Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wall street type people have long called apple a one trick pony (on so many words). They've been want see apple with a more balanced product offering. While Apple has many products and services, none of them come close to generating the amount of revenue the iPhone does.


I think the point is, that apple has a single product where it derives most of its revenue from.

This is true, but that is because Apple is so large. If they had multiple divisions as successful as iPhone, they would be a multi-trillion dollar company!

The Apple Watch, much as it is criticized in these forums, is a billion dollar business in revenues! Services is a billion dollar business, and they are growing!

After $250 billion in revenues, there's not going to be a lot more "up" searching for boosts! This is the motivation in building a car, reinventing something new. Let's see what they can do.

People criticize Apple for not innovating, but it seems like there has been an incredible amount of engineering that Apple has made waves in...and that "thinner, smaller" work may pay dividends in other industries that we have not yet imagined.
 
And I say you're misusing this number and using it wrong.

Claiming that one companies smartphones is the biggest profit centre isn't a winning statistic to me.
Let me start by sayign: I Think the iPhone is a hell of a beautiful smartphone, that is well engineered, feels good in hand and looks great, and performs very well.

BUT:

It clearly puts in less technological items / stats / performance parts than many of the other people in the market. Apple's iPhones pricing and build are primarily focused on profit margins and not deliverying the highest, newest and best technologies available. Apple is fantastic company at refinement and thats what the iPhone is. It's a really good refinement of existing technologies, Most of which were pioneered by others, but refined into a nicer package on the iPhone.

Because of this, Apple charges full price flagship price, But, with overall less in it. Smaller Flash storage, Less RAM, lower resolution displays on older mroe mature (and cheaper to produce) LCD's. These cost savings for Apple, do not get passed along to the consumer. Instead, Apple pockets the difference as profits.

Eventually, And we're starting to see it in the market, this starts to feel like the "Apple Tax". You are literally paying more for an Apple device because it has the logo on it, Not because of any of the actual technology in the device. When you're a consumer and you hear that on every single iPhone sold, apple is earning almost 40% Pure profit off of your purchase, you start to wonder "why can't they afford to give us 32gb base?" or "Where's my 2-4GB ram base?". "where's my open NFC?", "where's my __________". Aside from iOS v Android debate right now, There is very little in an iPhone from a technological standpoint that makes the iPhone's hardware stand above and beyond most of the compteition. In fact, despite lower profits, many of the competition are selling items that are generally more "spec heavy" than iPhones.

So at the end of the day. As the consumer. Repeating "BUT APPPLE HAS 90% OF THE SMARTPHONE PROFITS" is actually a bad thing. Not a good thing. Knowing Apple is pocketting 40% of my purchase to give to Ive and Cook's already full pockets doesn't make me feel good about 90% profits in the industry. Especially with the Tax Avoidance and other legal issues that Apple has historically abused.

Apple makes some really nice products. But corporate ethics of theirs, and their rampant profiteering past reasonability makes Apple Co. ethically and morally questionable. And the 90% profit mantra just exemplifies that, NOT helps

Apple is a company, it's goal is to make money. Specifically, it's a public traded company and its goal is to make money for shareholders who invested in Apple. Owning most of the profit for a product category is a good thing. Could Apple increase sales by adding newer tech? Yes, but there's a balance. And that balance is not at the point of Samsung's margins. Apple is more profitable than Samsung and other device makers in general and Apple owns more of the profile for the industry. I do not see why you are trying to spin that as a bad thing.

You ignore the software as one of the iPhone's strongest aspects of tech. Apple optimizes their software and hardware for one another so adding more RAM is not always necessary to increase performance. Average consumers buying the bulk of phones don't know what RAM is and they don't care. It's a glamor tech spec when comparing iPhones to other phones. Are there more capable apps that only run on Samsung because of the RAM difference that people want so they pick Samsung instead? Not really.

Would you rather invest in a company that is less profitable and owns less of the industry's profits? No- that's why Apple's stock has grown to what it is and Samsung (and other companies) hasn't.
 
Apple is a company, it's goal is to make money. Specifically, it's a public traded company and its goal is to make money for shareholders who invested in Apple. Owning most of the profit for a product category is a good thing. Could Apple increase sales by adding newer tech? Yes, but there's a balance. And that balance is not at the point of Samsung's margins. Apple is more profitable than Samsung and other device makers in general and Apple owns more of the profile for the industry. I do not see why you are trying to spin that as a bad thing.

