Seeking Alpha

Apple (AAPL -0.5%) roundup: 1) Samsung has reportedly raised its prices for making Apple's...

Apple (AAPL -0.5%) roundup: 1) Samsung has reportedly raised its prices for making Apple's A-series app processors by 20%. Apple is dependent on Samsung for A-series production for now, but is widely believed to be eying a deal with TSMC (TSM). 2) In a very questionable rumor, a Chinese paper claims Apple will begin trial production of an iPhone 5S in December. 3) A former senior engineer bemoans the loss of Scott Forstall, whom he calls "the best approximation of Steve Jobs that Apple had left."
Comments (66)
  • I love how Samsung plays hardball with Apple. Samsung is no ones bish!
    12 Nov 2012, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • More likely, they already know that Apple is pulling their fab services from them, resulting in billions in lost revenue. One can hardly blame Samsung for trying to milk this business for as much as possible until it disappears completely.
    12 Nov 2012, 03:10 PM Reply Like
  • move to Korea
    12 Nov 2012, 04:01 PM Reply Like
  • Looks like Apple doesn't want Samsung as a supplier, and Samsung doesn't want Apple as a customer....mutual agreement at last!
    12 Nov 2012, 03:01 PM Reply Like
  • Apple's made it pretty clear they aren't going to keep feeding the enemy though. Samsung sees the writing on the wall so they are taking profits while they can.

     

    Apple was over 10% of Samsung's revenues at one point (might still be), they would love Apple as a client for the long term. Samsung isn't willing to license Apple's IP and aren't willing to give up selling direct to consumers either. Until they do one or the other, Apple is going to keep sending business elsewhere.
    12 Nov 2012, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • Doesn't it feel a bit like Apple is burning it's bridges though?
    I mean, no youtube, no flash, replace google maps (yes, I know they wanted turn-by-turn - they should have paid for it.) No more Samsung chips, and what about Google search and Bing search? Apple going to chuck those as well?

     

    The big guys compete sure, but they find ways to do s in a cooperative way. It just seems as though Apple has more trouble than most "getting along with the other kids on the block."

     

    PS. "A former senior engineer bemoans the loss of Scott Forstall, whom he calls "the best approximation of Steve Jobs that Apple had left." yeah, as I was saying, ouch.
    12 Nov 2012, 03:45 PM Reply Like
  • "Apple apparently balked at the terms of the deal at first, but eventually accepted the 20 percent price hike, as it could not find any other company to build its mobile processor."

     

    It will be interesting to see what these numbers turn out to be ... I wonder how long until Samsung makes back that billion?!
    12 Nov 2012, 03:52 PM Reply Like
  • Good comment Luke. It may be that whenyou get too big in the tec sector these type of conflicts are inevitable.

     

    I just went on a trip and got to use Apple maps extensively and am a fan of the turn by turn capability. I think it is an upgrade albeit a slight one. If they don't have to pay Google going forward then it makes a lot of sense.

     

    I think search engines are pretty much interchangeable. I have used the major ones and don't see much of a qualitative difference. I think Google has a lot more to lose than Apple. If Yahoo or Bing works for search and Apple can get a better deal I say do it.

     

    I'm more worried about regulators leaning against them and they may have to learn to play nice and not be so hard on licensing deals. The HTC deal may be a sign of such a strategy.
    12 Nov 2012, 04:31 PM Reply Like
  • Some complained the "laws of big numbers" would prohibit the stock from reaching the trillion dollar market cap (market psychology). I believe it will be the "law of big companies", Once you become that big, you start having to fight large public wars to keep your "stuff" (patents), build your mote (barriers to entry) and protect your market share (block competition). At some point the public will turn on you, there are always two stories for the media to sell, the rise and the fall. The fall sells more copy.

