A key to Apple's success: Products over Profit

[Brant Gaede]

I'm not going to keep repeating myself while you try to obscure the issue I raised, not the other guys, by puffing up the matter and introducing complexity. I'm not here to deal with blather. Anyone interested can go back and read what I first wrote about the matter and the two or three subsequent posts by me. Like many on the Internet you keep violating the first principle of parallel parking: if you don't do it right the first time start over.

--Brant

You're wrong. But why do you insist on beating your dead horse? It has nothing to do with the thread. Did you bruise your ego? Are you ashamed that you went over the top and are now trying to save face by pretending I did worse than you? You're the one that needs to stop Brant. Or if you won't, how about you do something new for a change and squarely deal with the matter rather than throwing off generalized, unsubstantiated, self-serving remarks.

You took exception to how I framed the insult Dennis earned. I went so far as to clarify for you that your interpretation is not what I meant, even though the clarification was not necessary. I'm not married to the particular form of insult, so I even offered Dennis to rewrite it if that's what he wanted. Evidently he didn't care as much as you do. Evidently he believes that I appear so foolish, that my opinions, which are clearly uninformed of actual experience with him, won't hurt his business. Seems a rather sane response given the premises. Yours on the other hand makes no sense.

I don't know what you want. You seem to want me to tell you were right when in fact, you went way over the line. Maybe my insult was in bad taste, but your response went far further than bad taste.

Shayne

Ah, ha. Your wrong has become mine. Quite a trick. But that's all it is, obscured by generous, multi-paragraph verbiage.

--Brant

[sjw]

For the record, my view is not contrary to Rand's fiction. See the Roark quote. His motive is to build, he has clients in order to build. Rearden wants his metal used as far and wide as possible -- not because it is his, but because it is good. Profit is the means to that end. If someone came up with a better metal, we can be sure that Rearden would congratulate him and drop production of Rearden metal if it had no relatively better aspects. He wouldn't appeal to the government to block the other party (Microsoft and Apple suing Google over Android), or to figure out some way to profit by misdirection of the public (e.g., Thomas Edison's electrocution of dogs to sway the public from Tesla's AC).

My view may be contrary to some of Rand's big business emphases in her non-fiction, and it is definitely contrary to later interpretations by many Objectivists. But it is very true to her fiction.

Shayne

[sjw]

Ah, ha. Your wrong has become mine. Quite a trick. But that's all it is, obscured by generous, multi-paragraph verbiage.

--Brant

Again with the fact-devoid generalized retort. The paragraph was long because I was referring to specifics. You on the other hand have been too cowardly to be direct and specific. It's as form of passive-aggressive behavior that you seem to repeatedly indulge in and it's annoying. (However, it's not as annoying as Dennis's total evasions.)

Shayne

- If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything.

[sjw]

In other news, "Apple granted patent on slide to unlock, even though it existed 2 years before they invented (sic) it":

http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-granted-patent-slide-unlock-even-though-it-existed-2-years-they-invented-it

It's a sick, sick world...

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

I think some of this confusion around Profit vs Product priority arises from folks who simply don't understand business.

In its most simplistic form, profit is best thought of as a reward for doing your entrepreneurial job well. Products and/or services that people need/like/can afford etc., together with a well run organization can lead to profits. Concentrating on product can lead one to profit sometimes (sometimes not as well), just like concentrating on profit too much can lead to problems (especially long term if product/service suffers). Clearly, the magic happens (big profits and great products) when either by design or accident, product and profit motivations work together.

But we see it all the time - people who want to make money so badly that they forget people need to like/want/need their product or service. It amazes me how often this is overlooked. On the other hand we have dreamers that have way cool ideas without the pragmatic skill to execute a successful business around them.

Bob

[equality72521]

My 2 bits

I am currently working to become very wealthy and estimate that it will take me another 6 to 7 years to raise the kind of capital I need. The PROPER correlation between profit and product is if you build a product which others see as worth having then your work will be rewarded by profit. According to the socialist model I am planing on raising the capital only to waste it. When I have enough capital I plan on ending government education by producing semi "free" education. Once I have enough starting capital I want to put 3/4 of my capital into investments and the other 1/4 into building a school to suit 3,000 students hire 400 "educators", and provide the education for the students at low to no cost. This will then begin a cycle as the investments grow (slowly at first) I will begin to expand the school into a second school, then a third, and so on. In the end financially I will have gained little if nothing, however I will have raised a huge profit. The profit I seek is not to forcefully close government education but rather to put it out of business, and further to spread my own personal philosophy which will better not just the lives of the students but my own life as well. This may never get off the ground or it may take my life time and more to complete. If in the end I produce a product which is high quality and it goes on to influence the world as I hope than the profit of living in a freer world will be my reward.

seeking money for the sake of money is evil, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding what money is. 'money is a means to an end which cannot replace the cause.'

Though Steve Jobs was a scattered man I believe that at his core he understood what it was all about, having just finished the new bio on him I believe this more now. He wanted to create products that would change the world, that would add to first and foremost his own life. Just look at what he did at apple, he simplified everything, and was obsessed with being the best. Though there are more homes with a PC (mine being one) is there any doubt that Steve Jobs made Mac's superior. Does Mac's fit the hacker ethos? no, but they were not meant to. But ask yourself, out of all the products out there that have been copied by Apple's competitors which products last longer. I had my first Ipod for 3 or 4 years and it was my fault it finally broke. My second Ipod I gifted to my mother and it lasted me 2 years and she still has it. Profit is a subjective term. To Steve Jobs it meant putting out not just a product but the best product of its kind. The reward for doing this was making money which was a bi-product not profit.