Other the market is saturated, get over it!

[colonelbutt]

that's the reason the iphone has peaked
also because there is no must have innovation anymore and phones have become "good enough" (waiting for that 3D pop up holographic display and a weeks battery life)

the only reason I originally chose apple over android was the AI of the apple touch keyboard which is still superior IMHO and saves loads of time

over the years I am locked in as my whole family use them and I need to control their purchases and also see where the kids are

same old same old until a 3rd world country becomes majorly 1st world and opens up a new market, there will be no blip ...

 

[44267547]

I don’t necessarily think it’s just because the lack of ‘innovation’, I think what we are seeing, is the economy not necessarily responding to the value of a thousand dollar smart phone, when their current smart phone is more than capable of whatever they need it to do now.

In my opinion, what I think Apple needs to do, is Gauge the market the best they can, by creating more diversity with their iPhone pricing options for the consumer.

 

[colonelbutt]

I don’t necessarily think it’s just because the lack of ‘innovation’, I think what we are seeing, is the economy not necessarily responding to the value of a thousand dollar smart phone, when their current smart phone is more than capable of whatever they need it to do now.

In my opinion, what I think Apple needs to do, is Gauge the market the best they can, by creating more diversity with their iPhone pricing options for the consumer.

yes, that's a good point. diversity at the lower end Apple doesn't have.

However, its likely that they don't want their premium status cannibalised. I think apple in the last 20 years has mission to be a premium supplier. they just don't see the profit market in higher volume, and more volatile, lower end devices

I tend to agree with their business model. if you look at the last few recessions, you can see the higher end and very low end the least effected, and the middle market getting trashed.

 

[balaplus]

also because there is no must have innovation anymore and phones have become "good enough" (waiting for that 3D pop up holographic display and a weeks battery life)...

This...
People are still willing to pay for something that excites them!

 

[Newtons Apple]

A big part of this is China discouraging its population from buying a iPhone. They were a very large Apple customer.

 

[Shanghaichica]

A big part of this is China discouraging its population from buying a iPhone. They were a very large Apple customer.

Is this because of the Huawei business??
Or trumps trade war?

 

[balaplus]

Cook may be telling the truth that China is the primary driver of the downturn.
But iPhone’s problems run deeper and wider when it relies on 'planned obsolescence' as evidenced by the success of $29 battery replacement program

 

[colonelbutt]

Is this because of the Huawei business??
Or trumps trade war?

the trade war will be resolved. the current asymmetric arrangement can't last

the Huawei thing is entirely more tricky. building spying into the cell stations is more Hollywood then real world. The Chinese government made a miscalculation thinking that the west would ignore it ...

 

[Newtons Apple]

Is this because of the Huawei business??
Or trumps trade war?

Probably both!

 

[44267547]

Cook may be telling the truth that China is the primary driver of the downturn.

‘May be telling the truth’? There’s no doubt, Cook is _not_ lying, he would never make a public statement about something regarding the future of iPhone sales to investors if there wasn’t any truth to it. He is correct when he says China’s economy is reaching a point where it’s become stagnant from a consumer standpoint. You have to consider how large China is and how much of an impact they have on a company like Apple, they account for a large portion of iPhone sales across the world.

 

[cardfan]

You never want to pin all your hopes competing in a country like China. No matter what Apple did iPhone sales were to going to slow. That’s the nature of being a premium brand.

Apples only answer to keep breaking profit records is new categories, expansion of ecosystem, services, etc. The watch was obvious as was HomePod. Airpods were an answer for removing headphones jack.

But that’s way too little. And things like Siri make for weak foundations to build upon.

Keep in mind amazon, ms, Samsung, google none of them directly rely on phone sales for a majority of profit. It’s on apple to evolve so that it isn’t either. Cook shows little awareness of this. So far all we’ve heard is rumors of lower end current products. Mini, cheaper HomePod, etc. That won’t help them.

 

[balaplus]

‘May be telling the truth’? There’s no doubt, Cook is _not_ lying, he would never make a public statement about something regarding the future of iPhone sales to investors if there wasn’t any truth to it. He is correct when he says China’s economy is reaching a point where it’s become stagnant from a consumer standpoint. You have to consider how large China is and how much of an impact they have on a company like Apple, they account for a large portion of iPhone sales across the world.

