Steve Jobs Still Involved in Apple, Still Expected to Return in June

[robbyx]

I would agree 100% if we were in good economic times, but alas, with the potential that our economy could be headed for its deepest recession--one that could be somewhere between the 1980-1982 recession and the Great Depression in terms of how much our economy is set back--Apple may have to pretty soon start seriously re-evaluating itself over the its own direction for the future before it suddenly realizes it burnt through that US$24 billion in cash reserves in no time flat.

Fair enough. But, again, it's all mere speculation. And right now Apple is doing very well, the best they've ever done. I have no doubt that they have a Plan B (and C, and D...) if the economy REALLY tanks, but it's neither here nor there at this point. They're still selling tons of Macs and iPods. They're still wildly profitable. And, by all accounts, they have some interesting new devices in the pipeline. And, keep in mind, they weathered the 1980-82 recession just fine. And if we hit another Great Depression, I'd say all bets are off for everyone!

Jobs is a master at reinventing himself. He's been counted out so many times and, yet, he roars back every time with a vengeance (I hope that's the case this time around with his health, too). Unlike Microsoft, Apple can change course quite quickly because they control the entire experience. They're not dependent upon third parties to deliver the right products for their OS. They make everything. So, if need be, I'm sure Apple will tighten a bit here and try something new there. But why get into the low-margin, low-profit netbook sector when you don't need to? I have no doubt that Apple is working on a device to compete against current netbook offerings, but it won't be a traditional netbook. Think Knowledge Navigator.

 

[jouster]

They don't care about these groups. How many times do they have to make it clear?

Till you show how they changed from not-caring to caring about the MP3 player market before late 2001, and why the same mechanism should not apply to markets in which they do not currently have products.

 

[robbyx]

This is why your analogy is an insult to BMW since hardware wise, a Mac is nothing more than a generic PC mass-produced in a Chinese sweatshop. The illusion of 'premium' is created by a sexy aluminium exterior which only cost marginally more than any plastic counterpart. Nobody would be yapping about Mac prices if manufacturing costs were unusually high or if they were precision-assembled in some Swiss clock factory. But they're not. And that's why "Apple tax" even became a term in the first place. How hard is this to understand?

Ok, fair enough. I personally find the quality of Apple's hardware has declined since they started making things in China, so I'll give you that. But let's not forget that Apple spends a ton of $$$ on R&D. While they might still make the products in China, R&D is homegrown and not cheap.

And it's not hard to understand "Apple tax" at all. What I said in my original post is that I don't care. And clearly I'm not alone. I'll gladly pay a premium for Apple products, made in the USA (which I would prefer!) or China, because the overall Apple experience is so much better, from purchasing at the store, to free training, to US-based customer service, to no-hassle repairs, to, finally and ultimately, a vastly superior OS. This is why I pay the "Apple tax" without so much as a thought.

 

[robbyx]

Till you show how they changed from not-caring to caring about the MP3 player market before late 2001, and why the same mechanism should not apply to markets in which they do not currently have products.

They started to care about the market when they had a way to improve upon the crap that was already out there. And they did. And look at the rest of the market. Decimated. And the same will be true of the netbook market - if and when they decide to tackle it. But, it's all about profit margins. Apple isn't interested in competing in the low-profit arena. They've made that clear again and again. They're not the everyman computer company, no matter how hard some people wish they were. Deal with it.

 

[jouster]

They started to care about the market when they had a way to improve upon the crap that was already out there. And they did. And look at the rest of the market. Decimated. And the same will be true of the netbook market - if and when they decide to tackle it. But, it's all about profit margins. Apple isn't interested in competing in the low-profit arena. They've made that clear again and again. They're not the everyman computer company, no matter how hard some people wish they were. Deal with it.

Sure, no argument about the margins. But you made plenty of capital stressing that you'd been hearing how Apple was doomed for 27 years; my argument is that there have similarly been years of naysayers when new market segments have been suggested for Apple (sometimes including Jobs!), then lo and behold - the iPod! The Apple TV! etc etc...

There's no reason to assume any market area is not of interest to Apple. Soccer moms and gamers? Why not? Apple made those 25bn bucks by appealing more than ever before to joe sixpack. Why stop now?

