How Apple lost its way: Steve Jobs’ love of simplicity is gone

[I7guy]

Steve Jobs always tolerated Forstall despite him being a troublemaker of sorts and unlike iOS 8 and 9 ,there wasn't a chaotic release when both were at the helm.Jobs would never stand for half baked releases ,something Timmy doesn't care about.How many devices were bricked by updates under Tim and how many under Jobs?Self explanatory answer

Jobs never had a disaster? Seems jobs started half-baked releases with maps and antenna gate. Did Apple become MVC under jobs? Since any old ### is being thrown out I'll add mine to the pile.
[doublepost=1468927391][/doublepost]

The topic is the direction Apple is taking, and I went over my views and fears on that. In the classical sense, a forum is a place to discuss ideas, opinions, and speculation. I'm pretty sure I covered that.



You didn't seem to be referring to any individual post when you said "when the conclusion from a discussion", and though I summed up my position that way, I wouldn't try to sum up the entire discussion that way on behalf of every other poster.



That isn't reason, that isn't logic. That is emotion. You didn't answer my question in any case.
[doublepost=1468925717][/doublepost]

If a for-profit entity is designed to make a profit, that profit is destined to go to individuals - yes? Why deny those individuals the opportunity to make there own decision about their own philanthropy, rather than the decision being made for them before the money gets to them?

It's easy to write a negative rant. I just disagree with your position. As far as corporate philanthropy it's a decision made by the CEO, and it's positive step that all companies should follow.

 

[Savor]

Old Apple = better in hardware and software design
New Apple = better in philanthropy

Steve Jobs - Inspirational/innovative leader. Pr*ick.
Tim Cook - Great accountant. Nicer person.

I might be part of the minority who preferred Scott Forstall with software design. I respect Jony for his contributions with hardware design but iOS7 is a hideous. For sure, Apple announcements haven't wowed after SJ died.

Sony in 2006 is similar to what Apple is going through 2016. Apple became fat cats. Nothing to deliberate. Everyone is less stressed and enjoying their money now that the man who ruled the company with an iron fist is gone.

I believe the doom and gloom talk is exaggerated though. Don't see Apple going away anytime soon like Nokia and Motorola did. But nothing last forever and nobody stays on top forever either. There will come a time when the masses will turn their back on Apple including their loyalists.

Eventually people will stop buying Apple tangible products since their home is flooded with them. Less frequency in upgrading. People already fed up cluttering their home with gadgets they hardly use. Revenue needs to come from something intangible like how Google generates money.

 

[I7guy]

To paraphrase mark twain: "the talk of my demise is greatly exaggerated."

 

[Radon87000]

Jobs never had a disaster? Seems jobs started half-baked releases with maps and antenna gate. Did Apple become MVC under jobs? Since any old ### is being thrown out I'll add mine to the pile.
[doublepost=1468927391][/doublepost]
It's easy to write a negative rant. I just disagree with your position. As far as corporate philanthropy it's a decision made by the CEO, and it's positive step that all companies should follow.

Apple became MVC thanks to Steve's creation which Apple is milking to death.Thanks Steve

Apple Maps was a bold move by Apple to rid themselves of Google.I applaud Jobs for having the courage to do dangerous moves which Tim Is too much of a coward to do

Antenna gate?Never heard of it
[QUOTE="Savor, post: 23139345, member: ]Apple became fat cats. Nothing to deliberate. Everyone is less stressed and enjoying their money now that the man who ruled the company with an iron fist is gone.

[/QUOTE]
The perfect expression of the current Apple.A truthful post finally

 

[I7guy]

Apple became MVC thanks to Steve's creation which Apple is milking to death.Thanks Steve

Apple Maps was a bold move by Apple to rid themselves of Google.I applaud Jobs for having the courage to do dangerous moves which Tim Is too much of a coward to do

Antenna gate?Never heard of it
[QUOTE="Savor, post: 23139345, member: ]Apple became fat cats. Nothing to deliberate. Everyone is less stressed and enjoying their money now that the man who ruled the company with an iron fist is gone.

The perfect expression of the current Apple.A truthful post finally

You can't milk most valuable company in the world. That is earned by hard work and innovation and giving the customers what they want; even if a small percentage is unhappy. I guess truth is in the eyes of the beholder.

Dangerous moves? Hyperbole much? Apple Watch was a pretty bold move. Ios7 was a bold move. HealthKit, home kit, Touch ID, 3dt and the list goes on.

