Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

7 Reasons Apple is More Doomed Than You Think

3K views 31 replies 14 participants last post by  iMatt 
#1 ·
Food for thought as Apple enters the future without Jobs. An interesting read.

Apple is in the news for losing its rank for a time on Wednesday as the most valuable publicly-traded U.S. stock. And now Henry Blodget — who first became famous for the gap between his bullish reports on tech stocks and his bearish emails about them — is touting seven reasons why Apple is a buy.

But I think all those reasons are wrong and the stock has further to fall.

Apple fell $23 a share — dipping below $400 on April 17. According to Bloomberg, one of its audio-chip suppliers, Cirrus Logic, produced too much inventory — which analysts concluded meant that iPhone sales could fall short of analysts’ expectations.

Vernon Essi, Jr., an analyst at Needham & Co., wrote in a research report, “We blame Apple for losing its mobility mojo. This was simply an inventory overbuild for the iPhone 5 relative to Apple’s forecast.”

But this has not stopped Henry Blodget’s Business Insider from arguing that investors should buy Apple shares. According to the SEC, in 2000, Blodget issued a very bullish analyst report while at Merrill Lynch on a company called 24/7. The next day, he wrote an email claiming the company was “a pos [piece of ****].” This helped get him banned from the securities industry.

And in the article he co-authored, The bull case for Apple: Why the stock is not as doomed as some think, Blodget cited seven reasons for touting Apple as a buy. Here’s why I think his argument does not hold water.
7 Reasons Apple is More Doomed Than You Think - Forbes
 
#2 ·
Had to go back door to track down the article. Find it here:
7 Reasons Apple Is Worse Off Than You Think: Forbes - PandaWhale

I can't agree that the company is doomed and his reasons are a bit flimsy, but at the same time there is some similarity to Job's first departure. The difference is that this time Apple has about $150 billion$, much of it sitting off shore, to plug the **** until Apple gets things straightened out.
 
#3 ·
If Apple comes out with some insanely great new products, despite the lack of Jobs' showmanship, it has a chance to be innovative once again. Something in the realm if a better 4K TV experience, something in the realm of a fitness oriented iWatch could turn the page, especially if no one else has done it right. But since Steve's death, nothing really new has come down the pike, save for maybe the new Mac Pro. That's an original design. More stuff like that will turn more heads than larger smartphone screens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#12 ·
If Apple comes out with some insanely great new products, despite the lack of Jobs' showmanship, it has a chance to be innovative once again. Something in the realm if a better 4K TV experience, something in the realm of a fitness oriented iWatch could turn the page, especially if no one else has done it right. But since Steve's death, nothing really new has come down the pike, save for maybe the new Mac Pro. That's an original design. More stuff like that will turn more heads than larger smartphone screens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Except for the iPad, the same was true for the last several years when Jobs was there. They was nothing really new just improvements on products that already existed.
 
#10 ·
Apple common stock briefly dipped under $400 last April around the time the above article was published. Now it is over $500 or a 25% gain in about 9 months. The financial markets do not understand Apple's approach to business and have repeatedly demonstrated that lack of understanding. I like Horace Dediu's summation:

Google was perceived as invulnerable. In contrast, Apple is seen as temporarily enjoying a stay of execution.
Asymco - Invulnerable

Craig
 
#14 ·
Apple isn't growing at the insane rate that they used to anymore and thus financial people spell doom for Apple simply because there stock dropped. Apple could make more money than any other company every year and it wouldn't make the stock company happy unless that number is getting bigger every year, for the most part what the stock market cares about is the potential for growth and right now its looking as if Apple may be hitting their ceiling.

Any new product started after Tim Cook would have been in the works for less than 3 years right now, so I don't think it's been long enough to say Apple has been less innovative since Tim took over. As I look at it Apple is really doing the same pattern they did when Steve was in charge. There was a 6 year gap between the iPod and the iPhone, the iPad came a little quicker at 3 years later but it's also essentially a big iPhone with software optimized for a bigger screen. Big disruptive products simply do not come along that often.
 
#17 ·
Apple isn't growing at the insane rate that they used to anymore and thus financial people spell doom for Apple simply because there stock dropped. Apple could make more money than any other company every year and it wouldn't make the stock company happy unless that number is getting bigger every year, for the most part what the stock market cares about is the potential for growth and right now its looking as if Apple may be hitting their ceiling.

