Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Should Apple be split into two different companies?
- Thread starter mrsir2009
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The volatile of the articles on the site's home page is how the site makes a significant chunk of its money.
There aren't enough even sketchy rumors to post 3-4 stories a day. The home page content has to churn and generate page views to clock ad views. It is no different from the old newspaper adage "If it bleeds it leads".
In the aftermath of Apple going hyper aggresive after rumor sites with hard sources this is what you end up with. Fewer hard rumors and more "news" and filler info. 10+ months of iPad speculation was a money printing situation.
Set a book mark for the forums specially if it really bothers you too much.
Dumb idea.
Apple is wildly successful as they are, firing successfully on all cylinders. Apple is the success story of the past decade, and the current decade belongs to them. Easily.
Apple not meeting your needs?
http://www1.ca.dell.com/content/default.aspx?c=ca&l=en&~ck=perm
Enjoy.
Apple is wildly successful as they are, firing successfully on all cylinders. Apple is the success story of the past decade, and the current decade belongs to them. Easily.
Apple not meeting your needs?
http://www1.ca.dell.com/content/default.aspx?c=ca&l=en&~ck=perm
Enjoy.
No it's not. It has totally neglected the creative professionals market over the past 2-3 years. It's monitors are an out of date joke, it's workstations are overpriced and under specified.
I've actually been thinking about this myself recently. I personally think that Apple should split in two. Let Steve be in charge of Apple Mobile, making all his magical iDevices. But put someone in charge of Apple Computer who can put their full focus into getting the Mac side of things back to where they should be.
No. Large companies that have a diversity of products do better in the long term then those that just have a one trick pony.
Generally product markets go through stages. An early phase with large growth, a mid-life phase where adoption rates normalize to the market, and later phase where the market is mature. A companies revenues are much more stable when they have a mix of products. Ideally would want one good each phase all times, but take what you can get. The high growth products tends to drive up stock price which has benefits. The mid range stuff gives steady cash flow and the later stage stuff usually leads to higher profitability (which boost stock price and provides a safety net in case hit a hiccup in other two.)
Mac OS X and iOS are tightly coupled. You can't split those two.
What folks get confused is number of dog-and-pony shows and commitments to products. The high growth stuff gets lots more dog-and-pony events.
Being a healthy, profitable company means more people will by Macs. The reverse is also true being a not so healthy and unprofitable company means less people will buy Macs. It isn't that the iOS products are there to directly boost mac sales. Not really the majority of the owners of those products don't buy Macs. That is neither required, nor necessary.
By this years end it is likely that Apple would have introduced new versions of:
Mac mini , Macbook , Macbook Pro , Mac Pro , and iMac.
a bit slightly less likely is that there will be an XServe also. That makes 5 or 6 product models introduced in 12 months. In the same 12 month span Apple will have introduced.
iPhone, iPad , iPod Touch , iPod . That is 4 product models.
[I grouped the ipod shuffle , nana , and classic together as being fair since MBP has 13" , 15" , 17" submodels too. ]
So where is the big discrepency in commitment ?
The personal computer market is mature. It is going on being 30 years old at this point. The number of larger players in the market is shrinking and they roll out updates on a more steady, less frantic basis at this point. Same thing happened in most other industries over time too. It is not a reason to split a company.
I've actually been thinking about this myself recently. I personally think that Apple should split in two. Let Steve be in charge of Apple Mobile, making all his magical iDevices. But put someone in charge of Apple Computer who can put their full focus into getting the Mac side of things back to where they should be.
Errr. Jobs gave up control of the Mac division to Tim Cook in 2007. I'm sure it's just a coincidence the iPhone launched that year too. That may be what's wrong with it. While Macs continue to increase sales each quarter, the rate of updating and experimentation in Mac hardware, software and design has dropped dramatically which I assume is what most people are bitching about.
From Fortune magazine:
"We've got really capable people at Apple. I made Tim [Cook] COO and gave him the Mac division and he's done brilliantly. I mean, some people say, 'Oh, God, if [Jobs] got run over by a bus, Apple would be in trouble.' And, you know, I think it wouldn't be a party, but there are really capable people at Apple. And the board would have some good choices about who to pick as CEO. My job is to make the whole executive team good enough to be successors, so that's what I try to do."
"My job is to not be easy on people. My job is to make them better. My job is to pull things together from different parts of the company and clear the ways and get the resources for the key projects. And to take these great people we have and to push them and make them even better, coming up with more aggressive visions of how it could be."
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0803/gallery.jobsqna.fortune/5.html
So what.
If Apple doesn't meet your needs:
http://www1.ca.dell.com/content/default.aspx?c=ca&l=en&~ck=perm
Has nothing to do with how successful they are. Apple guides the industry. Where do you think everyone else gets their ideas from? LOL
Go play on an Alienware or something.
That doesn't mean that creating two subsidiaries operating under a single parent firm would be a bad idea. It would likely allow for each sector to be significantly more efficient.
I'm not 'playing'. I'm doing work. I'm making things. Things like this - http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-237
At home, I use a Core i7 machine with 8 Gig of Ram on Win7. At work - a dual Quad Core 3.2ghz Xeon with 24 gig of ram, and dual QuadroFX 5800's.
I'd like to have a Mac workstation in both situations - but Apple simply do not supply the power or the value for money that I can either build myself or, as you so graciously put it, buy from Dell at work.
