Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tim Cook Tweets in Memory of Steve Jobs, Who Passed Away Seven Years Ago Today
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry that statement is pretty silly. Steve came up with the team that's running Apple today, the key players in the staff is largely the same. If Steve were alive today guess what, Tim Cook would still be on his team helping run an Apple of today's size. The fundamentals of the business is the same, iPhone takes up 60% of the business, sure the volume is higher, but that's pretty much it. There is 1 new product, Apple watch, the rest of Apple's product line is the same. All the infrastructure is the same, the Apple stores, the app stores, etc.
The big hole in Apple's business is the vision, that's what's missing.
Do you honestly think Steve would have let Siri stagnate for so long?
Last edited:
My bad. I was mistaken that LI-ION batteries for cars or the collective android marketshare, might have been more instrumental in depleting lithium reserves to the max. So sorry about that mistaken impression.
[doublepost=1538849956][/doublepost]
So there is only one new product? Or no initiatives that have been discussed on MacRumors for the last few years? Or Steve allowed apple maps, the incomplete thing that it was to be released in IOS 6. Seems like TC has pretty good vision as he has built a very powerful company. (Yeah I know others have said it was handed to him on a silver platter and a monkey could have run the business Steve started.)
1 major product yea, which doesn’t change Apple’s fundamentals, hence my point on the ability to run Apple.
[doublepost=1538852360][/doublepost]Heck, Steve Jobs envisioned an Apple as big as today almost a decade ago, or else how would he have planned this:
The counter is another example from a large corporation: GM hasn't had a major new product in a 100 years. Maybe they(GM) should branch out into dishwashers.1 major product yea, which doesn’t change Apple’s fundamentals, hence my point on the ability to run Apple.
[doublepost=1538852360][/doublepost]Heck, Steve Jobs envisioned an Apple as big as today almost a decade ago, or else how would he have planned this:
The big issue is that both Apple and Tesla (fully dependent on LI-ION) seem to make little progress on diversifying/alternate tech. That sounds quite alarming, unless they have something up their sleeves we don’t know
Saying it in that way, states your concern in a succinct way and allows for further discussion.
W
What could serve humanity more? Technology is humanities greatest achievement, to help taking it further is a mans nobelest deed.
I disagree, ultimately it is the CEO resposibility (COOK). If you can clearly see that over the last 8 years there was no innovation in the entire computer line up, it is completely OUTDATED and OVERPRICED, then Cook had plenty of time to figure it out. If not he should have fired Ive long time ago. Especially when all the latest Pro related products were a failure (Mac Pro, Macbook Pro 16 and 18, etc).
The success of Apple is on the iPhone and the Watch which are great products (which bring 75% or revenues).
Though that is not an excuse to completely disregard the entire computer line. Unfortunately Apple has become a luxury phone company.
And what is wrong with Apple becoming a luxury phone company?
If you have spent any time here interacting with me, you will know that I believe that for Apple to truly move forward and prosper in an increasingly mobile world, sacrifices will have to be made.
In this regard, I feel that sacrifice will be the resources and attention paid to Macs (so that more engineering resources can be funnelled to other areas such as health, mobile devices, wearables, self-driving cars and the like). In time, a case could be made that Apple may even have to be prepared to drop the Mac altogether, though right now, it still serves an important role of developing iOS apps.
And for a company of Apple’s size, it makes total sense to focus more on the products which bring in the most money (and in turn, focus less on those which are less profitable).
Nor does Apple really have a choice because at this juncture, the high end of the market is reaching saturation and increasing the number of customers isn’t really an option any more. If anything, not doing so will lead to the stock price crashing and cause management to simply replace Tim Cook with someone else who will (maximise profits). So I would argue that Tim Cook is in fact doing an excellent job of juggling the various portfolios that his job entails, while still staying true to the vision at Apple (which is to make technology more personal for users).
Sure, if you were a dictator who could ignore shareholders, I suppose you do do something like release all the things you wanted (like an updated Mac Pro), even if they didn’t do very much for Apple’s bottom line. But you would also likely end up ruining Apple because the truth of the matter is that it’s a much larger company now, serving a far more diverse pool of users, and can’t simply get by by continuing to cater to the same small group of enthusiasts who stood by Apple and supported the company during its dark days.
