301–307 of 307 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if they are merely still selling computers at a premium because they merely used to be better and are slowly falling behind?
So who's making better mobile chips than their A series of processors? Or even chips as good?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> announced very few new products. Look it up, he's actually announced plenty. Just they're kinda underwhelming. Off the top of my head: MacBook, Mac Pro, iPad Pro, iPhone+,MacBook HDMI Dongle, iPhone Headphone Dongle, Apple Pay, Apple Music, Apple Pencil.
How does this list not include the Apple Watch, which Cook also announced? Speaking of which, how does this not include Swift, which also debuted under Tim Cook? And Metal?
Honestly I'm shocked I missed it too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Which is exactly my point Which is what? It was not just the case, the guts are also different. I never claimed they are unique, but they surely are different. You can downvote me all you want, but saying the current Mac Pro is iteration/just a case and not a different product is wrong. >In what way? Seriously. You said it was "off the shelf" components and then it somehow has more capable hardware? How does that wo…
>the guts are also different. I never claimed they are unique, but they surely are different. Just because they're different doesn't automatically mean that they're better. >I know I've said this before, but if you go to http://apple.com/mac-pro/ , you can clearly see how it is more capable compared to older generation. What's the point of comparing with the older generation? The technology has advanced, of course it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. Apple's stance on privacy has everything to do with the personality and life experiences of Tim Cook. Stop for a moment to imagine what being a homosexual teenager in 1970's Alabama was like. Also it's well known that his career at IBM was torpedoed over a gay "glass ceiling." Tim Cook is a man who understands that privacy is a human right.
>I disagree. Apple's stance on privacy has everything to do with the personality and life experiences of Tim Cook. Stop focusing on feelings and personality. It would be a violation of his role as Chief to lead the business on purely emotional grounds, making decisions based on his experiences growing up. He has an obligation to return value to his shareholders. Privacy is a Business Moat[1] for Apple, it's something…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If an engineer had shown this piece of work to Steve, do you think they'd still work at Apple? Yes. And it would not have been an engineer, it would have been the industrial designer. The whole point of the design is beautiful seamless surfaces and curves. That's why the charging port is underneath. Which is exactly where the battery door was, BTW. Steve Jobs is the guy who added a useless pointless screw (it liter…
Talk about invoking "His Presence".
For any company, a charismatic dominant CEO leaving causes instability a board would be foolish not to try and stabilise things at the company before moving on again. A CEO does not act in isolation even though this article paints it like that and takes guidance from their board.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. Apple's stance on privacy has everything to do with the personality and life experiences of Tim Cook. Stop for a moment to imagine what being a homosexual teenager in 1970's Alabama was like. Also it's well known that his career at IBM was torpedoed over a gay "glass ceiling." Tim Cook is a man who understands that privacy is a human right.
Maybe. I don't know Tim Cook personally, so I'm in no position to judge his character. I'd like to believe his case for privacy is a moral one, grounded in his own challenging personal experiences. That would certainly be refreshing. What I do know for a fact is that he is the CEO of a public company, and as such he has a duty to maximize shareholder value. This isn't a judgement of his character, it's simply a descr…
He could focus on privacy and discover that for most people it's not a big deal. Or some kind of WikiLeaks/NSA scandal could happen and people decide it's a very big deal. (Oftentime timing is everything. DoubleClick lost a third of its value because of controversies about cookies, but 10 years later Facebook went far, far, far beyond DoubleClick and their market value went up.)
He could decide that price is the most important thing and move all their operations offshore. A recession might come and it turns out low cost is the way to go. Or the economy might boom and people spend money like it's 1999.
Apple has had a pretty golden touch over the last 15-20 years, and it's hard to argue with success. But past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Microsoft stomped Apple and everyone else for 20 years, then went sideways for 10+ (as measured by stock market performance). But it's not like they decided to stop trying to maximize shareholder value. They just had difficulties figuring out how.