Exactly, IBM is a company run by finance, not technical people. They survive despite, not because of what they do.
Would you mind sketching the case for Apple as an example?
There is a sense they've given up on everything but the iPhone. Arguably, Apple keeps producing Mac computers only because iPhone devs need to run XCode somewhere.
The iPhone was introduced in 2007. It was very innovative at the time, though now it has dozens of Android clones. Total sales of iPhones seems to have peaked -- increases in Apple's profits have come from raising prices and managing margins.
This last bit would be the heart of the case that Apple is now increasingly financial in nature and therefore parasitic. They don't seem to be rolling out much in the way of new products, and certainly nothing as "change the world" as the iPhone was in 2007.
I think it is well known that Apple does not have the "division per product group" structure that almost all other large companies have. But Apple has an unusually narrow range of products for such a large company.
Even projects that Apple seemed excited about 6 or 7 years ago, such as home entertainment, no longer seems to be priority for them. I can tell you from personal experience, their Apple TV has been absolutely stagnant for years, and many of the problems, which I assumed they would eventually fix, have not been fixed.
Their newer MacBooks are going to be ARM based, which, I think, is mostly so that they have more people to develop apps for their phones and iPads. The rest of their customers will be buying them simply for day-to-day stuff wrapped in a pretty package.
I'm trying to think of a major Android phone manufacturer that does the same as Apple, but am coming up blank. Samsung, Sony, Oppo, etc, are all companies that have a multitude of products.
Maybe the only other comparison would be Google, but they were primarily a software company that is now making Pixel devices.So, not quite the same thing.
I think it's oversimplifying the situation to say "Apple wants ARM just for mobile", though. While that's certainly a benefit of having a single architecture to support in their product ecosystem, there have been plenty of threads on HN about how Intel's rate of chip improvements have been stagnating. The much-touted scaleup of their 10-nm chips ended up being delayed by 2 years, and their 7-nm chips aren't arriving until 2023, by their own (likely optimistic) estimate[1]. The more likely narrative is that relying on Intel became untenable both cost- and performance-wise.
1: https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2020/7/23/21336356/i...
Not true. They have three desktop form factors — Mac Mini, iMac and Mac Pro — and three laptop form factors — MacBook Air, 13" MacBook Pro and 16" MacBook pro. And each can be variously customised by CPU, memory, storage, etc. Most of these are updated with 1-2 year cadence.
Of course, it's much easier to make any case if you disregard the most basic facts within the first paragraph.
https://www.apple.com/mac/compare/?afid=p238%7CsboPJ4L5G-dc_...
> it's much easier to make any case if you disregard the most basic facts within the first paragraph.
Using apple marketing as a source of truth does not justify your snark. These "products" are small variations of grift.
With the AirPods, Apple has again managed to establish themselves as a leading player (in affluent market/segments). They did the same with smartwatches a while back. Their track record is strong. Probably will do the same with... $FutureProductCategory. Of course this is only partly due to engineering and product design - brand building and marketing also vital components. And I think it is fair to say, that while a strong engineering organization, Apple is not engineering-driven. They consider engineering as a means to deliver good product, not an end in itself.
When trying to surpass their last year's profit margins they shouldn't do it mainly by increasing the prices. Even though the frog doesn't leap when you increase the temperature slowly, shouldn't mean you should do it.
It is a hedge fund owned by apple, it has at least $237B under management.
They buy a business, it's black. They don't understand how the block works, but they need to to be more profitable, so they paint the IBM logo on everything, cut costs and headcount until it is green for a short while. Then it turns black, they rinse and repeat. They make it green a few more times and then finally instead of green, it turns red!
Then they combine some red blocks, bundle them together, make it look black or green and sell them off.
This looks like the biggest bundle jettison ever, but after acquiring Red Hat, that makes sense.