Today Marks the 44th Anniversary of Apple's Founding

[I7guy]

Nice strawman. I’m responding to a post that paints Cook’s run as a steady display of excellence. It’s not. But I’m not that daft to not recognize the blockbuster successes too.

since we’re at it though:
iPhone 6 was a Megahit: but regurgitating its form factor 4 times or more (considering the iPhone 9 rumors) is just plain lazy. Cook’s stewardship follows a parts-bin device approach more and more and that is quite unbecoming of Apple, especially now that it’s at its richest.

The watch is a great product that took a few generations to get it right. It didn’t become a blockbuster hit until gen 4.

Fair enough about AirPods. I personally don’t use them but the success is undeniable.

None of your posts recognized the successes of Apple post 2011, and to boot you yourself are using a strawman with the phrase: "I’m responding to a post that paints Cook’s run as a steady display of excellence".

As far as the iphone 6, okay your opinion, but Apple has clearly displayed a success strategy, albeit one you don't like.

 

[JagdTiger]

Soooo many fond memories of my Apple ][+ and ][e and original 128k Mac... sigh those were the days.

Yes and the apple llgs, apple never should have stopped the gaming side of apple computers that allowed the PC to to get the top spot.

 

[Allyance]

Congratulations Apple, all companies have their ups and downs, no one is perfect, but they have done really well. Thousands of employees have built the company to market cap of over 1 trillion dollars, even with market in a tail spin. Not too shabby.

 

[otternonsense]

People do not think innovation stopped when Steve died. Nor do people think Apple was a hallmark of purity before Tim ascended the throne.

But there has been a clear track record of decreasing hardware & software quality, paying more for less, and general selfishness which, for the most part, Steve did not stand for or allow. Apple was his baby. He grew up in the counter-culture of the 60s & 70s, went through many personal & professional trials (he was, of course, always a bit of an *******), and was an excellent CEO during his second run at Apple precisely because of the fires that forged him.

Tim, bless his rich little heart, has always been a business guy. It's not his fault, per se, but he simply doesn't have the imagination to understand the individual the way Steve did. He was handed the golden goose, and she's been popping out golden eggs left and right... but those of us who haven't lost our sense of smell have noticed some unpleasant vapors coming from Cupertino over the past 7-8 years. It's not all bad- but it's not all good, either.

And trust me, I know of what I speak.

This. 100 times this.

None of your posts recognized the successes of Apple post 2011, and to boot you yourself are using a strawman with the phrase: "I’m responding to a post that paints Cook’s run as a steady display of excellence".

As far as the iphone 6, okay your opinion, but Apple has clearly displayed a success strategy, albeit one you don't like.

You're still misrepresenting things.

I do recognise the post-2011 innovations (mostly iterations) and I use a lot of them in my day-to-day. I also smell the unpleasant vapours from Cupertino that @trusso described really well. Maybe in your mind one can either be a fawning and grovelling Apple lover who sees no wrong OR an unbridle rage-hater who sees no good in the last 9 years. I'm neither.

Replicating the iPhone 6 more than 4 times is a success strategy? If by success you mean easy money, then sure, they're killing it. Steve was no saint but this level of sheer complacency was something he'd just not do.

 

[Cosmosent]

Apple got their BIG break when the Music Execs were scared of Napster, Kazaa, & the like !

If that hadn't happened, Apple's market cap would be 1/100th of what it is today !

Can't really say which products are/were best, but Apple single-greatest "market surprise" was the register-rich A7 in the 5s !

 

[rgbrock1]

Don't understand why you would feel this way. Apple has released some of it's best devices in recent years, including the Macbook Pro 16", iPhone XR and the Airpods Pro, hardly cause for shaming. If anything, I hope they will push out more products that cater to the needs of the people, as they are doing right now.

P.S. Happy birthday Apple, keep up the good work.

