If they had zero growth rate now, the stock would take a hit! Probably be cut in half.
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
If they had zero growth rate now, the stock would take a hit! Probably be cut in half.
the world has a finite amount of money, and for a billion dollars to be in reserve, then that billion dollars has to not be available to anyone else, say, people who would need it more than Apple needs it.
you can't have rich without poor, you can't have capitalist America without immense eastern poverty.
Well, it goes like this...
Apple have been developing computers with such quality in software and hardware, than creating a product for the general market is such easy task once you got the discipline.
What Apple does is keeping everything simple, easy and functional, no last time marketing experiment to be one step in front of the flow, no focus groups. They drive the flow by being pragmatic, that is it, they have just common sense and all what that implies, design and functionality. Of course they succeed.
Apple have been developing computers with such quality in software and hardware, than creating a product for the general market is such easy task once you got the discipline.
What Apple does is keeping everything simple, easy and functional, no last time marketing experiment to be one step in front of the flow, no focus groups. They drive the flow by being pragmatic, that is it, they have just common sense and all what that implies, design and functionality. Of course they succeed.
The thing is, this sort of occurrence is nothing new. We know that once the market matures, sales of iphones/ipads/iwhatever will be more or less constant every year. What this article seems to be saying is that unless Apple can keep its sales improving at the meteoric rate it is currently enjoying, the company is doomed.
Yes, it is common sense, yet the way the article packages it, I feel dumber after reading it!
I am sure that any investor with even the slightest iota of finance knowledge will have realised this and factored it into his investment strategy.
That is completely wrong, sorry. The fact that money is finite is not relevant.
How is the money "in reserve"? Do you know what reserves are?
If Apple sells $1 million of goods, who is made poorer in that transaction?
Nice job twisting my argument. Good job. You must feel pretty good about your fallacious reasoning.
What I said is that app development for the osx/ios stores is the only portion of pro users that apple cares about.
If they offer powerful (non Mac Pro) computers that can handle their needs, then apple is able to sustain their product lines.
Crazy how much of Apple's revenue is made up of the iPad considering how new of a product it is.
You keep asking a lot of questions, rhetorical ones I suppose, can you please start providing some answers cause all you 've said so far is jackc.
Are you serious? Why did they buy it?
----------
The point is, Apple making money doesn't mean that someone else is poorer.
The fact that they have $90 billion doesn't mean they are depriving people of that money.
Do you disagree?
Yes!
If you spend money, then you have less money, whether you could afford it or not.
if Apple has our money, then we have less.
Does that not make sense Jack?
Despite the apparently poor choice of words in the article, the author makes a somewhat valid point. Eventually, the growth in sales of Apple's exceptionally popular products will slow. That's what happens when everyone has one. This is one reason why the PC market is not growing--everyone has one now.
All that said, this concept is a great illustration of why the Mac is not going to disappear as many fear. Will it adopt some iOS like qualities? Sure. People like iOS, but most people will still need an actual computer of some sort for years to come. The more heavily they rely on iOS products, the more interested they will be in a Mac that employs some of the same strategies.
While to each of us, and to an analyst, the Mac may not be a new product, it is to a large number of people who haven't ever used one. There is a ton of room to grow the Mac's market share both in the US and globally. I expect to see continuing innovation in both design and software in this area that will attract new users.
As for the Mac Pro, I don't think it's going anywhere. I do think it will change eventually though. Thunderbolt allows for the creation of a truly modular computer that will allow the user to attach the peripherals of their choosing, thus allowing Apple to focus on simply bringing a really powerful box to market. Some pros only need the really powerful processor. Others need more. Modularity makes sense here and will allow Apple to bring a powerful product to market at a lower price point (because all the options aren't built in), thus making it more inviting for switching professionals who will likely already have a vast collection of peripherals and tools that they would like to use.
