Apple CEO On Losing 'World's Most Valuable Firm' Title

[zakislam]

Exxon Mobil recently surpassed the iPhone maker's market cap.

Apple CEO On Losing 'World's Most Valuable Firm' Title : Read more

 

[Fokissed]

Oil is bigger than cell phones, who knew?

 

[Anomalyx]

"Value" is such a funny metric...

 

[uhh3000]

"Instead, [Apple's] priority is satisfying consumers with worthy new products."

...when was this supposed to start?

 

[A Bad Day]

He added that Apple is generally misunderstood and the iPhone maker will always have critics despite how successful it is.

Silly Cook, investors care about the total revenue, and your products indirectly didn't meet their expectations!

 

[Shin-san]

[citation][nom]Cook[/nom]Cook also apparently stressed that the share price is not Apple's focus. Instead, the priority is satisfying consumers with worthy new products. [/citation]This is a good answer, even though a bit on the clever words. Not too crazy about the pumping oil one though

 

[halcyon]

If they would just give iOS a radical makeover that would allow for a bit more customization.

 

[xpeh]

If their stocks are falling, then that doesn't sound like they're satisfying customers.

 

[applegetsmelaid]

Exxon is who keeps the manufacturing plants running and the product shipping across the seas. Apple should show more respect.

 

[burmese_dude]

His exact quotes were that.... "share price is not Apple's focus. It's my wealth, B!tches. And suing the sh!t out of competition. Yeah that's really important, too."

 

[abbadon_34]

While good PR for someone with Al Gore on their board, he should be more professional instead of acting a spoiled child envious of someone because of their car/looks/money/clothes/girlfriend/high score

 

[halogen]

yeh, cook also doesnt wanto sell more than android,we dont want to make our iphone last...

 

[fuzzion]

The market is now reaching high levels of saturation with smartphones. Unless Apple does something soon and radical now, watch them fall to the mid $150 level.

 

[alidan]

More company and its whole lot worse is really built up in the intangible properties rather than physical properties hard to see why they fell out of the number one spot ever.

 

[john15v16]

@Tim Cook: You really need to focus on actually being innovative rather than addressing an apples-to-oranges comparison of you company...stay focused man, Google is giving you a pretty darn good beating...

 

[bluekoala]

There's 3 reason why Apple has been so successful.

1. Apple made an iPod with a snazzy design before anyone else which made a lot of hipster pirates happy.
2. They made a touchscreen smart phone that's an iPod before anyone else so all the hipster pirates bought it.
3. They removed the phone functionality, made it bigger, charged more for it and called it an iPad.

So the secret of success is: Appeal to the hipster pirates by making hardware to enable them to enjoy all their pirated media and charge a whole lot for it.

I believe Apple's huge success stems solely off limewire, kazaa, napster, imesh and the likes. If RIAA were to stay relevant, they should have patented the iPhone.

 

[CrArC]

[citation][nom]uhh3000[/nom]"Instead, [Apple's] priority is satisfying consumers with worthy new products."...when was this supposed to start?[/citation]I was quite happy with my iPhone 3G back in the day, just as I am quite happy with my rMBP today. I would say they've been attempting it since at least the early 00's.

You might not like the products, or they might not be right for you (I can't get on with modern iOS devices, it's Android all the way), but don't deny they are generally satisfying to use.

 

[dalethepcman]

Apple successfully converted the touchscreen device into something the general population could use.

Its similar to what the VCR did for reel to reel video. How many people used 8mm vs how many used VHS? Sure the 8mm fans could hold onto the "we did it first," and the beta max fans could say "we did it better," but someone came along and made it easy.

At the end of the day easy wins the masses, not first or best.

 

[halcyon]

^ Nice analogy.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]Article[/nom]Instead, the priority is satisfying consumers with worthy new products.[/citation]
That's good news then! That's the first time they've focused on consumers in the last three decades

 

[maddad]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]That's good news then! That's the first time they've focused on consumers in the last three decades[/citation]

Really? Where was the smartphone market before the Iphone? Where was the portable music player market before the Ipod? Where was the tablet market before the Ipad? And since when does a company make a 13 billion dollar profit and it is considered a bad year?

