Apple's Eddy Cue Restructuring Services Team to Focus More on Streaming and Advertising

[MacBH928]

Hostile takeover of a company like Disney would seem highly unlikely but I guess not impossible. I'm guessing there are also some large shareholders that wouldn't sell at a current market value either. Especially if they are dividend paying shares.

They do not have to sell, thats the thing. Apple cash budget (and money leveraged from bank in loans) will totally give them the higher percentage and voting power(buying from none-large shareholders). Apple literally has more cash than Disney's market cap. Add to that Disney'y stock is falling, so its a good time to buy any ways! (click 1Y button on the graph )

No one has $200B+ in cash, not even Elon Musk who has it in stocks (overvalued) .

 

[MacBH928]

Tell that to the hundreds of businesses in EU that have existed for hundreds of years not growing just racketing in pure profits.

care to give an example?

what @dwaltwhit says has truth to it, although its not exactly growing but more about adapting and improving. Example: There are only so many people in the UK, so a telecom like BT can't grow more customers than people living but if they do not adapt and improve by adding new services like internet, 5G, fiber, cellphones and stay a landline company yeah they will die to the competition.

They can grow in other markets though like opening in other countries , or competing in different businesses like TV channels, rental cars, selling electronics and that is what Apple is doing moved from making computes to music players, to cellphones, to producing movies, and rumors about building cars. At this point it will into a conglomerate , a holding company of many large independent businesses and I really believe the jack of all trades is master of none. GE

Indeed a business can "not grow" and remain very alive and profitable. There are many stores/restaurant and factories world wide that are 50-100 years old and still working and making money.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

care to give an example?

what @dwaltwhit says has truth to it, although its not exactly growing but more about adapting and improving. Example: There are only so many people in the UK, so a telecom like BT can't grow more customers than people living but if they do not adapt and improve by adding new services like internet, 5G, fiber, cellphones and stay a landline company yeah they will die to the competition.

They can grow in other markets though like opening in other countries , or competing in different businesses like TV channels, rental cars, selling electronics and that is what Apple is doing moved from making computes to music players, to cellphones, to producing movies, and rumors about building cars. At this point it will into a conglomerate , a holding company of many large independent businesses and I really believe the jack of all trades is master of none. GE

Indeed a business can "not grow" and remain very alive and profitable. There are many stores/restaurant and factories world wide that are 50-100 years old and still working and making money.

Well yes I do

The oldest European companies still in operation

www.eupedia.com

One good example is Staffelter Hof Winery- 862 still doing wine

And Munke Molle Denmark – 1135 still doing bread.

In Europe rational growth is wanted rather than maximum growth because maximum growth isn’t stable in the long term. Could be because the vast majority of new businesses are funded by banks who want stability and reliability and not venture capitalists who wants growth and return on investment.

Apple could grow by improving existing products even as there is a limited amount of iPhone ownerships they can have. But expanding to more and more markets to grow is in my mind not healthy or profitable compared to becoming laser focused on your expertise. As you said jack of all trades, master of none.

The technology industry have had the most explosive growth but also the shortest lived companies

 

[MacBH928]

7. Business gets fat and lazy and only seeks revenue growth.
8. Business gets caught blindsided (blinded by focus on revenue and not product/value to customer) by an upstart or another company that pivots and enters the space.
9. Business gets slaughtered like the stuffed pig it is.

Kodak, Blockbuster, Kmart, Sears, Tower Records, Hostess, AOL, Nokia, Blackberry, MySpace, Radio Shack, Motorola, Palm, GM, Worldcom, Lehman Bros, TiVo, Nortel

Do I really need to go on?

ehhh... you are right and wrong.

To some companies yes this applies, usually accompanied by bad management and lack of adapting to market demands (AOL, BlockBuster, RadioShack).

But not all managements are dumb, some are simply evil and are not put down by any upstart, they will crash them:-
ATT (heard enough about people hating this company still making profit)
Walmart?
Nestle (there is like a campaign to boycott Nestle)
Facebook - the most popular yet hated company
Amazon - As a customer I love their service but I hear their business practices are shady

You know the rest

I wouldnt put Nokia, Blackberry, MySpace, Motorola and Palm in there.

