I agree with the general notion that Apple risks stagnation over the next decade, but I don't agree with the specifics. The stuff about AI, cloud, and services is just a bunch of buzzwords. And actually, I think those are areas where Apple has a good chance of catching up to the competition. They've been making steady progress and if steady progress continues, they should be fine.
I think there's a fairly straightforward growth path for Apple -- it's actually not complicated in terms of big picture strategy. , but Apple isn't following it for reasons that I can only speculate about.
Despite dropping the word "Computer" from its name, Apple is more of a computer company now than ever before. When else in Apple's history did they design their own CPU or create their own programming language? Apple's core competencies are making very technically advanced computers that are also very easy to use, and tying all of those computers together into a coherent web/ecosystem. I think there are many computer markets where Apple currently does not compete (or markets that haven't been created yet), but could compete quite effectively if they made the effort. There are a lot of growth opportunities.
The thing that Apple seems to be having difficulty with is operating in multiple computer markets at the same time. They seem to really be struggling to keep all product lines advancing. Only the iPhone advances at a steady pace. The iPad comes close, but experiences some bumps. So far so good for Watch, but it's very new, so not much track record. The Mac lineup sees very inconsistent progress. The Apple TV seems to exist to make Mac users feel better about the pace of Mac updates. The AirPods -- a new product that really is a wearable computer -- and they can't even launch it on time, even though doing so was very important for the iPhone.
So yeah -- Apple has problems. But it's not a buzzword problem. And they don't need some 3 dimensional chess strategy. They just need to organize themselves in a way that will allow them to compete in all the markets where they have the potential to offer a compelling product.
". . . and they can't even launch it on time." Like they have complete control over the 16 or howmanyever suppliers in Asia that are manufacturing and assembling the parts for the AirPods? Geez, you guys are so full of yourselves in armchair production logistics in the four Asian supplier countries.
For the rest of your post, msybe consider that they're building that new headquarters for a reason.
If Tim Cook walked up and kicked you in the nads, you Panglossian apologists would figure out a way to justify it as the best possible thing he could have done under the circumstances.
There was an easy way to avoid this problem with the AirPods -- include a 3.5 mm jack with the iPhone 7 and make the iPhone 7 a bit thicker.
Then the AirPods could have come out when they were ready. If people loved the AirPods, that would make removal of the audio jack in the iPhone 8 seem obvious and natural.
These are no random events beyond Apple's control; we do not live in the best possible world. Apple is making bad choices. Things could be better; things should be better.
Apple included an adaptor in the box so you can use your old headphones, so what's the problem? If they didn't include or didn't make an adaptor then I'd agree with you but that didn't happen.
blastdoor said: There was an easy way to avoid this problem with the AirPods -- include a 3.5 mm jack with the iPhone 7 and make the iPhone 7 a bit thicker.
Then the AirPods could have come out when they were ready. If people loved the AirPods, that would make removal of the audio jack in the iPhone 8 seem obvious and natural.
Not following the logic there. The AirPod delay looks like it's going to be about a month and a half. That's not much of a reason to delay the removal of the 3.5 mm jack, especially since there were other 1st party and 3rd party wireless options already available.
I"m not even caring that they have failed to innovate. They can't even keep their current products remotely up to date. 3+ year old MacPro's are unacceptable. The seamless Mac eco-system is being fragmented and destroyed by the cancelation of key products (Monitors, routers). Apple monitors are pure source of advertising for a company. Going into an office and seeing all those lit Apple logo's was fantastic mind share. Now we get to see plastic LG monitors and have no clue whats running them. But hey, Apple will only make a hundred million on monitors instead of a 100 billion, so it needs to be axed.
They have been switching to USB-C for over a year now and yet only 2 models have them. How am I suppose to buy USB-C peripherals for my company when our MacPro's, iMacs... etc can't use them. The "Hello" event should have a been a complete transition day for all of Apple's desktops, laptops, iphones, and iPads over to USB-C. That's how you transition. I guess, Tim and company really have replaced their computers with iPads because they have no clue how their decisions are affecting people in the real world.
You are ignorant of any material reasons for Apple's moves. Example: tell us where Apple would get an extra 3 million or so 27" IGZO-backed LCD screens to supply a new line of Cinema Displays. You can't tell us. Ergo, you are full of . . . hot air.
LOL... I am ignorant because you believe that Apple is not capable of getting 3 million display panels? So they are able to source out hundreds of millions of iPhone displays but Apple doesn't have enough clout or money to contract out 3 million 27" panels. Yah... I'm the ignorant one.
Am I also ignorant on the 3+ year old MacPro's? How will Apple be able to source out the Xeon E5's that have been updated two times and the countless new graphics cards that are out? How will they be able to source out enough USB-C ports for the MacPro. I know its crazy for me to think that they are capable of getting these parts.
I think Apple is doing plenty of innovation. However, the issue for me is whether it's in the current management's (and Board's) DNA to do something really bold, something that can move the needle given its behemoth size. I have no clue what that would be, but I could certainly see the car, education, (still) the living room, and India as serious possibilities. I am not so sure about health, since it's an incredibly complicated, messy business. 'Social', music accessories (e.g., Airpods, Beats) and music subscriptions are definitely not 'it' for me.
Also, I also feel like some really interesting acquisition possibilities -- e.g., Harman Kardon -- have been left on the table or lost to competitors. Even a McLaren (or a Ferrari, now that it's a publicly traded company) would send a tremendous signal.
