Well, they are a for profit organization.
EVERYTHING Apple does should be "for the money".
As a shareholder, I don't want them don't anything for ANY other reason.
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.
All iPads Should the iPad become a Mac Replacement?
- Thread starter heretiq
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, they are a for profit organization.
EVERYTHING Apple does should be "for the money".
As a shareholder, I don't want them don't anything for ANY other reason.
I don't want Apple to put a touchscreen on the MacBook. I want them to develop a version of iPadOS that can do almost everything MacOS can do, then stop making MacBooks, and say everyone who wants mobile computing can buy iPad + keyboard.
There will be a huge chorus of complaints, with people saying they can't do this or that with the new system, or they are forced to adopt convoluted workarounds, but that will eventually die down, and we will be finally living in a fully touch-compatible mobile computing world.
Figuring out when to force such a switch was what Steve Jobs was good at, and that is why I miss him a lot.
I disagree. Even for-profit companies should consider other factors than just making money. For instance, is it okay for a company to pollute a river next to its factory, because it will increase profits if it didn't spend money on anti-polluting measures? Obviously not.
I'm a huge fan of my iPad Pro, but no, it's a tablet computer and no tablet computer, iOS or Android, should run a desktop OS. Because the icons are tiny and they just don't work. As well.
Apple should instead concentrate on further enhancing and differentiating iPad OS from iPhone OS.
Apple should instead concentrate on further enhancing and differentiating iPad OS from iPhone OS.
Shareholders are THE reason that companies shift their focus from product value to squeezing every dime from the customer for as little work as possible. So thank you for perpetuating the problem.
I would argue that adapting macOS for the touch interface without ruining its flexibility would be a better approach, but yes, I agree that would be the best route for iPad.
Product value and profit are not mutually exclusive - it is up to the company to make the balance.
It’s up to the shareholders to not pressure the company into sacrificing product value for profit, which they pretty much never do. At which point, the company must satisfy the shareholders to survive, product value be damned.
Pretty universal.
Why should any company enhance "product value" at the expense of profitability? That makes no sense.
For profit Corporations EXIST to make profit, not to have "product value".
In your world, no for-profit company produces product value. I really disagree with such a cynical attitude.
Yeah, I don't care much if they add touch functions to macOS or they add desktop features to iPadOS. Having the M chips on both platforms should, in theory, make merging the two platforms easier. But things don't seem to be advancing too much in that direction.
How do you imagine companies make profit, if they don't have products/services that offer value to consumers? This so-called choice between product value and profit is a false choice. When companies "choose profit over product value," what they actually do is choose short-term gain over long-term growth.
Of course they product value. That's kind of my point. If they didn't produce value, people wouldn't buy their stuff, pretty much by definition.
But the company EXISTS to make profit.
If a company can make more profit by doing X instead of Y, then it should do X instead of Y, no matter how much the customers would prefer it do Y.
But if there is another company which then decides to provide customers with Y, then you risk losing your customers to the other company.
Sure, that's a risk.
A company risks losing customers all the time, for various reasons. Maybe those customers are not profitable enough for the company to bother with. Maybe they want things the company doesn't want to provide. Maybe any number of other things.
Walmart loses potential customers every day because it doesn't sell Gucci.
Apple loses potential customers every day because it doesn't sell $300 laptops.
And Gucci loses customers every day because they don't sell cheaper, mass-market items. But both Gucci and Walmart are profitable, right?
I think maybe when people say Apple shouldn't chase profit over product value, they are just saying Apple should be more like Gucci than Walmart.
Apple is the most profitable company in the world.
I find it humourous that anyone in a user forum thinks they can do it better than the people working there (;
Aren't you the one who said, as a shareholder, you want them to prioritize profit over anything else? Isn't that telling the people at Apple what to do?
