Apple's $1 Billion Investment in Didi Chuxing Aligned With Electric Vehicle Plans

[IJ Reilly]

Yeah I'm not a fan of that (and I still think it's more about politics than anything else) but I think Apple really is doomed if all they can ever do is make phones/tablets/laptops. People don't seem to have a problem with Amazon, Alphabet and others getting in to all kinds of things but with Apple it seems to be stay in your lane and never go outside of it.

What is Apple's lane? Everything they've done over the last 15 years or so is about widening their lane, or creating new lanes.

As for your other two examples, both of those companies have been critiqued for their lack of focus. Google had to create a new parent company to get all those projects created by their monumental case of corporate ADD into separate lanes. It still looks like a big mess. Amazon grows their top line in leaps and bounds, but has trouble showing a profit, in part because so many of their products aren't commercially successful. Neither are good models for what Apple does or should do.

So yes Apple needs to push outwards from their current product line, just as they have always done, but these new products should be leveraged against their demonstrated competencies. On that score, the car just doesn't seem like the thing, unless they've come up with such a novel approach to transportation that nobody else has either thought of it or has the resources to do it. Nothing I'd rule out entirely but it makes my brain hurt just thinking about it.

 

[Reds622]

I didn't answer your question because it is an unknowable thing. Like the people who say "Steve would have never allowed this." No one knows or can know. What I do know is that Steve trusted Tim and told him to not try to run the company by doing what he thought Steve would do, but to use his own skill and insights to make decisions.

The wisdom of what Tim has done will not be fully known for many years. Just as people told Steve that getting into phones was stupid and now everyone here complains that the Mac gets short shrift because the iPhone is most of Apple's revenue, the iCar may do the same. Or it may bankrupt the company. But posters on a blog who think they know how to run a multi-billion dollar company just strikes me as an incredible level of hubris.

Another perceptual bias that people have is the hindsight bias where they think that the outcome of a decision once it is known could have been predicted when it couldn't have. Beats may not have turned out to be a good decision, but we don't know what they are or were planning on doing with it. And the Apple watch is still in its infancy. I didn't buy one because I think it might be much better in future iterations. But it might be a dud. Maybe it's the internet generation that can't patiently wait for things to pan out or not before making a judgement.

And finally, I think Apple has been a victim of its own success. You complain because Tim Cook hasn't revolutionized anything. How many companies ever make huge revolutions in an industry? Apple has done it several times and now just a great CEO isn't enough for people. Unless Apple turns some industry on it's head every year we're complaining.

(1) Does it make sense to build/promote the foundation/purpose of your company as grounded in civil rights, being environmentally friendly, open-ness in free society, and then make billions of dollars in investments and capitulate to a governmental regime who is pretty much the opposite of your core values?

(2) What has been the core driver of Apple's growth over the years? iPhone. That was not developed in the Tim Cook era. I think it's a fair criticism to say that, at this point in time, many of the decisions that have been made by Cook have not created the type of diversified growth Apple will need going forward. In fact, the opposite has really happened, with iPhone generating more and more of Apple's revenue each quarter.

(3) While iPhone has become more powerful, Apple computers have not. They have released lower power computers while keeping prices the same. Margin has been a priority and high power users have not. How else do you explain the Macbook? A lower power computer with only 1 port? Refreshes to Air and Pro have been non-existent.

(4) Apple Watch. A fundamental shift in the direction of how Apple decided to market a product. Fashion houses, models costing thousands of dollars, no longer is "status" subtle but blatant-depending on how much you paid for a particular model of the device. Advertisements in vogue, watches under fancy glass cases requiring a "sales pitch" from an Apple employee. The hiring of the CEO of an overpriced fashion house with no real tech experience to run the retail stores.

(5) Stock buybacks and implementation of a dividend. Something always strictly opposed to in the Jobs era of Apple.

I see a lot of strange/head scratching decision making taking place. And I'm not an "Apple hater" to point out that I don't think it's the right one. I love Apple products and came back around to buying their machines beginning with the Black Powerbook G3.

 

[Nunyabinez]

In all fairness, he's not saying that apple is doomed. he's just criticizing some business decisions, which is also what I am doing. Hopefully Apple will prove me wrong, but it seems that they're pissing off incrementally more people, and they almost abandoned their true "core", the so called Pros.