One thing I'm not a fan of is the creation of products to get you to buy something more expensive or to fill a certain price point. For instance what exactly is the purpose of the 13" rMBP without touchbar other than a product specifically created to upsell you to the more expensive model or to fill a certain price point? On John Gruber's latest podcast neither he nor Joanna Stern could recommend that machine to anyone nor understand the point of its existence.
I'm surprised as to how many people are confused regarding the 13" MBP w/;o Touch Bar. It's essentially designed for those that wanted a 13" MBA w / Retina Screen and nothing more. I would've thought that was clear from the keynote. Maybe some of the confusion comes from it being branded as a MBP. I don't know if it was this form or another, but someone made a good idea in terms of renaming the Mac laptop line:
MB Air (12") Macbook (13" with no Touch Bar) MBP (13" & 15" with Touch Bar)
13" MBP w/o Touch Bar is not a substitute for Macbook Air. Macbook Air's substitute is the Retina Macbook. That Macbook Pro falls closer to other Pro models than to Macbook Air. A $1500 device cannot be substitute for a $1000 device. Macbook Air was rather an unclassifiable, intermediate product in some sense. After the withdrawal of it, the range will be well defined: all Macbooks have Retina, the ones with Thunderbolt 3 are Pro models, the one(s?) with USB-C are entry level models.
I"m not even caring that they have failed to innovate. They can't even keep their current products remotely up to date. 3+ year old MacPro's are unacceptable. The seamless Mac eco-system is being fragmented and destroyed by the cancelation of key products (Monitors, routers). Apple monitors are pure source of advertising for a company. Going into an office and seeing all those lit Apple logo's was fantastic mind share. Now we get to see plastic LG monitors and have no clue whats running them. But hey, Apple will only make a hundred million on monitors instead of a 100 billion, so it needs to be axed.
They have been switching to USB-C for over a year now and yet only 2 models have them. How am I suppose to buy USB-C peripherals for my company when our MacPro's, iMacs... etc can't use them. The "Hello" event should have a been a complete transition day for all of Apple's desktops, laptops, iphones, and iPads over to USB-C. That's how you transition. I guess, Tim and company really have replaced their computers with iPads because they have no clue how their decisions are affecting people in the real world.
You are ignorant of any material reasons for Apple's moves. Example: tell us where Apple would get an extra 3 million or so 27" IGZO-backed LCD screens to supply a new line of Cinema Displays. You can't tell us. Ergo, you are full of . . . hot air.
LOL... I am ignorant because you believe that Apple is not capable of getting 3 million display panels? So they are able to source out hundreds of millions of iPhone displays but Apple doesn't have enough clout or money to contract out 3 million 27" panels. Yah... I'm the ignorant one.
Am I also ignorant on the 3+ year old MacPro's? How will Apple be able to source out the Xeon E5's that have been updated two times and the countless new graphics cards that are out? How will they be able to source out enough USB-C ports for the MacPro. I know its crazy for me to think that they are capable of getting these parts.
E5 two times what? If Apple was to implement the actual v3 or v4 then people would complain again because of the "incremental processor update". Skylake E5s are not ready. Apple always chooses the correct processor for the model, does anyone complain about that? They are already chip producers and they know what they are doing.
3 million 27" display panels that sell slowly in five years cannot have priority over ten millions of iPhone panels that sell every year.
I"m not even caring that they have failed to innovate. They can't even keep their current products remotely up to date. 3+ year old MacPro's are unacceptable. The seamless Mac eco-system is being fragmented and destroyed by the cancelation of key products (Monitors, routers). Apple monitors are pure source of advertising for a company. Going into an office and seeing all those lit Apple logo's was fantastic mind share. Now we get to see plastic LG monitors and have no clue whats running them. But hey, Apple will only make a hundred million on monitors instead of a 100 billion, so it needs to be axed.
They have been switching to USB-C for over a year now and yet only 2 models have them. How am I suppose to buy USB-C peripherals for my company when our MacPro's, iMacs... etc can't use them. The "Hello" event should have a been a complete transition day for all of Apple's desktops, laptops, iphones, and iPads over to USB-C. That's how you transition. I guess, Tim and company really have replaced their computers with iPads because they have no clue how their decisions are affecting people in the real world.
This isn't the first time in history that Apple has taken a break from making monitors. Given past history in fact there's a good chance they'll make monitors again and probably with some innovative features added. Just adding a couple of ports isn't Apple's idea of innovating. More likely if they do come back they'll com back with external card support and maybe some other goodies we hadn't thought of.
I dont see routers as a key component. Very few people I know ever owned an airport. I've owned all three major versions and about 3 months ago bought one because I thought with my FIOS service I would want one. Well as it turns out the router VZ gave me was faster than the Airport and supported NAS and other USB devices etc. All that being true why would I keep my Airport? Why would anyone spend extra money on an airport? And why would Apple continue to make vanilla wifi routers? Years ago airports were needed to do things most manufacturers didn't support. Now that's no longer true. If Apple continues to work on wifi it will probably be integrated into the ATV or other hub category devices.
Although, you may not see routers as a key component, I believe they are. To many users, especially those that are not very computer literate they choose Apple because "it just works". When these people walk into a store, they pick up their mac, maybe a monitor, a router and go home. Plug it all in and few steps it all works.