 

[Radon87000]

You can't milk most valuable company in the world. That is earned by hard work and innovation and giving the customers what they want; even if a small percentage is unhappy. I guess truth is in the eyes of the beholder.

Dangerous moves? Hyperbole much? Apple Watch was a pretty bold move. Ios7 was a bold move. HealthKit, home kit, Touch ID, 3dt and the list goes on.

Let's get one thing straight first.Do you or do you not agree that Steve Jobs was better than Cook when it comes to leading Apple?

 

[I7guy]

Let's get one thing straight first.Do you or do you not agree that Steve Jobs was better than Cook when it comes to leading Apple?

Cook is better at leading, jobs was better at bullying. Jobs time is over; it's now cooks.

 

[loby]

Truly outstanding comment. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

Agree and well said.

But..after thinking more about the original topic: "if Apple has lost their love for simplicity", take a look at their recent big innovation or change besides the apple watch: The Mac Pro 2013.

Bought it online. I received it in the mail. Simple box, opened it. Everything in it is very simplistic, even the packaging etc...beautiful. All white bright box with no other markings on it etc. Shines when you first see it and helps you to forget that it cost a fortune. Even the brown regular shipping box is simplistic without nothing but a simple small shipping label on it. Very thought out. Simple lid to open the box. Just the trash can and a power cable inside. Simple. Put it on the desk, plug it in; plug your monitor in along with however you hook your keyboard and mouse (bluetooth or wire), turn it on by pressing a small button.....simple. How simple can you get?!? A can with a few plug-in ports and a power switch...simple. I will not talk about the issues with it...but the design and concept is still very 'simplistic". The outside is 'simple', but the inside is complex.

Really what people may be saying is that they do not like the changes that apple has gone through since Jobs is gone. But losing their simplicity...I will have to say, "No". Quality Assurance issues, OS X bugs, more so problems than before etc. C.E.O. doing things that is disagreeable with original vision.. "Yes", but they still try to make their products simple for the masses to use. That (I think) is why the ipad is still just a "swipe and view" pad and they want to keep it that way...just simple.

 

[Radon87000]

Cook is better at leading, jobs was better at bullying. Jobs time is over; it's now cooks.

It's not called bullying.Its called maintaining high standards of perfection .Now that he is gone Tim's just laid back in his approach along with Jony and the other staff

 

[I7guy]

It's not called bullying.Its called maintaining high standards of perfection .Now that he is gone Tim's just laid back in his approach along with Jony and the other staff

Call it what you want; it's still bullying at an executive level. It's too bad there was a disconnect between the standards and the ideals. Results That come from executing the plan don't always sync up with the intended outcome of a plan.

You actually have no idea of how Tim leads. A lot of stuff, like he's laid back, is actually made up. He's doing a job that's way above your head and you are not privy to follow him around to know what his style is.

 

[Sill]

It's easy to write a negative rant. I just disagree with your position. As far as corporate philanthropy it's a decision made by the CEO, and it's positive step that all companies should follow.

Once again, you haven't said anything to justify requiring corporate philanthropy, or explain your reasoning behind why it should happen. Your responses have been thus far:

"A corporation is not a person, but the legal entity should pony up."
"While there is no law penalizing those who don't help the less fortunate or good causes; philanthropy, charity, tzedukah should be in the fabric of these legal entities."
"Because its the right thing to do."
"Its a positive step that all companies should follow."

Would you please answer my question - why is it required (necessary, proper, needed, the right thing, etc) that businesses have philanthropic programs?

 

[I7guy]

Once again, you haven't said anything to justify requiring corporate philanthropy, or explain your reasoning behind why it should happen. Your responses have been thus far:

"A corporation is not a person, but the legal entity should pony up."
"While there is no law penalizing those who don't help the less fortunate or good causes; philanthropy, charity, tzedukah should be in the fabric of these legal entities."
"Because its the right thing to do."
"Its a positive step that all companies should follow."

Would you please answer my question - why is it required (necessary, proper, needed, the right thing, etc) that businesses have philanthropic programs?