 

[IJ Reilly]

Finally someone who really gets it.

I just don't understand why this isn't completely beyond obvious for everyone at Apple. Apple, alone, will have a long hard struggle to make it in enterprise computing. Apple + Sun would give them instant credibility and market share. I think it would generate such a buzz that they probably wouldn't need to budget for advertising for a long time.

I can't think of two companies that would compliment each other better. Apple excels in what Sun has difficulty in, and Sun excels in areas that Apple has no traction.

I don't understand why it isn't completely beyond obvious that Apple has little interest in enterprise computing. Entering this market would put them in direct competition with Microsoft, challenging Microsoft on turf they would defend with every fiber of their being. If Apple has learned anything about coexistence with the 5,000 ton gorilla, it's that you don't get in its face. And I'm not talking about cheeky advertising campaigns. I'm talking about full-frontal assaults in areas where Microsoft is hugely dominant.

This they won't do. It's no accident that Apple has made most of its progress in markets where Microsoft had little or no presence.

There's a reason why Apple and Sun have played footsie for so long without actually getting together. The reason is that they aren't really compatible companies, and if Apple swallowed up Sun, that would portend a major change in the way Apple does business. So unless you believe that Apple's business is doing poorly, then I don't see the reasoning behind them merging with a wreck of a company like Sun.

 

[robbyx]

Sure, no argument about the margins. But you made plenty of capital stressing that you'd been hearing how Apple was doomed for 27 years; my argument is that there have similarly been years of naysayers when new market segments have been suggested for Apple (sometimes including Jobs!), then lo and behold - the iPod! The Apple TV! etc etc...

There's no reason to assume any market area is not of interest to Apple. Soccer moms and gamers? Why not? Apple made those 25bn bucks by appealing more than ever before to joe sixpack. Why stop now?

Because until Apple cares, they don't care. Jobs is fickle. We all know this. And he's not the most transparent (understatement!) human being in the world either. He'll say one thing and do something completely different the next, as you point out. But there's always a method to his madness. And right now I believe him when he says that Apple isn't interested in low-margin markets. Apple didn't build a 25 billion dollar cash reserve by making a $50 profit on each machine and I don't expect them to change that tune anytime soon. And he certainly is NEVER going to license the MacOS, as some people doggedly (and stupidly) insist he should. Nor is he going to ease restrictions on the Touch platform's software distribution method. People can complain about these latter two issues until they are blue in the face, but nothing is going to change there.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Because until Apple cares, they don't care. Jobs is fickle. We all know this. And he's not the most transparent (understatement!) human being in the world either. He'll say one thing and do something completely different the next, as you point out.

This isn't being fickle, it's deliberate misdirection. He and Apple are opaque for a reason.

 

[robbyx]

There's a reason why Apple and Sun have played footsie for so long without actually getting together. The reason is that they aren't really compatible companies, and if Apple swallowed up Sun, that would portend a major change in the way Apple does business. So unless you believe that Apple's business is doing poorly, then I don't see the reasoning behind them merging with a wreck of a company like Sun.

Excellent points. I definitely see the (perceived) allure of a merger, but Apple is doing too well to open that can of worms. Integrating their current (rather meager) enterprise offerings with Sun's would be a huge task, not unlike transitioning from MacOS 9 to NEXTSTEP. It would take a lot of time and resources. Back then it made sense because Apple needed a better OS. And it still took years. Getting Apple and Sun to play nicely together would be a huge task and a very expensive one at that. Why go there when you're wildly successful already?

 

[robbyx]

This isn't being fickle, it's deliberate misdirection. He and Apple are opaque for a reason.

You're right. Fickle was totally the wrong way to describe it. Although I do think he doesn't care about things until he has a good reason to. He probably didn't give the MP3 player market a second thought until someone brought him the iPod and iTunes Store concepts. Then it clicked and he was on it like nothing else.

 

[KnightWRX]

Sure, no argument about the margins. But you made plenty of capital stressing that you'd been hearing how Apple was doomed for 27 years; my argument is that there have similarly been years of naysayers when new market segments have been suggested for Apple (sometimes including Jobs!), then lo and behold - the iPod! The Apple TV! etc etc...