Today. they walk into a store and buy a mini for example. They then say I'll need a monitor. Sorry sir, Apple doesn't sell monitors and the LG one we sell won't work with that. Maybe the PC store across the street can help you with that. Okay. can I just connect this to the internet? No sir. You will need a router and then follow the 50 step process. (make sure its secure or else). These are the 10 routers we sell. Which one do you want.
Heck you can go in buy and brand new Macbook Pro, go home and be surprised it doesn't connect to your brand new iPhone or iPad. Off to the store again.
All these things may sound trivial but this is no longer the Apple I know. Everything takes back seat to the iPhone and they are completely neglecting or misunderstanding there core markets. When the iPhone gravy train is over, their will be nothing left to fall back on. In 30+ years, I've never seen Apple in such disarray.
I love how Apple and only Apple is expected to innovate. All other tech companies can copy Apple all day but only Apple is criticized to move technology forward because if they don't, "Apple can't innovate anymore".
No one expects only Apple to innovate and Apple doesn't innovate all that much. It has had success in making good use of other people's innovations together with its own ideas/developments.
I think Apple is doing plenty of innovation. However, the issue for me is whether it's in the current management's (and Board's) DNA to do something really bold, something that can move the needle given its behemoth size. I have no clue what that would be, but I could certainly see the car, education, (still) the living room, and India as serious possibilities. I am not so sure about health, since it's an incredibly complicated, messy business. 'Social', music accessories (e.g., Airpods, Beats) and music subscriptions are definitely not 'it' for me.
Also, I also feel like some really interesting acquisition possibilities -- e.g., Harman Kardon -- have been left on the table or lost to competitors. Even a McLaren (or a Ferrari, now that it's a publicly traded company) would send a tremendous signal.
One thing I'm not a fan of is the creation of products to get you to buy something more expensive or to fill a certain price point. For instance what exactly is the purpose of the 13" rMBP without touchbar other than a product specifically created to upsell you to the more expensive model or to fill a certain price point? On John Gruber's latest podcast neither he nor Joanna Stern could recommend that machine to anyone nor understand the point of its existence.
Thunderbolt 3 requires a more powerful CPU to drive two 4K monitors on a single cable. Once you choose that CPU you jump to the Pro realm. So there is nothing wrong with its existence. Corporations still use old software that may depend on old physical function keys or the user may install Windows under BootCamp and may need physical function keys. This is a good thing that Apple didn't remove the function keys all of a sudden.
I"m not even caring that they have failed to innovate. They can't even keep their current products remotely up to date. 3+ year old MacPro's are unacceptable. The seamless Mac eco-system is being fragmented and destroyed by the cancelation of key products (Monitors, routers). Apple monitors are pure source of advertising for a company. Going into an office and seeing all those lit Apple logo's was fantastic mind share. Now we get to see plastic LG monitors and have no clue whats running them. But hey, Apple will only make a hundred million on monitors instead of a 100 billion, so it needs to be axed.
They have been switching to USB-C for over a year now and yet only 2 models have them. How am I suppose to buy USB-C peripherals for my company when our MacPro's, iMacs... etc can't use them. The "Hello" event should have a been a complete transition day for all of Apple's desktops, laptops, iphones, and iPads over to USB-C. That's how you transition. I guess, Tim and company really have replaced their computers with iPads because they have no clue how their decisions are affecting people in the real world.
You are ignorant of any material reasons for Apple's moves. Example: tell us where Apple would get an extra 3 million or so 27" IGZO-backed LCD screens to supply a new line of Cinema Displays. You can't tell us. Ergo, you are full of . . . hot air.
LOL... I am ignorant because you believe that Apple is not capable of getting 3 million display panels? So they are able to source out hundreds of millions of iPhone displays but Apple doesn't have enough clout or money to contract out 3 million 27" panels. Yah... I'm the ignorant one.
Am I also ignorant on the 3+ year old MacPro's? How will Apple be able to source out the Xeon E5's that have been updated two times and the countless new graphics cards that are out? How will they be able to source out enough USB-C ports for the MacPro. I know its crazy for me to think that they are capable of getting these parts.
E5 two times what? If Apple was to implement the actual v3 or v4 then people would complain again because of the "incremental processor update". Skylake E5s are not ready. Apple always chooses the correct processor for the model, does anyone complain about that? They are already chip producers and they know what they are doing.
3 million 27" display panels that sell slowly in five years cannot have priority over ten millions of iPhone panels that sell every year.
Say what? you think that a v3 or v4 E5 is incremental and because of that they should be ignored. The 2013 MacPro dropped the ball by eliminating an entire processor so Apple already handicapped themselves by only being able to provide 12 cores. Apple was doing 12 core machines 7 years ago at half the price. the E5v4 has 22 cores. To us that require cores, that is more than just an incremental update. Meanwhile, HP and Dell are selling dual 22 cores systems (44 cores total). For the same price that Apple is selling their ancient 12 core MacPro, you can buy a 36 core Dell or HP with a modern graphics card (don't even get me started on how far back they are on graphics cards) that will run circles around it. So you think that even though the competition was able to update their workstations twice in that time, with dual processors to boot, Apple is justified to not update their MacPro's and not adjust pricing to reflect its market value.
