Like all companies, Apple will lose its edge, and eventually predictions will come to pass, but not now. The article was excellent.
innovation. Well, there is a lot of innovation out there: great and not so great ideas, many companies researching, many companies finding niche to feed their families and egos, and love of challenge. Somebody has to be first and they put themselves on the line with first iteration. Reality is the First can't be the best. It's going to be too soon.
I remember the years when industrial espionage was the big topic of conversation. Within this industry, my guess is Apple would be the most important target. What about Apple's competitors? Less so, because when they produce the next big thing, it's more like a beta. Good and innovative ideas, but lacking all the pieces that would make it great. Apple can afford not to be first, because it takes effort to take the innovation to the next level.
And there are areas which Apple will likely remain far behind. Book sales: Amazon kills everyone. Entertainment content: Apple had better find an in. Frankly, anyone attempting to go after Amazon will have to bring their A-game: killing everyone is Amazon buyers product reviews.
Since we're talking about Apple and innovation can somebody explain to me the hoopla around Amazon Eco and now Eco show ????????? What's the difference between these and the iPad in all its versions ? Apple has had Siri and Facetime for a long time in an "appliance" form which basically do the same thing as these new "disruptive" Amazon products . Nobody seems to mention this anywhere.
Item of note - fanboys (like me) do give Apple the benefit of the doubt - because they do mess up. I was an very early me.com subscriber - that sync' d everything across devices - and some things (like photos) - didn't work. Apple didn't acknowledge it for a while - but after persistence - they came around. They even gave me a $100 gift card for the Apple Store and extended my paid subscription for 2 years. I could have easily said - "F-this" but I didn't - and an Apple ended up responding in spades. I can tell you that Samsung has never done this. EVER. It can be disappointing that we get all hyped up about the latest and greatest features - and with Apple we may wait up to 3 years for them (if they ever come all all) - but when they do come - they work. AND THAT IS THE POINT - they work. I would agree with some that they are making more mistakes than they have in the past - and that is a bit concerning (hello Apple Pencil why did Apple figure out a why to store the thing with the iPad - I can't tell you how many I've misplaced).
Finally - competition: thank you Samsung, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, Microsoft, et.al. You are raising the bar - and this not only introduces new features - but puts a fire under everyone's ass to do something amazing. I do not wish you ill - I will you success! As if successful - Apple may make it better - or just roll over and let it work on their platforms.
One can argue that the iPhone, iPad, and the Apple Watch can all be successfully developed in secrecy because they did not require massive data collection from actual users to produce.
But AI for a car, and AR both require massive real data usage. Remember Apple Maps? It was the laughing stock of the bunch, but after spending years gathering data from actual users it's gotten better.
Apple only started sharing papers in the field of AR, after losing some serious engineers, and I feel they might be way behind Google Car and HoloLens.
TL DR, who are you trying to convince here? ... Apple is turning into a services company, but their margins strategy is still one for a hardware company with 100% control over the manufacturing. They're having a really hard time signing contracts with content producers or even just working outside the US. ...
So, let's apply the principles of the article to this comment and those of its sock puppet, shall we?
I guess the idea is doom and gloom due to the failure to produce film and television content like Netflix, Amazon, and others, both in the U.S. and around the world.
It's a weird industry, and some of the major players use Trump-like business tactics -- they break contracts because they can and you have to go to court to get paid. Most people just settle. You can make a great film that does well and then get screwed over by your distributor.
So Apple (after studying it for years and seeing what Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon have done) steps into this mess and says, okay, we have hundreds of millions of screens and we want your original content. Here's the deal: ... [let's use the App Store example: 30%, simple and fair, and better than anyone else at that time] ...
Like all companies, Apple will lose its edge, and eventually predictions will come to pass, but not now. The article was excellent.
Yes, but predicting the inevitable isn't actually a prediction, is it? Saying that the sun won't rise at some point in the future doesn't make me clever unless I can tell you when it will happen.
Excellent article. Over all, being in the Apple ecosystem does have a definitive advantage. They might not be the first mover but somehow eventually their products are the most secure and stable. I have been in the technology industry since before DOS (Unix) and have been a Windows user since version 1 but once I started using Mac, I have felt the freedom of living without blue screen and other idiosyncrasies
Future is cloud services, that's where the money is, not in hardware, any Tom dick and harry can make a phone. That's why the pc market is suffering and will continue to do so as margins are minimal.