Both Nokia and Blackberry were very popular in 2006-2007 and exploding in success. Its just Apple caught them with their pants down with something totally revolutionary with the iphone (thanks Steve) and didn't even give them time to adapt by 2012/3 (5 years later) they were pretty much dead. Its like somebody selling VHS and suddenly DVD dropped in. Nokia still worth $27B and their cellphone department was sold for $7.6 to Microsoft

MySpace was popular and sold for $580M for NewsCorp who didn't know what to do with it and died with it. Palm was bought by HP, hoping (I think) to to use its WebOS to compete against iPad and iOS but that soon failed with a very weak attempt. Even Apple took some pages from WebOS's book. For reasons I do not know, LG bought WebOS and made it its current TV OS.

so, yeah, other than BB the rest were put to the ground by their new and lacking vision owner. So i wouldn't blame the original company.

Edit: BTW, #3 on your list should state - Business partners with corrupt regulators to implement barriers to entry that seek to 'protect the consumer'. Then #4 is no one can compete against due to regulatory barriers.

--
Yes your #3 in there too but I was trying to get the idea across without going into too much detail

 

[Sophisticatednut]

ehhh... you are right and wrong.

To some companies yes this applies, usually accompanied by bad management and lack of adapting to market demands (AOL, BlockBuster, RadioShack).

But not all managements are dumb, some are simply evil and are not put down by any upstart, they will crash them:-
ATT (heard enough about people hating this company still making profit)
Walmart?
Nestle (there is like a campaign to boycott Nestle)
Facebook - the most popular yet hated company
Amazon - As a customer I love their service but I hear their business practices are shady

You know the rest

I wouldnt put Nokia, Blackberry, MySpace, Motorola and Palm in there.

Both Nokia and Blackberry were very popular in 2006-2007 and exploding in success. Its just Apple caught them with their pants down with something totally revolutionary with the iphone (thanks Steve) and didn't even give them time to adapt by 2012/3 (5 years later) they were pretty much dead. Its like somebody selling VHS and suddenly DVD dropped in. Nokia still worth $27B and their cellphone department was sold for $7.6 to Microsoft

MySpace was popular and sold for $580M for NewsCorp who didn't know what to do with it and died with it. Palm was bought by HP, hoping (I think) to to use its WebOS to compete against iPad and iOS but that soon failed with a very weak attempt. Even Apple took some pages from WebOS's book. For reasons I do not know, LG bought WebOS and made it its current TV OS.

so, yeah, other than BB the rest were put to the ground by their new and lacking vision owner. So i wouldn't blame the original company.







--
Yes your #3 in there too but I was trying to get the idea across without going into too much detail

Well one important part is that Nokia isnt a mobile phone company. They have existed since the 1800s. They just sold of their mobile department and concentrated on their core business that they actually knew how to manage

 

[siddavis]

ehhh... you are right and wrong.

To some companies yes this applies, usually accompanied by bad management and lack of adapting to market demands (AOL, BlockBuster, RadioShack).

But not all managements are dumb, some are simply evil and are not put down by any upstart, they will crash them:-
ATT (heard enough about people hating this company still making profit)
Walmart?
Nestle (there is like a campaign to boycott Nestle)
Facebook - the most popular yet hated company
Amazon - As a customer I love their service but I hear their business practices are shady

You know the rest

I wouldnt put Nokia, Blackberry, MySpace, Motorola and Palm in there.

Both Nokia and Blackberry were very popular in 2006-2007 and exploding in success. Its just Apple caught them with their pants down with something totally revolutionary with the iphone (thanks Steve) and didn't even give them time to adapt by 2012/3 (5 years later) they were pretty much dead. Its like somebody selling VHS and suddenly DVD dropped in. Nokia still worth $27B and their cellphone department was sold for $7.6 to Microsoft

MySpace was popular and sold for $580M for NewsCorp who didn't know what to do with it and died with it. Palm was bought by HP, hoping (I think) to to use its WebOS to compete against iPad and iOS but that soon failed with a very weak attempt. Even Apple took some pages from WebOS's book. For reasons I do not know, LG bought WebOS and made it its current TV OS.

so, yeah, other than BB the rest were put to the ground by their new and lacking vision owner. So i wouldn't blame the original company.







--
Yes your #3 in there too but I was trying to get the idea across without going into too much detail

Whaaaa??
My original response was to a post that was seemingly downplaying capitalism because corporations get big and customers just have to take what is given to them. I was showing through numerous examples of BIG companies that the mechanisms of capitalism work as long as there isn't nefarious interference.

So then the response back is that some of these companies had "bad management and lack of adapting to market demands"... you mean... CAPITALISM?

 

[MacBH928]

Well yes I do

The oldest European companies still in operation

www.eupedia.com

One good example is Staffelter Hof Winery- 862 still doing wine

And Munke Molle Denmark – 1135 still doing bread.

