Apple: It's time to leave Neverland

Apple: It's time to leave Neverland

Summary: Apple has lost its Peter Pan, and that means that it finally has to grow up.

This article is an expanded version of Jason Perlow's arguments in ZDNet's "Great Debate" Series. The above musical video in my opinion embodies the fundamental philosophy of Apple, Inc. It fits the company like a glove. Given Jobs' intimate involvement with Pixar and the Walt Disney company I'm actually surprised "I Won't Grow Up" was never used in the company's advertising. If Apple had a corporate anthem, that song from the 1958 musical Peter Pan would be it. For the past 15 years, Apple has been a consumer product-oriented company that reflected the vision of a single iconic leader -- Steve Jobs, its dreamer and Walt Disney-like figure who created its current success formula. After the company mourns its main source of perspiration and inspiration it needs to figure out what it wants to be when it grows up. Yes, consumer products should continue to be an important focus area, but Apple cannot continue on just great toys alone. If we have learned anything at all from the company's most recent 3rd quarter sales figures, we must ultimately recognize that Apple's revenue is highly based on an annuity or semi-annuity model of repeat customers. Repeat customers are bread and butter, but it does not create growth. Post-Jobs, Apple must exist in a world of constantly improving commodity technology being created by its competitors and enterprises seeking next generation, integrated mobile and desktop solutions that the company is not currently offering: Products which are arguably more open and can more easily attract the partners needed to create solutions. And it should go without saying that Apple cannot compete by continuing to use the intimidation tactics of its departed founder, no matter how many tens of billions it has in its expansive larders. Anything other than moving on to the next Insanely Great thing should be considered an unnecessary distraction. Great Debate: After Jobs, can Apple maintain the momentum? | Jobs left future plans for next-generation Apple products | TechRepublic: Three reasons Apple will succeed after Steve Jobs | In the battle for the living room, the ghost of Steve Jobs looms large | Steve Jobs: A retrospective It would be very easy to argue that due to the company's huge $80B cash larders and dedicated customer following that the Apple will keep its momentum despite the loss of the company's founder and head "Imagineer". However, the reality is that the company is at an inflection point and has an annuity-based revenue model where existing customers upgrade to the latest and greatest version of an i-product every 2 years, and that iPads really are cannibalizing the sales of not only Apple's competitors' notebook computers but also their own MacBooks. To maintain momentum, Apple not only has to keep banging out the "hits" with new and exciting versions of its existing product line but it also has to expand into new markets. I have suggested elsewhere that the enterprise would be a great place for Apple to do this but it would take a radical shift of company ideology to approach anything other than new consumer markets. It is also worth mentioning that not only is Apple facing challenges of expansion but it is going to face heavy competition with ever-improving versions of Android (which according to recent market reports has been making a sizable dent in the iPad's tablet market share and continues to occupy the #1 position in smartphone market share) and also Windows Phone and Windows 8. I am also not going to under-estimate what Jeff Bezos and Amazon are capable of doing either, as evidenced by the very strong initial sales of the Kindle Fire and the sales projections for millions upon millions of units to be sold in CY 2012. So what should Apple do to counter these external forces? From a pure cash standpoint, Apple is looking very good, and could use these $80B liquid assets to purchase companies and expand into new markets. Apple currently has a very strong engineering team that is capable of continuing to produce excellent products. iCloud also shows some promise in being able to tie all of the vertical integration Apple has into all of their products into a single seamless experience, provided that the resiliency of that infrastructure actually holds up. While a huge cash war chest certainly gives the company a tremendous advantage over its competitors, particularly in being able to swallow up key technology/component vendors and also to secure or monopolize a supply chain, the company has to be very careful as not to attract too much attention to itself as being monopolistic, not only in the United States but also in Europe and Asia. It also goes without saying that the litigation and vast assets the company is using as a weapon to try to "Destroy Android" as per Steve Jobs' Mevillian wishes should be carefully re-examined by Tim Cook and other influential people in Apple's management and Board. The patent suits and other litigation is bringing the company a tremendous amount of ill-will from the industry and governments as a whole and could potentially backfire on them. Android is a White Whale that no longer has an Ahab to pursue it. And Tim Cook shouldn't be Captain Hook relentlessly chasing Tick Tock either. Instead of disruption through litigation, Apple should disrupt through innovation alone. One of the ways that disruption can occur is through executing Jobs' final dream: to have full digital convergence between the Cloud and Television. I have no doubt that some sort of product that utilizes television and content consumption technologies that are convergent with iCloud and other services is going to be launched. Whether that is some sort of new, more advanced set-top than the current Apple TV or an actual television with various Apple technologies integrated into it remains to be seen. I have argued in the past in my own writings that it is likely that something along the lines of a super high-resolution display the size of a 42" or larger HDTV with Apple branding may make an appearance. However, should a product like this get launched it would not be without its own challenges. 