Apple decides what to do with $100 billion

[Stark]

Probably more related to the 'mockery of stupid people' banner. It's possible to criticse Apple and it's products without looking like an idiot, but what you're doing ... Isn't it.

[phongn]

Oh, I know, they can invest in either making iOS compatible with something other than Objective fucking C or improving it so that it isn't such a Byzantine mess of a language.

They have been improving Objective-C (a glance at the history of the language should tell you that) and it's not like you have to write an entire iOS application in ObjC, either (witness games using large portions of C or C++)

[Starglider]

As mentioned in the story, it's mostly a desperate attempt to maintain their valuation rally well into bubble territory,

What world do you live in where a stock with a P/E ratio of 17 is in bubble territory?

I would not call the current Apple rally a bubble, although I do think their margins are unsustainable in the medium term and due for some major compression with a consumer credit retrenchment, on top of the coming post-Twist post-LTRO general market drop. In fact all those hedge funds agree with me; what I said was that they want to maintain the rally until it is well into bubble territory, so insiders and hedgies can unload onto gullible retail (Apple stock can never go down, just like housing in 2006, $1000 is still cheap etc). The technicals point to a significant near-term correction but for 'hero stocks' you can override those with spin and psychology, and of course the sell side is very experienced at taking advantage of this kind of opportunity; top sales staff are paid seven figure bonuses specifically to pump and dump assets. When the leading edge of hedgies all start checking out the stock will be entering its bubble top.

[Faqa]

Ryan: Shut the fuck up.

Aw, did I hurt your poor widdle brand slave feewings?

No, you are simply spewing the words of a fucking moron. They are offensive to the ear, eye and mind. Phantasee was just reacting appropriately.

Do you have any comprehension of subtleties? Does the idea that a product is more than a list of features register at all with you? Nah, it's just useless marketing drones (who studied liberal arts! EW!) who do that shit, probably so they can justify having a bigger office than the techies who should REALLY be running things. But they won't because people are idiots or something, am I right?

Look, I don't like Apple's products either. I run Android on my phone and Windows on my computers. I don't like the idea of being in a closed ecosystem of Apple devices, and I don't like the One Way that all Apple products must work by.

But guess what? A lot of people want that. They have important things to do that include pounding away at this damnable box all day only in the most marginal fashion. They want the computer to do what they want and tell them how to get it done. Apple devices do that. When you buy Apple, you're getting a guarantee of that, backed up by company help on the matter whenever they have an issue.

More than that, your life will be just a little bit more pleasant when using an Apple device, because Apple devices are designed to be pleasant to look upon first and foremost. You may sneer at the idea of visual design, but it involves countless moments a day when people look at something and are affected by it. That adds up to an effect on their lives, a positive effect when the product is well-designed. Apple got that before anybody else in the tech industry, and still gets it better than anyone else.

Now, do I personally care about any of that shit? No. I like getting my hands dirty with this crap, and the guarantee isn't worth the brand premium to me. But I understand it's existence, because I have bothered to think about it - which is more than one could say about you, to judge by that post.

[Ryan Thunder]

Do you have any comprehension of subtleties? Does the idea that a product is more than a list of features register at all with you? Nah, it's just useless marketing drones (who studied liberal arts! EW!) who do that shit, probably so they can justify having a bigger office than the techies who should REALLY be running things. But they won't because people are idiots or something, am I right?

There's a place for marketing. Fooling people into buying your mediocre product at a premium price isn't it.

Look, I don't like Apple's products either. I run Android on my phone and Windows on my computers. I don't like the idea of being in a closed ecosystem of Apple devices, and I don't like the One Way that all Apple products must work by.

But guess what? A lot of people want that.

I'm well aware that people are well within their rights to make dumb choices and buy expensive yet mediocre equipment. That doesn't make it any less stupid or worthy of derision.

