Carnegie Mellon Professor: Apple should consider breaking up it businesses

“In order for Apple to stay in the game, it should consider breaking up its businesses, Carnegie Mellon’s College of Engineering Professor Vivek Wadhwa told CNBC’s Jon Fortt on ‘Squawk Alley’ Tuesday,” Lindsay Rittenhouse reports for TheStreet. “Apple’s break up would be modeled much like Google’s when it split its core Internet business from several of its other projects by becoming a subsidiary of Alphabet in 2015, according to Wadhwa.”

Rittenhouse reports, “‘Apple’s problem is that it has no new products. The iPhone is now nine years old, there’s been nothing new since then. Yeah they made it bigger, they made it smaller, they added some new processors and so on but that’s their last product,’ he said.”

MacDailyNews Take: iPad was released in 2010. It is not a “bigger iPhone.” Also:
42mm Space Black Stainless Steel Case with Space Black Milanese Loop

“Apple is being ‘left behind’ because its model of releasing ‘massive products every five or 10 years’ is not working anymore, Wadhwa stated,” Rittenhouse reports. “Wadhwa’s comments come ahead of Apple’s 2016 third quarter earnings report to be released after today’s market close.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Same old nonsense.

Carnegie Mellon’s College of Engineering should consider getting smarter professors.

“Left behind,” our collective ass.

Why the iPad Pro’s Apple A9X processor is so fast – December 4, 2015
Inside Apple’s powerful A9X chip – November 27, 2015
Analyst: Apple’s iPad Pro and its powerful A9X CPU pose threat to Intel – November 12, 2015
Apple’s A9X-powered iPad Pro offers Mac-like speed – November 11, 2015
Apple’s new iPad Pro is faster and more affordable than beleaguered Microsoft’s Surface Pro 4 – November 12, 2015


  1. The “left behind” comment is just stupid. I’d like this guy to point out who is ahead of Apple. You can make a case that Apple is not out front the way they were a few years ago, but there is still no company that is innovating their way ahead. Until Apple does make a major moves, the Samsungs of the world have nothing to copy.

    1. The whole short article is just a hit piece by a Street writer quoting a dumb prof.
      And to be clear, the Prof’s approach is the best way to make a company big is to sell the future of the company, make a big splash then die quick.

      He is talking about speculators NOT investors. Wall Street lives on speculators and has not thought about investing in 20 years.

      PS, no comments on the article. These guys are getting cagey, just BS, and leave, no allowing for others to say how stupid they sound.

  2. I was in the dentist chair this morning when this segment came on. I needed to spit up really bad but held it in. Clueless if he thinks they haven’t released any new products in nine years.

  3. Yes. If they get into the automobile business they should spin that off as soon as humanly possible. They do not want those kinds of liabilities hanging over the Apple Electronics Corp’s head.

  4. Rittenhouse view of problem: “‘Apple…has no new products.”

    Rittenhouse solution to problem: “[Apple] should consider breaking up its businesses.”

    Result of Rittenhouse solution: Broken up businesses with no new products.

    Talk amongst yourselves.

    1. What Rittenhouse wants is similar to google/Alphabet. A cash-cow core business with no new products, and a separate company that can blow billions of dollars on R&D projects with no commercial prospects.

  5. I agree. Apple has become too diversified to be run by one person. It is impossible for Tim to be on all fronts. And Apple is run by old, rich men. Where is the next generation? Let one person be responsible for the corporate business and off we go. Let one person be responsible for the Watch business so you can chop off his head if he,she does not deliver – and so on.

  6. … sounds like a hedgie has just bunged this ‘Professor’ a whole load of ‘incentive’ to write such nonsense!!

    … probably because the hedge fund fraternity are beginning to realise that Nikkei ‘leaks’ just make investors LOL.

  7. What Professor Wadhwa fails to understand is Apple’s ecosystem is only possible because of its integration between product lines. That would NOT be possible if there were independent companies operating as subsidiaries doing their own things, without coordination. Apple would become just another also-ran.

  8. I have no idea how this “problem” is solved by his suggested action.

    Sounds like a way for stock owners to make cash instead of anything relevant Apple being a better company in the short or long term.

  9. THIS is an example of why academics are NOT working in industry. It’s also an example of the current decay in science. The ‘professor’ didn’t even bother to check his facts.

    If Apple wasn’t the MASTER of hardware and software integration in the computer industry, I might care about this article. Seeing as Professor Wadhwa has no comprehension of Apple’s history or how they function, I consider this This is lazy, short term thinking blahblahblah baloney. Show us the cost/benefit analysis Professor Wadhwa.

    BTW: Apple HAS split off parts of its business in the past. Note FileMaker, an Apple subsidiary. Also note how Apple fanatics never have understood why Apple split off FileMaker. From one POV it does make sense in that Apple does not integrate FileMaker into any other Apple products. If there are similar cases within Apple, it might be worth considering subsidiary spinoffs.

Reader Feedback

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