1080p 24fps 42" to 55" HDTV's have become heavily commoditized in the $500-$1500 price range. Apple would have to provide a tremendous amount of value add (such as 3D and other technologies, such as the rumored 2560 pixel resolution) in order to challenge the SONYs, Sharp's, Samsungs and Vizios of the world. After all, for those companies TV sets are their bread and butter and they know this industry better than anyone else. Besides the price points for such a device, one has to consider the complex content relationships that would have to be forged in addition to agreements with the service providers to carry a lot of streaming traffic. Apple may have to buy or create their own CDN infrastructure in order to pull this off accordingly, at least for the customers that will have the bandwidth to be able to use a product like this in the first place. And what of product growth for the company's biggest cash cows, the iPhone and the iPad? I think it is reasonable to expect that both iPhone and iPad will continue their very strong annuity stream for the next two years, especially if there are significant product enhancements coming down the pipeline. However, beyond the next two years, things are likely to change as Android (in its various flavors, including Google's own and Amazon's "mutant") continues its growth by stealing smartphone market share from the declining RIM in the consumer space and increases tablet mindshare with Ice Cream Sandwich 4.x and future versions of the OS. Google's Android will also likely continue to be the leading platform for 4G wireless. Handset OEMs will be willing to make any number of compromises that Apple would refuse to make in order to address business and consumer users' thirst for high speed mobile data. That is, unless, Apple is also willing to compromise now that Jobs is no longer there to throw tantrums when design choices are made that do not fit in with his sense of product perfection. While there is some cause for concern that the reception to Microsoft's Windows 8's radical "Metro" UI may initially be lukewarm on enterprise desktops, enterprises will almost certainly start to look towards Windows 7.x Phone and Windows 8 ARM tablets as being actual enterprise-capable mobile products. This will prove to be a sticking point with complex IT environments if these competing platforms are better suited to the BYOD model than Apple's products if Microsoft (or Google) makes better tools for provisioning and security partitioning available, such as with the use of mobile hypervisor technology. This gets us back to the issue of whether or not Apple is even capable of addressing enterprise needs in terms of device and application integration. Also Read: I have argued in recent articles that addressing the enterprise (by making iOS more integrated with line of business applications produced by 3rd-parties or by even making Mac OS X Server more robust and run on 3rd-party server hardware) would be the logical thing for Apple to do in order to break into new markets. If anyone has the DNA or wherewithal to do this, it is Apple CEO Tim Cook, who has the Insane Greatness of a Steve Jobs hand-picked management team behind him as well as his own twelve years of experience creating and developing enterprise partnerships at IBM's Personal Systems division. To do this, however, will require a great deal of work in as well as money and time in terms of being able to cultivate partnerships, something that Apple has never been good at doing. Apple stinks at this precisely in the way that Microsoft or even Google doesn't "Get it" when it comes to consumers, to use Steve Jobs' own language. It will require a lot of work and a lot of money to make a footprint in a part of the computer industry that Apple in the past has failed to be able to do and has no guarantee of success in, and it will also require some loss of control and partner assistance in order to pull off. In the age of Steve Jobs the very idea of losing any kind of control was impossible. Under Tim Cook, who knows. I believe Cook will be an excellent maintainer of Apple and for the time being, will be the Harry Truman to Jobs' FDR. He will continue to apply his skills of streamlining the company and keeping it running like a well oiled machine. But at some point he needs to assert his own vision and plans for the company's growth and expansion, and whether or not he is capable or willing to deviate from what Jobs has told him to execute on already. So how could Apple pull off an enterprise coup? They need to shed the arrogance. They need to be able to work and cultivate partnerships. They need to be able to give enterprises powerful toolsets for device and desktop provisioning and management. They need an App Store and enterprise developer ecosystem that will do the same for enterprise applications and 3rd-party enterprise software developers and integrators that they have done for the consumer. Mac OS X Server has to "grow up" and have the same technologies that are required to make it a robust enterprise-class OS, whether it is deployed in the Cloud by Apple or a partner, or in private infrastructure. And even though Apple doesn't need to produce enterprise hardware, it has to be certified to run well on IBM's, HP's, Dell's and even Oracle's hardware and industry-standard hypervisors such as VMWare and KVM. All of this clashes with the Jobsian closed system and completely vertically integrated worldview. That type of consumerization strategy will work on a certain group of customers, but not everyone. It only makes sense as long as people are willing to tolerate one or two flavors of a particular hardware/software device profile. The very fact that Apple is unable to penetrate Android's 41 percent and climbing market share is because with Android, consumers and business users have more choice over form factors and other differentiating product features. Additionally, Apple has never been about delivering the most high-end components in their devices -- they always put in "Just enough" in order to keep their costs down. With Android or even with Windows Phone/Windows 8, there will be much more product differentiation and choice over hardware features. While the one size fits all will be sufficient for some part of the consumer population, a large part of that population will want choice and variation in configuration and form factors.

