Is the Magic of Apple Fading or Are We Just Chasing Nostalgia?

[Bungaree.Chubbins]

...the problem wasn't so much the iPhone 5 itself as the one-size-fits-all approach. I actually got a Galaxy Note 2 after deciding against the iPhone 5 and other people's reactions were fairly evenly split between love/hate - but Android offered something for both camps.

I think this one-size-fits-all approach may have been a post-Jobs issue: E.g. for desktop Macs In the 00s, if you didn't fancy an iMac or a Cube - later a Mini - then there was also a range of mini-tower Macs, with nicely designed tool-free cases. By 2017 it was an iMac or nothing (both the Mini and Trashcan were years out of date by then). It's got a bit better now (unless your mourning the 5k iMac).

I can’t argue with that. I hated the phablets when they came out. My friend had one, and it was helplessly bad to use.

I had a G4 Power Mac (sawtooth). I bought it second-hand for $90 in 2006 or 2007 to see what the whole Apple hype was about. Prior to that my experience with Apple’s computers solidified my being a Windows fan. I put Jaguar on it, and never looked back. It was an exquisitely built machine that was a delight to work on, as was OS X. It was so much better to use than my new pc I’d just built, I ended up upgrading it from 350MHz to 1.4GHz with a Sonnet Encore. I used that for years. iPods opened the door to me considering Apple, but that Power Mac made me switch.

The M series chips are amazing, my M3 Pro is a beast, but a part of me will always miss the Power Mac for its clean, simple upgradability.

LOL. Listing out a bunch of failed products is not disproving my point. None of your list really matters except the iPod, which was huge. But when someone pitched him the iPhone his biggest concern was how it would impact the iPod and had to be sold on it, which is kind of hilarious and shows he was not a great visionary all of the time.

As far as everything else, I have used Macs for a huge chunk of my life but it has 7% of the overall OS market when Steve Jobs died. That has increased to 13% under Tim Cook. Still just a fraction of the overall market. And that encompasses all those Macs you listed. No significant amount of the population bought iMacs. They sold 8.7M from its launch in 1998 to the end of 2004. PC manufacturers were not clamoring to duplicate it to piggyback on its "success".

The same with everything else, they are all lumped into something that 7% of the market used when Jobs died.

Apple was a iPod company in the early 2000s until it became the SmartPhone company that it is today. In. Q3, they made $46.6B on iPhone sales, vs $14.6B for Macs and iPads. But if you add "Services", which is basically App Store sales, that adds another $25B and would skew their revenue even more toward the iPhone because most App Store sales are for the iPhone.

And as far as the failure of not making a bigger screen, we have his own words on multiple occasions, which are so uniquely wrong and stupid in hindsight. It was reported the last iPhone he was fully in control of was the 4S, and shocker, the first one after that had a bigger screen. And the iPhone 5, even with his limited involvement, was horribly compromised by his "vision" and had a 4 inch screen which was still incredibly small compared to what everyone else was making at the time.

It wasn't until the iPhone 6 that was completely designed after his death and he had no involvement with, that they finally abandoned his "one handed" principle and made phones in multiple sizes so someone could decide for themselves what size iPhone they wanted instead of Steve Jobs insisting he knew what they want. And 3 day sales went from 5M for the iPhone 5 to 13M for the iPhone 6.

Retconning history and pretending he was involved in creating a bigger iPhone when he said publicly up until 2010, a year before he died, that he was completely against it, is hilarious.

I switched to Android during that time because I was annoyed by his obstinance claiming he knew what I wanted better than I did. Thankfully, they abandoned Steve Jobs vision on screen size, and I loathed the Samsung experience. If they had the pure Android Pixel experience then I might have stayed on the dark side. But a lot of iPhone users did move over and never came back.

Sales volume isn’t the only metric for success. I don’t think it’s very likely we would be here arguing about iPods and Macs if it weren’t for the iMac, Power Mac, and OS X. They bought life back to a company on the edge! They were crucially successful products!

 

[ThomasJL]

Or maybe Apple is making record profits precisely because they do make great products that people are willing to pay a premium for? People like to throw shade at Apple products for this problem or that, but fact remains - people are still buying them, and I think this is something you cannot just dismiss as "sheep".

