Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: apple

apple

Listening to Apple’s earnings call 2 days ago, I wondered how to compare Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, to Steve Jobs. Citing Apple’s plunging stock price (see below), some analysts are saying that entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs are irreplaceable.

Under Steve Jobs, Tim Cook was Apple’s COO (chief operating officer) and its temporary and then actual CEO. An Apple employee since 1998, Cook spent 12 years at IBM and was briefly at Compaq.

Explaining the Jobs approach, Silicon Valley veteran Marc Andreessen said that Steve Jobs started new product categories and targeted premium consumers. ”The Apple playbook under Steve Jobs was a single playbook. He would invent a new product category, start with 100% market share, and then every day that goes by, lose market share until some terminal outcome.” Jobs once said, “It’s not the consumers’ job to know what they want, ” and proved it with the iPod in 2001, the iPhone in 2007 and the iPad in 2010,

By contrast, naming the iPhone 5 and the iPad mini, an Atlantic journalist says Tim Cook is responding to the market rather than shaping it. It makes sense, though, as a Slate writer points out, that if Apple had introduced a new product now, it would have been developed when Jobs was alive. Slate suggests we wait and see.

So yes, we cannot recreate entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs.  But then again, as firms become more mature, won’t they need new management skills?

Apple's stock price during the past 5 years

Sources and Resources: My favorite Jobs/Cook article was from Slate but I would also recommend looking at this CNET post. For the analyst perspective, Business Insider is always a handy resource because of the Wall Street background of its head, Henry Blodgett. Here is how Blodgett feels about Apple now and the euphoria he expressed during 2011.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

apple logo

While Apple’s iPhone 5 map app might not always take us where we want to go, it will probably provide a path to some surprising innovation.

A little history first…

The iPhone 4 was released during June 2010 with a new antenna design that soon became a problem when people accidentally lost their connection by putting a hand over a tiny gap in the phone’s steel rim. Responding, Steve Jobs said, “We’re not perfect. Phones are not perfect. We all know that. But we want to make our users happy.”

Fast forward to 2012…

Apple tells us that although its new iPhone 5 map app that replaced Google Maps has problems, it is more than 99 percent accurate. Responding, the NY Times’s David Pogue says yes, Apple Maps has “dazzling” features but even if one half of one percent of its data is inaccurate, you are talking about a lot of data.

Why did Apple cut its tie with Google? Apple could not have been pleased that Google gave Android the best features and was getting data from Apple’s customers. It would also make sense that Apple wants to do its own map app development.

Whatever the specific reason, I suspect that “Antennagate” and “Mapplegate” take us to Joseph Schumpeter’s (1883-1950) creative destruction. Schumpeter believed that progress was an agonizing process through which old firms get trampled by nimble entrepreneurs and new ideas. Innovation is a chancy process that most other firms avoid because it is much safer to stick with the dependable stuff you know. By contrast, as with antennas and maps, Apple consistently innovates and avoids its own creative destruction.

A final fact: Whereas it would have been uncharacteristic for Steve Jobs to apologize, Apple’s CEO Tim Cook did say he was sorry. In a website letter to customers, he explained, “With the launch of our new Maps last week, we fell short on this commitment. We are extremely sorry for the frustration this has caused our customers and we are doing everything we can to make Maps better.”

Sources and Resources: In a fascinating 5 pages (pp. 519-523, Steve Jobs), Walter Isaacson describes the iPhone tension between engineering and design and the PR decisions that ultimately defused “Antennagate.” Similarly, David Pogue provides invaluable insight about the iPhone 5 map app in this column and the word, “Mapplegate,” but if you just want a good story about the app and Fenway Park, I suggest this article.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (1) Add a Comment

US Chicken Paw Exports to China

Yesterday’s headlines about the US taking China to the World Trade Organization (WTO) for unfair auto and auto parts subsidies took me to chicken feet and The Economist’s Sinodependency Index. Knowing the major firms that depend on China for revenue might help us further assess our relationship.

Approximately 20 years ago, chicken paws, used primarily for animal feed, were worthless. Now though, with Perdue producing more than a billion chicken feet a year, paw exports annually return $40 million in revenue. The reason is China.

A delicacy in China, chicken feet are a perfect U.S. export. US chickens are fat and juicy because we grow big chickens. In addition, their “natural scarcity” (only 2 per chicken) bestows some prestige on diners who order them.

Similarly, Intel, Apple, IBM and GE generate considerable revenue from China. Called a Sinodependency Index, The Economist displayed the relative revenue dependence on China of 135 firms in the S&P 500. Their goal was to show the extent to which China has woven its presence within the fabric of world trade.

Although some of their statistics were rough because of each firm’s revenue breakdown, The Economist believed that their Index conveyed the information effectively. In a copy of their chart below (interactive with percents if you visit their site here), you can see their color coding for industry and size coding for how a firm’s revenue compared to the other 134 in the index. The top 10 in their list, in size order, are: Intel, Apple, IBM, GE, Caterpillar, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Yum Brands, Philip Morris, Boeing.

As economists, we could not conclude without mentioning comparative advantage. First explained by 19th century economist David Ricardo, comparative advantage says that worldwide productivity increases when nations specialize and export the good or service for which they sacrifice the least to make. But, what to do when a nation employs unfair trade practices like subsidizing their exports to make them cheaper and adding duties to imports to make them more expensive?

