AAPL - Apple Inc.

[rkbabang]

Disrupt yourself, Toyota edition:

 

http://dailykanban.com/2015/03/toyotas-tnga-tps-2-0/

 

"Companies that are still wedded to the assembly line of old, and to using the dealer as a depository for production overruns, will have a hard time. The next crash could break their necks. "

 

This probably means all the major US car manufacturers will need gigantic bailouts again in the 2020s.  I think it is way past time to just let these companies die.

 

[innerscorecard]

I don't know about Fitbits, but I used a Xiaomi Mi Band for a little while, and I found that I was always somehow looking at it hoping to find out what the time would be. An Apple Watch is heavier, but it does a lot more. I think the thing I've realized is that the cost of wearing it is really pretty low. So you might as well have as much functionality as you can within that given form load. I can see it being quite inconvenient to need to bring yet another charger when you travel, of course. But battery life so far has been excellent.

[Jurgis]

Upsetting the Apple car

 

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21644149-established-carmakers-not-tech-firms-will-win-race-build-vehicles?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/cars_and_technology

 

Cheers,

 

Gio

 

Great article by Economist (as expected). +1

[portfolio14]

Upsetting the Apple car

 

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21644149-established-carmakers-not-tech-firms-will-win-race-build-vehicles?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/cars_and_technology

 

Cheers,

 

Gio

 

A few thoughts:

 

- This Economist article summarises the status quo very well. However, how can a discussion of this topic be complete without talking about innovator's dilemma?

 

- I have no opinion on Apple's or Google's success rate. But I find the existing software-based technologies in the current generation of cars pathetic. The console UI and assisted parking are pathetic. This gives you an outsider view where the carmaker's priorities are. Take notice of what they do, not what they say. This is their innovator's dilemma. Overcoming this inertia isn't any easier than Apple/Google overcoming their own obstacles.

 

- There was a recent article that a carmaker doesn't want to use Android because Google wants to phone home with all the mechanical data. I would also think every players are wary about Apple. It'll be interesting to see if these will push carmakers to use BBRY's QNX.

 

[Liberty]

There was a recent article that a carmaker doesn't want to use Android because Google wants to phone home with all the mechanical data. I would also think every players are wary about Apple.

 

Apple's privacy policies are very different from Google's. I don't think they'd have a problem on that level. Their business model simply isn't based on gathering as much private information on its users, and in fact in the past year they've started using privacy as a selling point.

[giofranchi]

The new iMac's biggest changes? The keyboard and trackpad

 

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/imac-new-keyboards-trackpads/?mbid=social_twitter

 

Cheers,

 

Gio

 

 

[Liberty]

Interesting peak inside one of Apple's labs (that's rare, but the company has slowly been opening up under Time Cook):

 

https://medium.com/backchannel/exclusive-why-apple-is-still-sweating-the-details-on-imac-531a95e50c91

 

Gives an idea of how much attention to detail goes into the stuff... half of the article is about the sound made by a new mouse's bottom surface.

[johnny]

Companies have a tendency to intentionally limit supply to "sell out" of their ipad/iphone killers, but it is still worth noting that the Microsoft Surface Book has sold out on the Microsoft Store.

 

It is a pretty compelling looking piece of hardware. As a consumer I'm happy that there are other firms out there making sure Apple has to fight to keep its lead in mobile and tablets. As an Apple investor, I'd prefer if they were still focusing on Zune products.

 

[petec]

Companies have a tendency to intentionally limit supply to "sell out" of their ipad/iphone killers, but it is still worth noting that the Microsoft Surface Book has sold out on the Microsoft Store.

 

It is a pretty compelling looking piece of hardware. As a consumer I'm happy that there are other firms out there making sure Apple has to fight to keep its lead in mobile and tablets. As an Apple investor, I'd prefer if they were still focusing on Zune products.

 

I'd agree...but I'm biased as I've just bought a Surface Pro 4! 

 

Surface Enterprise Initiative is also interesting.  I think it takes time to build a hardware business but MSFT are doing a good job.  And I think Continuum is going to be a game changer for the laptop world.