Don't disagree with any of it but my point is that Apple's problems go beyond China. Nobody can deny that competitors (Samsung, Huawei) are more than catching up with Apple now and there is simply no room for complacency.

 

[theluggage]

I think apple in the last 20 years has mission to be a premium supplier. they just don't see the profit market in higher volume

Apple have always been a premium supplier. What we've seen in recent years is a push beyond that to become a luxury, "if you need to ask the price you can't afford it" supplier. Its there in black-and-white in their last few quarters' results - huge revenue growth despite fairly stagnant sales numbers (...and the recent decision to stop publishing sales numbers).

When the iPhone was launched it was completely unlike anything else on the market (and Android took several years to become a credible alternative), so its hard to criticise its $500-$600 price tag. That's why they sold by the shedload.

Now, its 2019. Android has improved beyond recognition, and half-decent, up-to-date, 5" smartphones start at $150-$250. Such products don't stand comparison with the iPhone X when it comes to 3D gaming, VR or serious photography, but for phone, email, navigation, snapshots, music playing etc. they're perfectly good. Today, $500 for a phone is premium - and for some time, all Apple have been offering in that ball-park (aside from the current, slightly panicky, trade-in deal) is 2-3 year-old models. Effectively, they've stopped making new smartphones in favour of pocket VR workstations/SLR-replacement cameras that cost five times as much as a perfectly adequate phone.

Now, I'm no expert on the luxury goods market, but I have a strong suspicion that "mainstream" big-ticket brands (the ones who sell you a pair of factory-made shoes for $1000, not the ones that hand-make a custom-tailored pair of shoes for some undisclosed consideration discretely agreed during your personal audience with the designer) make damned sure that they have a range of branded T-shirts, toiletries or other licensed products at affordable premium prices to (a) bring in the cash and (b) get people hooked on the brand name.

For Apple, where's the modern equivalent of the iPod Shuffle, the $400 Mac Mini or the white plastic MacBook? They're in danger of confining themselves to a slowly shrinking pool of people who are committed to the Apple ecosystem in some way.

Also, other "luxury" products don't need infrastructure - local transport companies, banks, ISPs, streaming media services don't need to produce Apps (or even test their websites) for people with Jimmy Choo shoes. You can carry your company accounts in your designer briefcase even if Louis Vuitton doesn't have a module for UK Corporation Tax rules. A smartphone or computer OS needs a critical mass of users to support its "ecosystem".

 

[colonelbutt]

Apple have always been a premium supplier. What we've seen in recent years is a push beyond that to become a luxury, "if you need to ask the price you can't afford it" supplier. Its there in black-and-white in their last few quarters' results - huge revenue growth despite fairly stagnant sales numbers (...and the recent decision to stop publishing sales numbers).

When the iPhone was launched it was completely unlike anything else on the market (and Android took several years to become a credible alternative), so its hard to criticise its $500-$600 price tag. That's why they sold by the shedload.

Now, its 2019. Android has improved beyond recognition, and half-decent, up-to-date, 5" smartphones start at $150-$250. Such products don't stand comparison with the iPhone X when it comes to 3D gaming, VR or serious photography, but for phone, email, navigation, snapshots, music playing etc. they're perfectly good. Today, $500 for a phone is premium - and for some time, all Apple have been offering in that ball-park (aside from the current, slightly panicky, trade-in deal) is 2-3 year-old models. Effectively, they've stopped making new smartphones in favour of pocket VR workstations/SLR-replacement cameras that cost five times as much as a perfectly adequate phone.

Now, I'm no expert on the luxury goods market, but I have a strong suspicion that "mainstream" big-ticket brands (the ones who sell you a pair of factory-made shoes for $1000, not the ones that hand-make a custom-tailored pair of shoes for some undisclosed consideration discretely agreed during your personal audience with the designer) make damned sure that they have a range of branded T-shirts, toiletries or other licensed products at affordable premium prices to (a) bring in the cash and (b) get people hooked on the brand name.