You ignore the software as one of the iPhone's strongest aspects of tech. Apple optimizes their software and hardware for one another so adding more RAM is not always necessary to increase performance. Average consumers buying the bulk of phones don't know what RAM is and they don't care. It's a glamor tech spec when comparing iPhones to other phones. Are there more capable apps that only run on Samsung because of the RAM difference that people want so they pick Samsung instead? Not really.

Would you rather invest in a company that is less profitable and owns less of the industry's profits? No- that's why Apple's stock has grown to what it is and Samsung (and other companies) hasn't.

at no poitn did I say that earning profits was a bad thing. Just that screaming "BUT APPLE MAKES 90% OF THE PROFITS SO IT'S THE BEST IN THE INDUSTRY" is as stupid as someone saying "ApPLE IS DOOMED!" or "PROFITS DONT MATTER"

Profits matter. Rampant profiteering on the other hand isn't good for both company nor economy. There has to be a balance between how much profit you make and how much you deliver to you rconsumers. If you start witholding, or limiting things you give to the consumer (who is the source of profit), because you are attempting to maximize your profit by percentage points, while also claiming to have the largest cash reserve and profit numbers on the planet. Eventually your consumers start to ask "whats in it for me?". And if there's not enough those consumers will stop buying your products.

So the rampant drive for the highest profits margins does back fire if you start compromising on what you give to the consumer in order to achieve those margins.

This is bad for Apple and it's also bad for the economy, as keeping profit for profit sakes just to store large cash reserves takes money out of circulation and overall hurts the economy.

The best thing for Apple to do, which the shareholders would hate, is to stop giving a **** about "record profits" every quarter. Stop this adherance to an absolute profit margin target. Improve employee spending and relations. Improve worker / factory conditions. Reinvest money into green energy (more so). R*D outside of their 'comfort zone' of tech's and gadgets. hire lots more people. Bring production/ manufacturing back to North America and pay western living wages to all employees in the factories. Make devices that don't consistently cut corners.

I just feel continuing on this route to appease Wallstreet as their #1 business motivation, will eventually (and might take a long time) put them back to where they were in the 90s
 
  • Like
Reactions: tampageek
The difference is that Jobs would have moved on once the iPhone had matured two years ago to entirely new things. Job was brilliant in looking at what his labs teams were working on and figuring out how that could be used to majorly disrupt existing technology. When the labs team brought him a touch-screen tablet he asked them why they couldn't make it into a phone, that's where iPhone came from and destroyed the existing market.

Tim Cook on the other hand is a supply chain guy... and that's about all he's good at. So Apple has an enviable supply chain infrastructure, but it doesn't matter how efficient the supply chain is if customers aren't excited by your products.


Like what? A watch? maybe a car?

Point is, not even Jobs was pulling ground breaking revolutionary, all new category products out of his backside every couple of years.

The original iPod was great, the iPhone was an extension of that, and the iPad an extension of that.

So apart from the iPod (which in itself was an MP3 player, of which there were others), and the natural extensions of that, there actually wasn't that much.

Rose tinted spectacles, and all that.
 
Like what? A watch? maybe a car?

Point is, not even Jobs was pulling ground breaking revolutionary, all new category products out of his backside every couple of years.

The original iPod was great, the iPhone was an extension of that, and the iPad an extension of that.

So apart from the iPod (which in itself was an MP3 player, of which there were others), and the natural extensions of that, there actually wasn't that much.

Rose tinted spectacles, and all that.

Every product Apple has release has not been first to market in that category. They are very rarely "First" for anything, including technologies in their devices. Things they were "First" in, they typically bought the companies so that they'd have exclusive acecss to

the iPod was just a really nice MP3 player. Of which many already existed at the time.
the iPhone is just a really nice Smartphone, of which the smartphone industry already existed at the time.
the iPad was a really nice tablet. Of which a few others had already existed previously.

Job's best trait wasn't that he was an inventor. He wasn't. His best trait was spotting new trends while they were very early, and then applying good functional design decision to those products to create products that weren't "geeky" looking, and then market the ever living **** out of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johngordon
Previous years earnings are met with: 'it's good products that matter, not products!' Now, it's 'see, Apple are failing'.