Any new product started after Tim Cook would have been in the works for less than 3 years right now, so I don't think it's been long enough to say Apple has been less innovative since Tim took over. As I look at it Apple is really doing the same pattern they did when Steve was in charge. There was a 6 year gap between the iPod and the iPhone, the iPad came a little quicker at 3 years later but it's also essentially a big iPhone with software optimized for a bigger screen. Big disruptive products simply do not come along that often.
Exactly. I totally agree.
 
#22 · (Edited)
i think that was iMatt's point...

-----

Regarding Apple being "doomed", that seems like an overly dramatic statement. In my opinion they are still better poised than the other major tech players.

However, until Apple actually knocks something out of the park post Steve Jobs I agree that the doubt that they can achieve the same level of excellence will be there and is justified.

Jobs was a visionary. Tim Cook seems like more of a efficient taskmaster. He'll keep Apple churning out solid products, but will the breakthroughs be there? Everyone will just have to wait and see....
Apple has been beleaguered and doomed since before the days when it really was beleaguered and teetering on the brink.

I guess a home run would silence some critics, but don't forget that like every other Apple home run, the next one will almost certainly be ridiculed by pundits.

Mac
iPod
iPhone
MacBook Air
iPad

... all huge hits (and pretty much the entire list of Apple game-changers in the last 30 years, except arguably Newton), most of them ridiculed to varying degrees at launch. I guess the iPhone stands as the exception. You can add the Mac mini as another success that was initially ridiculed, but I wouldn't include it in a list of game-changers.

Another thing they all have in common: only a small part of Apple's success was built on the 1.0 version of any of them. Mostly it was built on constant improvement and iteration.

So, here's my fearless prediction for Apple's next home run:

It will look like a great big flop to most critics. And it will indeed be expensive and underpowered at first. But it will be good enough to get critical mass and justify a second version. By version 2 or 3 it will be a big success. And then the usual suspects will either eat a little crow, or they will proclaim the "surprise" hit doomed by the arrival of cheaper competitors. And of course there will be lots of insults for anyone who would be fool enough to buy such a thing.

And yes, in case there's any doubt post 18 was completely tongue-in-cheek. :D
Ok guys, sorry I missed the tongue in cheek aspect of iMatt's post probably because SINC was being serious with his.

My bad.

And yes iMatt I agree with your last post.

I was a Mac Mini doubter to start with and I currently have 2 and have owned 3.

I-rui... I can't think of a more efficient task mater than Jobs. What he said was the way things would be, cut and dry.

However, much of Apples success in modern times has been built upon the industrial design genius of John Ive. I really don't see how anyone can dispute that.

Until he gets "head hunted" by some other corporation (which I don't foresee happening) he will still drive the industrial design of Apple products.

So no I don't agree that:

until Apple actually knocks something out of the park post Steve Jobs I agree that the doubt that they can achieve the same level of excellence will be there and is justified.
As Apple still has Ive who was/is very much apart of a modern Apple's success.

Others have been catching up for a long time in the OS department which was Jobs genius (and in a few other areas as well ;) ).

But in that department there are many competitors now...

When it comes to Ive and his industrial design genius there are very few, they tend to more or less follow his lead and try and copy his genius.
 
#20 ·
i think that was iMatt's point...

-----

Regarding Apple being "doomed", that seems like an overly dramatic statement. In my opinion they are still better poised than the other major tech players.

However, until Apple actually knocks something out of the park post Steve Jobs I agree that the doubt that they can achieve the same level of excellence will be there and is justified.

Jobs was a visionary. Tim Cook seems like more of a efficient taskmaster. He'll keep Apple churning out solid products, but will the breakthroughs be there? Everyone will just have to wait and see....
 
#21 ·
Apple has been beleaguered and doomed since before the days when it really was beleaguered and teetering on the brink.

I guess a home run would silence some critics, but don't forget that like every other Apple home run, the next one will almost certainly be ridiculed by pundits.