There's no reason to assume any market area is not of interest to Apple. Soccer moms and gamers? Why not? Apple made those 25bn bucks by appealing more than ever before to joe sixpack. Why stop now?

Because unlike iPods or AppleTV, they have already been there, done that and dropped it. That's the difference. The B&W G3 tower and PowerMac G4 both had easy to access and upgrade components and had inexpensive configurations. Then it all went poof.

That's the difference and what makes people say they won't go back there. The market has gotten even worse and more competitive than it was the last time they were in it. Today you can buy a gamer rig or tower computer for under 1000$ on a razor thin profit margin. Apple doesn't want to compete in this segment.

 

[ditzy]

I happen to agree with you here. We part ways when your resistance to change ... to "different thinking" paints you a hypocrite.

I don't believe that saying that you agree with the way apple does things presently means that you are being a hypocrite to say think different. I'll try to make a logical argument for my belief.
1. Microsoft have the largest share of the computer OS market, by far. So one could conclude that the way Microsoft run their business is thinking normally.
2. A business that markets their OS in a different way to Microsoft, (Apple) is thinking differently to the norm.
4. Someone who suggests the Apple should run their business like Microsoft is actually thinking normally, even if they are in a forum full of Apple fans.

 

[Anuba]

Ok, fair enough. I personally find the quality of Apple's hardware has declined since they started making things in China, so I'll give you that. But let's not forget that Apple spends a ton of $$$ on R&D. While they might still make the products in China, R&D is homegrown and not cheap.

And it's not hard to understand "Apple tax" at all. What I said in my original post is that I don't care. And clearly I'm not alone. I'll gladly pay a premium for Apple products, made in the USA (which I would prefer!) or China, because the overall Apple experience is so much better, from purchasing at the store, to free training, to US-based customer service, to no-hassle repairs, to, finally and ultimately, a vastly superior OS. This is why I pay the "Apple tax" without so much as a thought.

I agree that Macs are worth a certain premium and even some brand tax, that's part of the game when you're dealing with such brands. And yeah, they clearly spend more effort on R&D than, say, Dell -- whose machines are actually well-built if you go for the professional line (Latitude, Precision), but thoroughly devoid of any innovation spirit. They'd never bother with stuff like the 8-hour battery on the MBP, or a multi-touch trackpad, they just slap the machines together by the book.

Having said that, Apple is a worldwide operation and while their US-based service may be excellent, there's no such luck in my part of Europe (Scandinavia). In the US, Apple service rocks and Dell sucks due to the whole Indian call center thing and whatnot. In Sweden, Dell's service is stellar, while Apple give you nothing for your AppleCare plan except snarky people on the phone and having to transport or ship your computer to the nearest authorized repair center which may be tens or even hundreds of miles away. So I have to bring that into the equation since I rely on my machines for work -- if I'm two days from a deadline and my computer breaks down, would I want Dell to come here and fix it the next morning or do I want to drive a Mac to Stockholm and pick it up 5 days later? Premium pricetags should come with excellent service, IMHO.

Also, Apple often doesn't bother to make localized versions of their software. If you use Microsoft products you can basically speak any obscure language and still find a version for you. But iWork is only available in English (and perhaps German and French), no Scandinavian versions. Personally I don't care, I use US English versions of everything anyway, but if I were to get a computer for my grandma I couldn't get her a Mac because Apple doesn't bother to localize anything other than the OS itself and iLife. As long as Apple treats Sweden (the country with the world's highest broadband penetration and hi-tech gear up to our necks) like some boil they'd like to have surgically removed, I'll remain somewhat skeptical of taking my business to them. And I have a feeling there may be a lot of people outside North America, UK and Australia who feel the same way. This is part of why I'd like them to worry more about market share than otherworldly profit margins, because they'll never bother to shape up their international operations if they don't manage to crawl past the 10-15% mark worldwide.

 

[ditzy]

I agree that Macs are worth a certain premium and even some brand tax, that's part of the game when you're dealing with such brands. And yeah, they clearly spend more effort on R&D than, say, Dell -- whose machines are actually well-built

Dells are well built really? I must have gut unlucky with the three I bought then.

