Any article that speculates on Apple's future viability in the market would be remiss not to mention Apple's unprecedented cash hoard. Currently, Apple is sitting on $126B in net tangible assets.<p>With 100,000 full-time equivalent employees, that means that Apple could pay every one of their full-time equivalent employees (which, as a reminder, includes a large number of retail employees) an average yearly salary of $100K for 12 years while making $0 in revenue and still not deplete their cash reserves!<p>Or, to put it all in perspective, based on Wikipedia's cited estimate (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Cost" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Co...</a>) the International Space Station cost $150B to construct. Personally, I'm looking forward to visiting the iSS at some point in the future.
My Windows devices since 97 were consistent top of the line and rarely lasted more than 2 years before they slowed to an unbearable speed.<p>In 2012 I switched to Mac and still use the same MacBook Pro which still runs as quick as it did 6 years ago. It was a huge investment at the time but turned out to be cheaper than the 4+ Windows machine I likely would have cycled through not to mention the boot time and performance gains.
<i>Apple’s growth is almost entirely inwardly-focused when it comes to its user-base: higher prices, more services, and more devices</i><p>I find myself increasingly stuck in an Apple 2011 - 2013 universe.<p>For starters Apple has not yet provided a viable upgrade for my primary desktop machine: a 2011 Mac Mini (2.7GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 with 8 GB ram and SSD). The specs on the current 2018 Mac Mini lineup are considerable lower than yesteryears Mac Mini. No idea why? I'd love to upgrade to a faster Mac Mini, but there's really no options, even 6 years later. So nope.<p>Then there's my 2013 MacBook Air (1.7GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 with 8 GB ram and SSD). This thing has been a workhorse. That said I'd love to get a similar form factor with Retina, however, the only somewhat viable upgrade option seems to be the 12" MacBook. Too small, so nope.<p>Finally, there's my iPhone 5S (2013 as well). It's showing it's age (sluggish at times), however, I've replaced the battery and to be honest, it's still got some life left in it. Admittedly, the iPhone is the only Apple product I own that actually does have a viable upgrade path.<p>Unfortunately, with the lack of upgrade options for my primary Apple devices, and issues I've had with iTunes and Apple TV, I'm hesitant to buy in again ...<p>Most other Apple devices and products I own simply collect dust:<p>Various iPods and thousands of purchased iTunes songs collecting dust - as I switched to Spotify. I switched to Spotify when iTunes + iCloud (perhaps user error, not sure) somehow deleted all of my ripped MP3s from along time ago. Generally speaking the iTunes app itself got to the point where it was unusably bloated and convoluted. Not sure why.<p>Apple TV collecting dust. Replaced by an Android TV due to not making it easy to play all file formats.<p>AirPort Extreme collecting dust - had multiple issues and it eventually stopped working (bricked).<p>Finally, MacOS itself has been lacklustre the past couple of releases. I hesitate to upgrade now, due to various bugs and lack of quality control. Apps I previously purchased on the Mac App store have stopped working as well.<p>So while Apple embarks on a new chapter in it's "middle age", it seems like the previous generation has been left to rot ... with not much in the way of upgrade options. How is this an inwardly-focused strategy?
As Apple moves into its middle age, the rational move is to become more like the established vertically-integrated companies.<p>* Intel<p>* Samsung<p>* The British East India Company<p>If Apple leadership decides to accept this, they will begin to act like their peers:<p>* Recognize that the smartphone market will not grow like it has in the past. Create and then dominate standards using IP - barrier to competitors that simultaneously blocks a lot of regulatory burden.<p>* Recognize that Apple will not be the "innovator" that it was in the past. (Apple will still innovate, but not home runs every time.) Nurture the ecosystem around their product - allow small companies to find exciting new products, then acquire them.<p>* Recognize that their financials will need to adapt. Diversify their revenue stream beyond just one or two plays.<p>Apple still has the baggage of its own proprietary reinventions that they try to tightly control. iCloud. Lightning port. AirPlay. MacOS. The net negative impact comes as they gradually end up falling behind nimbler companies, like Amazon.<p>And yes, this will lead to the ultimate death of Apple as all behemoth conglomerates eventually choke on their own red tape and drown in their own largess. But Apple's days of youth are gone; no amount of dieting or exercise will bring them back.<p>I don't actually think Apple for the next 5 years will make the dramatic changes needed to realize these ideas. But perhaps a more interesting question is:<p>Is there any other avenue for a company who has reached middle age?
Tl,dr: “it makes sense to settle down”. Tells how much this is pure projection from the author (he’s open about it).<p>Apple has amazing bricks to build on (Watch especially) so to not settle down. Even iPhone X shows they can still bet big with their flagship.
The most interesting points of the article were this:<p>1) iPhone unit sales growth has essentially stagnated, because the overall market has reached saturation.
2) Apple has successfully managed to maintain growth in the face of 1) by increasing revenue per device (ASP).<p>I think the question of "What does Apple do, now?" is a hugely important one. However, I disagree with the author that the only reasonable approach Apple has is to "settle down" in its middle age position.<p>That question is important, because it implicitly asks, "What is next?" I don't see Apple deciding to not create a product that attempts to answer that question. We will have to wait and see what that product looks like (AR?), whether it is successful, and when it will come. Apple is definitely not going to rest on the iPhones success forever, though.
I really like stratechery, but I don’t get this post. Example<p><i>Instead, I think the order goes like this:<p>Customer owns an iPhone
Customer subscribes to Apple Music because it is installed by default on their iPhone
As an Apple Music subscriber, customer only has one choice in smart speakers: HomePod (and to make the decision to spend more money palatable, Apple pushes sound quality),
from which Apple makes a profit</i><p>Well, I don’t know. Maybe it’s just:<p><i>Let’s make exceptionally good products that people love</i>
<p><pre><code> [A]s a general rule, challengers pursue interoperability while incumbents strive for incompatibility.
This is Strategy 101: seek to fight battles where you have the greatest advantage.
</code></pre>
Should Apple buy a wireless carrier?
With the "features" of new macbooks, it doesn't really seem like they would like to settle down, even though it would probably make sense there...
Seems to me that when you boil it down Apple's primary strategy now is to focus on convenience and simplicity in a purposely anti competitive way.
What advantage does Apple music have over a service like Spotify besides being pre-installed? What about iMessage? What about Facetime? What about the MacBook with a single port?<p>Apple is not worried about competition or more importantly innovation, it instead focuses on creating a walled garden that can keep its users happy. The HomePod is not trying to be innovative it is trying to keep Apple users in their ecosystem.
The author seems to praise the vendor lock-in that Apple imposes upon its customers as being a good business move and a sign that Apple has "matured", without really offering any hard facts to back it up.<p>I'm going to offer an opinion of my own without any facts to back it up. Vendor lock-in may be successful in the short term, but interoperability is successful in the long-term. The internet would have never took off if it wasn't for the fact that every website author had access to the same APIs as every other one.<p>It's bullshit that I can't tell Siri to play music with Spotify instead of Apple Music. It's bullshit that I can't change my browser from Safari, and therefore can't use any Progressive Web App features like push notifications because Apple is afraid of web apps cannibalizing App Store sales. It's anti-competitive and a scummy business move. Android is weak in a lot of areas but at least they got this part right.
People have a soft touch for companies that are on death's door, proof in point is when a startup is closing door. it's their biggest boost in marketing they ever had. and people complain they didn't already know about it.