Mac
iPod
iPhone
MacBook Air
iPad

... all huge hits (and pretty much the entire list of Apple game-changers in the last 30 years, except arguably Newton), most of them ridiculed to varying degrees at launch. I guess the iPhone stands as the exception. You can add the Mac mini as another success that was initially ridiculed, but I wouldn't include it in a list of game-changers.

Another thing they all have in common: only a small part of Apple's success was built on the 1.0 version of any of them. Mostly it was built on constant improvement and iteration.

So, here's my fearless prediction for Apple's next home run:

It will look like a great big flop to most critics. And it will indeed be expensive and underpowered at first. But it will be good enough to get critical mass and justify a second version. By version 2 or 3 it will be a big success. And then the usual suspects will either eat a little crow, or they will proclaim the "surprise" hit doomed by the arrival of cheaper competitors. And of course there will be lots of insults for anyone who would be fool enough to buy such a thing.

And yes, in case there's any doubt post 18 was completely tongue-in-cheek. :D
 
#23 ·
Apple was never about one person, as much as we'd like to believe it was. There were always many designers, programmers, and other visionaries in the company. Jobs' strength was in his salesmanship and his intuition about what he could convince the masses they needed. He had the confidence, and no one else in the company so far has stepped up with that kind of swagger yet. Scott Forstall might have had it, but he got the boot by the current admin, who really appear to want to play it safe by creating small changes to existing product lines. Apple was a lot more inventive when it didn't have as much to lose. To become revolutionary again, they need to break with the past more and actually create something different, not just marginal improvements. Even if that means breaking away from Steve Job's vision. Tim Cook is not the kind of guy to lead that revolution, though he has been an acceptable interim replacement. Neither is Jony Ive, for that matter. They need someone who can inspire.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#25 ·
I hear what you are saying fjnmusic and agree in part but I think there is more to it than just that.

"Think different" used to be Apple's mantra because they were the underdog, the little guy, but now they are "the man" they have become what they railed against in their 1984 commercial at the Super Bowl introducing the Mac.

It is hard to innovate when you are #1 and don't have to fight for top spot.

I think in large measure for Apple to innovate, some other company or companies have to innovate as well and make them have to compete again... make them work for it.
 
#26 ·
I think they have to avoid the play it safe mentality, which is pretty much where they've been stuck since Steve passed. Not every innovation was always great—think of that cube design—but at least they gave it a shot. Some failed concepts lead to even better ideas. But I certainly won't give any marks to the competition for innovation either. You can only milk variations of the iPhone and iPad for so long. It's time for something no one has thought of yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#27 ·
Apple has made many revolutionary products but I'm having trouble thinking of any that were something nobody had ever thought of before. Every single one I can think of was a refinement and rethinking of something that was already out there (and that's not a criticism), and in every case they've thrived by making incremental improvements over the years (neither is that). Do they need to do it again? Sure. But these Apple-led revolutions have rarely come in bunches, so I don't think two years or so into the post-Jobs era is the right time to start worrying that Apple has lost its mojo.
 
#28 · (Edited)
Precisely. Before Apple's entrance, there were portable music players, there were smartphones and there were tablet computers. In each case, Apple put together a product that blew away the existing duds; so much so that we largely forget that Apple was NOT first in each of these categories. Apple's strength is their execution: crafting a compelling entrant to the product category. Their innovation is making technology simple to use and with appealing style.

Apple's new products are usually dismissed on introduction:

iPod - "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
Apple releases iPod - Slashdot

iPhone - Balmer laughs
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U[/ame]


iPad - 'just a bigger iPod Touch'
Apple iPad met with derision and laughter by web users | Mail Online

Give Apple some time. And don't believe the initial reactions.

Craig
 
#29 ·
Apple is generating billions of dollars in profits every quarter, and yet the press is rolling around on the carpet like some spoiled brat shouting, "Give me more! I want something new!" They sit around in an intellectual circle jerk repeating each others malformed opinions until they become accepted fact.

The iPhone 5C is a complete failure because (a) it is not cheap enough, and (b) because people in China are buying the more expensive 5S. Yeah, that adds up!

Meanwhile, Google just pissed away $7-9 billion in under two years on Motorola, in a failed attempt at becoming a hardware manufacturer. The chattering class in the tech press congratulated them on a wise tax dodge and patent acquisition, and the share price went up. WTF?? These are the same guys who said the Zune would kill the iPod.