If record profits are a result of great products (as the Tim Cook defenders claim), then by that logic, Steve Ballmer was a better CEO than Steve Jobs because Ballmer made record profits. And also by that logic, in the 2000s, Microsoft products were better than Apple products because Microsoft products sold more and made more money.

Windows Vista generated far more profits than Mac OS X Snow Leopard. So by the logic of Tim Cook supporters, which is "Apple is making record profits precisely because they do make great products," Vista is a great product which is better than Snow Leopard.

 

[Abazigal]

If record profits are a result of great products (as the Tim Cook defenders claim), then by that logic, Steve Ballmer was a better CEO than Steve Jobs because Ballmer made record profits. And also by that logic, in the 2000s, Microsoft products were better than Apple products because Microsoft products sold more and made more money.

Windows Vista generated far more profits than Mac OS X Snow Leopard. So by the logic of Tim Cook supporters, which is "Apple is making record profits precisely because they do make great products," Vista is a great product which is better than Snow Leopard.

The fundamental problem with your line of reasoning is that you are trying to equate a business product with a consumer one, and the customer base for each category is uniquely different.

People don't buy increasingly commoditised Windows PCs. Businesses do, and they don't care about intangible aspects of a product which cannot be quantified on a spreadsheet, such as design or "niceness" or "user experience". The management signing off on the purchasing decision is just going to look at 4 vendors with proposals who meet the base spec, and then choose the lowest bid. That's why Macs have never been popular in enterprise. They cost more, and "user experience" doesn't matter when the buyer is not the end user.

And when it comes to windows, Microsoft doesn't care whether the OS is preloaded on a $200 netbook or a $2000 gaming PC. A sale's a sale.

This doesn't mean that Windows or Microsoft sucks compared to Apple. Microsoft knows who their target market is, and so adjusted their marketing and product fit to best serve that market, which unfortunately, isn't me, and that's perfectly okay.

What I am simply trying to point out here is that Microsoft excelled in areas that didn't appeal to me (because I am not a manager in a corporate setting tasked with making aforementioned purchasing decisions). I am an individual who has worked hard and has a fair bit of spare cash at my disposal which I am willing to spend on something "nice" which enhances the "user experience" for me.

Note the "for me". That's the beauty of the mass consumer market. I don't need to care whether that shiny new M4 iPad Pro works for you or my mom or anyone else in the world. I just need to know that it's the best option "for me", again using criteria that need to make sense only "for me". Does it cost way more than the next best Android tablet? I literally don't care, and nobody can tell me that I am wrong because again, my reasons for getting the iPad Pro need to make sense only "for me".

Apple products will never have the majority market share, in part due to their higher prices. Not all consumers value, much less can afford, what Apple offers, and that's perfectly okay. 20% market share worldwide seems like a pitiful number for smartphones, but when you consider that there are 7 billion people around the world right now, one fifth of that still works out to an impressive number of iPhones sold. Enough to make Apple one of the most successful companies in the world.

Apple reports dazzling financial results every quarter. The reality is that people are buying Apple products and services, and a lot of them too. Way more than can simply be attributed to users being "sheep" or some other conspiracy theory that falls apart the moment it's subject to more than a cursory glance. Why are users willing to pay a premium for Apple hardware and software, especially when so many people like to highlight how the competition offers more for less? Could 1 billion (and growing) active users around the world really be wrong? Or do they just happen to value the unique value proposition that is the integrated Apple ecosystem enough to pay a premium for it?

Maybe you don't, and maybe others do, and neither party is really wrong here. No more than I am wrong for preferring to eat Mcdonalds for reasons that remain my own. You just need to understand and accept that there are people who value things differently from you.

What's wrong though (and which I refuse to accept), is the idea that Apple is going to start losing consumers because Android is “good enough” and cheaper to boot because this simply flies in the face of consumer behaviour in every other market.

Okay, time for breakfast...

 

[theluggage]

People don't buy increasingly commoditised Windows PCs.

Now that would be one of those "extraordinary claims" that need "extraordinary evidence"...
I suggest that you take a stroll to your nearest electronics superstore and watch people buying Windows PCs.

Now, Mac does do better in the consumer sector than it does in the corporate sector - but it doesn't dominate the consumer sector in any sense, outside of a few niches.

The fundamental problem with your line of reasoning is that you are trying to equate a business product with a consumer one, and the customer base for each category is uniquely different.

