Almost from the very first day that Tim Cook officially became Apple’s CEO, the critics were calling for his head. He’s an operations person, not a marketing person, or someone with a “vision,” and thus hasn’t a clue how to manage a large multinational corporation. Since then, anytime Apple reported something that was less than what those so-called industry analysts expected, it was all about Cook.

But even when Cook was officially named to the top spot at Apple, he wasn’t new to the job. In fact, he had already spent months as an interim CEO during the extended absences of Steve Jobs. While he was largely acting as Jobs’ lieutenant, it was a great opportunity for some direct on-the-job training, since he was far more ready to take control when he officially got the job.

Predictably, when iPhone growth slowed in the December quarter, and dipped by a fair amount in the March quarter, the “off with his head” demands returned in full force. The theory has it that, if Apple ever suffers from declining sales, there can be no second chances. The CEO has got to go. Forgotten is the time when Apple shed red link under Steve Jobs, and he wasn’t let go.

The headlines are all over the place. One down quarter, with the threat of another, is sufficient to recycle all the doom and gloom arguments. The iPhone is dead, the iPad is dead, and the Mac is surely dead. How can a company fail to match or exceed a year-ago quarter and not be pronounced an utter failure? That Samsung has had down quarters isn’t on the radar. Apple isn’t permitted to fail — ever.

But that assumes it’s a failure, and not just a reflection of changed market conditions. Apple cannot control the state of the world market. Apple can only go so far to persuade people that they must upgrade their iPhones, iPads and Macs if they aren’t so inclined. It doesn’t matter how many fancy new features are introduced.

The old “iterative” argument is back in full force. Each year, Apple’s new products have minor improvements, and that can’t be enough. The iPhone 7 will not be good enough, even though there will be no official announcement of its features until September if the past is prolog. As of now, it’s all about guessing and hoping for something unimpressive.

Forgotten is the fact that Apple usually releases minor refreshes of an existing product, and only after a few years launches a major upgrade — or something altogether new. So why isn’t it happening now? What’s more, how does Apple have the temerity to force the Apple Watch upon us when there’s no killer app?

It doesn’t matter that Apple claims first year Apple Watch sales were higher than those of the iPhone in its first year. But don’t forget that the iPhone’s arrival was equally met with skepticism, and, every single year since, particularly after Android smartphones appeared, the iPhone was pronounced in danger of being replaced by commodity products.

That’s been happening in recent years for the iPad, with claims that people can get something nearly as good for far less money to watch Netflix and manage the Internet and email access. That may be true to some degree, but Apple offers a wider range of tablet-optimized apps than other companies, and it has a far greater penetration into the enterprise, along with iPhones and, at long last, Macs.

One article I read the other day referred to Apple’s “on again/off again” enterprise initiatives. That seems long ago and far away in light of that 2014 deal with IBM. You know, the one where new enterprise apps would be developed, and Apple gear would become available to IBM employees and would be pushed by the company’s large sales force. You know, the one where IBM employees are now given the opportunity to use Macs and thus save the company $275 on each computer compared to a Windows box.

In his appearance this week on Jim Cramer’s TV show on a financial channel, CNBC, Cook was criticized for not being specific enough in responding to questions about Apple’s dismal quarter and its future. Predictably, Cook conveyed optimism that the company would turn the corner. In part, he also blamed some of the sales slowdown on the grounds that more people upgraded their gear last year, so fewer numbers are upgrading this year.

Besides, Apple’s revenue and profits were pretty much in line with the company’s predictions for the March quarter. The guidance is always conservative, and Apple often exceeds those numbers. A company that can deliver such numbers accurately ought to be praised, not attacked. It demonstrates highly qualified leadership.

Unfortunately, Wall Street pundits barely pay attention. They prefer their own numbers, which are based on tea leaves, psychic powers, or whatever suits their fancy. If the estimates are met or exceeded, a company had a good quarter. If they aren’t met, despite the company meeting its own expectations, that’s bad news. They know better even if the figures are hardly realistic.

Now Apple will not magically disappear if sales continue to drop for a while, while profits are at high levels. If the decline continues for a few quarters, that might be a source of concern. If the there’s red ink, that would be a greater reason for concern. But not now.

You have to wonder just how bad Apple’s situation must be — at least in the minds of certain skeptics. After all, every real or perceived setback must be a symptom of a fatal disease. Perhaps Apple got where it is today as a fluke, a few happy accidents over the years. How could that company actually succeed at what it does anyway?

Do I really have to answer such silly questions?

