This report is unlikely to be correct, for three reasons:
1. Canalys has zero track record on accurate predictions.
2. At least in the US and Canada, lockdowns came very late in the day, so sales in the first two months wouldn’t have been affected.
3. Admittedly a small sample, but my checks with computer retailers in my town suggest that March saw a run on purchases of iPad, iPad Pro, and various MacBooks as people prepared for online classes and meetings and working from home.
I’m not doubting the industry will suffer compared to “normal,” but the idea that Apple is doing nearly three times as badly as the industry average is pretty laughable.
Yes, I think folk seem to forget is that these aren’t actually predictions of sales, they’re leaked details of components entering the supply chain. Not the same thing.
But the other thing to bear in mind is that Canalys doesn’t include tablets in their figures. It would interesting to see how iPad Pro is doing. I suspect that a lot of people who may have bought a MacBook may be opting for iPads instead. They can Zoom, Skype and run Office, which seems to be all your average office worker needs.
I trust this analytic company like I would trust a groundhog to tell me about seasons. it just means that apple's stock might dip, allowing me to grab a few more shares. this report could be 100%, but we are also in some trying times.
I think some folks really need to get a grip on the bigger picture, consistency in the macro trends, and stop trying to read too much into the ephemeral. The nature of the relationship between Apple and the rest of the personal computing market has not really changed much in over a decade, much less in response to the global health pandemic or some flaky keyboards. Perhaps the words of Steve Jobs from the 2007 D5 conference can provide some clues.
“And so the big secret about Apple, of course–not-so-big secret maybe–is that Apple views itself as a software company and there aren’t very many software companies left, and Microsoft is a software company. And so, you know, we look at what they do and we think some of it’s really great, and we think a little bit of it’s competitive and most of it’s not. You know, we don’t have a belief that the Mac is going to take over 80% of the PC market. You know, we’re really happy when our market share goes up a point and we love that and we work real hard at it, but Apple’s fundamentally a software company and there’s not a lot of us left and Microsoft’s one of them.” - Steve Jobs
The future of Apple is much more bound to iOS, iPadOS, macOS, Services, and increasingly, embedded software (firmware and microcode in silicon) than it is to any single product or form factor. To answer the question about “what Apple can do that no other company can do,” it’s everything in their software inventory that embodies Apple IP and innovation. Apple’s DNA is expressed in software. Any Chinese knockoff maker could clone anything in Apple’s hardware inventory in no time flat, but without the underlying Apple software on-disk, in-silicon, or in the cloud, it would just be a fancy coaster.
I think some folks really need to get a grip on the bigger picture, consistency in the macro trends, and stop trying to read too much into the ephemeral. The nature of the relationship between Apple and the rest of the personal computing market has not really changed much in over a decade, much less in response to the global health pandemic or some flaky keyboards. Perhaps the words of Steve Jobs from the 2007 D5 conference can provide some clues.
“And so the big secret about Apple, of course–not-so-big secret maybe–is that Apple views itself as a software company and there aren’t very many software companies left, and Microsoft is a software company. And so, you know, we look at what they do and we think some of it’s really great, and we think a little bit of it’s competitive and most of it’s not. You know, we don’t have a belief that the Mac is going to take over 80% of the PC market. You know, we’re really happy when our market share goes up a point and we love that and we work real hard at it, but Apple’s fundamentally a software company and there’s not a lot of us left and Microsoft’s one of them.” - Steve Jobs
The future of Apple is much more bound to iOS, iPadOS, macOS, Services, and increasingly, embedded software (firmware and microcode in silicon) than it is to any single product or form factor. To answer the question about “what Apple can do that no other company can do,” it’s everything in their software inventory that embodies Apple IP and innovation. Apple’s DNA is expressed in software. Any Chinese knockoff maker could clone anything in Apple’s hardware inventory in no time flat, but without the underlying Apple software on-disk, in-silicon, or in the cloud, it would just be a fancy coaster.
I'm not sure what Steve was getting at but just as space-time are inextricably linked, so too hardware-software at Apple. Without their own hardware, some of it utterly cutting-edge, there would be no Apple. However, I agree, hardware isn't the issue and it is capable of much greater things.
I prefer hardware, software and open standards. Today, and moving forward, convergence is a key parameter and for that things should play along with as few issues as possible for consumers.
I think some folks really need to get a grip on the bigger picture, consistency in the macro trends, and stop trying to read too much into the ephemeral. The nature of the relationship between Apple and the rest of the personal computing market has not really changed much in over a decade, much less in response to the global health pandemic or some flaky keyboards. Perhaps the words of Steve Jobs from the 2007 D5 conference can provide some clues.
“And so the big secret about Apple, of course–not-so-big secret maybe–is that Apple views itself as a software company and there aren’t very many software companies left, and Microsoft is a software company. And so, you know, we look at what they do and we think some of it’s really great, and we think a little bit of it’s competitive and most of it’s not. You know, we don’t have a belief that the Mac is going to take over 80% of the PC market. You know, we’re really happy when our market share goes up a point and we love that and we work real hard at it, but Apple’s fundamentally a software company and there’s not a lot of us left and Microsoft’s one of them.” - Steve Jobs
The future of Apple is much more bound to iOS, iPadOS, macOS, Services, and increasingly, embedded software (firmware and microcode in silicon) than it is to any single product or form factor. To answer the question about “what Apple can do that no other company can do,” it’s everything in their software inventory that embodies Apple IP and innovation. Apple’s DNA is expressed in software. Any Chinese knockoff maker could clone anything in Apple’s hardware inventory in no time flat, but without the underlying Apple software on-disk, in-silicon, or in the cloud, it would just be a fancy coaster.
I'm not sure what Steve was getting at but just as space-time are inextricably linked, so too hardware-software at Apple. Without their own hardware, some of it utterly cutting-edge, there would be no Apple. However, I agree, hardware isn't the issue and it is capable of much greater things.
Steve never said that hardware doesn’t matter. In fact, since Apple owns the hardware too they can do their best to ensure that their hardware doesn’t hamper the software or compromise it in any way. They can add new hardware to exploit new features in their software, and vice versa. Microsoft doesn’t have that same luxury. Even when they build their own hardware they can’t do anything that would compromise compatibility with third party partners and licensees of their software. I was at the PDC where Microsoft launched their first Microsoft designed PC and they were very clear that they viewed their efforts as a “training” and “teaching” exercise to show third party vendors how to provide a better product to exploit Windows capabilities - as well as a way to get their own Microsoft teams closer to the integration challenges faced by third party manufacturers. Apple lives and breathes, and totally owns, integration challenges. They don’t have to do it as a learning experience, it’s their bottom line pass-or-fail grade that defines their profitability. Big difference.
Apple’s market share is minuscule. Their overall pricing is higher than PC’s. Overall Apple’s products are of a higher quality, but you pay a premium for that. In a recession price sensitivity increases and I would predict demand for all of Apple’s products, including iPhones, will decrease significantly. The PC world is still dominated by Windows. The growth of cloud services should increase the ability of Apple to sell product in the corporate world, but the price premium may ultimately hinder that.
