Why Mac users don’t really matter to Apple

“Over the past few days I’ve seen a lot of anger, bitterness, and rage directed towards Apple, especially on the subject of the Mac, and specifically the absence of new hardware at the WWDC 2018 keynote,” Adrian Kingsley-Hughes writes for ZDNet.

“Let’s put on one side for a moment the fact that WWDC 2018 is not the venue for hardware,” Kingsley-Hughes writes. “But there’s something a lot bigger and more fundamental that Mac users need to realize and absorb, and that’s the fact that the Mac isn’t a huge part of Apple’s business.”

“Putting the Mac business into perspective, looking at Apple as a computer vendor, the company ships about five to six million Macs a quarter,” Kingsley-Hughes writes. “Compare this to the tens of millions of iPhones Apple sells every quarter. Even iPad sales, which are considered pretty soggy, are around twice that of Macs, and the revenue gap between the two products is pretty close.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: That “revenue gap” that Kingsley-Hughes glosses over because it doesn’t fit, and actually refutes, his little narrative is in the Mac’s favor. In Q118, Mac generated $6.895 billion in revenue vs. iPad’s $5.862 billion. In Q218, Mac generated $5.848 billion in revenue vs. iPad’s $4.113 billion.

Mac users certainly matter to Apple. Maybe not pro desktop Mac users. Or low-end Mac desktop users. But those are two tiny niches in the Mac universe. This is not to excuse Apple for those two abject and ongoing management failures (the utter and inexplicable stagnation of Mac Pro and Mac mini), but the bulk of the best-selling Mac product lines (MacBook, MacBook Pro) are new to newish and selling very well.

90 Comments

  1. Absence of a new MacPro and MacMini at this point is a complete and utter boneheaded cluster-fudge beyond comprehension for a company with more money than most nations.

    Now the self-fulfilling prophecy begins… “People weren’t really buying these machines, so we decided to discontinue them.”

    1. The sad thing is that the Mac is about a $25 billion a year industry for Apple. If Apple spent just 2% of that for R&D on Mac development (less than the average percentage Apple spends on R&D across the board) then Apple would have $500 million a year to spend on R&D.

      There really is NO excuse for Mac hardware to be in the state it is in. None.

    2. “the self-fulfilling prophecy begins… “People weren’t really buying these machines, so we decided to discontinue them.”

      FALSE prophecy. As MDN pointed out the money generated from neglected, hobbled, totally ignored Mac segment makes more money than iPads YOY.

      Maybe people are simply NOT buying them because they are not upgraded and certainly not state of the art, hello?

      This is so easy to fix. WTF Apple?!? …

      1. I want a new laptop to replace my 2012 MacBook Pro. I would expect to find that six years later I could get a machine with better specs for the same or less money. Not so. To get a new MacBook with mildly better specs I will have to pay twice as much. For similar money I will end up with less storage due to only solid state storage being used. Using only solid state storage is expensive and the focus on power saving also means most of the processors used are slower than six years ago also.

  2. why AAPL doesn’t keep driving the truck until it absolutely doesn’t matter on the balance sheet? Or course, that’s not a point of broad agreement, but because the need for pro machines is still vigorous, even within Apple’s own balleywick (animation_Pixar, et al/video production_FCP/etc), why not serve the sector until an obvious tipping point has been determined? Ceding this product mix seems premature…esp when Apple has historically “owned” it. I’m not a pro user, so I can’t say I don’t like it from experience, but as a follower, I don’t get it.

    1. It should always matter unless you want to turn your future (control) over to Microsoft or Google. Developers should be using your dev tools both hardware and software.

  3. In 6 – 8 mo, Apple will have a compelling new Mac Pro and maybe a new Mac Mini and all this concern will be forgotten. The Mac Pro will not sell well because the pro market is minuscule, but Apple knows this but will do it anyway because everyone bitched about it.