For Apple, where's the modern equivalent of the iPod Shuffle, the $400 Mac Mini or the white plastic MacBook? They're in danger of confining themselves to a slowly shrinking pool of people who are committed to the Apple ecosystem in some way.

Also, other "luxury" products don't need infrastructure - local transport companies, banks, ISPs, streaming media services don't need to produce Apps (or even test their websites) for people with Jimmy Choo shoes. You can carry your company accounts in your designer briefcase even if Louis Vuitton doesn't have a module for UK Corporation Tax rules. A smartphone or computer OS needs a critical mass of users to support its "ecosystem".

I agree with much of what you say, but Apple's strategy to deal with the lower end is to recycle previous phone versions rather the target specifically budget models, except perhaps for the SE. Unless it expands its SE range and keeps the same model it will continue to plough its way in the luxury/premium (or whatever you want to call it) space.

Whether that is enough or not I am not competent to judge, but I think that a rush to $99 dollar phones to complete with the space where android really shines, i.e. the low end, would be unprofitable and damaging in the long run, amongst other things it takes away the quality USP

 

[PeteS1963]

I’m convinced that there are a number of things going on. Not just a saturated market, iPhones too expensive, battery replacement meaning some are keeping iPhones longer.... There’s are also the Apple Watch. It’s really just an extension of your iPhone. Buy an Apple Watch and you add a whole load of new features to your old iPhone 7, hell, even iPhone 6. Features that will trump an iPhone XS/Max if used in isolation.

I held off getting a Watch for a while. But when I did I was surprised how much ii added. How my iPhone was so much more useful.

 

[caskin8a]

The iPhone is struggling because it's lost the design elements that made it unique. If you remember that humans touch that phone every day, you'd never design iOS the way it has been - let's be completely real - the iPhone Xs is an overpriced Samsung Galaxy sAppleLogo.

Apple is going through it's 1985-2005 cycle again. Right now we're stuck in the "10 unorganized models for every product" phase, except has an additional 800 billion reasons why it doesn't have the courage to change strategy.

 

[revmacian]

I think it's a combination of three things:
* How long iPhone last - and retention of resale value over time
* How useful iPhone features are - seamless integration with other Apple products
* Pricing of the new iPhones - Any idea how much food and clothing $1,000.00 can buy?

 

[eyoungren]

over the years I am locked in as my whole family use them and I need to control their purchases and also see where the kids are

I assume this is some sort of anecdote to your main point but fail to understand why it's relevant to the market being saturated.

That said, 'I am locked in' is your own fault.

You willingly engaged in Apple's services over the years because it was convenient to you and that's okay. I never had the chance, so I found third party alternatives. You are locked in, I am not. Apple's newest features don't work with old Macs and old iPhones.

The thing is that you don't have to be 'locked in' because there are alternatives. So it comes down to choice. I choose not to be locked in, not just because there are services Apple offers I don't like, but because I refuse to be dependent on any one company.

I'm not knocking your choice. It works for you and that's good. I'm just simply pointing out that it is indeed a choice, not because of anything Apple did.

The interesting part to me is seeing just how far those 'locked in' or 'trapped' by Apple are willing to go to stay that way.

 

[revmacian]

The interesting part to me is seeing just how far those 'locked in' or 'trapped' by Apple are willing to go to stay that way.

Like paying over $1,000.00 for a phone?

 

[Knowlege Bomb]

I assume this is some sort of anecdote to your main point but fail to understand why it's relevant to the market being saturated.

That said, 'I am locked in' is your own fault.

You willingly engaged in Apple's services over the years because it was convenient to you and that's okay. I never had the chance, so I found third party alternatives. You are locked in, I am not. Apple's newest features don't work with old Macs and old iPhones.

The thing is that you don't have to be 'locked in' because there are alternatives. So it comes down to choice. I choose not to be locked in, not just because there are services Apple offers I don't like, but because I refuse to be dependent on any one company.

I'm not knocking your choice. It works for you and that's good. I'm just simply pointing out that it is indeed a choice, not because of anything Apple did.

The interesting part to me is seeing just how far those 'locked in' or 'trapped' by Apple are willing to go to stay that way.

