robbyx

I'm assuming these magazines and newspapers won't be ad-free.  The higher the subscriber count, the more they can charge for advertising.

RealDavidGurney said:

What a moron. If anything, users should sue Apple for forcing them to use an E-mail address as their user ID, and refusing to consolidate the resulting multiple Apple accounts that people inadvertently set up. The lay user can easily then lose apps or other content that they've purchased with old Apple IDs, when their E-mail address changes (with a job, ISP switch, whatever). The stupidity of using an E-mail address as a user ID is neatly summed up here: https://goldmanosi.blogspot.com/2012/06/forcing-people-to-use-e-mail-address-as.html

Agreed! Email address as user ID is beyond stupid for so many reasons.  I help a lot of friends and family members with their Apple products and this issue has reared its head multiple times. I can only imagine how it must drive Apple support employees crazy.

wood1208 said:

4 years replacement cycle sounds unreasonable. People go at most 2 1/2 to 3 years most.

I don't think it's unreasonable.  With iOS 12 especially, older hardware is performing very well.  What drives most people to upgrade, in my opinion, is when the overall user experience diminishes to the point that the device becomes unpleasant to use, ie: too slow.  I honestly can't tell the difference in performance between the day I bought my 7 Plus (when it was just released) and today.  In terms of performance, I have no incentive to upgrade.  I'd like a smaller phone without sacrificing screen size, but that isn't reason enough to upgrade.  I'd also like Face ID because I'm sick of how often Touch ID fails.  If anything, that's my biggest pain point and FaceID is the only real lure to upgrade for me.

I think he's way off base.  First, we have no idea what future Apple devices will cost.  It's wrong to assume that Apple will continue to price higher.  They may very well lower prices across the board when the new models are released.  We don't know.

He's also wrong about services.  Whether a customer buys a new or used device, that person is a potential services customer.  The only metric that counts here is the active iOS installed base.  It continues to grow despite the decline in units sold.  Not everyone is buying a new iPhone, but there is clearly a very healthy second-hand market that brings new users (and potential services customers) to Apple, even if they never buy a new iPhone.

mjtomlin said:

Said it before, I’ll say it again... The best fit for Apple would be to buy Sony... They’d get music, movies, tv shows, gaming, consumer electronics, plus a whole slew of relevant industries.

Imagine Sony’s consumer and pro electronics and computers supporting Apple’s platforms.

My gut tells me that Apple and Sony wouldn't blend well together.  I think Sony would be too much for Apple to handle.  Does Apple really want a record label, a film studio, etc?  That seems so far out of their wheelhouse.  It's one thing to distribute content and even produce some of your own.  It's quite another to manage a record label, a film studio, a publishing company, etc.  When it comes to consumer electronics, Sony produces all kinds.  Apple's product line is very disciplined by comparison.  I imagine a Sony acquisition would quickly become a bog for Apple as they tried to figure out how to integrate the two companies, meld the corporate cultures, streamline product lines, etc.  I think Apple is better off making a few strategic acquisitions than acquiring a vast conglomerate like Sony.

Nintendo is a much better video game acquisition for Apple.  They've always been a "family friendly" company.  They have some of the best known franchises and characters in video game history.  They have a very loyal customer base.  Like Apple, they are hardware focused but focus more on, in their case, game controller/play innovation and user experience than specs.  Apple approaches hardware from a similar perspective.  Can the two corporate cultures work together?  That would be the big question, but I think the two companies have a lot in common.

Sonos is another obvious choice.  HomePod is ok, but it's not a complete home audio solution.  I don't know that Apple needs to buy Sonos, though.  But I do think they need to focus more on home audio.  The HomePod line needs to be expanded.  HomePods should be able to do surround sound, something I'm sure they are working on.  Apple should offer a smaller/cheaper HomePod that serves as both an entry-level product and/or left/right surround speaker.  And, of course, a sub.  Buying Sonos helps them get there faster in terms of hardware offerings, but given all the work they've done on their own speaker tech, I find it hard to believe that they'd buy Sonos now.

When it comes to original content, I don't think Apple needs to own any production company unless they're planning to go really big on original content (which I think would be a huge mistake).  If they're just looking to pepper the upcoming subscription service (whatever it is) with some high profile original series, they don't need to own a studio.  One of the best decisions Apple made, in my opinion, was NOT becoming a record label when they got into the music business.  I've had some experience in the music business and I think Jobs was very wise to stay focused on the technology and not get seduced into buying or becoming a label.  Services and content might be a growing revenue stream for Apple today, but it still pales in comparison to the money they make on hardware.  Hardware has always been, and remains, Apple's core business and core competency.