nearly a year since Cook’s Apple seems to encounter a lot of trouble. Whether the system exposed a variety of Bug, iPhone6S sales in the industry generally believe that the stock price decline, the market value is less than expected or is short or beyond iPhoneSE and recently launched a $1 billion investment by travel more or iPhone products for apple from each broke the gathered next generation may no major innovation of all kinds of lace the news, are brought together into a discussion of strong evidence of the decline of the apple. Let a time at Apple in the teeth of the storm.
talked about Apple’s decline, an interesting fact is that: in fact, since the death of Jobs, in the eyes of the media, Apple has not been the previous apple. The question of whether Apple can continue to innovate has never stopped, look at the future of Apple’s argument is fading. Cook the apple every day is on Jobs left the capital, regardless of Apple products, good or bad results, how the stock price changes, see in the eyes of the media are part of Apple’s future is dark. Apple’s decline is only a matter of time.
with the time to talk about the decline of a company, naturally, no one can be refuted, after all, from the historical law, nothing can escape the fate of decline. NOKIA, Motorola and capsized in a giant building lesson, Apple’s brilliant tomorrow today may be ended at dusk but also did not know.
and apple in the two consecutive quarter of earnings showed weak growth, sing bad apple has become a new political correctness. After all, from the advantage of cognitive selection, is clearly more optimistic about bad mouthing than insurance, need to face the risk is smaller. But personally think: in the current talk about Apple’s decline, it seems a little premature. At least from the following five aspects, the individual believes that apple is still far from the decline.
, Apple’s decline in the two core argument untenable
look bad apple, a lot of reasons, both from the product growth rate, or in the future layout, or investment acquisitions, etc. can be used as an example. The reason behind all this argument is only two: one is after Jobs, apple is no innovation; the two is that if Jobs is still, Apple will certainly not be so so. However, a closer look at these two arguments, we have found that these two arguments seem to be less tenable.
1 Apple’s ability to innovate still, Jobs to Cook, Apple’s innovation from the dominant era into the era of recessive
about apple after Jobs innovation, in fact, in the previous article I have talked about, when it comes to: we often after Jobs, apple no innovation. In the analysis, we think: laments apple after Jobs, there is no innovation, it is focus on the apple did not "create" after Jobs, rather than is the apple has no innovation". From the innovation, in fact Cook’s the apple >