7 ms·

I sold my Apple stock about 8 months ago. These are the relevant data points: - Apple is a superb company but the stock price is still too high. - Apple faces

I sold my Apple stock about 8 months ago. These are the relevant data points: - Apple is a superb company but the stock price is still too high. - Apple faces increasing competition from its own older phones that still work just fine. - The older phones work just fine because Apple was caught crippling the older phones to preserve the life of the $20 battery inside the phone, and ended up having to simply replace batteries rather than sell new phones. This should be considered a scandal on par with the Volkswagen emissions scandal. I suspect the crippling was timed to make the shiny new phone seem all that much more appealing. Note that Google recently rolled out Android updates that default a lot of battery killing AI features to "on" even on older devices, dramatically reducing their battery life. This may have been an attempt to boost sales of new phones, or it may be that Google thinks the AI features are so compelling that they will drive new purchases. - Apple has continued its practice of small, steady improvements to iOS, but has also dramatically increased the price of the phones. I had to chuckle when I realized I spent $1K on my last iPhone. Wow. I'd argue that the incredible Moore's law-like growth of mobile technology has actually held back a lot of innovation, and now that the platforms are more mature we'll see bigger investment in platform technologies that were risky before when the target devices two years out were largely unknown. Apple has still shied away from trying to defend its market share by entering the low end market. Like Github's decision (far too late, after Bitbucket nearly caught up) to offer unlimited private repos, Apple will eventually enter the low end market, but only after its lunch starts to be eaten by competitors. What happens when new big budget production apps don't prioritize iPhone by default as the first platform to launch on? Apple has no strategy to deal with this, and has neglected its development tooling substantially. This is basically the position Microsoft was in (and a nearly identical strategy) right before it took its own nose dive. Apple should: - Release a $199 iPhone as quickly as possible, and a $199 iPad also. - Team up with Facebook to make React-Native a first class citizen for iOS development, even if this is a hostile fork and a blessed version released directly by Apple. - Institute some programs (battery replacement, etc.) that show that the devices are the only one anyone would ever consider buying. - Work with software vendors to create apps that actually do require the latest hardware features and the newest phones. Most apps do not need these. - Make the devices fully waterproof so I can throw mine in the dishwasher once in a while to get it clean. - Create car radios that are "CarPlay Only" that can be retrofitted into vehicles that didn't ship with one. - Release a version of OSX that works (and is supported on) Intel NUC hardware.

tonyedgecombe 8y ago
Apple should Pretty much everything you suggested would result in lower profits.
- resters 8y ago
  Exactly. Lower short-term profits in exchange for significantly greater market share and future profits. For some reason Apple doesn't see the competition rapidly approaching. Neither did Microsoft. All it takes is one misstep.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Apple has still shied away from trying to defend its market share by entering the low end market. Like Github's decision (far too late, after Bitbucket nearly caught up) to offer unlimited private repos, Apple will eventually enter the low end market, but only after its lunch starts to be eaten by competitors. They have rather a serious problem there actually. There are many people who buy an expensive iPhone for reasons that would be entirely satisfied by a less expensive one if it existed. It's hardly worth raising sales by 15% if you would have to lower overall margins by 50%. They could produce an intentionally crippled one to avoid cannibalizing their high margin products, but that would dilute their brand, and anyway who would buy it over similarly-priced non-crippled Android devices? There is a place in the market for a luxury brand, but Apple already has more of the market than luxury brands typically have. It's going to be difficult for them to do much better when the main thing they could adjust is the trade off between margins and volumes.
- scarface74 8y ago
  They have rather a serious problem there actually. There are many people who buy an expensive iPhone for reasons that would be entirely satisfied by a less expensive one if it existed. It's hardly worth raising sales by 15% if you would have to lower overall margins by 50%. I could have bought a midrange slower phone in 2015 thst would probably never get an update and then by another midrange phone 2 years later and buy yet another midrange phone this year. Or alternatively, buy a 64 GB iPhone 6s in 2015 for $749 and still be getting updates and have a phone that is more performant than any midrange Android phone that was sold over the next three years and faster than high end Android phones in single core performance. If history is any guide, the 6s will still be getting updates for two more years. As a bonus, my phone isn’t running an operating system made by a privacy invading ad company.

tonyedgecombe 8y ago

Apple should Pretty much everything you suggested would result in lower profits.

resters 8y ago
Exactly. Lower short-term profits in exchange for significantly greater market share and future profits. For some reason Apple doesn't see the competition rapidly approaching. Neither did Microsoft. All it takes is one misstep.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> Apple has still shied away from trying to defend its market share by entering the low end market. Like Github's decision (far too late, after Bitbucket nearly caught up) to offer unlimited private repos, Apple will eventually enter the low end market, but only after its lunch starts to be eaten by competitors. They have rather a serious problem there actually. There are many people who buy an expensive iPhone for reasons that would be entirely satisfied by a less expensive one if it existed. It's hardly worth raising sales by 15% if you would have to lower overall margins by 50%. They could produce an intentionally crippled one to avoid cannibalizing their high margin products, but that would dilute their brand, and anyway who would buy it over similarly-priced non-crippled Android devices? There is a place in the market for a luxury brand, but Apple already has more of the market than luxury brands typically have. It's going to be difficult for them to do much better when the main thing they could adjust is the trade off between margins and volumes.

scarface74 8y ago
They have rather a serious problem there actually. There are many people who buy an expensive iPhone for reasons that would be entirely satisfied by a less expensive one if it existed. It's hardly worth raising sales by 15% if you would have to lower overall margins by 50%. I could have bought a midrange slower phone in 2015 thst would probably never get an update and then by another midrange phone 2 years later and buy yet another midrange phone this year. Or alternatively, buy a 64 GB iPhone 6s in 2015 for $749 and still be getting updates and have a phone that is more performant than any midrange Android phone that was sold over the next three years and faster than high end Android phones in single core performance. If history is any guide, the 6s will still be getting updates for two more years. As a bonus, my phone isn’t running an operating system made by a privacy invading ad company.