I obviously cannot speak for anybody else, but I still like my first gen Apple Watch, and continue to wear/use it everyday.
My ongoing gripe with Apple these days is that making regular, incremental updates seems beyond their capacity for far too much of their product line. Hopefully they'll get that sorted out.
This is something that has me scratching my head as well. I know that it takes engineering resources to do - nothing is free - but Apple seems to be leaving money on the table by not making incremental, yearly updates, primarily to the Mac line. Perhaps more than some small amount of lost sales, is the negative narrative it creates among some of its user base (call them "fans"). It is a con against the brand, which is very important to Apple.
How much effort would it take to have the Mac Mini updated with latest Intel CPU line, with perhaps a small storage bump? The iMac's went through a big update last year, so they are not that far out of date, but again, why not give them the CPU and maybe RAM type bump? And then there is the Mac Pro...rumours on the AirPort line, etc.
This is why I don't believe those (you know who you are...) that scream that Tim Cook is all about the money. If he was, then Apple would be more focused on incremental updates to make sales across the line as high as they could be.
I think Apple is perhaps getting too focused on being, well, "focused". Only update a product if there is something "significant" that justifies it: - new form factor & Touch Bar in MBP (and add in the new super fast storage, Touch ID, trackpad - new high resolution 4K and 5K iMacs - iPad Pro with pencil
...but otherwise they are not updating the "non iPhone lines" at all. I think they are doubling down (in their minds) on a product focused strategy, and say that if the update is only incremental, then the benefit is also that, so don't bother. Wait until it is something significant. It might be the most "efficient" use of resources, but it certainly has its risks
Releasing a killer product cannot happen with incremental updates in a highly competitive environment. Most of Apple's sales occur at the initial launch, Apple's sales seem to happen in bursts, each burst roughly corresponding to a product launch. Just imagine how long it will take for the competition to take over the new Macbook Pro with the Touch Bar: they cannot even get rid of the old SATA in their SSDs, TB3 is still a fantasy, Touch ID and Touch Bar even unimaginable... The competition would close the gap relatively faster at each incremental update.
In a highly competitive environment you should at least be competitive. Take a look at the iMac, Mini, Mac Pro and non late 2016 MBPs and tell me if they are competitive.
You lambast the rest of the industry for using 'old' tech even though you could accuse most of the current Mac line of similar failings.
TouchBar and TouchID unimaginable?
Fingerprint scanners already existed on PC laptops and the TouchBar has yet to demonstrate its worth.
I would add that neither retina displays nor hypertech SSDs are essential for many users. They may be great to have as options in the line but if Apple offered a new model with fast SSD and a quality HD screen at a competitive price I dare say it would be a top seller. Perhaps even competitive.
...but otherwise they are not updating the "non iPhone lines" at all. I think they are doubling down (in their minds) on a product focused strategy, and say that if the update is only incremental, then the benefit is also that, so don't bother. Wait until it is something significant. It might be the most "efficient" use of resources, but it certainly has its risks
. I'm not a big fan of Microsoft or Google but I see more innovation, bold thinking, and risk taking from their direction. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't iTools come before Gmail? iTools was the free email account, web pages, and etc from Apple that came before .Mac and iCloud. Everything that the Google Suite is now, Apple should have done. They couldn't have done it because 1) not bold enough and 2) I honestly don't think they have the talent.
I remember e-world. The idea was right but the infrastructure wasn't really there on a large enough scale.
Since then it's been more or less one false step after another. The free iTools was pretty good but instead of taking it in the right direction they screwed up. Mobile Me was clearly a major embarrassment but things are still far from perfect.
They have the cash for huge data centres but, as you say, perhaps the talent is lacking.
Mikey, you should also mention the other analysts who agree with Tim Cook reporting that Apple Watch sales grew 60% YoY and again dominated the smartwatch market with 45.6% market share. The number 2, Samsung only managed 18% with FitBit on 17%, Garmin 3.2% and Pebble on 2.2%. Poor old Android Wear is missing in action.
