
Apple’s Social Network - ingve
https://stratechery.com/2018/apples-social-network/
======
ethagknight
I don’t think he mentioned it, but the easy way for Apple to grow to a $2T
company is to get my household, a typical locked-in Apple household with an
iPad or iPhone for every person and a computer for each adult and an AppleTV
at every TV, to start paying for ever more services through those Apple
devices. TV service. Ubiquitous internet service. Financial services like
payments but grow into banking. manage all my regularly scheduled bills like
utilities, rent or mortgages. I would love for a trusted intermediary to
handle these things.

I was recently taken aback by the amount of money I was paying for high-
quality subscriptions “oh my god, I’ve paid $20/month for the last 12 months
to subscribe to high quality streaming to Phish concerts via their app?!?” I
signed up for it thinking I would only do it for a month. I forgot. I spent
$240 on Phish audio, more than I spent on my Apple Watch. Apple’s real social
network could be just getting started. Imagine if those “luxury” expenses were
intermixed with a dozen other large, more legitimate bills? Apple could be
processing $1000s a month per household, taking a hefty fee from some of them.
And then launch a loyalty program :).

If I had to guess, I’d say this comment resembles Buffet’s view of Apple’s
opportunity.

~~~
basch
I completely agree. Apple needs to move into full banking.

Mint, 401k Management, Bill Pay, TAXES, Yahoo Finance, Student Loans, the old
Manilla (collecting ALL aggregate statements in one place forever.)

They should buy Schwab, Envestnet, Personal Capital, YNAB, and Motif and slap
a Robinhood/Monzo coat of paint on a new frontend. They could go from Apple
Pay to Best Banking Experience in the World, in no time. As far as "Services"
go apple competes in Music, Health, Maps, Messaging. They dont compete in
Backups, Photos, or Banking. I would love for Apple/Google/Facebook to move
aggressively against Intuit/TurboTax, if for no other reason to create a more
competitive environment.

Imagine Apple getting into LENDING. They have cash up the wazoo. They should
be able to determine who is most likely to pay back a loan, and come up with
pretty accurate interest rates. And at that point, why is apple just a
personal bank, and not a corporate bank as well, fully taking on QuickBooks.
And if they dont want to get into business logic programming, become a
Financial version of AWS and offer finanance, accounting, and banking APIs as
a service, for App Developers to build on top of, like a AWS/Firebase/Pulse
meets Chase/WF/Intuit.

I find it VERY odd that none of the big players (Microsoft, Amazon, Google,
Samsung, Sony, Facebook, Apple) have done anything more than a Wallet and
Money Transfer. Why is Mint/Personal Capital/YNAB not on everyones radar. Why
are TurboTax and 401K management not being looked into by ANY of the major
tech companys? So many people have a bunch of accounts that need individual
management. Make my life easier Apple/Microsoft/Google/Facebook.

Ive outlined this idea before.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12868316](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12868316)

I ALSO think SOMEONE should come up with a "financial ID." Instead of signing
into banking sites with "Facebook" or "Google" each one has its own unique
login, password, security questions, validation. One Financial ID, isolated
from Social IDs could drastically cut down on phishing, hacking etc. Smaller
institutions would not be running their own Identity/Trust silos in isolation.
Resources to build trust over who is who could be shared. Intuit has something
like that for their services, but it really needs to be a Chase/WF/BoA effort
like Zelle. "Sign in with your Pony ID"

~~~
piokoch
I think becoming a bank was a big hassle and being a bank is less profitable
than core Microsoft or Google activity. Having said that, PSD2 regulation in
EU might change all of this - any institution will be able to do banking
operations on behalf of the customer. There are some requirement too, but the
bar is significantly lowered.

~~~
kristianc
The banking and payments infrastructure is such that most of it is handled by
intermediaries and other companies anyway. Most banks, for instance, do not
issue their own cards or process their own payments - this is done by an
intermediary. It's probably easier for Apple to break into banking by making
the right partnerships than you think.