    1. It’s in Apple’s long term interest to have a great state of the art workstation for pro users.

      However, since it’s unlikely to be very profitable, it isn’t in Apple’s interest to release a new version every year or two. Yes, it’s been a while, but they will do it. Better they wait and do it right, than rush out something like the lat trash can.

        1. “Better they wait and do it right, than rush out something like the lat [sic] trash can.”

          So, no, that was not the claim. Just the opposite.

    2. So you think Apple will be shipping in quantity (not just announce) a true Mac Pro in Dec 2018 (6 months) [Apple has already said that WILL NOT happen] or February 2019? At the rate we’re not seeing anything I’d be very pleasantly shocked if we get a preview of the next Mac Pro at next year’s WWDC (like what happened in 2013), then shipping in limited quantity by December 2019 with full quantities in Q1 2020. I really, really hope I’m wrong, but I’ve lost a bit of faith in Apple lately when it comes to any Mac related hardware. (And, that’s saying something as someone who has used Apple computers since the late 70s; who was an Evangelist [special, official polo style shirt and everything] during the Dark Days, and a strong proponent/evangelist during the resurgence around the turn of the century years.)

    3. Mac Pro, yes. Compelling, but ONLY to those who find their present products compelling. In other words, it’s not going to be expandable (though it will be modular, whatever that means). Mac Mini, no, it’s on it’s way out. They’re just waiting to run out of them… I think. I can’t believe they’re still producing them.

      And you’re also right in that no matter HOW much money they spend on the Mac Pro, it will NOT sell well. There’s very few people that need that power. For those that do need it, they’re willing to pay more for it.

      1. Paragraph one……too many presumptions in spit of direct reassurance from Tim and Phil

        Paragraph two.. it is not all about direct profits and money .. ‘Direct’ being the key word.

        1. Paragraph 1 – We will see. I’ll look for your posts after the details on the Mac Pro become clear. And I do truly expect you to be disappointed (unless you lower your expectations).

          Paragraph 2 – For YOU it’s not about profits. For ME it’s not about profits. But, these two views don’t matter… what matters is in this reality, that we are experiencing daily, Apple has not updated the Mac Pro or Mac mini for years. People who don’t want to BELIEVE that Apple would end the Mac have to come up with some fairly creative stories to explain the lack of activity. (Others just say, “The Mac must not be important to Apple”) And then, they come up with creative scenarios where they get it wrong year after year after year, but, suddenly… and from the SAME leadership team, they knock it out of the park and it’s everything you ever wanted! (Others say, “Yah, it’ll be lacking in the same way current products are lacking”) Again, we’ll see. And I won’t even write “I told you so”. Well, other than just then. 🙂

    4. In 6-8 months … maybe.

      In the meantime, Apple could have had $5 two years ago … and another $5K in late 2019 … had they merely maintained their hardware portfolio.

      -hh

  4. It certainly is perplexing why Apple hasn’t updated certain Macs. But you gotta believe there is more to the story that we aren’t aware of. Maybe they’re purposely not updating them for a reason? Anyone’s guess what those reasons might be though.

    1. How about that for a guess?! Apple decided to leapfrog and go massively parallel with the new Mac Pro, but ran into some roadblocks when attempting to create massively multiprocessor machines based on the A10 or A11. Then Apple found itself caught between a rock and a hard place. If Apple split off a group to create an interim Mac Pro based on Intel Xeon processors, then came out with a groundbreaking new desktop supercomputer paradigm a year later, then everyone who bought the new Intel-based Mac Pros would be pissed off. Their “new” Mac Pros would become old technology overnight, lose a lot of value, and represent a technological dead end in terms of Apple’s new paradigm. The alternative, which Apple chose, was to defer the Mac Pro release date and stoically accept the justified (but incessant and irritating) complaints of the pro crowd.

      That is sheer speculation and probably outright fiction. But, who knows? It could be true.

      1. Get over it. You are not going to see a Mac Pro based upon one or more A-series processors within the next five years. You just won’t.

