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.
To Beat the Law of Large Numbers, Apple Must Expand Its Product Line
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Seriously. The law of large numbers is not a law about anything that involves large numbers.
This just in: "Apple needs to spend its cash reserves if it's to beat the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal."
Once a corporation gets as big as it can get in a certain market it's its decision what to make out of it.
Two possible ways:
1. Expand into other markets and grow further.
2. Stay in that market and continue to deliver top quality product and service and stay big.
Number 1 is a big risk, and has killed more than one big corporation.
Number 2's risk is that, after a long string of success, overly developed confidence and even hubris and arrogance can set in. But this can be avoided by staying creative - many large corporations have proven they can rise to power and stay there by constantly transforming themselves.
My interest is: what will Apple look like ten years from now.
Two possible ways:
1. Expand into other markets and grow further.
2. Stay in that market and continue to deliver top quality product and service and stay big.
Number 1 is a big risk, and has killed more than one big corporation.
Number 2's risk is that, after a long string of success, overly developed confidence and even hubris and arrogance can set in. But this can be avoided by staying creative - many large corporations have proven they can rise to power and stay there by constantly transforming themselves.
My interest is: what will Apple look like ten years from now.
Wasn't it rumored that Jobs said that a new product, unlike anything else before was being developed? Maybe he was referring to the TV project, or maybe it was some kind of new computer? Either way, I'm really looking forward to what Apple is going to bring to the table. With this much cash on hand, their next product better be good 
It might. Regardless of whether that project is a real tv or just a better set box.
Expansion of the offerings in the iTunes stores, particular in terms of quality, pricing and timing, are a product line that would lead to an potential growth in sales for the products that can use such offerings.
The whole Education business they announced in Jan is a kind of 'new product line' as well. without actually having to create a new product in terms of hardware.
These things are just as useful to Apple as a 7 inch iPad, a 60 inch tv set and so on.
I propose a public spanking for the author who _completely_ misrepresented the law of large numbers.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
Personally I disagree. I'm planning on spending more on apple products this and next year. About 1-200% more.
Personally I disagree. I'm planning on spending more on apple products this and next year. About 1-200% more.
From a supposed "business journalist" with a long list of awards and credentials. Ironic the column is called "Common Sense".
He's referring to the MAC Pro (desktop/tower computer), not the Macbook Pro laptop...
But is the Pro really as necessary as it was when it was created. Are there really that many people out there that require the ability to swap internals and such. Same with the discontinued X serve. Those that were using it freaked out because they would have to start over.
But are they really numbers that are large enough to warrant that Apple should have continued to pour time and money into that product line. Particularly when compared to sales of the other product lines.
and take back his Pulitzer Prize and his business journalism professorship at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
His Bio:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/james_b_stewart/index.html
Also, so far Apple hasn't paid out any dividends.
This is incredible.
Investors are not taking it any more, and want to see their part of the cash, or, in short: dividends.
This is incredible.
Investors are not taking it any more, and want to see their part of the cash, or, in short: dividends.
Apple should really start to give another attention for "serious" computer like MacPro. I'm getting tired whenever I visit an Apple Store, people only get around iPad, iPod, iPhone, maybe some Macbook ..
MacPro? If it exist, it's only collecting dust.. WTF man, Is this kindergarten? Am I visiting the right AppleStore?
MacPro? If it exist, it's only collecting dust.. WTF man, Is this kindergarten? Am I visiting the right AppleStore?
I would counter that Apple has always been like that. THey don't do things because anyone else says they must. Whether that is the vocal minority of tech geeks that cry over the loss of their precious Mac Pro, X Serve, Shake etc or stock analysts, bloggers or whatever.
People said that Apple simply must include blu-ray in their machines, must include a stylus with the iPhone and iPad, simply must must must. And pretty much every time Apple has flipped those groups the finger and rejected those claims. And rather than going bankrupt they are seeming more and more sales, higher stock values etc. Microsoft and Samsung haven't become the poster company for hit seeking bloggers. They haven't had riots over new products or people conniving to gain truck loads of products to sell here or overseas. What other company has had naysayers declaring that the company would crash and burn within weeks when the CEO died but in fact has gone up easily $100 per share in the stock market after that event occurred.
Simply put Apple is doing what they want, when they want and it isn't hurting them one bit. So why fix what isn't broken by saying they simply Must do anything more.
