iPad 2 shows Tim Cook is Apple’s new ninja

“The Wall Street Journal last night confirmed many of my predictions for the iPad 2.0, while Apple drives the display industry to meet massive demand for high-resolution displays for mobile devices,” Jonny Evans reports or Computerworld.

“Apple COO Tim Cook has also used his skills in inventory and supply management to create critical barriers to limit the impact of competitors in the space,” Evans reports. “Component suppliers are already seeing strong returns for their part in the Apple ecosystem, with display manufacturers especially thrilled. That’s because spending on new plant for the manufacture of low temperature polysilicon (LTPS)-based displays is going to reach a record $2.4 billion in 2011, DisplaySearch has said.”

Evans reports, “Apple’s strategic investments are classic Tim Cook. An expert in logistics, supply management and inventory, Cook is putting up massive barriers to challenge competitors attempting to take on the iPad. While Jobs places his focus in product design, Cook has proved himself an expert in supply and production management. In the right hands, command of business systems is a lethal weapon.”

Much more in the full article here.

26 Comments

  1. Apple is not focused on barriers to competition. That isn’t what they do, and it might be illegal. Tim Cook is assuring Apple’s own component supplies, which might coincidentally make supplies hard to find and expensive for others. That’s just their tough shit. Apple has always worked to compete with better devices not by dirty tricks against the competition.

  2. Tim Cook will prove himself if he has managed to get a higher res display for what I am referring to as iPad-HD while keeping the price the same.

    This will be a huge blow to all wannabe tablet people and will have them jump out of the windows from their glass wall executive offices.

  3. Tim Cook’s ninja skills have obviously been honed under the tutelage of the ultimate ninja master, Steve Jobs.

    Right now he’s painted a huge bull’s eye on the back of Android to deny them oxygen in the distribution channel by sewing up Verizon and snapping up all available high quality IPS displays to feed the iPhone and iPad evolution.

    The result of this will be Android manufacturers will be painted into a corner with no possibility to secure cheap supplies of hardware components.

    Wait for the shuriken blades to land on the bull’s eye in a clusterf*** pattern and embed themselves deep in the Android psyche.

  4. @Tetrachloride
    I prefer the term “vicious cycle”. It makes it seem more formidable. I can’t wait until a dozen or so Android tablet vendors, all fighting for leftover components, all run out of supplies just in time for the Christmas holiday rush. I’ll get a belly laugh for sure. Android fanbois are clueless. All this yapping about Honeycomb and they won’t have any hardware to put it on.

  5. @@m159
    NO one but the top leadership inside Apple knows for sure, but drying up competitors supplies certainly is a nice side benefit.

    However, Apple also has to take a big risk because if their products don’t sell in the tens of millions, they are screwed.

    BTW, what Apple is doing is called a monopsony. Instead being the only seller for something–a monopoly–they are the only buyer, or at least the only buyer buying tens of millions of units of, say, iPad displays.

  6. Steve is unmatched in his mix of abilities in guiding Apple. Still, without Tim, it is arguable that iOS devices would have never reached the dominate price/performance point they now enjoy. Embed this hardware in the healthy ecosystem of Apple and you have a growing, expanding, system. I like the “ecosystem” analogy because Apple continues to “evolve” all their product lines.

  7. @@m159

    I don’t know anything for sure, but have had close contacts within the company for years, and unless they’ve recently changed, dirty tricks are not in their culture. Apple managers certainly know their supplier contracts make it harder for others, but those contracts were negotiated to assure their own component supply, not to create barriers to competition. Restraint of trade is a serious matter, and an unacceptable risk when you are already beating the competition in the marketplace.

  8. Botvinnik;

    Look it up, monopsony IS a word and is right in the dictionary. It means what he said it does, to.

    If you had an iPhone, you could have looked it up before embarrassing yourself.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.