     

    The media was talking about their great products and market dominance just a few months ago. Now every story is about their leadership or their competition, Analysts have hardly digested the iPhone 5 and iPad mini potential numbers into their models yet and we now are discussing the iPhone 5S and the iPad mini "Retina". Apple is becoming Sony. It will be difficult for them to not draw public ire being this large and dominant, the public will begin to loath and fear them as they haul more people into court and become more monopolistic with each alligator they feed in the mote with the corpses of their enemies who were once their partners.
    12 Nov 2012, 04:48 PM Reply Like
  • Is Apple burning bridges or is Google and Samsung?

     

    >> The big guys compete sure, but they find ways to do s in a cooperative way.

     

    Would you consider releasing a directly competing product which clearly violates multiple patents a cooperative way? Creating products that look nearly identical down to the packaging?

     

    >> It just seems as though Apple has more trouble than most "getting along with the other kids on the block." >>

     

    Google's cavalier attitude towards patents, privacy, intellectual property and pretty much everything has turned them into a litigation and regulation nightmare. They are in litigation or have recently settled litigation with nearly every government in the western world. They are being investigated under the anti-trust laws in Europe and the states. They are also in litigation with other industries, they've been in a multi-year legal battle with publishers and authors. Google just does all sorts of random stuff and deals with the legal consequences later.

     

    When Android was released, it stomped on patents from Apple and Microsoft. After some brief litigation most Android sellers are paying licensing fees to Microsoft; now HTC has recently agreed to pay licensing fees to Apple and Samsung has lost a billion dollar lawsuit. The way its looking now, most Android phone-makers are going to end up paying licensing fees to Apple similar to the way they pay Microsoft (and the way Apple pays licensing fees to Nokia as you well know... it's the way the cooperative way the industry works).

     

    By contrast, Apple settled licensing differences rather quickly with Microsoft and Nokia and have moved on. Vendors selling Windows Mobile 8 don't have any problems with Apple.

     

    Seems to me there is a kid not playing well with the other kids, and his name is Google.
    12 Nov 2012, 04:55 PM Reply Like
  • *moat* :-)
    12 Nov 2012, 05:11 PM Reply Like
  • Most of the litigation issues pitting Google against governments has to do with anti-trust regulations. This is based upon leveraging the search dominance of Google to promote their services. Google want more competition in search in order to avoid or resolve some of these issues.

     

    Patent laws in the United States do not match those in the European Union, nor in most of Asia. While Apple appears to be playing the patent game well in U.S. courts, they have experienced far less success in other countries. Their passive-aggressive attempt at compliance with a U.K. court order recently got Apple in more trouble with the courts, making them appear to be sore losers. Apple fanatics may see these cases as a slam-dunk win for Apple, but the surge in Samsung Galaxy S III sales in the U.S. around the time of their court battle appears to indicate that the public is not entirely supportive of Apple in the court room. Recent settlements with HTC and cross-licensing agreements point towards a different direction. Apple winning in U.S. courts against Samsung may prove to be a very hollow victory.
    12 Nov 2012, 05:54 PM Reply Like
  • Google is in lawsuits with governments for a variety of reasons. Anti-trust is one. Privacy violations due to war-driving Europe is another. ITC investigations due to using FRAND patents to try and block competition is another. Not a government, but they were in a multi year class action lawsuit with publishers and authors over copyright issues as well.

     

    I thought the surge in Galaxy SIII sales was due to the fact that it was a solid phone with a great display, LTE, and a nice looking design (arguably the least iPhone looking yet). The 'dip' in iPhone sales leading up to the release of the iPhone 5 wasn't any more pronounced than in the previous year http://bit.ly/PQdI5N

     

    I think you are vastly over-estimating the exposure the general public has to these issues. In the gadget fan/ investing world people follow the ins and outs of the litigation, most people might see the occasional headline about it but were completely oblivious to the details.

     

    What they see -> "Corporation a wins $1b lawsuit versus Corporation B, blah blah blah...."
    12 Nov 2012, 06:16 PM Reply Like
  • I may tend to run in more informed circles of individuals, though it appeared that there was a great deal of discussion about the Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit. I don't watch local news anywhere, so I am not aware of general coverage that the average person may have seen. I think someone would've needed to be very out of touch to have not at least heard of the lawsuit.

