78Bandit

"Being able to always get the latest issue is a big point in favor of Apple News+ because if you're interested in even one title, you're getting it faster than through the mail. If you're regularly interested in more than one, the $9.99 US or $12.99 Canadian subscription cost is a bargain."

Maybe it depends on the magazine, but I regularly get offers for print magazines for $10 for the entire year.  Even at renewal time they are usually $14.99 or less.  Digital subscriptions are even less.  It looks like you are comparing the $9.99 monthly Apple News rate with a one-year subscription to print.  Generally you would need to be interested in 10 or more magazines for the overall yearly amounts to favor Apple News.

A 5% revenue drop and 15% decrease in iPhone unit sales isn't really "back to normal" when Apple had uninterrupted revenue growth for years.  If anything it indicates Apple has settled into a "new normal" of stagnant hardware sales with services being the only segment with measurable revenue growth.  This is reflected in Apple's push into providing content with Apple Music, Apple TV, and Apple News+.

The big question is whether Apple's investment into consumer entertainment content will drive revenue and profit growth to the same extent the iPod and iPhone have done for almost the last two decades, and I don't think we'll have the answer to that question for at least another two years when the subscriber growth in these new services starts to level out.

blastdoor said:

Apple was so tiny back in 1990, as was the rest of the PC industry. It was kind of like the automobile industry prior to the model T. 

Today Apple, and the industry, are all grown up. Apple and Microsoft today are kind of like GM and Ford in 1960 — big, powerful, and nearly invulnerable. It would take decades of consecutive bad decisions to place these companies in any real peril. 

It may take decades after some bad decisions before the peril becomes obvious, but if you remember history you will know that Ford, GM, and Chrysler made major missteps in a very short period of time that ultimately doomed them.  They completely missed the need for efficient, reliable vehicles and the competitiveness in the manufacturing labor market.  In the space of less than a decade between 1970 and 1980 they became uncompetitive and had their tails handed to them by the Japanese imports.  Yes, they had enough cash and the financial market willing to give them money to withstand the onslaught for a while, but the damage was done.  They never recovered and ultimately GM and Chrysler both went bankrupt and Ford barely skated by.

My point is it doesn't take decades of bad decisions to imperil a large, well-established company.  It can happen in just a few years even though the ultimate extent of the damage isn't realized until much later.

They should probably just cancel it.  I don't see foldable display technology being ready for mainstream devices anywhere in the near future.  Bendable displays may work, but having a 180 degree fold with millimeter level radius is a recipe for disaster.  I don't care how well it performs in a laboratory setting, in the real world debris like sand particles that get between and under the display as well as flex in the device as users apply uneven pressure during the folding process is going to cause failures just like we've seen with the review units.

If you really need a multi-panel device then it would seem having separate glass displays aligned with mechanical hinges would be the best solution.  You'll still have some type of cable to hook them together, but that can be run on the outside of the panels and avoid such a tight bend.

Mel Brooks called this one 40 years ago.