Although I own a myriad of Apple products and enjoy using them on a daily basis for both work and pleasure I will say this. Many of Apple's current line of products are evolutionary, not revolutionary. I think the revolutionary products died in 2011 with Steve. Steve was a visionary, Tim Apple is not. Think about it. Steve introduced the Mac in 1984 and, years later, the iPod, iPhone, iMac, PowerBook, MacBook, etc. Each of these devices were indeed revolutionary at the time and changed the way users interacted with devices.

Yes, Tim Cook introduced devices like the iPad Pro, AirPods and the Apple Watch. Aside from the Watch all other devices under his leadership have been evolutionary. (The iPad Pro is an evolution of the first iPad. It improves on the original design and does a lot more but it is not really revolutionary. I'm just using the iPad Pro as an example.)

I wish Apple well for the future, I really do. And I think they might a very good decision in letting Jonny Ive go. Jonny is obviously a very talented individual. But I think part of his design philosophy was motived by Steve Jobs. I think Steve pushed Jonny to "Think Different". I don't think Tim Apple was able to achieve that as much as he may have liked.

 

[I7guy]

...
You're still misrepresenting things.

Where have you mentioned anything positive about apple in this thread?

I do recognise the post-2011 innovations (mostly iterations) and I use a lot of them in my day-to-day. I also smell the unpleasant vapours from Cupertino that @trusso described really well. Maybe in your mind one can either be a fawning and grovelling Apple lover who sees no wrong OR an unbridle rage-hater who sees no good in the last 9 years. I'm neither.

Replicating the iPhone 6 more than 4 times is a success strategy? If by success you mean easy money, then sure, they're killing it. Steve was no saint but this level of sheer complacency was something he'd just not do.

I don't know about you, all I know is what you post and generally it's not favorable.

However, replicating the iphone 6 more than 4 times, turns out to be a brilliant success strategy. It's irrelevant if it's copying, duplicating, easy money, laziness or what ever adjective you want, you are in denial that Apple has given the people what they want, by the numbers. You are certainly welcome to your (subjective) opinion about Apple, but objectively by the numbers, is another story.

 

[citysnaps]

Replicating the iPhone 6 more than 4 times is a success strategy? If by success you mean easy money, then sure, they're killing it. Steve was no saint but this level of sheer complacency was something he'd just not do.

OK, regarding phones...what would Jobs do instead over the years and available technology since the iPhone 6 was released? Be very specific.

 

[otternonsense]

Where have you mentioned anything positive about apple in this thread?


I don't know about you, all I know is what you post and generally it's not favorable.

However, replicating the iphone 6 more than 4 times, turns out to be a brilliant success strategy. It's irrelevant if it's copying, duplicating, easy money, laziness or what ever adjective you want, you are in denial that Apple has given the people what they want, by the numbers. You are certainly welcome to your (subjective) opinion about Apple, but objectively by the numbers, is another story.

Making an out of topic retrospective of my previous posts is a silly distraction. Indeed, generally I'm not favourable of Cook's "updates" and I'm rather vocal about it. I also give praise when due and I've voted with my wallet to remain with Apple. That's about as much praise as I can give.

Now, you're giving things quite a twist here: if you ask people what they WANT, they wouldn't have wanted the same device regurgitated 5 times. But since what they want is an iPhone, they'll buy whatever they're given. Hence the numbers. Your opinion as to whether the numbers were prompted by willpower, preference or sheer habit is subjective too.

OK, regarding phones...what would Jobs do instead over the years and available technology since the iPhone 6 was released? Be very specific.

LOL who are you again? And who am I to theorise what Jobs would have done, very specifically even? I don't know what he would have done. No-one did. Which is exactly why he consistently revolutionised consumer tech. What I know is that he managed to leapfrog his own work within a shorter cadence (think iMac G4, iPhone 4) at a fraction of Tim's budget and talent pool. Jobs turned the then-available technology on its head and shipped it with tighter OS's. His team released a Retina display in 2010 with more PPI than 2019's iPhone 11, and he'd never go "well if you can't see it what does it matter" like Phil Schiller did in public. So no, I don't know what miracles he would have accomplished with post-iPhone 6 tech, but I'm damned curious to find out.