     

    I never mentioned lagging iPhone 4S sales. The data I saw simply indicated an uptick in Galaxy S III sales during lawsuit time, which was an increase in sales greater than at the initial launch. Perhaps some of the S III sales improvement is due to revues, advertising, or greater availability, though the timing of the sales increase is quite interesting.

     

    Samsung advertising might be making a bigger impact. Many people do not really need a smartphone, but there are indeed many people who want a smartphone. Perception is a great driver of purchases, and Samsung did start an ad campaign that poked fun at people in line at an Apple Store. Considering the poor advertising Apple rolled out during the Olympics, perhaps those Samsung ads just made a greater impression.
    12 Nov 2012, 06:33 PM Reply Like
  • Next time you go to Starbucks ask your barista how they feel about the lawsuit. Or your mechanic.
    13 Nov 2012, 12:34 AM Reply Like
  • Starbucks barista response was:
    "I don't know much about it"....hmmm
    13 Nov 2012, 12:43 AM Reply Like
  • In Ontario Canada wireless carriers discounted the Galaxy S3 after the iPhone 5 release and during the shortage. They dropped the price of the S3 to $0 under 3 year contract. Samsung sells the S3 for ~ $200 less than Apple and is a large factor in its recent success other than the fact that customers had been waiting for the release of the iPhone 5. In the December quarter Apple will put Samsung in they're place. Both volumes and profit will embarrass Samsung's cheap plastic S3
    13 Nov 2012, 01:35 AM Reply Like
  • I go to real caf├ęs and not Starbucks. The real baristas no longer think Apple is cool.
    13 Nov 2012, 02:12 AM Reply Like
  • Thanks, it's been a long frustrating day and I needed a laugh.

     

    "Real baristas no longer think Apple is cool"

     

    I'm gonna have to make that my sig.
    13 Nov 2012, 02:18 AM Reply Like
  • You're right Herr...I just dumped my fake cup of Starbucks coffee, since I'm obviously not in a real cafe....I'll now drive home in my pretend car, since I really have to catch the city bus.... :P
    13 Nov 2012, 02:23 AM Reply Like
  • Glad to see you guys still have a sense of humor. This thread has run quite far.

     

    The real news in all this is that the general media is now reporting negative stories about Apple. This would have been rare a year ago, or even eight months ago. Whether the media and this reporting has any impact on future sales of iDevices has yet to be seen.
    13 Nov 2012, 02:27 AM Reply Like
  • "Antennagate"?

     

    "The iPhone 4S is just an iPhone 4 with Siri"

     

    "It's just an oversized iPhone"

     

    "Still no LTE"?

     

    "No retina display on the iPad 2!!"

     

    These headlines don't ring a bell?

     

    Apple gets bad press all the time and has for years. Every year someone is saying "this" iPhone isn't revolutionary enough, or is fatally flawed. If it's not complaints about the iPhone, they are complaining that Apple hasn't released a world changing device in XX months.

     

    Bing around a bit* and you can find about 30 stories for why the iPhone is going to be a failure.

     

    *(I know, no-one actually uses Bing, I just figured I'd try it out as a phrase)
    13 Nov 2012, 02:48 AM Reply Like
  • Yeah Herr,

     

    The headlines seemed to hit the stock pretty good...but, demand still seems robust to me...if this stock doesn't start doing better, maybe I should start taking the bus.... :)

     

    It was a coincidence that I just happened to be at a Starbucks...but if it helps...it was only an N size of one....
    13 Nov 2012, 02:57 AM Reply Like
  • I'm not new to this Dennis, in case you didn't notice. I am also not an Apple bull, nor a fanboy, even after 18+ years of using Apple computers.

