"Back to the Brick"
"The company almost collapsed … having drifted for years, diversifying into too many areas, producing too many products…"
A newly appointed leader comes in an “decreed that the company must go ‘back to the brick’: focusing on its core products, forgetting about brand-stretching…”
He also imposed “stricter management controls, for example reducing the number of different” products…
"But at the same time it must resist the sort of undisciplined innovation that almost ruined it."
"Can the company continue its winning streak? Its growth is slowing: its net profits grew by 9% in 2013 compared with 35% in 2012, and its revenues rose by 10% compared with 23% in 2012"
"When the company is getting bigger and the market isn’t growing, it’s a pure mathematical consequence that growth rates will have to reach a more sustainable level."
"…Relatively late in making its China play—jumping in when some other western firms are jumping out with nothing but regrets to show for it."
If I made you guess which company the quotes above are about, I assume you’d pick Apple. And understandably so. But you’d be wrong.
It’s actually Lego.
Since Apple introduced theiPad last year, publishers have poured millions of dollars into apps in the hopes that the device could revolutionize the industry by changing the way magazines are read and sold to consumers.
But at the same time, the industry is discovering a lesson already learned by music labels and Hollywood studios: Apple may offer new opportunities with its devices, but it exacts a heavy toll.
Man that’s an old article from 2011. I know some things have changed, as there’s now subscriptions via newsstand even if some publications don’t use it to avoid Apple’s 30% cut of all in-app purchases.
There’s also new smaller magazines like, The Magazine and other online publications have serialized their content via newsstand as well, like the Awl. The older publishing houses might still be stuck using bulky Adobe software, but the tone of this article in 2013 is misleading.
So who else is reading the liveblogs of the Apple event today?
On Watch Rumors
And here, in a single image, is why we have no idea what Apple may or may not be working on, why it is useless to speculate about it, and why almost anything we can think it might be act or look like is likely wrong.
If you’re not paying attention (and I’m paying maybe too much) there’s rumors about an Apple “smart watch” or iWatch. But this slide does show why usually whatever we think of ahead of time will be wrong…
The Apple Rocketship
Random thoughts on capital expenditures and space travel.
Horace Dediu, on Apple’s PP&E:
This means that Apple intended to spend $8 billion, actually spent $8.3 billion and realized a net asset gain (after depreciation) of $7.7 billion.
Coincidentally, according to Claude Lafleur of The Space Review:
The US has spent $486 billion over 57 years on human spaceflight, an average of $8.3 billion a year.
In real dollars, the Apollo program cost about $109 billion over 15 years. A billion dollars less per year.
Is Apple Refurbished a Good Deal?
Speaks for itself.
Priceonomics intern Daniel investigates. In a word, yes! If the product you want to buy is available refurbished, you should buy it. If not, you can save on average 17% buying it used, but that is a lot more work.
Read the full report: The Apple (Used) Premium?
To buy used, or not to buy used — that is the question. The answer, with Apple products, is yes.