4 ms·

just my humble opinion - i believe aapl has crossed the threshold into the territory which steve jobs famously described as the hallmark of the Scully era[0] -

just my humble opinion - i believe aapl has crossed the threshold into the territory which steve jobs famously described as the hallmark of the Scully era[0] - their endless pursuit for revenue has pushed sales and marketing people to the front of the line and product people operate in their shadows. of course in a company as big and wide ranging as aapl, there are so many competing priorities and things to focus on but, IMO, tim cook is a real life paperclip maximizer. early on in his tenure there was some criticism that he was a "bean counter" and would ruin things cause he wasn't Steve, but rather than cutting costs as a traditional beancounter type would, he has been ruthless in pursuing what works to continue the endless revenue climb. there are certainly many things they could work on but choose not to, or could do better, but when you're in Cook's position and you are the preeminent Elephant (far larger and less capable of dance than Gerstner could have ever imagined), you have no choice but for changes in direction to be slow but large in magnitude. and at such a massive scale, while aapl could stumble out a new product/service and vacuum up tens of $millions, there are fewer and fewer opportunities which will clear their IRR. Taking some liberties interpreting here, but hence why they feel the need to extract value from App Store payments, turn a blind eye to scam apps, Google as default $earch, etc; their gravitational pull is so powerful that, as a proper paperclip maximizer, they would be derelict of responsibility by not simply sticking their hand out the window and siphoning incremental revenue. I imagine Cook in Ballmer's sweaty Oxford shirt yelling "Services! Services! Services!". back to the OP, all that is to say i see aapl's future as rocky, since there will be less and less of a cohesive product vision going forward as emphasis skews back and forth across revenue categories. Not to mention navigating the regulatory waters. [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4VBqTViEx4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4VBqTViEx4

joconde 5y ago
On the other hand, if pre-iPhone Apple could invest into inventing the iPhone, I don't see why today's Apple could balk at a new effort of this kind, since today's Apple is vastly richer. How much did the original iPhone and iPad cost to create? I imagine it would be an easy effort for 2022 Apple, and even a total failure would not dent their revenue by much. I can't imagine Cook being unable to do it.
- gumby 5y ago
  > I can't imagine Cook being unable to do it. …and he has: AirPods, M1, Apple Watch, cleaning cloth… Also some failures that made it out the door, like HomePod… I’d like a little more focus on quality and consistency but that would mean stepping off the annual treadmill. Which they could do everyone a service by being the first to do so.
  - cwaffles 5y ago
    M1 was built by the PA Semi team, acquired in 2008 [0]. They build the A series chips in the iPhone, I would argue that M1 would not exist without them, furthermore, M1 was not a Cook endeavor. For the watch, it looks like the first key hire was in 2013, but there is a chance that it was not all Steve's work [1] 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.A._Semi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.A._Semi 1. https://www.wired.com/2015/04/the-apple-watch/ https://www.wired.com/2015/04/the-apple-watch/
    - ericmay 5y ago
      If you’re going to do that in good faith remember then that this applies to any acquisition. How much of Nedella’s credit now gets to go to his predecessor? Or how about Google buying YouTube or Facebook buying WhatsApp. Also to note an idea is great but you need execution. While PA Semi may be responsible for the existence of the M1, Apple and subsequently Tim Cook are responsible for getting it in people’s hands for a grand or so.
    - gumby 5y ago
      It has not been the only semi acquisition, though I agree the most significant.
- baby-yoda 5y ago
  id attribute it to the maximizer mindset - take Meta for example. reports are metaverse development cost $10 billion so far. development came from zuckerberg himself so no one is getting fired, but say an apple VP sponsors a project that creates a $10 billion loss. very likely they hit none of their targets, have no bonus and are on their way out the door. reading between the lines, is this the cause for the constant turnover in the rumored apple car project? maybe this is an over simplification but, who has license to consume large amounts of resources across the company, potentially all of it being a loss, and not be fired?
culturestate 5y ago
> their endless pursuit for revenue has pushed sales and marketing people to the front of the line and product people operate in their shadows It may surprise you to learn that for a very long time, Apple’s de facto head of product (aside from Steve, obviously) was Phil Schiller. The “marketing people” have always been near the top of the food chain.
- baby-yoda 5y ago
  i'm no expert in the inner workings of apple but i would have considered Ive head of product. just curious as to why you put Schiller ahead? of course Marketing is an integral part of any large business and of course apple has been well above average in how their campaigns and messaging would rank in that regard. i added the commentary from Steve about the Scully era to the original post for context. from his explanation the nuance is, IMO, that when a company gets into this endless revenue cycle, a sales/marketing effort can demonstrate growth - hard numbers - far easier than a new product could. the new product could take years to become positive in NPV while a marketing campaign can "show up" by next quarter's earnings release.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Ive was/is a designer. Think of him more like a rockstar single contributor.
musicale 5y ago
> he has been ruthless in pursuing what works to continue the endless revenue climb This seems like an accurate assessment. Fortunately much of it has resulted in great products like the Apple Watch and M1 Macs, but service marketing leaking into the UI leaves a bad taste. As a shareholder I'd be happy with the revenue and dividends, but as a customer I want the focus to be on building great new products and improving reliability and usability rather than trying to convince me to buy more service subscriptions. We've already seen what happens to mobile games when they prioritize monetization over gameplay: they turn into slot machines. Sadly Apple Arcade is a sort of response to a problem that Apple grew in its own walled garden.