More than that, your life will be just a little bit more pleasant when using an Apple device, because Apple devices are designed to be pleasant to look upon first and foremost. You may sneer at the idea of visual design, but it involves countless moments a day when people look at something and are affected by it. That adds up to an effect on their lives, a positive effect when the product is well-designed. Apple got that before anybody else in the tech industry, and still gets it better than anyone else.

Amusingly, I don't think I'd ever complain about that. Sure, the aesthetic they picked doesn't appeal to me, but that's not something I can reasonably hold against them.

[Simon_Jester]

Do you have any comprehension of subtleties? Does the idea that a product is more than a list of features register at all with you? Nah, it's just useless marketing drones (who studied liberal arts! EW!) who do that shit, probably so they can justify having a bigger office than the techies who should REALLY be running things. But they won't because people are idiots or something, am I right?

There's a place for marketing. Fooling people into buying your mediocre product at a premium price isn't it.

Do you understand why a person might want to pay a premium for a product with mediocre performance that doesn't waste hours of your life on bullshit?

That's part of what Apple offers customers- stuff that just... works, by and large, and you don't have to go in and reconfigure and screw around to get it running again very often. There are people who would rather pay a hundred dollars than spend four to six hours of their lives worrying about how to get their computer to work for them. And over the life expectancy of a computer, you can spend a lot more than 4-6 hours trying to get it working after crashes, bugs, viruses, and other stuff.

Put it this way. Suppose you have a car. Imagine that someone offered to sell you a car that was slightly faster than your existing one, but uglier, and had this unique engine layout so you have to do a big chunk of your own maintenance work, or pay mechanics to do a lot more work than normal. And it costs a thousand dollars less.

You might sit down and figure "sweet, I save a thousand dollars." But you might also sit down and figure "what, this thing is an ugly clunker, and I don't really care about how fast it is because I never drive over 110 km/hour anyway, I'll probably spend more than a thousand dollars on the extra maintenance over the years I have the car, so screw it."

Apple is banking on people saying the latter- on them preferring to spend more money now than spend time and money later.


Also, Apple is imagining that people will pay more for an interface they like than for one they don't like. For example, suppose I offered you a car that cost $500 less, but that has the brake and the gas pedal reversed- the gas is on the left and the brake is on the right. Sure, it's cheaper, and sure, you can learn to use it eventually... but how many times will you nearly have a heart attack because you accidentally stepped on the wrong pedal and went faster when you meant to go slower, or vice versa.

People will pay money for a tool they can just use, without needing a hundred pages of instruction manual to get it working, and that follows their intuition about how the tool ought to behave. I respect that, even if I don't much care for touch screens and multitouch.

[Faqa]

There's a place for marketing. Fooling people into buying your mediocre product at a premium price isn't it.

The quality of a product is measured to people by "How well will it do what I want?".

To you and me, what we "want" is measured in hardware power - we want theoretical ability to work with, for whatever we might think to do with this glorified Turing machine.

To 90% of the human race that is not tech nerds? The quality is measured by actual people-things like "play my music" or "give me internet" or foolish mortal concerns of that sort. On that shit? Apple makes excellent products because it does those things in a quick, easy, comfortable reliable fashion.

And "the place for marketing" is in showing people the value of your product. I'm not quite sure what other "place" you think there is for it.

Amusingly, I don't think I'd ever complain about that. Sure, the aesthetic they picked doesn't appeal to me, but that's not something I can reasonably hold against them.

My point is that the visual design is something Apple places a premium on, and I was trying to explain that it is indeed legitimate added value to the product.

[HMS Conqueror]

-ffs why are the edit and quote buttons reversed on this forum?-

[HMS Conqueror]

Optimal efficient thing to do would be pay it out as a dividend before Apple becomes uncool again. However the allure of pulling a Microsoft and throwing away huge sums trying to expand into markets where they have no competitive advantage may prove too strong.

