Steve Jobs would never have allowed...

[jaw04005]

He laid out a plan, but it doesn't mean it'll get followed. Think, Cook can change what was left if he wishes to.

Apple's product are built 3 to 5 years in advance. When the original iPhone shipped, Apple was working on the iPhone 4. Cook's influence on products won't be seen for years and years (if ever).*

People forget Cook has basically been Apple's CEO for years. Once Apple became solvent, Jobs delegated the "normal" CEO duties to Cook so he could focus on long-term strategy and products. He even publicly announced he gave Cook the Mac division in 2007.

Tim Cook has been running Apple for awhile. That doesn't make him immune to making mistakes. I personally have a bad feeling about his new retail chief, but I think Cook will try to keep Jobs' core team as long as possible (which is why they're all receiving massive stock grants, promotions and Mansfield is staying on).

* Cook is not a product guy, and will leave product design/roadmaps/marketing up to the experts on his team. He's not going to go meddle in Jonny Ive's design lab. That's why Jobs picked him. He doesn't have that desire to control every aspect of the company (like Sculley did).

On another note, you have to remember that Apple's current leadership team is the same leadership team (Cook included) that saved Apple in 1997. These aren't new people (except the retail chief).

A nice bigger R&D department. I would rather invest in more R&D and securing more components than giving back to greedy investors. Better use of the money. That or making iTunes in the cloud much more reliable or making iMessage as good as BBM.

You know which tech company spends the most on R&D? Microsoft. Throwing more money at a problem doesn't necessarily equate to better products.

 

[smoledman]

You know which tech company spends the most on R&D? Microsoft. Throwing more money at a problem doesn't necessarily equate to solutions.

Doesn't MSFT spend $9 billion a year on R&D compared to $2.5 for Apple? Look at the difference in ROI.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Doesn't MSFT spend $9 billion a year on R&D compared to $2.5 for Apple? Look at the difference in ROI.

but remember MS does R&D that they know will never turn a penny of profit. A lot of the R&D is for nothing more than the betterment of Computer Science. A good part of that R&D budget is nothing more than university grade R&D (aka never expected to turn a real profit)

Apple R&D is 100% greed driven. Apple does very little for betterment of man kind. Hell they have finally made it to piss poor status in that department. It just took SJ leaving for that to happen.

 

[G51989]

Doesn't MSFT spend $9 billion a year on R&D compared to $2.5 for Apple? Look at the difference in ROI.

You realize, a very large margin of that money goes to Microsoft Labs, Microsoft Labs is the new Bell Labs, they go into projects know they won't make a dime of profit.

And, Microsoft serves WAY more many markets than Apple.

Just because they are not the largest company in the world, does not mean they don't make tons of profit. Because they do

 

[smoledman]

but remember MS does R&D that they know will never turn a penny of profit. A lot of the R&D is for nothing more than the betterment of Computer Science. A good part of that R&D budget is nothing more than university grade R&D (aka never expected to turn a real profit)

Apple R&D is 100% greed driven. Apple does very little for betterment of man kind. Hell they have finally made it to piss poor status in that department. It just took SJ leaving for that to happen.

http://www.apple.com/science/

----------

You realize, a very large margin of that money goes to Microsoft Labs, Microsoft Labs is the new Bell Labs, they go into projects know they won't make a dime of profit.

And, Microsoft serves WAY more many markets than Apple.

Just because they are not the largest company in the world, does not mean they don't make tons of profit. Because they do

But should Microsoft be a philanthropic enterprise like this? Apple doesn't spend any money more then they have to do make high-margin products.

 

[tninety]

http://www.apple.com/science/

That web page is simply promoting the Mac platform for use in scientific applications………………………

 

[Rodimus Prime]

http://www.apple.com/science/

Umm that is not apple funded. It is Apple product being used for it.

 

[smoledman]

Umm that is not apple funded. It is Apple product being used for it.

Look Apple is not claiming to be the research house for the world, they are the DESIGN house. Cook has said so. Design costs a lot less then research.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Look Apple is not claiming to be the research house for the world, they are the DESIGN house. Cook has said so. Design costs a lot less then research.

which goes right back to my orginal point.
You compared MS R&D to Apple R&D.

Apple R&D 100% greed driven.

MS R&D has a lot of R&D that is just for the betterment of man kind and is university grade.

Tell me which one is going to have a better return of investment?

 

[JMG]

Steve Jobs doesn't make the iPhone, the iPhone just wants to form in his hand.



----------



Well then discussion forums wouldn't really exist.

I prefer discussion with actual meaningful conversations where new ideas and perspectives can be introduced, not people parroting the same drivel without actually adding to the conversation.

 

[G51989]

http://www.apple.com/science/

----------



But should Microsoft be a philanthropic enterprise like this? Apple doesn't spend any money more then they have to do make high-margin products.

