3 ms·

There's a problem if your technical edge is disruptive devices. In order to maintain that edge you have to keep disrupting. I think the iPod, iPhone, and iPad

by steverb 14y ago

There's a problem if your technical edge is disruptive devices. In order to maintain that edge you have to keep disrupting. I think the iPod, iPhone, and iPad were fairly obvious choices (although I was surprised that it was Apple that released the iPod, I had expected a killer device from one of the then traditional consumer electronics companies). Apple has already addressed all of my personal pain points, although I suppose they could eventually get AppleTV right I don't think it will be disruptive at anywhere near the scale that the iPhone was.

pretoriusB 14y ago
>There's a problem if your technical edge is disruptive devices. In order to maintain that edge you have to keep disrupting. True, but why "maintain that edge"? Apple was doing just fine with just the Mac like pre iPod. And then it did phenomenal after the iPod, iPhone, iPad. Even just with those, it's a tens of billions dollar business they can continue milking. It's not like "disruptive" is what marks Apple. The iPhone 5 is not disruptive anymore, but it sells like hot cakes. Incremental improvement and more especially high class machines (design, build and software integration) is what marks Apple. They can milk that for decades.
- steverb 14y ago
  The edge matters for investors. Yes, Apple can continue to trundle along making about what it does now for a good long while, but their stock is generally priced for growth (although that has been changing lately). In the meantime they have have Android (and eventually probably MS) swallowing their market from the low end up. To me it seems very similar to what happened with the desktop market.
  - pretoriusB 14y ago
    >The edge matters for investors. Yes, Apple can continue to trundle along making about what it does now for a good long while, but their stock is generally priced for growth That's true, but I don't care much for investors. I was happy with Apple in 2002-3, when it was 1/50 today's size, because it had the product I wanted: a bloody usable Unix that can run proprietary apps, and good hi-end laptops. I wish companies were less relied in investors and the stock market and more on their actual production and revenues. Then you wouldn't have some social BS selling for several billion dollars only to die out a couple of years later...

by steverb 14y ago

pretoriusB 14y ago

>There's a problem if your technical edge is disruptive devices. In order to maintain that edge you have to keep disrupting. True, but why "maintain that edge"? Apple was doing just fine with just the Mac like pre iPod. And then it did phenomenal after the iPod, iPhone, iPad. Even just with those, it's a tens of billions dollar business they can continue milking. It's not like "disruptive" is what marks Apple. The iPhone 5 is not disruptive anymore, but it sells like hot cakes. Incremental improvement and more especially high class machines (design, build and software integration) is what marks Apple. They can milk that for decades.

steverb 14y ago
The edge matters for investors. Yes, Apple can continue to trundle along making about what it does now for a good long while, but their stock is generally priced for growth (although that has been changing lately). In the meantime they have have Android (and eventually probably MS) swallowing their market from the low end up. To me it seems very similar to what happened with the desktop market.
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  >The edge matters for investors. Yes, Apple can continue to trundle along making about what it does now for a good long while, but their stock is generally priced for growth That's true, but I don't care much for investors. I was happy with Apple in 2002-3, when it was 1/50 today's size, because it had the product I wanted: a bloody usable Unix that can run proprietary apps, and good hi-end laptops. I wish companies were less relied in investors and the stock market and more on their actual production and revenues. Then you wouldn't have some social BS selling for several billion dollars only to die out a couple of years later...