I don't consider myself "locked in" per se. My Mac is from 2009 and doesn't really play well with my current products (along with the fact that I rarely touch it). I do enjoy the connectivity between my watch and my phone but it's definitely something I could live without. The only benefit I get out of my Apple TV being in the ecosystem is access to my music on my TV and the ability to type out my searches using my phone.

All that said, there's so many reasons I find the iPhone better than the alternatives with iMessage being one of the few things I just couldn't do without. I used the original Pixel for a couple of weeks and had there been an iMessage alternative I would've stuck with it. All of my Apple products would have continued to work, just not as "together".

 

[eyoungren]

Like paying over $1,000.00 for a phone?

Yep. It's much harder to stay 'locked in' when the device is priced out of your budget. For some people, that's not an issue but for many it is.

There seems to be a shift here on MacRumors towards simply having a device that works for you, no matter what model. When I first started here it was all about having the most, bestest iPhone out there.

Growing pains I guess. Lots of these types of threads.

 

[boltjames]

It's not market saturation. It's something else. It's a one-time adjustment to the old new-every-two buying cycle that was condensed into one iPhone X cycle. That 'regular' cycle and that 'S' cycle, well something changed there.

After the iPhone 6, innovation in an iPhone slowed down dramatically and it wasn't until 3 years later, with the iPhone X, that there was enough newness to get customers to upgrade. Last year, all the 6 (2014) and 6S (2015) buyers upgraded at once, you had people on both the 'regular' cycle (4/5/6) and the 'S' cycle (4S/5S/6S) who had never purchased a 7 or 7S because it was a boring release. For the first time in iPhone history, you essentially had two cycles worth of customers all focused on one new iPhone.

Follow this new 2017 iPhone X group to 2020 when Apple will surely again introduce a handset worthy enough to justify an upgrade and you'll again see the higher pricepoint and record-breaking sales. What's going on now is not a surprise. The glut of iPhone buyers are simply extremely satisfied with their X's, now more than ever we don't see any value in the "S" product, and we look forward to a fresh new flagship in a year or two when our X's are getting a little old. The customers are still here, but two cycles were merged into one and a year later we're just very satisfied, that's all.

 

[eyoungren]

I don't consider myself "locked in" per se. My Mac is from 2009 and doesn't really play well with my current products (along with the fact that I rarely touch it). I do enjoy the connectivity between my watch and my phone but it's definitely something I could live without. The only benefit I get out of my Apple TV being in the ecosystem is access to my music on my TV and the ability to type out my searches using my phone.

All that said, there's so many reasons I find the iPhone better than the alternatives with iMessage being one of the few things I just couldn't do without. I used the original Pixel for a couple of weeks and had there been an iMessage alternative I would've stuck with it. All of my Apple products would have continued to work, just not as "together".

Some people are comfortable. I'm not saying don't be. I'm not even saying don't be locked in or dependent. All I'm arguing is that it's a choice we make.

We all have our reasons for what we do and don't need to justify that to anyone but ourselves. But that is our choice. It's not made upon us or for us.

 

[ggibson913]

iPhone 6 came out about 4 years ago and is still a perfectly usable device. I don't think this is just iPhone, I think people are hanging on to their phones for longer in general. This is a result of the death of the carrier subsidy/ 2 year contract IMHO. Once people had to shell out lots of money for a new flagship phone $900 - $1300, people are naturally going to hang on to the phones for longer rather than upgrade even every two years.

 

[bbednarz]

The iPhone is struggling because it's lost the design elements that made it unique. If you remember that humans touch that phone every day, you'd never design iOS the way it has been - let's be completely real - the iPhone Xs is an overpriced Samsung Galaxy sAppleLogo.

Apple is going through it's 1985-2005 cycle again. Right now we're stuck in the "10 unorganized models for every product" phase, except has an additional 800 billion reasons why it doesn't have the courage to change strategy.

Please explain what you mean by "you'd never design iOS the way it has been". To this day it is by far the easiest/most user friendly mobile operating system out there. I also don't know what you mean by "the iPhone Xs is an overpriced Samsung Galaxy sAppleLogo". There are quite a few differences between the 2 phones.