[automerge]1585764434[/automerge]

I'm fairly certain this was an even larger commercial dud.

Anyone remember that thing? It had a whole section of a keynote dedicated to it.

Two things can be true at the same time

 

[citysnaps]

LOL who are you again? And who am I to theorise what Jobs would have done, very specifically even? I don't know what he would have done. No-one did. Which is exactly why he revolutionised consumer tech. What I know is that he managed to leapfrog his own work within a shorter cadence (think iMac G4, iPhone 4) at a fraction of Tim's budget and talent pool. obs used turned the then-available technology on its head and shipped it with tried and tested OS's. His team released a Retina display in 2010 with more PPI than 2019's iPhone 11, and he'd never go "well if you can't see it what does it matter" like our plump friend Phil Schiller. So no, I don't know what miracles he would have accomplished with 2015 tech, but I'm damned curious to find out.

You are probably not aware that it's relatively easy to incrementally update off of newly introduced products, such as the first or early iPods, iPhones, and iMacs.

Updating mature products with the same level of gee-whiz excitement is another matter.

Apple's soon coming AR-related releases, and down the road updates, will likely follow the same product update trajectory.

 

[otternonsense]

You are probably not aware that it's relatively easy to incrementally update off of newly introduced products, such as the first or early iPods, iPhones, and iMacs.

Updating mature products is another matter.

Not quite and I am aware. Let's take e.g. iPhone 4 as an example. That was not an incremental update. That was a revolution. The amount of innovation that went into a single update, from industrial design to Retina display to FaceTime to camera.. that was dizzying for fans and competition alike, and it's sad that it went down to memory as the "you're holding it wrong" phone. There was nothing relatively easy about the work they put there. In fact, it was the available tech in the market that was unable to keep up (e.g. carrier bandwidth wasn't there yet to popularise FaceTime). Also, Apple was far from the richest company in the world and still their R&D was on fire.

Micro-updating mature products to the point you can't tell them apart from the ones 5 years ago is another matter indeed. Some products are even an active backtrack, like the gimped PPI on the iPhone XR. Concessions upon concessions upon concessions. I don't know "what Steve would have done", but I can assert that he wouldn't compromise this much.

Edit: The proof is in the pudding about AR releases and if Apple will succeed where others (e.g. MSFT) have failed. The difference with the iPod, iPhone and iMac is that they stirred a buzz from the get-go. The Lidar scanner on the iPad Pro generated more of a yawn, because let's face it, the most compelling and commercially popular AR application to date has been Pokemon Go and you're not gonna do that on an iPad.

You have to realise that people who disagree with you or your favourite company's direction don't just do it because they're confused, hateful, out of their depth or unaware of how tech works.

 

[I7guy]

Making an out of topic retrospective of my previous posts is a silly distraction. Indeed, generally I'm not favourable of Cook's "updates" and I'm rather vocal about it. I also give praise when due and I've voted with my wallet to remain with Apple. That's about as much praise as I can give.

Now, you're giving things quite a twist here: if you ask people what they WANT, they wouldn't have wanted the same device regurgitated 5 times. But since what they want is an iPhone, they'll buy whatever they're given. Hence the numbers. Your opinion as to whether the numbers were prompted by willpower, preference or sheer habit is subjective too....

There are 1 billion or so idevices out there with hundreds of millions of customers. It should be no secret that given the vast customer base, not everybody is going to get exactly what they want. But I find it hard to believe that apple doesn't due it's due diligence when it embarks on research and design efforts and comes to an understand of what a "typical" consumer might want, even if each customer doesn't get exactly what they are looking for.

It's quite irrelevant how Apple arrived at $1T, that they did is the important thing. Even if every customer declared they bought the best of the worse, which is the glass half empty crowd. The fact is people are buying is important.

