Apple posts first negative year since 2008, 2016 looks grim

[Fingolfin269]

Oh hell no. Instead of buying a new iPhone I'm stocking up on guns, ammo, and canned goods.

 

[senseamp]

Apple is fairly valued, IMO. It's a cash-cow discounted by the risk of disruption down the road, as a tech company should be. Touch screen devices where Apple makes most of its money are mature devices. At some point within the next 5-10 years, they will be disrupted, most likely by some sort of augmented reality devices using thin light-field displays (ala Magic Leap) which will replace most displays, including touch screens, with virtually projected ones backed by cloud computing. It is going to be a huge change, and there is no guarantee that Apple will be as dominant in profiting from it as they are in the touch screen era.

 

[phexac]

Considering how profitable Apple is, it has plenty of capital and room to weather the industry slowdown. Given how enormous it is though, it is hardly surprising that in a slow market year it is no longer growing 50% per year. I would expect its growth to slow to somewhere around the growth rate of the market in the long run, making a sick amount of profit every year along the way.

 

[Commodus]

Considering how profitable Apple is, it has plenty of capital and room to weather the industry slowdown. Given how enormous it is though, it is hardly surprising that in a slow market year it is no longer growing 50% per year. I would expect its growth to slow to somewhere around the growth rate of the market in the long run, making a sick amount of profit every year along the way.

There is reason to be concerned if it really does see trouble with cash and units, because serious problems usually start with a levelling off or slight dips in results. With that said, too many analysts and critics act as if Apple is supposed to launch a revolutionary product every year, and achieve blockbuster sales the very second that product hits stores. Sorry, but that's not how this works. The iPod and iPhone were 6 years apart; the iPad came 3 years after the iPhone. And it wasn't until a year or two after they launched that sales went through the roof.

 

[luv2liv]

now i know why CNN pumping news about Apple and Steve nonstop, for the last 5 days anyway

 

[Deeko]

Samsung is a bigger company than Apple.

Samsung has higher revenues, assets and equities.

Apple only has higher profits. That's a pretty dangerous situation to be in from a business perspective. Apple hasn't diversified at all, because it's just focused on making cash from its iPhones, iPads and iPods.

That's how Apple has always been. They focus on being in a few markets and doing them well. It's the exact opposite of Samsung's strategy, which is "do everything, and not just one of everything, 10 of everything, and maybe something will stick". Hence why Samsung has hordes of revenue and less profit. You can barely even compare the two companies they're so different, and I'm not sure why this matters to you.

If you're a big proponent of Samsung's products, post threads about them and how great they are. This thread is just petty, petulant, and frankly barely even has any truth to it.

 

[Achtung!]

That's how Apple has always been. They focus on being in a few markets and doing them well. It's the exact opposite of Samsung's strategy, which is "do everything, and not just one of everything, 10 of everything, and maybe something will stick". Hence why Samsung has hordes of revenue and less profit. You can barely even compare the two companies they're so different, and I'm not sure why this matters to you.

If you're a big proponent of Samsung's products, post threads about them and how great they are. This thread is just petty, petulant, and frankly barely even has any truth to it.

Well Samsung still makes larger profits than Toyota.

I'm not a big proponent of anyone's products. I just think Samsung's products are better (as in more technologically advanced) than Apple's.

 

[MongGrel]

Doesn't Apple have ~$200B of spare cash? They could easily bleed many OEM's dry and still have a lot left over.

It's easy to gamble on things when you have cash in reserve.

Or so I've heard, I'm not filthy rich.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Here's the thing: the Huawei Watch looks nicer, but that doesn't mean it's a better smartwatch.

It works with a lot more devices (including iPhones) than the Apple Watch does. It doesn't matter how nice a device is if you can't use it.

I'm thinking more holistically, such as fitness tracking, app ecosystem... and yes, interface. Android Wear is better at showing passive info, but it's lousy when you actively set out to do something.

"Actively set out to do something?" It is a smartwatch, the "killer app" on both Watch OS and Android Wear is triaging your messages and any person I personally know with either type of watch tells me that.

As far as I know there aren't any killer apps that Watch OS has that Android Wear doesn't, we don't have the app gap like with phones. Maybe you could argue VERY specific groups (super fitnessy people, day traders, etc.) can benefit more from the Apple Watch but for most smartphone consumers the point of the watch to is display and maybe basically respond to notifications.