One of Apple's futures is cloud services. How do you propose all that data gets in and out of the cloud, osmosis? So long as we are physical, carbon-based entities, we will always require some kind of physical hardware for every technology handshake.
The issue long-term for Apple is will people pay a premium for a phone in years to come when a £200 phone will do everything they need and more?
IBM used to sell expensive PCs with massive cost to profit ratio, but once competition had caught up and started to out innovate them, their profits started to fall down a cliff. Blackberry suffered the same fate. What's different this time is Apple has monopoly on its app store, and this is why Apple will turn into a services company. However regulators may see this as anti competitive and allow likes of e.g Amazon to setup its own Apple app store. Wouldn't that be good for consumers!
Apple cannot have a monopoly on its own App Store, in much the same way that Toyota cannot have a monopoly for selling Toyota cars.
The market is for app stores, not the App Store. Apple does not have the biggest app store, and even if it did, there is nothing illegal in having a monopoly, so regulators have no case.
Hope that makes things a little clearer for you.
Now if Walmart forced the consumer to only buy Cheerios from its stores, it has a Monopoly on that product.
Monopoly means: "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service"
Apple has sole control over everything it sells to Apple devices. That can be seen as anti competitive when a company has too much power, like Apple, bad for consumers, and for companies like Spotify etc.
No streaming service can compete with Apples, because Apple can price theirs better than everyone else who sells competing products, plus they take a cut of competing products revenue too as it has to be sold through app store, not fair.
Hope that educates you.
Your example doesn't work. If I can buy Cheerios from Amazon too, then Walmart doesn't have a monopoly on that product. You have to define "forcing a consumer". If we are simply talking about competitive pricing or Walmart only carrying Cheerios and no other breakfast cereals, then there is nothing illegal. If Cheerios was somehow deemed an essential part of everyone's breakfast by the FDA, and Walmart became the sole supplier of that product, then you have a case for a monopoly.
Apple does take a piece of revenue from services on their platform but they do not control pricing. Their competition chooses to either pass the cost onto the consumers or absorb those costs. Apple's pricing is usually in line with competing services unless they feel they offer a better hardware / software integration to their customers such as with iCloud pricing.
TL DR, who are you trying to convince here? Basically the article states that the last time Apple pushed out some significant innovation was in 2014. It's nearly mid 2017 now and still no sign of updated desktops. Apple is turning into a services company, but their margins strategy is still one for a hardware company with 100% control over the manufacturing. They're having a really hard time signing contracts with content producers or even just working outside the US. All fanboyism aside, this is going to bite them in the butt rather sooner than later.
I hate how only Apple is held to the innovation standard.
samsung, Microsoft, LG, everyone can copy and follow for decades but Apple must innovate yearly or they're failing.
Can't wait for WWDC. There's so many possibilities Apple could bring out plus ones we haven't even thought about.
But will they do anything? That is the question that so many are asking. Yes there are possibilities but... Apple is being seen as an ultra conservative 'follower' rather than a leader. more of a 'Dedicated follower of Fashion' than a '21st Centrury Schitzoid Man'.
Will the WWDC this year be a damp squib or a brand new rocketship heading for the stars? Will TC give us glimpse of this fantastic pipeline he talks about? Only time (and plentiful rumours) will tell.
Who is Apple "following" exactly?
again, just because they aren't innovating yearly doesn't mean they're falling behind.
Apple is only "following" concepts that the media hypes like self-driving cars, AI, AR/VR. None of these things are real products or markets yet. They are just getting started or won't begin for a few years. Remember when Apple was "following" the wearables market just 2 years ago? Now they dominate that market. Some say that Apple Watch is a failure but how can it be a failure when it now even beats Fitbit in sales? The only possible failure in the case of wearables is the wearable market itself.
"[The] Future is cloud services, that's where the money is, not in hardware, any Tom dick and harry can make a phone."
Here's what I think....
"...not in hardware, any Tom dick and harry can make a phone," but Tom Dick and Harry are fighting each other with brainless schemes hoping to avoid poor house bankruptcies.
But you are totally correct in that "any Tom dick and harry can make a phone."
