Apple is on it's death bed

YOU'RE the BGOL tech expect though. You're talking about yourself and don't realize it!!!!:lol:
And I doubt this won't be the last "Apple is dead/doomed" thread that you will be posting in. :lol:

You do know that for every FIVE engineers that Tesla poaches from Apple, Apple poaches back ONE. Tesla is clearly winning the poaching wars, boss.
I'm talking big dogs. This is RECENT news...
Apple Just Poached a Senior Tesla Executive: Report
http://fortune.com/2016/04/19/apple-chris-porritt/

By booking $15 Billion on presales for their next car. Man sit your ass down, seriously.
Tesla was losing money on each car it sold BEFORE the model 3. Explain why they are in a rush to raise capital on a product that most likely won't see the light of day for at least TWO years?
 
And I doubt this won't be the last "Apple is dead/doomed" thread that you will be posting in.

Apple is neither doomed or dead. Kaya just create a clickbait title and yall are still riled up over the title.

However, the reality that their core business has slowed and that transformation from PC to Mobile that took them a small PC company to the largest market cap in the world is over.
 
That's why I agreed with someone above in that should purchase companies that own distribution (like Netflix).

Apple is notoriously horrible with building software/services (itunes, icloud, etc). They have 230B. Just buy your way in in the same way they should have purchased Dropbox instead of continuing with that shitty Icloud.

They buy your way in.
They seem to have done just fine going AGAINST the consensus of the pundits (BGOL and other "experts") for the past how many years now? But I'll just get to the point and "lay it out there" as you asked. I already answered but I'll once again say healthcare is the next big potential market. Apple is just laying the groundwork for what they envision this product (and potentially others) to be in the future. And I'll agree with you and Kaya that exciting times are ahead. We can revisit this in a few as we have before. Maybe Apple will defy the "experts" again and still be in business by then. :o
 
Tesla was losing money on each car it sold BEFORE the model 3. Explain why they are in a rush to raise capital on a product that most likely won't see the light of day for at least TWO years?

Tesla is unit-profitable. The problem is that they're building massive multibillion dollar giga-factories to support growth.

You're confusing unit economics with gross margins.

Read the quarterly reports or an article that actually breaks down the numbers.
 
:lol: You know I've been an active member here since the 90s right? I just changed my name.
I think I know who you are now. :lol:

Apple is neither doomed or dead. Kaya just create a clickbait title and yall are still riled up over the title.
OK
However, the reality that their core business has slowed and that transformation from PC to Mobile that took them a small PC company to the largest market cap in the world is over.
Only time will tell.
 
Only time will tell.

The only argument is what they'll do next.

You're caught up in Kaya's title and argument.

The facts are simple: Apple's core business has slowed and the smartphone market is pretty much saturated in the markets where they sell them.

So in order for them to be dominant in a decade from now, they need to own the next big and massive market that's also high growth.

I don't think they've figured that out yet. Could they? Yes. Could they buy their way in? Yes! They have a quarter trillion dollars in cash.

The reality is that they haven't figured out what the real post Steve Jobs innovation is going to be. That's not a provocative statement. There's really not much to disagree with me on.

I think the problem is that you're confusing Kaya's title with what I've said in my replies.
 
They seem to have done just fine going AGAINST the consensus of the pundits (BGOL and other "experts") for the past how many years now?

Floss,

My old username is eewwll. I've practically always been on the pro-Apple side of the arguments. Apple is a great company.

However, they're at a real crossroads right now. Apple really IS the iPhone in terms of profitability. So they need a new growth horse and I'm really starting to question if Ive + Cooks can do it.

The tricky issue with the 230 Billion in cash is that Apple's DNA is not to buy their way into a market. It's completely against their DNA. That's why they keep missing on things (like dropbox, netflix, even tesla)... all 3 of those founding teams were willing to sell to Apple and decided they would build in-house..and so you got that monstrosity of icloud instead of dropbox. It's silly.
 
I don't think they've figured that out yet. Could they? Yes. Could they buy their way in? Yes! They have a quarter trillion dollars in cash.

