- Last Active
I picked up on that too - are they comparing Apple's units sold with Hauwei's units shipped? I don't if this is the case but too often in the past I've seen manufacturers stuff the channels with inventory but it looks good for their numbers.
Apple probably shrugged this off anyways - their goal isn't to be #1 - their goal is to be the best. Therefore, cheaper competitors can often outsell Apple though their profits can be paltry compared to Apple.
Rather than try to politicize this, we should look at this soberly. Companies don't make snap decisions to lay off a bunch of people since that tends to look bad in the press and most of them are not heartless, evil capitalists. AT&T just announced a $1 billion expansion investment. This layoff is most likely due to changing business conditions as people are cutting the cord but depending on Internet services more.
I went through something similar when a company I worked for shifted from a hardware based to a software and services based company. A lot of long term employees were let go because of it.
As for the person who mentioned BMW, you cannot compare that as they have a union contract in place. Strict labor laws across Europe may temporarily favor employees but it has also led to workforce stagnation.
I doubt the veracity of this article. Apple has staked out the high quality sound end of the market with Siri functionality. Creating a smaller version would require a very different strategy and approach. Amazon sells cheap Echos because they want people to leverage Amazon services. However, after a few weeks of the novelty wearing off, most people use these devices to listen to music and get the weather.
I also doubt that a stylus will be made for the iPhone. The stylus makes sense for the iPad Pro because the advanced functionality for writing, notes, drawing, etc. demand a high precision device. You don't need it for pointers and writing on a phone sized screen is not easy or natural.
Just because the market is doing something doesn't mean that Apple is going to follow. There has to be real world functional use cases, not just features in search of a solution.
I doubt the Ending Platform Monopolies Act will survive Constitutional judicial review if it ever became law. We have already seen the Courts push back on narrowly defining a particular product a monopoly in of itself without reference to the market and the judge in the Epic vs. Apple trial had the same sentiment.
Secondly, barring a tech company from selling wares on their own platform is incredibly silly and likely wouldn’t survive either. And I question whether the gov’t could prove a compelling public interest to force private companies to change their viable and otherwise legal business model.