~~~
roymurdock
They already have the partnerships in place with ApplePay, I don't think they
would every want to open themselves up to the type of scrutiny/regulation
chartered banks face

------
oflannabhra
I appreciate that Ben took the time to read between the lines of what Apple
has been saying, to tease out how Apple is thinking about Apple. It's clear
that's why he has a successful business.

This article made me stop and think about Apple's future, and to be honest,
the future of computing. I think it is clear that in 10 years mobile computing
has reached maturity (which is astounding). There is no broad use-case
advantage that iOS has over Android (ie, I can communicate on both of them, I
can get directions on both, etc).

It seems as if we have reached a valley of sorts, in which the use-cases and
potential businesses that can be built on top of a computing platform that is
always connected, always with us are mostly tilled ground. Discovering and
inventing new ones takes an enormous amount of effort and ingenuity. It would
be easy to think that most of the disruption has already happened.

However, what surprises me is that Apple is doubling down on performance. The
processing capability of iPhones continues to rise, even when we see that the
software that uses that capability has diminishing returns.

My best guess is that Apple is playing the long game, and that they see the
investments that they are making in performance will pay off greatly in the
coming years, because suddenly our phone will be more powerful than our
desktop. And, while it is easy to scoff at that as being unnecessary, I think
it actually will begin to unlock new use-cases that will lead us out of the
current "valley of diminishing returns."

The obvious candidate here is AR, but I think it actually is broader than
that. It is clear that Apple is moving towards a system in which the iPhone is
a computational Sun, around which multiple accessories "orbit". I think such a
system, taken into consideration along with cloud computing is actually
incredibly exciting, and I think (as much as this audience might dislike it)
that desktops and laptops truly are the current past.

~~~
hbosch
> However, what surprises me is that Apple is doubling down on performance.
> The processing capability of iPhones continues to rise, even when we see
> that the software that uses that capability has diminishing returns.

Moving the goal posts on performance, beyond what is reasonably necessary,
simply incentivizes and challenges developers to start making bigger and
better app experiences. This is a passive form of ecosystem insulation that
further separates Apple customers from Android customers.

There was a meme a couple years ago, maybe, that on Snapchat you could tell
which one of your friends used and iPhone and which ones used Android purely
based on the image quality of their photos/videos (I don’t think this is still
true). If Apple can silently get devs to start developing apps for the A12,
the gap between an Apple experience and an Android experience gets wider and
wider IMO.

~~~
deltron3030
Apple is a bit strange when it comes to creativity tools. They have Final Cut
and Logic, both basically major professional production frameworks for film
and music, yet they don't have such thing for 3D content, something like a
more intuitive Blender, Modo or Cinema 4D, full 3D production suites. Getting
into 3D art & design and operating those tools is still quite hard, harder
than it should be.

------
throwawayinside
If you are a developer with a SaaS business, be very afraid. Apple is going to
do everything possible to collect a 30% tax on your business to fix their
growth problem. It’s ironic, really. The company that mastered tax evasion is
about to become the world’s most determined tax collector.

~~~
mkirklions
Ib4 apple downvote storm.

Dev here, I actively campaign against Apple (and FAAG) products.

They seem like a danger to our capitalistic system as they have enough power
to sway politics.

Apple has always been anti-dev from my point of view, forcing users to use
their hardware and pay to produce apps.

While there doesnt seem to be many 'good guys', Apple has used their weight to
constantly do unpopular things for their customers and developers.

My only hope is that Apple will fail to innovate, and users will begin to go
toward more consumer and dev friendly high end products.