The reality is that they haven't figured out what the real post Steve Jobs innovation is going to be. That's not a provocative statement. There's really not much to disagree with me on.
Is say they have already determined their strategy. In fact, you could argue it was conceived while SJ was still alive. HEALTHCARE and ELECTRIC VEHICLES.
 
Is say they have already determined their strategy. In fact, you could argue it was conceived while SJ was still alive. HEALTHCARE and ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

They weren't thinking about EV when Steve was alive and he's on record as rejecting the idea of even considering to enter that market. That's a post SJs thing.

Apple does about 250B in revenue. You need to do massive numbers to move the needle in any meaningful way.

Where is the revenue path for Apple in healthcare? Don't quote the size of the healthcare market. Make the case for how Apple turns it into a 25B a year business for them. Because even that would only add 10 percent growth.

Apple Pay probably has a better chance than anything theyll do in healthcare...at least over the next 5 years.
 
Floss,

My old username is eewwll. I've practically always been on the pro-Apple side of the arguments. Apple is a great company.

However, they're at a real crossroads right now. Apple really IS the iPhone in terms of profitability. So they need a new growth horse and I'm really starting to question if Ive + Cooks can do it.

The tricky issue with the 230 Billion in cash is that Apple's DNA is not to buy their way into a market. It's completely against their DNA. That's why they keep missing on things (like dropbox, netflix, even tesla)... all 3 of those founding teams were willing to sell to Apple and decided they would build in-house..and so you got that monstrosity of icloud instead of dropbox. It's silly.
That's what I figured. Even though we disagree good to have you in these tech threads. LoL.
 
They weren't thinking about EV when Steve was alive and he's on record as rejecting the idea of even considering to enter that market. That's a post SJs thing.

Apple does about 250B in revenue. You need to do massive numbers to move the needle in any meaningful way.

Where is the revenue path for Apple in healthcare? Don't quote the size of the healthcare market. Make the case for how Apple turns it into a 25B a year business for them. Because even that would only add 10 percent growth.

Apple Pay probably has a better chance than anything theyll do in healthcare...at least over the next 5 years.
Steve Jobs Considered Building an Apple Car in 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...jobs-considered-building-an-apple-car-in-2008


"The idea for a car had been bouncing around Apple even before 2008. Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of marketing, said in 2012 court testimony that executives discussed building a car even before it released the iPhone in 2007. Mickey Drexler, a former Apple board member and head of J.Crew Group, also said in 2012 that Jobs had wanted to build a car."

 

Steve Jobs has discussed building boats. I'm talking about serious enough to where a team is put together to really explore it as a commercial venture...not just having a jam session on it. The articles makes my point.. he rejected the idea. It wasn't a project. So nothing that they are working on new is inspired my Steve. At least with the TV he had actually starting working on sketches and had a team working on molds.
 
Steve Jobs has discussed building boats. I'm talking about serious enough to where a team is put together to really explore it as a commercial venture...not just having a jam session on it. The articles makes my point.. he rejected the idea.
Did you read the entire article? Again, court testimony...


"The idea for a car had been bouncing around Apple even before 2008. Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of marketing, said in 2012 court testimony that executives discussed building a car even before it released the iPhone in 2007. Mickey Drexler, a former Apple board member and head of J.Crew Group, also said in 2012 that Jobs had wanted to build a car."

And if I'm not mistaken SJ filed the patent for the "magic band" that does not look (or function) like the product that is currently on the market.
 
Last edited:
Did you read the entire article? Again, court testimony...

I just told you that he also talked about building boats. However, it never went beyond informal talks. There was no team put on it. You could write a book (page by page) on all the ideas that Jobs "discussed". Man. I've read multiple books about SJ, read a ton of materials, and know people who work there. He never even put an exploratory team together to build a car. He simple talked about it...just like he did about a million other ideas.

Now the Apple Watch was from SJ. He started w/Ive the work on it. There is nothing from this current Autonomous car project that is from Steve...nothing. All he did was say what do you think about it.. what would it look like.. ok.. nope.