I never said that 3 million 27" panels should have priority over iPhone panels. I responded to a commenter who said I was ignorant because he thought Apple can't do monitors because they are not capable of obtaining 3 million 27" displays. Clearly, Apple is able to get the parts they need, especially for a low volume item such as a cinema display.
This is in the grand tradition of "telling Apple what it should be doing" or "listing all the things Apple is missing out on" or "Why Apple will be doomed in the future." Or that troll classic: "Apple relies too much on iPhone."
What I find amusing about the last assertion is that it is based on the assumption that if Apple isn't advertising what it's working on next, there is no next big thing. If Oppenheimer concludes that Apple will rely on iPhone in its next decade, then that is incredibly short-sighted. In Apple's first decade, it was profitable because of the Apple II. In its second decade, it was the Macintosh. In its third decade, it was iPod + iTunes. In its fourth decade, it was the iPhone. You can't say you know what will drive Apple's profits in the 2020s.
Apple innovates behind closed doors, unlike other companies that dazzle you with "X labs" (which I call "PR labs" because they're for the tech media to write stories about), but those don't count towards making a profit.
I agree with the general notion that Apple risks stagnation over the next decade, but I don't agree with the specifics. The stuff about AI, cloud, and services is just a bunch of buzzwords. And actually, I think those are areas where Apple has a good chance of catching up to the competition. They've been making steady progress and if steady progress continues, they should be fine.
I think there's a fairly straightforward growth path for Apple -- it's actually not complicated in terms of big picture strategy. , but Apple isn't following it for reasons that I can only speculate about.
Despite dropping the word "Computer" from its name, Apple is more of a computer company now than ever before. When else in Apple's history did they design their own CPU or create their own programming language? Apple's core competencies are making very technically advanced computers that are also very easy to use, and tying all of those computers together into a coherent web/ecosystem. I think there are many computer markets where Apple currently does not compete (or markets that haven't been created yet), but could compete quite effectively if they made the effort. There are a lot of growth opportunities.
The thing that Apple seems to be having difficulty with is operating in multiple computer markets at the same time. They seem to really be struggling to keep all product lines advancing. Only the iPhone advances at a steady pace. The iPad comes close, but experiences some bumps. So far so good for Watch, but it's very new, so not much track record. The Mac lineup sees very inconsistent progress. The Apple TV seems to exist to make Mac users feel better about the pace of Mac updates. The AirPods -- a new product that really is a wearable computer -- and they can't even launch it on time, even though doing so was very important for the iPhone.
So yeah -- Apple has problems. But it's not a buzzword problem. And they don't need some 3 dimensional chess strategy. They just need to organize themselves in a way that will allow them to compete in all the markets where they have the potential to offer a compelling product.
". . . and they can't even launch it on time." Like they have complete control over the 16 or howmanyever suppliers in Asia that are manufacturing and assembling the parts for the AirPods? Geez, you guys are so full of yourselves in armchair production logistics in the four Asian supplier countries.
For the rest of your post, msybe consider that they're building that new headquarters for a reason.
If Tim Cook walked up and kicked you in the nads, you Panglossian apologists would figure out a way to justify it as the best possible thing he could have done under the circumstances.
There was an easy way to avoid this problem with the AirPods -- include a 3.5 mm jack with the iPhone 7 and make the iPhone 7 a bit thicker.
Then the AirPods could have come out when they were ready. If people loved the AirPods, that would make removal of the audio jack in the iPhone 8 seem obvious and natural.
These are no random events beyond Apple's control; we do not live in the best possible world. Apple is making bad choices. Things could be better; things should be better.
Apple includes an adapter to use with any wired headphones. Other wireless headphones can be used.
I"m not even caring that they have failed to innovate. They can't even keep their current products remotely up to date. 3+ year old MacPro's are unacceptable. The seamless Mac eco-system is being fragmented and destroyed by the cancelation of key products (Monitors, routers). Apple monitors are pure source of advertising for a company. Going into an office and seeing all those lit Apple logo's was fantastic mind share. Now we get to see plastic LG monitors and have no clue whats running them. But hey, Apple will only make a hundred million on monitors instead of a 100 billion, so it needs to be axed.
They have been switching to USB-C for over a year now and yet only 2 models have them. How am I suppose to buy USB-C peripherals for my company when our MacPro's, iMacs... etc can't use them. The "Hello" event should have a been a complete transition day for all of Apple's desktops, laptops, iphones, and iPads over to USB-C. That's how you transition. I guess, Tim and company really have replaced their computers with iPads because they have no clue how their decisions are affecting people in the real world.
You are ignorant of any material reasons for Apple's moves. Example: tell us where Apple would get an extra 3 million or so 27" IGZO-backed LCD screens to supply a new line of Cinema Displays. You can't tell us. Ergo, you are full of . . . hot air.
LOL... I am ignorant because you believe that Apple is not capable of getting 3 million display panels? So they are able to source out hundreds of millions of iPhone displays but Apple doesn't have enough clout or money to contract out 3 million 27" panels. Yah... I'm the ignorant one.
Am I also ignorant on the 3+ year old MacPro's? How will Apple be able to source out the Xeon E5's that have been updated two times and the countless new graphics cards that are out? How will they be able to source out enough USB-C ports for the MacPro. I know its crazy for me to think that they are capable of getting these parts.
E5 two times what? If Apple was to implement the actual v3 or v4 then people would complain again because of the "incremental processor update". Skylake E5s are not ready. Apple always chooses the correct processor for the model, does anyone complain about that? They are already chip producers and they know what they are doing.