 

[VoR]

We've got a super-cheap dell laptop at home, a vostro I think, which I assume is the 'poorly made consumer version'. Looks similar to a mbp but made out of black plastic. It's only about a year old but feels very sturdy.
Dell also have laptops and solutions that last far longer than 8 hours - should try clicking through their stupidly complicated site a bit longer!

 

[Anuba]

Dells are well built really? I must have gut unlucky with the three I bought then.

How nice of you to cut off the quote before the crucial part their professional line. I have no idea which Dell machines you bought, but the consumer lines (Inspiron and Dimension) are made from cheap wobbly plastic, the laptop hinges creak and the laptop keyboards flex. But if you actually bought three Precision and/or Latitude machines and had issues with all three, then yeah, you must've gotten really unlucky. I'm typing on a Precision laptop right now which has been subjected to torture over the last 2½ years, but it's still going strong and probably will until I crush it under my car. If the Precisions were poorly built, Dell wouldn't dare include a 3-year warranty with NBD on-site repairs in the price.

If you want to compare to Mac build quality you obviously have to look at Dell's high-end machines, not their bargain-bin crap.

We've got a super-cheap dell laptop at home, a vostro I think, which I assume is the 'poorly made consumer version'. Looks similar to a mbp but made out of black plastic. It's only about a year old but feels very sturdy.
Dell also have laptops and solutions that last far longer than 8 hours - should try clicking through their stupidly complicated site a bit longer!

Vostro is actually a business line, but for businesses with no money. Startups and such. They're probably built with the same, err, enthusiasm as the Inspiron consumer laptops. The reliability isn't necessarily poor, though, your Vostro there is probably gonna last another year or two. It's just that they're cheaply built, and look accordingly cheap.

And yeah, I know they have some machines with battery life up to 19(!) hours, provided you remove the optical drive and replace it with an extra battery. But the one I was referring to is their MBP 17" equivalent, the Precision M6400. Its battery lasts only 2 hours due to the fact that the machine more or less uses desktop-grade parts.

 

[DELLsFan]

I don't believe that saying that you agree with the way apple does things presently means that you are being a hypocrite to say think different. I'll try to make a logical argument for my belief.
1. Microsoft have the largest share of the computer OS market, by far. So one could conclude that the way Microsoft run their business is thinking normally.
2. A business that markets their OS in a different way to Microsoft, (Apple) is thinking differently to the norm.
4. Someone who suggests the Apple should run their business like Microsoft is actually thinking normally, even if they are in a forum full of Apple fans.

Thinking differently is great. It's worked for Apple and Jobs' vision for the company has been very profitable. However, those who believe Jobs' course set for the company years ago can't possibly steer along a different path to allow more choice for their customers, more options with the products available, and an improved "priceless experience" at a lower price, are simply deluding themselves; stuck in the 90's or maybe 27 years ago.

It's understandable for many Mac enthusiasts. Those who have weathered the Apple storms over the years are very defensive of their precious. It's too bad most of the purists misinterpret constructive opinion for doom saying around here.

...Sure, and I'm glad they've dropped... (Apple RAM prices) ... But, again, what's your point?

That your premise that Apple doesn't care about X or Y was false. They either listened to consumer concern over and/or simply noticed no one was upgrading RAM using Apple RAM during config. That the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads proves they aren't willing to just stay the course; relying on brilliant design alone. That the beckoning of Windows users to switch to Mac all over the website is proof to me they are possibly less smug than your initial post implies. That some folks are slightly more intelligent here than you believe - able to discern the obvious in a Windows vs. Mac choice without your arrogance.

Does that clear it up a bit?

 

[robbyx]

This is part of why I'd like them to worry more about market share than otherworldly profit margins, because they'll never bother to shape up their international operations if they don't manage to crawl past the 10-15% mark worldwide.