 

[trusso]

Without stepping into the debate going on around me here, I'd just like to add an old Steve quote:

“When you’re a carpenter making a beautiful chest of drawers, you’re not going to use a piece of plywood on the back, even though it faces the wall and nobody will ever see it. You’ll know it’s there, so you’re going to use a beautiful piece of wood on the back. For you to sleep well at night, the aesthetic, the quality, has to be carried all the way through.”​

Every craftsman and producer of goods would do well to remember this. As good ol' Honest Abe once said, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." Sooner or later (sadly, sometimes much later) the chickens come home to roost.

But happy birthday to Apple [Computer], of course. I'm typing this on my 2010 Mac Pro, a masterful piece of engineering which might theoretically hold up for decades. Apple has pushed other companies to step up their game since the 1980s. For that alone we owe them a debt.

Heck, I know it's an old piece of propaganda, but I think it's appropriate:

Let's hope Apple continue to correct its course and work to truly enable individuals- not just in name, but in deed.

 

[otternonsense]

There are 1 billion or so idevices out there with hundreds of millions of customers. It should be no secret that given the vast customer base, not everybody is going to get exactly what they want. But I find it hard to believe that apple doesn't due it's due diligence when it embarks on research and design efforts and comes to an understand of what a "typical" consumer might want, even if each customer doesn't get exactly what they are looking for.

It's quite irrelevant how Apple arrived at $1T, that they did is the important thing. Even if every customer declared they bought the best of the worse, which is the glass half empty crowd. The fact is people are buying is important.

What is irrelevant is trying to force causality between revenue and innovativeness.

It's pretty evident the only due diligence Tim's Apple is performing is designing for maximum revenue directly, to which design & engineering now play second fiddle. The "typical consumer" in this case is used as the lowest common denominator to ensure scale. As soon as Tim realised the iPhone 6 scale remains unreachable (just see the sales numbers, not revenue), he cranked iPhone pricing to the max to compensate and continued selling the same-ish device YOY –adding some features here and there whereas killing existing innovations like 3D Touch. That's it, more or less.

The fact that people are buying is good for the spreadsheet. Theoretically it would have been good for increasing R&D budget too but evidently it does not.

 

[I7guy]

What is irrelevant is trying to force causality between revenue and innovativeness.

True, but the reverse is also true that because one don't see innovation, that doesn't mean Apple hasn't been innovating.

It's pretty evident the only due diligence Tim's Apple is performing is designing for maximum revenue directly, to which design & engineering now play second fiddle.

It's clear Tim Apple is doing his job, not the job you specifically want him to do. To get some change in that regards only requires a bunch of voting stock.

The "typical consumer" in this case is used as the lowest common denominator to ensure scale.

Are you suggesting Apple should design for the fringe? Those elements that would probably cause Apple to go down the tubes if they actually listened to all arm-chair managers?

As soon as Tim realised the iPhone 6 scale remains unreachable (just see the sales numbers, not revenue), he cranked iPhone pricing to the max to compensate and continued selling the same-ish device YOY –adding some features here and there whereas killing existing innovations like 3D Touch. That's it, more or less.

Nope, if you look at MSRP of the iphone 11 through the iphone 1, you can see that clearly isn't the case. The iphone has essentially been the same, using your logic for 10 generations with incremental improvements in each generation. I do agree about 3fdt though.

The fact that people are buying is good for the spreadsheet. Theoretically it would have been good for increasing R&D budget too but evidently it does not.

That people are buying is good, I agree.

 

[HandITOVER]

SMH.

 

[otternonsense]

True, but the reverse is also true that because one don't see innovation, that doesn't mean Apple hasn't been innovating.

That's exactly what needs to happen though. Actions, not lip service, and no abstractions about what's coming in the "amazing pipeline". If you can't see it, it's a pipe dream (see: Airpower).

It's clear Tim Apple is doing his job, not the job you specifically want him to do. To get some change in that regards only requires a bunch of voting stock.

I want a CEO to steer the richest and most influential tech company with a product mentality, which Cook clearly lacks. Good job on the stock buybacks, sure, he's made the voting stockholders a lot of dough to keep them content.

Are you suggesting Apple should design for the fringe? Those elements that would probably cause Apple to go down the tubes if they actually listened to all arm-chair managers?