joconde 5y ago

On the other hand, if pre-iPhone Apple could invest into inventing the iPhone, I don't see why today's Apple could balk at a new effort of this kind, since today's Apple is vastly richer. How much did the original iPhone and iPad cost to create? I imagine it would be an easy effort for 2022 Apple, and even a total failure would not dent their revenue by much. I can't imagine Cook being unable to do it.

gumby 5y ago
> I can't imagine Cook being unable to do it. …and he has: AirPods, M1, Apple Watch, cleaning cloth… Also some failures that made it out the door, like HomePod… I’d like a little more focus on quality and consistency but that would mean stepping off the annual treadmill. Which they could do everyone a service by being the first to do so.
- cwaffles 5y ago
  M1 was built by the PA Semi team, acquired in 2008 [0]. They build the A series chips in the iPhone, I would argue that M1 would not exist without them, furthermore, M1 was not a Cook endeavor. For the watch, it looks like the first key hire was in 2013, but there is a chance that it was not all Steve's work [1] 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.A._Semi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.A._Semi 1. https://www.wired.com/2015/04/the-apple-watch/ https://www.wired.com/2015/04/the-apple-watch/
  - ericmay 5y ago
    If you’re going to do that in good faith remember then that this applies to any acquisition. How much of Nedella’s credit now gets to go to his predecessor? Or how about Google buying YouTube or Facebook buying WhatsApp. Also to note an idea is great but you need execution. While PA Semi may be responsible for the existence of the M1, Apple and subsequently Tim Cook are responsible for getting it in people’s hands for a grand or so.
  - gumby 5y ago
    It has not been the only semi acquisition, though I agree the most significant.
baby-yoda 5y ago
id attribute it to the maximizer mindset - take Meta for example. reports are metaverse development cost $10 billion so far. development came from zuckerberg himself so no one is getting fired, but say an apple VP sponsors a project that creates a $10 billion loss. very likely they hit none of their targets, have no bonus and are on their way out the door. reading between the lines, is this the cause for the constant turnover in the rumored apple car project? maybe this is an over simplification but, who has license to consume large amounts of resources across the company, potentially all of it being a loss, and not be fired?

culturestate 5y ago

> their endless pursuit for revenue has pushed sales and marketing people to the front of the line and product people operate in their shadows It may surprise you to learn that for a very long time, Apple’s de facto head of product (aside from Steve, obviously) was Phil Schiller. The “marketing people” have always been near the top of the food chain.

baby-yoda 5y ago
i'm no expert in the inner workings of apple but i would have considered Ive head of product. just curious as to why you put Schiller ahead? of course Marketing is an integral part of any large business and of course apple has been well above average in how their campaigns and messaging would rank in that regard. i added the commentary from Steve about the Scully era to the original post for context. from his explanation the nuance is, IMO, that when a company gets into this endless revenue cycle, a sales/marketing effort can demonstrate growth - hard numbers - far easier than a new product could. the new product could take years to become positive in NPV while a marketing campaign can "show up" by next quarter's earnings release.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ericmay 5y ago
  Ive was/is a designer. Think of him more like a rockstar single contributor.

musicale 5y ago

> he has been ruthless in pursuing what works to continue the endless revenue climb This seems like an accurate assessment. Fortunately much of it has resulted in great products like the Apple Watch and M1 Macs, but service marketing leaking into the UI leaves a bad taste. As a shareholder I'd be happy with the revenue and dividends, but as a customer I want the focus to be on building great new products and improving reliability and usability rather than trying to convince me to buy more service subscriptions. We've already seen what happens to mobile games when they prioritize monetization over gameplay: they turn into slot machines. Sadly Apple Arcade is a sort of response to a problem that Apple grew in its own walled garden.