~~~
dasil003
What about the fact that Apple is the only big guy not profiting off the mass
harvesting of personal data? I think the market is significantly worse off
without their influence (although this article does raise alarm bells).

~~~
mkirklions
They have hostile business tactics, does that wash that they use your data
internally at Apple only?

For someone that doesnt mind getting tailored ads, the privacy argument is a
non-issue. I am curious how long this will last at Apple as well, they don't
strike me as a company that wouldnt sell your data.

EDIT: HN is very weak when it comes to critical thinking on Apple products...

------
GeekyBear
Given that Apple just reported a .4% unit sales increase I find the sheer
volume of gloom and doom interesting.

[https://www.anandtech.com/show/13540/apple-
announces-q4-fy-2...](https://www.anandtech.com/show/13540/apple-
announces-q4-fy-2018-earnings-revenue-up-sales-not)

IDC just reported that during the same period the overall smartphone market
shrank by 6%.

[https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS44425818](https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS44425818)

Samsung just reported a 33% year on year smartphone sales drop.

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/10/31/samsung-
re...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/10/31/samsung-reports-
record-profit-despite-smartphone-sales-slump/)

Growing unit sales while the market is contracting doesn't really scream
"doom" to me.

~~~
aetherson
Relative success can still mean absolute stagnation.

------
brobdingnagians
I think Apple has some serious issues with growth; they have expanded a huge
amount based on a few key and impressive products and ideas at the right time
and in the right way, but I think they've ridden that pony almost as far as it
can go [but they've done a better job than most at it]. They have done very
well with it, but like most corporations who do that, they usually miss the
next big thing, because it is some scrappy underdog, or just another
competitor with a little bit more insight, who sees the next big thing. I
think they will do just fine with their current market and design ethic for
their current audience, but I don't think they are going to see any more rapid
expansion unless they get some major revitalization. They've lost some of the
key risk-takers and creatives and I think they've entered the management mode
once more.

~~~
sanderjd
What is the next big thing that they have missed?

~~~
bedhead
I think it's pretty clear that online video slipped right through their
fingers. They were early with Apple TV and Steve Jobs' assertion that he had
"cracked" TV back in 2011. And what happened? They did almost nothing and let
Netflix run away with it. Apple wasn't even a contender. Same thing goes for
mapping, which was highlighted in that recent blog post. They came out with
Apple Maps years ago but almost did nothing with it...it feels like they half-
assed the whole project and are now flailing in catch-up mode. It seems their
status as also-ran is now permanent. They shut down their router business
while Ubiquiti (run by a former Apple engineer) has run wild in the networking
world and looks primed to completely disrupt Cisco over time. They clung onto
Apple Music, pot-committed to a model that looked outdated the moment Spotify
launched in the US.

They've had some successes like Apple Watch, so I wouldn't write Apple off
just yet. But yeah, the things they've missed which they should've known
better about is a bit concerning.

~~~
snuxoll
> They shut down their router business while Ubiquiti (run by a former Apple
> engineer) has run wild in the networking world and looks primed to
> completely disrupt Cisco over time.

Out of everything you listed this is the one that I don't think Apple is
really missing out on, as they were never positioned to be a major player
outside the prosumer space which often has needs beyond what Apple was
providing. The average consumer is an idiot when it comes to networking, most
of them run ISP-provided equipment, and those that don't are often informed
enough to get hardware to run DD-WRT/etc. or buy a proper prosumer solution
like Ubiquiti's.

Back when wireless routers weren't provided by default with your internet
service, a half-decent one wasn't cheap, and people just wanted a simple
solution that "worked" then the Airport had value in ensuring Apple's other
products had connectivity. There's no benefit to them doing this now, and
Apple is not positioned to get into the prosumer/business SDN market that
Ubiquiti is in.

~~~
bedhead
You're right, one of these things is not like the other. However, I think in
the next ten years, Apple will regret having neglected this product category,
and Ubiquiti is making inroads into consumer-grade products as well as service
providers and enterprise-level networking. I just think it's interesting that
Ubiquiti was born out of Apple and was able to turn this into a super
interesting and profitable business even though there is a perfectly logical
reason as you note. I suppose I just think Ubiquiti is so fascinating that it
will be evident one day what a mistake Apple made.

~~~
cmsj
Two brief points:

1) Just because the Ubiquiti founder came from Apple, doesn't mean that Apple
should be in the quasi-enterprise networking space that Ubiquiti is. Apple's
networking gear was always aiming to be simple, plug-and-play hardware for
people who don't want to think about networking. That's pretty much the
opposite of Ubiquiti's products.

2) When Apple was still doing things like networking, we had a lot of people
complaining that their focus was spread too widely, and their core products
were suffering.