Yes, Windows 10 is good, and Windows Azure, Office 365, etc., are ever better, ever cheaper. Yes the Windows Surface line is great if you're a Windows user. Yes, generic Windows PCs are also even better, even cheaper (relatively) than they were in the oh-so-long-ago 1990s. If you're also a Google Docs and Android user (whoopie, choices!) you're presumptively, arguably, demonstrably well integrated. On the other hand, nothing, I repeat nothing, is as well-integrated as Apple's hardware/software ecosystem. When I'm in the zone -- iPhone, iPad Pro, iMac, and Apple Watch all engaged -- it's as though the machine-human interface of the future is already here. Check out Federico Viticci's well-documented adventures with the iPad Pro if you don't believe me. Silly fanboy differences aside, the future is looking brighter than ever, closer than ever, to Richard Brautigan's "Machines of Loving Grace."
I agree with you that Apple has a well integrated hardware / software ecosystem. But Apple ecosystem falls behind as soon as you enter business / enterprises, where MS dominates completely. The ecosystem MS have is very strong, and while they supports Apple devices, the integration Windows have in that ecosystem still far better. IMO, that's the reason the still dominate the business / enterprise market.
The cratering of sales by 21% doesn't pass the smell test without further information. I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, but you don't get a drop that steep "just because." And this would hardly be the first time that an analytic company forecast quarterly doom for Apple, only to have that forecast disproven when actual numbers come in. Apple, in its entire history, has never competed in the no profit, high volume crapola end of the market, so nothing new there, and it did extremely well through the Great Recession. In Oct of 2008, Apple's share price was $15 and it rose steadily through the entire recession to nearly $100 by April of 2012. Additionally, the products now at the low end of Apple's price range--Macbook Air, the cheaper iMacs, the Mac mini--have never offered greater value and all compare very favorably to PCs at that price point.
All these years later, I'm amazed that people--including some who've posted in this thread--STILL don't get that volume sales without strong profitability mean nothing. Thirteen years after its debut, I'm still reading "blah, blah, blah" about iPhones being too expensive... and meanwhile, Apple took 68% of GLOBAL mobile phone profits last year, with Samsung its nearest competitor at 17%, and every other company fighting for the leftover profit scraps. So much for high volume sales.
Does that mean having the most profits is actually relevant from a consumer perspective? Not at all.
It is relevant, in this important sense, especially as it relates to Apple: when you are in a very highly competitive market segment (mobile phones) AND your products are priced significantly higher than those of your competitors, you can only become the most profitable company (by several orders of magnitude, no less) if consumers decide that the products you're offering are worth it. Obviously, no consumer makes a purchase with a company's overall profitability on the list of deciding factors, but consumer decisions to spend the extra cash for an iPhone is what put Apple on top, by far, in profitability, where it has remained for years.
Interestingly, Apple has managed to achieve this while mostly staying out of the fray in both the Feature and Spec Wars, and it is often not first to market with new phone technologies--5G being the latest example of that. What it does deliver is an unparalleled user experience in a bespoke quality phone with a superbly executed feature set, which is largely the result of Apple's complete control of both hardware and iOS.
Our company is a heavy buyer of Dell workstations and laptops. Without exception that are unmitigated pieces of junk that barely last 2 years. The number of failures we have with Dells is tragic and they are just poorly designed built to a price throw away crap. Compared to the amazing longevity of Apple hardware there is no comparison. Just helped a friend replace his perfectly functional 2008 MacBook Pro. My 2014 27” iMac is a joy to use.
Yup. My enterprise client buys us Dell laptops and they’re historically junk. The one we just replaced sat on my desk and rarely moved, yet the flimsy plastic buttons on it failed — the damn power button scraped away and then started getting stuck under the plastic surface of the keyboard. Pathetic. It was big, heavy, janky, and ran hot, noisily blowing its fans all the time.
The latest one is better, but not nearly as good as my MBP. Something that irks me is the 15 or so McAfee background services running on it constantly, driving up the CPU cycles sometimes 25%, and routinely blowing the fans.
Our company is a heavy buyer of Dell workstations and laptops. Without exception that are unmitigated pieces of junk that barely last 2 years. The number of failures we have with Dells is tragic and they are just poorly designed built to a price throw away crap. Compared to the amazing longevity of Apple hardware there is no comparison. Just helped a friend replace his perfectly functional 2008 MacBook Pro. My 2014 27” iMac is a joy to use.
Yup. My enterprise client buys us Dell laptops and they’re historically junk. The one we just replaced sat on my desk and rarely moved, yet the flimsy plastic buttons on it failed — the damn power button scraped away and then started getting stuck under the plastic surface of the keyboard. Pathetic. It was big, heavy, janky, and ran hot, noisily blowing its fans all the time.
The latest one is better, but not nearly as good as my MBP. Something that irks me is the 15 or so McAfee background services running on it constantly, driving up the CPU cycles sometimes 25%, and routinely blowing the fans.
It’s a shitty ecosystem, years behind MacBooks.
At least my Dell doesn't have a silly keyboard or some silly bling bling tech that stops working after 2 months of actual use that is too expensive / time consuming to replace.
MacBook and the desktop products have become some kind of HALO Products for the mindless who have to buy the iPhone "Pro" because it makes them feel less like a mindless content consumption sheep sitting on instagram and facebook all day.
Of course Apple has a technological advantage, but that advantage is almost no longer present. OpenGL Support is dropped, major creative / professional software developers start to move to either linux or windows as their first development target platform and the macOS API madness / T2 shit / deprecation of general purpose computing through non-affordability (Mac Pro) / jokingly stupid things that simply don't work (hardware and software bugs) is driving professionals away. Of course you guys will defend it, but fact is that it's becoming hard to justify to develop professional tools for macOS when macOS is becoming a content consumption platform or some kind of garbage iOS fork not compatible with general purpose computing.
I too think the Mac is regressing. I have two Mac Book Pros in the house right now; one is my own, the other is the company's. I am working from home of course.
Mine is pre touch bar and pre single port. The other has the USB-C port and the Touch Bar. And the butterfly keyboard.
I much prefer moving to the older machine. The mag-safe powers up the Mac faster and is clearly safer. With the USB C, the Mac can actually lose power when plugged in and doesn't charge from the cable alone. The newer version heats up more, has crashed a few times, although OS X is still pretty stable. The keyboard is getting sticky and just feels worse. Getting back to the spongier keyboard on the 2017 Mac Pro feels so much nicer. I type as fast on both.
The Touch Bar is rarely of use, although I did just use it to increase the brightness as I typed this but I used to do that with built in function keys.
The one better thing is the touchID on the newer device. - that is useful.
Neither is my favourite ever Mac Book, I had an old 17 inch which was the business a few years back.
I've loved Apple since my 128K in 1984 and have never to this day owned even a single Windows machine. With that said...
Much of what you wrote applies also to me. My first Mac was a 512 k. (On its single double density, dual-sided 'floppy' disk, were stored the operating system, applications and documents.) I believe though that Apple needs to re-invent personal computing and technologies exist (some on the horizon) to achieve this where others can't.
They don't need to reinvent anything.
They need to revert to building flexible, expandable, serviceable machines that don't run hot. Also, the constant focus on making macOS behave more and more like iOS and locking it down, is bound to throw off a lot of people who use their systems for work and projects iOS was never built for.
Finally Apple needs to come to realization that more and more people don't want to store everything about their life in the cloud, and that businesses by law in most countries cannot store very large portions of their business and personnel data in the cloud. Therefore the systems Apple creates must also appeal to these users, which they sadly decreasingly do.
I agree with aspects of what you have written, especially about iOS. However, regarding core Mac OS capabilities, your post reads a little like saying "they need to build a better (aka faster) horse".