Pros may have been their "true core" at one point, but go back to that graphic and see how much of Apple's revenue is due to Pros. We look at it from our stand point and say "Apple should pay attention to me because I spend many thousands of dollars on their products." But for every one of us pros, there are thousands of prosumers who may not spend as much per person, but aggravated make us virtually irrelevant from a revenue perspective.

So, from a managerial perspective, continuing to support a tiny "niche" with R&D, etc. would actually be a poor decision. Maybe we don't like it, but it is certainly not an example of poor management of a business.
[doublepost=1463167646][/doublepost]

(1) Does it make sense to build/promote the foundation/purpose of your company as grounded in civil rights, being environmentally friendly, open-ness in free society, and then make billions of dollars in investments and capitulate to a governmental regime who is pretty much the opposite of your core values?

LOL. I just got back from China on Sunday. I bought some stuff while I was there. Using your logic I just capitulated to an evil regime. Idk how you get from investing in a Chinese company to getting in bed with communism, but oh well.

 

[wigby]

Bad example, IMO.

Smart watches were beginning to sell. Like other blossoming markets they've entered, that's why Apple got interested.

However, in typical Apple fashion, they locked their system down to make it impossible for anyone else to integrate with an iPhone. So of course their own device with secret access, would be the best selling on their own ecosystem.

As for marketing something to everyone, I agree. When the Watch came out, I noted that Apple had made sure it had something to appeal to everyone. Of course, when other companies do that, it's calling "throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks". Nothing wrong with that, though. Smart move.

The watch is the best selling of all smart watches, not just on iOS. Android Wear and Pebble are open to all platforms and yet Apple's outsells them 3:1 combined even though those watches are supported on over 2 billion devices worldwide. Maybe that says more about Apple customers than the Apple Watch but that means that Apple knows their customers better than anyone else knows their own customers which is very valuable.

 

[Reds622]

Pros may have been their "true core" at one point, but go back to that graphic and see how much of Apple's revenue is due to Pros. We look at it from our stand point and say "Apple should pay attention to me because I spend many thousands of dollars on their products." But for every one of us pros, there are thousands of prosumers who may not spend as much per person, but aggravated make us virtually irrelevant from a revenue perspective.

So, from a managerial perspective, continuing to support a tiny "niche" with R&D, etc. would actually be a poor decision. Maybe we don't like it, but it is certainly not an example of poor management of a business.
[doublepost=1463167646][/doublepost]

LOL. I just got back from China on Sunday. I bought some stuff while I was there. Using your logic I just capitulated to an evil regime. Idk how you get from investing in a Chinese company to getting in bed with communism, but oh well.

Guess we have a fundamental disagreement as to the current values of the Chinese Government and how they control their people. They are not an open and free society. They censor the internet, just to keep this in the tech sphere. Let's not even dive in to their human rights record, which is abysmal.

And yes, I think a big part of this 1 billion dollar "investment" is to appease the Chinese Government. And I'm not the only one who holds that view. In fact, am I even in the minority holding that position? I'm not sure that I am.

 

[Mactendo]

Commodore 64 was my first computer. Not young. Neither did I predict the end of Apple. Apple almost sunk to nothing before Jobs came back. I remember that quite vividly. They weren't doomed, but they were virtually irrelevant.

I think the same will happen again, but this time they have a much larger market share and war chest to keep the momentum going further.

If you want to dismiss all of us who take the time to write an actual analysis as knee jerk "Apple is doomed" naysayers, then I cannot help you. I can dismiss everything you say as "Apple fanboy'ism", and there's really no point to having a rational discussion.

Scott Forstall should start or buy his own tech company, so Apple could purchase it and make him CEO when it starts sinking.

 

[MacsRgr8]

Remember after Steve was fired from Apple, they started dabbling into really weird niche products that had nothing to do with their core business and sales across the board began to tank due to lack of updates/innovation in the products that actually made money thus crippling the company revenue?
I look at the numbers for iPhones and Mac's going down year over year, stories like this one indicating more and more capital and resources being diverted from core product R&D into this "Apple Car," and I can't help but get a chilling sense of deja vu.