3 million 27" display panels that sell slowly in five years cannot have priority over ten millions of iPhone panels that sell every year.
Say what? you think that a v3 or v4 E5 is incremental and because of that they should be ignored. The 2013 MacPro dropped the ball by eliminating an entire processor so Apple already handicapped themselves by only being able to provide 12 cores. Apple was doing 12 core machines 7 years ago at half the price. the E5v4 has 22 cores. To us that require cores, that is more than just an incremental update. Meanwhile, HP and Dell are selling dual 22 cores systems (44 cores total). For the same price that Apple is selling their ancient 12 core MacPro, you can buy a 36 core Dell or HP with a modern graphics card (don't even get me started on how far back they are on graphics cards) that will run circles around it. So you think that even though the competition was able to update their workstations twice in that time, with dual processors to boot, Apple is justified to not update their MacPro's and not adjust pricing to reflect its market value.
I never said that 3 million 27" panels should have priority over iPhone panels. I responded to a commenter who said I was ignorant because he thought Apple can't do monitors because they are not capable of obtaining 3 million 27" displays. Clearly, Apple is able to get the parts they need, especially for a low volume item such as a cinema display.
Skylake E5 (v5) is expected 1H 2017 and it comes with a new socket design. So updating the Mac Pro any time before 1H 2017 and have to go to a major redesign for the new socket in 1H 2017 would make no sense. Processor specs are listed in Intel's site and a comparison of all v3, v4 and incoming v5 specs would give some clue about why Apple did not update the Mac Pro. This is not as simple as counting the number of cores. Companies' marketing pages would not help you. You must dig deeper.
3 million of 27" panel is not a low volume. Consider how many iPhones you can cut from a single 27" monitor.
I"m not even caring that they have failed to innovate. They can't even keep their current products remotely up to date. 3+ year old MacPro's are unacceptable. The seamless Mac eco-system is being fragmented and destroyed by the cancelation of key products (Monitors, routers). Apple monitors are pure source of advertising for a company. Going into an office and seeing all those lit Apple logo's was fantastic mind share. Now we get to see plastic LG monitors and have no clue whats running them. But hey, Apple will only make a hundred million on monitors instead of a 100 billion, so it needs to be axed.
They have been switching to USB-C for over a year now and yet only 2 models have them. How am I suppose to buy USB-C peripherals for my company when our MacPro's, iMacs... etc can't use them. The "Hello" event should have a been a complete transition day for all of Apple's desktops, laptops, iphones, and iPads over to USB-C. That's how you transition. I guess, Tim and company really have replaced their computers with iPads because they have no clue how their decisions are affecting people in the real world.
This isn't the first time in history that Apple has taken a break from making monitors. Given past history in fact there's a good chance they'll make monitors again and probably with some innovative features added. Just adding a couple of ports isn't Apple's idea of innovating. More likely if they do come back they'll com back with external card support and maybe some other goodies we hadn't thought of.
I dont see routers as a key component. Very few people I know ever owned an airport. I've owned all three major versions and about 3 months ago bought one because I thought with my FIOS service I would want one. Well as it turns out the router VZ gave me was faster than the Airport and supported NAS and other USB devices etc. All that being true why would I keep my Airport? Why would anyone spend extra money on an airport? And why would Apple continue to make vanilla wifi routers? Years ago airports were needed to do things most manufacturers didn't support. Now that's no longer true. If Apple continues to work on wifi it will probably be integrated into the ATV or other hub category devices.
Although, you may not see routers as a key component, I believe they are. To many users, especially those that are not very computer literate they choose Apple because "it just works". When these people walk into a store, they pick up their mac, maybe a monitor, a router and go home. Plug it all in and few steps it all works.
Today. they walk into a store and buy a mini for example. They then say I'll need a monitor. Sorry sir, Apple doesn't sell monitors and the LG one we sell won't work with that. Maybe the PC store across the street can help you with that. Okay. can I just connect this to the internet? No sir. You will need a router and then follow the 50 step process. (make sure its secure or else). These are the 10 routers we sell. Which one do you want.
Heck you can go in buy and brand new Macbook Pro, go home and be surprised it doesn't connect to your brand new iPhone or iPad. Off to the store again.
All these things may sound trivial but this is no longer the Apple I know. Everything takes back seat to the iPhone and they are completely neglecting or misunderstanding there core markets. When the iPhone gravy train is over, their will be nothing left to fall back on. In 30+ years, I've never seen Apple in such disarray.
Many ISPs combine the modem/router into a single device. Therefore an additional router isn't needed.
Plus Apple doesn't sell modems either or is an ISP. So the consumer should be smart enough to get that on their own.
If you think about it, what has Apple done in 5 years? They created a watch that people do not really need, and they created a 'trash-can' Mac Pro that has not been touched in 3 years and does not sell very well. They haven't created anything new that people did not realize they actually need...like they did with the iPod and iPhone. Siri has been around for five years and not much improvement. They added a few more 'features' like asking about sports or movies, but it makes mistakes quite often when trying to use it. My Philips Hue lights work better with the Philips app than they do trying to set them up with HomeKit.
I agree with the general notion that Apple risks stagnation over the next decade, but I don't agree with the specifics. The stuff about AI, cloud, and services is just a bunch of buzzwords. And actually, I think those are areas where Apple has a good chance of catching up to the competition. They've been making steady progress and if steady progress continues, they should be fine.