In Europe rational growth is wanted rather than maximum growth because maximum growth isn’t stable in the long term. Could be because the vast majority of new businesses are funded by banks who want stability and reliability and not venture capitalists who wants growth and return on investment.

Apple could grow by improving existing products even as there is a limited amount of iPhone ownerships they can have. But expanding to more and more markets to grow is in my mind not healthy or profitable compared to becoming laser focused on your expertise. As you said jack of all trades, master of none.

The technology industry have had the most explosive growth but also the shortest lived companies

I apologise. We do agree. I read your statement as "Many european companies that offers bad services/products do not grow yet still rack in huge profits"

I agree more on the European way of doing things its more sane, but the thing with Americans is that the stock has to forever grow or management goes out. If its $50 , it has to be $50.5 tomorrow and $65 next year. I believe this is insane, and believe a market can get saturated although their unsavory greed made them do some unbelievable feats like Amazon owning like 40% of internet servers and creating machinery that actually produces more food than they can eat. So yeah... it works for them.

btw, those dates I thought were rerefence numbers. My head exploded when I realised they are year of establishment.

 

[MacBH928]

Well one important part is that Nokia isnt a mobile phone company. They have existed since the 1800s. They just sold of their mobile department and concentrated on their core business that they actually knew how to manage

I brought it up because he mentioned that Nokia failed due to bad management , and how capitalism made a new entry to replace them

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I brought it up because he mentioned that Nokia failed due to bad management , and how capitalism made a new entry to replace them

I know, I just thought it was important to know that Nokia exiting the phone businesses would be the equivalent of apple exiting the console market. Considering Nokia is 180 something years old.

I agree more on the European way of doing things its more sane, but the thing with Americans is that the stock has to forever grow or management goes out. If its $50 , it has to be $50.5 tomorrow and $65 next year. I believe this is insane, and believe a market can get saturated although their unsavory greed made them do some unbelievable feats like Amazon owning like 40% of internet servers and creating machinery that actually produces more food than they can eat. So yeah... it works for them.

I guess that’s the experience after a thousand years of existence and hundreds of devastating wars.

One effective but sad reality is you can run a business deep in red but still get unlimited capital injection to stay afloat. But if you managed to hold out you can corner the market and undercut them.

A bank would kick you out immediately for poor financial practices.

btw, those dates I thought were rerefence numbers. My head exploded when I realised they are year of establishment.

Imagine saying you work for a company that existed before capitalism even was an idea and the Vikings still plundered england.

 

[siddavis]

I brought it up because he mentioned that Nokia failed due to bad management , and how capitalism made a new entry to replace them

I'll come all the way back to my original point regarding focus on revenue:
Except it all starts with great products that provide value to customers. The greater the value/product, the higher price you can command. Profits follow.

You replied (and introduced it as capitalism) that it doesn't work that way, that companies get big and do this:
Business releases whatever they want and people has to pay because there is no other option.

I simply pointed to big companies that commanded the markets they were in where they could "release whatever they want" and people would have few options. Can anyone argue that they didn't get fat, lazy and focused on revenue instead of product, then they either failed altogether or had to exit that market?

Then you two went on to have a nice discussion demonstrating how free market forces require businesses to make good decisions or risk failure - thanks, that was my point. A good decision for Eddie would be to focus on making a great product for the consumer and he will see increased revenue as an expected side effect (or more importantly, profit).

 

[MacBH928]

Whaaaa??
My original response was to a post that was seemingly downplaying capitalism because corporations get big and customers just have to take what is given to them. I was showing through numerous examples of BIG companies that the mechanisms of capitalism work as long as there isn't nefarious interference.

The point was that yes, capitalism will work SOME time like how Netflix came from the nothing and over took Blockbuster and now they are bigger than Blockbuster ever was or How Yahoo refused to buy Google and now Yahoo is so worthless Google probably won't pay a dollar for them.

But it does not work ALL the time. See Hollywood studios, they are like the same forever. Telecom companies, you got the big 3 in USA. Oil companies?(Cheveron and friends) , banks? (Chase, Citi, Bank Of America.) who is competing with those? Amazon dominates online sales since like 1999 and still does. Even if it eventually will be replaced, it might take a very long time over decades until one corp deceases and another takes its place in the mean time people will have difficulty living with the older one for years.

There is more examples like wrestling company WWE, who had many comeptitors at one time but killed them all and bought the rest and they were like the only one in the USA for near 20 years. Like their show or not, its the only one available. News networks same thing, ABC, CNN, FOX and friends have been the ones to feed up tv news forever. Who is competing against those?