Because it's my opinion, here in the US it's the right and moral thing to do.

https://doublethedonation.com/corporate-philanthropy-examples-10-leaders/

 

[C DM]

Once again, you haven't said anything to justify requiring corporate philanthropy, or explain your reasoning behind why it should happen. Your responses have been thus far:

"A corporation is not a person, but the legal entity should pony up."
"While there is no law penalizing those who don't help the less fortunate or good causes; philanthropy, charity, tzedukah should be in the fabric of these legal entities."
"Because its the right thing to do."
"Its a positive step that all companies should follow."

Would you please answer my question - why is it required (necessary, proper, needed, the right thing, etc) that businesses have philanthropic programs?

Perhaps something along the lines of the simplicity of reality that we are all (individuals, companies, etc.) part of a society?

 

[Radon87000]

Call it what you want; it's still bullying at an executive level. It's too bad there was a disconnect between the standards and the ideals. Results That come from executing the plan don't always sync up with the intended outcome of a plan.

If there was a disconnect then how are the products which made Apple what it is today were Made under Jobs?

Jobs-iPhone,iPad,iPod,Mac
Cook-Watch(with so poor sales he refuses to show investors),Watch Bands(lol), iCloud and some other services which make up less Han 10% of Apple's revenue

You actually have no idea of how Tim leads. A lot of stuff, like he's laid back, is actually made up. He's doing a job that's way above your head and you are not privy to follow him around to know what his style is.

I may not be able to comprehend his job but I most definitely can comprehend the earnings reports coming out of Apple and they aren't good

 

[Sill]

Perhaps something along the lines of the simplicity of reality that we are all (individuals, companies, etc.) part of a society?

Just like Guy, you're not giving me an answer. Platitudes about something being "right" or because corporations are "part of society" are nothing more than bromides to soothe questioning minds.

Individuals are thinking, reasoning - and emotional - people. Corporations are nothing but mechanisms; a pooling of resources, a socialization of costs, and a blanket protection for shareholders from liability. When a corporations picks a charity or a cause it most definitely runs afoul of the desires of some of its shareholders and regardless of intent it is repurposing profit without shareholder consent. People have every right to give of their own free will from their own resources, and the profits they are owed by the corporations they hold shares in are part of those resources. Corporations are giving from the shareholders' expected profits, thereby preventing the shareholders from directing their share of the money as they see fit.

I'm hoping my posts don't sound combative guys - I really do want you to consider why its improper for corporations to make these kind of efforts, and I'm hoping that you can come up with some sort of substantive reasoning why you think its proper. This isn't an argument, its a discussion.

 

[I7guy]

If there was a disconnect then how are the products which made Apple what it is today were Made under Jobs?

Jobs-iPhone,iPad,iPod,Mac
Cook-Watch(with so poor sales he refuses to show investors),Watch Bands(lol), iCloud and some other services which make up less Han 10% of Apple's revenue


I may not be able to comprehend his job but I most definitely can comprehend the earnings reports coming out of Apple and they aren't good

Or that the are the most valuable brand, cook. Or most valuable company, cook. Or biggest cash pile, cook. Or 10 solid cook record breaking quarters followed by one down quarter, 10:1, cook.

If you haven't been following apple watch and bands are a center piece of some new strategies.

 

[masands]

It scares me to think where will we go to if Apple starts making terrible and confusing products too? Google? Microsoft? All their products are just as half baked if not worse. Take a look at the Surface Book. Great on paper but with so many software issues. The Surface Pro can barely last 5 hours on a single charge. That's terrible in 2016.

Android still can't get basic sleep right and wakelocks are a constant issue. Nexus phones still struggle with poor build quality and battery life. Just take a look at the Nexus 9. Apart from the S7 Edge most Android phones are utter trash. In terms of laptops, the occasional Dell is decent but again most of it is trash.

Right now to me, yes Apple has lost its way a bit. They are releasing redundant products. But at the same time, most of the competition is far worse.

 

[I7guy]

Just like Guy, you're not giving me an answer. Platitudes about something being "right" or because corporations are "part of society" are nothing more than bromides to soothe questioning minds.

Individuals are thinking, reasoning - and emotional - people. Corporations are nothing but mechanisms; a pooling of resources, a socialization of costs, and a blanket protection for shareholders from liability. When a corporations picks a charity or a cause it most definitely runs afoul of the desires of some of its shareholders and regardless of intent it is repurposing profit without shareholder consent. People have every right to give of their own free will from their own resources, and the profits they are owed by the corporations they hold shares in are part of those resources. Corporations are giving from the shareholders' expected profits, thereby preventing the shareholders from directing their share of the money as they see fit.

