Why is everyone so reactionary? I hope he is well but when you run a big company, you get to choose what you do.
I had a (non-IT) company and we attended trade shows. Over the past 7 years I saw every year the costs go up and the returns go down. This year the company didn't attend the largest industry event on the calender. Guess what? It was the worst trade show ever and those who did exhibit lost heaps of money.
Once upon a time trade shows were a great way to introduce yourselves to customers, convert fence-sitters and press the flesh with customers. These days, with daily blogs, online reviews, search engines, trial software trade events are no longer the best bang-per-buck. There's so little new for release at a show that most people dont want to travel or spend the money/effort to go along.
In hard financial times, it gets even harder to justify.
It's a good decision for Apple to pull out of trade shows and to concentrate on their own events. It's probably even good for the smaller companies who attend trade shows as their products won't be overshadowed by Apple.
On the downside, trade shows rely on pulling power. Without a major drawcard they might struggle and die. These things go in cycles.
As opposed to what? An impersonal, greedy corporation that comes out once a year to put on a big show?
Apple never had your best interest at heart. It was insanity to think so.
But they are the best at figuring out what people want and how to deliver it. And in all actuality, MacWorld had absolutely nothing to do with that. MacWorld was little more than a large pep rally.
That said, I'll still miss it.
As well as being something potentially harmful to their income cycle.
For most companies, the pre-Christmas buying season is the big shopping event of the year. People buy things for themselves. People buy things for others. People spend money from December 26th onwards that they only received on the 25th.
And in many cases, people can make purchases knowing that products have been released just in time for this.
MWSF being in January means that many tech-savvy people actually stop buying from November onwards anything Apple-based that hasn't been immediately released, expecting a January reveal (and possibly release).
This can then extend to not requesting Aple products from friends/family, not buying it for friends/family and recommending others hold off on purchases.
Yes, it's mostly just delaying an inevitable sale buy a month or two. But it's also meaning that Apple's sales risk a temporary dip when other companies are getting a spike.
Maybe they just figured that having people not expect anything in January might be better for the December bottom-line. Especially now that financial situations are somewhat tighter, it might make more sense to try and grab people's spending attention during one of the main shopping seasons of the year. Not having the main (actual or expected) releases happening just after the big push.
There's a long line of companies that either failed or lost direction once the founder, who was always the source of the company vision, was no longer in control. We saw Apple go that direction the first time SJ left.
Isn't this personally Apple's fault as well? IDG doesn't tell Apple/Jobs to release products. Steve is a great speaker, and can come and talk about anything and just give us a nice talk. Some time ago Steve used the exposure to talk about new products and company releases, so now we've come to expect it. Today, if Steve just gave a nice lecture, we'd probably rip him apart for not announcing a product...
"as more reactions come in..."
LOL get a grip.
Let me refer you a book called, "Things That Matter, Things That Don't"
LOL get a grip.
Let me refer you a book called, "Things That Matter, Things That Don't"
In fact, I can see Apple going to this route to announce new products:
April--new iMacs and Mac Pro desktops
June during WWDC--new iPhone models plus previews of the next MacOS X update
September--new iPod models
October--new MacBook models
This allows for very tight control of the announcements and at a lot lower cost to Apple.
What I'm hoping for is when apple does have a release/media event, they start streaming the video .... at least into the stores so we can watch live.
Personally, I'm not shocked or upset. With the other pull-outs from this event and CES and having less of a presence at other shows it should have been expected. It is an IDG event anyway. Now if they cancel an apple event like WWDC, then an explanation would be hoped for.
Personally, I'm not shocked or upset. With the other pull-outs from this event and CES and having less of a presence at other shows it should have been expected. It is an IDG event anyway. Now if they cancel an apple event like WWDC, then an explanation would be hoped for.
well, I went last year for the first time and didnt get the chance to go into the keynote, this year I saved my money to see Steve live, and I have to PAY to see Phil Schiller? Hes cool and all but he better have some free iphones to make up for the stevelessness.
It seems like this move is designed precisely to move them away from a fixed schedule for product announcements.
Correct. Apple has long needed to be far more upfront about Steve's health issues, if only because his ability to continue running Apple so clearly has a bearing on the value of the company to investors. They didn't need to share intimate details, just something more definite than the extremely few, vague words they did offer. Steve can have complete privacy when he retires -- until then, he's the very visible CEO of a major corporation. When you've been entrusted with other people's money, you don't get to live your life as a completely closed book.
Exactly.
This is just one piece of news that affects the stock price for a day or two. The stock is more affected by the recession (obviously) and the lack of growth projections because it looks like Apple's industry isn't impervious to the recession (unlike a few industries like video games which are growing just fine but whose stocks are STILL hit hard)
People need to Lighten up. Everyone's sky is falling talk doesn't help at all. I mean it's friggin MacWorld. Big deal. Move on.
EDIT: Cutting the costs associated with these things is much better than cutting actual jobs like so many other companies.