Apple Inc: A Pre-Mortem | Hacker News Reader

Apple Inc: A Pre-Mortem

medium.com

66 pointstdurden18 comments

I'm sorry, but all these articles burying Apple are kind of dumb, if Ballmer couldn't kill Microsoft, then it's not a long shot to say that Apple is going to be alright

Apple is dead, if you re-define death to be something like "no longer in its former glory" or something like that.

How many companies would love to be as successful as the apple watch alone.

So much conversation like this, it's crazy. Here's the simple truth. Apple makes phones. The best phones you can buy. Nearly every person over the age of 13 buys a phone. Many buy a new one every year or two. Apple controls approx. 12% of the overall market and approx 91% of profits. That's it. Compare this with the PC-market of the early 90s (10 years into a market segment). Apple is CRUSHING it's closest competitor (Sammy). Their phones are literally BLOWING UP. Take a flight recently? "No Samsung Galaxy S7s allowed". Sheesh. Apple and Tim Cook can piss into the wind for the next decade so long as the iPhone engine continues. And it WILL CONTINUE. It's getting better every 12 months.

I'm an Apple fan, and have spent several thousands of dollars with the company over the years. I've owned 8 different iPhone models.

> Here's the simple truth.

I think you're not letting facts interfere with your theory.

> Apple is CRUSHING it's closest competitor (Sammy).

Depends on how you measure that. Samsung sells more phones. Also, about 45% of the market is "other", compared to Samsung's 20%, so it's not like Apple has the one competitor to worry about. And those competitors have nice products. I've owned both the S7 Edge and the Google Pixel - the Pixel is a very nice phone. Were I not so dependent on the Apple ecosystem, I'd happily make the Pixel my primary phone.

> "No Samsung Galaxy S7s allowed"

Galaxy Note 7. Even after the recall, their S7 sales actually remain strong. Samsung isn't the only competitor.

> Apple and Tim Cook can piss into the wind for the next decade so long as the iPhone engine continues.

I'm sure the company will definitely survive, but non-iPhone sales are very important. They made about $24B from the iPhone, about $14B from other products (Mac/iPad/Watch mostly), and $6B in services (like iTunes).

http://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/vendor;jses...

> It's getting better every 12 months.

Read any article on marketshare. Apple is losing marketshare every year in the smartphone segment. Their Q4 2016 across the company was lower than Q4 2015. (about 8% drop; if you look at only the iPhone, it's about 12%)

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/apple-q4-2016-financial...

I think everyone looks at this backwards. The iPod didnt change the world, the iPod changed Apple. The iPhone is the next evolution of the iPod. The question isnt whether Apple can release a revolution that changes how we use technology, the question is whether Apple can release a revolution that realigns Apple around that product.

And whether Apple wants to admit it or not, the iPod and iPhones success is in part due to them being cross platform devices that didnt require Macs.

To extend this idea, you can see Siri (Alexa) and some sort of AR device in the near future. These could be centered around the iPod/iPhone ecosystem.

Siri doesnt run on my android. Alexa runs on everything. Siri will never be the iPhone next while it runs exclusively in a closed ecosystem.

> Apple is losing marketshare every year in the smartphone segment.

By volume, not by profit. cf http://fortune.com/2016/11/04/apple-smartphone-profits/

> Apple's iPhone secured 103.6% of the smartphone industry's profits during the third quarter, BMO Capital Markets analyst Tim Long said in a research note on Thursday.

>Depends on how you measure that. Samsung sells more phones.

In profit? That is, the main thing that matters for for-profit companies?

(And even considering market share, Apple is not too shabby. They just go for market share of the high --expensive and higher margin-- end of the market, not the overall smartphone market. Which is what they did since 1997 on every field -- even the iPod shuffle was an expensive mp3 player compared to $10 and $30 dollar options with similar features but less build quality/ecosystem/integration etc).

Even the Apple Watch seems to be a healthy business. Not when compared to iPhone, but healthy enough to make a lot of watch companies jealous.

Steve Jobs is a god to some people. Like he didn't make mistakes. That's just not true.

There is not a single company in the world that didn't experience a lull after a high, but somehow Tim Cook is stupid for not bringing Apple to new highs every quarter.

I'd say that without Steve Jobs Apple is in a better position to listen to criticism from outside the company. It will probably take decade to adjust, but I'm still using their products and I haven't found competitors that are doing better.

>There is not a single company in the world that didn't experience a lull after a high, but somehow Tim Cook is stupid for not bringing Apple to new highs every quarter.

Well no, the usual complaint is that Cook is bringing Apple to new heights... just heights that are interesting as a business, not as consumers.

Combined with the expectation that "execution" ceo's tend to miss new trends, as they prioritize reliability and "the grass on this side"

Comes the claim that apple will go the way of microsoft and ibm; Gods of the market at one point in time, but now merely mortal.

The idea isn't that Apple will fail its investors, its that it will fail to continue its current fame and status.

Businesses will no longer live in fear of its ever-present shadow, as it degrades into merely another daemon from the old tales...

>Combined with the expectation that "execution" ceo's tend to miss new trends, as they prioritize reliability and "the grass on this side"

So what are these "new trends"? And who caters to them better, with what products? Google, Microsoft, Samsung?

For the new trends, its undefined, as it obviously hasn't happened yet (and any suggestion is simply speculation), but it is difficult to argue that there won't be one; whatever it is, the idea goes, it'll likely be missed.

As for who is in a better position to serve these new trends, it of course depends on what trends actually appear. It might be one of the giants of industry, if the trend matches, or nears a bet they're already making. It could also be some current minor player, who catches or forges an unexpected one, like Apple had.

Obviously the big players are in the best position to execute on a new trend (and hedge their bets), but as the idea goes, a giant might be large but he is slow, and therein lies his weakness. Encumbered by what they have now, its difficult to see new horizons (which is why things like google x and bell labs exist, divorcing themselves from the primary business in hopes of gaining insight)

Of course, all of this is a non-answer, I'm just describing the idealogy leading to all these death statements, but it's all you'll get out of me

Apple was over $130 almost two years ago and is $120 today so the idea that Apple is doing from an investor standpoint is not true. Take Google today like many others the stock is the highest it has ever been.

Apple doesn't compete on price so it's margins are huge, which seems to be their general schtick, fine, so they make a lot of money after they recoup their fixed costs.

You know who else made a killing on high margin products with no competition? IBM, selling mainframes.

IBM mainframes are still around, IBM still makes money on them, but no-one cares or wants to work on them.

Until it doesn't (because of everything mentioned in the article). Then Apple is dead. Simple as that.

Don't hold your breath.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com