L'histoire c'est répète

 

[shk718]

Remember after Steve was fired from Apple, they started dabbling into really weird niche products that had nothing to do with their core business and sales across the board began to tank due to lack of updates/innovation in the products that actually made money thus crippling the company revenue?
I look at the numbers for iPhones and Mac's going down year over year, stories like this one indicating more and more capital and resources being diverted from core product R&D into this "Apple Car," and I can't help but get a chilling sense of deja vu.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The Apple back then was a weak company with few resources. The Apple today is the largest company on the planet in many measures. They can and should take big risks.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Pros may have been their "true core" at one point, but go back to that graphic and see how much of Apple's revenue is due to Pros. We look at it from our stand point and say "Apple should pay attention to me because I spend many thousands of dollars on their products." But for every one of us pros, there are thousands of prosumers who may not spend as much per person, but aggravated make us virtually irrelevant from a revenue perspective.

So, from a managerial perspective, continuing to support a tiny "niche" with R&D, etc. would actually be a poor decision. Maybe we don't like it, but it is certainly not an example of poor management of a business.

From a beancounting point of view, you might be right. But damaging the Pro sector (which doesn't require that much R&D compared to Apple's revenue stream), it is brand damaging in the long term. You're shutting down the most vocal carriers of the brand and in the long term it might cost way more than the not-so steep requirements of the now abandoned pro users.

 

[asfdasdf]

Does it make it even worse that Tim Cook is trying to align and integrate the company on a substantial level with a communist government with a terrible human rights record?

Seems to me that Tim Cook has taken for granted the market that has turned the company into what it has become, the United States, because he feels beholden to the market to keep searching for higher and higher returns. But instead of focusing on innovation through the pipeline, and continuing to focus on what has made Apple great, he's been looking for short term solutions by focusing so heavily on emerging markets. And I'm not saying that trying to capitalize on countries like China and India should not be a focus, but to do so in a way that I feel is detrimental to the long term interests of the company is short sighted and could be a costly mistake. If US consumers start to feel that Apple is prioritizing Chineze business over America interests because it is a "bigger" market with more growth potential, then they are going to start looking elsewhere. And if US consumers start to go elsewhere, then the shine of Apple begins to wear off and it could be crippling on its business worldwide. Now, obviously a worst case scenario, but I don't like the direction Cook is taking the company, and haven't for a while now (see fashion wearables, multiple color computers, low power computers, increasing share buybacks, etc.). A little worrisome.

Are you a child or what? Wake up, this is business, nobody cares about that crap apart from the marketing department, what matters is money.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

As much as I think this is pointing towards autonomous, electric vehicles in ride sharing, mass transit, and delivery applications, that does raise a few interesting issues.

Highly Visible - taxis, limos, jitneys, and buses are omnipresent in urban settings. The vehicles can be highly iconic (think the old Checker cabs, London's taxis and buses, Lincoln Towncars...) and are present in just about any film/video footage of urban scenes. That's potentially a lot of promotional value for the Apple brand as a whole. Apple could roll out its EV in relatively small quantities as a fleet vehicle and still gain great mind-share.

Time Between Charges - Fleet vehicles operate on nearly round-the-clock schedules, with minimal downtime. That's a problem for today's electric vehicles, which with the exception of the Teslas, have about an 85 mile range. When connected to a high-speed DC charging station, they can charge in 10-30 minutes. However, it takes time to reach a charging station. A computerized dispatch system can minimize that downtime, ensuring that a vehicle makes a drop-off reasonably near to a charging station, but it's still a challenge. Some of the cost efficiencies of having no drivers may be lost by requiring additional fleet vehicles to cover the charging downtime, but the fact that there is no driver-related downtime will still be a plus.

85 miles might be 3-4 hours of urban driving, or 2 hours if there's a trip to a suburban destination like an airport. That might mean 30-60 minutes of downtime every 2-4 hours. At the least, the range of the vehicles has to be expanded, and some sort of on-the-go charging system will be needed (periodic connection to overhead wires, perhaps). This is not likely an either/or proposition - both are likely to be needed. Wireless charging is far less efficient than DC charging, so it's not likely to be on the table.

Battery Efficiency - Now, one thing Apple is famous (or infamous) for is minimizing battery size while maximizing battery life. There is a major difference between doing that for an iPhone (where the optimizations are nearly all in software), and a vehicle, where the physics of mass come into play. Still, autonomous vehicles as a whole will have an advantage over today's EVs, in that acceleration/deceleration and cruising speed will be 100% computer controlled - that's certainly the kind of software-based optimization Apple excels at.

A very interesting post.

