mpantone

davebarnes said:

Are consumers clamoring for thinner phones?
For me, thicker with a better camera would be more desirable.

For me, thicker with a longer- lasting battery would be preferred.

MOST consumers would agree with you. We know that today's consumer prioritizes display brightness, camera quality, and battery performance in their smartphones.

However not everyone shares your exact usage case.

Is there a large enough segment of the market that will sustain thin smartphones? Only time will tell however we do know that the small and vocal group of small phone enthusiasts weren't enough to keep the iPhone mini alive. And no other major smartphone manufacturer has made iPhone mini-sized handsets for years either.

I think smartphones are already thick enough I really don't want to carry anything larger or heavier. Better battery technology and power management would be a boon for everyone on all iPhone models. Improvements in camera technology are always welcome too, we have enjoyed so many performance improvements over the years especially in low light photography/videography which was abysmal on early iPhone/iPod touch/iPad generations.

My gut feeling is that the purported thin "iPhone Air" will have an initial pop of interest and then wane over time. It may end up meeting the same demise as the iPhone mini and be discontinued after two generations.

I own an iPod touch 6th generation so I know what a very thin handheld device is like. But the iPod touch 6th generation also has abysmal battery performance, despite the CPU being underclocked to save power. Naturally today's silicon is more energy efficient and today's battery technology has improved but it's still a compromise. More performance = faster battery drain.

For the iPhone Air to work Apple will need to make significant compromises to maintain decent battery performance. These compromises might be acceptable for typical everyday usage but might be a severe detriment in more demanding situations, like going on vacation and using your phone heavily (photos, videos, mapping, web surfing, research) while you're out of the hotel room for 16-18 hours straight.

Apple doesn't like to be in the market of niche iPhones and the iPhone Air smacks of being niche.

If Apple does release an iPhone Air I'm sure I'll drop by the local Apple Store and check it out though. But I'm not shelling out $1000 for a phone that gets poorer battery life than my trusty old iPhone 12 mini. Hell, I'd rather upgrade to the iPhone 16 or 16e instead of this purported Air. And I don't know if I can go back to a one-lens camera from a two-lens camera. The wide-angle lens is particularly useful to me, much more than telephoto. Even on my old film cameras I'd usually mount a wide-angle lens.

danox said:

Apple is the only one that’s not squatting all over the other platforms ecosystems. (ie..Safari on Windows which was rightfully, canned by Apple)

This is false.

Apple does have a presence on other platforms which Apple has carefully groomed over years. iTunes has been a longtime presence on Windows and is still available to manage media content to transfer to iDevices (iPhones, iPads, old iPods, etc.).

Apple Music has a presence too, including Android devices in the form of an app on the Google Play Store. This includes a separate Apple Classical Music app too.

And let's not forget about Apple TV which is all over the place. My LG OLED television (running webOS) has an Apple TV app. Yes, it's also available on the Google Play Store for Android smartphones as well as streaming devices like Roku.

Shazam is another Apple service that has a longtime Android app.

So understand that Apple plays the same game too trying to entice non-iPhone/non-Mac users to enjoy Apple services (which now generate a substantial percentage of Apple's revenue).

It's not just about iPhone and Mac hardware sales anymore. That ended about ten years ago. Apple fanboys cannot take a "holier than thou" attitude about this topic.

In any case Apple needs to offer some sort of search engine capability to their users since they don't run their own search engine. Apple's thought process in 2025 is probably "Well, we could just let people choose one from a list during the setup process but most people will pick Google anyhow so why don't we just get paid for it?" One of the first things that I do in setting up a new Apple device (and web browsers) is to change the default search engine to DuckDuckGo. But Apple still gets bucks from Google. That's fine by me. I'm an indirect shareholder of both companies anyhow (like any American with a retirement account).

Avon is correct. There's nothing inherently wrong with Apple being dominant or the preferred choice. The problem is/was their anti-steering policies which meant an uneven playing field. As noted, this is not just one judge or one government agency telling Apple what they are doing is unfair. It is multiple organizations around the world.

This will drive more regulation and more legislation that favors fair competition. Apple's lawyers will fight but ultimately it's a benefit to let consumers decide whether or not they want to stay in the safety of the walled garden or walk through the newly opened gates.

My guess is that many would rather just give their credit card information to a handful of companies (like Apple, Amazon, Google, or Steam) rather than fill out forms on dozens and dozens of websites/apps for separate charges which increases the risk of security issues, privacy breaches, fraud, etc.

But for sure, third party merchants should have the right to provide information to consumers to let them know that they have other options.

I know that I have purchased Mac software in the past directly from the developer's own store at a discounted price compared to the Mac App Store offering. There is no reason why iPhone and iPad users shouldn't have the same choice.

GetSchwifty86 said:

Does this mean Spotify et al's pricing is going to drop by 30%?

/s

I see you are being sarcastic however the real answer is that it is up to the individual developer to decide whether or not there should be any adjustment to pricing. Some apps may actually get cheaper, other apps will likely stay the same (with the developer pocketing more instead of sharing with Apple).

Note that Spotify's latest iOS app (updated this morning) now offers an in-app hyperlink to Spotify's website where one can purchase Spotify Premium. That hyperlink did not exist yesterday, just some passive-aggressive language.

Undoubtedly this will not be the last developer who makes this change to their app. You will have to examine each and every one and compare before and after pricing to see if there has been any price reduction.

I do know that some Mac app developers have differentiated pricing between Mac App Store downloads and direct downloads from the company website. It seems likely that some iPhone app developers will take advantage of these new payment policies and pricing options.

The dividend increase was a penny per share, from $0.24 to $0.25. This is basically just to match inflation without making the dividend a fraction of a penny.

As we have discussed time and time before, Apple mostly issues a dividend so its stock can be included in certain pension plans, retirement funds, mutual funds, ETFs, etc. that require component companies to issue some sort of dividend as income. Apple really doesn't think consumer Joe Investor is going to invest that dividend better than they (Apple) can do it. And for 99.9% of retail AAPL shareholders, they are probably right.