PC is not exclusively a business product. Mac is not exclusively a consumer product. They're both competing in the consumer, corporate and small-business sectors, and have been for decades. The whole point of the comment you were replying to was that despite (arguably) having the technically best product for most of that time, despite the enormous wailing and gnashing of teeth from PC users over things like Windows Vista, the Office ribbon bar, Windows 10/11, forced OS updates, ads in the Start menu etc. Windows PC is still by far the dominant platform.

If anything, Apple have lost ground in sectors like DTP, graphics and video editing which the Mac pretty much created but PCs are now widespread.

What's wrong though (and which I refuse to accept), is the idea that Apple is going to start losing consumers because Android is “good enough” and cheaper to boot

Sorry to break the news, but its only in the USA that iPhone leads Android, and even there the Android market is still huge.

iPhone Vs. Android Statistics 2024

Introduction iPhone Vs. Android Statistics: As of 2024, Android OS-based smartphones are dominating the global market compared to iOS. However, iPhone and

www.coolest-gadgets.com

...and unless you pay money to a market research form, it's usually impossible to sort out whether those sorts of statistics are talking about % revenue or unit sales - if its revenue, the Android share is skewed downwards because of the cheaper Android phones. In a thread about whether Apple products have "lost their magic", it's probably the unit sales that are important.

Considering that iPhone pretty much created the modern smartphone market - and that before the iPhone came along, Android was shaping up to be a Blackberry-like button/joypad/jog-wheel-driven UI - pretty much every Android sale has been because android was "good enough" and "cheaper" c.f. the iPhone.

That's certainly why I've stuck with an Android phone despite having Macs and iPads and hence being a potential iPhone customer. The problem is that a $200 Android now has most of the features that made the original iPhone Magical and has up-to-date tech - while a $400 iPhone is typically a 2-3 year old design. On top of that, the iPhone has, historically, been slow to keep up with some features introduced by Android (like home screen customisation & widgets).

 

[phoenix-mac-user]

…and if you are over 50 you might remember how the Lisa and Mac completely changed the way people used personal computers, how the ideas “inspired” Windows 2/3 and Unix GUIs, how the pre-Mac Windows 1 looked nothing like a post-Mac GUI and realise how those ideas are still part of how modern Apple products work.

Absolutely, his initial involvement in the creation of the personal computer deserves accolades. But Steve Jobs isn't revered on this forum because of his work on the Apple II and nobody talks about Wozniak or creates threads on Macrumors about "The Magic of Wozniak".

There are hundreds of names involved in bringing tech to where it is today that are not household names recognized around the world like Steve Jobs, and if he had fallen into irrelevance after that, he wouldn't be a household name either because that Apple never really gained a foothold and fell off into irrelevance.

Nobody talks about Jack Tramiel, and the Commodore 64 is in the Guinness book of World Records as the highest selling computer of all time.

Sales volume isn’t the only metric for success. I don’t think it’s very likely we would be here arguing about iPods and Macs if it weren’t for the iMac, Power Mac, and OS X. They bought life back to a company on the edge! They were crucially successful products!

This is true but if his legacy was iMacs PowerMacs and OSX he wouldn't have the God-Like status he has now. Those keynotes became a thing because of the iPod and then became a huge thing because of the iPhone. Mac users would know him and acknowledge his importance, but they wouldn't make movies about him because he brought the Mac back.

 

[Abazigal]

Sorry to break the news, but its only in the USA that iPhone leads Android, and even there the Android market is still huge.

I specifically addressed that in the post that you quoted.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/is-the-magic-of-apple-fading-or-are-we-just-chasing-nostalgia.2445065/post-33635658

Specifically this part:

Apple products will never have the majority market share, in part due to their higher prices. Not all consumers value, much less can afford, what Apple offers, and that's perfectly okay. 20% market share worldwide seems like a pitiful number for smartphones, but when you consider that there are 7 billion people around the world right now, one fifth of that still works out to an impressive number of iPhones sold. Enough to make Apple one of the most successful companies in the world.

So yes, I acknowledge that android phones vastly outnumber iPhones in terms of user base, which has been the case since early 2010s, and I have no issue with that (and I doubt Apple execs are losing sleep over this), because iPhones continue to command the lion's share of profits in the smartphone market. Especially when you consider that the majority of android handsets barely make any money for their parent companies.