I'm sorry to hear that Apple's operations in Sweden aren't up to snuff. However, just focusing on market share isn't going to change that. And maybe Apple doesn't want more than 10-15% of the worldwide market? I appreciate your frustration, but the reality is, Apple is very, VERY successful. Providing the same kind of service in Sweden as they offer in the US would require a huge investment on their part and it's clearly not one they are willing to make at this point. While it is surely frustrating for you, I also understand their reasoning. They are about measured and controlled growth. They want to ensure that the total experience is a good one. If they can't offer that experience, they're not going to offer much at all. Focusing on low-cost, low-margin items to gain market share isn't going to suddenly give them the resources to offer an Apple Store in every Swedish town. In fact, it will have the opposite effect as their resources will be spread thin in order to accommodate all of the new low-margin customers.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I don't believe that saying that you agree with the way apple does things presently means that you are being a hypocrite to say think different. I'll try to make a logical argument for my belief.
1. Microsoft have the largest share of the computer OS market, by far. So one could conclude that the way Microsoft run their business is thinking normally.
2. A business that markets their OS in a different way to Microsoft, (Apple) is thinking differently to the norm.
4. Someone who suggests the Apple should run their business like Microsoft is actually thinking normally, even if they are in a forum full of Apple fans.

No, they aren't. Microsoft's business model is a freak of nature. As much as they'd like to, even Microsoft has failed to reproduce the success they've had in licensing the OS in any of their other businesses. The reasons for this are clear to anyone who understands the history, and the very strange sequence of events which made it possible. It is certainly not normal, and is unlikely to be duplicated by anyone, ever.

 

[Anuba]

They either listened to consumer concern over and/or simply noticed no one was upgrading RAM using Apple RAM during config. That the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads proves they aren't willing to just stay the course; relying on brilliant design alone. That the beckoning of Windows users to switch to Mac all over the website is proof to me they are possibly less smug than your initial post implies.

Funny, that; I remember an interview with Steve where he explicitly stated that the zero-sum game Apple and Microsoft have been playing for 20+ years was a thing of the past, that he had made peace with Gates and that they're now working together instead of resorting to cat fights. But he said this in 2007 when the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ad run was in overdrive, so... it's possible that Steve doesn't want to play that game, but at the end of the day, MS customers are the only new customers Apple can find. They can't wait for a generation of Mac user babies to grow up and buy Macs, they need fresh meat and all the sheep are already in Microsoft's fold...

 

[robbyx]

Does that clear it up a bit?

No, actually it doesn't. You still haven't made a point. So, their prices have come down. Great. And why? Because they switched to Intel and now they benefit from expanded R&D options and cheaper component costs. Ergo, prices go down. But this has nothing to do with Apple "arrogance", the "Apple tax", or any other nonsense being argued here.

My point remains. Apple doesn't care about EVERY possible customer. They have a clear vision of who they are targeting and what they are selling. If you want a highly customizable and cheap PC, they don't sell one. Period. Never will. Your insistence that their ads prove something makes no sense. They've always advertised. It's just that now their ads are much better and more effective - and their product offerings are stronger. Combined with lower costs and a chain of stores that give them heightened visibility, they've seen an increase in market share. But they're not behaving differently. Their message is just resonating with more consumers.

Like I said back in my original post, I've been a customer for 27 years. I've seen all sorts of Apple ads targeting PC users long before the "I'm a Mac" ads appeared. They launched the Mac with one of the most iconic ads of all time - and it was very anti-PC. I remember ads in the 80s where PC users were falling off cliffs like lemmings. Apple ran cheesy infomercials in the 90s. They launched the iMac with a head-to-head setup showdown between a PC tech and a 10 year old kid to demonstrate how much easier it was to get online with a Mac. Etc. Nothing has changed. They're just selling more boxes today. And, frankly, Microsoft's repeated missteps have just given Apple and its ad agencies all that much more ammo. And the only way for Microsoft to retaliate? Harp on price. But people aren't just buying a box. They're buying an experience and it's one Microsoft can't touch.

Again, your point?

 

[Anuba]

They've always advertised. It's just that now their ads are much better and more effective. Combined with lower costs and a chain of stores that give them heightened visibility, they've seen an increase in market share. But they're not behaving differently. Their message is just resonating with more consumers.