Steve has gotten credit for a lot of shit he didnt do (Woz talks about hat a lot) but getting credit for a few conversations several years before a project even starts would be next level ridiculous. So if Apple builds a damn boat in the future does Jobs get credit because he talked about boats in 2005?
 
I just told you that he also talked about building boats. However, it never went beyond informal talks. There was no team put on it. You could write a book (page by page) on all the ideas that Jobs "discussed". Man. I've read multiple books about SJ, read a ton of materials, and know people who work there. He never even put an exploratory team together to build a car. He simple talked about it...just like he did about a million other ideas.

Now the Apple Watch was from SJ. He started w/Ive the work on it. There is nothing from this current Autonomous car project that is from Steve...nothing. All he did was say what do you think about it.. what would it look like.. ok.. nope.

Steve has gotten credit for a lot of shit he didnt do (Woz talks about hat a lot) but getting credit for a few conversations several years before a project even starts would be next level ridiculous. So if Apple builds a damn boat in the future does Jobs get credit because he talked about boats in 2005?
Ok. So I guess you know more than those in his inner circle.

Can we agree that SJ conceived & designed the new campus?
 
Ok. So I guess you know more than those in his inner circle.

:smh:

Saying "I wonder what an car from Apple would look like" and then saying "I'm not interested in that" and that being the extent of the discussion does not give Jobs credit for the start of an apple project around cars that was conceived because of Tesla starting the first significant U.S. car company in over 80 years. That's fucking stupid. Apple didn't even have an internal skunk works team doing specs on cars.

The extent of Jobs' involvement was a few conversations and few walks to discuss it.

You're trying to give credit for the current Car project to Steve because people says he brought up the possibility of creating a car in a few conversation and quickly shelved it without even putting a fucking team together.

No sketches, no software specs, no models..no nothing. They fucked talked about it over a couple of conversations

Really? Is that where this convo is fucking going? Stop.

Jobs has zero connection to this current car project..none.
 
Did you read the entire article? Again, court testimony...

Did you read it? Jobs wasnt alive much longer after this. All he did was talk about.

"Jobs and Fadell, who had collaborated on the iPod and iPhone, swapped ideas about car designs on multiple occasions. "We had a couple of walks," Fadell said in an interview with Bloomberg's Emily Chang. The pair posed hypothetical questions to each other, such as: "If we were to build a car, what would we build? What would a dashboard be? And what would this be? What would seats be? How would you fuel it or power it?"

Jobs decided not to move forward"


If you're going to give him credit for the car, you minus whale just give him credit for every damn thing that comes out of Apple over the next couple of decades because that was Jobs role.. to think on and "discuss" ideas... even things that never even made it to past one discussion.
 
Did you read it? Jobs wasnt alive much longer after this. All he did was talk about.

"Jobs and Fadell, who had collaborated on the iPod and iPhone, swapped ideas about car designs on multiple occasions. "We had a couple of walks," Fadell said in an interview with Bloomberg's Emily Chang. The pair posed hypothetical questions to each other, such as: "If we were to build a car, what would we build? What would a dashboard be? And what would this be? What would seats be? How would you fuel it or power it?"

Jobs decided not to move forward"


If you're going to give him credit for the car, you minus whale just give him credit for every damn thing that comes out of Apple over the next couple of decades because that was Jobs role.. to think on and "discuss" ideas... even things that never even made it to past one discussion.
"The idea for a car had been bouncing around Apple even before 2008. Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of marketing, said in 2012 court testimony that executives discussed building a car even before it released the iPhone in 2007. Mickey Drexler, a former Apple board member and head of J.Crew Group, also said in 2012 that Jobs had wanted to build a car."
 
Dude. I missed the memo that you went from Eewwll to Spectrum. I was wondering who the fuck this dude was seemingly coming out of nowhere spitting knowledge. What up, fam.

And it was me who mentioned Netflix. It's going to happen. Apple will purchase them. They have to. Makes sense on both sides.

And within the next 12-18 months, Apple will go on a acquisition spree, buying up a bunch of smaller companies to get into the bot/VR markets and other arenas they are lagging in in order to compete for the next 5-10 years.
 
