AppleZulu

avon b7 said:

Some random observations.

No one has to buy a folding phone so I find it hard to understand why some people are against Apple making one. It would only be for those who actually want one and I'm sure some Apple users would want one. That's why Apple is probably working on one.

No phone needs to be waterproof. Splashproof is more than enough. I've only ever met two people in my life who have suffered immersion damage and one of those was a feature phone. The other accidentally ended up in the washing machine.

Some folding phones are already on par with regular iPhone. 

There are more mechanical parts. There is more bend stress on the screen. It's a tradeoff on being able to fold the phone. 

Is that a problem? Millions of folding phones have shipped but the sky hasn't fallen in under problems of durability. 

And with every generation, they are getting better than they already were. 

Yes, prices can be higher but they are coming down as sales increase. 

The 'problem waiting for a solution' makes no sense. Large screen. Small screen. Main camera for selfies. Portrait subjects can see themselves on the screen. Multitasking multiple apps with real screen space.

It's all about preference. An Apple folding phone would be a great option for those who want one. The alternative is an Android folding phone. 

No one has to buy one, nor does Apple have to make one. Apple has been pretty consistent in not chasing trends to add bells, whistles and novelty features.

One reason you haven't met many people who have "suffered immersion damage" is because, for the last several years, an iPhone dropped in water don't get damaged. Apple isn't likely to trade that feature in for a novelty phone that folds.

Your trade-off for foldability comes with higher warranty claim rates. Apple doesn't want that.

The "millions of folding phones" that have shipped weren't made by Apple. Quality failures for other brands don't make news like they would if it were Apple.

Every generation of device is getting better, so why would Apple want to reverse that trend by making a novelty phone that breaks easily?

You've reversed the concept. A folding-screen phone is a solution looking for a problem, not a problem looking for a solution.

There are lots of features and devices that other companies make that Apple won't be making, because Apple doesn't chase after every bell and whistle just in case somebody wants one.

Click-bait headline. The story says local authorities failed to submit road closure data, and that (at least) Apple and Google both are still creating routes based on that missing data. 

sirdir said:

red oak said:

rax_mark said:

The EU, unlike the US, believes in the spirit of the law, instead of the word of the law, Apple should have realised that.

Apple cannot win this one by using legal loopholes. I suspect if this continues we may see one of two possibilities:-

I) Apple exits the EU.

II) The EU bans Apple within its borders.

I suspect Apple doesn't want to give up the European market to Samsung and Google, so the first one is highly dependent on whether Apple can still get a profit with side loading existing.

Also, it is possible that other countries implement a DMA equivalent law (Japan is already in the process of doing so) so exiting markets will be shooting themselves in the foot.

One thing is sure, the next decade will be different for Apple than the previous one.

Spoken like a true socialist

Apple opened up the browser, NFC, and allows game streaming apps.  And, allows distributions of apps outside of the App Store - do you think Apple should get zero compensation for that? 

Laws are written.  Apple followed every letter of the law 

They should get as much say in what is installed and paid as much as Microsoft gets paid when I install a Program outside the store on my PC or as much as Apple gets paid when I install a mac App outside the App Store. Free our devices from the tyranny of Apple (only mildly exaggerating)

This is precisely the competition that the EU and other complainers are ignoring. If you want a system that functions like Windows or Android, you can buy a device running Windows or Android. You have that choice.

The iPhone was the first major computing platform developed after popular use of the internet became a thing. Platforms designed to allow open installation of third-party applications is a legacy from an era when individual computing devices were not connected to a network. There were already huge vulnerabilities to that paradigm, but those were at least limited by the fact that most computing devices were not connected to or were only infrequently connected to any sort of network. As the internet was thrown on top of those existing systems, security vulnerabilities increased exponentially. 

The iPhone was designed from the ground up as an always-connected device. Initially, this meant that third-party applications simply were not an option, period. As they later developed the App Store, they created it with the question how do we keep an always-connected internet device secure in mind. That's why there's been no side-loading of apps in iOS, and why that's different from even MacOS, which is also a legacy from the pre-internet era. In fact, MacOS has continually tightened up and moved toward the closed iOS model, not the other way around.

It's fairly inexplicable why the geniuses at Google went with the legacy model of the olden days, rather than using the forethought to realize that starting from scratch on a new platform gives the opportunity to think about what it is and should be, rather than un-creatively carrying forward the vulnerabilities inherent in applying how things used to work to a new reality. But they did it the old-school way, so for people who think those security holes equal "freedom," they have that option to choose. This is why those who actually want the always-connected device designed with that reality in mind should be able to continue to choose Apple, without the EU sending everyone back to 1986.

Looks to me like Apple is essentially itemizing the costs and qualitative requirements for what they do with their own App Store (and maintaining a stable iOS/hardware platform), and requiring something approximating that be maintained by developers seeking to go outside of that system. The Metas and Epics of the world have been lobbying for this because they want the benefits of iOS/iPhone without the costs, and they want to circumvent quality, security and privacy requirements while gaining access to the customers who pay more for Apple gear because they do want quality, security and privacy. So Apple seems to have found a path to comply with the ill-advised EU mandate while still insisting that others aren't going to be able to turn iOS into the Wild West. 

So most legitimate developers will likely end up acknowledging that there actually is (and always has been) significant value to going through Apple's App Store, and will simply just stay there. For those who still insist on going around it, they're not going to get the freebie free-for-all they had planned on. This strategy makes it harder and certainly less lucrative to implement the worst-case scenario that I feared would emerge, which is big companies with apps that a lot of people want circumventing the Apple App store specifically for the purpose of freely scraping user data, skirting quality and implementing other predatory practices that are disallowed by the App Store. The new side-loading requirements will make it much harder to do that, and the costs will diminish or eliminate the financial incentive to try. 

This will ultimately help iPhone customers hold the line on the consumer choice they have now, which is to buy a phone that uses a closed system for its OS and App distribution specifically in order to maintain an expected standard for a high level of quality, privacy and security. Diminishing the financial incentives to circumvent the App Store will reduce the number of developers that will bother, and that will in turn make it less likely that large numbers of iPhone users will be willing or resigned to use alternative app stores to get Apps they no longer can get in the Apple App Store.

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

avon b7 said:

geekmee said:

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.

This a mid 2023 report:

https://www.counterpointresearch.com/insights/global-foldable-smartphone-market-continues-expand-underpinned-china/


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:

https://www.counterpointresearch.com/insights/global-foldable-smartphone-shipments-2027/

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.