Edit: I mean no disrespect, I agree too with more than just your iOS comments. Apple needs more than better versions of their hardware.
Hmm, I don't agree. Apple themselves say that there is a difference between a truck and a car, and there will be a difference between Mac OS and iOS. Both have different functionality.
Our company is a heavy buyer of Dell workstations and laptops. Without exception that are unmitigated pieces of junk that barely last 2 years. The number of failures we have with Dells is tragic and they are just poorly designed built to a price throw away crap. Compared to the amazing longevity of Apple hardware there is no comparison. Just helped a friend replace his perfectly functional 2008 MacBook Pro. My 2014 27” iMac is a joy to use.
Yup. My enterprise client buys us Dell laptops and they’re historically junk. The one we just replaced sat on my desk and rarely moved, yet the flimsy plastic buttons on it failed — the damn power button scraped away and then started getting stuck under the plastic surface of the keyboard. Pathetic. It was big, heavy, janky, and ran hot, noisily blowing its fans all the time.
The latest one is better, but not nearly as good as my MBP. Something that irks me is the 15 or so McAfee background services running on it constantly, driving up the CPU cycles sometimes 25%, and routinely blowing the fans.
It’s a shitty ecosystem, years behind MacBooks.
No one’s saying they’re as good as Macs. But for virtually all businesses, a Dell is good enough. And same goes for a lot of home users too, otherwise their sales wouldn’t be what they are.
I've loved Apple since my 128K in 1984 and have never to this day owned even a single Windows machine. With that said...
Much of what you wrote applies also to me. My first Mac was a 512 k. (On its single double density, dual-sided 'floppy' disk, were stored the operating system, applications and documents.) I believe though that Apple needs to re-invent personal computing and technologies exist (some on the horizon) to achieve this where others can't.
They don't need to reinvent anything.
They need to revert to building flexible, expandable, serviceable machines that don't run hot. Also, the constant focus on making macOS behave more and more like iOS and locking it down, is bound to throw off a lot of people who use their systems for work and projects iOS was never built for.
Finally Apple needs to come to realization that more and more people don't want to store everything about their life in the cloud, and that businesses by law in most countries cannot store very large portions of their business and personnel data in the cloud. Therefore the systems Apple creates must also appeal to these users, which they sadly decreasingly do.
I agree with aspects of what you have written, especially about iOS. However, regarding core Mac OS capabilities, your post reads a little like saying "they need to build a better (aka faster) horse".
Edit: I mean no disrespect, I agree too with more than just your iOS comments. Apple needs more than better versions of their hardware.
Hmm, I don't agree. Apple themselves say that there is a difference between a truck and a car, and there will be a difference between Mac OS and iOS. Both have different functionality.
I'm losing track of the threads a little but I agree with you. I believe that Mac OS should be taken to new heights and not with iOS in tow.
Our company is a heavy buyer of Dell workstations and laptops. Without exception that are unmitigated pieces of junk that barely last 2 years. The number of failures we have with Dells is tragic and they are just poorly designed built to a price throw away crap. Compared to the amazing longevity of Apple hardware there is no comparison. Just helped a friend replace his perfectly functional 2008 MacBook Pro. My 2014 27” iMac is a joy to use.
Yup. My enterprise client buys us Dell laptops and they’re historically junk. The one we just replaced sat on my desk and rarely moved, yet the flimsy plastic buttons on it failed — the damn power button scraped away and then started getting stuck under the plastic surface of the keyboard. Pathetic. It was big, heavy, janky, and ran hot, noisily blowing its fans all the time.
The latest one is better, but not nearly as good as my MBP. Something that irks me is the 15 or so McAfee background services running on it constantly, driving up the CPU cycles sometimes 25%, and routinely blowing the fans.
It’s a shitty ecosystem, years behind MacBooks.
This is the biggest problem: the huge amount of junk that gets installed on these things before they arrive at your house.
But here's the thing we need to remember: the vast majority don't care about longevity, or ease of use (and aside from trying to find things in the control panel, Windows isn't that bad), or having a system that's clean of third-party spyware junk when it gets delivered. What they care about is up-front cheapness, and whether its enterprise or consumer, Apple has no real interest in those customers, because then you're just racing towards the basement.
I too think the Mac is regressing. I have two Mac Book Pros in the house right now; one is my own, the other is the company's. I am working from home of course.
Mine is pre touch bar and pre single port. The other has the USB-C port and the Touch Bar. And the butterfly keyboard.
I much prefer moving to the older machine. The mag-safe powers up the Mac faster and is clearly safer. With the USB C, the Mac can actually lose power when plugged in and doesn't charge from the cable alone. The newer version heats up more, has crashed a few times, although OS X is still pretty stable. The keyboard is getting sticky and just feels worse. Getting back to the spongier keyboard on the 2017 Mac Pro feels so much nicer. I type as fast on both.
The Touch Bar is rarely of use, although I did just use it to increase the brightness as I typed this but I used to do that with built in function keys.
The one better thing is the touchID on the newer device. - that is useful.
Neither is my favourite ever Mac Book, I had an old 17 inch which was the business a few years back.
Well, the problem with MagSafe is that people wanted USB-C, so there's no going back on that one I'm afraid. The Mac not charging from the cable alone has nothing to do with USB-C; it's do with allowing customers to walk around with a small charging plug rather than a hot brick.
I've always liked the butterfly keyboard, but that's because I was one of the majority that never had a reliability problem with it, but I can see how the action might be too shallow for people who can't touch-type, who again are probably the majority.
I'm a developer so I get a lot of use out of the Touch Bar since the tools I use roll the functions around for stuff like compiling and debugging, but I think the big problem with it is that the people who will use it the most will also have a separate keyboard and screen, so they can't actually reach it.
TouchID, same problem. Great, unless you have a separate screen and keyboard.
What's needed is a separate keyboard with a TouchBar.
The cratering of sales by 21% doesn't pass the smell test without further information. I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, but you don't get a drop that steep "just because." And this would hardly be the first time that an analytic company forecast quarterly doom for Apple, only to have that forecast disproven when actual numbers come in. Apple, in its entire history, has never competed in the no profit, high volume crapola end of the market, so nothing new there, and it did extremely well through the Great Recession. In Oct of 2008, Apple's share price was $15 and it rose steadily through the entire recession to nearly $100 by April of 2012. Additionally, the products now at the low end of Apple's price range--Macbook Air, the cheaper iMacs, the Mac mini--have never offered greater value and all compare very favorably to PCs at that price point.
All these years later, I'm amazed that people--including some who've posted in this thread--STILL don't get that volume sales without strong profitability mean nothing. Thirteen years after its debut, I'm still reading "blah, blah, blah" about iPhones being too expensive... and meanwhile, Apple took 68% of GLOBAL mobile phone profits last year, with Samsung its nearest competitor at 17%, and every other company fighting for the leftover profit scraps. So much for high volume sales.
Does that mean having the most profits is actually relevant from a consumer perspective? Not at all.
It is relevant, in this important sense, especially as it relates to Apple: when you are in a very highly competitive market segment (mobile phones) AND your products are priced significantly higher than those of your competitors, you can only become the most profitable company (by several orders of magnitude, no less) if consumers decide that the products you're offering are worth it. Obviously, no consumer makes a purchase with a company's overall profitability on the list of deciding factors, but consumer decisions to spend the extra cash for an iPhone is what put Apple on top, by far, in profitability, where it has remained for years.