Not everyone at every company is 100% money driven, Microsoft Labs has done tons of super cool stuff in software and some hardware. And sometimes it pays off, you never know what the next big idea is, and some of it comes out of Microsoft Labs.

Microsoft has something like 70 billion dollars cash on hand, its not like the can't afford it.

Apple also as far as I know under Steve jobs donated nothing to charity or the needy.

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/

Microsoft labs does some cool stuff.

 

[shggman]

Doesn't MSFT spend $9 billion a year on R&D compared to $2.5 for Apple? Look at the difference in ROI.

Well, apple spends half of that $2.5 on lawsuits against Samsung. Otherwise, we would have a very nice INNOVATIVE iphone 5 that steve jobs normally would release on regular basis..

Miss those days. When everyone used to go "wow..", "I gotta have one of those".

 

[vvswarup]

which goes right back to my orginal point.
You compared MS R&D to Apple R&D.

Apple R&D 100% greed driven.

MS R&D has a lot of R&D that is just for the betterment of man kind and is university grade.

Tell me which one is going to have a better return of investment?

Apple is "100% greed driven." Haaahaaaaa!!!!

Evidently, someone didn't get the memo that corporations aren't charities.

Call Apple greedy all you want. In the meantime, I'm gonna laugh all the way to the bank at your comments as I watch that "100% greed driven research" raise the value of my Apple investment.

 

[TheGenerous]

Steve Jobs would never have allowed Cook to run Apple after his death, if he thought Tim was a brainless, dumb bozo, like a lot of guys here seem to believe!
Somebody here should start thinking about this simple fact before writing the same thing again and again endlessly. Actually somebody here should simply start thinking.

I downranked this bozo too with the only button we have "up"

 

[Renzatic]

This is the problem with being Apple. When you advertise yourself by throwing around the words "magical", "revolutionary", and "game changing" all the time, people start expecting everything you do to be just that. Releasing something as omg pedestrian as a solid, incremental update to an already solid product won't be nearly enough to make your fans happy. Not when they're expecting the hype you've been feeding them year after year.

I think some people need to accept reality and realize that there is no one company that can pull a magic rabbit out of their ass and alter the course of human history consistently. Not everything has to reduce you to tears of unmitigated joy and melt your brain to a goopy runny slurry to be good.

 

[smoledman]

This is the problem with being Apple. When you advertise yourself by throwing around the words "magical", "revolutionary", and "game changing" all the time, people start expecting everything you do to be just that. Releasing something as omg pedestrian as a solid, incremental update to an already solid product won't be nearly enough to make your fans happy. Not when they're expecting the hype you've been feeding them year after year.

I think some people need to accept reality and realize that there is no one company that can pull a magic rabbit out of their ass and alter the course of human history consistently. Not everything has to reduce you to tears of unmitigated joy and melt your brain to a goopy runny slurry to be good.

Actually the fact they could make it so thin & light is magical.

 

[G51989]

Actually the fact they could make it so thin & light is magical.

Ah, so the galaxy s3 must be magical, just as thin and light. while packing more muscle and features

 

[gibbz]

Ah, so the galaxy s3 must be magical, just as thin and light. while packing more muscle and features

Samsung Galaxy S3
============
136.6 mm x 70.6 mm x 8.6mm @ 133 g
Density of 0.0016 g/mm^3

Apple iPhone 5
=========
123.8 mm x 58.6 mm x 7.6 mm @ 112 g
Density of 0.00203 g/mm^3

Both are thin and light, but the iPhone 5 packs more components in a tighter space than does the S3. So Apple was more magical

 

[G51989]

Samsung Galaxy S3
============
136.6 mm x 70.6 mm x 8.6mm @ 133 g
Density of 0.0016 g/mm^3

Apple iPhone 5
=========
123.8 mm x 58.6 mm x 7.6 mm @ 112 g
Density of 0.00203 g/mm^3

Both are thin and light, but the iPhone 5 packs more components in a tighter space than does the S3. So Apple was more magical

But you gotta take into account, the s3 has a bigger and better screen, faster and more robust hardware, removeable battery, and an sd card slot, while managing to only be 1mm thicker and 20 grams heavier.

 

[gibbz]

But you gotta take into account, the s3 has a bigger and better screen, faster and more robust hardware, removeable battery, and an sd card slot, while managing to only be 1mm thicker and 20 grams heavier.

Well, a bigger screen allows more horizontal internal space to place components. Volumetrically, the S3 is 50% larger than the iPhone 5. As to whether the screen is better, that is subjective.

Don't get me wrong, they are both crazy thin and light and pack a punch.

 

[Rogifan]

^^
Yeah but I'd take aluminum and glass over plastic any day. And after seeing the Verge video of the 10" Galaxy Note tablet I'd never own a Samsung product. When they pressed on the back of the device you could see indentations and it made a squeaking noise. Definitely cheap build quality. I don't think anyone would say that about the iPhone.