As for the "iTV" as an expansion product. Eh. Sure, why not. With future developments in WiFi tech and Airplay Mirroring from the Mac it could easily serve both as a television and as a monitor. I look at this as more of an evolution of the Cinema/Thunderbolt display than I do as a TV.
I'd still expect the set-connected box to exist and be taken more seriously by many users as it's capabilities are enhanced. If Apple can find a way to deliver A la Carte TV, it's adoption rate will skyrocket and will be a real revenue generator for Apple.
Besides all that, the iPhone and iPad aren't going anywhere. While Apple is the clear leader in tablet sales, that market is still far from being saturated. They can continue to maintain a commanding lead and still have plenty of room to grow. As for the iPhone, it really doesn't matter if it plateaus. It's a product that people will replace every two years like clockwork.
All that said, this concept is a great illustration of why the Mac is not going to disappear as many fear. Will it adopt some iOS like qualities? Sure. People like iOS, but most people will still need an actual computer of some sort for years to come. The more heavily they rely on iOS products, the more interested they will be in a Mac that employs some of the same strategies.
While to each of us, and to an analyst, the Mac may not be a new product, it is to a large number of people who haven't ever used one. There is a ton of room to grow the Mac's market share both in the US and globally. I expect to see continuing innovation in both design and software in this area that will attract new users.
As for the Mac Pro, I don't think it's going anywhere. I do think it will change eventually though. Thunderbolt allows for the creation of a truly modular computer that will allow the user to attach the peripherals of their choosing, thus allowing Apple to focus on simply bringing a really powerful box to market. Some pros only need the really powerful processor. Others need more. Modularity makes sense here and will allow Apple to bring a powerful product to market at a lower price point (because all the options aren't built in), thus making it more inviting for switching professionals who will likely already have a vast collection of peripherals and tools that they would like to use.
As for the "iTV" as an expansion product. Eh. Sure, why not. With future developments in WiFi tech and Airplay Mirroring from the Mac it could easily serve both as a television and as a monitor. I look at this as more of an evolution of the Cinema/Thunderbolt display than I do as a TV.
I'd still expect the set-connected box to exist and be taken more seriously by many users as it's capabilities are enhanced. If Apple can find a way to deliver A la Carte TV, it's adoption rate will skyrocket and will be a real revenue generator for Apple.
Besides all that, the iPhone and iPad aren't going anywhere. While Apple is the clear leader in tablet sales, that market is still far from being saturated. They can continue to maintain a commanding lead and still have plenty of room to grow. As for the iPhone, it really doesn't matter if it plateaus. It's a product that people will replace every two years like clockwork.
Obviously, but when you buy things you are better off, not worse off.
You consider yourself poorer every time you buy things?
Cash is not the same as wealth. You should quit while you're behind.
The average person doesn't think about the Law of Large Numbers, but more importantly even the NY Times article's proposition, about expanding Apple's product line, has its limits.
Every fanboy from here to Hong Kong will disagree with me, but I work for a software company with millions of customers, and every year we deal with this. The more we grow our customer base, the more we shrink the available share of wallet remaining to grab... If we release five, six, saven, eight new products who is going to have cash left over to buy them?
In order for Apple to keep doing 30% or more growth per year, they have to generate exponentially more marginal revenue... expanding their product line isn't enough. If I replace older paradigm stuff (desktops etc) with newer paradigm products (laptops, mobile devices) then that's just enough to maintain their current revenues the next year... because I've replaced product A with product B, but to grow they have to be able to get me to buy Product A, B, and C... and then D, and then E... all the while shrinking my discretionary income that I have to also spend on other products, both necessities and other luxuries.
It is inevitable that Apple's growth curve will flatten. They're already on top. There's no hopefulness or whatever to it, it's a reality of mathematics and finite resources. Consumers incomes aren't growing at a pace faster than the number of additional products Apple can conjure up... So, even if they continue to generate $30 billion more this year, $30 billion next year, $30 billion more the year after that, the percentage growth will flatten.
