I've been thinking this year: today's iPhone's are the supercomputers of 20 years ago, but many core functions remain fixed – making cellular calls, text messaging, listening to music, browsing the Web, checking e-mail, navigating maps – and those can all be done admirably by a device far worse than the original iPhone. And the effects of 20 years of non-stop connectivity seems to have heightened public consciousness around overuse and fixation – it seems to be trendy for companies to sell their products with the message "there's benefit in stepping away from the so-called latest and greatest."
How much of a profit could Apple today on a device that was worse than the original iPhone, but totally sufficient for many people's needs? Or even a device far better than the original iPhone, but using a chip not from two years ago, but ten?
I think it's a cool question, but it strikes me as something other companies – not Apple – would typically do. I took note that Craig Federighi answered a call-in question from a mom on a podcast recently which asked about all of this, specifically with kids in mind: would Apple make a more basic, limited-functionality phone just for them? Craig's answer was approximately "you're in luck: we do make a device like that, and it's the iPhone," referring to things like the updated family safety features from June.