One thing that this would set up though: a clash of Apple vs. Teamsters (and similar) Unions. You made me think of many trips to Las Vegas where- for years and years now- there's been a consistent push for the monorail to connect the (VERY) nearby airport to the strip. Of course, that would make the (human driven) taxi business plummet significantly but otherwise be better for travelers to and from... and for the (primary) LV hotels/resorts with stops along the monorail rail.

So what holds it up? It's definitely NOT one of these gigantically expensive projects, as the distance is very close (one could walk it if they were in fair shape... and there was any kind of established & safe walkway for those wanting to do that). When I ask that question of the locals, I always hear the cab driver's union keeps throwing up obstacles to implementation & execution. Who is the union of the cab drivers? Do they have much power in such matters?

Now picture the above- which is a great possibility for some Apple Car implementation- vs. the same kind of resistance, but in about EVERY fair-sized city in the land... or world? Sure, I can already imagine the countless threads ripping into the cabbies, the unions, etc (et all- as usual- anyone who conflicts with anything Apple wants to do is absolutely in the wrong) but if we can think beyond that, it seems this would certainly be a different kind of challenge to overcome than the usual Apple vs. Samsung, iOS vs. Android, OS X vs. Windows debates. And probably not anywhere near as easy as we would think regardless of how much money Apple has on hand AND how much money could be saved by cab companies by eliminating their human labor costs.

 

[ProjectManager101]

Remember after Steve was fired from Apple, they started dabbling into really weird niche products that had nothing to do with their core business and sales across the board began to tank due to lack of updates/innovation in the products that actually made money thus crippling the company revenue?

Like these?

Apple is a huge failure. As I said before, Google, Youtube and many others are eating the company alive. Steve Jobs is gone, Tim Cook is a joke. Investors are leeches with no tech vision. If Apple had a little brain they could have put together Safari and iWorks and create "Google Drive". But no... they have those applications cute looking doing nothing because no one is using them. The same with Youtube, Apple has all those cloud services and Apple TV and they are unable to integrate and look further... Youtube rules. iTunes is a sad joke, the only thing iTunes did was to put cassette tapes back in the market, better experience. I mean, Apple is being ripped of, is becoming a bubble and the Apple Car is just an illusion... are you going to compete against Toyota, BMW, Rolls Royce and so many corporations with so much market? and expertise? I mean, Kia would have better chances developing smart phones than Apple developing a car. They know they will fail but they are just keeping expectations high.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

The difference being the market was pushing Apple to release a phone for years before they finally did, which is partially why the ROKR was such a loathed product. Is anyone besides the diehard Apple fanboi faithful that would buy anything with an Apple logo on it asking for an Apple Car right now? They have no background whatsoever in this market, no experience, no expertise, no history. At least with the iPhone, Apple had two decades of consumer electronics capped by a wildly successful iPod line under it's belt before it dipped its toes in the mobile phone waters. This is more like Boeing announcing it's going to release a line of laptops.

Here's an idea: release a substantial MBP and Mac Pro update. Release an update to the rMB with a SECOND USB-C port (and Thunderbolt 3 if we're being honest) Retire or substantially discount the Air line and position it as the new entry level device for students, replacing the years-old non-retina MB. Release an OLED iPhone starting at 32GB and give up this 16GB nonsense once and for all. Release SOMETHING that gets people excited again about Apple products for god's sake, and watch that stock price and those sales numbers rebound.

How in the world switching to OLED and boosting RAM make a dramatic improvement in iPhone's prospects? There's little evidence that people are abandoning iPhone in favor of 32GB OLED-equipped phones from other makers - the slow-down in sales is affecting everyone in the smartphone business. You're confusing "What I'd do if I was a product designer/what I want on my consumer wish list" with the wishes of average consumers.

How in the world will a better Mac solve the company's problems, when worldwide demand for PCs keeps dropping? All that does is improve market share of a shrinking market. Besides the fact that the R&D costs for a next-generation Mac are a drop in the $10 billion bucket (so undoubtedly part of that budget already), will that somehow so dramatically improve demand for a product that is currently responsible about 20% of the company's that it fixes all other problems? Give me a break!

So what if a couple of popular features may temporarily improve sales figures? R&D isn't about next year's models, it's about the long-term future. If Apple isn't working on the Next Big Thing, then Apple is simply another Nokia or Blackberry, whose lunch will be eaten in the next paradigm shift.