        It eventually may happen, but NOT any time soon. You’ll see lightweight laptops like the MacBook using A-series processors a year or two before a Mac Pro (maybe even limited edition A-series MacBooks three years before an A-series Mac Pro).

  5. At this point Apple should license the to a select number of vendors and that way they can concentrate on more important things like emoji and rental music.

    Tim, let H-P make workstation grade desktops and that way you don’t have to.
    The Z2 Mini is what the Mac mini could be if Apple gave a damn.

    1. DavGreg, I’m sure you remember that Apple did exactly that between early 1995 and mid-1997. Licensing Mac OS 7 very nearly killed the Macintosh. The problem was scale. You can turn a sports car faster than a supertanker.

      The Mac clone manufacturers could produce machines that offered a better price/performance ratio than real Macs because they had extremely small product runs. They could acquire brand-new chips (CPUs and otherwise) and put them into their products before they were available in sufficient numbers for Apple to use them. The clone companies had much lower plant costs because they only needed enough space, machinery, and staff to make a thousand or two of each model, usually on a build-to-order basis (a la Dell) that eliminated the need to maintain a parts inventory ahead of use. Direct sales (also a la Dell) eliminated the overhead of a conventional wholesale/retail sales channel.

      Apple, on the other hand, not only had to build big factories and order enormously more parts, but was also expected to absorb 100% of the R&D costs for any improvements to the platform. It sold most of its computers through dealers (who also provided product support and maintenance) so it had more overhead in its retail channel.

      With roughly 75 clone manufacturers putting out new high-performance computers on an almost weekly basis, the shiniest new Mac OS 7 machine was always a clone. Apple found itself being increasingly restricted to the lower end of the market. The high end is where margins are high enough to sustain profitability. Apple was hemorrhaging cash.

      By the time the program ended in 1997, Apple basically only had two choices: it could stop selling new licenses and let the existing ones expire, or it could abandon the hardware market entirely and become a software company. Steve Jobs (remember him?) decided to go with the iMac. The results are history.

      The same would happen if Apple licensed MacOS X today. The clones would skim off all the cream and leave nothing for Apple but unprofitable skim milk. Why would Apple keep selling hardware at a loss? Why would it keep developing MacOS software if it had no hardware business? Who else has the resources to maintain the MacOS ecosystem and keep it moving into the future?

      1. Apple could do limited licensing- exactly what I suggested.
        Limit H-P to do workstations and small form factor headless desktops. Apple could easily specify limits on GPU and CPU combinations to keep complexity related stuff in check.

        The Mac is now less than 10% of Apple’s business and if they do not want to keep workstations and desktops up to date- contract it out.

          1. Pretty much. Any pro that wouldn’t buy a Mac right now is NOT more likely to buy one with an uncertain software future. It’s questionable that developers would wholeheartedly support a sinking ship.

            1. Hey Brainless, I guess you IGNORED the news that Apple is working on a NEW MacPro and formed a focus group of Pros for advisement. Now until it is released, go back to your basement Sonny and you can play with your iPad day and night and PRETEND you are Pro computing …

            2. I guess “brainless” is your word of the day. Wrong Again wasn’t talking about Apple but about licensed third-party manufacturers, so Apple’s plans for Mac Pro are irrelevant to his point, which was:

              Developers aren’t going to invest heavily in hackintoshes or even licensed clones when there is no guarantee that Apple will support them in even the very near future. Ask anybody who invested heavily in Mac clones around 1997, just before Steve Jobs decided not to license Mac OS 8. Developers need a computer that is guaranteed to run the next MacOS beta, not something that might never be upgraded..

            3. The Apple faithful doesn’t care about licensed third-party manufacturers. The Apple faifhul cares about a NEW MacPro that blows every computer out of the water? Got it, Clueless? …

            4. “The Apple faithful doesn’t care about licensed third-party manufacturers.”

              That is essentially what Wrong Again said, in response to others calling for Apple to license MacOS, so why is he BRAINLESS?

              “The Apple faifhul cares about a NEW MacPro that blows every computer out of the water.”