     

    It appears to me that the sentiment in the media has changed to more negative. I get the feeling you do not share my view on this, so we have a difference of opinion. There is no further value in either of us trying to convince the other of our viewpoints.
    13 Nov 2012, 03:12 AM Reply Like
  • Starbucks is coffee of (almost) last resort and only when I travel. I got a $50 Starbucks card recently after giving some referrals; which is basically a lifetime supply card. :D

     

    Shares of Apple ran up ahead of iPhone 5 with no reporting of changes in revenues. Then they slid downwards. Lately they have slid a bit further. As my very first article mentions, Apple often moves a greater magnitude than the overall market. We have many macro-economic headwinds in the near future. Be patient and quite likely the patient will be able to pick up shares of AAPL at an even lower level. Apple shares are not a safe haven, nor are they immune from a market sell-off, nor a market correction.
    13 Nov 2012, 03:15 AM Reply Like
  • FWIW... when I see comments such as "I may tend to run in more informed circles of individuals", "real baristas", and "I'm not new to this... even after 18+ years of", I can't escape thinking you are trying to establish some arbitrary authority. If you have 18 years of experience, or if you hang out with informed individuals, the quality of your posts will show it. It seems like half your posts are filled with comments trying to establish yourself as an 'educated expert'. It's filler text which makes you look silly, particularly when paired with blatantly biased comments like "real baristas no longer think Apple is cool".

     

    I'll leave you with this article to contemplate. It's a bit dated, but maybe it will give you some perspective on why comments about how 'cool' Apple is are irrelevant. http://ind.pn/UA8Dky
    13 Nov 2012, 06:42 AM Reply Like
  • I'm stating my opinion Dennis, just like the rest of it here. Take it or leave it. If you want to take your viewpoints further, then I suggest you write an article.
    13 Nov 2012, 04:09 PM Reply Like
  • First of all, these are only rumors: I didn't see and official Samsung or Apple statement; for what we know it could be just another journalist trying to make money on Apple giving resonance to simple "heard voices".
    You make a good point on the "burning bridges" thing though, but I see it just at the most obvious thing to do: mind that Apple is not trying to oust all its rivals from iOS, just trying to achieve the best platform for the user while at the same time not giving away presents to its most direct adversaries. You mentioned:
    - flash: this is a story old as time, but there's no doubt flash makes your device slow, it is a clunky plug-in and there's almost nothing you can do with flash you can't do with html5
    - YouTube, google maps: guys, google really ripped off many of Apple ideas. If it were you, wouldn't you trying to get back at the guy who stole your ideas as well?
    - Samsung: same thing, and this time the guy is even your biggest rival on the market, I don't see nothing strange in wanting to take some profits out of them and putting this money in other companies like TSM

     

    PS: comparing Forstall to Jobs seems totally foolish to me. What the hell has he done? Contributed to iOS when he was almost 40? And you wanna compare him to the guy that founded Apple in a garage when he was 21? C'mon...
    If you tell me that his mercurial-temper was good to Apple because was Jobs-like, it's just wrong: Jobs was Jobs, you can't act like Jobs if you don't have the facts and the authority to support you, it just makes you a loose canon
    14 Nov 2012, 06:02 AM Reply Like
  • Hi Juggler,

     

    "PS: comparing Forstall to Jobs seems totally foolish to me. What the hell has he done? "

     

    Scott Forstall is Apple's most prolific inventor of all time with a 166 patents. As a reference point, Scott Forstall has more than double the patents of both Federighi and Ive combined. Needless to say more patents that Jobs, Woz, Mansfield and any other Apple icon you can imagine.

     

    My interest is not in comparing Scott Forstall to Steve Jobs, but rather to highlight Forstall's genius and demonstrate Apple's loss.

     

    The Apple defenders will ignore the above fact and instead dismiss his value to the company because they heard he was 'an ass'.
    14 Nov 2012, 12:57 PM Reply Like
  • goog is paying big bux out lobbying to stay out of anti trust violations at the presento momento..
    14 Nov 2012, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • Luke, I didn't know about all these patents, thanks for correcting me.

     

    Though, I made a quick research and first of all it says that these are "pending patents", they have not been granted already, and some of them may never be. Secondly, I'd say of course he has more patents than Ive, because the latter covers only design, and we've also seen design patents (sadly) aren't even taken in consideration too much (iPad design at Samsung trial).