Utter Bull
Gee, that's just what they need: an indiscriminate number of SKUs, nearly indistinguishable from each other, to take up shelf space at Sears... oh, wait.
Sure, Apple should get more products, but it has its own way to do it. Develop something new that blows people's minds, and they'll buy it. Hook it up with the Apple ecology, from iCloud to iTunes. And then put the smart guys to work making something new. Keep innovating and you're dead.
Oh, wait, we have to make a netbook!!!
NOT.
Gee, that's just what they need: an indiscriminate number of SKUs, nearly indistinguishable from each other, to take up shelf space at Sears... oh, wait.
Sure, Apple should get more products, but it has its own way to do it. Develop something new that blows people's minds, and they'll buy it. Hook it up with the Apple ecology, from iCloud to iTunes. And then put the smart guys to work making something new. Keep innovating and you're dead.
Oh, wait, we have to make a netbook!!!
NOT.
So far Apple has done an amazing job of creating a fairly small number of insanely great products. As Cook said, Apple only has a small fraction of the mobile phone market. Even doubling Apple's share would be a phenomenal increase. But, the iPhone isn't going to be market leader forever but can they innovate at the pace they have been?
Google's recent goggle announcement makes me think that Apple may have something similar in the works. Let's face it, an iPhone is a substantial chunk, could it be made smaller and be incorporated into eyeglasses or something resembling a bluetooth earpiece with a mini projection screen?
The next two years will be very fascinating.
Google's recent goggle announcement makes me think that Apple may have something similar in the works. Let's face it, an iPhone is a substantial chunk, could it be made smaller and be incorporated into eyeglasses or something resembling a bluetooth earpiece with a mini projection screen?
The next two years will be very fascinating.
The problem with this is the focus on growth. A company (or a country for that matter) doesn't need to perpetually grow in order to succeed. For shareholders growth is awesome, but for a company, how large and how profitable it is isn't important once you reach the point where you have enough money to create the products that you're interested in. There's a difference between a number and the amount a number has changed over time, and so long as your absolute number is high, you're doing just fine.
I'm not saying Apple shouldn't innovate, but there's absolutely no need for it to enter any new markets. It probably will, but there's certainly no burning need for it to do so.
I'm not saying Apple shouldn't innovate, but there's absolutely no need for it to enter any new markets. It probably will, but there's certainly no burning need for it to do so.
indeed. Said law is about sampling in statistical studies. What it actually says is the larger the sample the more likely it is that the items within to reach a mean value and stay there with little change.
re original article
sir jony ives is probably tinkering with the next insanely great growth driver
btw: such garish colors used on those charts
sir jony ives is probably tinkering with the next insanely great growth driver
btw: such garish colors used on those charts
Apple did this with Logic a few years back, I don't know if they still do. You were able to hook up multiple macs together and use their processing power to process audio. It was called Logic Nodes.
We are talking about regression to the mean right? Can the original mr article do a better job in explaining how this applies to apple? Am I the only one here who doesn't quite grasp this while the others go on their merry way debating something that isn't clear to begin with?
If it's all just a "all a bit of a theoretical exercise, of course" then does the theory hold ground here or is it for show? What kind of theoretical exercise, is a bit of a theoretical one, instead of a full on theoretical one?
Sure values regress to their mean, but no one really knows what that mean is with certainty, that's the whole point. But what does that have to do with apple growing even larger? It's size might spur even more growth...But that's all down to global financial conditions, brand name, competing products, iOS and os x design choices, economies of scale, etc.
In this bit of a theoretical exersice I fail to see how a mathematical theorem is more than just window dressing to make a point as unclear as the application of the theory behind it. People could have claimed that apple would regress to the mean back when the stock was at $350, apparently the mean was higher...
Anyway...just saying...
If it's all just a "all a bit of a theoretical exercise, of course" then does the theory hold ground here or is it for show? What kind of theoretical exercise, is a bit of a theoretical one, instead of a full on theoretical one?
Sure values regress to their mean, but no one really knows what that mean is with certainty, that's the whole point. But what does that have to do with apple growing even larger? It's size might spur even more growth...But that's all down to global financial conditions, brand name, competing products, iOS and os x design choices, economies of scale, etc.
In this bit of a theoretical exersice I fail to see how a mathematical theorem is more than just window dressing to make a point as unclear as the application of the theory behind it. People could have claimed that apple would regress to the mean back when the stock was at $350, apparently the mean was higher...
Anyway...just saying...