~~~
snuxoll
> Apple's networking gear was always aiming to be simple, plug-and-play
> hardware for people who don't want to think about networking.

This is the real kicker in today's landscape and why it doesn't make sense for
Apple to even be in this market, there's no such thing as "plug-and-play" for
the majority of consumers these days when for proper functionality you must go
into your ISP-provided equipment and disable the WLAN radio, put it into
passthrough mode (if that's even possible, some ISP's like AT&T don't even
provide equipment with proper passthrough mode), god help you if you use DSL
and need to get PPPoE credentials which are automagically configured for you
these days by some captive portal when you first plug your equipment in.

It's literally harder to use your own equipment these days than it used to be
before every ISP started providing integrated gateways, so the current market
for standalone equipment is people who need something other than "plug-and-
play" \- because they already get that from their ISP (even if the hardware
usually sucks, it's good enough for the average consumer who thinks they get
"their WiFi from Comcast").

Apple doesn't need to be in networking anymore, there's not a large enough
market for products like the Airport AP's anymore and if they actually want to
compete they have to battle with the likes of Ubiquiti, Cisco, Ruckus, HP
(Aruba), etc. - not ASUS, TP-Link, Buffalo, Netgear, etc. Seeing as they have
no plans to revive the Xserve, I doubt they care about having a foothold in
wiring closets and datacenters.

------
matty_makes
I only skimmed the article until I realized they weren't talking about Apple
starting a privacy focused actual social network. That's what I thought the
article would be about.

So this is off topic but what I'm imagining is letting people connect with
other iCloud users (aka friends and family) to share pics, videos and comment
on them. Maybe they can link iTunes/App store content (apps, music, movies,
etc.) with each other and comment on them too.

This might take a huge amount of more people off Facebook and bring them into
Apple eco-system of services than meet-up like events at their brick and
mortar stores. There are probably millions of FB users that just use it to
connect with distant close friends & family to share pics, etc.

Edit: just to build on this idea a little, pulling people's actual social
network (not acquaintances or long lost people they never see) could boost
sales of their content. Let people share, like and comment on their favorite
music, tv shows, movies, and apps with no ads.

~~~
Spooky23
They've had that for years -- iMessage.

IMO Facebook is for aspirational connectivity... you stalk your high school
friends from afar. iMessage is for the people whom you actually talk to, and
the green vs. blue bubble is a subtle peer pressure factor to get people to
flip.

As more applications expose functionality via iMessage, that will get more
powerful.

~~~
smashingfiasco
Shared Albums in the Photos app lets you do just that.

~~~
Spooky23
Agree, alot of the pieces are there, but Apple has done a not so great job at
discovery. That's slowly getting better imo.

I use my kid's school as a proxy for the average joe. About 60% of the moms
have no idea that Shared Albums exist, and most of them don't really
understand how they work. The UI is a little weird.

~~~
michaelchisari
_Apple has done a not so great job at discovery._

Except... maybe they shouldn't? Maybe real life can be the discovery part.

------
jasode
In the essay, the "social network" stands for the new initiative of customer
gatherings & sessions at Apple Stores. What Apple dubs _" Today at Apple"_.

I'm having a hard time thinking of historical business examples where in-store
"educational" events really moved the needle on sales.

Maybe one example is Home Depot stores with their free demonstrations of
various home improvement tasks. Do they actually change store visits or total
sales? Or are they a loss leader? I have no idea. (Home Depot isn't an exact
comparison to Apple because it doesn't require buying HomeDepot-branded tools
to benefit from the demos.)