 

[Abazigal]

So focus on advertising like Google did? Should we worry?

I welcome it.

I don’t have an issue with ads per se, but I do have a problem with the level of invasive tracking that goes on behind the scenes. I feel that Apple is in the unique position to make ads work in a manner that is both beneficial to developers while also respecting the privacy of their end users.

For one, apple controls the entire ecosystem, and is thus in a position to enforce ATT at a system level (which is why I am vehemently opposed to any attempt to open up the App Store to third parties). This doesn’t stop companies like Facebook from getting my data, but it does prevent them from sharing data with other companies, which is the whole point.

 

[siddavis]

The point was that yes, capitalism will work SOME time like how Netflix came from the nothing and over took Blockbuster and now they are bigger than Blockbuster ever was or How Yahoo refused to buy Google and now Yahoo is so worthless Google probably won't pay a dollar for them.

But it does not work ALL the time. See Hollywood studios, they are like the same forever. Telecom companies, you got the big 3 in USA. Oil companies?(Cheveron and friends) , banks? (Chase, Citi, Bank Of America.) who is competing with those? Amazon dominates online sales since like 1999 and still does. Even if it eventually will be replaced, it might take a very long time over decades until one corp deceases and another takes its place in the mean time people will have difficulty living with the older one for years.

There is more examples like wrestling company WWE, who had many comeptitors at one time but killed them all and bought the rest and they were like the only one in the USA for near 20 years. Like their show or not, its the only one available. News networks same thing, ABC, CNN, FOX and friends have been the ones to feed up tv news forever. Who is competing against those?

I still am not entirely sure how my original post (below) turned into 'capitalism above all things', but I'll continue to entertain... And I'll argue that it works MOST of the time...
Except it all starts with great products that provide value to customers. The greater the value/product, the higher price you can command. Profits follow.

Here is your original response to that - noting that it doesn't say anything about "SOME" of the time.
Not really, thats what peopled thought capitalism will work. In reality this is what happens:-
<<enter rant that amounts to big business = bad>>

That aside, the examples you cite are either in the most highly regulated industries, or are in the process of being shaken up right now!
Oil - really? expecting free market competition with the ungodly amount or regulatory barriers (it's by design)
Banks - ditto
Hollywood - I guess you haven't noticed the new players in this space in the last decade?
WWE - See All Elite Wrestling. By the way, this is a prime example of a business sticking with the status quo and being blindsided by an innovator with a product people wanted.
News Networks - You are making this waaaaay too easy.

So what's your point exactly? What's the alternative? How has any of this back and forth disputed that it all starts with a focus on great products?

 

[MacBH928]

I still am not entirely sure how my original post (below) turned into 'capitalism above all things', but I'll continue to entertain... And I'll argue that it works MOST of the time...
Except it all starts with great products that provide value to customers. The greater the value/product, the higher price you can command. Profits follow.

Here is your original response to that - noting that it doesn't say anything about "SOME" of the time.
Not really, thats what peopled thought capitalism will work. In reality this is what happens:-
<<enter rant that amounts to big business = bad>>

That aside, the examples you cite are either in the most highly regulated industries, or are in the process of being shaken up right now!
Oil - really? expecting free market competition with the ungodly amount or regulatory barriers (it's by design)
Banks - ditto
Hollywood - I guess you haven't noticed the new players in this space in the last decade?
WWE - See All Elite Wrestling. By the way, this is a prime example of a business sticking with the status quo and being blindsided by an innovator with a product people wanted.
News Networks - You are making this waaaaay too easy.

So what's your point exactly? What's the alternative? How has any of this back and forth disputed that it all starts with a focus on great products?

I am not sure what you are arguing . I do not disagree with you on the value of the product = profit flow. Its what happens in the end game.

I am not sure who is the new players in Hollywood, if you mean Apple and Amazon this only proves my point that few corporations start to own everything.

AEW only happened like 20 years later, if we assume so, yes in 500 years capitalism will work and new competition will come along. I was speaking within a human's lifetime. Plus, WWE had other competition like ROH and TNA, all almost dead or didn't bother WWE more than a fly will bother a human. AEW might face the same fate. Time will tell.

 

[I7guy]

I already smelled this trend from miles away. The only question is how far apple will go before completely shattering their “privacy first” propaganda.
Unlike hardware sale, which will plateau without huge user base turnover from other platforms, service is like an infinite gold mine that with care, can last forever. I doubt apple will provide decent service tho.

They won’t budge an inch off of “privacy first”. It would be a bigger meme than “you’re holding it wrong.”