     

    But before making a comparison in a mere "who has the biggest number", I'd point out that Forstall had been the head of iOS since its inception, therefore (also taken its temper) every single patent his division produced probably has been filed under his name: point is, I don't, and I don't think neither you do (at least you tell me you have really meaningful insights in the company), have enough data and facts to know for sure if really was a great innovator or if he simply was a good head for iOS, but not the best of all.

     

    I'd like to only highlight two facts: Siri and Maps were his responsibilities, and we all know how they end up (at least until now), the former a little better than the latter. These are not Apple-like products, these are not products that would have been like this if Jobs had been all-in in them (as Forstall was).
    Second: the fact he was an ass. Sadly there's Jobs no more, otherwise we probably wouldn't be talking about this at all. Tim Cook is a different person, and he was not probably capable of bearing a loose canon who couldn't stay in the same room with other executives anymore. If he thought that Forstall wasn't irreplaceable, I'm with him.

     

    Mind me, Federighi probably is not the best on the planet to lead iOS, but since he's also head of OSX, he's probably the best approximation you could find. I personally see iOS only getting better and on a much faster pace from now on
    15 Nov 2012, 05:17 AM Reply Like
  • ah i love it when former employees who hasn't worked at AAPL for the better part of a decade can comment on it's inner workings. If Scott FOrstall was so much like Steve, why didn't Steve groom him to be the CEO?
    12 Nov 2012, 03:42 PM Reply Like
  • I hate when people link to articles which discuss blogs... why not just link the original blog entry rather than someone's (usually inaccurate) 'take' on it? Is it that hard to follow a link? The original blog is here: http://bit.ly/RPAydv

     

    The blog is not 'bemoaning' the loss of Forstall, the bulk of his article is about the value of disruption in Apple's creative process.

     

    "I believe Apple benefits greatly from having a large, stable operational team that consistently and steadily gets shit done, but I also believe that in order to maintain its edge Apple needs a group of disruptors."

     

    It raises the question, is Apple's creative process going to suffer for having one less disrupter there to stir the pot? It's a valid question.
    12 Nov 2012, 03:54 PM Reply Like
  • it also begs to question what the definition of disruptor is. Is disruption healthy when it has forced previous executives to leave the company? Or are we thinking about just debating what's best for the company? When Steve was running the company, there are disruptions but whatever Steve says goes, so there was an arbiter, a decider. Now that Steve's gone, I'd imagine Tim Cook doesn't want to play that role, he wants consensus and I tend to agree. Tim Cook's realizing he's not Jobs so he can't be that ultimate decider and if he let Scott stay, than nothing can get done.

     

    If Scott was CEO this would work better
    12 Nov 2012, 04:01 PM Reply Like
  • there is a reason people like this aren't with the company
    12 Nov 2012, 04:02 PM Reply Like
  • i'm sure people are challenged with their goals and objectives every day of their lives
    12 Nov 2012, 04:04 PM Reply Like
  • Tim Cook just "played" the role of "decider". He fired Forstall whom no one liked and WAS a disrupter.
    12 Nov 2012, 04:05 PM Reply Like
  • Right, what Apple needs now is a bunch of 'yes men'
    I mean, who needs all the headaches that come with innovative genius?
    12 Nov 2012, 04:10 PM Reply Like
  • Protecting "design" patents also means becoming beholden to those patents. There appears to be more interest in protecting old innovation, than there is in developing new innovation.
    12 Nov 2012, 04:15 PM Reply Like
  • Uhhhh....haven't heard of "yes men" in Apple top mgt...who specifically?

     

    Exactly criticalbear, Forstall was a disrupter, disrupting Apple right out of business....time to sell the stock if Ive and Mansfield leaves so that they can hold on to Forstall....what a dopey move that would've been....