Interestingly, Apple has managed to achieve this while mostly staying out of the fray in both the Feature and Spec Wars, and it is often not first to market with new phone technologies--5G being the latest example of that. What it does deliver is an unparalleled user experience in a bespoke quality phone with a superbly executed feature set, which is largely the result of Apple's complete control of both hardware and iOS.
You haven't actually explained why having the most profits is relevant.
Consumers deciding a product is 'worth' the high price, is not, and never has been, something that sets Apple apart from competitors and with 80% of the smartphone market there to be taken, Apple has very much stalled on shipments for the last few years and precisely the issue of pricing has very much been one of the key factors involved. To the point that more and more users were holding off on new purchases. It is clear that a group of existing iPhone users weren't considering the asking price as a reasonable deal and instead were choosing to hold off. What Apple did have though, was a far higher proportion of its models in the higher price brackets in relation to competitors.
Another reason was competitiveness in the wider market in terms of what was actually on offer on the phones. Apple was falling dangerously behind in areas that users were running into problems with on a daily basis. While initially many here for example scoffed at the notion of tri-cameras, night mode, ultra wide lenses, fast charging etc, seeing those features roll out on competing flagships (and then filter down into the lower ranges) obviously didn't help promote iPhones in the eyes of the wider public and some here even openly admitted to holding off on purchasing on rumours of those features eventually hitting the iPhone. All of this is tied to the perceived value of the phones.
Competitors had offered vastly more expensive phones than iPhones long before Apple hit and passed $1,000. They still do of course and they are selling more of them than ever so that isn't a factor that sets the iPhone apart.
However, none of those consumers (and I'm including Apple users here, too) have even the slightest, passing interest in how much 'profit' Apple or anyone else makes off an iPhone. In fact, depending on how that information is presented, it could be very, very dangerous to iPhone sales because if someone were to make a meal out of Apple’s cash reserves and the product they were largely made off, it could impact sales. Especially as a lot of those profits have not really been put to use.
Why? Because those profits are very real and it could make for a wave of rejection among many of those users. Not those like yourself, of course, because you already have this information and are perfectly happy with it. There is no problem there. You are not alone here on AI but even then, there are also many users here who held off on new iPhone purchases for the reasons I gave above.
'Spec wars' are really a battle within the war, not the war itself, and Apple plays its own battles, when it can. The problem is that the last few years haven't really provided Apple with the necessary specs to actually win many of those battles.
They have had the SoC but really it isn't the SoC per se, it's the performance, which sadly doesn't mean much at all for anyone (or at least 90% of users out there), as ALL flagships have been incredibly fast for years now. Ironically the perception of 'speed' has moved elsewhere to a degree, with faster screen refresh rates now deemed to make things noticeably smoother but by the time Apple reaches that area it will be irrelevant as a stand out feature.
They also had FaceID which started on just one phone in 2017 but it is definitely not something that people yearn for and, if anything, people are now spoilt by virtually full screen phones at every corner, some with smaller notches, punch holes or no notch at all (sliding mechanisms or pop up cameras). In other words the FaceID biometric hasn't really brought much to the table as it was just a biometric, like many other forms of biometric.
Apple can say it is technically more secure and can learn to recognise you etc and that is all true but not even FaceID functionality is an exclusive feature to Apple and everyone can easily authenticate by other means anyway. When it comes to things like payments, most people will think if their authentication method is secure enough for the banks to see the transaction through, they are good to go. More theoretical security isn't really doing much for anyone in the real world and inexplicably, Apple didn't introduce FaceID with anything more than authentication in mind. Competitors used their equivalent technologies to enhance use, privacy and 3D small object modelling.
Apple’s two strong points from the last few years haven't really translated into a real advantage. That's unfortunate for sure and isn't from lack of technical merit in either area.
Perhaps strategic decisions at other levels haven't helped either. Apple not having a 5G phone is definitely a result of strategic decisions, not some part of a master plan. Apple will now probably release a 5G iPhone with a second gen 5G modem, a month or two before Qualcomm takes the wraps off its third gen 5G modem and see it go straight to Samsung early next year. That same second gen modem (plus mediatek and Huawei 5G modems) will already be in mid range Android phones by September/October and will not mean much by then as a spec, as the newer 5G QC will be appearing on other phones probably as early as MWC2020. The iPhone might have to wait until the year end to get it. COVID-19 could throw a spanner into release cycles, though.
Last year, people said WiFi 6 on the iPhone was a major feature, only for Huawei to claim its WiFi 5 from 2018 was actually faster than Apple’s WiFi 6 from 2019 and now they have released their own 'WiFi 6+' making use of their 5G know-how to make things even faster and more efficient on its own ecosystem but while maintaining full compatibility with the standard.
There was a time when Apple would be putting this stuff out first but times have changed in some key areas and the only way forward is to compete, which thankfully, Apple is doing, by making important improvements to hardware and pricing.
The rumoured iPhone SE2 should be an important card to play if pricing hits the sweet spot but will only exist because people (for the last four years now) have been thinking twice about the 'value' in iPhones when considering their prices. It is a good move as it gives them something new to offer at a much lower price and, and this is key, gives them a product to market as new in developing markets.
As for ecosystems, well, we are all in a similar situation. There are ecosystems everywhere. Google Android itself is an ecosystem. Samsung has an Ecosystem. Huawei has an ecosystem. There are others.
Apple’s ecosystem is another. One of many, and possibly more sealed off than others but it has its fair share of problems too. Just look at some of the complaints about the different Siris here on AI. From a user perspective there should only be 'one' Siri and users should be impervious to its inner workings. It should 'just work', and work the same across all devices in the ecosystem. No mean feat but if we want to 'sell' the ecosystem as a true differentiator from a value perspective, the whole point is that it should just work. HomeKit has also had problems from an ecosystem perspective.
I've had my doubts too about if the TV part of the ecosystem should be limited to a connected box or an Apple branded TV. I've tended to prefer the idea of a full TV to better interact with the people and devices in the home, and after seeing where Huawei is going with the X65, I'm leaning even more in that direction. I think Apple borrow a lot from that device.
All in all, people are totally unaware of Apple’s share of smartphone profits and most have no interest in them because, from a consumer perspective it is, at best, irrevelant and at worst, a possible nightmare situation.
The cratering of sales by 21% doesn't pass the smell test without further information. I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, but you don't get a drop that steep "just because." And this would hardly be the first time that an analytic company forecast quarterly doom for Apple, only to have that forecast disproven when actual numbers come in. Apple, in its entire history, has never competed in the no profit, high volume crapola end of the market, so nothing new there, and it did extremely well through the Great Recession. In Oct of 2008, Apple's share price was $15 and it rose steadily through the entire recession to nearly $100 by April of 2012. Additionally, the products now at the low end of Apple's price range--Macbook Air, the cheaper iMacs, the Mac mini--have never offered greater value and all compare very favorably to PCs at that price point.
All these years later, I'm amazed that people--including some who've posted in this thread--STILL don't get that volume sales without strong profitability mean nothing. Thirteen years after its debut, I'm still reading "blah, blah, blah" about iPhones being too expensive... and meanwhile, Apple took 68% of GLOBAL mobile phone profits last year, with Samsung its nearest competitor at 17%, and every other company fighting for the leftover profit scraps. So much for high volume sales.