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]maddad[/nom]Really? Where was the smartphone market before the Iphone? Where was the portable music player market before the Ipod? Where was the tablet market before the Ipad? And since when does a company make a 13 billion dollar profit and it is considered a bad year?[/citation]

smartphone: doing great with nokia's N series and rim phones that were secure. Also back then only people who needed smartphones had them, so the EU didn't feel compelled to raise the mercury limit in a device to the FIVEFOLD just so a certain company could keep producing income.
music player: did fine. Back then you could move files from your desktop to your music player without needing a windows or mac os with itunes. Also the cheap chinese knockoffs were generally more reliable and less prone to outdating due to a new ipod dock that just didn't fit the existing models. (none apple products use standards to keep cost low for the consumer and designphase).
tablet: True, apple made a mark there. They were cheaper than the quality products from hp and others and marketed it well. But on a whole it's still an inferior product, just with exceptional marketing. And overall I think it hurt the industry more than it helped it due to it simply displacing products from other market sectors instead of catering to a new consumer group.
making money: has never been in the interest of the consumer. In fact it's pretty much the opposite. Their idea is to market a new product that does exactly the same as the last but not make it compatible. Their marketing department is great (unlike their quality control or their technical design), and thus existing iSheep feel compelled to upgrade their ipad 1 to ipad 2 to ipad 3 just to realize there's really no benefit in doing so.

So when they suddenly make a claim that they're now focusing on satisfying the consumer instead of misleading and deceiving the consumer I read that as exceptionally positive, although at heart I'm not naive enough to expect them to follow thru on that claim. After all it's probably just a marketing stunt rebranded as steve jobs 2.0

After all my years of experience, I can mention 3 good Apple ideas (and a huge list of not so good):
1: the magnetic power connector, which sadly as a side effect sets buildings on fire, but hey you can't have everything.
2: the postscript protocol, which I later learned they merely bought and didn't invent.
3: bringing the white color back into fashion. Granted both samsung and toshiba have better looking white products, predating apple white, but still apple's marketing made white appear as a cool color to iSheep and the thinking minority alike.

Edit: I'm obviously a bit subjective here as I don't like the Apple business concept. Kinda the opposite of Tom's own Tuan Nguyen, they hired 2008, who adores apple.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]smartphone: doing great with nokia's N series and rim phones that were secure. Also back then only people who needed smartphones had them, so the EU didn't feel compelled to raise the mercury limit in a device to the FIVEFOLD just so a certain company could keep producing income. music player: did fine. Back then you could move files from your desktop to your music player without needing a windows or mac os with itunes. Also the cheap chinese knockoffs were generally more reliable and less prone to outdating due to a new ipod dock that just didn't fit the existing models. (none apple products use standards to keep cost low for the consumer and designphase).tablet: True, apple made a mark there. They were cheaper than the quality products from hp and others and marketed it well. But on a whole it's still an inferior product, just with exceptional marketing. And overall I think it hurt the industry more than it helped it due to it simply displacing products from other market sectors instead of catering to a new consumer group.making money: has never been in the interest of the consumer. In fact it's pretty much the opposite. Their idea is to market a new product that does exactly the same as the last but not make it compatible. Their marketing department is great (unlike their quality control or their technical design), and thus existing iSheep feel compelled to upgrade their ipad 1 to ipad 2 to ipad 3 just to realize there's really no benefit in doing so. So when they suddenly make a claim that they're now focusing on satisfying the consumer instead of misleading and deceiving the consumer I read that as exceptionally positive, although at heart I'm not naive enough to expect them to follow thru on that claim. After all it's probably just a marketing stunt rebranded as steve jobs 2.0After all my years of experience, I can mention 3 good Apple ideas (and a huge list of not so good):1: the magnetic power connector, which sadly as a side effect sets buildings on fire, but hey you can't have everything.2: the postscript protocol, which I later learned they merely bought and didn't invent.3: bringing the white color back into fashion. Granted both samsung and toshiba have better looking white products, predating apple white, but still apple's marketing made white appear as a cool color to iSheep and the thinking minority alike.Edit: I'm obviously a bit subjective here as I don't like the Apple business concept. Kinda the opposite of Tom's own Tuan Nguyen, they hired 2008, who adores apple.[/citation]

ipad 1 to 2 was a fairly large step, but the 2 to 3 doesn't feel as big a step as it should, i dont like tablets, but thought i should point that out, 1 to 2 was a fairly big leap if i remember right.

magnetic power adapter, i have a 20 year old deep fryer with one. apple didn't make it.

 

[ZakTheEvil]

[citation][nom]applegetsmelaid[/nom]Exxon is who keeps the manufacturing plants running and the product shipping across the seas. Apple should show more respect.[/citation]

Seriously? Respect for an oil company? F**k Exxon. BTW, coal and nuclear plants are running manufacturing plants, anyway.

 

[ZakTheEvil]

[citation][nom]maddad[/nom]Really? Where was the smartphone market before the Iphone? Where was the portable music player market before the Ipod? Where was the tablet market before the Ipad? And since when does a company make a 13 billion dollar profit and it is considered a bad year?[/citation]

Yeah, how conveniently people forget how the technology landscape looked before iOS devices.