I think there's a fairly straightforward growth path for Apple -- it's actually not complicated in terms of big picture strategy. , but Apple isn't following it for reasons that I can only speculate about.
Despite dropping the word "Computer" from its name, Apple is more of a computer company now than ever before. When else in Apple's history did they design their own CPU or create their own programming language? Apple's core competencies are making very technically advanced computers that are also very easy to use, and tying all of those computers together into a coherent web/ecosystem. I think there are many computer markets where Apple currently does not compete (or markets that haven't been created yet), but could compete quite effectively if they made the effort. There are a lot of growth opportunities.
The thing that Apple seems to be having difficulty with is operating in multiple computer markets at the same time. They seem to really be struggling to keep all product lines advancing. Only the iPhone advances at a steady pace. The iPad comes close, but experiences some bumps. So far so good for Watch, but it's very new, so not much track record. The Mac lineup sees very inconsistent progress. The Apple TV seems to exist to make Mac users feel better about the pace of Mac updates. The AirPods -- a new product that really is a wearable computer -- and they can't even launch it on time, even though doing so was very important for the iPhone.
So yeah -- Apple has problems. But it's not a buzzword problem. And they don't need some 3 dimensional chess strategy. They just need to organize themselves in a way that will allow them to compete in all the markets where they have the potential to offer a compelling product.
". . . and they can't even launch it on time." Like they have complete control over the 16 or howmanyever suppliers in Asia that are manufacturing and assembling the parts for the AirPods? Geez, you guys are so full of yourselves in armchair production logistics in the four Asian supplier countries.
For the rest of your post, msybe consider that they're building that new headquarters for a reason.
If Tim Cook walked up and kicked you in the nads, you Panglossian apologists would figure out a way to justify it as the best possible thing he could have done under the circumstances.
There was an easy way to avoid this problem with the AirPods -- include a 3.5 mm jack with the iPhone 7 and make the iPhone 7 a bit thicker.
Then the AirPods could have come out when they were ready. If people loved the AirPods, that would make removal of the audio jack in the iPhone 8 seem obvious and natural.
These are no random events beyond Apple's control; we do not live in the best possible world. Apple is making bad choices. Things could be better; things should be better.
Re Apple's bad choices - How did you feel about the original iMac and its lack of a floppy drive, and other useful and current ports? How about the puck mouse? And what about the choice of the ACC codec in iPods? The switch from Firewire to USB on the iPod? The switch from 32pin iPhone connector? And no more CD / DVD tray on all of the laptops? And general lack of expandability on all Apple devices? You must be long suffering.
Now I KNOW Apple is headed in the right direction.
As long as analysts are berating Apple, they're doing something right. I've been following Apple, and watching these type of article and analysts, for probably 10 years. This is absolutely no different than before. That's a pretty risky and negative prediction, when you factor in Apple's track record. What's more important is this analyst's track record, because his historical predictions deserve as much analysis as the company he's analyzing.
What many analysts have never figured out, because truth be told they don't follow Apple closely even though they'd like you to believe they do, is that Apple is a company of the now. Google is mostly a hype machine that tricks tech blogs to report on them daily with well timed PR releases about fringe ideas and 20% projects. This gives analysts a feeling that Google is releasing timely innovative products. I think the one thing that Apple is doing incredibly well, that the analysts say is a negative, is putting a focus on the iPhone. Let's face it, the mobile phone is the the hottest computer category, many Windows' fans are still upset that they aren't a part of that market, because it's the way forward, and Apple is being very smart by owning market. They have, for the first time ever, captured over 100% of the industry's profits. This is the category Apple should be focusing on, and this is the category they do focus on. This is the category every company desires to capture, and Apple does it successfully with ease, year after year and quarter after quarter.
As far as future products, obviously Apple has products and categories that it's working on that they don't give information on. You can be sure they have a VR solution just like all the other tech companies. Everything I've said seems obvious. But these analysts will keep elbowing their way into the news cycle at the cost of their own reputations. Would I like to Apple do this or that, sure, but I know this isn't exactly like the Apple of Steve Jobs. This is a different but similar company, and they're doing a fantastic job.
but come on. This idiot ANALyst thinks he can predict what Apple will be in a decade? I mean WTF. These assholes can't even predict what sales will be in the next 90 days.
This is the kind of crap Jobs would never put up with. This guy would have been chewed out by now. But Timid Timmy won't do a thing and continue to allow the Apple Brand and Name to be abused and violated and humilated in the press for all to see.
The sad thing is the big investors believe these so-called analysts. The big investors are putting all their money into Amazon, Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft because they believe those are the hottest companies doing all the things that consumers want from a company. You can easily see how many stories are going around telling about how the Microsoft Surface Pro and Microsoft Surface Studio are much better hardware than what Apple is building and Microsoft is essentially a software company. I'm sure there will be stories of how great some new Windows 10 smartphone is much, much better than all iPhones ever built. It's just crazy how the internet distorts things.
There are constant stories on the internet tearing down Apple and their products in every possible way. I'm concerned more investors are going to drop Apple and even potential investors will head for the hills. There's absolutely no one backing Apple anymore. Apple used to be the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. Now, it's become a joke of a company where the belief is any half-assed company can kick Apple's butt without so much as breathing hard. That's some really bad opinion of a good company. As a loyal Apple user, I consider it a humiliation that really should never have happened. Apple is on top but not taking any advantage of its position despite a mountain-load of cash. Not one bit of damage control from Apple. It's really pathetic.