What is it with you turning everything I say into a strawman and calling names on top of it? 😂 Please chill. Apple being less predictable, self-congratulatory/plagiarising and dadcore is not "designing for the fringe".

Nope, if you look at MSRP of the iphone 11 through the iphone 1, you can see that clearly isn't the case. The iphone has essentially been the same, using your logic for 10 generations with incremental improvements in each generation. I do agree about 3fdt though.

How did you reach that conclusion? Apple kept the iPhone on a tic-toc (with a pretty revolutionary tic) and a relatively unchanged price until the ultrameh iPhone 7 marked the tic-toc-toc switch and then the X suddenly started costing as much as an entry level iMac. The iPhone has been the same-ish throughout 6 and 8 (9 too, if the rumours hold). That wasn't the case before.

That people are buying is good, I agree.

That's a mixed blessing. That people are still buying is all but validating Apple's C-suite lazy arrogance.

 

[I7guy]

That's exactly what needs to happen though. Actions, not lip service, and no abstractions about what's coming in the "amazing pipeline". If you can't see it, it's a pipe dream (see: Airpower).

Innovation is a personal moving definition and, imo, some just dont' see it. Airpower was innovation, the execution though couldn't be held to Apple's standards.

I want a CEO to steer the richest and most influential tech company with a product mentality, which Cook clearly lacks. Good job on the stock buybacks, sure, he's made the voting stockholders a lot of dough to keep them content.

The Apple CEO is doing the job he thinks should be done, not the job people on an anonymous internet forum want him to do.

What is it with you turning everything I say into a strawman and calling names on top of it? 😂 Please chill. Apple being less predictable, self-congratulatory/plagiarising and dadcore is not "designing for the fringe".

Ok?

How did you reach that conclusion? Apple kept the iPhone on a tic-toc (with a pretty revolutionary tic) and a relatively unchanged price until the ultrameh iPhone 7 marked the tic-toc-toc switch and then the X suddenly started costing as much as an entry level iMac. The iPhone has been the same-ish throughout 6 and 8 (9 too, if the rumours hold). That wasn't the case before.

I went back using google and did a search for the MRSP of every iphone released since the iphone 1. Sure there has been some price increase for more tech, but are you suggesting Apple, because you want them to, should be lowering the price? Seems to me most high-tech I research, purchase, follow has a price increase with new, bigger, better tech. Especially true for cars, which can be argued after 100+ years, should not be as expensive as they are.

That's a mixed blessing. That people are still buying is all but validating Apple's C-suite lazy arrogance.

Yes, in your humble opinion.

 

[otternonsense]

Innovation is a personal moving definition and, imo, some just dont' see it. Airpower was innovation, the execution though couldn't be held to Apple's standards.

No, innovation is not a subjective value. So what are you saying? Innovation is in the marketing and not the delivery? No. That's exactly the mentality Steve would chastise back in the day: corporations run by marketing execs who ship the same thing ad nauseam and differentiate on PR. Look it up on Youtube.

Innovation goes all the way to shipping what's promised. Otherwise there's another word for it: scam. In the case of Airpower, Apple should have never announced before validating the proof of concept. I do believe in "embracing failure" and whatnot as a driver for innovation, but at the end of the day it has to deliver a better product and not a case study about learning from failure.

The Apple CEO is doing the job he thinks should be done, not the job people on an anonymous internet forum want him to do.

LOL it's not like our conversations end up on board discussions at Cupertino. Chill.

I went back using google and did a search for the MRSP of every iphone released since the iphone 1. Sure there has been some price increase for more tech, but are you suggesting Apple, because you want them to, should be lowering the price? Seems to me most high-tech I research, purchase, follow has a price increase with new, bigger, better tech. Especially true for cars, which can be argued after 100+ years, should not be as expensive as they are.

You're negating the absurd price hike of the iPhone X and deflect to cars? Wow, you really are something else.

Yes, in your humble opinion.