That's part of what Apple offers customers- stuff that just... works

I don't buy this argument. Apple is a bit player in desktops, which are the things that most often have technical problems. They're strongest in smart phones, tablets and laptops, things that comparatively rarely have problems (at least, things Apple can prevent - saying this as a serial laptop-dropper). What's the distinguishing feature between these two categories? Apple is strong in things other people can see. They're weak in desktops because other people don't usually see your desktop. It's a company 90% built on rule of cool, and while that's not irrelevant - Apple products really are quite pretty and use good components - I don't think it's sustainable in the long term. You can't stop your competitors making better designed products, and fashion changes with the wind.

[Simon_Jester]

Ironically, I have a Windows laptop and an Apple desktop... and no mobile devices at all, being a militant user of stupidphones.

I certainly won't dispute that Apple can't count on staying on top of the business forever with good design, marketing, and user interfaces that suit their customers' needs. There's nothing in the laws of nature that says Apple has to be the best at those things.

But then, I never really argued there was such a law- only that this helps to explain Apple's success, that it's not just 'Apple users are brainwashed cultist morons' or something. Any other company could do the same... IF they're willing to drop the kind of nonsense Ryan's talking and realize that yes, people actually will pay a good deal more for something with a pleasant user interface and casing than they will for something that contains all the same microchips but is significantly uglier and harder to use.

[HMS Conqueror]

Given the absence of such a law and Apple's advantage therefore not being based in anything solid (like offering better specs at a lower price), their dominance is likely to have a short half-life.

The company won't disappear - it has a natural niche as a premium 'lifestyle' brand and for some other applications where UNIX-based OS is beneficial - but it is unlikely to be nearly as big as it is now in 5 years.

iPad is really the epitome of it, a totally useless product dominating a totally useless product category, pirouetted entirely on rule-of-cool bullshit. This sort of thing can occur in markets and I'm not necessarily even arguing it's a bad thing, but it has no more longevity than yo-yos or scooters.

[MKSheppard]

That's part of what Apple offers customers- stuff that just... works, by and large, and you don't have to go in and reconfigure and screw around to get it running again very often.

Ummm, that's Windows 7. Granted, you don't pay a premium like Apple.

What I really don't like about AAPL is how they try to absolutely lock you into using their software -- like you need to use iTunes to load PDFs onto the iPad; instead of just sideloading it via USB cord like a Kindle or Android device.

[Scrib]

Optimal efficient thing to do would be pay it out as a dividend before Apple becomes uncool again. However the allure of pulling a Microsoft and throwing away huge sums trying to expand into markets where they have no competitive advantage may prove too strong.

That's part of what Apple offers customers- stuff that just... works

I don't buy this argument. Apple is a bit player in desktops, which are the things that most often have technical problems. They're strongest in smart phones, tablets and laptops, things that comparatively rarely have problems (at least, things Apple can prevent - saying this as a serial laptop-dropper). What's the distinguishing feature between these two categories? Apple is strong in things other people can see. They're weak in desktops because other people don't usually see your desktop. It's a company 90% built on rule of cool, and while that's not irrelevant - Apple products really are quite pretty and use good components - I don't think it's sustainable in the long term. You can't stop your competitors making better designed products, and fashion changes with the wind.

This. Honestly the idea that Apple devices just working better was probably true when I was using a Windows XP desktop, where a crash meant a mandatory reboot basically, or when I had a shitty Windows Mobile HTC with a tiny screen and a stylus. But these arguments seem to have less and less validity the more time passes. Windows 7 is a huge improvement and it's perfectly possible to use it for the same thing most Mac users (that I know) use it for, browsing the web, watching videos and playing games. Hell in that last category it may be better. Sure Apple has an edge up on editing software, but how many people actually use that? And Windows laptops are much cheaper. Android phones are pretty good in their own right as well, and may even be more open.

And the aesthetic argument is the same for me. I can understand someone just liking the Apple UI better, but to claim that companies put out shitty UIs or don't focus on it as much is a disservice. Both Android and Windows have pretty neat looking UIs, especially Android, which allows you to do more customization.

Yes, if you want to go out and buy something without the slightest amount of research then Apple may seem good to you, simply because it's so popular. They're good at getting people to buy their shit because it makes them feel like part of a certain lifestyle, good for them.