Canalys reports the following:
“Apple shipped 2.8 million Watches in Q3, thanks to the release of the new Series 1 and Series 2 models late in the quarter. Despite reports to the contrary, Canalys research shows that shipments compared favorably to those in Q3 2015, the first full quarter after the original Apple Watch’s launch in April 2015. Total smart watch shipments exceeded 6.1 million for the quarter, an annual increase of 60%.”
...but otherwise they are not updating the "non iPhone lines" at all. I think they are doubling down (in their minds) on a product focused strategy, and say that if the update is only incremental, then the benefit is also that, so don't bother. Wait until it is something significant. It might be the most "efficient" use of resources, but it certainly has its risks
This does prove Cook is all about the money. Doing an update each year means tooling costs and buying less units of components (bulk discounts). If you update each year you will get lower margins if you are selling the units at the same price. I think that is a mistake by Cook. Cook should be willing to sacrifice some margins to make yearly updates.
IMO these should be updated every year:
iPhone, iPad Mini, iPad Air, iPad Pro, Apple Watch
These every 18 months to 24 months:
iMac, Macbook, Macbook Pro, MacMini, Mac Pro, Apple TV
The only excuse not to do so is the sacrifice of margins.
I don't think it proves they're all about the money. They're not going to have a sustainable business by increasing the margin on stale products. There's some sweet spot obviously but to take that argument to the logical conclusion, they'd be selling Apple II computers still. The margins would be incredible if they could sell any.
Sog, you want much more frequent updates I think. Every time they do update, a comparison is always made with the previous model. The new one is x% faster, etc. For the last few revisions, the improvements have been pretty modest, right? If updates were more frequent, the improvements would be that much more modest. What would be the response to an update that costs the same or more and isn't better in any respect? Or better but not in any noticeable way?
To my mind, the lack of change is the result of relative lack of change in that space. Newer CPUs etc are not that much better. Newer other things, also not that much better. This points to a failure on Apple's part too. Apple is the most profitable company in the world but they don't behave like it. I'm not a big fan of Microsoft or Google but I see more innovation, bold thinking, and risk taking from their direction. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't iTools come before Gmail? iTools was the free email account, web pages, and etc from Apple that came before .Mac and iCloud. Everything that the Google Suite is now, Apple should have done. They couldn't have done it because 1) not bold enough and 2) I honestly don't think they have the talent.
What innovation? Surface Studio is already a patent owned by Apple. And digital tablets exist since more than twenty years, larger size and hinges don't make these "innovation". Android is the foster child of Google since Oracle's Java lawsuit. They fired its promoter and pushed Android under Chrome team. Google's own operating system is ChromeOS. Samsung's development of its own operating system, Tizen, is not without reason. Compare these to iOS and macOS and think again your understanding of "innovation". After the failure of .Mac and experiencing the fury of Steve Jobs, Apple has made cloud computing the main paradigm around which everything is reshaped. None of these "talented bold innovators" have committed to cloud computing as deeply as Apple. OneDrive, Google Drive, that "Suite" no one uses for serious work, all are just extensions. In macOS Sierra we use iCloud seamlessly already by storing documents and desktop on the cloud. And Apple doesn't sell your privacy to advertisers....
I obviously cannot speak for anybody else, but I still like my first gen Apple Watch, and continue to wear/use it everyday.
My ongoing gripe with Apple these days is that making regular, incremental updates seems beyond their capacity for far too much of their product line. Hopefully they'll get that sorted out.
This is something that has me scratching my head as well. I know that it takes engineering resources to do - nothing is free - but Apple seems to be leaving money on the table by not making incremental, yearly updates, primarily to the Mac line. Perhaps more than some small amount of lost sales, is the negative narrative it creates among some of its user base (call them "fans"). It is a con against the brand, which is very important to Apple.