I will give you that the Apple Watch has more ways to interact with it (the dial, force touch, regular touch, etc.) but for every "normal" person I know that is kinda a bad thing because their Apple Watch had a steeper learning curve than people expect out of Apple product.

Remember, most of its major OS updates introduced features Apple had already announced (heck, Google even mimicked the finger drawing feature).

Remember, Android Wear was out for almost a year before the Apple Watch hit. Most of what the Apple Watch does an Android Wear watch did first because a smartwatch doesn't have much depth. I will admit I am glad that a few of Watch OS's features (mostly just the canned responses because screw drawing emojis like I am a 12 year old girl) made it to Android Wear.

I don't think the file system is the iPad Pro's issue, at least not the most pressing one -- the real issue is just taking full advantage of the larger screen.

Exactly, it needs apps made for it. And honestly I think a lack of real mouse support is a bigger deal than file access. File access is just what pisses me off the most personally.

However, I said "version 1.0" for a reason: a lot of this is rough stuff that's more likely to pan out in subsequent generations. Remember the first-generation iPhone and MacBook Air? Both of them were expensive devices with obvious flaws, but their core ideas were sound enough that the refined sequels were hits. I want to see if Apple can flesh out the Watch/MacBook/iPad Pro in 2016 before we start to worry.

Fair enough for the Apple Watch or the iPad Pro. Either one might take a real leap with the 2.0 version, it is hard to judge them today.

But the Macbook? It is a dud, it will never be more than a dud. I HATE people comparing it to the first Macbook Air, because at least Steve had the balls to do something very forward thinking technology-wise with the Air (having a SSD drive long before they were even in enthusiast computers).

The "new" Macbook offers NO innovation. It is basically a retina Macbook Air, but weakened to the point that it can be considered Apple's first netbook (that Steve never wanted to build for good reason). The only forward thinking thing about the device is a USB port that soon most devices will have (the Pixel is already there), but otherwise the new Macbook is just another Surface Pro competitor but without the touchscreen that makes a Surface Pro feel modern. The "new" Macbook is easily the worst major product Apple has launched since Steve left the company.

 

[Commodus]

It works with a lot more devices (including iPhones) than the Apple Watch does. It doesn't matter how nice a device is if you can't use it.

Well, the Android Wear support on iOS comes with an asterisk... you don't have access to third-party apps and other things that flesh it out. That's partly because Google can't integrate into the OS, but it probably wouldn't be smart to spend $349 on a watch that does much less than the official solution. Now, a $149 ZenWatch 2, on the other hand...

"Actively set out to do something?" It is a smartwatch, the "killer app" on both Watch OS and Android Wear is triaging your messages and any person I personally know with either type of watch tells me that.

As far as I know there aren't any killer apps that Watch OS has that Android Wear doesn't, we don't have the app gap like with phones. Maybe you could argue VERY specific groups (super fitnessy people, day traders, etc.) can benefit more from the Apple Watch but for most smartphone consumers the point of the watch to is display and maybe basically respond to notifications.

I will give you that the Apple Watch has more ways to interact with it (the dial, force touch, regular touch, etc.) but for every "normal" person I know that is kinda a bad thing because their Apple Watch had a steeper learning curve than people expect out of Apple product.

Yes, notifications are the core advantage of a smartwatch, but it shouldn't be difficult to start a task when you want to. Let's say I want to look at transit times or check in on Swarm (aka Foursquare)... I don't want to jump through hoops to do it. I still have flashbacks to Android Wear's original release, where you had to scroll all the way to a bottom of a list to even begin looking at apps. It's considerably better now, but it still amazes me how Google almost seemed hell-bent on hiding apps.

I would like to see numbers for each app ecosystem, but it's notable that Google is notoriously bad at promoting and exposing non-phone apps (just ask Android tablet owners). Go to an Android Wear-capable app on Google Play: unless you flip through the screenshots or catch a mention in the release notes, how would you know Wear support is even there?

The interface is a mixed blessing, for sure. I find it a bit ironic that Apple has the complicated but more powerful interface while Android Wear is simpler and somewhat limited.

Fair enough for the Apple Watch or the iPad Pro. Either one might take a real leap with the 2.0 version, it is hard to judge them today.

But the Macbook? It is a dud, it will never be more than a dud. I HATE people comparing it to the first Macbook Air, because at least Steve had the balls to do something very forward thinking technology-wise with the Air (having a SSD drive long before they were even in enthusiast computers).

