10 ms·
Still, the company hasn't released an innovative hardware product since 2008. That's a long time for them. If Apple can't innovate anymore, regardless of whethe
by vannevar 7y ago
Still, the company hasn't released an innovative hardware product since 2008. That's a long time for them. If Apple can't innovate anymore, regardless of whether they have continued financial success, are they still really Apple?
- zepto 7y agoIgnoring the Apple Watch, which dominates the category and is a clear success.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- vannevar 7y agoFair, but the Apple Watch has largely been an iPhone accessory rather than a standalone product. You could also point to AirPods. They sold a lot of them because a lot of people had iPhones. But neither is anything like the iPhone or the Mac in terms of defining a product category. Eventually, the Apple Watch is just going to be an iPhone on your wrist. More of a derivative, like the iPad.
- scarface74 7y agoSo what “category defining” successful electronic product has any company introduced since 2008?
- vannevar 7y agoThe Echo.
- scarface74 7y agoCategory defining: yes Successful: No. If you define success as “profitable”.
- vannevar 7y agoI don't think you can plausibly argue that the Echo is not a success for Amazon, I'm sorry. Apple would've loved to be in that market first, they just missed it.
- scarface74 7y agoYou think Apple would have loved to sell a low margin $50-$150 product? Have you been following Apple for the last 40 years? The only time Apple sold inexpensive electronics that I can remember were the iPod Shuffles and they were more expensive than other low end MP3 products.
- vannevar 7y agoBut Apple wouldn't have needed to sell them at $50-150. They're Apple. They could've sold them for $399. They couldn't make the Echo because they lacked either the market insight to see the opportunity, or the technology to pull it off.
- scarface74 7y agoYou mean like the HomePod? How is that working out? People will buy a $600-$1000 phone for two reasons - it’s highly subsidized/payment plans and the phone is considered a necessity. The number of people who would pay $400 for a smart speaker is minuscule. Heck iPads only started seeing an uptick when Apple started selling good low end models at $329. The AppleTV was a decently early set top box and those didn’t change the world. It wasn’t until Roku and Amazon started selling them at basically break even or maybe a slight loss for $50 that those took off.
- vannevar 7y agoThe HomePod isn't working out because: a) it was way late to the market, and b) Siri's technology lags behind Alexa. Which supports my argument about lackluster innovation. I can say people won't pay $1200 bucks for a laptop with specs they could get for $800, either, but I'd be wrong because they do. You might argue the AppleTV was innovative at the time it was released, but there were already very successful game consoles that had much the same functionality plus the games. Even if you count it as an innovation, it was announced in 2007. Innovative products are not always successful. Now, if AppleTV had incorporated Alexa-level voice control technology back in 2013, that probably would've been innovative and successful.
- kaokien 7y agoApple has sold as many AirPods as the echo. The AirPod is more functional and revolutionary then the echo. Are you kidding me? Echo is selling at a loss and that's what you claim as being revolutionary? The skill gap between alexa and siri is not high. https://loupventures.com/annual-digital-assistant-iq-test-siri-google-assistant-alexa-cortana/ https://loupventures.com/annual-digital-assistant-iq-test-si...
- zepto 7y agoThe iPod started off as a Mac accessory and ended up transforming multiple industries. The iPhone was a Mac derivative and computer accessory that required iTunes to even work but became the most successful product in all of human history. You could call it just a ‘mac in your pocket’ but it would still be the most successful products The watch is on a similar trajectory.
- vannevar 7y agoTrue. But the iPod and iPhone were functionally very distinct from the Mac. The Apple Watch seems more like a convenient extension that eliminates the need to pull your phone out, but not much more than that, at least in its first few years of existence. Apple is clearly gearing it up to replace the iPhone, but that trajectory has been evolutionary, not revolutionary.
- zepto 7y agoThe iPhone was clearly not functionally distinct from a Mac laptop. There was nothing an iPhone could do that a Mac couldn’t do better, except for fit in your pocket.
- zaptheimpaler 7y agoThe iPhone is a product that completely transformed the world and defines what a smartphone is. There are 3 billion of them so almost half the world owns a smartphone. If your bar for "innovative" is seriously that incredibly high, prepare to be disappointed..
- vannevar 7y agoAgreed. But what are the contenders since 2008? The iPad and the Apple Watch. The iPad was really co-developed with the iPhone for all practical purposes, as the original iPad prototype inspired the phone. You can definitely make a case for the watch, but it's an extension of the phone in so many ways.
- vannevar 7y agoI don't deny the Watch is a good product. And those who point out that you needed a Mac to use an iPod or an iPhone are correct. But the functionality of the devices themselves didn't overlap to the extent they do with the iPhone and the Watch. It's like Apple came out with the iPhone, then for an encore said "Hey, here's a bigger iPhone you can watch movies on! And here's one you can wear on your wrist!" I just don't see the Watch being on the same level as the Mac, iPod, or iPhone in terms of innovation (regardless of market success). I understand reasonable minds can differ.