How much effort would it take to have the Mac Mini updated with latest Intel CPU line, with perhaps a small storage bump? The iMac's went through a big update last year, so they are not that far out of date, but again, why not give them the CPU and maybe RAM type bump? And then there is the Mac Pro...rumours on the AirPort line, etc.
This is why I don't believe those (you know who you are...) that scream that Tim Cook is all about the money. If he was, then Apple would be more focused on incremental updates to make sales across the line as high as they could be.
I think Apple is perhaps getting too focused on being, well, "focused". Only update a product if there is something "significant" that justifies it: - new form factor & Touch Bar in MBP (and add in the new super fast storage, Touch ID, trackpad - new high resolution 4K and 5K iMacs - iPad Pro with pencil
...but otherwise they are not updating the "non iPhone lines" at all. I think they are doubling down (in their minds) on a product focused strategy, and say that if the update is only incremental, then the benefit is also that, so don't bother. Wait until it is something significant. It might be the most "efficient" use of resources, but it certainly has its risks
Releasing a killer product cannot happen with incremental updates in a highly competitive environment. Most of Apple's sales occur at the initial launch, Apple's sales seem to happen in bursts, each burst roughly corresponding to a product launch. Just imagine how long it will take for the competition to take over the new Macbook Pro with the Touch Bar: they cannot even get rid of the old SATA in their SSDs, TB3 is still a fantasy, Touch ID and Touch Bar even unimaginable... The competition would close the gap relatively faster at each incremental update.
I think we are talking about different things. I fully understand the need to take some innovations under development for a few years and then release with a "big launch" to generate the most interest in the new item. I am talking about the incremental updates that come between those releases, which is not affecting the "next big thing". Nothing more than each year, consider updating the processor, and potentially providing storage or RAM bumps. Nothing more than an update on the appropriate Apple page. It is done within the same margin envelope.
For people that look up such information before they purchase (or get such information from friends and family), it will be clear that the Mac model in question is not considered "old". They will less question the decision to purchase - it reduces friction. It is good for the brand image of maintaining the platforms
It doesn't come without some investment of course - it isn't just a component change - but overall investment is small compared with the innovative stuff, and the number of Apple product lines where this applies are also small (Macs and now iPads).
Perhaps Apple does this because the incremental benefits of such new processors is low & therefor not worth it. That may be a true view of "value to performance of upgrade", but there are intangible impacts to perception of Apple, its brand, etc.
Comments
You lambast the rest of the industry for using 'old' tech even though you could accuse most of the current Mac line of similar failings.
TouchBar and TouchID unimaginable?
Fingerprint scanners already existed on PC laptops and the TouchBar has yet to demonstrate its worth.
I would add that neither retina displays nor hypertech SSDs are essential for many users. They may be great to have as options in the line but if Apple offered a new model with fast SSD and a quality HD screen at a competitive price I dare say it would be a top seller. Perhaps even competitive.
Since then it's been more or less one false step after another. The free iTools was pretty good but instead of taking it in the right direction they screwed up. Mobile Me was clearly a major embarrassment but things are still far from perfect.
They have the cash for huge data centres but, as you say, perhaps the talent is lacking.
Compared to what?
All Nexus vs. just iPh5C?
All Lumia touchscreens vs. just iPh4S?
Unintuitive vs. TouchWiz?
Aging lineup vs. Pixel??
The Stupid is leaking out and consuming moar brainzz...
For people that look up such information before they purchase (or get such information from friends and family), it will be clear that the Mac model in question is not considered "old". They will less question the decision to purchase - it reduces friction. It is good for the brand image of maintaining the platforms
It doesn't come without some investment of course - it isn't just a component change - but overall investment is small compared with the innovative stuff, and the number of Apple product lines where this applies are also small (Macs and now iPads).
Perhaps Apple does this because the incremental benefits of such new processors is low & therefor not worth it. That may be a true view of "value to performance of upgrade", but there are intangible impacts to perception of Apple, its brand, etc.