I'm hoping my posts don't sound combative guys - I really do want you to consider why its improper for corporations to make these kind of efforts, and I'm hoping that you can come up with some sort of substantive reasoning why you think its proper. This isn't an argument, its a discussion.

Corporations are legal entities that like all business, legal entity or individual are there to provide a service (Peter Drucker/101), including 501c3 non-profit charities. Hopefully by providing a service the corps make money. Corporations are run by human beings that are part of a society, as noted above, that are capable of doing bad things, Enron/Ken Lay or good things that satisfy their corporate mission. Because companies are legal entities, doesn't give them the right to be an exempt part of society solely existing for profit. Shareholders disagree every day, every way with companies and get the right to vote for the board who elects the CEO. So if shareholders disagree with philanthropic efforts they have an avenue.

Corporations do make provisions, many documented cases, to serve the communities they are in. Corporate philanthropy is not a dirty word and should be woven into the fabric of every company. They have been doing that anyway, the horse has already left the barn.

 

[Radon87000]

Or that the are the most valuable brand, cook. Or most valuable company, cook. Or biggest cash pile, cook. Or 10 solid cook record breaking quarters followed by one down quarter, 10:1, cook.

If you haven't been following apple watch and bands are a center piece of some new strategies.

The funny thing is you just agreed with me,All those "achievements" are a result of the iPhone and who invented the iPhone ?

 

[I7guy]

The funny thing is you just agreed with me,All those "achievements" are a result of the iPhone and who invented the iPhone ?

The point is not who invented the iphone, we know who was CEO in 2007. The point is 2016 going into 2017. 6 years later the company, by every measure is doing extraordinary well. That apple is going down the tubes due to one bad quarter is almost as bad as blaming the president and saying the US economy is going down the tubes(which it may be) due to one down day in the markets.

 

[Sill]

Corporations are legal entities that like all business, legal entity or individual are there to provide a service (Peter Drucker/101), including 501c3 non-profit charities. Hopefully by providing a service the corps make money. Corporations are run by human beings that are part of a society, as noted above, that are capable of doing bad things, Enron/Ken Lay or good things that satisfy their corporate mission. Because companies are legal entities, doesn't give them the right to be an exempt part of society solely existing for profit. Shareholders disagree every day, every way with companies and get the right to vote for the board who elects the CEO. So if shareholders disagree with philanthropic efforts they have an avenue.

Sidestepping. Thats all you're doing there.

There is no need for a "right to be an exempt part of society" in order to not initiate charitable giving at the corporate level. Aside from charity being completely outside the corporate mission as I outlined earlier (pool resources, socialize costs, minimize liability), it removes charity from the option of the shareholder, making it institutional. That is just a few short feet away from taxation to redistribute wealth, among other major problems.
I think you're looking at this like corporations are some kind of mini-government, given your last comment about the vote. I believe the vote in the corporate setting is just as useless as in the exterior society: on an individual basis it is meaningless and ineffective. There are only two ways to afford better control of the individual situation and that is either a) expand your holdings, or b) drop out. In the case of the corporation, you buy more shares or you sell off your holdings. In the case of the exterior society, you buy more influence or you abstain from participating in the charade.

Once again, corporations may be "part of society", but that doesn't mean that a layer of profit needs to be skimmed for "charity" before the returns gets to people who risked their own money on that corporation. Those are the ones who should decide what to do with the profit, not a board somewhere, on their behalf.

Corporations do make provisions, many documented cases, to serve the communities they are in. Corporate philanthropy is not a dirty word and should be woven into the fabric of every company. They have been doing that anyway, the horse has already left the barn.

I did not say it was a dirty word. I said it is a misuse of company profits and it removes the option from the individual shareholder.

Again, you are sidestepping my question. Your response to the question "why should corporations engage in philanthropy?" thus far has been: corporations have the obligation to do so, that if you don't like it you vote to change the board, and by the way they have been doing it already so its moot". You have not given me a reasoned reply as to why it is proper. Saying that "its right and they should do it" isn't reasoned. You're basically giving the child's response "because!".

 

[I7guy]

Sidestepping. Thats all you're doing there.