I can knock out 123 world changing innovations every month! NOT. The iPhone/iPad is still relevant today. Powerful desktop computers are becoming less and less except for music, video, gaming and software development. Financial companies rely on Enterprise data centers. I'm not sure what the author is trying to get at. The future of data consumption has been seen in the likes of Star Trek/Star Wars, Ironman, Total Recall, Minority Report and other "techie" movies. Just because we don't see a customer facing AI/AR product doesn't mean Apple isn't working on it. The technology of today is a passage point on the way to new and better technology. I for one, don't want to have something embedded in my hand, head, or ear. I don't want to wear glasses or contacts. My bet is that all of them, Google, Apple, MS, Samsung and many others are working on the next thing. It's just that it doesn't happen on the financial analyst timeframe and he should read some books like Snow Crash and watch Johnny Mnemonic again. The only thing that has stayed the same over the last decade is change. Things will always change.
I agree with the general notion that Apple risks stagnation over the next decade, but I don't agree with the specifics. The stuff about AI, cloud, and services is just a bunch of buzzwords. And actually, I think those are areas where Apple has a good chance of catching up to the competition. They've been making steady progress and if steady progress continues, they should be fine.
I think there's a fairly straightforward growth path for Apple -- it's actually not complicated in terms of big picture strategy. , but Apple isn't following it for reasons that I can only speculate about.
Despite dropping the word "Computer" from its name, Apple is more of a computer company now than ever before. When else in Apple's history did they design their own CPU or create their own programming language? Apple's core competencies are making very technically advanced computers that are also very easy to use, and tying all of those computers together into a coherent web/ecosystem. I think there are many computer markets where Apple currently does not compete (or markets that haven't been created yet), but could compete quite effectively if they made the effort. There are a lot of growth opportunities.
The thing that Apple seems to be having difficulty with is operating in multiple computer markets at the same time. They seem to really be struggling to keep all product lines advancing. Only the iPhone advances at a steady pace. The iPad comes close, but experiences some bumps. So far so good for Watch, but it's very new, so not much track record. The Mac lineup sees very inconsistent progress. The Apple TV seems to exist to make Mac users feel better about the pace of Mac updates. The AirPods -- a new product that really is a wearable computer -- and they can't even launch it on time, even though doing so was very important for the iPhone.
So yeah -- Apple has problems. But it's not a buzzword problem. And they don't need some 3 dimensional chess strategy. They just need to organize themselves in a way that will allow them to compete in all the markets where they have the potential to offer a compelling product.
". . . and they can't even launch it on time." Like they have complete control over the 16 or howmanyever suppliers in Asia that are manufacturing and assembling the parts for the AirPods? Geez, you guys are so full of yourselves in armchair production logistics in the four Asian supplier countries.
For the rest of your post, msybe consider that they're building that new headquarters for a reason.
If Tim Cook walked up and kicked you in the nads, you Panglossian apologists would figure out a way to justify it as the best possible thing he could have done under the circumstances.
There was an easy way to avoid this problem with the AirPods -- include a 3.5 mm jack with the iPhone 7 and make the iPhone 7 a bit thicker.
Then the AirPods could have come out when they were ready. If people loved the AirPods, that would make removal of the audio jack in the iPhone 8 seem obvious and natural.
These are no random events beyond Apple's control; we do not live in the best possible world. Apple is making bad choices. Things could be better; things should be better.
Re Apple's bad choices - How did you feel about the original iMac and its lack of a floppy drive, and other useful and current ports? How about the puck mouse? And what about the choice of the ACC codec in iPods? The switch from Firewire to USB on the iPod? The switch from 32pin iPhone connector? And no more CD / DVD tray on all of the laptops? And general lack of expandability on all Apple devices? You must be long suffering.
The iMac came with a USB keyboard and mouse, not an ADB-USB dongle. Yes, I know the iPhone 7 shipped with lightning EarPods, but lightening isn't the future of earphone connectivity in the way that USB was the future of computer peripheral connectivity. The future of earphone connectivity is wireless. It would be as if the iMac shipped with an ethernet keyboard and an ADB-USB dongle.
Switching from 30-pin to lightning was inconvenient, but I could see the point.
I won't bother with the rest of your simple minded straw men.
Skylake E5 (v5) is expected 1H 2017 and it comes with a new socket design. So updating the Mac Pro any time before 1H 2017 and have to go to a major redesign for the new socket in 1H 2017 would make no sense. Processor specs are listed in Intel's site and a comparison of all v3, v4 and incoming v5 specs would give some clue about why Apple did not update the Mac Pro. This is not as simple as counting the number of cores. Companies' marketing pages would not help you. You must dig deeper.
I understand that the v5 will be a new socket design and require a redesign of the logic board but that does not refute the fact that the v3 and v4 are the same socket design and would require trivial work to implement. If they would have done an incremental update on the MacPro, they wouldn't be so hard pressed to get the v5 out the door.