Remember 20 years ago when some industry observers thought Amazon online
bookstore couldn't compete with Barnes & Noble because the brick&mortar store
had the sofas and lounge chairs to browse books, the cafe area, the children's
area where people read aloud, etc. It turns out those in-store social
experiences weren't as advantageous as people thought.

Yes, there are other customer gathering experiences that happen such as video
game e-sports leagues (or LAN parties) or Harley Davidson motorcycle meetups.
But those social events seem organically created bottom-up by the customers
rather than top-down by a hardware company. E.g. As far as I know, the
e-sports league _membership_ isn't tied to a hardware manufacturer like NVIDIA
or ATI. (A particular hardware vendor may provide _sponsorship_ but that's not
the same as _membership_ which is what Apple's _" Today at Apple"_ is doing.)

 _> , this explains CFO Luca Maestri reasoning on the earnings call for no
longer reporting unit sales: [...] I just wish Apple would show it with its
reporting._

I think it's interesting that even if Apple wants to keep industry analysts in
the dark, other entities like Amazon and Facebook can estimate iPhone unit
sales by proxy statistics.

E.g. Amazon can run data analytics on sales of iPhone accessories (how many
the new iPhone Xs cases sold and how does it compare to previous iPhone 8 case
sales at launch?)

E.g. Facebook's popular iOS apps used by billions can send telemetry data on
the particular iPhone models hitting their servers.
([https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26028918/how-to-
determin...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26028918/how-to-determine-
the-current-iphone-device-model))

~~~
lbotos
> As far as I know, the e-sports league isn't tied to a hardware manufacturer
> like NVIDIA or ATI.

Yes, but most of the largest ones are put on/heavily funded by the
manufacturer of the game:

\- CS:GO Majors

\- Overwatch League is put on by Blizzard

\- Riot Hiring for esports operations - [https://www.riotgames.com/en/work-
with-us/disciplines/esport...](https://www.riotgames.com/en/work-with-
us/disciplines/esports-operations)

\-----

Apple is moving "down market" and the biggest win for them right now is for
those to understand "what apple means." I've shifted 90% of my family to mac
from whatever PC they were using before because of the reality of the physical
store. Go there and get help. They know more than I do, and they will be
helpful. For the most part, that's true, and I no longer do tech support for
my family.

Grandma wants to learn how to photo edit? Now apple gives her a class and a
community of other learners. It may turn out to be a loss leader, but it's
"more of the same" of what separates apple from any of the other
Manufacturers. Google/Samsung/Dell can't do anything close. Microsoft _might_
be able to, but lets see.

------
p33p
I've been shocked that Apple hasn't stepped more in to the home automation
market. Homekit is one thing, but an entire product line that is highly
integrated with the Apple ecosystem and has the Apple design, feel, and ease
of use seems like a smart strategic move in a market that is so highly
fragmented.

~~~
ProAm
This is because another company has not done it well enough yet for Apple to
borrow their idea and improve upon it. That is largely how Apple works (Look
at HomePod, iPhone, etc...), let someone invent an idea/process/service, then
take that idea and make it better. Home automation is still trying to take
root, give it a few years and Apple will have a strong product here I believe.

------
lucideer
This strategy seems at least orthogonal, if not contradictory, to their
positioning themselves as a privacy-focused company that can be trusted
_because_ their business-model is based on hard products rather than on
engagement.

~~~
noir-york
A real world social network preserves privacy, no?

~~~
lucideer
I was more referring to the article's extrapolation from Apple's intended
focus on "Services" and move away from reporting device sales.

------
empath75
It seems like apple can continue to grow ‘unit sales’ by introducing new
products like the watch at a regular pace.

~~~
wiremine
Came here to make this exact point.

Of course, the iPhone was a unique product in terms of how it changed the
trajectory of Apple's fortunes, and likely can't be replicated. It's dominated
24% of the company's history. (10 years between 2007 and 2017; Apple was
founded in 1976)

If iPhone sales are flat, goosing the price makes sense, but it isn't the
future of the company.

To be honest, as a technologist, I'm sort of relieved. I'm interested in
what's next, and now that the iPhone (and smartphones in general) is a refined
product, I'm really interested in what's next in tech.