Now, maybe Apple shouldn't grow at all. Growth for growth's sake makes the stock market happy, but puttering along profitably at what you know isn't such a bad thing. But if Apple is to continue growing (and its investors certainly want that), then one has to wonder whether consumer electronics is a large enough sector to sustain that growth. Sure, Apple could move into the low profit margin end of consumer electronics, but it's definitely not part of the company's DNA.

So, on the assumption that consumer electronics does not present the kind of growth opportunities that Apple investors want to see, then Apple needs to look for growth in new categories. Entertainment/services is certainly one of those, health/healthcare and the connected home are others. All leverage Apple's installed base. So do wearables and VR, though those more likely represent paradigm shifts, rather than substantial growth opportunities.

Transportation is certainly a riskier move, but if Apple is going to move beyond its current niche, it's closer to Apple's core competency than, say, real estate, banking, energy, agriculture... It's a field where technology is poised to make a very substantial change, and technological change is a large part of what Apple does. Autonomous vehicles will fundamentally alter the end user experience.

 

[Soccertess]

Remember after Steve was fired from Apple, they started dabbling into really weird niche products that had nothing to do with their core business and sales across the board began to tank due to lack of updates/innovation in the products that actually made money thus crippling the company revenue?
I look at the numbers for iPhones and Mac's going down year over year, stories like this one indicating more and more capital and resources being diverted from core product R&D into this "Apple Car," and I can't help but get a chilling sense of deja vu.

Well put! While there are a lot of people who would rather be blind to what's happening, you said it well!

I would be very excited Apple entering into the car market but it really feels there products are suffering from neglect.

 

[Kiko007]

Like these?

Apple is a huge failure. As I said before, Google, Youtube and many others are eating the company alive. Steve Jobs is gone, Tim Cook is a joke. Investors are leeches with no tech vision. If Apple had a little brain they could have put together Safari and iWorks and create "Google Drive". But no... they have those applications cute looking doing nothing because no one is using them. The same with Youtube, Apple has all those cloud services and Apple TV and they are unable to integrate and look further... Youtube rules. iTunes is a sad joke, the only thing iTunes did was to put cassette tapes back in the market, better experience. I mean, Apple is being ripped of, is becoming a bubble and the Apple Car is just an illusion... are you going to compete against Toyota, BMW, Rolls Royce and so many corporations with so much market? and expertise? I mean, Kia would have better chances developing smart phones than Apple developing a car. They know they will fail but they are just keeping expectations high.

Is this sarcasm? B/c if not, I don't know what to say honestly.

 

[Mactendo]

Many people say here how people were pessimistic about Apple making a phone, so out of curiosity I digged the article about the original iPhone announcement at Macworld in 2007.

9 comments out of 10 on the first 2 pages are "impressive/fantastic/amazing":
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-announces-the-iphone.267804/

And here an article about Apple Watch announcement.
Almost half of the people say it's "hideous/disappointing/mediocre":
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...tch-available-in-early-2015-from-349.1773623/

 

[Jeremy1026]

Where do you see the numbers going down? I think you are confusing growth with volume.

Does that look like going down to anyone?

You stopped a year early.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

A very interesting post.

One thing that this would set up though: a clash of Apple vs. Teamsters (and similar) Unions. You made me think of many trips to Las Vegas where- for years and years now- there's been a consistent push for the monorail to connect the (VERY) nearby airport to the strip. Of course, that would make the (human driven) taxi business plummet significantly but otherwise be better for travelers to and from... and for the (primary) LV hotels/resorts with stops along the monorail rail.

So what holds it up? It's definitely NOT one of these gigantically expensive projects, as the distance is very close (one could walk it if they were in fair shape... and there was any kind of established & safe walkway for those wanting to do that). When I ask that question of the locals, I always hear the cab driver's union keeps throwing up obstacles to implementation & execution. Who is the union of the cab drivers? Do they have much power in such matters?

Now picture the above- which is a great possibility for some Apple Car implementation- vs. the same kind of resistance, but in about EVERY fair-sized city in the land... or world? Sure, I can already imagine the countless threads ripping into the cabbies, the unions, etc (et all- as usual- anyone who conflicts with anything Apple wants to do is absolutely in the wrong) but if we can think beyond that, it seems this would certainly be a different kind of challenge to overcome than the usual Apple vs. Samsung, iOS vs. Android, OS X vs. Windows debates. And probably not anywhere near as easy as we would think regardless of how much money Apple has on hand AND how much money could be saved by cab companies by eliminating their human labor costs.