[Next: The Apple of the Future]»

Beyond future products and new markets for Apple, there is also the 800 pound gorilla (or should I say giant crocodile with a ticking clock in its belly) sitting in the room and the issue of post-Jobs management philosophy starts to come into play.

I'm not sure if Apple possessed the technology to extract Steve Jobs' DNA and grow clones a la "Brave New World" that you would be able to churn out executives to think precisely like Jobs, which is what the company now seems to be obsessed with in their Apple University. At least, not unless you get them to be abandoned at birth, allow them to become tortured young adults who experiment with weird vegan diets, have them all drop acid and send them off on quests to visit yogis at Indian ashrams. And then allow them to grow to adulthood and become inspirational control freaks that are willing to bend reality and schedules that nobody really enjoys working with because they see all human beings as disposable. Even with that I am not sure you can exactly reproduce the Jobsian talent for understanding what customers wanted. There's an awful lot of intangibles here that just cannot be taught. I believe it is very important for Apple and their key management to continue to remain creative. But there is also a "Not invented here" type of thinking that was very typical of Jobs that arguably was harmful to Apple and has been harmful to other companies such as Palm and Research and Motion. If the company could somehow still remain creative and playful, but also be able to embrace ideas that do not originate from within the company, perhaps they can continue to cultivate leadership that still Thinks Different. For the time being retaining the current management team is very important, particularly VP of Industrial Design Jony Ive who Jobs doted on as his own personal aesthetic imagineering guru. If the future of the company depends on anyone at least for the next two to five years, it is probably Jony Ive. Retaining his services is extremely critical, as it is of other key staff members, such as VPs Scott Forstall (iOS lead) and Eddy Cue (Internet/iCloud). At the same time, while Apple is full of brilliant industrial designers and software engineers, the product teams will now have to second guess themselves every time they have to rev a product design because they won't have Steve Jobs around to give them the final sign-off or to tell them "This is a piece of sh*t, send it back to the drawing board and do better." In terms of management bench it is painfully obvious that Apple is run as a very tight and integrated team, like a pit racing crew. While the company generates a huge amount of revenue and is highly valued by Wall Street, It is not a comparatively large, monolithic and ivory-tower type environment like a Microsoft or an IBM with large multiple divisions that work semi-autonomously and is able to continuously breed talent. So Apple is more vulnerable to executive poaching than companies with much larger and more complex management structures. Everything we have heard about Tim Cook is that he is a genuinely nice guy who is well organized and works really well with others and who is much more willing to actually listen to people. He appears to share Jobs' traits for meticulousness, but that's about the only area in which they are similar. That alone is going to create a completely different dynamic at the company. I think he should focus on his strengths and build more of a culture of consensus and agreement and become a purely engineering company focused on creating high-quality products. Apple should aspire to be more like the original HP of Walter Hewlett and Dave Packard, the company that Steve Jobs had huge admiration for. And to some extent, I think the Apple of Tim Cook should try to be more like Google, despite the fact that Jobs had an immense distaste for the way they do things. Sometimes creative chaos, when controlled, can produce positive results. There is no question in my mind that the absence of Steve Jobs will create confusion and possibly result in some less than optimal design decisions. But it is an exercise that they are going to be forced into doing no matter what, so they are going to have to figure out how to resolve those moments of indecision or "What would Steve Want?" one way or another. The Jobs vacuum may force several "Alpha Geeks" to surface at the company as opposed to just one, which may create some interesting results. By allowing Ive or Forstall to make the final call in their respective areas, we might end up with better products. And what about Apple's ability to control its supply of components and maintain its pricing advantage going forward? I think it goes without saying that the tens of billions of dollars in the war chest will help secure volume pricing as well as the supply chain for Apple products but it is not the only company that is capable of doing this. However, the more Apple continues to sue and alienate potential suppliers and manufacturers in Asia (Such as Samsung and Foxconn) the more self-reliant it is likely going to have to become and possibly have to become a component manufacturer itself and use its cash assets in order to build the infrastructure to guarantee that supply line. All of this is likely to drive up costs. So what is Apple going to look like in 5 or even 10 years? I think it will be a somewhat if not very different company in 5 or 10 years. No company is immune to change, particularly after losing someone that was essentially the company's heartbeat. Apple is going to be forced to adapt to change, or it has to become a change agent in and of itself. Nobody can predict exactly how internal and external forces are going to affect them, because the industry itself is in the middle of undergoing a lot of changes as a whole.