              I agree completely, so why am I Clueless?

              Most schoolyard bullies learn somewhere around sixth grade that when you point your finger at someone and insult them, you have three fingers pointed at yourself.

    2. Even with licensing, it would be a dead end street. I don’t think ANYONE would take Apple up on licensing with the rumors swirling about them moving to an ARM chip. Without assurances that Apple will be supporting Intel into the foreseeable future, no one would bite. And, on top of that, what customer, that depends on support and stability, would BUY a Mac from HP? Instead of the current situation where you’ve got software updates without new hardware, you’d potentially trade that for hardware updates with no new OS.

      At this point, there’s just not enough upside for licensing to be worth it over the long run.

      1. Most likely they wouldn’t market the computer as a Mac. Rather as a PC that was ‘certified’ to be highly compatible with MacOS so you could install that if you wished or go with Linux or Windows.

        1. You’re talking about machines that the company is paying all the same licenses for PLUS an Apple license on top of that. Meaning that for two similarly configured machines, the OSX certified one is going to be more expensive. No one is going to pay a premium for a machine and then install Linux or Windows on it. If they were going to install Windows, they could just buy the cheaper Windows version.

          At one point, I thought licensing would be an alternative, just that Apple wouldn’t go for it. Now, with all the uncertainty in the Mac world (from the rumors to switch to a different CPU to the rumors that the Mac is eventually going away), I just don’t see any company looking at all the extra effort to roll their own drivers, support after the sale, tweak as Apple releases new OS’s… then taking Apple up on it.

          1. You don’t pay for all licenses now for PCs, only for the OS that you end up installing on the HW. So should a consumer want just MacOS on the computer that’s the only license that will be charged for.

            As for certification, I was going more for the idea of the OEM either restricting the specs to a baseline that Apple publishes or after testing in-house with testing tools/software Apple provides/sells, acquiring approval from Apple on successful completion. Either way a very low cost ‘add-on’ spread across an entire model line.

            It could just end up being an ‘authorized’ version of a hackintosh with more support than the group currently enjoys. Certainly would help alleviate the pain of Mac users that want control over their HW customizations.

            1. I totally understand the “how” that you’re describing. It’s a sensible way to roll it out. BUT when the market of “Mac users that want control” is already so tiny such that Apple is ramping the effort down, there needs to be a financial incentive in the mix for anyone to keep it going.

              Have those users pay for the OS? No, even at it’s height there wouldn’t be enough users to support the costs of development. And the height would be year one and once those few thousand Mac users have their systems, sales would drop to almost zero for 3-4 years (as the assumption is they’re upgradeable). And, if new hardware isn’t released every year (new drivers, new testing, new certification on new hardware) the same group would complain just as loud about how, even though they are not in the market to BUY one, HP should continue to MAKE one every year even if it’s not going to sell.

              Other than “make Mac users happy without financial benefit”, there’s no upside to it. And shareholders likely think that “make Mac users happy without financial benefit” is not a smart business decision and would be against it. If tossing a bone to Mac users isn’t enough when one company owns the hardware AND the software, bringing in multiple other companies just makes less worth it.

            2. There is NO “upside” to selling Macs and making billions of dollars a year?!?!? More yearly revenue than the iPad? Get a grip, BRAINLESS …

            3. GeoB, the discussion wasn’t about “selling Macs.” It was about selling Mac clones from other manufacturers. There is no upside for those companies because they would be entirely at Apple’s mercy, like the 75 companies making Mac OS 7 clones in 1997 that were suddenly frozen out of OS 8. There is no upside for Apple, either, which is why abandoning the licensing program was almost the first thing Steve Jobs did when he rejoined the company.

              Yes, Apple can make billions selling genuine Macs, but not by licensing replicas.

              Before calling people BRAINLESS, get a grip on your own reading glasses.