[Ryan Thunder]

Sure Apple has an edge up on editing software, but how many people actually use that?

This is actually not true either. There's a whole host of music and video editing software that don't require you to come within ten miles of an Apple PC or OS. As a casual artist, I have no idea why other artists bother with the hassle and expense.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Sure Apple has an edge up on editing software, but how many people actually use that?

This is actually not true either. There's a whole host of music and video editing software that don't require you to come within ten miles of an Apple PC or OS. As a casual artist, I have no idea why other artists bother with the hassle and expense.

I can vouchfor this as well. As an astronomer we do a lot of image processing and every single bit of our software runs on Windows. Most of it only runs on windows. So when our genius univeristy decieed to by us a room full of Imacs for imaging processing we were less than thrilled. So we wiped them and installed Windows.

[Questor]

Oh for the love of God.

Editing software - Could you please remind Apple that they do this, and that professionals like them? They seem to have forgotten.

"It just works" - What Shep said, although he should just email the books to himself, or download them from websites - Windows 7 is actually easier to set up and more stable, in my experience, than 10.7.3. Apple, on the other hand, and mostly through a series of Microsoft products, has acquired a reputation as easier to use and more stable. Vista did not enhance Microsoft's reputation, and from the looks of things, Windows 8 may do even more damage in different user areas.

Design - The best looking computer I've ever seen was an absolutely massive laptop in the XPS range made by Dell. I fell in love with it when I saw the announcement and used mine until the graphics card melted. To see it, it is the computer on Tony Stark's office desk in the first Iron Man. After that, you start getting into a couple Apple Designs. Apple computers seem to fit especially well in the modern design language being used in many office spaces. In the real world, this sort of thing does not matter very much, but for some it does. Since Dell started using more of the design language from that XPS laptop in its computers again (look at the new 24" monitors, for example) you are seeing them more.

Ecosystem lock in - Bugs me in a minor way. Fragmentation, al la android bugs me more.

So, what does apple do best, and why am I typing this on the MacBook air instead of a Dell? Simple:

Apple has created a market for a consumer based product. Windows is by far at its most powerful inside an enterprise network, and everything about the OS screams it. Before the iPhone, smartphones were designed to be part of an enterprise network. If you didn't have one, Blackberry was happy to let you use theirs. Apple refocused itself on the consumer level product, to the point of alienating some of the few groups who had stuck with them through the hard times (Creatives, esp. desktop publishing and audio). When apple has an event, many consumers want to watch, not because they are "worthless brand-slaves" but because they know that the event will talk about the things they would use. Other companies have caught on, but now I suspect we're going to see some people make mistakes in the opposite direction.

I remember reading Microsoft press on Longhorn, and there was never any press about consumer features in the beginning, it was all about the under the hood stuff that no consumer cares about (generally).

Apple could not have created a dominant position in the market it had if it did not offer something its consumers want, and dismissing them as "brand slaves" is idiotic in the extreme. I believe that was RIM's business plan, in fact.

I don't agree that tablets are a flash in the pan, and at the moment, I don't believe Apple is likely to lose traction any time soon. That's because in the tablet world (and to a lesser degree in the smartphone world) they are in a different position, and they know it.

Seriously, when you can take a class of products that include products running MS OS's and say Apple's the one doing enterprise the best, there's been some massive screw ups. Apple's enterprise integration up until iOS5 could have been characterized as "accidental," but it was still better than Android's, where you never know which features will work on which device, or Microsoft, which actually released a Windows Phone product that did not have full Exchange integration.

[Simon_Jester]

That's part of what Apple offers customers- stuff that just... works, by and large, and you don't have to go in and reconfigure and screw around to get it running again very often.

Ummm, that's Windows 7. Granted, you don't pay a premium like Apple.

By and large true- but then, this may well be Windows trying to cut Apple's idea out from under them, in which case I'm totally happy that they're doing it because it represents tremendous progress over the idea of needing a professional IT guy to fix your computer over and over.