Worst is when people use the stock price to judge Apple's level of innovation. I remember the stock price rose before Apple's fall 2014 event (that introduced the iPhone 6, Apple Pay and Apple Watch). It rose *before* the event despite no new products or earnings.
[doublepost=1461780162][/doublepost]
Every product Apple has release has not been first to market in that category. They are very rarely "First" for anything, including technologies in their devices. Things they were "First" in, they typically bought the companies so that they'd have exclusive acecss to

the iPod was just a really nice MP3 player. Of which many already existed at the time.
the iPhone is just a really nice Smartphone, of which the smartphone industry already existed at the time.
the iPad was a really nice tablet. Of which a few others had already existed previously.

Job's best trait wasn't that he was an inventor. He wasn't. His best trait was spotting new trends while they were very early, and then applying good functional design decision to those products to create products that weren't "geeky" looking, and then market the ever living **** out of them.

Sounds like what they did with the Watch. #1 selling smartwatch. More units sold than iPhone in year 1. 97% customer satisfaction.

No Steve Jobs to unveil and talk us through the product? The react among the idiots here is 'it's a failure!!'
 
Apple's stock has dropped every time they announced record earnings. All those analysts who kept on saying "it can't grow forever, it must finally slow down" are finally right... how many years did that take?
 
Apple is a company, it's goal is to make money. Specifically, it's a public traded company and its goal is to make money for shareholders who invested in Apple. Owning most of the profit for a product category is a good thing. Could Apple increase sales by adding newer tech? Yes, but there's a balance. And that balance is not at the point of Samsung's margins. Apple is more profitable than Samsung and other device makers in general and Apple owns more of the profile for the industry. I do not see why you are trying to spin that as a bad thing.

You ignore the software as one of the iPhone's strongest aspects of tech. Apple optimizes their software and hardware for one another so adding more RAM is not always necessary to increase performance. Average consumers buying the bulk of phones don't know what RAM is and they don't care. It's a glamor tech spec when comparing iPhones to other phones. Are there more capable apps that only run on Samsung because of the RAM difference that people want so they pick Samsung instead? Not really.

Would you rather invest in a company that is less profitable and owns less of the industry's profits? No- that's why Apple's stock has grown to what it is and Samsung (and other companies) hasn't.
That's just in theory and what's actually happening to Apple is the normal cycle of a company it goes like this, start up with negative cashflows for years then high growth with high margins with positive cashflows then margins start to normalize then the company is mature and starts paying dividends then it starts to diversify either though organic or greenfield acquisitions. For now their margins are gonna get hurt that's why investors are selling their stock. Apple sure is making 1 lot of money for the shareholders with high ASPs 1nd adjusting prices around the world for monetary devaluation but there's an inflection point where consumers will turn to cheaper offerings.
 
How long till Apple has a Trillion dollar market cap?
[doublepost=1461780736][/doublepost]
WOW! Only 10.5 Billion-with-a-B dollars of pure profit... o_O In what possible bizarro-world is that bad news? :rolleyes:
3KFvKxU.jpg

[doublepost=1461780935][/doublepost]
Apple's stock has dropped every time they announced record earnings. All those analysts who kept on saying "it can't grow forever, it must finally slow down" are finally right... how many years did that take?
I agree totally. Nothing lasts forever.

Also I see you're a fellow PSB fan. My fav from the album is Twenty-Something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brianvictor7
That was the bad part of signing a contract. The "phone payments" were included in your bill and people didn't realize it. And you actually got screwed if you didn't upgrade after two years since you kept making the hidden "phone payments" each month.

Now... thanks to payment plans... you actually see what you're paying for. It's much more transparent.

$27 a month for iPhone 6S
$80 a month for service
-----
$107 a month

And after the phone is paid off and you decide to keep the phone for a while... you only have to pay the $80 just for the service.

This is how it should be.
No, I mean the NEW service plans aren't less than they were when the subsidy was included. In fact, they went up. So now I have to pay for the entire cost of the device upfront or make payments, as well as MORE for the same service I was receiving before... It's amazing how many people actually believe they're getting a better deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: saturn88
Previous years earnings are met with: 'it's good products that matter, not products!' Now, it's 'see, Apple are failing'.