[giofranchi]

Interesting list of companies, with Apple at n.16:

 

These Are the 25 Smartest Companies in the World

 

http://www.inc.com/peter-economy/the-25-smartest-companies-in-the-world.html?cid=sf01001

 

Cheers,

 

Gio

[Palantir]

I'm not sure the Surface Book is all that compelling yet, but it will probably hold its own against the MBP. For example, the i7 13" SB costs more than $2k, for which price you could probably get a i7 15" MBP, which will get upgraded soon too. But then again, the people who were mooting either an MBP or a random Windows machine, the SB probably looks quite interesting.

 

Btw, the new macs, with the 21" 4K mac looks looks good...maybe time for a hardware refresh...

[mals]

Found IBM's claim that Mac's cost less to manage very interesting. More in the linked article.

 

Mac@IBM, Zero to 30,000 in 6 Months | JAMF Software

http://www.jamfsoftware.com/blog/mac-ibm-zero-to-30000-in-6-months/

 

From an opportunity for Apple perspective, if Macs become more popular in the corporate world, it will make more inroads for the Apple eco-system in the corporate world.

Not sure how big Apple is in the business market, but my guess is that it has a far smaller market share than the consumer market.

[innerscorecard]

The reason companies use PCs instead of Macs by default seems to me to be, like many things, mostly a matter of path dependency. You would think enterprise computers should be standardized, robust, and dummy-proof.

[giofranchi]

Jim Clark: The Comeback Billionaire Who Bet On Apple

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2012/03/08/jim-clark-the-comeback-billionaire-who-bet-on-apple/

 

Cheers,

 

Gio

[Picasso]

Nice, article from 2012.

[giofranchi]

Nice, article from 2012.

 

Yes, a bit dated, but I think it might still be relevant: imo the dynamics with competitors and the opportunities in China (and today probably in India too) have not changed much.

 

Cheers,

 

Gio 

 

[giofranchi]

iPhone killer: The secret history of the Apple Watch

 

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/the-apple-watch/?mbid=social_twitter

 

Cheers,

 

Gio

[mals]

The reason companies use PCs instead of Macs by default seems to me to be, like many things, mostly a matter of path dependency. You would think enterprise computers should be standardized, robust, and dummy-proof.

 

Also, I think for many a companies, they are locked into PC-only software.

Although, I wonder if it might be easier to deploy PC-only software through Parallels and the like.

 

Question is whether examples such as IBM might change the behavior?

 

[petec]

The reason companies use PCs instead of Macs by default seems to me to be, like many things, mostly a matter of path dependency. You would think enterprise computers should be standardized, robust, and dummy-proof.

 

Also, I think for many a companies, they are locked into PC-only software.

Although, I wonder if it might be easier to deploy PC-only software through Parallels and the like.

 

Question is whether examples such as IBM might change the behavior?

 

That, and whether it is a trend that is starting or ending.  My sense is that Microsoft is responding to the Apple threat better than before. 

[TheAiGuy]

The reason companies use PCs instead of Macs by default seems to me to be, like many things, mostly a matter of path dependency. You would think enterprise computers should be standardized, robust, and dummy-proof.

 

Also, I think for many a companies, they are locked into PC-only software.

Although, I wonder if it might be easier to deploy PC-only software through Parallels and the like.

 

Question is whether examples such as IBM might change the behavior?

 

That, and whether it is a trend that is starting or ending.  My sense is that Microsoft is responding to the Apple threat better than before.

 

Its about the cloud -- the more a company moves their services to AWS, Azure, etc., the less they are locked into windows software. Apple is attempting to capitalize on the opportunity.

[MarioP]

The reason companies use PCs instead of Macs by default seems to me to be, like many things, mostly a matter of path dependency. You would think enterprise computers should be standardized, robust, and dummy-proof.

 

For the large entreprise there is an historical reason. At the end of the 80, when large entreprise begin to buy PC, all the corporate data were on mainframe. Apple did not made any software to acces them while microsoft based all his marketing on that. After these inital buy, it cost just to much too much to change. I worked on a project to upgrade 7000 user from Windows XP to Windows 7 and it was a nightmare to coordonnate all the change and the minimum of formation for 7000 peoples that has to be done in onr month. I can't imagine what if would be to change from PC to MAC.