Does that mean having the most profits is actually relevant from a consumer perspective? Not at all.
It is relevant, in this important sense, especially as it relates to Apple: when you are in a very highly competitive market segment (mobile phones) AND your products are priced significantly higher than those of your competitors, you can only become the most profitable company (by several orders of magnitude, no less) if consumers decide that the products you're offering are worth it. Obviously, no consumer makes a purchase with a company's overall profitability on the list of deciding factors, but consumer decisions to spend the extra cash for an iPhone is what put Apple on top, by far, in profitability, where it has remained for years.
Interestingly, Apple has managed to achieve this while mostly staying out of the fray in both the Feature and Spec Wars, and it is often not first to market with new phone technologies--5G being the latest example of that. What it does deliver is an unparalleled user experience in a bespoke quality phone with a superbly executed feature set, which is largely the result of Apple's complete control of both hardware and iOS.
You haven't actually explained why having the most profits is relevant.
Consumers deciding a product is 'worth' the high price, is not, and never has been, something that sets Apple apart from competitors and with 80% of the smartphone market there to be taken, Apple has very much stalled on shipments for the last few years and precisely the issue of pricing has very much been one of the key factors involved. To the point that more and more users were holding off on new purchases. It is clear that a group of existing iPhone users weren't considering the asking price as a reasonable deal and instead were choosing to hold off. What Apple did have though, was a far higher proportion of its models in the higher price brackets in relation to competitors.
Another reason was competitiveness in the wider market in terms of what was actually on offer on the phones. Apple was falling dangerously behind in areas that users were running into problems with on a daily basis. While initially many here for example scoffed at the notion of tri-cameras, night mode, ultra wide lenses, fast charging etc, seeing those features roll out on competing flagships (and then filter down into the lower ranges) obviously didn't help promote iPhones in the eyes of the wider public and some here even openly admitted to holding off on purchasing on rumours of those features eventually hitting the iPhone. All of this is tied to the perceived value of the phones.
Competitors had offered vastly more expensive phones than iPhones long before Apple hit and passed $1,000. They still do of course and they are selling more of them than ever so that isn't a factor that sets the iPhone apart.
However, none of those consumers (and I'm including Apple users here, too) have even the slightest, passing interest in how much 'profit' Apple or anyone else makes off an iPhone. In fact, depending on how that information is presented, it could be very, very dangerous to iPhone sales because if someone were to make a meal out of Apple’s cash reserves and the product they were largely made off, it could impact sales. Especially as a lot of those profits have not really been put to use.
Why? Because those profits are very real and it could make for a wave of rejection among many of those users. Not those like yourself, of course, because you already have this information and are perfectly happy with it. There is no problem there. You are not alone here on AI but even then, there are also many users here who held off on new iPhone purchases for the reasons I gave above.
'Spec wars' are really a battle within the war, not the war itself, and Apple plays its own battles, when it can. The problem is that the last few years haven't really provided Apple with the necessary specs to actually win many of those battles.
They have had the SoC but really it isn't the SoC per se, it's the performance, which sadly doesn't mean much at all for anyone (or at least 90% of users out there), as ALL flagships have been incredibly fast for years now. Ironically the perception of 'speed' has moved elsewhere to a degree, with faster screen refresh rates now deemed to make things noticeably smoother but by the time Apple reaches that area it will be irrelevant as a stand out feature.
They also had FaceID which started on just one phone in 2017 but it is definitely not something that people yearn for and, if anything, people are now spoilt by virtually full screen phones at every corner, some with smaller notches, punch holes or no notch at all (sliding mechanisms or pop up cameras). In other words the FaceID biometric hasn't really brought much to the table as it was just a biometric, like many other forms of biometric.
Apple can say it is technically more secure and can learn to recognise you etc and that is all true but not even FaceID functionality is an exclusive feature to Apple and everyone can easily authenticate by other means anyway. When it comes to things like payments, most people will think if their authentication method is secure enough for the banks to see the transaction through, they are good to go. More theoretical security isn't really doing much for anyone in the real world and inexplicably, Apple didn't introduce FaceID with anything more than authentication in mind. Competitors used their equivalent technologies to enhance use, privacy and 3D small object modelling.
Apple’s two strong points from the last few years haven't really translated into a real advantage. That's unfortunate for sure and isn't from lack of technical merit in either area.
Perhaps strategic decisions at other levels haven't helped either. Apple not having a 5G phone is definitely a result of strategic decisions, not some part of a master plan. Apple will now probably release a 5G iPhone with a second gen 5G modem, a month or two before Qualcomm takes the wraps off its third gen 5G modem and see it go straight to Samsung early next year. That same second gen modem (plus mediatek and Huawei 5G modems) will already be in mid range Android phones by September/October and will not mean much by then as a spec, as the newer 5G QC will be appearing on other phones probably as early as MWC2020. The iPhone might have to wait until the year end to get it. COVID-19 could throw a spanner into release cycles, though.
Last year, people said WiFi 6 on the iPhone was a major feature, only for Huawei to claim its WiFi 5 from 2018 was actually faster than Apple’s WiFi 6 from 2019 and now they have released their own 'WiFi 6+' making use of their 5G know-how to make things even faster and more efficient on its own ecosystem but while maintaining full compatibility with the standard.
There was a time when Apple would be putting this stuff out first but times have changed in some key areas and the only way forward is to compete, which thankfully, Apple is doing, by making important improvements to hardware and pricing.
The rumoured iPhone SE2 should be an important card to play if pricing hits the sweet spot but will only exist because people (for the last four years now) have been thinking twice about the 'value' in iPhones when considering their prices. It is a good move as it gives them something new to offer at a much lower price and, and this is key, gives them a product to market as new in developing markets.
As for ecosystems, well, we are all in a similar situation. There are ecosystems everywhere. Google Android itself is an ecosystem. Samsung has an Ecosystem. Huawei has an ecosystem. There are others.
Apple’s ecosystem is another. One of many, and possibly more sealed off than others but it has its fair share of problems too. Just look at some of the complaints about the different Siris here on AI. From a user perspective there should only be 'one' Siri and users should be impervious to its inner workings. It should 'just work', and work the same across all devices in the ecosystem. No mean feat but if we want to 'sell' the ecosystem as a true differentiator from a value perspective, the whole point is that it should just work. HomeKit has also had problems from an ecosystem perspective.
I've had my doubts too about if the TV part of the ecosystem should be limited to a connected box or an Apple branded TV. I've tended to prefer the idea of a full TV to better interact with the people and devices in the home, and after seeing where Huawei is going with the X65, I'm leaning even more in that direction. I think Apple borrow a lot from that device.
All in all, people are totally unaware of Apple’s share of smartphone profits and most have no interest in them because, from a consumer perspective it is, at best, irrevelant and at worst, a possible nightmare situation.
Profits matter because companies that are able save for a rainy day survive, and will end up thriving after. That Apple has both scale and profits is golden.
Lots of companies are not going to surviver. Huawei will survive only because it is a state owned enterprise, not because Huawei has saved for a rainy day, but I would note that the free world is getting very tired of China, and COVID19 is accelerating that trend. Huawei will suffer for that, and fairly.
Do your really think that the UK, or Germany, is going to be more impressed with China, and Huawei, after China's diaspora and companies around the world have bought up face masks to the tune of 2 billion units, and shipped them back to China, not to mention, pharmaceuticals, ventilators, and other medical equipment?