"The idea for a car had been bouncing around Apple even before 2008. Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of marketing, said in 2012 court testimony that executives discussed building a car even before it released the iPhone in 2007. Mickey Drexler, a former Apple board member and head of J.Crew Group, also said in 2012 that Jobs had wanted to build a car."

Your own article. Jobs wanted to build boats too.. He "mentioned" alot of shit. The reality is that he talked about it for a few days and shut it down completely. Your own article says it. He did ZERO work on it while he was alive. You don't get credit for having "talked" about something.

"Jobs and Fadell, who had collaborated on the iPod and iPhone, swapped ideas about car designs on multiple occasions. "We had a couple of walks," Fadell said in an interview with Bloomberg's Emily Chang. The pair posed hypothetical questions to each other, such as: "If we were to build a car, what would we build? What would a dashboard be? And what would this be? What would seats be? How would you fuel it or power it?"

Jobs decided not to move forward"
 
And within the next 12-18 months, Apple will go on a acquisition spree,.

It only makes sense man. In 12-18 months they'll have like 300 Billion dollars in cash man. How can you have that much capital and at least not makes some bets with it on great businesses that have long term prospects that fit perfectly into your current businesses?

I mean Netflix seems like a no-brainer.
 
It only makes sense man. In 12-18 months they'll have like 300 Billion dollars in cash man. How can you have that much capital and at least not makes some bets with it on great businesses that have long term prospects that fit perfectly into your current businesses?

I mean Netflix seems like a no-brainer.

Do you think Netflix would be willing to sell?
 
Do you think Netflix would be willing to sell?

They have a fiduciary responsibility to listen to all serious offers. They're worth 38B. If Apple offered 20 percent over the market cap, they would need a real reason to fight off the offer. They would have to vote on it and the board would need to reject it. If Apple "really" wanted it, it would be there's because they have the cash to buy it, easily. They could just up the offer, but the they would need to convince the shareholders that the company was better as independent company rather than taking an offer that was well over the market cap.
 
Last edited:
Do you think Netflix would be willing to sell?
Netflix growth slowed down some. They are spending more money than ever on original content. There is more competition in the marketplace with Amazon and other content platforms. Studios are streaming their content on platforms they've built or offer better terms than Netflix. They've raised their rates as promised 1-2 years ago.

Being acquired by Apple would make Netflix the Apple Music for Apple on the TV/Movie front. Apple would have greater leverage with Apple TV, Siri, and the long-rumored Apple TV and a la carte cable system. Apple is courting Hollywood by making content. Disney is in bed with Apple heavy. Makes sense every which way.
 
Your own article. Jobs wanted to build boats too.. He "mentioned" alot of shit. The reality is that he talked about it for a few days and shut it down completely. Your own article says it. He did ZERO work on it while he was alive. You don't get credit for having "talked" about something.

"Jobs and Fadell, who had collaborated on the iPod and iPhone, swapped ideas about car designs on multiple occasions. "We had a couple of walks," Fadell said in an interview with Bloomberg's Emily Chang. The pair posed hypothetical questions to each other, such as: "If we were to build a car, what would we build? What would a dashboard be? And what would this be? What would seats be? How would you fuel it or power it?"

Jobs decided not to move forward"
And your thoughts on wearables in the Healthcare sector? Would a non-penetrating glucose meter be a game changer (on top of Apple Pay) on the wrist?
 
Last edited:
And your thoughts on wearables in the Healthcare sector? Would a non-penetrating glucose meter be a game changer (on top of Apple Pay) on the wrist?



what is the size of the market for glucose meters?

$10 billion?


that's it?


That's the size of your game changer?
 
Floss,

My old username is eewwll. I've practically always been on the pro-Apple side of the arguments. Apple is a great company.

However, they're at a real crossroads right now. Apple really IS the iPhone in terms of profitability. So they need a new growth horse and I'm really starting to question if Ive + Cooks can do it.

The tricky issue with the 230 Billion in cash is that Apple's DNA is not to buy their way into a market. It's completely against their DNA. That's why they keep missing on things (like dropbox, netflix, even tesla)... all 3 of those founding teams were willing to sell to Apple and decided they would build in-house..and so you got that monstrosity of icloud instead of dropbox. It's silly.

kvpaw.gif


Apple should of bought Waze after their shitty maps release.
 