Steve Jobs was Apple's equivalent to Walt Disney, but he was also the computer industry's embodiment of Peter Pan. He never wanted the company that he founded to grow up. And that is what made him and his company special.

While "Stay Hungry and Stay Foolish" may have worked for the last 15 years of his second turn at the reins of Apple, and it was a Jobsian-centric philosophy that worked well while he alone stayed at the center of the company's universe, Steve Jobs is no longer with us.

For all of us that cover the computer industry, it's a hard fact for all of us to swallow, and a loss that is difficult for us to comprehend, never mind Apple's own management and engineering bench that always had Steve to rely on to bless every product release or major business decision.

They won't have him to turn to now, and will have to make the important decisions completely on their own.

The company has to return from Neverland, without its Peter, and that may include the culture shock of actually leaving their traditional consumer-only comfort zone and to enter completely new markets such as the enterprise in order to sustain growth.

Tim Cook may never be Steve Jobs, but that might not be such a bad thing either. He's a sharp businessman who understands team building and plays well with others, something that's going to be needed in order to build the framework of a harmonious Apple corporate culture that will last another three decades and beyond.

Does Apple need to return from Neverland now that it has lost its Peter Pan? Talk Back and Let Me Know.

Topics: Windows, Android, Apple, Google, iPhone, iPad, Mobility, Smartphones


Jason Perlow, Sr. Technology Editor at ZDNet, is a technologist with over two decades of experience integrating large heterogeneous multi-vendor computing environments in Fortune 500 companies. Jason is currently a Partner Technology Strategist with Microsoft Corp. His expressed views do not necessarily represent those of his employer.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Seriously?

    You must have read different financial to the ones published by Apple. Revenue growth across the board, some 20% yoy, many to new customers.

    The loss of Jobs is huge, only time will tell how it works out.

    But Apple has created new markets in the past few years, and redefined others. That is where their revenue growth is coming from, not as Jason would believe. The revenue potential in the consumer space is enormous if they get it right.
    Richard Flude
    • I will go with Jason's assesment

      @Richard Flude

      over yours. He appears to have thought alot about this.

      You're just doing your standard cheerleading job.
      William Farrell
      • hmm.. when is the last time Jason build a company up from bankruptcy to..

        @William Farrell the largest valued company in the world? think i'm going to go with Job's and Apple's direction on this one.. lol..
      • RE: Apple: It's time to leave Neverland

        @William Farrell

        Yes, and your opinion is about as relevant as Jason's. Honestly, who is Jason Ferlow to lecture Apple about growth? Given Apple's consistent year over year growth each quarter, articles like his are simply nonsense. The facts speak for themselves.
      • RE: Apple: It's time to leave Neverland

        @William Farrell

        Yeah, but Perlow is nuts here. He's set up too many strawmen to make his argument, which is basically anathema to Apple's culture. He's basically stating that Apple shouldn't be Apple anymore and mind as well change their name to Enter-Core: a generic no-name company that serves IT.
      • RE: Apple: It's time to leave Neverland

        @William Farrell Cheerleading or not, Richard is right. And, Jason is making a huge presumption that Apple wants anything to do with Enterprise, which is odd, since Apple long ago gave Enterprise the finger. Remember... "Think Different" applies to most, if not all of what Apple does. And when you and all your friends are thinking they just gotta jump into Enterprise, Apple is doing that "Different" thing. The fact that they can, do and will continue to play by their own rules and still outsell the wannabes is pretty good proof that Thinking Different is working for them. Still, all good things have to come to an end someday, and Apple will too. But while it lasts, it's just not going to do what you think it should do.
      • Jason who?