Worst is when people use the stock price to judge Apple's level of innovation. I remember the stock price rose before Apple's fall 2014 event (that introduced the iPhone 6, Apple Pay and Apple Watch). It rose *before* the event despite no new products or earnings.
[doublepost=1461780162][/doublepost]

Sounds like what they did with the Watch. #1 selling smartwatch. More units sold than iPhone in year 1. 97% customer satisfaction.

No Steve Jobs to unveil and talk us through the product? The react among the idiots here is 'it's a failure!!'

Honestly, the iPhone when it was released created excitement, and most of the ridicule was largely uninformed. Think the one about touch screen largely refereed to old touch screens which were useless, but once people saw the iPhone touch screen in action they were largely impressed.

The iWatch the ridicule is pretty much spot on. $10,000 for a digital watch which will last at most one year, really? I mean I can spent that on a Rolex, but that will last me a few generations. But on a consumer watch which will be obsolete in a year, no, I really can't justify that price.

There is something much deeper to this revenue fall, it resembles the one Microsoft went through under Balmer. Apple is resting on it laurels and is totally ignoring the wishes of the consumer. Just look at their Mac line up, its shocking how bad it has become. Three year old processors. You can't upgrade anything. If something as small as the SSD or the RAM fails, you have to replace the entire computer. That's a slap in the face to consumers.

The iPad Pro is a pathetic attempt at competing with the Surface. It still runs a stripped down operating system, a OS which is fine for your phone but honestly lacks most of the features I and many others need to do real work. Consumers are responding, sales are lack luster. Imagine for a moment they released an iPad Pro like device but the operating system was OSX. Had the ability to attach a mouse. I would have bought it to replace my laptop.

The company needs to get back in touch with the consumers.
 
Last edited:
The Tablet market has been seeing some decline in sales over the last couple years.

After the initial flurry when the iPad and then others were released, the last few years have not been kind to the tablet industry.

Apple alone has seen dramatic decrease in iPad sales. Even with the iPad pro 12.9 attempting to shake it up. even with marketting saying the iPad Pro could replace old computers. The iPad product category keeps dwindling.

There are a few reasons for this that I can figure out:
1. Tablets are being kept longer than phones. Many people only buy a tablet once. and then use it until it's dead. The tablet market has gotten faster devices, but since the iPad 2, the fundamenta iPad experience hasn't changed. Users using an iPad 2 are still perfectly capable of using it today for the same uses they were using it when it was new. While newer devices improved the ipad iteratively over each generation, the fundamental use hasn't really changed.

2. 2-in-1's and other hybride devices have taken away sales of tablets. Many people are finding that buying a hybrid device is just more practical, even if there are some compromises to be had. You can effectively buy a single high end surface pro with all accessories, and have both a tablet and laptop in one device to carry around with you. But, if you want to stick with dedicated tablet, most people are finding they'll need both a tablet and a laptop. This is a far more expensive proposition, especially in the Apple camp where there is an absolute clear divide between tablet category and computer category.

3. Tablets haven't proven to be the "pro" devices that they were original intended. Tablet's tend to be too limiting in hardware/software options, especially compared to laptops.

No companies have really managed to increase the volume of their tablet sales. its an indicator that the form factor has use, but very limited use overall and people are looking for other devices that do more.
great post. In total agreement. This isn't really a problem so much as "everything is great already so why upgrade". Not great for apple's bottom line, but they're still a profitable company so it's not the end of days.

I remember the beginnings of the great smartphone: I had the first gen iPhone and loved it, but there were always these HUGE limitations that held it back from being great. No copy and paste, MMS was absent, video recording, a good camera, etc. Over the years we've had this long checklist of features we all wanted to have in a smartphone. I remember upgrading every year for awhile because the upgrades seemed so significant. The move from simple video recording to HD video recording. Wow. A flash for the camera. Wow. A faster processor to do significant things I wanted to do without it being laggy. Then we got to a hardware maturity point where after the 5...the camera was already so great that when I got the iPhone 6, it didn't feel like a big deal. Same when I got the 6s.