- mch82 7y agoThe phone started as an extension of the computer (iTunes was required for backup, app purchases, and syncing). The Watch is following that progression, iterating toward a stand-alone device.
- zaptheimpaler 7y agoThere aren’t any thats my point. Its like they made the first ever car 10 years ago after lifetimes of horse carriages and you’re disappointed theres nothing else of that magnitude yet.
- vannevar 7y ago
- gumby 7y agoThe iphone went from being a bit of a computer accessory to a standalone platform. The next watch OS release is likewise transitioning to not needing a phone in order to be set up. I assume they want the watch to become a standalone platform (or at least, similarly to the ipod, a companion device to either an iphone or android phone), ultimately replacing your need for a phone at all. That last statement of mine sounds absurd to me, but then again who would have predicted 10 years ago that many people would have a smart phone but no laptop nor desktop?
- reaperducer 7y agothe Apple Watch has largely been an iPhone accessory rather than a standalone product The Apple Watch does not need an iPhone to function. You could also point to AirPods. They sold a lot of them because a lot of people had iPhones AirPods work with any Bluetooth device, not just iPhones.
- vannevar 7y agoBut in both cases, the overwhelming majority of people that get them have iPhones, because there is additional and important functionality that comes with the connection.
- situational87 7y agoThey increased their spending on R&D by $500 million since last year. They then spent $17 BILLION on share buybacks in the last quarter. It's not a tech company anymore it's just a financial engineering scheme for large shareholders. If you're a shareholder, good for you!
- jknoepfler 7y agothose are obviously not meaningfully commensureable numbers.
- situational87 7y agoWhy not? They can spend their money however they want, but Wall Street demands endless share buybacks over everything else. Do you think there is any downside to just transferring wealth to the (already rich) shareholders over and over and over again? Seems to be their top priority nowadays.
- dangus 7y agoThere’s a really obvious ceiling to R&D. I can spend a trillion dollars and hire a million engineers but that won’t build me a time machine or a perpetual motion device.
- Retric 7y agoUntil they make up a significant percentage of global R&D spending they could increase it while spending money on useful things.
- scarface74 7y agoLike what?
- Retric 7y ago
- friedegg 7y agoI guess it depends on how you define innovative. The iPad was unveiled in January 2010, and while there were other tablets before it, and it was similar to the iPhone, it has now started to replace a regular computer for many people.
- vannevar 7y agoTrue, but the Microsoft Surface came three years before the Pro. And even if the iPad Pro were dominant, the iPhone and iPad are so closely related as products that counting the iPad 'innovation' is double-dipping a bit.
- dkonofalski 7y agoThat's like saying that a bathtub and a swimming pool are the same thing because they both hold water.
- vannevar 7y agoNo, I'm not suggesting they're the same thing. But size alone is not innovation, in swimming pools or iPads. There just isn't enough distinction to say that the iPad is innovative compared to the iPhone. Internally, in fact, the iPad came before the iPhone, and inspired it.
- scarface74 7y agoSo who is releasing “innovative hardware”? But to your point, since 2008: - Mac revenue has grown - iPad was introduced and by itself its revenue and more than likely profit is something that any company would kill for. - the Apple Watch was introduced and all indications it’s bigger than the iPod ever was.
- vannevar 7y agoI'm not saying Apple isn't successful. In fact, that's my point: they're clearly releasing solid products. But they aren't the category-killers that the company's reputation for innovation is built on. There have been rumors of new innovations (reinventing TV, an Apple Car, augmented reality) but none have materialized. Regardless of whether you agree they haven't been innovating, my question stands: if they stop innovating, but remain financially successful, will they still be Apple?
- scarface74 7y agoThe TV is a low margin, bulky product with a very long replacement cycle. Nothing about that market is desirable. Besides, people are spending less screen time on televisions every year and more on portable devices.
- vannevar 7y agoI'm not suggesting those were good ideas, only that they were rumors about innovative products that got a lot of attention, in part because everyone thought Apple must be up to something, because they hadn't made a big splash in a long time. Maybe the problem isn't that Apple's isn't innovating anymore, but that so many others now are as well, so innovation gets lost in the crowd. Companies like Tesla, Amazon, and Google share a space now that Apple had to itself for a long time.
- scarface74 7y agoTesla - losing money Google - the only thing they are doing profitability is selling ads. Just look at Apple’s revenue split (second graph). How do you think that compares to Google? https://sixcolors.com/post/2019/07/apple-third-quarter-2019-results-and-charts/#more https://sixcolors.com/post/2019/07/apple-third-quarter-2019-... A “successful” product is one that you can sell for more than it costs to make. Anyone can sell dollar bills for 0.95 cents. Amazon? Yes AWS is definitely successful and innovative, but the other half of Amazon?
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 7y ago.
- outworlder 7y agoThe Apple II. The original Mac. The iPod. The iPhone. Just to name the heavy hitters.