Fortune 500 companies have paid handsomely for that opinion

 

[I7guy]

No, innovation is not a subjective value. So what are you saying? Innovation is in the marketing and not the delivery? No. That's exactly the mentality Steve would chastise back in the day: corporations run by marketing execs who ship the same thing ad nauseam and differentiate on PR. Look it up on Youtube.

Innovation according to MacRumors is subjective and it's a personal moving definition. I'm not saying Apple oozes innovation, but this is Apple of 2020, not some bygone era and they clearly still manage an innovative thing or two.

Innovation goes all the way to shipping what's promised.

This oblique reference to airpower is in no way connected to the definition of innovation. You are holding onto one example that already is a moot point in an attempt to paint with a broad brush.

Otherwise there's another word for it: scam. In the case of Airpower, Apple should have never announced before validating the proof of concept. I do believe in "embracing failure" and whatnot as a driver for innovation, but at the end of the day it has to deliver a better product and not a case study about learning from failure.

As stated above.

LOL it's not like our conversations end up on board discussions at Cupertino. Chill.

Take your own advice?

You're negating the absurd price hike of the iPhone X and deflect to cars? Wow, you really are something else.

Your negating my point, or ignoring it, (or whatever) about paying more for more tech. The deflection to cars is a good analogy. Samsung raised it's prices as well to a ridiculous level, for more tech.

Fortune 500 companies have paid handsomely for that opinion

Let me know when apple pays "handsomely" for that opinion.

 

[otternonsense]

Innovation according to MacRumors is subjective and it's a personal moving definition. I'm not saying Apple oozes innovation, but this is Apple of 2020, not some bygone era and they clearly still manage an innovative thing or two.
This oblique reference to airpower is in no way connected to the definition of innovation. You are holding onto one example that already is a moot point in an attempt to paint with a broad brush.

Innovation is not subjective, and making excuses for Apple 2020, a trillion dollar company and not the near-failing renegade of yesteryear, just because it's Apple 2020 (what does this even mean at the end) is disingenuous. An innovative thing or two? They used to upend industries. As for the AirPower, it's just where the conversation led us. You want another example? How they gimped the 2017 10.5" iPad Pro to resell as 2019 iPad "Air" with worse components. Or how they introduced the very first smart assistant and let it languish until they bought off workflow and turned into "Siri Shortcuts" as an attempt to refresh her abilities. Wow. Much innovation. So technology.

How about another example: what MSFT did with Surface Studio. Was it a commercial success? No. Was it innovative though? Hell yes. It had some of that magic sauce the iMac G4 did. But as a system aimed at creatives it was DOA because most of us in design & development still (want to) use OSX/macOS, even with the toxic hell stew that is Catalina.

Take your own advice?

I'm not the one going out of my way to twist your points into a joke.

Your negating my point, or ignoring it, (or whatever) about paying more for more tech. The deflection to cars is a good analogy. Samsung raised it's prices as well to a ridiculous level, for more tech.

The iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 had the same price upon launch and the 4 was jam packed with new tech. Now we're getting somewhat more tech at an absurd premium. Samsung does it because Apple does it and Apple can get away with it. Also, I don't care what Samsung does.

Let me know when apple pays "handsomely" for that opinion.

I personally handle EMEA clients.

 

[I7guy]

Innovation is not subjective, and making excuses for Apple 2020, a trillion dollar company and not the near-failing renegade of yesteryear, just because it's Apple 2020 (what does this even mean at the end) is disingenuous.

Not at all. Yes Apple is one big company, are you saying they are not allowed to fail. SJ had plenty of failures.

And, recognizing innovation is definitely subjective.

An innovative thing or two? They used to upend industries. As for the AirPower, it's just where the conversation led us. You want another example? How they gimped the 2017 10.5" iPad Pro to resell as 2019 iPad "Air". How they introduced the first smart assistant and let it languish until they bought off workflow and turned into "Siri Shortcuts" as an attempt to refresh her abilities. Wow. Much innovation. So technology.

How many products and new features has apple introduced since 2011 and they may have made some missteps, but that's the way it goes in corporate america at times. But you focus on mis-steps, I'm not going to list some of the successes to counter, you know what they are.