     

    I read that linked article too...haha....one of the main reasons Forstall is like SJ was because he's a jerk....talk about not understanding Jobs' obvious strengths. I think that it is the "thinking" that was disrupted in that article. Great powers of reasoning.....like saying that the reason manure makes good fertilizer is because of the bad smell.....
    12 Nov 2012, 04:19 PM Reply Like
  • It may just be that Cook is letting Ives be the 'decider' and that Forstall wasn't willing to accept that sort of change. I don't think we'll really know until 3-4 years down the road we see if Apple is starting to turn into the next Sony.

     

    One thing I think is pretty clear, most of the major problems with iPhone 5 revolved around iOS6 and maps and both those issues fell squarely into Forstall's roundhouse.

     

    I suspect Forstall had short-timer's syndrome and fell down on the job here. There was a bit of fore-shadowing when he sold the vast majority of his Apple shares way back in May. http://cnet.co/SQWFOi
    12 Nov 2012, 04:23 PM Reply Like
  • Mitt Romney had a bunch of yes men consultants. Didn't work out to well in the end.
    12 Nov 2012, 06:13 PM Reply Like
  • Ronin, "Uhhhh....haven't heard of "yes men" in Apple top mgt...who specifically?"

     

    My "yes men" comment is directed at those that keep harping on how difficult Forstall was to get along with, which lead to my comment: "who needs all the headaches that come with innovative genius?" (just hire a bunch of 'yes men'.)

     

    PS. you see, this whole either/or position is going to come to bite Apple defenders if say Ive and Mansfield have a falling out. Will you be willing to pick ONE? Or or tell them to suck-it-the-hell-up and get back to work (like Steve Jobs was probably doing.)
    This is where Steve Jobs' rude and overbearing personality worked really well .. to keep the cats all moving in the same direction.
    12 Nov 2012, 06:36 PM Reply Like
  • ronin, I see you made a joke out of the whole "he's a jerk" passage.

     

    Lets post the whole two sentences though: "Why was Forstall seen as the next Steve Jobs? Because he was a jerk, but he was always successful, and no one could figure out how he did it."

     

    haha?
    12 Nov 2012, 06:51 PM Reply Like
  • I am one of those "harping" on how difficult Forstall was to get along with....I suspect it was indeed a case where either Forstall goes, or we would lose other very valuable players. Is this mere speculation? I say no, because Mansfield already left and had to be coaxed back....

     

    And for the record...I am not an Apple defender....I try to represent things according to how I see them. Did you fail to notice that not everyone liked my comments that SJ was weird and had character issues? That is not favorable, it isn't defending Apple nor its legacy. Remember me acknowledging "stealing" from PARC? Recall also that I had serious concerns over Forstall, prior to the news of his departure....I was PMing on that issue, but at the time, that was not an interpretation that was favorable to Apple....

     

    Problematic personalities are sometimes tolerated because of the iconic status they have achieved. How about John Lennon, think he got away with some things? Steve Jobs, even way back in the Sculley days, was tolerated a lot....of course, he was one of the founders, the largest shareholder, and one of the guys who were part of pioneering PCs with the Apple II....

     

    You think Forstall falls into this category? I say, not by a long shot. But, even with SJ, there came a point where even he was asked to go....even by his former supporters like Markula who deserves a lot of credit for Apple's success.... But, IMO, SJ was intractable, and brought that upon himself, and it was unfortunate....even tragic.....
    12 Nov 2012, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • Wouldn't it be ironic, flash back to 1996, if Forstall is asked to come back to the company in say 2020, after successfully starting a new company, FlipX, which Apple buys in 2020 to fix their flailing iOS14, leading to a major turnaround.

     

    Of course, Forstall is really no Jobs and has never really been in the driver seat to have a "position" to come back to, but it would be ironic!
    12 Nov 2012, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • Let's watch and see what he does, he seems to like to try to emulate Jobs...there sure is a lot of accomplishment ahead for him to catch up with that image.... even if that fantasy were to come true, the story doesn't end well...
    12 Nov 2012, 07:31 PM Reply Like
  • Forstall is almost certain to land a spot somewhere. We'll see if he brings the amazing to the table.