Ultimately, I don’t feel that Apple has failed or lost its way though. Times change, the company changed, and that’s just the way she goes.
What's different is Apple's relationship with their customers. And that changes everything.
In the past, Apple was buoyed by a small group of die-hard fans who looked to Apple for technology and aesthetic leadership. It truly had what you would deem a "flock", and they were proud to be part of it (which is why I consider the term "Apple Sheep" to be a badge of honour, not a brand of shame). So Apple was able to focus on this small group of users and give them exactly what they wanted. Apple could pull stunts like transition from OS9 to OSX and their user base moved with Apple. Because they believed.
The same went for Apple's investor pool back then. You didn't hold shares in a company teetering on the edge of non-existence unless you truly believed in Apple.
And for doing just that (believing in Apple at a time when no one else did, I salute each and every one of you here who did).
Today, the proportion of Apple's user base who are true believers is far smaller. The current user base gravitates towards Apple products because they see them as "good products" and "cool products", and view the Apple brand as being fashionable, of high quality, desirable and trustworthy.
Same for their investor base (who typically look out for growth-oriented and dividend oriented stocks). Their loyalty is not based on conviction or personal identity-based affiliation, but more grounded in pragmatic self-interest. This is the kind of loyalty that Apple has to work with today. They aren't a flock anymore. They can't be led around like they used to. Instead of leading a flock, Apple now has to cater to an audience, which is a drastically different audience.
And the reality is that in this new world order, the original core of uses, these "true believers", they don't really matter anymore. You all got to enjoy the ride from the start, and now your little garden of eden has been inundated by a population of visitors that outnumber you by a couple of orders of magnitude.
This new population sets the tone for what kind of company Apple will be, because they have the power in this new relationship. Which in turn dictates what Apple will do (everything from more hardware to higher prices to an increasing focus on services as an extra revenue source, as well as prioritising the more profitable products over the less lucrative ones). It's inevitable really.
What I see happening is that Apple is slowly transitioning into a much more traditional company, and its behaviour will start (has started?) to match those of a traditional company’s behaviour. If you want to consider that as them “losing their way”, then yeah. I wouldn't call it that though. I will end with the same line I did with @Peperino. Times changed, the company changed, and that’s just the way she goes.
So you don’t mind this core believer community to transcend into a General Electric, Gen. Motors or other utility fan/stakeholder gathering or, if that does not exist or appears entertaining enough, completely disappear...?
Last edited:
I have always felt it was inevitable. Given Apple's current size and trajectory, it is no longer feasible to cater to just the core community if they are to sustain their current rate of growth and earnings. Take the Mac Pro for example. The resources required to revamp it likely far outweigh whatever Apple will earn from selling it, which is probably why they dragged their feet on it, and tried to push the pricier iMac Pro as a viable alternative.
Truth be told, I am not certain there is even a place for the faithful in this new world order (which they, ironically enough, helped usher in). I see Apple continuing to focus on mobile and wearables, a lot less so on Macs, and if they can't come to terms with the new direction in which Apple is headed, it's going to be a very painful and bitter journey ahead for them.
And I think you will have been here long enough to know what workflows resonate with me. I am more heavily invested in the mobile side of Apple's device portfolio. I use an iPad Pro to teach in class, wear an Apple Watch, and swear by my AirPods. I have a 5k iMac I use for work at home, while my MBA has more or less fallen into disuse (mainly due to my work-issued Windows laptop). So I am less hit by Apple's apparent stagnation in their Mac lineup, while also having benefited a great deal from their renewed focus on iPad productivity.
In summary, while Apple has had its share of missteps these few years, I feel that they are still more or less on the right path. Basically, what Apple is doing now is building a formidable ecosystem around the iPhone, while setting the foundation to eventually pivot into wearables and transportation. Milk the iPhone today, and then figure out what comes next.
It's a clever strategy when executed correctly, and really, it's Apple's only strategy right now.