Your 'My way or screw yourself' attitude is typical of sort of person who give Apple such a bad name.
I was actually thinking one for hardware, and one for software. That way, they might finally start offering blu-ray on their $%^@#( Macbook Pro's
Apple doesn't have a bad name. It's trolls on Mac forums on the ass-end of the net that assume they do because they don't cater to your personal needs. Oh well.
Seriously, get a Dell. You "Pros" on these forums have been whining ad infinitum about the Mac Pro situation.
Has anything changed?
So splash out for a Mac Pro and render with style, or else live with Windows.
You can't be helped.
No. Sorry, but attitudes like yours exist outside of the internet as well. Quite unfortunate, really.
I would welcome this. However, I do remember back in those days though sometimes you would have the same story on the front page for days. I guess you can always exclude the iPad and iPhone sub forums if it really bothers you that much. I still can't believe how much MR has grown over the years.
Splitting into two companies would be stupid. I think apple is doing a pretty good job right now. They just need to update the mac's just a bit. All we really want is bluray, USB 3, and maybe a new firewire. I don't really see too many things they can do software wise. 10.7 will be out in a year or so. Relax.
Allow me to join the armchair CEOs here.
Splitting them makes zero business sense. Much of the OS's development is related and separating them would cause expensive redundancies.
Apple is fine as they are. The Mac is fine. Did you see where they hot 10% US market share. You may not like the longer cycles between updates but the buying public obviously disagrees.
Splitting them makes zero business sense. Much of the OS's development is related and separating them would cause expensive redundancies.
Apple is fine as they are. The Mac is fine. Did you see where they hot 10% US market share. You may not like the longer cycles between updates but the buying public obviously disagrees.
1. you are wrong. apple is not innovative, they are just reinventive. even SJ said it himself that they just refine already in place technologies. MP3 players were already out before the iPods, touch screen phones were already out before the iPhones - and even multitasking on your precious iPhone was already out years before on other phones
2. apple prides themselves (or used to) on being high end production computers, for 3D work, movies etc through the use of FCS and whathave you. given the pure disgusting LACK of updates for both the hardware and software (Mac Pro and FCS) id say that apple is more focusing on what brings them money in (crappy portable devices) and not what some of the high end con/pro-sumers need. if apple were to bring out the new MPs now with even eSata, im sure it would bring in a hell of a lot more competition for them. i dont see the iDevices lasting a long time, people will get fed up.
When I first bought my Powerbook in 2004 and later when I decided I'd buy an iMac in 2006 their Hotnews page was full of stories from creatives. About how Apple were the best for music and video production, for artists and students spliced in with occasional press releases.
Now look at the hotnews page... http://www.apple.com/hotnews/. 10 out of 15 stories on the frontpage are about their iToys. No stories or articles.
Unfortunately for me it was their creative focus that pulled me in, now I'm getting better performance in creative apps on the Windows side. I'm definitely switching back but I really wish I didn't have to. iMacs (poor displays aside) are gorgeous, compact and so quiet-running. The Mac Pro is woefully underpowered for its price.
But no I don't think they should split up their company.
Nah, I don't think they should divide. I do agree, though, they really need to remember they also make MacBook Airs, iMacs, and Mac Pros. Those REALLY need to be updated.
At one point the Mac was the core of the company and everything was built around it. The iPod was an accessory that could connect to it. Now the core seems to be the i devices and the Mac has become the step kid that you don't really like but you still have to be nice too. Steve would drop the Mac in a heartbeat if he could survive on iPhones and iPads alone.
Dividing the companies will not change the fact that Steve has lost interest in what once was the core of the business.
Dividing the companies will not change the fact that Steve has lost interest in what once was the core of the business.
I think MacNut is right - I really like the step kid analogy. As far as Apple is concerned 'professional' users such as myself have served our purpose. We kept the company afloat during the early 90's (while Steve was playing with NextStep etc) but I think looking to the future they don't think 'we' have a future as market segment.
I suspect they're right - Design, video, publishing etc etc is going to be become more and more amateur (I make no value judgement here - just a fact.) It's going to be an increasingly tricky business to both be in and selling to.
I suspect we're going to have to 'know our place' in this new happy family of handheld gadgets.
I suspect they're right - Design, video, publishing etc etc is going to be become more and more amateur (I make no value judgement here - just a fact.) It's going to be an increasingly tricky business to both be in and selling to.
I suspect we're going to have to 'know our place' in this new happy family of handheld gadgets.
That's a bit selective. Of the four minor clicks, one is Mac mini and the second is Macbook. Not desktop focused, sure, but Mac gets half of the lower bill.
BB
BB
How about the
"supplied broken as standard" branch and then the "over delayed outdated tech" branch. They could also have the "customer taken for granted because they are thought of as mugs" branch.
So that makes three companies right there.
"supplied broken as standard" branch and then the "over delayed outdated tech" branch. They could also have the "customer taken for granted because they are thought of as mugs" branch.
So that makes three companies right there.
i can most certainly relate. when i was younger i dreamed of the days when i could afford the top end power mac, and FCS etc.
im getting to that age now where i can afford more things - and the products dont interest me! i have FCS, but the features are basically still the same as when i was younger. i dont feel the need to get a 8 core MP as my i7 iMac is pretty darn powerful (expandability isnt an issue atm). but yeh. annoying.