Ask yourself what it feels like for Spain to buy PPE from China that doesn't meet specs.
The cratering of sales by 21% doesn't pass the smell test without further information. I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, but you don't get a drop that steep "just because." And this would hardly be the first time that an analytic company forecast quarterly doom for Apple, only to have that forecast disproven when actual numbers come in. Apple, in its entire history, has never competed in the no profit, high volume crapola end of the market, so nothing new there, and it did extremely well through the Great Recession. In Oct of 2008, Apple's share price was $15 and it rose steadily through the entire recession to nearly $100 by April of 2012. Additionally, the products now at the low end of Apple's price range--Macbook Air, the cheaper iMacs, the Mac mini--have never offered greater value and all compare very favorably to PCs at that price point.
All these years later, I'm amazed that people--including some who've posted in this thread--STILL don't get that volume sales without strong profitability mean nothing. Thirteen years after its debut, I'm still reading "blah, blah, blah" about iPhones being too expensive... and meanwhile, Apple took 68% of GLOBAL mobile phone profits last year, with Samsung its nearest competitor at 17%, and every other company fighting for the leftover profit scraps. So much for high volume sales.
Does that mean having the most profits is actually relevant from a consumer perspective? Not at all.
It is relevant, in this important sense, especially as it relates to Apple: when you are in a very highly competitive market segment (mobile phones) AND your products are priced significantly higher than those of your competitors, you can only become the most profitable company (by several orders of magnitude, no less) if consumers decide that the products you're offering are worth it. Obviously, no consumer makes a purchase with a company's overall profitability on the list of deciding factors, but consumer decisions to spend the extra cash for an iPhone is what put Apple on top, by far, in profitability, where it has remained for years.
Interestingly, Apple has managed to achieve this while mostly staying out of the fray in both the Feature and Spec Wars, and it is often not first to market with new phone technologies--5G being the latest example of that. What it does deliver is an unparalleled user experience in a bespoke quality phone with a superbly executed feature set, which is largely the result of Apple's complete control of both hardware and iOS.
You haven't actually explained why having the most profits is relevant.
Consumers deciding a product is 'worth' the high price, is not, and never has been, something that sets Apple apart from competitors and with 80% of the smartphone market there to be taken, Apple has very much stalled on shipments for the last few years and precisely the issue of pricing has very much been one of the key factors involved. To the point that more and more users were holding off on new purchases. It is clear that a group of existing iPhone users weren't considering the asking price as a reasonable deal and instead were choosing to hold off. What Apple did have though, was a far higher proportion of its models in the higher price brackets in relation to competitors.
Another reason was competitiveness in the wider market in terms of what was actually on offer on the phones. Apple was falling dangerously behind in areas that users were running into problems with on a daily basis. While initially many here for example scoffed at the notion of tri-cameras, night mode, ultra wide lenses, fast charging etc, seeing those features roll out on competing flagships (and then filter down into the lower ranges) obviously didn't help promote iPhones in the eyes of the wider public and some here even openly admitted to holding off on purchasing on rumours of those features eventually hitting the iPhone. All of this is tied to the perceived value of the phones.
Competitors had offered vastly more expensive phones than iPhones long before Apple hit and passed $1,000. They still do of course and they are selling more of them than ever so that isn't a factor that sets the iPhone apart.
However, none of those consumers (and I'm including Apple users here, too) have even the slightest, passing interest in how much 'profit' Apple or anyone else makes off an iPhone. In fact, depending on how that information is presented, it could be very, very dangerous to iPhone sales because if someone were to make a meal out of Apple’s cash reserves and the product they were largely made off, it could impact sales. Especially as a lot of those profits have not really been put to use.
Why? Because those profits are very real and it could make for a wave of rejection among many of those users. Not those like yourself, of course, because you already have this information and are perfectly happy with it. There is no problem there. You are not alone here on AI but even then, there are also many users here who held off on new iPhone purchases for the reasons I gave above.
'Spec wars' are really a battle within the war, not the war itself, and Apple plays its own battles, when it can. The problem is that the last few years haven't really provided Apple with the necessary specs to actually win many of those battles.
They have had the SoC but really it isn't the SoC per se, it's the performance, which sadly doesn't mean much at all for anyone (or at least 90% of users out there), as ALL flagships have been incredibly fast for years now. Ironically the perception of 'speed' has moved elsewhere to a degree, with faster screen refresh rates now deemed to make things noticeably smoother but by the time Apple reaches that area it will be irrelevant as a stand out feature.
They also had FaceID which started on just one phone in 2017 but it is definitely not something that people yearn for and, if anything, people are now spoilt by virtually full screen phones at every corner, some with smaller notches, punch holes or no notch at all (sliding mechanisms or pop up cameras). In other words the FaceID biometric hasn't really brought much to the table as it was just a biometric, like many other forms of biometric.
Apple can say it is technically more secure and can learn to recognise you etc and that is all true but not even FaceID functionality is an exclusive feature to Apple and everyone can easily authenticate by other means anyway. When it comes to things like payments, most people will think if their authentication method is secure enough for the banks to see the transaction through, they are good to go. More theoretical security isn't really doing much for anyone in the real world and inexplicably, Apple didn't introduce FaceID with anything more than authentication in mind. Competitors used their equivalent technologies to enhance use, privacy and 3D small object modelling.
Apple’s two strong points from the last few years haven't really translated into a real advantage. That's unfortunate for sure and isn't from lack of technical merit in either area.
Perhaps strategic decisions at other levels haven't helped either. Apple not having a 5G phone is definitely a result of strategic decisions, not some part of a master plan. Apple will now probably release a 5G iPhone with a second gen 5G modem, a month or two before Qualcomm takes the wraps off its third gen 5G modem and see it go straight to Samsung early next year. That same second gen modem (plus mediatek and Huawei 5G modems) will already be in mid range Android phones by September/October and will not mean much by then as a spec, as the newer 5G QC will be appearing on other phones probably as early as MWC2020. The iPhone might have to wait until the year end to get it. COVID-19 could throw a spanner into release cycles, though.
Last year, people said WiFi 6 on the iPhone was a major feature, only for Huawei to claim its WiFi 5 from 2018 was actually faster than Apple’s WiFi 6 from 2019 and now they have released their own 'WiFi 6+' making use of their 5G know-how to make things even faster and more efficient on its own ecosystem but while maintaining full compatibility with the standard.
There was a time when Apple would be putting this stuff out first but times have changed in some key areas and the only way forward is to compete, which thankfully, Apple is doing, by making important improvements to hardware and pricing.
The rumoured iPhone SE2 should be an important card to play if pricing hits the sweet spot but will only exist because people (for the last four years now) have been thinking twice about the 'value' in iPhones when considering their prices. It is a good move as it gives them something new to offer at a much lower price and, and this is key, gives them a product to market as new in developing markets.
As for ecosystems, well, we are all in a similar situation. There are ecosystems everywhere. Google Android itself is an ecosystem. Samsung has an Ecosystem. Huawei has an ecosystem. There are others.
Apple’s ecosystem is another. One of many, and possibly more sealed off than others but it has its fair share of problems too. Just look at some of the complaints about the different Siris here on AI. From a user perspective there should only be 'one' Siri and users should be impervious to its inner workings. It should 'just work', and work the same across all devices in the ecosystem. No mean feat but if we want to 'sell' the ecosystem as a true differentiator from a value perspective, the whole point is that it should just work. HomeKit has also had problems from an ecosystem perspective.
