[oflannabhra]

The most interesting points of the article were this:

1) iPhone unit sales growth has essentially stagnated, because the overall market has reached saturation. 2) Apple has successfully managed to maintain growth in the face of 1) by increasing revenue per device (ASP).

I think the question of "What does Apple do, now?" is a hugely important one. However, I disagree with the author that the only reasonable approach Apple has is to "settle down" in its middle age position.

That question is important, because it implicitly asks, "What is next?" I don't see Apple deciding to not create a product that attempts to answer that question. We will have to wait and see what that product looks like (AR?), whether it is successful, and when it will come. Apple is definitely not going to rest on the iPhones success forever, though.

[oflannabhra]

I'd add to this that Apple's current approach to AR and wearables is not one that necessitates the cannibalization of the iPhone. They are taking a constellation approach (as noted in the article), with the iPhone in the center.

I think that approach is not one based in defense, but one that actually plays to their strengths: personal products with an excellent experience, vertically integrated. Because of AR's computational requirements, it will be a long time until we have an AR experience that is untethered to a mobile computing device. A vertically integrated, constellation-based system will offer a better user experience, at least initially. Intel's recent Vaunt glasses [1] could be much more powerful if Intel also controlled the entire device the glasses co-ordinated with.

[1] - https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/5/16966530/intel-vaunt-smart...

[lasgsf]

I actually think it is a deliberate cannibalization being done with here. But they are doing it slowly as not to be a shock to the system. Look at the Apple Watch...my gut you will start to see every year more and more of the functions on the iPhone move over. The beauty of this is ppl will not bark at this as the Watch becomes the yearly replacement cycle vs. the phone which will be every 5 years.

[jayd16]

>I don't see Apple deciding to not create a product that attempts to answer that question.

It's funny you say this and then bring up AR. Apple has been ignoring VR and AR for a few years now. Sure they released an SDK but it felt like a box they had to check more than an attempt to innovate.

[oflannabhra]

Apple is focused on products, and is only interested in technologies as they can be leveraged into products.

>Apple has been ignoring VR and AR for a few years now.

I strongly disagree with your assessment of ARKit. However, Apple has indeed ignored AR and VR from a _product perspective_ because right now, the technologies cannot be leveraged into compelling consumer products.

From a _technology perspective_ I think Apple has very much not ignored AR.There is a lot pointing to the fact they are pursuing it, including Tim Cook’s own words, and the existence of ARKit in the first place.