I spent a short stint as a unionized taxi driver, a long time ago...

Certainly, there are all sorts of entrenched constituencies, resisting just about any kind of change. Uber's success has been remarkable in that respect. The US is the most mass transit-resistant nation in the developed world, both for social/cultural reasons and due to population distribution patterns. We also have the unfortunate habit of favoring independence over efficiency.

All this argues for is the genius of doing this in China. China is the low-hanging fruit in this category. Considering the size of that fruit... very juicy indeed. Look at China's transportation infrastructure, population distribution, pollution and energy challenges.... If China's middle class is to expand ten-fold in the near-term future, there's no conceivable way China will be able to embrace a ten-fold increase in the number of cars on the road. China has to do it smarter, and due to its incredibly long totalitarian heritage (Imperial, as well as Communist), top-down change is far easier to implement.

Sure, I'd love to see a future here in the US where I didn't have to own a car. I'm also approaching the age where it'll be best for society that I do not drive (hell, it'd be better for society if most of us didn't drive). So this autonomous vehicle/ride-sharing model seems very appealing. But I'm quite sure that, outside of vacation travel to other lands, I'm going to have to wait a long time before I see it - long after it's technically and economically feasible. The USA is just that kind of stubbornly backward place.

Traditionally, Apple introduces its new products in US. For this? I don't think so. And there's nothing wrong with that!

 

[Jakexb]

I hear a lot of complaining on MacRumors about "rose gold" and "vogue magazine".
Part of technology is the engineering, part of it is the design.
Technology is a normal part of peoples lives.
And it's also for women, not just "gadget dudes". Make it in rose gold, make a million different straps! That's half of the equation for an object (phone, watch, laptop) that is basically going to attached to you every day.

I also want to see more cool engineering coming out of Apple, but it's a false dichotomy to say that Apple cares about "rose gold" and not the technology inside it.

 

[BJonson]

I like driving my car. If I wanted my car to drive me I'd take a taxi or bus. Self driving cars are stupid and will never work. The only application a self driving car can fulfill for regular people is as a safety feature.

All I want is for apple to start giving us the computers and features we all want but that has been my wish for many many years and Apple just doesn't care.

1. Upgrade the damn Macbook air with IPS
2. Give us a real gaming mac and a real workstation. They can shove that trash can where the sun don't shine.
3. iPhones, ugh, so many things they can do here that they won't ever do.
4. How about new monitors, I mean jeez.
5. Bring back the old keyboards and mouse and make the keyboard light up.
6. Apple watch, throw it away.
7. How about some apple printers, I miss them.
8. Make any of the computers you sell serviceable. I mean really? Tim, we know you are a money grubbing &*##.
9. Come out with something cool for the Desktop, hell make an apple desk fan or something.


That's just for starters.

 

[Plutonius]

That may be one of the reasons but I still think the main reason was it was a bribe.

 

[IJ Reilly]

That's just for starters.

You might want to quit while you are not further behind.

 

[ksnell]

Does it make it even worse that Tim Cook is trying to align and integrate the company on a substantial level with a communist government with a terrible human rights record?

Seems to me that Tim Cook has taken for granted the market that has turned the company into what it has become, the United States, because he feels beholden to the market to keep searching for higher and higher returns. But instead of focusing on innovation through the pipeline, and continuing to focus on what has made Apple great, he's been looking for short term solutions by focusing so heavily on emerging markets. And I'm not saying that trying to capitalize on countries like China and India should not be a focus, but to do so in a way that I feel is detrimental to the long term interests of the company is short sighted and could be a costly mistake. If US consumers start to feel that Apple is prioritizing Chineze business over America interests because it is a "bigger" market with more growth potential, then they are going to start looking elsewhere. And if US consumers start to go elsewhere, then the shine of Apple begins to wear off and it could be crippling on its business worldwide. Now, obviously a worst case scenario, but I don't like the direction Cook is taking the company, and haven't for a while now (see fashion wearables, multiple color computers, low power computers, increasing share buybacks, etc.). A little worrisome.

I'm with you on everything except the share buybacks. That's just good business if you think your companies stock is undervalued. You're essentially buying cash at a huge discount, as you can sell the stock back later for greater value or use it to compensate employees.

 

[pat500000]

I hear car accidents.

 

[Mactendo]

I'm curious what would be next after the car release...
Hot Dog Toaster would be a neat addition to the product line...