Well, much of the focus in those ads has been on Vista, and Vista is also one of the main reasons why part of the MS user base has trickled over to the Mac side. Those golden days are about to end later this year because like it or not, Windows 7 is a huge improvement over Vista (moreso than any versions of Windows have been over their respective predecessors). Plus, the economy is down the toilet. Plus, switching from PC to Mac isn't quite the one way street everyone assumes it is. I've met quite a few switchers in my day, but I've also met two who switched from Mac to PC. One of them, an electronic musician, said "Look... as much as I love Mac, I have to buy a cutting-edge machine once every two years to keep up with the inflation in system requirements..." (music apps tend to hog a lot of resources and this guy likes wall-of-sound arrangements) "...and Apple's prices are just killing me. I can't afford to keep up. So I went PC after the PowerMac G5 came out."

The thing is, while some Mac faithful enjoy the feeling of exclusivity (I believe you said you were one of them), they often get p*ssed off when they're shut out from certain things. Like when Google made Chrome for Mac a low priority, or when Adobe couldn't be arsed to make Creative Suite 4 full 64-bit for Mac, or when peripheral manufacturers like Logitech can't be arsed to supply Mac drivers for this or that mouse or keyboard. Or the fact that they have to boot into Windows to play games. A larger market share would take care of all that, there'd be plenty more software and peripherals to choose from. You may feel that living in a gated community is worth its weight in gold, but many would sacrifice that for a little more network effect benefits.

 

[robbyx]

A larger market share would take care of all that, there'd be plenty more software and peripherals to choose from...You may feel that living in a gated community is worth its weight in gold, but many would sacrifice that for a little more network effect benefits.

And again, who cares? I don't give a crap about Logitech's hardware add-ons, nor do I care one bit about Google's Chrome. And the VAST majority of users feel the same way. Sure, the bleeding edge nerds don't like it. But the rest of us? The remaining 95+%? We don't care. We're happy with what Apple offers. We're happy that it all works together. We're happy that we DON'T have to deal with Logitech's crap drivers. There's plenty of Mac software to choose from. I want for nothing. Same goes for peripherals. I have a lot of choices when it comes to printers, scanners, mice, keyboards, hard drives, and whatever else. Do I care if every peripheral manufacturer offers EVERY product for the Mac? Nope. Not one bit. When I look at how poorly some of the PC peripherals and drivers interoperate, I'm THANKFUL that Mac versions don't exist!

As for Windows 7, I've heard it all before. That's what they said about 95, then 2000, then XP, then Vista. The reality is, M$ always sucks. Always have, always will. Well, maybe not always will. Ray Ozzie is pretty genius, so maybe he can turn it around. I have my doubts, though.

The only real change I've seen for Apple is, by moving to Intel, they can now sell the psychological security of keeping Windows if you need it. That is huge.

I think it's pretty funny when people point how, with Macs, you have to upgrade all the time. That's not my "real world" experience. I recently installed Leopard on a G4 tower I bought back in 2001. No hardware mods or upgrades. Can you install Vista on a stock machine from 2001? Didn't think so. Furthermore, the PC users I know are always buying new machines, whereas the Mac users are still plugging away on their old G4s or even G3s. I doubt your friend who switched back in the PPC days would switch again today if he had an Intel Mac. Yes, certain apps are very resource intensive, but, again, this is a VERY SMALL segment of the market.

 

[jouster]

Because unlike iPods or AppleTV, they have already been there, done that and dropped it. That's the difference. The B&W G3 tower and PowerMac G4 both had easy to access and upgrade components and had inexpensive configurations. Then it all went poof.

That's the difference and what makes people say they won't go back there. The market has gotten even worse and more competitive than it was the last time they were in it. Today you can buy a gamer rig or tower computer for under 1000$ on a razor thin profit margin. Apple doesn't want to compete in this segment.

Well, maybe. But I wasn't talking about the G3 tower or PowerMac G4, neither of which was remotely low margin compared to what qualifies these days. I was talking about things like netbooks, the sort of low margin offering that started this part of the thread.

 

[jouster]

Dells are well built really? I must have gut unlucky with the three I bought then.

I hope you weren't as unlucky as I am with my 2nd Gen MacBook.

If you want to compare to Mac build quality you obviously have to look at Dell's high-end machines, not their bargain-bin crap.

Well, I'm sure the unibody 'books are well-made. My CrackBook, unfortunately, is not.