        @William Farrell

        Jason is just like the millions of other bloggers who have sought to handicap and advise Apple over the years. Luckily, if ever Apple listens to him all they'll hear is, "gobble-gobble, gobble-gobble ..." Guys like Jason will just never get it no matter how hard they try.
      • The same Jason that was anti-apple

        @William Farrell Yeah right.

        Jason has gone from writing declaring his distaste for the company, to owning a Mac and iPad. Clearly some resent lingers.

        His enterprise push is nothing new, calls for Mac OS X virtualisation was rightly ignored (doesnt make sense, too competitive already).

        He fails to recognise The enterprise landscape is changing. Centralize IT Departments with their MCSEs are all but ignored these days. Blogs that the iPhone and iPad wouldn't be successful in this market are now obviously incorrect, for the reasons I outlined at the time.

        How many times does one have to be wrong before you take the advice of others with a much better rack record? Or is the MCSE world crumbling too frightening a thought?

        Only MS is making good money in the Enterprise IT market today, however their growth is stagnant. Service companies like IBM are doing OK. Hardware companies bleeding. Why would anyone want to enter such a market?
        Richard Flude
      • Jason has a point. It appears that many here believe that

        @William Farrell
        all markets will continue on from this time forward as they have done in the past 4 years, never changing.

        Yet the next blog on Microsoft, or some other company, they will claim that the markets are ever changing, and one can not count on things staying as they have for the past 4 years.

        So how can you have two futures on on one timeline?
        Tim Cook
      • RE: Apple: It's time to leave Neverland

        @doctorSpoc<br><br>3 Things...<br><br>1) Apple isn't the largest valued company in the world. Exxon Mobil is, as of 10-27-11 by some $20 Billion. Plus, also remember that Apple's share price is based on emotion, whereas XOM's is based on Global factors... thus harder to change. Apple could not sell as many iPods as they're expected to in a quarter and in 20 minutes that shaves $5 - $10 Billion off their cap.<br><br>2) I know it's hard to admit, but who was the company that made a huge investment at the time, to help stave Apple from bankruptcy?<br><br>3) Jason Perlow has been in this business for a long time, and has a good grasp of it. He has experience with consumer, SMB, and Enterprise, and moreso than you or I or anyone else probably commenting on his post.
      • RE: Apple: It's time to leave Neverland

        @chmod 777<br>1. irrelevant<br>2. irrelevant<br>3. irrelevant

        you guys are funny man... i haven't read this much nonsense in a long time... lol...
      • RE: Apple: It's time to leave Neverland

        @William Farrell

        If he is as good as your assessment I believe Apple would have employ him at the drop of a hat but he is still a wordsmith.

        And words are cheap and a simple glance of what he had written wouldn't help and doesn't contribute to the deep thinking done by Apple as to what they have to do with their products and services because many livelihood depend on their doing the right thing.

        As for the writer not I believe I have to say one thing his stuff is not good enough to make him a good marketing man because it lack substance.
      • RE: Apple: It's time to leave Neverland

        @William Farrell really? You are going to back Jason link whoring piece vs reality?

        Apple will, like others peak and maybe come down, but for right now they are on fire with no end in near site of their constant up hill climb. They should just leave the enterprise market all together. Its smaller than the consumer market and they can let IBM, Dell, HP, Microsoft and other fight over it.

        Jobs was Jobs and he brought an air to Apple that is gone, but he was one man. Tim Cook and others are masters at what they do. They have tied up the supply chains, worked massive deals for parts, their profit margins are through the roof.

        Dell, HP, Microsoft, Sony and others look like morons when it comes to what consumers want.
      • RE: Apple: It's time to leave Neverland

        @chmod 777

        "Apple's share price is based on emotion"

        LOL. I guess that's why Apple's PE is 15 and Amazon's PE is over 100. Based on emotion? You don't know Jack about stocks.

        "who was the company that made a huge investment at the time, to help stave Apple from bankruptcy?"