I've had my doubts too about if the TV part of the ecosystem should be limited to a connected box or an Apple branded TV. I've tended to prefer the idea of a full TV to better interact with the people and devices in the home, and after seeing where Huawei is going with the X65, I'm leaning even more in that direction. I think Apple borrow a lot from that device.
All in all, people are totally unaware of Apple’s share of smartphone profits and most have no interest in them because, from a consumer perspective it is, at best, irrevelant and at worst, a possible nightmare situation.
Profits matter because companies that are able save for a rainy day survive, and will end up thriving after. That Apple has both scale and profits is golden.
Lots of companies are not going to surviver. Huawei will survive only because it is a state owned enterprise, not because Huawei has saved for a rainy day, but I would note that the free world is getting very tired of China, and COVID19 is accelerating that trend. Huawei will suffer for that, and fairly.
Do your really think that the UK, or Germany, is going to be more impressed with China, and Huawei, after China's diaspora and companies around the world have bought up face masks to the tune of 2 billion units, and shipped them back to China, not to mention, pharmaceuticals, ventilators, and other medical equipment?
Ask yourself what it feels like for Spain to buy PPE from China that doesn't meet specs.
That claim of 2 billion units is absurd. And as for Spain you get a bad batch of equipment now and again. Most of the reporting there was agenda driven. Rather than the “free world” turning against China its likely parts of Europe will turn towards the belt and road initiative.
I too think the Mac is regressing. I have two Mac Book Pros in the house right now; one is my own, the other is the company's. I am working from home of course.
Mine is pre touch bar and pre single port. The other has the USB-C port and the Touch Bar. And the butterfly keyboard.
I much prefer moving to the older machine. The mag-safe powers up the Mac faster and is clearly safer. With the USB C, the Mac can actually lose power when plugged in and doesn't charge from the cable alone. The newer version heats up more, has crashed a few times, although OS X is still pretty stable. The keyboard is getting sticky and just feels worse. Getting back to the spongier keyboard on the 2017 Mac Pro feels so much nicer. I type as fast on both.
The Touch Bar is rarely of use, although I did just use it to increase the brightness as I typed this but I used to do that with built in function keys.
The one better thing is the touchID on the newer device. - that is useful.
Neither is my favourite ever Mac Book, I had an old 17 inch which was the business a few years back.
Well, the problem with MagSafe is that people wanted USB-C, so there's no going back on that one I'm afraid. The Mac not charging from the cable alone has nothing to do with USB-C; it's do with allowing customers to walk around with a small charging plug rather than a hot brick.
I've always liked the butterfly keyboard, but that's because I was one of the majority that never had a reliability problem with it, but I can see how the action might be too shallow for people who can't touch-type, who again are probably the majority.
I'm a developer so I get a lot of use out of the Touch Bar since the tools I use roll the functions around for stuff like compiling and debugging, but I think the big problem with it is that the people who will use it the most will also have a separate keyboard and screen, so they can't actually reach it.
TouchID, same problem. Great, unless you have a separate screen and keyboard.
What's needed is a separate keyboard with a TouchBar.
'People wanted USB-C' and that made Magsafe not an option?
Let's be clear. USB-C was plunked on users by Apple on laptops whether they wanted it or not. In the case of the laptop lines from 2016 everything else was removed. You had to take it or leave it. I wouldn't say people wanted UBC-C at any price. Many would have been perfectly happy with USB-C plus a few other ports.
I don't remember seeing anyone actually 'wanting' that kind of headache forUSB-C back then.
People wanted USB-C as an addition to what they already had.
Magsafe could sit on a MBP today with no issue. Apple chose to get rid of it and there are considerations to be taken into account but claiming it is gone because people wanted USB-C is stretching it a lot.
Comments
The future of Apple is much more bound to iOS, iPadOS, macOS, Services, and increasingly, embedded software (firmware and microcode in silicon) than it is to any single product or form factor. To answer the question about “what Apple can do that no other company can do,” it’s everything in their software inventory that embodies Apple IP and innovation. Apple’s DNA is expressed in software. Any Chinese knockoff maker could clone anything in Apple’s hardware inventory in no time flat, but without the underlying Apple software on-disk, in-silicon, or in the cloud, it would just be a fancy coaster.
Interestingly, Apple has managed to achieve this while mostly staying out of the fray in both the Feature and Spec Wars, and it is often not first to market with new phone technologies--5G being the latest example of that. What it does deliver is an unparalleled user experience in a bespoke quality phone with a superbly executed feature set, which is largely the result of Apple's complete control of both hardware and iOS.
The latest one is better, but not nearly as good as my MBP. Something that irks me is the 15 or so McAfee background services running on it constantly, driving up the CPU cycles sometimes 25%, and routinely blowing the fans.
It’s a shitty ecosystem, years behind MacBooks.
MacBook and the desktop products have become some kind of HALO Products for the mindless who have to buy the iPhone "Pro" because it makes them feel less like a mindless content consumption sheep sitting on instagram and facebook all day.
Of course Apple has a technological advantage, but that advantage is almost no longer present. OpenGL Support is dropped, major creative / professional software developers start to move to either linux or windows as their first development target platform and the macOS API madness / T2 shit / deprecation of general purpose computing through non-affordability (Mac Pro) / jokingly stupid things that simply don't work (hardware and software bugs) is driving professionals away. Of course you guys will defend it, but fact is that it's becoming hard to justify to develop professional tools for macOS when macOS is becoming a content consumption platform or some kind of garbage iOS fork not compatible with general purpose computing.
Mine is pre touch bar and pre single port. The other has the USB-C port and the Touch Bar. And the butterfly keyboard.
I much prefer moving to the older machine. The mag-safe powers up the Mac faster and is clearly safer. With the USB C, the Mac can actually lose power when plugged in and doesn't charge from the cable alone. The newer version heats up more, has crashed a few times, although OS X is still pretty stable. The keyboard is getting sticky and just feels worse. Getting back to the spongier keyboard on the 2017 Mac Pro feels so much nicer. I type as fast on both.
The Touch Bar is rarely of use, although I did just use it to increase the brightness as I typed this but I used to do that with built in function keys.
The one better thing is the touchID on the newer device. - that is useful.
Neither is my favourite ever Mac Book, I had an old 17 inch which was the business a few years back.
Hmm, I don't agree. Apple themselves say that there is a difference between a truck and a car, and there will be a difference between Mac OS and iOS. Both have different functionality.
But here's the thing we need to remember: the vast majority don't care about longevity, or ease of use (and aside from trying to find things in the control panel, Windows isn't that bad), or having a system that's clean of third-party spyware junk when it gets delivered. What they care about is up-front cheapness, and whether its enterprise or consumer, Apple has no real interest in those customers, because then you're just racing towards the basement.
Well, the problem with MagSafe is that people wanted USB-C, so there's no going back on that one I'm afraid. The Mac not charging from the cable alone has nothing to do with USB-C; it's do with allowing customers to walk around with a small charging plug rather than a hot brick.
I've always liked the butterfly keyboard, but that's because I was one of the majority that never had a reliability problem with it, but I can see how the action might be too shallow for people who can't touch-type, who again are probably the majority.
