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.
"A February 16 memo that Mr Kuang issued via a community platform "calls for overseas Chinese in Australia to take action to contribute money, supplies and your kindness to your home country".
"We collect all medical supplies needed by Wuhan, including: medical equipment, reagents, medicine, protective suits, disinfectant products, N95 masks and so on, and will deliver them to Wuhan freely."
Another statement issued by Mr Kuang reveals that party officials in Hubei authorised his Australian company, Huaren Group, to urgently supply China with medical supplies including personal protective clothing for medical workers. Such internal approvals would normally take months or longer."
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.
China's trust standing hasn't changed.
As for masks and whatnot, how did you manage to miss complaints from EU nations furious that the U.S was on the tarmac at airports, cash in hand, trying to 're-buy' equipment already purchased by those nations at up to many multiples of the original price.
Would you care to estimate how much U.S trust was lost?
One of the reasons the Chinese have succeeded in the west and Russia hasn't, is because of decades-long economic emigration. They now have the resources outside China to help the homeland when necessary. That is quite understandable. Spanish companies in China are also sending supplies to Spain from China.
What has gone completely over your head is that those same companies and hundreds of smaller Chinese businesses have donated supplies to local services where they operate too. Even my local police station has received equipment from Chinese donations and I reside in a little town. This is nationwide in all countries with a Chinese economic presence. Basically everywhere.
Spain received a batch of millions of pieces of equipment from a Chinese company. This was equipment which was purchased. It was tested and a small batch was found not to be hitting the marked technical specifications. It was sent back and the same company resolved the issue. Problem solved.
Huawei is doing a huge amount of COVID-19 related help work around the globe and for free. Of course the U.S is not happy with that either and people are basically wanting to say SFTU because they desperately need the help (that sentiment is also clearly felt within parts the U.S Administration) .That includes making Cloud AI services available for nations to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases. Huawei is also working round the clock to help carriers increase their Internet capacity.
As for Huawei being part of the Chinese government, I see you haven't changed.
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.
China's trust standing hasn't changed.
As for masks and whatnot, how did you manage to miss complaints from EU nations furious that the U.S was on the tarmac at airports, cash in hand, trying to 're-buy' equipment already purchased by those nations at up to many multiples of the original price.
Would your care to estimate how much U.S trust was lost?
One of the reasons the Chinese have succeeded in the west and Russia hasn't, is because of decades long economic emigration. They have the resources outside China to help the homeland when necessary. That is quite understandable. Spanish companies in China are also sending supplies to Spain from China. What has gone completely over your head is that those same companies and hundreds of smaller Chinese businesses have donated supplies to local services where they operate too. Even my local police station has received equipment from Chinese donations and I reside in a little town. This is nationwide in all countries with a Chinese economic presence. Basically everywhere.
Spain received a batch of millions of pieces of equipment from a Chinese company. This was equipment which was purchased. It was tested and a small batch was found not to be hitting the marked technical specifications. It was sent back and the same company resolved the issue. Problem solved.
Huawei is doing a huge amount of COVID-19 related help work around the globe and for free. Of course the U.S is not happy with that either and people are basically wanting to say SFTU because they desperately need the help (that sentiment is also clearly felt within the U.S Administration. That includes making Cloud AI services available for nations to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases. Huawei is also working round the clock to help carriers increase their Internet capacity.
As for Huawei being part of the Chinese government, I see you haven't changed.
"As for Huawei being part of the Chinese government, I see you haven't changed".
Nor have you, and I agree that the U.S. was doing that, just as they also allowed other countries buying up stocks in the U.S. before our administration finally took action.
None of that excuses what the Chinese did to acquire PPE, and if you think the thrust in China hasn't changed within the EU, you probably aren't looking.
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.
China's trust standing hasn't changed.
As for masks and whatnot, how did you manage to miss complaints from EU nations furious that the U.S was on the tarmac at airports, cash in hand, trying to 're-buy' equipment already purchased by those nations at up to many multiples of the original price.
Would your care to estimate how much U.S trust was lost?
One of the reasons the Chinese have succeeded in the west and Russia hasn't, is because of decades long economic emigration. They have the resources outside China to help the homeland when necessary. That is quite understandable. Spanish companies in China are also sending supplies to Spain from China. What has gone completely over your head is that those same companies and hundreds of smaller Chinese businesses have donated supplies to local services where they operate too. Even my local police station has received equipment from Chinese donations and I reside in a little town. This is nationwide in all countries with a Chinese economic presence. Basically everywhere.
Spain received a batch of millions of pieces of equipment from a Chinese company. This was equipment which was purchased. It was tested and a small batch was found not to be hitting the marked technical specifications. It was sent back and the same company resolved the issue. Problem solved.
Huawei is doing a huge amount of COVID-19 related help work around the globe and for free. Of course the U.S is not happy with that either and people are basically wanting to say SFTU because they desperately need the help (that sentiment is also clearly felt within the U.S Administration. That includes making Cloud AI services available for nations to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases. Huawei is also working round the clock to help carriers increase their Internet capacity.
As for Huawei being part of the Chinese government, I see you haven't changed.
"As for Huawei being part of the Chinese government, I see you haven't changed".
Nor have you, and I agree that the U.S. was doing that, just as they also allowed other countries buying up stocks in the U.S. before our administration finally took action.
None of that excuses what the Chinese did to acquire PPE, and if you think the thrust in China hasn't changed within the EU, you probably aren't looking.
See my links in the post farther up.
Those links are two unsourced tweets. Of course in January Chinese people in the west did in fact send PPE equipment to china. At the time there was no outbreak in the west.
Nor could it have been that that significant given that most PPE is produced the China anyway. There have been attempts to deride the equipment from China but I don’t think that’s fooling anybody, outside of the usual suspect.
Comments
https://www.smh.com.au/national/former-chinese-military-man-behind-export-of-tonnes-of-medical-supplies-20200330-p54f8a.html
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/revealed-china-stockpiled-2-billion-face-masks-and-25m-medical-items/news-story/5304e5a5080bd4087e4a9be9de210b97
"A February 16 memo that Mr Kuang issued via a community platform "calls for overseas Chinese in Australia to take action to contribute money, supplies and your kindness to your home country".
"We collect all medical supplies needed by Wuhan, including: medical equipment, reagents, medicine, protective suits, disinfectant products, N95 masks and so on, and will deliver them to Wuhan freely."
Another statement issued by Mr Kuang reveals that party officials in Hubei authorised his Australian company, Huaren Group, to urgently supply China with medical supplies including personal protective clothing for medical workers. Such internal approvals would normally take months or longer."
Post some links disputing that.
As for masks and whatnot, how did you manage to miss complaints from EU nations furious that the U.S was on the tarmac at airports, cash in hand, trying to 're-buy' equipment already purchased by those nations at up to many multiples of the original price.
Would you care to estimate how much U.S trust was lost?
One of the reasons the Chinese have succeeded in the west and Russia hasn't, is because of decades-long economic emigration. They now have the resources outside China to help the homeland when necessary. That is quite understandable. Spanish companies in China are also sending supplies to Spain from China.
What has gone completely over your head is that those same companies and hundreds of smaller Chinese businesses have donated supplies to local services where they operate too. Even my local police station has received equipment from Chinese donations and I reside in a little town. This is nationwide in all countries with a Chinese economic presence. Basically everywhere.
Spain received a batch of millions of pieces of equipment from a Chinese company. This was equipment which was purchased. It was tested and a small batch was found not to be hitting the marked technical specifications. It was sent back and the same company resolved the issue. Problem solved.
Huawei is doing a huge amount of COVID-19 related help work around the globe and for free. Of course the U.S is not happy with that either and people are basically wanting to say SFTU because they desperately need the help (that sentiment is also clearly felt within parts the U.S Administration) .That includes making Cloud AI services available for nations to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases. Huawei is also working round the clock to help carriers increase their Internet capacity.
As for Huawei being part of the Chinese government, I see you haven't changed.
Nor have you, and I agree that the U.S. was doing that, just as they also allowed other countries buying up stocks in the U.S. before our administration finally took action.
None of that excuses what the Chinese did to acquire PPE, and if you think the thrust in China hasn't changed within the EU, you probably aren't looking.
See my links in the post farther up.
Nor could it have been that that significant given that most PPE is produced the China anyway. There have been attempts to deride the equipment from China but I don’t think that’s fooling anybody, outside of the usual suspect.