The issue long-term for Apple is will people pay a premium for a phone in years to come when a £200 phone will do everything they need and more?
IBM used to sell expensive PCs with massive cost to profit ratio, but once competition had caught up and started to out innovate them, their profits started to fall down a cliff. Blackberry suffered the same fate. What's different this time is Apple has monopoly on its app store, and this is why Apple will turn into a services company. However regulators may see this as anti competitive and allow likes of e.g Amazon to setup its own Apple app store. Wouldn't that be good for consumers!
Apple cannot have a monopoly on its own App Store, in much the same way that Toyota cannot have a monopoly for selling Toyota cars.
The market is for app stores, not the App Store. Apple does not have the biggest app store, and even if it did, there is nothing illegal in having a monopoly, so regulators have no case.
Hope that makes things a little clearer for you.
Now if Walmart forced the consumer to only buy Cheerios from its stores, it has a Monopoly on that product.
Monopoly means: "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service"
Apple has sole control over everything it sells to Apple devices. That can be seen as anti competitive when a company has too much power, like Apple, bad for consumers, and for companies like Spotify etc.
No streaming service can compete with Apples, because Apple can price theirs better than everyone else who sells competing products, plus they take a cut of competing products revenue too as it has to be sold through app store, not fair.
Hope that educates you.
According to you, every retail store and website is a monopoly.
Apple has sole control over its App Store. It could be considered a monopoly IF Apple didn't allow other people to sell in there store. Amazon sells google sells Microsoft sells in Apple's App Store.
Accoding to your example. Walmart should be labeled a monopoly because it has sole control over who can sell in its stores and website and it gets a cut or profit from every sale. Or the same with Amazon.
The Apple app store is not a monopoly because it allows other people to sell products in it. And it would be considered a store. Now, monopolistic practice are different.
The issue long-term for Apple is will people pay a premium for a phone in years to come when a £200 phone will do everything they need and more?
IBM used to sell expensive PCs with massive cost to profit ratio, but once competition had caught up and started to out innovate them, their profits started to fall down a cliff. Blackberry suffered the same fate. What's different this time is Apple has monopoly on its app store, and this is why Apple will turn into a services company. However regulators may see this as anti competitive and allow likes of e.g Amazon to setup its own Apple app store. Wouldn't that be good for consumers!
Apple cannot have a monopoly on its own App Store, in much the same way that Toyota cannot have a monopoly for selling Toyota cars.
The market is for app stores, not the App Store. Apple does not have the biggest app store, and even if it did, there is nothing illegal in having a monopoly, so regulators have no case.
Hope that makes things a little clearer for you.
Now if Walmart forced the consumer to only buy Cheerios from its stores, it has a Monopoly on that product.
Monopoly means: "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service"
Apple has sole control over everything it sells to Apple devices. That can be seen as anti competitive when a company has too much power, like Apple, bad for consumers, and for companies like Spotify etc.
No streaming service can compete with Apples, because Apple can price theirs better than everyone else who sells competing products, plus they take a cut of competing products revenue too as it has to be sold through app store, not fair.
Hope that educates you.
Glad you used Wal-mart as a comparison. I always wondered this: So Walmart (or any other store/grocer) can sell Cherrios in its store and charge them for shelf space. Then, right along side Cherrios, they can sell their own Walmart-O's at a much lower price. Is this anti-competitive? Kind of feel App Store is the same. Apple charges you for shelf space in the App Store and right along side offers there own similar services to what you offer (Spotify, Apple Music). Seems there are very similar parrallels but I don't ever hear people or companies complaining about this. I could be way off though, not as smart as most here....
I wouldn't put Google Maps in the same category of failure as Palm, Nokia and BlackBerry, but this minor detail was easily redeemed by the hilarious Kerrigan/Harding analogy. I feel like I've been looking for this analogy for years.
And for the record, Spotify is actually doing better lately, with strong subscriber growth and more favorable deals with record labels, so it's looking like they will be fine for the foreseeable future.
"[The] Future is cloud services, that's where the money is, not in hardware, any Tom dick and harry can make a phone."
Here's what I think....
"...not in hardware, any Tom dick and harry can make a phone," but Tom Dick and Harry are fighting each other with brainless schemes hoping to avoid poor house bankruptcies.