The "new" Macbook offers NO innovation. It is basically a retina Macbook Air, but weakened to the point that it can be considered Apple's first netbook (that Steve never wanted to build for good reason). The only forward thinking thing about the device is a USB port that soon most devices will have (the Pixel is already there), but otherwise the new Macbook is just another Surface Pro competitor but without the touchscreen that makes a Surface Pro feel modern. The "new" Macbook is easily the worst major product Apple has launched since Steve left the company.

No, I don't think the MacBook is necessarily a dud. Remember, that first Air had one USB port (under a clunky flap, even), and it started at $1,799 with a slow, spinning hard drive and a so-so Core 2 Duo. You only really bought it if you either really, really cared about portability or just wanted to be seen using it.

The question is whether or not Apple will be as aggressive as it needs to be if it wants the 12-inch MacBook to replace the Air. I'd like to see another USB-C port, a faster processor (I hear the Skylake Core M models are considerably better) and pricing closer to the magic $999 mark. Those are fairly achievable, and hopefully we get all of them in 2016.

We'll only know for sure that the MacBook is running into trouble if it's mysteriously scrapped this year, or gets nothing more than a price cut. If there's a significant update, Apple will show that it's confident this design has a future.

 

[Artdeco]

That's how Apple has always been. They focus on being in a few markets and doing them well. It's the exact opposite of Samsung's strategy, which is "do everything, and not just one of everything, 10 of everything, and maybe something will stick". Hence why Samsung has hordes of revenue and less profit. You can barely even compare the two companies they're so different, and I'm not sure why this matters to you.

If you're a big proponent of Samsung's products, post threads about them and how great they are. This thread is just petty, petulant, and frankly barely even has any truth to it.

Amen, these threads get tiresome, same stuff, same poster, just repackaged. I don't even have any skin in the game (Apple stock) and the posts are so heavily spun, they're pointless.

I posted earlier about what happens when Apple's stock takes a dip, they buy it back, it's a damn smart strategy.

 

[poofyhairguy]

....

Good points across the board.

 

[jpiniero]

Apple really is a one trick pony at this point. I don't even think Wall Street cares that the Watch is a flop. The problem is that it seems like iPhone sales have peaked, and I don't know what else they can do to keep the growth going.

 

[Megatomic]

Apple really is a one trick pony at this point. I don't even think Wall Street cares that the Watch is a flop. The problem is that it seems like iPhone sales have peaked, and I don't know what else they can do to keep the growth going.

If the popularity of iPhones is maintained or maybe even grows a bit Apple can still increase sales by sheer population growth alone. Math is on their side.

 

[Artdeco]

Apple really is a one trick pony at this point. I don't even think Wall Street cares that the Watch is a flop. The problem is that it seems like iPhone sales have peaked, and I don't know what else they can do to keep the growth going.

You realize analysts have been saying this for nearly a decade now, right?

 

[openwheel]

You realize analysts have been saying this for nearly a decade now, right?

Actually no, they haven't.

One thing everyone has been saying is how useless the redundant the Apple Watch is.

 

[Artdeco]

Actually no, they haven't.

You're right, it's been said for decades now

http://lowendmac.com/myturn/02/0424.html

One thing everyone has been saying is how useless the redundant the Apple Watch is.

I know, Apple is doomed, right?

 

[openwheel]

wow, you Googled!!!

 

[Artdeco]

wow, you Googled!!!

Not really, anyone familiar with the industry knew that Apple was in trouble in the past.

 

[openwheel]

Actually, anyone familiar with the industry knew Apple was up to something with the original iPod and sky was the limit with the original iPhone.

Actually, anyone familiar with the industry knew Apple would invade China and continue its growth.

Actually, you Googled!!!

 

[Commodus]

Can we have some constructive discussion here, please?

We don't know how many Apple Watches have shipped, but it's still too soon to say whether the gear is a success or not. As tempting as it is to believe that Apple is ashamed of the figures, there are other reasons why it wouldn't divulge numbers right now.

The first, I'd say, is managing shareholder expectations. Remember how I said there are now people who expect every new Apple product to be a revolution with record-breaking sales on day one? Yeah. The company might not want to report early sales because nothing it says would impress the everything-must-be-a-blockbuster crowd. You say you instantly dominated the smartwatch market with 3.6 million sales (IDC's estimate) in the Watch's first quarter? Too bad, we were hoping for 10 million.

