They are trying to insure their company survival. Imagine if they didn’t put money into R&D for a car and something happened where, for example, Google produced one or EVs really took off in a big way. Or self-driving cars became a reality.
They’d be sol.
So you’ll see companies like apple, meta, etc try a lot of different things as they attempt to read the tea leaves. They are one big tech breakthrough away from being irrelevant.
I’ve been predicting for a while though that siri will be turned into an AI that runs locally using the metal cores.
I’m genuinely surprised they haven’t dropped that on us and are focused on VR.
Of course, this is a very accurate and a good point.
When we look at companies who are trying to actually innovate something new/cool and not just produce a product that serves a known or well defined problem, it does seem that they’ll do a lot of hit and miss.
It’s interesting to contrast that to a company like Microsoft, where they also need to meet their Invester focused/bottom line oriented mandatory growth requirements ( which I don’t like the American corporate shift in this way), their way of doing so in the computing world was to buy up everything/one and take steps a lot of people considered anti-trust/monopoly moves.
Apple started out with desktop computers. So by ‘staying in their lane’, they’d never made ipods, iphones, Apple silicon, earpods and airpods, the watch, etc.
I think they had quite the success by diversing themselves.
I’m my head, I was thinking of all those consumer products (phones, pods, pads, earbuds, etc). That is a good reminder they started with business computers.
Well with that mentality Nintendo would be a trading card company and we wouldn’t have Super Mario Galaxy, and my 3rd grader past self has suffered enough without having their favorite Wii game taken away on top of everything else!
Why do companies feel like that have to try and do everything?
Why can’t you just ‘stay in your lane’ and be good at what you’re good at.
Publicly traded companies need to constantly grow.
They are trying to insure their company survival. Imagine if they didn’t put money into R&D for a car and something happened where, for example, Google produced one or EVs really took off in a big way. Or self-driving cars became a reality.
They’d be sol.
So you’ll see companies like apple, meta, etc try a lot of different things as they attempt to read the tea leaves. They are one big tech breakthrough away from being irrelevant.
I’ve been predicting for a while though that siri will be turned into an AI that runs locally using the metal cores.
I’m genuinely surprised they haven’t dropped that on us and are focused on VR.
Of course, this is a very accurate and a good point.
When we look at companies who are trying to actually innovate something new/cool and not just produce a product that serves a known or well defined problem, it does seem that they’ll do a lot of hit and miss.
It’s interesting to contrast that to a company like Microsoft, where they also need to meet their Invester focused/bottom line oriented mandatory growth requirements ( which I don’t like the American corporate shift in this way), their way of doing so in the computing world was to buy up everything/one and take steps a lot of people considered anti-trust/monopoly moves.
Ever expanding profit requires ever expanding scope until it doesn’t, then you can divest for profit and try again.
Apple started out with desktop computers. So by ‘staying in their lane’, they’d never made ipods, iphones, Apple silicon, earpods and airpods, the watch, etc. I think they had quite the success by diversing themselves.
I’m my head, I was thinking of all those consumer products (phones, pods, pads, earbuds, etc). That is a good reminder they started with business computers.
A lot of these tech companies got into cars because they viewed vehicles as a major new computing platform. Especially autonomous vehicles.
Well with that mentality Nintendo would be a trading card company and we wouldn’t have Super Mario Galaxy, and my 3rd grader past self has suffered enough without having their favorite Wii game taken away on top of everything else!
😀 haven’t we all. I’d change my thought to: maybe for apple cars were a ‘bridge too far’ 😉
With that strategy, there would have been no iPod and therefore no iPhone.
Hell, there would probably not even been a computer mouse since Rank Xerox would have been focusing on how to make copies of paper.
I think the market for home computers has dried up.
INFINITE GROWTH