But you are totally correct in that "any Tom dick and harry can make a phone."
My future with MY data is not in the use of Cloud Services. Clouds have no base, no solidity and once you get dropped upon, they go away.
What I mean to say is that I don't trust MY data in the hands of anyone else. Some may say that this is rather a luddite way of thinking but I am careful with my online presence. The more data you put out there the more likely it is to be hacked/stolen/slurped/whatever. Then what eh?
TL DR, who are you trying to convince here? Basically the article states that the last time Apple pushed out some significant innovation was in 2014. It's nearly mid 2017 now and still no sign of updated desktops. Apple is turning into a services company, but their margins strategy is still one for a hardware company with 100% control over the manufacturing. They're having a really hard time signing contracts with content producers or even just working outside the US. All fanboyism aside, this is going to bite them in the butt rather sooner than later.
Nonsense. What are AirPods made of if not innovation? Fairy dust? Their display tech is also very innovative but you're likely not even familiar with it. And video content? Please.
Can't wait for WWDC. There's so many possibilities Apple could bring out plus ones we haven't even thought about.
But will they do anything? That is the question that so many are asking. Yes there are possibilities but... Apple is being seen as an ultra conservative 'follower' rather than a leader. more of a 'Dedicated follower of Fashion' than a '21st Centrury Schitzoid Man'.
Only to the uninformed and the hater agenda. The work apple does to lead the industry isn't about having a faster workstation. They aren't a PC company and their accomplishments speak to that.
The issue long-term for Apple is will people pay a premium for a phone in years to come when a £200 phone will do everything they need and more?
IBM used to sell expensive PCs with massive cost to profit ratio, but once competition had caught up and started to out innovate them, their profits started to fall down a cliff. Blackberry suffered the same fate. What's different this time is Apple has monopoly on its app store, and this is why Apple will turn into a services company. However regulators may see this as anti competitive and allow likes of e.g Amazon to setup its own Apple app store. Wouldn't that be good for consumers!
This is pure nonsense. The "but tech is a commodity!" argument has been made for 40 years, when people first said things like your post about apple. still here, and in fact the only one still here, and in fact eating much of the PC sector's profits -- clearly what they're doing is working.
And as said Apple can't have a monopoly on its own store. That's like saying Burger King has a monopoly on Whoppers. You're free to go elsewhere.
Future is cloud services, that's where the money is, not in hardware, any Tom dick and harry can make a phone. That's why the pc market is suffering and will continue to do so as margins are minimal.
Having services income is not the same as being a services only company, durr. Anybody can make hardware, not anyone can vertically integrate and excel at software. Yup PC margins are minimal and market is suffering. Except Apple. oops.
The most innovative product I've seen in the last year wasn't an Apple product, it was the Tesla Solar Roof.
That said, Apple has nothing to worry about profit wise. The new regulations banning laptops & tablet on airline flights are going to drive business travelers into larger more expensive phones. (In an attempt to get work done on the plane)
For regular Joes, the Apple Watch may be getting their killer apps in monitoring glucose levels for diabetics and identifying heart disease in watch wearers.
The next step is integrating the cellular modem in the watch. Who knows if heart attacks can be predicted before they happen, but sending out automatic emergency response requests when they do, would be a Killer App.
Comments
innovation. Well, there is a lot of innovation out there: great and not so great ideas, many companies researching, many companies finding niche to feed their families and egos, and love of challenge. Somebody has to be first and they put themselves on the line with first iteration. Reality is the First can't be the best. It's going to be too soon.
I remember the years when industrial espionage was the big topic of conversation. Within this industry, my guess is Apple would be the most important target. What about Apple's competitors? Less so, because when they produce the next big thing, it's more like a beta. Good and innovative ideas, but lacking all the pieces that would make it great. Apple can afford not to be first, because it takes effort to take the innovation to the next level.
And there are areas which Apple will likely remain far behind. Book sales: Amazon kills everyone. Entertainment content: Apple had better find an in. Frankly, anyone attempting to go after Amazon will have to bring their A-game: killing everyone is Amazon buyers product reviews.