 

We identified 4528 differents softwares used (lots illegal) that had to be tested for compliance and to find replacement for about half of them. a nightmare i told you.

[DCG]

Some decent thoughts about where Apple could improve with the 2nd version of the Apple Watch..

 

http://www.wareable.com/apple-watch/new-apple-watch-2-features-specs-release-date-1125

 

 

I think price is still a big deterrent from a lot of people buying the watch. It's simply quite a bit more than most people are accustom to paying for a watch.

 

 

And if they can make one that looks like the mockup in that article, I'd be interested.

[Palantir]

The PC brigade has gone too far!

[johnny]

Some decent thoughts about where Apple could improve with the 2nd version of the Apple Watch..

 

http://www.wareable.com/apple-watch/new-apple-watch-2-features-specs-release-date-1125

 

 

I think price is still a big deterrent from a lot of people buying the watch. It's simply quite a bit more than most people are accustom to paying for a watch.

 

 

And if they can make one that looks like the mockup in that article, I'd be interested.

 

Asking for both GPS and better battery life isn't an idea for improvement, its a physics-oblivious wishlist that has about as much grounding in reality as the intricate designs for Mars-bound spacecraft that we all drew when we were 7.

 

I disagree with you on price. I think there are two reasons:

 

1. Whatever price point they come in at on generation one they're basically stuck with; they'll always have to serve a product at that price point (and, in all likelihood, face pressure to keep going down). This is the trap Apple has generally been so good at avoiding. Come in high, refine the product, and slowly (very slowly) glide down in ASP while preserving margins. Despite the name, Apple Watch isn't really a "watch". It is a wrist-worn computer, and the fact that people may be anchoring their purchase decisions on what they think of as "watch prices" is a temporary phenomenon.

 

People making minimum wage now consider it ordinary and reasonable to spend $800 on a phone. Think about how insane that sentence would have sounded 15 or even 10 years ago.

 

2. It is way more important, at this stage, that the product be as close to perfect as possible. Better to have a product that only some people can afford, but everybody thinks is cool, than a product that everybody can afford, but everybody think is just okay. I think it is a  fairly uncontroversial opinion that the Watch really "isn't there" yet in terms of functionality (and maybe even aesthetics). So if the price is keeping a lot of people who may be doomed to disappointment away from the product, it is actually a long-term positive in my opinion.

 

The original iPod was insanely overpriced for what it was, and to some extent this was a blessing. The very people who would be the hardest customers to please (those inclined to divide the MSRP by the song capacity in their head to calculate value) were removed from the customer pool.

[mals]

 

I disagree with you on price. I think there are two reasons:

 

1. Whatever price point they come in at on generation one they're basically stuck with; they'll always have to serve a product at that price point (and, in all likelihood, face pressure to keep going down). This is the trap Apple has generally been so good at avoiding. Come in high, refine the product, and slowly (very slowly) glide down in ASP while preserving margins. Despite the name, Apple Watch isn't really a "watch". It is a wrist-worn computer, and the fact that people may be anchoring their purchase decisions on what they think of as "watch prices" is a temporary phenomenon.

 

People making minimum wage now consider it ordinary and reasonable to spend $800 on a phone. Think about how insane that sentence would have sounded 15 or even 10 years ago.

 

2. It is way more important, at this stage, that the product be as close to perfect as possible. Better to have a product that only some people can afford, but everybody thinks is cool, than a product that everybody can afford, but everybody think is just okay. I think it is a  fairly uncontroversial opinion that the Watch really "isn't there" yet in terms of functionality (and maybe even aesthetics). So if the price is keeping a lot of people who may be doomed to disappointment away from the product, it is actually a long-term positive in my opinion.

 

The original iPod was insanely overpriced for what it was, and to some extent this was a blessing. The very people who would be the hardest customers to please (those inclined to divide the MSRP by the song capacity in their head to calculate value) were removed from the customer pool.

 

Johny, very interesting perspectives both and they both make sense. I had not thought about their initial pricing this way.

 

However, I am a Apple eco-system person, who is largely happy with the ecosystem.

So may be I am biased.

 

I do think Apple strives to deliver a really useful product with good customer interface with not only software smarts but also hardware smarts.