I'm a developer so I get a lot of use out of the Touch Bar since the tools I use roll the functions around for stuff like compiling and debugging, but I think the big problem with it is that the people who will use it the most will also have a separate keyboard and screen, so they can't actually reach it.
TouchID, same problem. Great, unless you have a separate screen and keyboard.
What's needed is a separate keyboard with a TouchBar.
Consumers deciding a product is 'worth' the high price, is not, and never has been, something that sets Apple apart from competitors and with 80% of the smartphone market there to be taken, Apple has very much stalled on shipments for the last few years and precisely the issue of pricing has very much been one of the key factors involved. To the point that more and more users were holding off on new purchases. It is clear that a group of existing iPhone users weren't considering the asking price as a reasonable deal and instead were choosing to hold off. What Apple did have though, was a far higher proportion of its models in the higher price brackets in relation to competitors.
Another reason was competitiveness in the wider market in terms of what was actually on offer on the phones. Apple was falling dangerously behind in areas that users were running into problems with on a daily basis. While initially many here for example scoffed at the notion of tri-cameras, night mode, ultra wide lenses, fast charging etc, seeing those features roll out on competing flagships (and then filter down into the lower ranges) obviously didn't help promote iPhones in the eyes of the wider public and some here even openly admitted to holding off on purchasing on rumours of those features eventually hitting the iPhone. All of this is tied to the perceived value of the phones.
Competitors had offered vastly more expensive phones than iPhones long before Apple hit and passed $1,000. They still do of course and they are selling more of them than ever so that isn't a factor that sets the iPhone apart.
However, none of those consumers (and I'm including Apple users here, too) have even the slightest, passing interest in how much 'profit' Apple or anyone else makes off an iPhone. In fact, depending on how that information is presented, it could be very, very dangerous to iPhone sales because if someone were to make a meal out of Apple’s cash reserves and the product they were largely made off, it could impact sales. Especially as a lot of those profits have not really been put to use.
Why? Because those profits are very real and it could make for a wave of rejection among many of those users. Not those like yourself, of course, because you already have this information and are perfectly happy with it. There is no problem there. You are not alone here on AI but even then, there are also many users here who held off on new iPhone purchases for the reasons I gave above.
'Spec wars' are really a battle within the war, not the war itself, and Apple plays its own battles, when it can. The problem is that the last few years haven't really provided Apple with the necessary specs to actually win many of those battles.
They have had the SoC but really it isn't the SoC per se, it's the performance, which sadly doesn't mean much at all for anyone (or at least 90% of users out there), as ALL flagships have been incredibly fast for years now. Ironically the perception of 'speed' has moved elsewhere to a degree, with faster screen refresh rates now deemed to make things noticeably smoother but by the time Apple reaches that area it will be irrelevant as a stand out feature.
They also had FaceID which started on just one phone in 2017 but it is definitely not something that people yearn for and, if anything, people are now spoilt by virtually full screen phones at every corner, some with smaller notches, punch holes or no notch at all (sliding mechanisms or pop up cameras). In other words the FaceID biometric hasn't really brought much to the table as it was just a biometric, like many other forms of biometric.
Apple can say it is technically more secure and can learn to recognise you etc and that is all true but not even FaceID functionality is an exclusive feature to Apple and everyone can easily authenticate by other means anyway. When it comes to things like payments, most people will think if their authentication method is secure enough for the banks to see the transaction through, they are good to go. More theoretical security isn't really doing much for anyone in the real world and inexplicably, Apple didn't introduce FaceID with anything more than authentication in mind. Competitors used their equivalent technologies to enhance use, privacy and 3D small object modelling.
Apple’s two strong points from the last few years haven't really translated into a real advantage. That's unfortunate for sure and isn't from lack of technical merit in either area.
Perhaps strategic decisions at other levels haven't helped either. Apple not having a 5G phone is definitely a result of strategic decisions, not some part of a master plan. Apple will now probably release a 5G iPhone with a second gen 5G modem, a month or two before Qualcomm takes the wraps off its third gen 5G modem and see it go straight to Samsung early next year. That same second gen modem (plus mediatek and Huawei 5G modems) will already be in mid range Android phones by September/October and will not mean much by then as a spec, as the newer 5G QC will be appearing on other phones probably as early as MWC2020. The iPhone might have to wait until the year end to get it. COVID-19 could throw a spanner into release cycles, though.
Last year, people said WiFi 6 on the iPhone was a major feature, only for Huawei to claim its WiFi 5 from 2018 was actually faster than Apple’s WiFi 6 from 2019 and now they have released their own 'WiFi 6+' making use of their 5G know-how to make things even faster and more efficient on its own ecosystem but while maintaining full compatibility with the standard.
There was a time when Apple would be putting this stuff out first but times have changed in some key areas and the only way forward is to compete, which thankfully, Apple is doing, by making important improvements to hardware and pricing.
The rumoured iPhone SE2 should be an important card to play if pricing hits the sweet spot but will only exist because people (for the last four years now) have been thinking twice about the 'value' in iPhones when considering their prices. It is a good move as it gives them something new to offer at a much lower price and, and this is key, gives them a product to market as new in developing markets.
As for ecosystems, well, we are all in a similar situation. There are ecosystems everywhere. Google Android itself is an ecosystem. Samsung has an Ecosystem. Huawei has an ecosystem. There are others.
Apple’s ecosystem is another. One of many, and possibly more sealed off than others but it has its fair share of problems too. Just look at some of the complaints about the different Siris here on AI. From a user perspective there should only be 'one' Siri and users should be impervious to its inner workings. It should 'just work', and work the same across all devices in the ecosystem. No mean feat but if we want to 'sell' the ecosystem as a true differentiator from a value perspective, the whole point is that it should just work. HomeKit has also had problems from an ecosystem perspective.
I've had my doubts too about if the TV part of the ecosystem should be limited to a connected box or an Apple branded TV. I've tended to prefer the idea of a full TV to better interact with the people and devices in the home, and after seeing where Huawei is going with the X65, I'm leaning even more in that direction. I think Apple borrow a lot from that device.
All in all, people are totally unaware of Apple’s share of smartphone profits and most have no interest in them because, from a consumer perspective it is, at best, irrevelant and at worst, a possible nightmare situation.
Lots of companies are not going to surviver. Huawei will survive only because it is a state owned enterprise, not because Huawei has saved for a rainy day, but I would note that the free world is getting very tired of China, and COVID19 is accelerating that trend. Huawei will suffer for that, and fairly.
https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3079417/how-china-losing-worlds-trust-following-its-cover-coronavirus
Do your really think that the UK, or Germany, is going to be more impressed with China, and Huawei, after China's diaspora and companies around the world have bought up face masks to the tune of 2 billion units, and shipped them back to China, not to mention, pharmaceuticals, ventilators, and other medical equipment?
Ask yourself what it feels like for Spain to buy PPE from China that doesn't meet specs.
Let's be clear. USB-C was plunked on users by Apple on laptops whether they wanted it or not. In the case of the laptop lines from 2016 everything else was removed. You had to take it or leave it. I wouldn't say people wanted UBC-C at any price. Many would have been perfectly happy with USB-C plus a few other ports.
I don't remember seeing anyone actually 'wanting' that kind of headache forUSB-C back then.
People wanted USB-C as an addition to what they already had.
Magsafe could sit on a MBP today with no issue. Apple chose to get rid of it and there are considerations to be taken into account but claiming it is gone because people wanted USB-C is stretching it a lot.