Agree with your assessment on right strategy & largest & best phone/wearables provider.
However, with that huge success and endless resources, and at the size (20x Volkswagen, BMW, other companies that launch 10...20 new models yearly) they drive their own responsibilities and market expectations. A very minor, yet relevant is the Mac business: they could easily set up the best IT-hw (computer, router, server .....) company in the world but their launching ambitions are lousy and their commitment to Steve’s legacy and principles is just as shocking as scandalous.
At least spin off computer business instead of halfheartedly running it. But never, never betray or outrage customers.
Last edited:
@Bacillus Thanks for responding. I know we have our differences and don't always see eye to eye on this matter, and I am glad we are able to have this discussion we are right now.
If it makes you feel better, I believe that Apple will continue to update and sell the Mac. However, as it becomes an increasingly niche area at Apple, it will receive the proportionate amount of attention. And don't forget, to get the green light, Apple's industrial design team (of which Jony Ive is the head) still needs to come on board, and I suspect they would be far more enthusiastic in coming up with new watch bands than designing a new Mac Pro.
Okay, I just made things even worse, didn't I...?
I think this is the problem when Apple, a design company, is being evaluated as a tech company.
Personally, I am not in favour of Apple dedicating resources to updating the Mac Pro, for the simple reason that it is an extremely niche product serving an extremely small (albeit influential) group of creators (and not just because I have no need for one).
When people like to cite how rich Apple is, they often neglect to consider that it is not the main problem plaguing Apple today. Money isn't the issue. Time and attention are. Apple apparently has a very interesting functional organisational structure which results in a constant battle amongst products and teams to grab that finite amount of management's attention. So for management to devote attention to niche products such as a router, server or new Mac Pro, this means less attention spent on other products such as the iPhone and Apple Watch.
However, before people go criticising this functional organisational structure as the key problem, bear in mind that is precisely what allowed Apple to be as successful as it is today, by allowing Apple to put the product ahead of everything else, by allowing Apple to quickly funnel resources and manpower to whichever area needs attention the most at any one time.
The Mac does not represent the future of computing, at least not at Apple. My guess is that after the 2013 trash can Mac Pro, Apple was pretty much settled on maintaining just two models of the Mac - the Macbook and iMac (including pro configurations for both). The iPad Pro would then be positioned as the consumer Mac for the masses. It took a major uproar from the professional Mac community to make Apple walk back on this decision, convene an emergency meeting and publicly commit to updating the Mac Pro, which again brings me back to my initial point that by doing so, Apple is simply kicking the can down the road.
If you ask me, replacing the Mac Pro with the iMac Pro is absolutely the right strategy over the long run, but that's probably another debate for another day.
In short, it is ironic that the product that helped save Apple from bankruptcy 20 years ago is now turning into a liability that is preventing Apple from focusing on what comes next. The Mac is a legacy product category that Apple knows it has to maintain going forward because it has no other choice (if for no other reason than to retain iOS app developers). Apple got caught moving away from pro Macs and was forced to walk it back and apologize.
We both know Apple will never do that (spin off the Mac line).
If it makes you feel better, I believe that Apple will continue to update and sell the Mac. However, as it becomes an increasingly niche area at Apple, it will receive the proportionate amount of attention. And don't forget, to get the green light, Apple's industrial design team (of which Jony Ive is the head) still needs to come on board, and I suspect they would be far more enthusiastic in coming up with new watch bands than designing a new Mac Pro.
Okay, I just made things even worse, didn't I...?
I think this is the problem when Apple, a design company, is being evaluated as a tech company.
Personally, I am not in favour of Apple dedicating resources to updating the Mac Pro, for the simple reason that it is an extremely niche product serving an extremely small (albeit influential) group of creators (and not just because I have no need for one).
When people like to cite how rich Apple is, they often neglect to consider that it is not the main problem plaguing Apple today. Money isn't the issue. Time and attention are. Apple apparently has a very interesting functional organisational structure which results in a constant battle amongst products and teams to grab that finite amount of management's attention. So for management to devote attention to niche products such as a router, server or new Mac Pro, this means less attention spent on other products such as the iPhone and Apple Watch.