There's also the question of giving too many early clues to competitors. Samsung and other rivals can't get a feel for how big the market is (or how quickly Apple is growing its sales) by tracking early numbers. They just have to guess, which could lead them to under-commit resources.

An important note: I'm not saying that Apple isn't hiding sub-par results. But rushing to declare the Watch a flop says more about your own wishful thinking than reality. If the most popular smartwatch on the market is a flop, then what does that say about competition that sells far fewer units?

 

[openwheel]

I get it. Your strategy to defend Apple will be how much it sells compared to the competition. Does it matter? It is still universally reviewed as "wait to see the next version" or "not worth buying".

All smart watches are flops. They are built be be worthless junk two years from now. It's a money maker, but bad consumer device from the get go.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The first, I'd say, is managing shareholder expectations.

Shareholder expectations were already through the roof. If anything delaying the bad news if there is bad news in regard to the Apple Watch just delays the hit, it doesn't mitigate it.

Count me as someone who thinks if the Apple Watch was a crazy success we would have heard about that (and we wouldn't have seen so many discounts on them around Christmas).

If the most popular smartwatch on the market is a flop, then what does that say about competition that sells far fewer units?

Flop is relative. A movie can make over $100 million bucks and still be a flop if it cost more than that to make.

Android Wear really never had the consumer and investor expectations put on it that the Apple Watch had, or even Google Glass had. From day one it was an AppleTV-like experiment, and anyone that has had an Android Wear watch since then has been part of a very active beta program. Android Wear will actually matter when it has the main advantage of the Android eco-system: cost. I expect next year we will get Huawei level watches for under $200 combined with a mature Android Wear. That is when the party starts.

Cost matters a lot in the wearable market. The only really successful smartwatch right now is a Fitbit, and most of their devices are under $150.

 

[Commodus]

I get it. Your strategy to defend Apple will be how much it sells compared to the competition. Does it matter? It is still universally reviewed as "wait to see the next version" or "not worth buying".

All smart watches are flops. They are built be be worthless junk two years from now. It's a money maker, but bad consumer device from the get go.

But it's not always reviewed that way. Those opinions certainly come up, but "universally?" That's pretty hyperbolic and unsupported.

And it's too soon to declare the entire smartwatch category as a flop. We're barely two years into what's effectively a new industry (not counting the occasional entry in years past). Also, you're presuming a lot about both the lifespan of the watches and whether or not that'll actually be a problem.

I'd say one of the biggest problems we have is the perception that a smartwatch 'must' last a decade or more, like it's an heirloom you'll pass down to your kid. Well, no, it's not -- it's tech. You're trading absolute longevity in favor of something that does a lot more than tell the time. Whether or not people actually accept that tradeoff in the long run is another matter, but there are millions of people who are already willing to give it a shot.

 

[Commodus]

Shareholder expectations were already through the roof. If anything delaying the bad news if there is bad news in regard to the Apple Watch just delays the hit, it doesn't mitigate it.

Count me as someone who thinks if the Apple Watch was a crazy success we would have heard about that (and we wouldn't have seen so many discounts on them around Christmas).

My guess is that the truth is somewhere in between. The Watch isn't the failure that some desperately want it to be, but nor is it on the fast track to becoming Apple's next big cornerstone. I wonder how much of those cuts were due to slow sales versus simply wanting to take no chances with calendar Q4 numbers.

Flop is relative. A movie can make over $100 million bucks and still be a flop if it cost more than that to make.

Android Wear really never had the consumer and investor expectations put on it that the Apple Watch had, or even Google Glass had. From day one it was an AppleTV-like experiment, and anyone that has had an Android Wear watch since then has been part of a very active beta program. Android Wear will actually matter when it has the main advantage of the Android eco-system: cost. I expect next year we will get Huawei level watches for under $200 combined with a mature Android Wear. That is when the party starts.

Cost matters a lot in the wearable market. The only really successful smartwatch right now is a Fitbit, and most of their devices are under $150.

I'll agree on expectations, although I'm not sure that costs will drop as quickly as you might expect. Body material choices matter more with watches than they do phones; while you can get cheaper processors, sensors and batteries, there's only so much you can do to lower the cost of a Milanese band or a sapphire crystal screen. There will be cheaper smartwatches, but I suspect they'll be more in line with something like the ZenWatch 2 (i.e. relatively inexpensive materials) than what Huawei's doing.