Google glass has sold simply dozens of units. The Samsung Galaxy Gear watch has sold in similar numbers. Most people with normal size hands hate phablets, and the few users look like idiots talking into an iPad mini sized cellphone that doesn't fit in any pocket.

Windows 8 is a failure in desktop, tablet, and mobile version.

Every Android phone is a money loser, other than the top end Samsung Galaxy. It was built with ideas stolen from Apple, costs as much as an iPhone, and runs a proprietary non-open Android.

Apple has to avoid taking advice from the likes of Carl Icahn and the infinite number of monkeys at keyboards (running Windows XP), being paid to make uninformed comments on the tech market. Wall St knows s**t about tech.
 
#30 ·
Digital music players had not been around for very long when the iPod came out. No one had done touchscreen phones before, so that was new. True the iPad was derived from the iPhone (other way around actually), but no one had tried that design with tablets before. These were three hugely innovative ideas that helped Steve set the bar very high before his passing. I think the AppleTV is a great innovation and I've been using one or more since they first came out. A great invention that they don't promote enough. It seems that with Steve's passing some of the spell has worn off. Apple needs leadership and it certainly hasn't found it yet. Tim Cook is a good business manager but he certainly is no visionary nor is he the promoter that Apple needs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#31 ·
Digital music players had not been around for very long when the iPod came out.
Baloney. There was a parade of devices available for sale starting nearly 4 years before the iPod. As I noted above, the iPod was considered lame because it didn't have features that were already in the best-in-class devices when it was introduced. (But it did have iTunes!)

Mobile digital media player - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one had done touchscreen phones before, so that was new. True the iPad was derived from the iPhone (other way around actually), but no one had tried that design with tablets before.
But multi-touch screens were not new. Various companies were working on the technology through the late 90's and early 2000's. The Microsoft Surface was actually released BEFORE iPhone.

Multi-touch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Microsoft PixelSense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An article from 2007 (just before iPhone's release) says:
But the iPhone will have its fair share of rivals.

Shipments of this advanced strain of touch screens are projected to jump from fewer than 200,000 units in 2006 to more than 21 million units by 2012, with the bulk of the components going to mobile phones, according to a forecast by iSuppli Corp., a market research company.

"This new user interface will be like a tsunami, hitting an entire spectrum of devices," predicted Francis Lee, the chief executive of Synaptics Inc., a maker of touch sensors.

Synaptics' latest technology is in a growing number of cell phones, including LG Electronics Co.'s LG Prada touch-screen phone that launched this year in Europe and South Korea and handles gesture-recognition similarly to the iPhone.
Touch-screen phones poised for growth - USATODAY.com

LG's phone was already on the market before iPhone, so again, Apple was not first. Far better, yes, but not first.

fjnmusic; said:
These were three hugely innovative ideas that helped Steve set the bar very high before his passing. I think the AppleTV is a great innovation and I've been using one or more since they first came out. A great invention that they don't promote enough. It seems that with Steve's passing some of the spell has worn off. Apple needs leadership and it certainly hasn't found it yet. Tim Cook is a good business manager but he certainly is no visionary nor is he the promoter that Apple needs.
Innovative is usually taken to mean first to market with an idea. As I've shown, Apple has never actually been first. With iPod, iPhone and iPad, they've taken existing tech and made a killer product that swept away the existing competition.

Apple is different without Jobs. It is still much too early to say it is worse. Keep in mind that Steve's reign included the Apple III, Lisa and the Cube. Next was not exactly a roaring success either.

Craig
 
#32 ·
The iPad is a classic example of Apple rethinking and reinventing something that had been around for a while. Not the iPod, but the Tablet PC. Microsoft and its OEM partners had been trying to get traction with those for years, and by 2010 most people reckoned they were really only of interest to a few specialized business markets. So what does Apple do? Takes a sleepy little niche and turns it into a major category. I think this is a form of innovation. No, it isn't invention from scratch, but taking a failed basic concept and transforming it into something people actually want is certainly a form of innovation IMHO.

The original Mac was also this type of innovation BTW. Xerox had actual shipping products based on its GUI, but they were business systems costing well into five figures. Apple took the concept and transformed it into something ordinary people without specialized technical knowledge could buy, use and enjoy.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top