However, before people go criticising this functional organisational structure as the key problem, bear in mind that is precisely what allowed Apple to be as successful as it is today, by allowing Apple to put the product ahead of everything else, by allowing Apple to quickly funnel resources and manpower to whichever area needs attention the most at any one time.
The Mac does not represent the future of computing, at least not at Apple. My guess is that after the 2013 trash can Mac Pro, Apple was pretty much settled on maintaining just two models of the Mac - the Macbook and iMac (including pro configurations for both). The iPad Pro would then be positioned as the consumer Mac for the masses. It took a major uproar from the professional Mac community to make Apple walk back on this decision, convene an emergency meeting and publicly commit to updating the Mac Pro, which again brings me back to my initial point that by doing so, Apple is simply kicking the can down the road.
If you ask me, replacing the Mac Pro with the iMac Pro is absolutely the right strategy over the long run, but that's probably another debate for another day.
In short, it is ironic that the product that helped save Apple from bankruptcy 20 years ago is now turning into a liability that is preventing Apple from focusing on what comes next. The Mac is a legacy product category that Apple knows it has to maintain going forward because it has no other choice (if for no other reason than to retain iOS app developers). Apple got caught moving away from pro Macs and was forced to walk it back and apologize.
Well, not for me (as it hardly can..?) but here is exactly what I call the betrayal of Steve’s principles:
Steve urged to do those things you do right (it is with 100% dedication) instead of doing the right things (which remains subjective to Tim’s perspective of the world, which differs from Apple’s user base) and the rest half-baken.
So instead of looking down to the Mac business (as financially less compelling) they should be honored to be owner of the best platform in the world and anxious to keep it that way.
[/QUOTE]
I am afraid they are both - in the sense that the one can’t exist without the other.
It is no secret that Joni spent an inordinate amount of time on the spaceship - which is an achievement by itself, but went at cost of products. New compelling design in the last couple of years was restricted to the iPhone X (...if getting by the competition is compelling)
You can’t consider Airpods very revolutionary, and the HomePod design was inspired/stolen from whyd)
The new AppleWatch case is a compromise that just can’t keep up with more compelling and sleak wearables from the competition.
[/QUOTE]
With their immense resources and huge development departments, they could dedicate 5x the staff that HP, Acer, IBM have. Even at loss, the financial burden is a fraction from losses of other side-activities.
Mac specialists shouldn’t be assigned to iPhone development on a project basis, vice versa.
That may have worked as a one-time solution, but it is contraproductive as products became more specialised.
Computer design and development is an industry, Phone design and development is another industry.
Both are amongst the most competitive industries, simultaneously. Both are in need continuous development and support. It is not one or the other, it is both - doing one half-way is impossible. Then one better be completely abandoned.
If the Mac business has no future, or would take too much attention from the Board, it should be spinned off.
Because by itself, it is a viable business for a different Board with a different perspective.
iPad Pro is a device for the consumer that considers himself a Pro.
If Tim wants to redefine/devaluate the term “Pro” that way because he can make more money, let him do it. At the same time, he ridiculizes himself towards real Pro’s and apparently hardly cares. And neither does the market. No genuine Pro customer takes him serious anymore.
It was the easiest route (lowest hanging fruit picking) to use a consumer grade casing for a machine that requires expandability and multiple screens the most. They bought time, as anybody could have told that wouldn’t be accepted as an end-solution.
Agree. This must have been so embarassing for the Board that it should have made them thinking.
The only long-term solution, if full dedication/mgt. attention for the Mac is lacking, would be a spin-off.
They can maintain short-term solutions but keep ridiculizing themselves more and more.
“Can’t innovate my arse” is something you can’t say, and specifically couldn’t be repeated without losing trust - because it demonstrates the lamentation to innovate (next to the apparent contempt for customers)
THis is the sign that these guys have been around too long, if you ask me.
Last edited:
Apple can’t decide for customers what they do or don’t care about. They can sell a device that makes the customer decide if not having one particular feature is enough to make them give up all the other features.