Imagine you're filling a glass with water. Every marginal amount of water you fill leaves less unfilled space to fill. You can't change this unless the glass gets larger.
Every fanboy from here to Hong Kong will disagree with me, but I work for a software company with millions of customers, and every year we deal with this. The more we grow our customer base, the more we shrink the available share of wallet remaining to grab... If we release five, six, saven, eight new products who is going to have cash left over to buy them?
In order for Apple to keep doing 30% or more growth per year, they have to generate exponentially more marginal revenue... expanding their product line isn't enough. If I replace older paradigm stuff (desktops etc) with newer paradigm products (laptops, mobile devices) then that's just enough to maintain their current revenues the next year... because I've replaced product A with product B, but to grow they have to be able to get me to buy Product A, B, and C... and then D, and then E... all the while shrinking my discretionary income that I have to also spend on other products, both necessities and other luxuries.
It is inevitable that Apple's growth curve will flatten. They're already on top. There's no hopefulness or whatever to it, it's a reality of mathematics and finite resources. Consumers incomes aren't growing at a pace faster than the number of additional products Apple can conjure up... So, even if they continue to generate $30 billion more this year, $30 billion next year, $30 billion more the year after that, the percentage growth will flatten.
Imagine you're filling a glass with water. Every marginal amount of water you fill leaves less unfilled space to fill. You can't change this unless the glass gets larger.
This is discussion that could be endless and exhausting and involve all sorts of financial theories as well as political ones.
So I too will respond with questions.
If they were to fund medical research, if they were to support the needy, the elderly, sick children etc, if they were to fund projects that aided in prison or addiction reform and recovery, if they funded worldwide NGO that support human rights such as amnesty would the world be worse off or better off? Would it matter so much in their annual growth since anyway at some point they are going to start losing out in market share -everyone does- and they ll start being less careful in their investments and chasing overpriced acquisitions to solidify their position much like everyone has done before them. Corporations have a social responsibility and it shouldn't be some vague notion on textbooks by academic apologists to corporate capitalism ( I am very begrudgingly using this last term, for lack of a better one).
That's why an economy based on speculation is doomed to fail, because even when a company that get such a huge success and make so much profit as Apple actually doing, they still need it to keep up growing.
Its like being in the casino with more money than you had when you entered, but keep playing anyway to always make more. Eventually you will lose.
Its like being in the casino with more money than you had when you entered, but keep playing anyway to always make more. Eventually you will lose.
if Apple makes a profit from selling you something, then that profit goes from being your money, to Apple's money. You get your thing, Apple gets it's money, Apple gets the better deal as it sold it to you for more than it cost to make and ship (that's what profit is).
So if Apple does this to millions of people, then keeps that money for itself and doesn't spend it, then that money isn't being spent and circulated, it's waiting in a pile until Apple needs it.
here's the analogy for the world.
(because there is a finite amount of money, which, Jack, is relevant when such large numbers are being thrown around)
So if the world has for example $100, and Apple keeps $1 of that, not ever spending it, then the world only has $99 to go round.
People are poorer, when other people become richer!
basic economics: money circulates.
you spend a $100 on a matress, matress saler is $100 "richer", matress guy buys a tv for $300, tv seller is $300 richer, tv seller goes out have a nice dinner for $80 and restaurant cook is $80 richer, restaurant cook has a tooth ache, you are a dentist, you fix him and you get $200more.
the point behind all this nonsense? the fact somone sells something and somone buys something does not automatically make the buyer and/or seller poorer or richer.
Thats not the same as saying that a big company cannot be blamed for making people poorer, not at all. A company can come into a poor country, take advantage to exploit the countries' wealth by taking advantage of cheap labor and or buying "cheap" materials. However, even then you can argue that those pennies the company pay the "slave workers" are making them slightly less poor.
sure,
you spend $500 on a mobile phone, mobile phone seller had to pay $200 to manufacture it, mobile phone seller is $300 richer.
mobile phone seller puts that $300 in a bank account for 20 years...