1 billion active users is enough to sustain its own thriving ecosystem, especially when Apple has managed to aggregate the best customers in the world. This is how I get exclusive iOS apps such as ivory, fantastical, bear, notability, overcast and reeder. This is how I get AirPods and the Apple Watch Ultra, because customers are willing to spend. This is how I get lumafusion on my iPad.

If there is any advantage to be had from android having more users, I am not seeing or feeling it.

The whole point of the comment you were replying to was that despite (arguably) having the technically best product for most of that time, despite the enormous wailing and gnashing of teeth from PC users over things like Windows Vista, the Office ribbon bar, Windows 10/11, forced OS updates, ads in the Start menu etc. Windows PC is still by far the dominant platform.

That's the thing - Apple wasn't the "best" in the areas which mattered to the people making the purchasing decisions in enterprise, namely cost, convenience and backwards compatibility.

Like I said, this is because Microsoft rules enterprise, and Microsoft won by virtue of both Microsoft and Apple each understanding all too well the "job to be done" by their respective products, and opting to double down on their respective competencies. Microsoft owns so many aspects of standard corporate life - Windows, Office, Azure, Onedrive, Teams, LinkedIn (off the top of my head). Basically everything a company needs to stay compatible with other businesses also running Windows software and services.

It's a chicken and egg thing. People favour Microsoft because they know that Microsoft is contractually obligated to maintain a certain level of support, which in turn also limits the extent to which Microsoft can innovate without leaving anyone behind. Meanwhile, Apple was able to make the transition to Apple Silicon precisely because they get to do things Microsoft can't, such as breaking backwards compatibility while forcing everyone else to keep up. Yet at the same time, it is this reputation which discourages more enterprise companies from adopting Apple hardware, because you never know when Apple might just decide to deprecate major features or heck, neglect the Mac Pro altogether.

As an individual consumer, I can choose to jump when Apple tells me to. I cannot make the call for my department at work.

I am issued a windows laptop for my work device, and all I can say is - it gets the job done, but I am not a fan of it. It's thick, it's heavy, screen is 1080p, battery life ain't all that good, I wish Microsoft would bundle more apps out of the box (would it kill them to create a pdf annotation app instead of requiring me to open pdf documents in edge), and come next year, we are dropping Zoom and going back to Teams (which will work only when my laptop is connected to VPN, which may further impede my ability to video-conference from home if the network can't hold up).

But in a school enterprise setting, I don't get to decide what computer to use, much less have a say in enterprise-led IT decisions. As it is, I consider myself lucky that I get away with installing my own Apple TVs in the classroom and can teach using my iPad (because that means uploading teaching documents to the cloud, and the stance so far is "don't ask, don't tell").

Meanwhile, I type this on my M1 MBA (better performance and battery life), my watch unlocks both my MBA and iMac, I can pay for purchases in Safari using Apple Pay via my phone or watch, my iPad doubles as a 2nd monitor for my Mac, I receive calls on my Mac, and can sling files around using Airdrop and Universal control. All because Apple controls both the hardware and software.

This is what Apple does best - providing a better experience provided you pay Apple’s hardware margins. And again, not every company necessarily cares for the integration that Apple products offer, and not every company is willing to pay that much for it anyways.

It's also why Windows Phone failed (and was always doomed to fail), because a windows monopoly didn't necessarily translate into success in the mobile sector where the consumer is typically also the end user (a lesson that Microsoft would learn the hard way).

These companies have each made business decisions that best reflected their respective strengths (and weaknesses), and that is why their market caps and areas of dominance are what they are today.

 

[Reality4711]

I specifically addressed that in the post that you quoted.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/is-the-magic-of-apple-fading-or-are-we-just-chasing-nostalgia.2445065/post-33635658

Specifically this part:



So yes, I acknowledge that android phones vastly outnumber iPhones in terms of user base, which has been the case since early 2010s, and I have no issue with that (and I doubt Apple execs are losing sleep over this), because iPhones continue to command the lion's share of profits in the smartphone market. Especially when you consider that the majority of android handsets barely make any money for their parent companies.