  6. They wrote that the revenue gap is pretty close, and at 4.1 billion versus 5.8 billion… that’s pretty close. One thing I wasn’t aware of, because I haven’t focused on unit numbers, just revenue, is that Apple sells twice as many iPads as Macs. It actually shouldn’t even be surprising as Gartner has already projected that would be the case this year, but that’s important to note that, even by unit numbers, the Mac continues to decline in importance.

    “People weren’t really buying these machines, so we decided to discontinue them”
    It’s more like “we want people to stop buying these machines, so we’re not going to update them”. One has to look no further than the AirPort situation to realize how Apple deals with products they plan to deprecate. One wonders if the mini is around because Apple’s still selling a few each quarter OR if Apple’s just selling off the remaining inventory. And, once they realize they’ve got only a quarter’s supply left (just like with the AirPort’s), they finally announce it’s done.

  7. Actually it really does matter. Even if you only sell 1 Mac Pro. It is the Mac that tells the world what Apple is capable of. Sure, the average person who don’t care about computers buy iPhones. But when they are shopping for a phone, they ask the computer guys what phone would you recommend and why. Usually its the rabid Apple computer owners that say the iPhone is the best thing for you. Take away the Mac and Apple is just another Huawei, Samsung, LG, OnePlus, etc….

    Given the current state of the Mac (…not just the Mac, computing on an Apple product in general…including wifi routers, servers, physical storage options, displays etc…), I repeat the line so many have said already….”is that all you got? ”

    Shame to see so many people developing iOS apps on their Windows and Linux machines.

    1. I have been writing this for years in many Apple forums.. including direct mails to Apple management:

      “….Just because you have something nice in your hands, dont forget your legs… ”

      Apple is a computer company ( no matter what they like to consider themselves)
      iPhones/iPads/ watches are computer .. the names are just a marketing ploy.
      Macs and its OS are the foundation of Apples reputation as the best and most capable computing platform.. showing off Apples Prowess since day 1.

      Get rid of tye foundation.. and the building will collapse sooner than later.

      Apple is being very stupid and shortsighted by ignoring what Steve stupidly and prematurely compared to ‘trucks’
      Its not Trucks… its the High Performance Cars… the Formula 1 if u like …. besides showing off prowess and capability and image.. the technology trickles down to all levels of products below.
      And the Image holds all products in the Halo .

      Why should Apple have even allowed this narrative.. a Negative one for so long ?…. Narrative that that wont go away and keeps getting worse. ( in what universe is that good? )
      Its plain Stupid.

      So many things are at disarray at Apple .
      Imo there is seriose judgment( or ego and complacency) issues at management level.
      Pros, Gamers, Schools, AI disaster from foundation up ….and so much more…

      …..And forgetting the metaphor expressed in this famous commercial below. ( not just forgetting… but becoming the opposite )

    2. “they ask the computer guys what phone would you recommend”
      AH! That’s it, I was wondering where the disconnect was, and this is it. Anyone that wants a phone is VERY likely asking their friends who also own a phone, who use the phone in the same way they do and have the same interests in features and apps. They’re not asking computer guys. Computer guys aren’t even in the loop anymore. AND any computer guy that says “Hey, MICROSOFT has a really fast server, so you should buy a MICROSOFT phone” is not only completely out of touch, but they’re also living in another universe where Microsoft builds high end servers AND still has a phone line. 🙂 I’m sure no one is looking at the TOP of the line ANDROID workstation and saying that, since their workstation is SOOOO amazing, you should be an ANDROID phone. I mean, this just doesn’t work on so many levels. In fact, it precisely works on zero levels. Plus, that’s being disingenuous of Mac users. Some Mac users like Android. And, the BEST ones are going to say “What do you want to do with the phone” and steer you towards what’s right for you rather than screaming “IPHONE IPHONE IPHONE IPHONE HAVE YOU SEEN THAT APPLE SERVER?!?!” at the top of their lungs while frothing (rabid owners?) at the mouth.