        That would be no one. I guess the Apple haters will never give up this myth. If you're interested in the truth you can read this article: "MYTH Stop the lies! The day that Microsoft 'saved'??Apple".

        "Jason Perlow has been in this business for a long time, and has a good grasp of it."

        Maybe so, but Apple has been ignoring advice for a long time and they're doing quite well. Perhaps instead of trying to teach Apple, Jason Perlow should be trying to learn from Apple.
      • RE: Apple: It's time to leave Neverland

        @William Farrell

        Is it not the fate of all Tech companies to have to come up with the new latest and greatest thing to maintain market share? Is that not what they all must do?
      • Android gains are overstated

        @William Farrell <br>You forget that Apple's marketshare vs. Android is in large part because of only being on a few carriers until inow. They will have a much larger market to compete in, as iPhone 4S is rolled out to dozens of new carriers in lots of new countries, apart from expansion to Sprint in the US market (reaching many people with their lower price points). <br><br>Until now, Android has had less competition from Apple than they will going forward, in terms of carrier ubiquity. Also, Android faces looming compatibility and fragmentation issues and literally dozens of different implementations are out in the wild. This looks to me like Android could turn into UNIX Part 2, in terms of a splintering, eventually incompatible user base. Then, Android developers will experience greater problems porting apps to different platforms, etc. We've seen this move before. I'm not an Apple fanboy, but you underestimate how much room for growth they have in the consumer space. Asking them to change their DNA to compete in the enterprise is not a good short term change in strategy, in my opinion.

        One last point about the enterprise. Nowadays, execs (and honestly, salespeople and most mobile workers) are forcing IT departments to deal with their preferred mobile clients. As more of those clients become iPhones and iPads, IT is just going to have to deal with it. The IT dept's customer is the executive, so they will just have to "make it work". That is Apple's secret trojan horse into the enterprise.
      • Jason calls Apple &quot;arrogant,&quot; but then...

        @William Farrell he arrogantly offers suggestions on how Apple should "leave neverland."

        Would that you and I and Jason himself could live in such a "neverland."

        If you're the Green Bay Packers, you don't need cheerleaders and neither does Apple.

        I've been reading criticisms of and suggestions for Apple since the '80s, and yet, look where Apple is now.

        It appears that Jason sees his job as replacing Jobs???at least in the sense of telling Apple to head in new directions businesswise (including changing Apple's CEO.) Interestingly and weirdly, Jason even cites Apple's 3rd quarter "drops" but neglects to mention that the iPhone 4s got 400,000 more orders on the first day than the previous model did.

        Seems like a lot of internet fodder to me.
      • RE: Apple: It's time to leave Neverland

        Jason Perlow does not know what he is talking about. Apple has more money in the bank than the US Treasury. The iPhone sales go thru the roof when the new one comes out. The iPad which all the so called experts, like Jason, said it was a joke or toy, yet Apple is opening new factories to keep up with demand. The iPad is now in school from elementary to graduate level and used in the university research projects. It's used with children that have autism. It's in hospitals and medical clinics and in factories and many, many other businesses uses. The military is now field testing the iPad for it's use. The Apple computers have now broken into the government and military use, the long preview of the "PC". No Jason Apple does not need to worry about growing up, they have done their homework and are ready for the future.
      • RE: Apple: It's time to leave Neverland

        @William Farrell I agree with some of both statements but just because somebody puts a lot of thought into something does not mean they are right.
    • IBM exited long ago, current market leader HP says same thing..

      @Richard Flude ..Jason in his ultimate wisdom and monday night quarterbacking say that Apple that should exit high margin/profit markets and enter the commodity/low margin markets that HP (the market leader) is trying to exit.. why...<br><br>as you say growth will come from creating new markets and redefining existing ones.. adding value and controlling supply chain like no one else can given apples size and startegic arrangment that we can thank tim cook for etc.. <br><br>Apple doesn't want any part or enterprise and to be truthful enterprise wants no part of apple.. total disdain and irrational hate for Apple.. how is apple going to change an almost religious hate... Apple smartly exited enterprise for that reason.. they've come in the back door with BYOD but coming in the front door just doesn't make sense.. and more importantly.. it doesn't make dollars and CENTS.. and i have no doubt that tim cook understands that completely.. <br><br>so how about jason sticks to tech blogging and tim cook sticks to running multi-billion dollar businesses..