~~~
ctdonath
Look for the next in flat computers. Seriously. AR/VR glasses might count.

------
ksec
One way Apple could continue to grow their revenue would be iPhone as a
Services, or basically the Apple upgrade programme but available world wide.
For a basic monthly price, you get iPhone, AppleCare+ Theft, Your iPhone
Storage Size iCloud Backup. You can choose whether you want to spread this as
24 months or 36 months, interest free. This makes good uses of Apple's
constant overflowing of cash, and no other players on the market could easily
copy such programme because of their cash flow and cost of money. Apple are
also earning extra on iCloud and AppleCare+ which is also high margin
services.

Apple could then offer options on top of the basic services, AirPod, Apple
Music, Apple TV Subscription, and may be even your monthly iTunes Store Credit
( Apple save more on less per-transition cost ), all in one monthly bill.

This way Apple could transition into a Services company, and services tends to
be very sticky and can be valued as such, while the current Apple Stock,
despite all the brand loyalty it is still valued as a hardware company based
on unit sales. Apple would have been 2T company if it were valued anything
like Microsoft , Google, or Amazon.

I also believe iPad Pro being able to have an external monitor, and hopefully
someday keyboard and mouse will take over the current PC market with little to
no competition right now. That is assuming Apple wants the iPad to do that, a
replacement as Desktop. iPad Pro, being portable for field sales and mobile,
iOS security and double as Desktop could be the perfect fit for All
businesses. The TCO in managing these must be dramatically lower than Laptop
or PCs.

------
code_duck
As far as Apple’s ‘real world social network’, any time I hang out in upscale
or hip coffee shops or bars, the laptops are >80% Macs. Observed this in RiNo
in Denver the past few days, for instance, after buying a Chromebook (actually
so far it’s 100% Macs) Apple’s conspicuous branding definitely serves a
socioeconomic signal, like driving a luxury car. It’s as if everyone has a
BMW, though and other luxury cars don’t exist.

Next, “Apple’s culture and approach to products is antithetical to the culture
and approach necessary to create and grow a traditional social network. Apple
wants total control and to release as perfect a product it can; a social
network requires an iterative approach that is designed to deal with constant
variability and edge cases.”

I disagree with the last sentence. Does the author believe that simply because
that’s how Facebook chooses to operate - eternal bleeding edge? Constant
mission shift, like Instagram?

Twitter seems fairly stable to me. I also recall when we used software like
VBulletin for years without updates for very successful social networking. I
don’t see why this software has a special need to cope with variability and
edge cases, just to share photos and messages with people.

------
avar
> Apple said it would stop providing unit sales for iPhones, iPads, and Macs
> in fiscal 2019, a step toward becoming more of a services business. While
> some pundits praised the move as a way to highlight a potent new business
> model, many analysts complained it was an attempt to hide the pain of a
> stagnant smartphone market.

Can companies just pull this sort of "yeah those numbers look bad, so we're
not publishing them anymore" moves with impunity? I'd have thought this was
something the SEC could step in to stop.

Is the only tool shareholders have to oppose this to vote in an entirely new
board? Which of course won't happen for such a "minor" issue?

~~~
oflannabhra
what regulation forces a company to report how much it sells of X? Most
regulation requires reporting around revenue, not units.

As the article notes, Apple was unique in reporting unit sales at all.

~~~
kodablah
> what regulation forces a company to report how much it sells of X?

That's not what was asked. What was asked is if they can just change what they
usually report because it looks bad.

~~~
oflannabhra
Semantics, and the answer is the same. The parent was asking if the SEC could
step in, and the only way they could do that is if government regulation has
granted them purview and authority to. There is no such regulation.