I know people keep posting about Apple should buy Netflix. If that did happen, would Apple try to change Netflix IT platform since they run on AWS?
 
I know people keep posting about Apple should buy Netflix. If that did happen, would Apple try to change Netflix IT platform since they run on AWS?


I don't think so.

AWS doesn't own the content even though they host it.

Apple need to focus on identifying users and generating mechanisms to personalize content based on some features that allows users to keep adding more content about their entire life.
 
Thoughts about this?


Google’s test to let media publish directly in search can’t be great news for Twitter

Throughout the year, Google has been toying with a feature that lets people or groups post short bits of text directly and instantly into Google searches. Along with the text, those participating can put in an image, video and link.

Sound familiar?

It should, because it’s currently called Twitter. Worse still for the troubled social communications company: In some instances — with the public officials, small business and (more recently) media properties that Google has opened the feature to — this content kicks Twitter’s own content down in Google searches. Twitter and Google inked a deal to insert particular tweets in searches a year ago.

Like the Twitter deal, the new search feature underscores the myriad ways Google is scrambling to shake up how its search results look and feel, particularly on mobile devices, where Google needs consumer attention and clicks. In this instance, unlike the Twitter deal, Google is prioritizing its own content.

It’s a practice, of course, that has gotten Google into trouble with European regulators for a while now and that is an issue that the company is well aware of here.

And it is different from Twitter. The search feature, tentatively titled Google Posts, only lasts for seven days. But you can publish a lot more — 14,400 characters and the ability to publish up to 10 images or video in any post.

“We believe this new feature gives entities another channel to share rich, authoritative content with users who are searching for them on Google, and who might not necessarily follow them on Twitter,” said a Google spokesperson. “Twitter results will continue to appear in search results for relevant queries.”

And, for now, the feature is very limited. The search engine rolled it out for the Fox News Republican Presidential debate in January, allowing the candidates to campaign with small “cards” — a web interface that pops out, with social media share buttons — in real-time search results. Then, Google quietly expanded it to small business, cricket websites, musicians and even school districts.

The search feature drew more attention last week when some big media names — HBO and Jimmy Kimmel — joined the fray. Ahead of the season premiere of HBO’s “Silicon Valley,” Google allowed the show to post made-up stuff atop searches.

This is all just a test for now, Google claims. “We’re continuing to experiment with the look and feel of this feature, including exploring other potential use cases,” a company rep added.

The company also stressed that this is different from Accelerated Mobile Pages, or AMP, Google’s tool for super-fast mobile publishing. With AMP, publishers host the content that appears in search. With Posts, Google hosts.

Publishers don’t pay for Posts — again, for now. Google hasn’t communicated too widely to partners about the feature yet and it wouldn’t say if it’s letting in its core clientele, advertisers. (Interested parties can sign up for waitlist.) But it might, particularly for cases where timely posts would thrive.

“Right now, it seems like it is just for media and entertainment publishers, but it could be very interesting for direct response marketers if Google opened it up to them,” said Jason Hartley, VP of the search practice for 360i, an ad agency. “It’s a nice way to introduce new product lines.”

That said, Hartley wisely noted that Google would be very cautious with any expansion, ensuring that it doesn’t turn off searchers. Jimmy Kimmel can create clever, compelling content; a company selling shoes might not.

For publications and marketers, the new feature would give them a channel for prime real estate in Google search. That could be a concern for Twitter, which has a nice seat on that same real estate now.

Twitter shouldn’t be too worried, though. When a subject is trending, the Twitter content might surface above Google’s new carousel in the search results, according to sources familiar with the company.

Plus, it doesn’t seem that Google is eager to turn the feature into a rich media environment rivaling the social media site. Some of the search “cards” summon a YouTube video. Most are pretty static. This post from Jimmy Kimmel, for instance, just has a short bit of text on an image that simply reads, #Kimmel.

http://recode.net/2016/05/01/google-posts-search-publishing-twitter/
 
Back
Top