There is no need for a "right to be an exempt part of society" in order to not initiate charitable giving at the corporate level. Aside from charity being completely outside the corporate mission as I outlined earlier (pool resources, socialize costs, minimize liability), it removes charity from the option of the shareholder, making it institutional. That is just a few short feet away from taxation to redistribute wealth, among other major problems.
I think you're looking at this like corporations are some kind of mini-government, given your last comment about the vote. I believe the vote in the corporate setting is just as useless as in the exterior society: on an individual basis it is meaningless and ineffective. There are only two ways to afford better control of the individual situation and that is either a) expand your holdings, or b) drop out. In the case of the corporation, you buy more shares or you sell off your holdings. In the case of the exterior society, you buy more influence or you abstain from participating in the charade.

Once again, corporations may be "part of society", but that doesn't mean that a layer of profit needs to be skimmed for "charity" before the returns gets to people who risked their own money on that corporation. Those are the ones who should decide what to do with the profit, not a board somewhere, on their behalf.



I did not say it was a dirty word. I said it is a misuse of company profits and it removes the option from the individual shareholder.

Again, you are sidestepping my question. Your response to the question "why should corporations engage in philanthropy?" thus far has been: corporations have the obligation to do so, that if you don't like it you vote to change the board, and by the way they have been doing it already so its moot". You have not given me a reasoned reply as to why it is proper. Saying that "its right and they should do it" isn't reasoned. You're basically giving the child's response "because!".

You don't like my answer so I'm sidestepping and giving a "child's response"? Now that is combative.

 

[Sill]

You don't like my answer so I'm sidestepping and giving a "child's response"? Now that is combative.

I "don't like your answer"?? You haven't given me an answer. Simply saying "thats the way it is" or "its right because its the right thing to do" is simply very frustrating to hear. I'm used to having very well-reasoned discussions with people here, and you're basically giving me an emotional response not a reasoned one. I recently got into a debate with someone over the minimum wage and asked her for her reason why there should be one. She couldn't come up with one other than "because its the right thing to do!"
I'm not being combative, and it has nothing to do with not "liking" your answer. You're making it sound like I don't agree with your reasoning. I'm saying I don't agree with your lack of reasoning. There is a difference.

 

[I7guy]

I "don't like your answer"?? You haven't given me an answer. Simply saying "thats the way it is" or "its right because its the right thing to do" is simply very frustrating to hear. I'm used to having very well-reasoned discussions with people here, and you're basically giving me an emotional response not a reasoned one. I recently got into a debate with someone over the minimum wage and asked her for her reason why there should be one. She couldn't come up with one other than "because its the right thing to do!"
I'm not being combative, and it has nothing to do with not "liking" your answer. You're making it sound like I don't agree with your reasoning. I'm saying I don't agree with your lack of reasoning. There is a difference.

Sometimes a well reasoned answer doesn't is an opinion of doing the right thing. It's my opinion corporate philanthropy is the right thing to do. As I said companies are already doing it. Walmart has given 100s of millions in donations. It's not like we are breaking new ground here. Tim stepped up apples corporations philanthropy. It's not as if this started simultaneously with this discussion.

I'm not sure what "well reasoned " answer your looking for since many corporations are already engaged in philanthropy for their own reasons.

And after many back and forth I'd like you to explain how this contributes further to the thread premise.

 

[C DM]

Just like Guy, you're not giving me an answer. Platitudes about something being "right" or because corporations are "part of society" are nothing more than bromides to soothe questioning minds.

Individuals are thinking, reasoning - and emotional - people. Corporations are nothing but mechanisms; a pooling of resources, a socialization of costs, and a blanket protection for shareholders from liability. When a corporations picks a charity or a cause it most definitely runs afoul of the desires of some of its shareholders and regardless of intent it is repurposing profit without shareholder consent. People have every right to give of their own free will from their own resources, and the profits they are owed by the corporations they hold shares in are part of those resources. Corporations are giving from the shareholders' expected profits, thereby preventing the shareholders from directing their share of the money as they see fit.

I'm hoping my posts don't sound combative guys - I really do want you to consider why its improper for corporations to make these kind of efforts, and I'm hoping that you can come up with some sort of substantive reasoning why you think its proper. This isn't an argument, its a discussion.

Would you please answer my question - why is it required (necessary, proper, needed, the right thing, etc) that businesses have philanthropic programs?

You did ask about why it would be proper or the right thing. Those are defined on the values that a society holds, a society which is based on groups and individuals (who can form corporations and other organizations). You seem to be looking for some sort of an objective "mechanical" answer that doesn't account for the human condition basically, when what the question is referencing is very much within the human condition.