     

    I suspect Forstall is no Steve Jobs though... I can't imagine Jobs would have tolerated 15 years as anyone's chief lieutenant.
    12 Nov 2012, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • @Luke
    As you can tell, I don't think that Forstall falls into the iconic category, where he gets a pass for bad behavior. He is held up to the standard that the rest of us mere mortals are held up to, and is responsible and accountable for himself....just like the rest of us.

     

    Yes, I make fun of that as like manure, because the "smell" was not why SJ became an icon in technology and business.... there was sooooo much that he had, that Forstall is NOT known for... He can imitate the bad smell, but not the tremendous growth and success that Jobs accomplished.... much easier to skip showers and be a jerk, than to be a game-changer multiple times in one's career....

     

    So now, what do you have to say about the sudden departure of Stephen Sinosfsky from Microsoft? Wasn't he heading up the current Win8 development so crucial to the company? Is Microsoft also "doomed", or do you assume that they will go on and be fine?
    12 Nov 2012, 09:42 PM Reply Like
  • Sinofsky left oh my....brb gotta ck that out ...back yep... ceo in waiting ...Balmer got rid of his replacement..... http://cnet.co/RU3q2B
    12 Nov 2012, 09:49 PM Reply Like
  • I do not know Forstall, but I do know that he is an inventor on an amazing 166 Apple patents. That is what I know about Scott Forstall.
    In my mind and in my business, that is a big deal.

     

    WRT Stephen Sinosfsky, I'll give you a full and unbiased assessment over the next day or so when I've had time to digest it, but as in the case of Forstall, it's a big deal and in no way some sort of write-off.

     

    I think you know me ronin, while we may not agree, I will call them honestly and as I see them. If Sinosfsky's departure is a black mark on Microsoft, I will be the first to admit it and won't make excuses for it/him/them. (I'll get back to you tomorrow, but it does not make me happy.)

     

    PS. I think we have dived too deeply into the question: is Scott Forstall a Steve Jobs instead of the bigger questions: "Was Scott Forstall an important and valued contributor to Apple."
    12 Nov 2012, 11:25 PM Reply Like
  • "Was Scott Forstall an important and valued contributor to Apple."

     

    Oh, undoubtedly.... where we differ, is that I felt that the harm was overwhelming the contribution....

     

    Remember, though, that much of what iOS has been, is worked on by a whole team of individuals.... Forstall was not a one-man software machine, pumping out all things Apple on his own... Now, Craig Federighi and Eddy Cue will be filling software management roles...these guys are not new, Federighi, like Forstall, was at NeXt with Jobs and has been in charge of the Mac OS, and Cue was involved with Apple's music business and the App store....

     

    Apple's software is in good, experienced hands....and they seem to be problem solvers, rather than problem creators....
    12 Nov 2012, 11:46 PM Reply Like
  • "I felt that the harm was overwhelming the contribution...."

     

    With all due respect, what exactly do you know?
    I know I'm bothered "Steven Sinofsky" leaving Microsoft, but I really need to refine my knowledge to make any sort of intelligent statement on the matter.

     

    What is it that you know about Forstall that made the cost/benefit of keeping him a fail? How do you value his contribution on 166 Apple patents vs some guy that said he was an ass?

     

    I do not claim to know this either, but I will reiterate his contributions to the company seem more than significant.
    12 Nov 2012, 11:58 PM Reply Like
  • Hey Luke,
    You are the guy pushing so hard about the Forstall situation...What do you know?

     

    I have been telling you what I know...it is just that you are apparently not paying attention....it isn't some guy on a blog saying Forstall was an a**, it was some of the most key people having intense problems with him: Cook, Ive, and Mansfield....

     

    I gave you my opinion... naturally, you think you know better than I about Apple, right?

     

    Let me remind you Luke... you are jumping in on my conversation here... as far as I'm concerned we should be done with this conversation....we obviously disagree, but your opinion does not trump mine.... so don't go saying stuff like, what do I know...that kind of talk will turn things uncivil again...
    13 Nov 2012, 12:11 AM Reply Like
  • You are arguing past each other. Obviously Forstall was important. Equally obvious is the fact that he pissed off a lot of other important people. That's about all we know.