This attitude has been present ever since Apple began to emerge from being mostly a personal computer company. When the first iPod came out, a $399 gadget that let you store 1,000 songs in your pocket, the critics didn’t take it seriously. They didn’t take it seriously either when it became the number one product of its kind on the planet.

When Microsoft introduced the Zune, first a rebadged Toshiba digital media player, the general attitude was, “Take that Apple!”

What didn’t take was the Zune. They didn’t sell so well, and I recall one instance where a couple of twenty-somethings hung out at a convenience store hoping to sell a Zune or two. Nobody cared. Nobody even bothered to look, but I observed the situation for a few moments to see what was going on, and soon left. A few years later, the Zune was history.

Nowadays, the iPod is still around, but it hardly generates any attention. There are still three models, led by the iPod touch, but the iPhone is the best iPod, and there are hundreds of millions of them out there. The original iPod is still in use, probably still selling more than all or most competitors at their best. But who cares? When an iPod touch is updated every two or three years, the media mostly overlooks that development, but it may be years before the product disappears.

The iPhone quickly supplanted the Mac as Apple’s number one tech gadget, and it had a steady growth curve, first in the double digits, until things really began to settle down in the last two quarters. The general perception is that the smartphone market is pretty much saturated in the industrialized world, but there is still hope for ongoing sales in decent quantities as developing countries have more and more citizens who can afford one. Apple CEO Tim Cook says over and over again he’s very optimistic about the prospects in China despite recent financial headwinds there. It’s an “overreaction” to talk doom and gloom, but what would you expect him to say?

The conventional wisdom has it that the iPhone 6s wasn’t so different that people who already had a good smartphone would be anxious to upgrade. It was compared to the iPhone 6, and if you didn’t need a little snappier performance, 3D Touch, the ability to take 4K videos and a few other things, it wasn’t such a big deal. Ignored was the fact that most of the people who’d upgrade had a handset two or three years old. So the new iPhone represented a huge change. People who believe you are supposed to upgrade every year might disagree, but most people do not buy new handsets that often.

Certain tech pundits will often get new gear each year to stay abreast of technology, but their needs are rarely those of regular people.

So where does the iPhone go? Will the next model feature some unknown technology that advances the state of the art, or just a few faster things, and a few new things to spruce it up somewhat? If you consider the target audience, isn’t that still a pretty big deal?

Now it may well be that Apple might consider dropping the price some. Profits are high, but Apple has clearly learned a thing or two in dealing with the supply chain. The iPhone SE, for example, is $50 less than its immediate predecessor, the iPhone 5s. So what if Apple cut $50 from the retail price of all new iPhones this fall? Would it be possible? Would Apple find a way to keep the high profits? Just remember when $100 was chopped off the price of the MacBook Air without really hurting margins.

But Apple must exist in an alternate reality. The lack of substantial improvements in Android handsets year-over-year isn’t getting so much attention. The fact that Apple is one of two companies making decent profits — but it’s still far ahead of the other company, Samsung — is also ignored. So even if Apple sells fewer copies, it remains a thriving business.

Indeed, Apple makes high profits from other products with lower sales, including the Mac, iPad and, yes, the iPod.

Without doubt, Apple is developing new products and expanding services. The latter has experienced double-digit growth and, with over a billion activated devices out there, promises to be a sustaining business. This is the advantage of lock-in and an integrated ecosystem. People buy one Apple gadget, then buy another, and begin to take advantage of iTunes, Apple Music and other services.

There might be an Apple Car on the horizon. But even if there isn’t, it’s very likely Apple will continue to expand CarPlay. Perhaps car-related gear will be sold as well, but I’m not at all certain whether that’s a business Apple would ever want to enter. But embedding Apple’s ecosystem in an auto is a sure way to build services revenue.

The potential of the Apple Watch has yet to be realized, except for the claim that sales for the first year exceeded that of the original iPhone. Regardless, there’s little doubt Apple is working on products and services you and I have no idea about. It’s not as if they are ignorant of the realities, and aren’t considering ways to resume growth.

Apple’s critics have a lot of meat and potatoes in the March quarter financials to enjoy. For the first time since 2007, iPhone sales were down by double digits, and Mac sales also dropped by a fairly significant degree.

The iPad? Well, the decrease wasn’t as much as in previous quarters, but it doesn’t look as if many of Apple’s products are growing. But it’s the first March quarter for the Apple Watch, so there’s no trend. Moreover, Apple’s services business is increasing by the double digits, so the suggestion that it’s a complete slowdown just doesn’t wash.