Item of note - fanboys (like me) do give Apple the benefit of the doubt - because they do mess up. I was an very early me.com subscriber - that sync' d everything across devices - and some things (like photos) - didn't work. Apple didn't acknowledge it for a while - but after persistence - they came around. They even gave me a $100 gift card for the Apple Store and extended my paid subscription for 2 years. I could have easily said - "F-this" but I didn't - and an Apple ended up responding in spades. I can tell you that Samsung has never done this. EVER. It can be disappointing that we get all hyped up about the latest and greatest features - and with Apple we may wait up to 3 years for them (if they ever come all all) - but when they do come - they work. AND THAT IS THE POINT - they work. I would agree with some that they are making more mistakes than they have in the past - and that is a bit concerning (hello Apple Pencil why did Apple figure out a why to store the thing with the iPad - I can't tell you how many I've misplaced).
Finally - competition: thank you Samsung, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, Microsoft, et.al. You are raising the bar - and this not only introduces new features - but puts a fire under everyone's ass to do something amazing. I do not wish you ill - I will you success! As if successful - Apple may make it better - or just roll over and let it work on their platforms.
But AI for a car, and AR both require massive real data usage. Remember Apple Maps? It was the laughing stock of the bunch, but after spending years gathering data from actual users it's gotten better.
Apple only started sharing papers in the field of AR, after losing some serious engineers, and I feel they might be way behind Google Car and HoloLens.
I guess the idea is doom and gloom due to the failure to produce film and television content like Netflix, Amazon, and others, both in the U.S. and around the world.
It's a weird industry, and some of the major players use Trump-like business tactics -- they break contracts because they can and you have to go to court to get paid. Most people just settle. You can make a great film that does well and then get screwed over by your distributor.
So Apple (after studying it for years and seeing what Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon have done) steps into this mess and says, okay, we have hundreds of millions of screens and we want your original content. Here's the deal: ... [let's use the App Store example: 30%, simple and fair, and better than anyone else at that time] ...
Apple does take a piece of revenue from services on their platform but they do not control pricing. Their competition chooses to either pass the cost onto the consumers or absorb those costs. Apple's pricing is usually in line with competing services unless they feel they offer a better hardware / software integration to their customers such as with iCloud pricing.
Apple is only "following" concepts that the media hypes like self-driving cars, AI, AR/VR. None of these things are real products or markets yet. They are just getting started or won't begin for a few years. Remember when Apple was "following" the wearables market just 2 years ago? Now they dominate that market. Some say that Apple Watch is a failure but how can it be a failure when it now even beats Fitbit in sales? The only possible failure in the case of wearables is the wearable market itself.
Here's what I think....
"...not in hardware, any Tom dick and harry can make a phone," but Tom Dick and Harry are fighting each other with brainless schemes hoping to avoid poor house bankruptcies.
But you are totally correct in that "any Tom dick and harry can make a phone."
Apple has sole control over its App Store. It could be considered a monopoly IF Apple didn't allow other people to sell in there store. Amazon sells google sells Microsoft sells in Apple's App Store.
Accoding to your example. Walmart should be labeled a monopoly because it has sole control over who can sell in its stores and website and it gets a cut or profit from every sale. Or the same with Amazon.
The Apple app store is not a monopoly because it allows other people to sell products in it. And it would be considered a store. Now, monopolistic practice are different.
And for the record, Spotify is actually doing better lately, with strong subscriber growth and more favorable deals with record labels, so it's looking like they will be fine for the foreseeable future.
What I mean to say is that I don't trust MY data in the hands of anyone else.
Some may say that this is rather a luddite way of thinking but I am careful with my online presence. The more data you put out there the more likely it is to be hacked/stolen/slurped/whatever.
Then what eh?
Only to the uninformed and the hater agenda. The work apple does to lead the industry isn't about having a faster workstation. They aren't a PC company and their accomplishments speak to that.
That said, Apple has nothing to worry about profit wise. The new regulations banning laptops & tablet on airline flights are going to drive business travelers into larger more expensive phones. (In an attempt to get work done on the plane)
For regular Joes, the Apple Watch may be getting their killer apps in monitoring glucose levels for diabetics and identifying heart disease in watch wearers.
The next step is integrating the cellular modem in the watch. Who knows if heart attacks can be predicted before they happen, but sending out automatic emergency response requests when they do, would be a Killer App.