~~~
kodablah
I read it as asking whether the SEC could step in on misleading information
disclosure change, not the information itself.

------
johnchristopher
I am bad at the economy thing so I have a question:

Is Apple increasing the price of iPhones to keep up with revenue growth ?

~~~
ComputerGuru
Yes. Units sold is down across the market and Apple is no exception, but
Apple’s revenue is at record highs.

~~~
johnchristopher
Okay, thanks.

So in the end, when a consumer wants to replace his iphone 6s that is finally
too much out of date he'll have to pay more than if everyone (him included)
had bought the iphone that came after the iphone 6s, right ?

So basically selling a product that last too long is a problem for Apple (who
has to report to shareholders why revenue is growing less than before) and the
consumers (who pays basically more for the same since standard usage between
an iphone6s and an iphone7/8 stays the same overall) ?

Apple can't take a drop in revenue growth to the benefit of consumers by
selling the next crop of iphone at the same price. So they are condemned to
get a more expensive (than the last one) premium iphone out or raise the
prices across the line-up. And if I understand correctly they did both,
correct ?

That would explain why it seems to me that apple products are getting more
expensive and less of a commodity (which high volume would suggest).

~~~
jimbokun
The one thing I would add is that everyone on the planet has a smart phone
now, more or less.

So it's very difficult for Apple to find more customers (just Android
switchers, mostly), so they raise prices for their existing customers instead.

------
camdenlock
The day Apple begins serious flirtation with ad revenue is the day I bail on
them.

------
qwerty456127
> Apple Inc. shares had their worst day since 2014 amid concerns that growth
> in its powerhouse product, the iPhone, is slowing. In the fiscal fourth
> quarter, Apple said iPhone unit sales barely grew from a year earlier

Why do sales always need to grow, why sustaining is not enough?

Also wouldn't it be a good idea to change the focus product periodically? I.e.
we've sold so much iPhones that everybody who ever wanted one has one already,
let's focus on making MacBooks great again so more people would consider
getting one or upgrading their old one, then once some time has passed and
everybody has a new Mac let's start selling new iPhones we were developing
during this time that is so much better thst everybody is willing to upgrade
again... IMHO inflating sales growth by releasing a new not-much-better model
of the same product every year or two is hardly a healthy sustainable
practice.

~~~
dasil003
Our financial system is entirely predicated on the assumption of perpetual
growth. It’s likely to bite us in the end if we can’t get ahold of the
externalities and find a way to build sustainable systems, but unfortunately
we don’t have the scaffolding in place for that and Apple is just another cog
in the existing system.

------
dcdevito
I always enjoy Ben Thompson's insights, and I think he may have something
here. But does anyone really feel comfortable that this strategy is going to
keep them at the top?

~~~
paulie_a
They are not on top in phones or computers. Android devices outsell iPhones by
a significant margin and for computers, apple basically owns an insignificant
portion of the market.

~~~
mav3rick
It doesn't matter what the market share is. As long as their margins are hefty
and iOS remains the OS where consumers are willing to pay for apps etc. You
don't need market share, if your margins are sky high.

~~~
Tepix
They do need a significant market share (which they clearly have at >1 billion
active devices) to make it worthwhile for content creators to target their
platforms and users.

------
vectorEQ
one of the few companies who consistently keeps bumming it's users with higher
prices for the same shit and no one is complaining :')... look at most tech
giants out there, and you will see only Apple and Nvidia keep cranking up
prices for same product range. only companies where you need to pay MORE to
get the same tomorrow. buying a relationship with apple? first treat your
users like they have value, thank you.! no one wants to be in a toxic abusive
relationship!

~~~
cmsj
Google Pixel 2: $649 Google Pixel 3: $799

hmmm ;)

------
rajacombinator
When you can buy Chinese phones like Oneplus 6 that are just as good as the XS
but half the price, the writing is on the wall. Jack up prices, exploit naive
customers, and max out those stock options while you still can. Then let the
company die by mediocrity again, no Jobs to save you this time.