So now that we've had this peak of cool features we all wanted, we buy depending on certain new features exclusive to a generation. Touch ID. 3D Touch. 4K recording. All that. But even then, I would have been happy with my 6. What can we even get excited for anymore? Wireless charging? Why? Charging isn't exactly a huge problem in my life. A better camera? Why? The camera is already so great, I'm not dying for ANY camera upgrades right now. Smart connector on an iPhone? Why? Maybe there's a cool new thing they'll be able to do with it, but I doubt it will make me need a new phone anytime soon.

It's a weird point to be at. Everything is so awesome already hardware wise, all we need is the software to catch up. That's where the excitement really like. Split screen and picture in picture changed my iPad experience dramatically. All that...with a simple free update. Didn't need to buy any new hardware. That's why tablet sales will continue to go down.
 
I don't entirely agree with you. Steve Jobs would still be debating whether to release a large screen phone.

I doubt that. Steve would have had another (or two or three) one more things by now.
[doublepost=1461782256][/doublepost]
More than you think, as a portfolio mix containing too little risk itself has a market risk relative to competing portfolios. The purchasing power of insured CDs has dropped like a rock in the past more than once.

In the late 70's
 
When even I - a super fan - started getting bored with Apple products I knew things were amiss. Canary in the coal mine.

I like the products but I now upgrade when I need; not because I salivate for the latest Apple. My spend has gone down from $5-6k per year to half that.

I sold 1/3 my Apple yesterday. Figure I'll pick it back up at $75 or $80 and ride it back to $110 with iPhone 8.

It is hard to be a perpetual novelty. I share your sentiments though. While I still enjoy my Apple toys, I am typing on a 5S and honestly am not enthusiastic about movin up to a 7 if it is essentially a 6SS.

As for slowing down on Apple spending: I haven't replaced my ailing iMac 2009 and this last Christmas I bought an iPad Mini 2 instead of a more advanced/larger model. I still use my Late 2013 MacBook Pro a fair amount and see no compelling reason to upgrade that until it dies.

Meanwhile, other shiny toys are being produced by Microsoft and Android makers. VR promises to be the Next Big Thing, though if it causes nausea, it is a no go for me. I don't know enough about it yet because I haven't had a chance to try it.

While Apple remains a solid hardware and OS maker, the gap has long since closed on functionality and stability compared with its competitors. Example: I use MS Office for Mac instead of iWork. Pages and Numbers simply don't give me the tools I need. I no longer consider Apple the premium product designer it once was.

No plans yet to jump to Android or MS devices, but the list of reasons to stay are steadily growing thinner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kbk75
All of above is true. But there are also buyers of Macs who are sophisticated users. Those are the folks who might buy a Mac Pro. But the Mac Pro has now gone 860 days without being refreshed and without a price drop. They built this fancy case with innovative thermal capacity and then just did nothing with it? in over two years they couldn't put a new GPU in there? It almost boggles the mind.

The Mac Mini has gone 559 days without a refresh. Maybe they don't want cheap hardware available that can run their OS, so maybe they are going to kill that model. But I think that is a mistake. They could have really captured serious marketshare from Windows during the Windows 8 debacle.

If Apple refreshed the specs in their hardware more often, then power users would be compelled to upgrade more often. And power user sales drive consumer user sales because it is the power users that provide advice.
I'm what many would consider a power user, and my advice these days is consistently "you probably don't need a new computer". Not only because the newer models aren't advancing quickly enough, but because user requirements aren't advancing. SSDs were the last big advance, so you want one of those, but everything else is pretty much gravy.

I have to say that I think Apple has moved to the right strategy on Macs and, apparently now iPads: get off the constant update treadmill and release a new product when it's improved enough to justify it. These are products where the technology curve has flattened and they don't need to put the expense into refreshing as often. Even Intel is realizing that advances in desktop class processors are going to be slowing down-- but more importantly the applications people use just aren't getting that much more demanding.

I loved the PowerPC days because it was exciting to see what IBM/Mot were going to do to compete with Intel, but after the switch it has just been 10% improvement a year like clock work (tick-tock, tick-tock).

Most recently that improvement has been in the form of multicore architectures that most applications still aren't using effectively-- and if they do they are going to find a vast reserve of CPU power that has been accumulating over the years but doesn't require an update to utilize. Or it's been in the form of lower power which has translated into slimmer designs-- if that's something you prioritize, you probably don't ask your geek friend about which laptop is sexiest.

iPads are the same: there isn't much I want to do with an iPad that I can't do with an iPad Air 1. Sure color gamuts are a bit better but does that justify updating? Mostly those are things people will appreciate when their old one breaks and they need to replace it-- wow, the new one feels really nice! I wound up getting an iPP because I wanted the 256GB storage and gave away my Air to someone who had been perfectly happy with an iPad 2.