      I’d always wondered about the “They should make a super fast computer even if no one buys it” crowd, and I think this spells it out. There’s just a group of people that still wishes their opinion about Apple mattered. And, as long as they think that, they’re going to think that what THEY would love, say, a Server class computer, will help to sell an iPhone. Because everyone’s going to come ask them about their server and something, something, phones? That’s about as likely as going to a die-hard GMC tractor trailer owner to ask them if the Chevy Sonic is right for you!

      “Usually its the rabid Apple computer owners that say the iPhone is the best thing for you”
      No, usually it’s the masses of Apple iPhone owners that say the iPhone is best. I mean, really, why go to look for a Mac user when there’s about 20 iPhone (or Android) users within a stones throw away?

      1. You are missing a huge point here..
        Apple is not a server, is not a laptop , its not a phone, its not a watch or a tablet or an iMac or a Mac pro or tv ! It is not macos. , and its not ios or watchos or tvos…… its not services …

        Apple is an ecosys. It is a platform, an envirnoment where things are ‘synergized’ (jurassic dismal apple spell check does not recognize this word, like so many other words…grrrr) …
        Its hardware and software and services all together…. hopefully🤞All working in full synergy .
        …And macs are the most powerful machines in that ecosys.. yet made inflexible and ignored.

        Anyone owning an Apple product choosing or recommending ( to another Apple customer) something outside of the ecosys.. is pretty much breaking the synergy and the value Apple offers. Imo.

        But unfortunately, Apple itself , by limiting whats available in their Walled Ecosys Garden , is forcing some people to move away … crucial people, advocates, and voices that have credibility, Pros and power users! ….
        That tarnishes the Apple Image and its credibility as a coherent, comprehensive, responsible and reliable entity!
        They are sending their own customers to the competition..( no friend’s advice is necessary there )

        I know once i break the link.. ill have no reason to stay in the ecosys anymore.. i will move on.. since i would have forgone the main value of being there to start with.

        1. “macs are the most powerful machines in that ecosys.”
          And? I mean, the logic used to to try to support the “keep Mac alive” point of view is stretching thin to the point of invisibility. I mean, what is the point you’re making? At least the other poster had a conviction that “Computer guys recommend phones”. Though it was wrong, there was internal logic to it. IF one believed that EVERYONE that bought an iPhone did so under the recommendation of an Apple “computer guy”, then you’d of course think that keeping the computer guys happy would be of utmost importance even if it looks like a fool’s errand.

          “They are sending their own customers to the competition”
          Precisely! Apple will never be, and doesn’t need to be everything to everyone. Along the way, Apple will lose customers and pick up customers, that’s just the way life is. They sent Apple II users to the competition, they sent Mac OS 9 users to the competition, they sent PowerPC users to the competition. I don’t think ANYONE today would say that Apple should have continued to support the Apple II or the PowerPC JUST to keep people from going to the competition. In the same way, Apple shouldn’t (and, in reality, looks like they aren’t) supporting Mac users JUST to keep them in the ecosystem.

          1. “And? I mean, the logic used to to try to support the “keep Mac alive” point of view is stretching thin to the point of invisibility.“

            Hey Brainless, Mac is STILL ALIVE and making Apple billions each year.

  8. NO, it’s not a question of what gadget sells more. Apple is a quality PROFESSIONAL company. That means it has to SCALE to fit the demand for each product. SHOVING the highly profitable and publicly demanded Mac off to the side because something else sells more is IRRESPONSIBLE and indicates CRAP MANAGEMENT.

    Meanwhile, YES: WWDC is never the place to introduce hardware, unless it specifically impacts developers. I personally haven’t bitched about no hardware announcements. EXCEPT: Apple is now LATE releasing both their wireless charger for iPhone AND their revamped AirPods case. That they said nothing (versus releasing it) is IRRESPONSIBLE.

    IOW: Apple is OUT OF CONTROL. It’s management is FAILing to scale as its market grows. You NEVER neglect a product that’s profitable. N E V E R . To do so indicates SELF-DESTRUCTIVE behavior.