I'm not the one going out of my way to twist your points into a joke.

What does this even mean?

The iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 had the same price upon launch and the 4 was jam packed with tech. Now we're getting somewhat more tech at an absurd premium. Samsung does it because Apple does it and Apple can get away with it. Also, I don't care what Samsung does.

You don't have to care what Samsung does, I'm just noting the correlation between more tech and higher price. I would like to acquire the newest phones myself at a lower cost, but the price is the price. And if one looks at the MSRP of all phones released since the iphone 1, the trend would be evident. In fact the iphone 8 price dropped for an equivalent configuration than the iphone 7.

 

[otternonsense]

Not at all. Yes Apple is one big company, are you saying they are not allowed to fail. SJ had plenty of failures.

And, recognizing innovation is definitely subjective.


How many products and new features has apple introduced since 2011 and they may have made some missteps, but that's the way it goes in corporate america at times. But you focus on mis-steps, I'm not going to list some of the successes to counter, you know what they are.


What does this even mean?

You don't have to care what Samsung does, I'm just noting the correlation between more tech and higher price. I would like to acquire the newest phones myself at a lower cost, but the price is the price. And if one looks at the MSRP of all phones released since the iphone 1, the trend would be evident. In fact the iphone 8 price dropped for an equivalent configuration than the iphone 7.

I'll try to be concise because I'm honestly tired.

- Of course they're allowed to fail. That's what R&D and testing are for. At the end of the day, they're expected to deliver, especially now that they've got more resources than ever. Yes, they've delivered plenty of value. But not the blockbusters they used to before (and that's something Walt Mossberg, whose opinion Apple does value, asserts as well).

- SJ would not repackage a two year old product with worse components and resell it under a new name. He'd keep pushing forward. That kind of parts-bin mentality is all Tim. As for corporate America, that's a deflection.

- You're avoiding my point that the 3GS and 4 sold at the same price despite the tremendous innovations. Of course I don't expect the price to drop, but I don't expect it to near double (think X) either.

Peace 🖖

 

[I7guy]

I'll try to be concise because I'm honestly tired.

- Of course they're allowed to fail. That's what R&D and testing are for. At the end of the day, they're expected to deliver, especially now that they've got more resources than ever. Yes, they've delivered plenty of value. But not the blockbusters they used to before (and that's something Walt Mossberg, whose opinion Apple does value, asserts as well).

- SJ would not repackage an older product with worse components and resell it under a new name after two years. He'd keep pushing forward. That kind of parts-bin thinking is all Tim. As for corporate America, that's a deflection.

- You're avoiding my point that the 3GS and 4 sold at the same price despite the tremendous innovations. Of course I don't expect the price to drop, but I don't expect it to near double (think X) either.

Peace 🖖

To address your points:

- Apple has delivered. However the airpower is not any benchmark of apples' inability to deliver and seems to the bar that is raised high to apparently show "apples' issues". They may still deliver it, who knows.

- But did apple make a "worse" product. My rebinned, repackaged ipad 7th gen is perfect for me at $279. I'm thankful Apple did that. As for corporate America, the point is nobody is immune, no person is immune, etc.

- You avoided my point, the iphone 8 certain models had a lower price than the iphone 7 same capacity. The iphone 1 sold at a ridiculous price, so much Apple had to lower the price. The base X wasn't double the base iphone 7.

 

[Allyance]

Innovation is a rare commodity, no failure in refining a best selling product.

I am sitting here typing this on my 2012 iMac, I would love have a new one with a 4K display. That's refinement, can't afford one for awhile.

I am also sitting here with my SS S5 watch on. ECG, Heartbeat monitor, Fall alarm, cellular phone included, now that is innovation, it is amazing how complacent we have become. The AW is an amazing product.

I think Tim Cook has done a great job in getting Apple to be successful, he is not an innovator, but an administrator. He runs a company with many inovators in the ranks. Steve Jobs was a visionary, and an innovator, but not a great administrator. All part of the growth curve.