4 ms·

Even the Apple Watch seems to be a healthy business. Not when compared to iPhone, but healthy enough to make a lot of watch companies jealous. Steve Jobs is a

Even the Apple Watch seems to be a healthy business. Not when compared to iPhone, but healthy enough to make a lot of watch companies jealous. Steve Jobs is a god to some people. Like he didn't make mistakes. That's just not true. There is not a single company in the world that didn't experience a lull after a high, but somehow Tim Cook is stupid for not bringing Apple to new highs every quarter. I'd say that without Steve Jobs Apple is in a better position to listen to criticism from outside the company. It will probably take decade to adjust, but I'm still using their products and I haven't found competitors that are doing better.

setr 10y ago
>There is not a single company in the world that didn't experience a lull after a high, but somehow Tim Cook is stupid for not bringing Apple to new highs every quarter. Well no, the usual complaint is that Cook is bringing Apple to new heights... just heights that are interesting as a business, not as consumers. Combined with the expectation that "execution" ceo's tend to miss new trends, as they prioritize reliability and "the grass on this side" Comes the claim that apple will go the way of microsoft and ibm; Gods of the market at one point in time, but now merely mortal. The idea isn't that Apple will fail its investors, its that it will fail to continue its current fame and status. Businesses will no longer live in fear of its ever-present shadow, as it degrades into merely another daemon from the old tales...
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Combined with the expectation that "execution" ceo's tend to miss new trends, as they prioritize reliability and "the grass on this side" So what are these "new trends"? And who caters to them better, with what products? Google, Microsoft, Samsung?
  - setr 10y ago
    For the new trends, its undefined, as it obviously hasn't happened yet (and any suggestion is simply speculation), but it is difficult to argue that there won't be one; whatever it is, the idea goes, it'll likely be missed. As for who is in a better position to serve these new trends, it of course depends on what trends actually appear. It might be one of the giants of industry, if the trend matches, or nears a bet they're already making. It could also be some current minor player, who catches or forges an unexpected one, like Apple had. Obviously the big players are in the best position to execute on a new trend (and hedge their bets), but as the idea goes, a giant might be large but he is slow, and therein lies his weakness. Encumbered by what they have now, its difficult to see new horizons (which is why things like google x and bell labs exist, divorcing themselves from the primary business in hopes of gaining insight) Of course, all of this is a non-answer, I'm just describing the idealogy leading to all these death statements, but it's all you'll get out of me
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
johnsmith21006 10y ago
Apple was over $130 almost two years ago and is $120 today so the idea that Apple is doing from an investor standpoint is not true. Take Google today like many others the stock is the highest it has ever been.

setr 10y ago

>There is not a single company in the world that didn't experience a lull after a high, but somehow Tim Cook is stupid for not bringing Apple to new highs every quarter. Well no, the usual complaint is that Cook is bringing Apple to new heights... just heights that are interesting as a business, not as consumers. Combined with the expectation that "execution" ceo's tend to miss new trends, as they prioritize reliability and "the grass on this side" Comes the claim that apple will go the way of microsoft and ibm; Gods of the market at one point in time, but now merely mortal. The idea isn't that Apple will fail its investors, its that it will fail to continue its current fame and status. Businesses will no longer live in fear of its ever-present shadow, as it degrades into merely another daemon from the old tales...

coldtea 10y ago
>Combined with the expectation that "execution" ceo's tend to miss new trends, as they prioritize reliability and "the grass on this side" So what are these "new trends"? And who caters to them better, with what products? Google, Microsoft, Samsung?
- setr 10y ago
  For the new trends, its undefined, as it obviously hasn't happened yet (and any suggestion is simply speculation), but it is difficult to argue that there won't be one; whatever it is, the idea goes, it'll likely be missed. As for who is in a better position to serve these new trends, it of course depends on what trends actually appear. It might be one of the giants of industry, if the trend matches, or nears a bet they're already making. It could also be some current minor player, who catches or forges an unexpected one, like Apple had. Obviously the big players are in the best position to execute on a new trend (and hedge their bets), but as the idea goes, a giant might be large but he is slow, and therein lies his weakness. Encumbered by what they have now, its difficult to see new horizons (which is why things like google x and bell labs exist, divorcing themselves from the primary business in hopes of gaining insight) Of course, all of this is a non-answer, I'm just describing the idealogy leading to all these death statements, but it's all you'll get out of me
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

johnsmith21006 10y ago

Apple was over $130 almost two years ago and is $120 today so the idea that Apple is doing from an investor standpoint is not true. Take Google today like many others the stock is the highest it has ever been.