I know its easy for all of us to quarterback CEO these things when it doesn't affect us. The problem for me and many pros, is that this is are livelihood. We have 7 year old 12 core systems that we use for rendering that are giving out one by one. They NEED to be replaced. Normally, we would have updated these systems every 2 years but Apple has not provided us with any compelling systems during this 7 year time frame. If I can't walk into an Apple Store and buy a top of the line system that is even remotely close to what competitors are selling for the same price, you know there is a problem.
I'm not sure where I am suppose to dig or how I am fooled by marketing that a 36 core E5v4 with Nvidia Quadro GPU Dell/HP is only marginally faster than the 12 core E5v2 with 3 year old D700 GPU. Can you please point me in the right direction so I can see for myself.
Comments
Not following the logic there. The AirPod delay looks like it's going to be about a month and a half. That's not much of a reason to delay the removal of the 3.5 mm jack, especially since there were other 1st party and 3rd party wireless options already available.
Am I also ignorant on the 3+ year old MacPro's? How will Apple be able to source out the Xeon E5's that have been updated two times and the countless new graphics cards that are out? How will they be able to source out enough USB-C ports for the MacPro. I know its crazy for me to think that they are capable of getting these parts.
3 million 27" display panels that sell slowly in five years cannot have priority over ten millions of iPhone panels that sell every year.
Today. they walk into a store and buy a mini for example. They then say I'll need a monitor. Sorry sir, Apple doesn't sell monitors and the LG one we sell won't work with that. Maybe the PC store across the street can help you with that. Okay. can I just connect this to the internet? No sir. You will need a router and then follow the 50 step process. (make sure its secure or else). These are the 10 routers we sell. Which one do you want.
Heck you can go in buy and brand new Macbook Pro, go home and be surprised it doesn't connect to your brand new iPhone or iPad. Off to the store again.
All these things may sound trivial but this is no longer the Apple I know. Everything takes back seat to the iPhone and they are completely neglecting or misunderstanding there core markets. When the iPhone gravy train is over, their will be nothing left to fall back on. In 30+ years, I've never seen Apple in such disarray.
I never said that 3 million 27" panels should have priority over iPhone panels. I responded to a commenter who said I was ignorant because he thought Apple can't do monitors because they are not capable of obtaining 3 million 27" displays. Clearly, Apple is able to get the parts they need, especially for a low volume item such as a cinema display.
3 million of 27" panel is not a low volume. Consider how many iPhones you can cut from a single 27" monitor.
Many ISPs combine the modem/router into a single device. Therefore an additional router isn't needed.
Plus Apple doesn't sell modems either or is an ISP. So the consumer should be smart enough to get that on their own.
Right?
As long as analysts are berating Apple, they're doing something right. I've been following Apple, and watching these type of article and analysts, for probably 10 years. This is absolutely no different than before. That's a pretty risky and negative prediction, when you factor in Apple's track record. What's more important is this analyst's track record, because his historical predictions deserve as much analysis as the company he's analyzing.
What many analysts have never figured out, because truth be told they don't follow Apple closely even though they'd like you to believe they do, is that Apple is a company of the now. Google is mostly a hype machine that tricks tech blogs to report on them daily with well timed PR releases about fringe ideas and 20% projects. This gives analysts a feeling that Google is releasing timely innovative products. I think the one thing that Apple is doing incredibly well, that the analysts say is a negative, is putting a focus on the iPhone. Let's face it, the mobile phone is the the hottest computer category, many Windows' fans are still upset that they aren't a part of that market, because it's the way forward, and Apple is being very smart by owning market. They have, for the first time ever, captured over 100% of the industry's profits. This is the category Apple should be focusing on, and this is the category they do focus on. This is the category every company desires to capture, and Apple does it successfully with ease, year after year and quarter after quarter.
As far as future products, obviously Apple has products and categories that it's working on that they don't give information on. You can be sure they have a VR solution just like all the other tech companies. Everything I've said seems obvious. But these analysts will keep elbowing their way into the news cycle at the cost of their own reputations. Would I like to Apple do this or that, sure, but I know this isn't exactly like the Apple of Steve Jobs. This is a different but similar company, and they're doing a fantastic job.
There are constant stories on the internet tearing down Apple and their products in every possible way. I'm concerned more investors are going to drop Apple and even potential investors will head for the hills. There's absolutely no one backing Apple anymore. Apple used to be the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. Now, it's become a joke of a company where the belief is any half-assed company can kick Apple's butt without so much as breathing hard. That's some really bad opinion of a good company. As a loyal Apple user, I consider it a humiliation that really should never have happened. Apple is on top but not taking any advantage of its position despite a mountain-load of cash. Not one bit of damage control from Apple. It's really pathetic.
Switching from 30-pin to lightning was inconvenient, but I could see the point.
I won't bother with the rest of your simple minded straw men.
I know its easy for all of us to quarterback CEO these things when it doesn't affect us. The problem for me and many pros, is that this is are livelihood. We have 7 year old 12 core systems that we use for rendering that are giving out one by one. They NEED to be replaced. Normally, we would have updated these systems every 2 years but Apple has not provided us with any compelling systems during this 7 year time frame. If I can't walk into an Apple Store and buy a top of the line system that is even remotely close to what competitors are selling for the same price, you know there is a problem.
I'm not sure where I am suppose to dig or how I am fooled by marketing that a 36 core E5v4 with Nvidia Quadro GPU Dell/HP is only marginally faster than the 12 core E5v2 with 3 year old D700 GPU. Can you please point me in the right direction so I can see for myself.