    Get it now Adrian? Understand? Savvy ⁉ ⁉ ❔❓❔❓

    1. Derek, unlike a lot of people here, you can see the problem: SCALE.

      It was a lot easier for Apple to put out new products when it only had to make tens of thousands of them, rather than millions. A bug that only affects one in ten thousand users used to impact less than a handful of Apple consumers; today, a bug that is no more severe can affect hundreds. Unlike days of yore, every one of those disappointed consumers can air his complaints on the Internet. So Apple has to reduce its error rate far below its historical levels for its reputation just to stay even. Doing that takes time.

      In addition, Moore’s Law doesn’t just mean that chips have more transistors every year, but also that they are more complex every year, with more that can go wrong and that much more extensive quality assurance work required. The same is true of system software… double the number of lines of code and you probably quadruple the number of potentially disastrous interactions. Finding and stomping all the bugs takes time.

      Ultimately, Apple has limited choices for each of its product lines: release a product now that it knows will probably contain serious flaws; release a good product, but a good deal later than it would prefer; or decide that neither of the other choices is cost-effective and simply abandon the market segment.

      1. Did you listen to the ‘Security Now’ podcast this week? Steve Gibson was chatting about this issue. I wish his transcript was out so I could quote it. But essentially he said that as new features are added to any product, especially software, the number of interactions between the various parts of the product increase exponentially, allowing for exponentially more flaws.

        I add to that the fact that our coding tools remain demonstrably poor, with guaranteed bad memory management (among other problems) no matter what tools you use. Object-Oriented programming didn’t help. It allows badly written code to be used over and over again. It’s also evident that commenting code doesn’t solve the problem, albeit critical for any code that will eventually be handed over to someone else to update.

        All in all, we’re still stuck in The Dark Age Of Computing. I used to think killing off Microsoft would end it. But no. The more I study software security, the more cynical I become about the ability of humans to comprehend the complexity of the technologies they create.

        It reminds me of the willful ignorance of mankind regarding the incomprehensible complexity of our natural world that makes and sustains it. We ‘Keep It Stupid, Simple!’ and ignore the deep and lasting damage we inflict on miracle planet Earth, our only home, because its just too complicated. That and the fact that turds float, resulting in our having consistently poor leadership throughout our history (with some notable exceptions).

        1. Nature has a way of balancing things at the end… human animal included.
          Its only the human narcissism and ego that makes some think we are above nature.

          1. One of my recent personal memes is that human psychology remains a primitive subject of scientific study. I’m no expert in the field. But my sense is that we humans use our minds for, among other things, finding ways to establish as sense of security within ourselves. It goes back to the Maslow needs pyramid. We mess around with what I call our ‘inner world’ in order to establish a sense of control of our personal world. Apparently, they’re useful survival strategies amidst the complexity and randomness in which we live.

            Balance is the platform from which each new step forward is taken, or so I imagine for the moment. In nature, each disruption creates a new situation within which the system must rebalance in order to proceed. In biology we use the word ‘equilibrium’ as what’s established after each disruption. Things change. It would be ideal if we humans were instruments for positive change. But our inner worlds lead us in a variety of directions, positive and/or negative, all differently judged from different perspectives.

  9. I don’t know if anybody has mentioned or considered that possibly iPad costs much less to make than Mac. And since the revenue is so close, maybe iPad is the more profitable of the two products?

    1. We’re all passionate armchair CEOs and I, for one am pretend managing so AAPL doesn’t go the way of “just” another successful corporation. Derek, as a creative, has boots on the ground and, at times one gets angry when the creative sector is seemingly compromised. Acting as an CEO is sometimes very serious business. You sound like you might just be stuck in the mud?

    2. You don’t have to have run a big multinational company to know when a company is not executing properly. That’s like saying you need to be President to understand politics. (I’ll leave others to take that and run with it.)

      You can tell when the product lines are not all kept humming along and current for NO GOOD REASON. That indeed is questionable management.

      BTW Tim Cook had never run a multinational company before he was given the CEO nod at Apple either.

Reader Feedback

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