See, I don't think there's anything magic or unique about what Apple does, it's just that they've chosen to do it, where their competitors did not. When they did it in the '80s they pulled ahead in the PC market- then Windows overtook them. So they went back to the drawing board and did it again from about 2001 to the present with mobile devices, deliberately streamlining and building their devices around what they expected individual customers to want, and it worked for them again.

And maybe someone else will come in and do it better and take away their market share again, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but you can't just dismiss their success the way Ryan did, not without being really idiotic about things like marketing and design philosophy.

[Questor]

Another consumer-friendly practice of Apple's in the PC space is the OS.

I feel like I need to take a college level course to determine which edition of windows I need at home. With apple, there is one edition. Even the server is only 400 something MBs additional software that is mostly the control software.

[HMS Conqueror]

Apple does not have a functionality advantage as such. It dramatically reduces the complexity of the system by allowing only one set of proprietary hardware and software, which has the effect of making support easier, crashes rarer and most common tasks simpler. This is a trade-off that makes the platform a lot less flexible; it's not an inherently better way of doing things. In the long term it's a weaker way, because freer platforms will become more and more useful over time by comparison.

I think this is why we don't see any market advantage to Apple in terms of pure functionality or ease of use. People aren't trading in their PCs for iMacs. There's a market advantage to Apple in terms of rule of cool.

[Questor]

Who's arguing they have extra functionality, except in the iOS regime?

BTW, when I drop down to the terminal, I have no problem doing anything on MacOS I can do on a PC, and since you have to drop down for a lot of that on PC as well, I don't see your point.

[HMS Conqueror]

A whole raft of software just doesn't run on iMacs, and the desktops are the least restrictive, with it being largely an economic issue that most publishers don't care about the small Apple market enough to make a port. On iPad and iPhone you are explicitly locked in to an Apple distribution system and have to hack the device to access third party apps.

I've also never had to use the terminal on my current PC (>2 years).

[Questor]

I don't consider "It doesn't run on MacOS" to be Apple's fault any more than I blame "We don't port to Linux" on Linux.

So apple was able to pull it off. I used to be locked into PCMall's distribution system by the fact that I lived nowhere near a computer store. EVIL!

You've never had to renew a DHCP lease manually? (BTW, that can be done in Apple's GUI).

[HMS Conqueror]

I don't care whose fault it is, I care what I can do. When I buy a computer I'm not sitting in divine judgment of the people who made it, I'm just evaluating what's giving me the most for my money.

I have and have always had multiple sources of PC software, none of which have been controlled by the OS or the hardware manufacturer.

[Questor]

Please respond to my question about DHCP.

You sound like someone who is making a consumer decision, and then deriding other people for the same thing.

Why would it be better if the source is not controlled by the OS/Machine Vendor? WHy does it matter to you so much for a product you don't plan to buy? Do you work in IT? Do you have to support apple devices or something?

As for the app store, as I said, I really don't get any more worked up over it than I did in the days when I could not buy half the games on the market, or versions I could get were significantly downgraded because I didn't have a 3DFX graphics card. Or the times when you needed a soundblaster card to use sound at all in a game. There have always been lock-ins. Why does this one bother you so much?

[HMS Conqueror]

I assumed that question was a joke. Almost no one needs to "renew a DHCP lease manually". Certainly not people who are frightened of learning how to use computers.

As a private customer I try to pick the best priced product relative to what I want it to do; Apple products are generally expensive for the same spec. They are popular because they look nice and are currently cool. I don't necessarily disapprove of people who choose Apple for that reason - but a lot don't seem to like the idea that that is the choice they're making, and in terms of future of the Apple company, it indicates their current dominance is probably a flash in the pan.

Vendor lock-in is bad because it reduces scope for new apps. Would you be equally likely to buy a PC if it would only run software produced by MS? Of course it's not bad for me if I don't buy an Apple device - that's why I don't plan to buy an Apple device!