Clearly, so-called industry analysts are looking at the situation and are finding reason to be worried. Some of the reasons might make sense, and I’ll get to those. Others don’t. So one article I caught online presented this piece of utter illogic, “According to a new note from Mark Moskowitz and his team at Barclays, the analysts now expect iPhone sales to decline in the next two quarters, in part because of they don’t see many significant upgrades coming to the flagship model.”

Continue Reading…

So, gentle reader, please consider this week’s statement from Tim Cook that, when it comes to future acquisitions, “We could definitely buy something larger than we bought thus far.” With the exception of Beats Electronics, which had a profitable line of premium-priced headphones, Apple has purchased technology to add to its portfolio. So there was Siri, the voice assistant, and chip designer PA Semi, which brought along a team of engineers that helped develop the A-series processor.

Clearly tech pundits are wondering just what company or companies Apple might purchase next, now that the stakes are higher. There’s still a perception implicit here that Apple has to buy something with which to enhance the product portfolio, because they can’t do it themselves. But that’s besides the point. Apple can do both — obviously.

I’ve read several articles listing companies ripe for an acquisition by Apple. Some are relatively affordable, some a little outlandish, even with Apple’s large cash reserves.

Of the latter, there’s Netflix, with a market cap that is presently close to $39 billion. At twice market cap, we’re talking about a $78 billion purchase price, and I’m just shooting from the hip here. It could cost more.

Even with $250 billion on hand, it would possibly require a combination of financing and a stock swap, a considerable deal. It’s doable, but why? Should Apple pay so much money to get into the TV streaming server business? It would seem more sensible for Apple to expand iTunes, using an existing infrastructure, rather than go through the drudgery of adapting someone else’s company and technology to its needs.

Even if Netflix was for sale, it wouldn’t appear to make sense for Apple. It would certainly be hard to justify to stockholders by the purchase price alone for a relatively old company, in the scheme of tech firms, rather than build out the existing iCloud infrastructure to attempt to do the same thing. Yes, I’m ignoring Netflix’s dying DVD rental business.

Indeed, Apple was once reportedly working on building a TV subscription service in a more traditional way, offering existing cable channels, possibly local channels, and perhaps original programming. That this project is said to be moribund over the inability to deal with the entertainment companies might spur the search for other options. But another problem occurs to me: Would the entertainment companies honor existing contracts with a new owner? What would be involved in integrating a company the size of Netflix with Apple? Such obvious pitfalls can doom such a deal before it’s even made.

One possibility I mentioned in yesterday’s column was Tesla Motors, still a huge jump. One reader suggested that Tesla is more interested in developing battery technology and might be willing to sell the car division. Another suggested the reverse. But I agree that Apple is always on the hunt for superior battery technology, but would this make sense? If Apple bought the car division, the software and the interface would still have to be redesigned to match Apple’s design criteria, and integrate with iCloud and other services.

But I do not see Apple wasting loads of money to acquire the expensive assets of any of these companies. Instead, Apple might consider a relatively new company that hasn’t realized its potential, but would benefit by being integrated into the “walled garden.” Remember it’s not just merging the personnel, which itself could be difficult, but going through all parts of the company and seeing how they mesh. If the technology is to integrate with Apple’s — and it must — just what would be required to make it so? These steps would involve expenses far beyond the initial purchase price.

Also, big mergers don’t always do terribly well. Look at companies bought by Alphabet and Microsoft as examples of failed deals that accomplished little more than wasting money. So there was Motorola Mobility, bought at a relatively high price and sold off by Google for a lot less. It never performed to expectations, and, in fact, wasn’t doing well when it was acquired. There’s also the Nokia handset division, and Microsoft’s misguided purchase that came at a time when sales were dropping. Again, a foolish move.

You can go back to HP’s $25 billion purchase of a rival PC maker, Compaq, in 2002. In the end it was a disaster for the venerable Silicon Valley company, resulting in the firing of 30,000 people, offshoring thousands of jobs and, in the end, the abrupt dismissal of CEO Carly Fiorina in 2005. All right, she left with a multimillion-dollar golden parachute, and is presently running for Vice President of the U.S. with Senator Ted Cruz. And she still claims that her stint at HP was successful.

Forget the political implications, however. Instead, consider that Apple has been extremely careful about acquisitions. So if a big deal is forthcoming, it probably won’t be a deal anyone would expect, nor would it be as large as the ones some are suggesting.

However, buying up companies is still no excuse to sidestep R&D and home-built products and services. It’s just an additional step in providing for Apple’s future as iPhone sales plateau (and maybe they already have). I would not even try to guess what company or companies might be acquired in the near future.