     

    We're really not going to see the impact of these events for months or years down the road.

     

    (and strangely the same can be said for Sinofsky)
    13 Nov 2012, 12:13 AM Reply Like
  • kind of coincidental non coincdiental that Forstall and Sinofsky from two big players going simultaneously ....what are the odds?....
    13 Nov 2012, 12:17 AM Reply Like
  • Yes Dennis,
    I conceded that as a fact:

     

    "Was Scott Forstall an important and valued contributor to Apple."
    Oh, undoubtedly.... where we differ, is that I felt that the harm was overwhelming the contribution...

     

    But, what the hell do I know?
    13 Nov 2012, 12:23 AM Reply Like
  • >> But, what the hell do I know?

     

    The thing is, you can both be right. He may have been an overwhelming contributor who became impossible to work with without Jobs to smack him down.

     

    While we're bandying about pet theories, I see Forstall as the heir apparent who turned bitter when he got passed up. He was full of fire until he realized he was was never going to be king. Its a pet theory but I don't think Cook ever had a chance with him.
    13 Nov 2012, 12:54 AM Reply Like
  • That is my thoughts on it as well....

     

    Both things are could be right, which is why I said what I said... Forstall contributed a lot....he was also difficult.... too much so, that leaders ceased to be working together....

     

    About Cook never having a chance....that is parallel to what I was thinking too... as well as Forstall likely feeling upset about being passed up, the one person who he would listen to is now gone..... but things have to go on, and Cook needs to put together a team that can exist under the current circumstances....
    13 Nov 2012, 01:15 AM Reply Like
  • Forstall failed and was held accountable. The fact that he was an a-hole made his termination that much easier of a decision. Cook made a good decision. I am a business owner and everyone is replaceable except me.
    13 Nov 2012, 01:42 AM Reply Like
  • Rumors, rumors, and more rumors (ie the IP5s trials)... However, I suspect there is some truth to this price hike. However, it is merely are short term blip on the quarterly earnings report. This increase is probably the reason for the lowered margin guidance (40% down to 36%), but will be resolved with a transition away from Samsung fabs. I can't seem to find the component cost breakdowns of the IP5, Ipad4, and Mini. Anybody know off the top of their head what the CPU costs are (and any other Sammy components)?
    12 Nov 2012, 05:00 PM Reply Like
  • It is tough to find precise component costs, but the range is somewhat known.

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    High volume orders may be towards the lower range of these price levels. Beyond the case, software, and packaging, many smartphone vendors manufacture few of the components of smartphones.
    12 Nov 2012, 05:58 PM Reply Like
  • I really doubt that this will impact Apple margins; since most corporations would purchase items at a contracted fixed price and quantity based upon projected sales forecasts. I would also add, office talk and gossip up is cheap and sometimes modiatived by hurt feelings.
    12 Nov 2012, 05:21 PM Reply Like
  • Smart - price yourself out of selling a component to your biggest potential customer because you have ego problems. Just makes AAPL ditch them quicker. Maybe that is why AAPL is the richest company in the world and Samsung is loosing money on their smartphones?
    People forget that Samsung took $47B (lots of great TV's) to make $6B and AAPL took $36B to make $8 Billion? To have the same % profit, Samsung would have had to report $10.5 B in profits....hmmm

     

    Yes I am a tireless AAPL bull
    13 Nov 2012, 12:20 AM Reply Like
  • Any comment by a former employee should be taken w/ about 10 pounds of salt. The operative word is 'former'. He was probably booted out of Apple and once had lunch w/ Forstall. Senior Engineer is basically an engineer w/ a few year's experience. No one in the history of the universe has ever left an organization and not had a bad thing to say about some aspect of their former employer.
    13 Nov 2012, 12:26 AM Reply Like
  • Pretty soon we'll be getting quotes from the guy who stocks the vending machines at Cupertino headquarters.
    13 Nov 2012, 12:26 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)