I think iPhones are getting into that same groove. I still use an iPhone 5 because it does what I need in combination with the range of devices I have available. iPhone is high enough volume that they may keep the annual update rate for a while just from a fashion perspective, because they can amortize the development cost over so many units, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it slow down in the near future as well.

The Watch is at a different point in the curve, and I expect to keep buying updates on that for a few cycles as they advance it toward something truly useful.

So yeah, there are a few tech junkies who always want the latest acronyms in their hardware, but that's not a growth path for a company as large as Apple, even considering knock-on effects. Apple, as a business, is focused on profit margins-- how much value do they as an enterprise add to their products. They will always focus their strategy at where they see they have value, and where that margin holds up. If that means declining unit sales, and reduced update cycles then they'll probably follow that path until they exit the market.

I'd be really surprised if they suddenly implement a strategy of more but smaller updates pursuing unit sales over profit as they chase a stagnating market.
 
I was listening to a somewhat recent episode of Accidental Tech Podcast, and John Siracusa was talking about all of this frustration and griping that's been going on over the last year or so. He presented it as a sort of generational thing, like the idea that there are "generations" of Mac users and that now the after-SJ-returned switcher generation (and probably pre- too... though I was the former) senses things shifting and weakening, but the after-iOS-released generation sees no problem in the direction or trajectory of things. It's an interesting angle, but I agree, it IS different now. Exactly the sentiments I have been slowly coming to terms with myself.

Also: WOW! Knowing that you saved the PREMIER ISSUE of MacAddict... that's pretty awesome and great foresight! MacAddict was the bomb, and I still miss that publication today. It wasn't the same after they re-branded as Mac|Life (not that it was bad), and now even Mac|Life got folded into ... techhive (?) or something like that. I wish I saved at least a few of my issues from back in the day, but I didn't.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

No foresight at all on that premier issue of MacAddict. It's a disease. Loved my Macs! Great thing about that addiction, TC seems to be the cure ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: PizzaBoxStyle
I doubt that. Steve would have had another (or two or three) one more things by now.
[doublepost=1461782256][/doublepost]
I doubt it. In 14 years he came up with 3 big things: iPod, iPhone, and iPad. The iPod was a flash in the pan, the iPad is smaller than the Mac, and the iPhone completely transformed the company.
 
I don't think Apple is in trouble in anyway. But they need to seriously get their act together. I appreciate their products and that of their competition too but there's some clear issues.
Convoluted and outdated product lines;

How many types of iPad is there now? There should be a Mini, 9.7" and 12", instead there's what Air and Pro of the same size?

Apple watch perhaps has potential but again, how many types is there?

Their Macbook and iMac lineups are not acceptable in my opinion - when you are charging a premium then you need to be first out the gates when the latest chips come out - the 15" Pro is still using Haswell which is two generations behind! I've been running a Skylake 6700k in my desktop since August! Dell has been nailing their latest XPS laptops in design and performance and included Skylake chips last year!

While I really love my iPhone 6S and appreciate the under the hood improvements, I feel they need to double down on what they are actually offering.. Should be three sizes, 4" 4.7" and 5.5", all with feature parity and they need to ditch the 16GB options now. If you aren't willing to reduce the price of the iPhone then you need to differentiate yourself from the premium options your rivals have. We all know flash storage is cheap, the small increase in cost to Apple for offering 64GB/128GB/256GB as the standard sizes is a small cost to pay while users like myself will really appreciate the extra value for money we are getting and it helps the appeal to users.

Personally I'm buying a Skylake Retina Macbook soon, I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with their Pro lineup, but it should've been updated months ago. Or even mid last year with Broadwell for their 15" at the very least! To me premium products should always be first with the latest silicon! I realise Intel has had delays but nothing like this.
 
I doubt it. In 14 years he came up with 3 big things: iPod, iPhone, and iPad. The iPod was a flash in the pan, the iPad is smaller than the Mac, and the iPhone completely transformed the company.

Where did the Apple computer come from? Airport?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.