I don’t see any master plan, for any cell phone manufacturer.
I think they do have master plans: see what Apple is doing and either get there first or get there cheaper. I'm only half kidding, unfortunately.
However, I do see apple trying to improve one’s technological lot in life, that they hired a HIPAA lawyer should be a tell for the future.
True. But again, products speak louder than positions. Apple has done some world changing stuff these past 40 years. I don't know if that is going to continue. I know where the Watch could take us, for example, and it would be bordering on magic if they do what I hope they will do. But will they? Or will they just build in more and more biometrics into the thing and make it an indispensable item that gathers unprecedented amounts of data on us? If Steve was here, I'd say the magic was the plan, and that is kind of what makes me think he actually was the genesis of the Watch idea, not anyone in present-day Apple.
As far as philanthropy, the landscape has change and apple must change with it. Old timers do not seem to like the new apple as there is some attachment to the way the company used to operate. I can relate to the new apple, far more than the old apple.
Unfortunately, that plays right in to what I was saying earlier. Apple used to provoke an emotional response by simply having the greatest products. Now they're attempting to ply emotions by taking up social causes. Where does that leave the products?
Charitable donations should be an individual choice, and not something for public spectacle. I don't believe any corporation should be involved in philanthropy. That may sound cold hearted, but understand that a corporation isn't a person, it has no soul, and no duty other than to provide the maximum return to its investors.
Many corporations take many different approaches towards achieving that return. Some chase short term profit. They are parasitic, using up underpaid low-skilled employees and casting them off for new ones. They may skimp on safety, on materials costs, on manufacturing facilities, or whatever. Ultimately those corporations fail or are at least greatly diminished. Many of them do some downright evil things, but mask their behavior with feel-good charitable donations that are nothing more than window dressing. Just like carbon offset credits, those charitable programs exist simply to make people "feel good" about doing business with the company. Apple, up until Cook, resisted the attempt at manipulating buyer opinion via philanthropy. The rare occasions when they got involved it was either a "click to donate" button for a disaster, or it was Jobs' favor to Bono with the RED products.
We bought Apple products knowing we were getting great tools that were going to make life better, more interesting, and more productive. All while being a joy to use. Not because Apple supported some legislation or threw millions down a hole somewhere. Apple's mission I stated earlier as "deliver tools that people enjoyed using, tools that would help them create and communicate like nothing before"; Apple's result was "here are the tools, now go change the world". Under Cook it seems to have become "
we're going to team up with the government to change the world but we need you to buy more products so we have funds to do it".
Today 2016, government is a different breed than in 2007 and Cook is doing what needs to be done.
I have to disagree, respectfully. Government hasn't changed. Its always been an inefficient monolith bent on cultivating its own power. The only thing that has changed is the degree of its force. I think a lot of that has to do with the rise of the net and the ability of people to communicate directly and seek their own solutions. The state hates competition.
Apple is headed in a new direction and Cook is leading it. There is nothing that says if SJ was still here, apple still wouldn’t have challenges in 2016; as all companies have challenges. But, in general, I like the job the management team is doing and where they are headed with their products.
If only I could see a direction there, maybe I could offer an opinion.
I'm sure Steve would have constantly been faced with the challenge of the day and of the year, but I doubt the guy who took control of his only face to face meeting with Barack Obama away from the White House staff and the Secret Service and bent them to his terms would have been the guy who started writing lobbying checks and "teaming up" with the feds on the direction technology needs to take. What Apple is doing in that respect is approaching textbook fascism.
Cook scares me, to be blunt.