My Sources and Resources: A wonderful podcast and post from Freakonomics was the source of my chicken feet facts while you can look directly at The Economist’s Sinodependency chart, their article and a link to the math behind the Index here. For more on the current trade dispute in the World Trade Organization (WTO), here is one article from Bloomberg. And here, this EconLife post presents more on a past trade dispute with China that involved chicken paws and is the source of 2 sentences in this entry.

Trade Dependency on China From the Economist

135 Firms From S&P 500: Revenue From China from the Economist

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan Issues

Until November 6, at econlife, Mondays will be about presidential election economics.

In 2004, when President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers chairman, Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, was lambasted for saying, “… I think outsourcing is a growing phenomenon, but it’s something that we should realize is probably a plus for the economy in the long run, ” politicians, left and right, distanced themselves from his position.

Fast forward to 2012. Still, no one wants to be called an outsourcer. And still we are focusing on the politics of outsourcing rather than its economics.

Here are the economics:

A call center in India or an Apple assembly plant in China are examples of  (offshore) outsourcing when firms send jobs abroad that could be done by domestic manufacturing and service workers. (Please note that here, when we refer to outsourcing, we mean offshore outsourcing.)

The Congressional Research Service tells us that the macroeconomic slowdown, not outsourcing, is primarily responsible for high unemployment.

Most economists believe that the US economy benefits from globalization. As a nation, incomes will rise, goods will be cheaper, and corporate profits will increase whenever outsourcing leads to greater efficiency for producing goods and services.

But others accurately point out that outsourcing not only means job losses but can take place on an “uneven” playing field where other nations’ subsidies unfairly attract US businesses.

The bottom line: After discussing what we do know, most research on outsourcing concludes with, “We need to know more.” No one has gathered sufficient empirical data to be sure of the specific impact of offshore outsourcing.

However, economists like Princeton’s Alan Blinder suggest that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg. In the future, with a sufficiently sizable proportion of the economy potentially being outsourced, we will face a massive shift in how we do business.

Maybe that is what our presidential candidates and the media should be discussing.

Also, I hope they will remember what David Ricardo said about international trade. Explaining the concept of comparative advantage, he told us that we elevate everyone’s well-being when nations produce what they are relatively best at.

For example, what if you can teach a class skillfully or mow your lawn expertly while your neighbor can mow the lawn mediocrely or get paid minimum wage at a fast food restaurant? Then you should teach, she should mow and everyone will be better off. The reason? You sacrifice too much by not teaching when you mow and she would sacrifice too much if she earned less at her fast food job.

Varied, there is a wealth of information about outsourcing. Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw co-wrote a paper on the politics and economics of outsourcing and Princeton economist Alan Blinder, looking at “personal” and “impersonal” services and goods discussed how specific jobs might be affected when outsourcing proliferates, and the St. Louis Fed looked at Germany and outsourcing. In addition, here is a recent Congressional Research Service report and a description of the brouhaha about the Mankiw outsourcing statement when he was the CEA chair.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (4) Add a Comment

jobs...16865_9.1_000009319445XSmall

On Apple’s website, they say that they are responsible for creating 514,000 jobs. Apple cites 304,000 jobs in transportation, manufacturing and engineering that directly and indirectly relate to Apple design, production and distribution. Beyond, they quote 210,000 app economy jobs.

Their numbers might be inaccurate.

Using Cupertino, CA as an example, economist Enrico Moretti says that Apple’s job creation numbers are low. In Cupertino, Apple employs 13,000 people. Designers and engineers, most Apple employees in Cupertino are classified as highly skilled. They have a college degree and the discretionary spending power that fuels a “multiplier effect.” Dr. Moretti believes that a new high tech firm in a community initiates a ripple of new service sector jobs, ranging from doctors and teachers to personal trainers, taxi cab drivers and childcare workers. For the Cupertino area, he calculates that Apple created 70,000 additional jobs.

Looking at the increase in personal service jobs from a different slant, a WSJ article, “Why Hairdressers are Secure: Their Jobs Can’t Be Exported,” explains that service sector positions like hairdressers and home care for the elderly proliferate because they are not threatened by outsourcing.

I found it interesting that Dr. Moretti’s book, The New Geography of Jobs, his Econtalk podcast, and the WSJ article took the reader to polarization. For Dr. Moretti, he predicted a geographical polarization between those communities that attract innovative firms and those that do not. Closely related, the WSJ article focuses on the polarization in the job market, with the top and bottom ends growing while the middle disappears.  Looking back at an MIT paper that the WSJ article cites, it becomes even clearer that in the US and 16 European countries, the middle skill jobs are decreasing while the high and low ends are boosting employment (Appendix, Figure 11).

The following statistics are from the WSJ article:

1989-2007:

  • High education, skilled: +40%
  • Middle-skill: +5%
  • Personal service: +36%

 

2007-2010:

  • High education, skilled: -1%
  • Middle-skill: -12%
  • Personal service: +2%

 

Where does this leave us? Rather than the top 1% and the 99%, we have a polarization between buoyant and stagnant cities and upper and lower skilled workers because for both, a middle ground is diminishing.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment