What problem does the foldable iPhone solve again?
Doubling the screen size while not losing portability.
Multi-tasking with side-by-side apps.
More immersive gaming.
Options to use the main camera for selfies.
Option to use main camera view for subjects to see themselves.
And of course the option of the best of both worlds in screen options (folded or unfolded).
Apple will definitely use all of these points in marketing if they release a folding phone.
These suggestions notwithstanding, there really isn't a compelling use case for a folding iPhone. "Ooo look! It folds!" is good for about twenty minutes of very expensive amusement, but Apple has never been a bells and whistles sort of company. If a folding screen comes from Apple, it's most likely to be an iPad, where greater portability for a larger device could be useful, and a second screen on the outside of the device isn't needed as would be the likely case for a folding phone.
I think it's safe to say that we are now beyond the novelty effect as the market has spoken. People want larger devices in a smaller form factor.
Almost five years into the folding era demand is still growing with the main thing holding folding phones back being price.
A folding tablet will inevitably arrive along with probably triple folding devices.
Scrollable devices will achieve the same goals.
The market has spoken? Other than your personal advocacy here, I’ve seen no evidence for that.
The numbers speak for themselves. Almost five years in, there is still plenty of demand and YoY that demand has increased.
Don't take my word for it.
I'm sure you're a swell person, but don't worry, I'm not taking your word for it. You say "the numbers speak for themselves," but as far as I can see you're not sharing any of those numbers, so they're not speaking at all. If you want anyone to take your claims seriously, you'll have to cite the numbers you say are there, and also the sources for those numbers. Please note that "plenty" is a subjective term, and that year-over-year statistics are garbage, because a) two data points don't actually represent a trend, particularly when b) those two numbers show "big change" between two small numbers. If you are looking at actual numbers that you're not sharing here, your wording is interestingly descriptive: "almost five years in, there is still plenty of demand and YoY that demand has increased." With no other information, whatever your definition of "plenty" is, you're describing five data points, with only two , perhaps the the fourth and fifth, cherry-picked to show an increase. What do the other points show? Volatility? A flat line? A decrease? You'll have to show your work on this one.
I posted a link to Honor sales. I didn't post market based links because I have yet to see a single report that has claimed growth has stalled. Quite the opposite. Everything has claimed strong YoY growth. That is is why I say there is plenty of demand in that segment. It's been like that from day 1.
New players entering the market. New designs. Competition on pricing.
Two points on your data. First, it indicates that you're defining "plenty of demand" as demand that represents a tiny fraction of a percent of global smartphone sales. You're talking exactly about a niche novelty market. This reinforces what I wrote above: a "big change" in tiny numbers doesn't really represent much. In the context of the smartphone category, a 64% increase in sales of something that that represents a fraction of a percent of the market lives within the statistical margins of error. Sales of foldable smartphones have no statistical impact on the global smartphone market. It is probably less of a blip on the radar than the results of a major cellphone carrier's holiday sales promotion for any given device. Second, if you read to the end of your own linked source, the quoted experts indicate that they have no expectation of a foldable iPhone entering the market any time in the near future. Pronouncements based on fluctuations within the statistical margins of error are tales signifying nothing, and they don't even generate any sound or fury.
There are no analysts at Apple Park looking at those numbers and saying "Holy crap! We need to jump on this one quick before we get swamped and left behind by foldable phone sales!" No, as always, the Apple folks are asking (if they're even asking) "What is the compelling use case for this technology? How does a folding screen on a smartphone become an indispensable device?" As far as I can see, there really isn't one.
Demand is demand. That is it.
A small percentage of total worldwide sales is completely irrelevant.
There is plenty of demand for folding phones and this has been shown through consistent YoY growth. Year after year, right up to the most recent quarters.
Niche, perhaps. But some niche! ($25B yearly, and growing). Novelty, definitely not. Novelties wear off, demand slackens and products fall out of the market. There is no indication of that at the moment. The complete opposite is true.
Price will be a limiting factor in how much of that demand transforms into actual sales but, once again, the numbers speak for themselves.
And projections also support the presence of demand:
Point two means little here. It's all speculation. Nothing more.
I don't know what Apple is thinking and analysts don't either but having said that, some people who claim to have some form of insider information do claim a folding iPhone is actually in the works.
'When' is any body's guess and how do we define 'near future'. Is 2024/2025 near future?
That’s not how this works. If it were true that “demand is demand,” regardless of things like percentage of the total market, then every little bump would inevitably become a massive rolling wave that takes over everything. That’s not what happens. That would be chaos. Most little blips come up and then dissipate before leaving much of an impression. That’s why extrapolating out growth of a tiny segment to predict some inevitable trend is folly. You’re playing with numbers in the overall margin of error.
For foldable phones, it returns to the question of a compelling use case. This is what Apple does well. Other manufacturers run with bell and whistle novelties without examining that question first, like a batter closing his eyes and taking a swing, hoping for a lucky home run. They’ll get some takers, but as an expensive novelty, most never get beyond becoming a niche fashion statement that will fade when the next novelty pops up.
Apple takes more time with it, doesn’t jump on every bandwagon, but occasionally picks something up and enters a market with some new tech that others have already released. Everybody scoffs and says Apple will never catch up. Then Apple surprises everyone by becoming market leader in the category.
The reason for this is that Apple has looked at the potential use cases and come up with a design that’s better thought out and becomes indispensable.
So foldable phones made by others are absolutely a novelty. The devices currently on the market aren’t demonstrating some indispensable use case that will drive widespread demand. It’s evident that Apple is looking at foldable screen tech, but that doesn’t make it inevitable that it will make foldable phones. They certainly won’t do that just to chase the fringe sales figures you’re going on about.
It is incorrect to propose that every little bump would inevitably become a huge wave.
Pricing here is a key issue and folding phones are not considered 'must haves' as people can get by with regular phones if they want.
Demand is exactly what it is: demand.
There is a market for folding phones and demand has always been there and will increase as prices come down.
We already know this because China has basically been the test bed for the market. There is no reason to suspect that anything will change on the international front.
Pricing on international markets is a clear hurdle to wider success but even in those markets, demand is there. I believe that the US is the second largest market after China.
Right now, there is no valid reason to suggest demand for folding phones will wane and we are now well out of the novelty phase. That is long gone and 'flip' phones in particular are proving to be more budget friendly to the wider consumer market.
You're missing the point, intentionally, I assume. Right now, there is no valid reason to suggest demand for folding phones will grow, either. Your entire premise that it will is based on a huge extrapolation of a micro-trend.
There is. I provide a link to exactly that further up. Forecasts are for continued high growth.
"Global Foldable Smartphone Shipments to Cross 100 Million by 2027"
That's not evidence, that's a huge fictional fantasy projection based on nothing. You can tell by the inclusion of Apple as a major player selling a product they don't make, and for which there is little evidence that they intend to make. You might as well link to a chart projecting expanding energy supply based on unicorn farts.
Oh, wait. I did find this for you: There was that time that "Reliable analyst Ming-Chi Kuo" said that Apple would ship 20 million 8-inch foldable iPhones in 2023. I'm sure yours is in the mail already.
Wait a second.
You claimed there was no valid evidence showing growth for folding phones.
There is, and I provided information on why. Strong and consistent YoY growth with no signs of it slowing down (demand) . New players coming to market with folding devices. Prices coming down etc.
That information is unquestionable.
So, what do you do? You point to future sales and claim a $25B folding device industry (current) is a 'micro trend'.
Now, my crystal ball is no better than yours, because until the future actually arrives we can't possibly know for sure which way things will go so I provided a forecast that wasn't from me (from July this year). I rest my case.
Now I will ask you to provide some details that go beyond your personal opinion.
Can you provide a link to anything that disputes what I have said on folding devices up to now or anything that points to demand waning in the future?
So, you agree that Samsung, the leader in folding phones today, and Apple, who hasn't stated anything about producing a folding phone, will be the big players in 2027, just as they are for smartphone sales today?
Like I said. I don't have a crystal ball that's any better than anybody else's.
That said, one of the largest markets for smartphones (folding included) is the North American market. Folding phones in particular and due to engineering and materials overheads are mostly premium devices.
Huawei in particular does not have access to that market so Apple and Samsung and most everyone else have a tremendous advantage in terms of market accessibility.
Price is going to be a huge factor. Flip phones are coming down faster in that sense and seeing higher demand as a result.
2027 is a long way off though and the threat of China nixing iPhone sales within China has been present, and very real, since 2019. Shortly after, it was revealed that Apple had a multi-year, multi-billion dollar deal with China. That deal has supposedly expired and just two months ago, the rumour of China 'banning' iPhones for official use, was enough to take billions off Apple's stock price.
The threat remains real. Losing access to China would really level the playing field out.
Most analysts are guessing on a folding iPhone in the next two or three years.
We can only wait and see.
At current growth rates, Apple is missing out right now and very probably losing sales as a result.
You seem to think that China has a choice in this.
Given the state of their economy, and Xi's autocratic rule, China banning Apple would signal the end of trade with the West, a further blow to the Chinese economy.
You might want to look at how Apple is doing in the stock market.
Apple has gotten so big it’s almost overtaken France’s entire stock market
The rally in Apple Inc., the world’s most valuable publicly traded company, is showing no signs of easing. After closing at a record high on Wednesday, the iPhone maker’s market value is approaching that of Europe’s largest stock market: France.
The combined market value of companies listed in Paris was about $3.2 trillion as of Wednesday’s close versus the technology giant’s $3.1 trillion, according to an index compiled by Bloomberg. Apple is larger than all but the six largest stock markets in the world.
It’s not the first time the Cupertino, California-based company eclipsed Paris in value. The duo swapped positions a number of times during last year’s second-half selloff as central banks raised interest rates to tackle inflation
Apple may be missing out on the market today, but when they do enter it, they will immediately own 2nd place in the market, per your link. Apple can really afford to wait.
Market value means little. It can swing to extremes at the drop of a hat.
China can easily ban iPhones but, so far at least has shown restraint and wants to portray itself as a global player in the global supply chain.
Apple has taken some huge risks. Some have paid off and others haven't.
1. TSMC as a sole provider of It's iPhone SoCs. You never know when the next natural disaster or accident will happen. If that were to play out Apple would have no way to mitigate the stock price fall out. So far it has worked out. There have been scares (chemical raw material contamination was one) but they haven't been showstoppers.
2. Qualcomm. Taking the patent battle worldwide was a huge strategic risk. It didn't pay off and Apple now finds itself struggling to build its own modem and is not as well prepared for the massive IoT tsunami that has already begun.
Obviously, number one is the biggest risk here.
While you were sleeping, TSMC has been building fabs in the U.S. and elsewhere. You hint at an invasion by China, of which a window is open for about 5 years before the West, mostly the U.S., but Japan, Australia, and South Korea, enables weapons systems that would mitigate that invasion. Probably a bad idea for a country which imports food and energy to go to war with a Western alliance. Perhaps China should spend a bit more time in consideration of the Houthi missile attacks in the Red Sea.
You state that Apple took a strategic risk, and so far that has not paid off, and yet I note that Apple is already investing in 6G. Seems to me that Apple is in fact playing the long game. Other than Air Tags, I'm not seeing all that much market for Apple to be in IoT, but sure, lots of companies are going to build the very inexpensive components for those.
You have a history of ginning up disaster scenarios for Apple, yet none have occurred. Someday, you may be right, but certainly not today.
Oh, and about that market value; it is a metric of future profitability for investors, and important for capitalism, which you seem to disdain.
I definitely didn't point to an invasion.
How much of Apple’s needed capacity is available - now - outside Taiwan?
If China banned sales of iPhones in China, what kind of impact would it have on share price and sales?
"You have a history of ginning up disaster scenarios for Apple, yet none have occurred. Someday, you may be right, but certainly not today."
The 'disaster' scenario was there from day one. It will never go away if you put all your eggs in one basket. That is the nature of the beast and that is why I used the term 'huge risk'.
Sometimes they pay off sometimes they don't. That was my point entirely.
So, not today but maybe tomorrow, or next week, or next year or maybe never but being realistic, I would bet on that last one, would you?
How would you define TSMC's US fab capacity? 'Symbolic'? Of course that would be in the future. And today?
The guiding principles of TSMC earthquake management policy are "Zero casualty, short operation recovery time and least impact on customers". Cross-Fabs post-earthquake emergency response procedures and business continuity plans were established according to these guiding principles. Constantly and systematically, TSMC minimizes damage caused by earthquakes and enhances anti-seismic ability.
So, it is not likely that a earthquake will shut down all, or even any, of the fabs that TSMC operates, though there were a few notable shutdowns due to COVID, though these were not anywhere close to catastrophic.
Again, the only plausible threat to TSMC is the PRC, hence why the U.S. Government's CHIPS and Science ACT was passed by Congress and signed into law on August 9, 2022.
The CHIPS and Science Act is a U.S. federal statute enacted by the 117th United States Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden on August 9, 2022. The act authorizes roughly $280 billion in new funding to boost domestic research and manufacturing of semiconductors in the United States, of which it appropriates $52.7 billion.[1][2][3] The act includes $39 billion in subsidies for chip manufacturing on US soil along with 25% investment tax credits for costs of manufacturing equipment, and $13 billion for semiconductor research and workforce training, with the dual aim of strengthening American supply chain resilience and countering China.[4][5]: 1
The act does not have an official short title as a whole but is divided into three divisions with their own short titles: Division A is the CHIPS Act of 2022 (where CHIPS stands for "Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors"); Division B is the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act; and Division C is the Supreme Court Security Funding Act of 2022.[6]
As for China banning sales of the iPhone, that would certainly effect Apple negatively, but would as well signal Western companies to abandon any presence in China, so good luck with that already faltering economy.
This would as well lead to expansion of India as future manufacturing superpower, both of which would suppress the economy of China.
Earthquake resilience is a legal requirement just as it is in other areas like in Japan. However, the risk remains even if you do more than legally required.
There is nothing you can do about that and there is absolutely nothing you can do to reduce the threat itself.
Disruption comes like a knife cutting through the heart of your business and can affect every single process within it. And of course it scales up to the stock market if you don't have contingency plans (resilience is not the same as contigency). Transport and security of raw materials. Mains supplies (water, gas, electricity), personnel and movement of personnel. Logistics of finished products (land, rail, sea and air). Internal and external contamination...
Increasing resilience does not eliminate the risk. Your exposure is not something you can manage. You take the risk (that was my point) and hope that you don't get hit by anything nasty along the way although you absolutely know it is coming. You just hope it won't be in the worst possible place and not severe enough as to overcome your planning.
No amount of resilience will protect you from disruption.
From Apple's side, contigency would be multiple suppliers from different geographic regions. Apple chose to go solely with TSMC and with that decision it took a huge risk.
OK. With that said, it's time to answer my question:
How much of Apple’s needed capacity is available - now - outside Taiwan?
You skirted that completely.
Why try to refute my claim by saying TSMC is building fans in the US if they aren't serving any purpose for Apple in the situation I described?
I have no idea why you are bringing politics and miltary assessments in here. Keep it business and tech related.
The OnePlus Open is the latest folding phone to be getting rave reviews. 2024 will bring even more. The longer Apple waits, the higher the risk of losing sales. Especially in China. How much impact will they have depends on how the market develops and how fast prices come down.
You seem unable to comprehend that Apple's risk is almost entirely that it has to move the bulk of its assembly out of China. Apple's risk in losing sales in China is orders of magnitude less than that risk.
Apple settling on a single SOC supplier, TSMC, is a rounding error of risk compared to that, and obviously, Apple has gamed that risk and found TSMC a reliable partner, and it has paid massive dividends.
China, on the other hand, is not a reliable partner for Apple anymore, and that is all due to the PRC governance, and Xi.
You know, autocracies.
My comprehension is fine.
All I stated was that Apple took a huge risk when it moved to TSMC as it's sole supplier for iPhone SoCs.
You then fired off with this:
"While you were sleeping, TSMC has been building fabs in the U.S. and elsewhere"
That's where you dug a hole for yourself I'm afraid.
So my question arose from that claim and you are refusing to answer it. You've made that clear to anyone reading this. First you simply skirted providing an answer and then you just scuttled off to a completely different point abandoning any attempt to provide an answer.
I will provide you with the answer that you can't bring yourself to give: zero.
And even with the two fabs currently under construction, when will Apple get access to chips from them? 2026?
If that pans out, it will be over a decade of Apple placing iPhone main SoCs only with TSMC.
Your point never held water.
Yes, it gamed things and yes it has panned out so far, so it's clear you agree with me and it's clear that the same risks exist today.
On the point of China and banning iPhones sales (also referenced here but in another thread), that should surprise no one and again, as I stated earlier, that threat has been around since 2019.
No one would take exception if China simply took a tit-for-tat move a banned iPhone sales like the US banned Huawei - with zero evidence provided.
That doesn't mean that they would necessarily ban iPhone production for export.
Whatever happens, I have yet to see a single report that says Apple could move the 'bulk' of its manufacturing out of China in short order. Some say it is impossible others say it would take many, many years.
If there is a silver lining here, it is Huawei which is well on track to de-Americanisation. So far it has re-designed over 13,000 components. Could Apple do the same?
I don't know.
Huawei has a major advantage of being able to draw on the Chinese manufacturing backbone (including rare earth and raw material processing), logistics, talent etc, and close knit clusters where peripheral companies also operate.
Huawei is currently at 7nm equivalent, which for them isn't cheap or easy, so Apple having sole source supplier TSMC is a massive advantage at 3nm. That's a notable case of risk vs reward. More to the point, had Xi not driven China to a full on autocracy, Huawei would likely still have access to those TSMC nodes.
But sure, Chinese buyers are "flocking" in support of Huawei, or are they? Doesn't seem like Apple is suffering all that much.
Meanwhile, the EU is in the process of fully banning Huawei in 5G telecom to increase "resilient" and "national security", because even they understand that China is no longer a partner, but a competitor and potential adversary.
Frankly, the EU is a Swiss cheese of illicit connections with Russia and China, and is very much subject to influence operations from both those countries, something that they are becoming quite aware of.
All that just to end up agreeing with me?
You even bolded your own use of 'risk'!
Remind me what my entire point was. Why did you even bother jumping in?
As for Huawei and 7nm. Well. Off topic but at least it was technology related.
It's a pity you are mistaken again but this isn't the thread for that.
If the traditional slab smartphone market in China does not rebound on a consistent growth trend, then it is very likely Apple will lose sales to folding/flipping alternatives as consumers get attracted to new form factors.
That's a reasonable assumption. The question is whether or not it will put an identifiable dent into sales there.
Comments