1 billion active users is enough to sustain its own thriving ecosystem, especially when Apple has managed to aggregate the best customers in the world. This is how I get exclusive iOS apps such as ivory, fantastical, bear, notability, overcast and reeder. This is how I get AirPods and the Apple Watch Ultra, because customers are willing to spend. This is how I get lumafusion on my iPad.

If there is any advantage to be had from android having more users, I am not seeing or feeling it.


That's the thing - Apple wasn't the "best" in the areas which mattered to the people making the purchasing decisions in enterprise, namely cost, convenience and backwards compatibility.

Like I said, this is because Microsoft rules enterprise, and Microsoft won by virtue of both Microsoft and Apple each understanding all too well the "job to be done" by their respective products, and opting to double down on their respective competencies. Microsoft owns so many aspects of standard corporate life - Windows, Office, Azure, Onedrive, Teams, LinkedIn (off the top of my head). Basically everything a company needs to stay compatible with other businesses also running Windows software and services.

It's a chicken and egg thing. People favour Microsoft because they know that Microsoft is contractually obligated to maintain a certain level of support, which in turn also limits the extent to which Microsoft can innovate without leaving anyone behind. Meanwhile, Apple was able to make the transition to Apple Silicon precisely because they get to do things Microsoft can't, such as breaking backwards compatibility while forcing everyone else to keep up. Yet at the same time, it is this reputation which discourages more enterprise companies from adopting Apple hardware, because you never know when Apple might just decide to deprecate major features or heck, neglect the Mac Pro altogether.

As an individual consumer, I can choose to jump when Apple tells me to. I cannot make the call for my department at work.

I am issued a windows laptop for my work device, and all I can say is - it gets the job done, but I am not a fan of it. It's thick, it's heavy, screen is 1080p, battery life ain't all that good, I wish Microsoft would bundle more apps out of the box (would it kill them to create a pdf annotation app instead of requiring me to open pdf documents in edge), and come next year, we are dropping Zoom and going back to Teams (which will work only when my laptop is connected to VPN, which may further impede my ability to video-conference from home if the network can't hold up).

But in a school enterprise setting, I don't get to decide what computer to use, much less have a say in enterprise-led IT decisions. As it is, I consider myself lucky that I get away with installing my own Apple TVs in the classroom and can teach using my iPad (because that means uploading teaching documents to the cloud, and the stance so far is "don't ask, don't tell").

Meanwhile, I type this on my M1 MBA (better performance and battery life), my watch unlocks both my MBA and iMac, I can pay for purchases in Safari using Apple Pay via my phone or watch, my iPad doubles as a 2nd monitor for my Mac, I receive calls on my Mac, and can sling files around using Airdrop and Universal control. All because Apple controls both the hardware and software.

This is what Apple does best - providing a better experience provided you pay Apple’s hardware margins. And again, not every company necessarily cares for the integration that Apple products offer, and not every company is willing to pay that much for it anyways.

It's also why Windows Phone failed (and was always doomed to fail), because a windows monopoly didn't necessarily translate into success in the mobile sector where the consumer is typically also the end user (a lesson that Microsoft would learn the hard way).

These companies have each made business decisions that best reflected their respective strengths (and weaknesses), and that is why their market caps and areas of dominance are what they are today.

Wow thats a lot of words!

 

[Starfia]

Ben –

Thoughtful post, and I've had a great time reading the pages of responses.

Are we being nostalgic? Of course – those were great times. But has something fundamental about being an Apple enthusiast, something to do with "cool" and "counter-cultural," dissolved?

It can feel that way. I've felt that way a little lately.

But my short answer is no. In my mind, Apple was never fundamentally about rebellion; it was always about doing great things, and that always meant making choices about products that made sense.

What was special about that time is that there were a lot of sensible choices that seemingly no one in the industry was making. It can be difficult to notice pathways to sense when no one else is, and Steve Jobs and the team took the opportunity to step back and see those pathways. At that time and in those circumstances, that looked like rebellion. But to have lived through that time and thinking "Apple equals rebellion" is to have become confused.

Today, Apple is making these extraordinary products because they're still trying to make these sensible choices. Their products are still there to enable people learn, work and create as they wish. And there are still elements of unique "oddness" and apparent rebellion to them. They're still leading by example when it comes to privacy-first design – they're willing to actively refrain from entering entire areas of activity based on that simple conviction. They use many words they invented and don't use some words that most everyone does. The way they've proceeded with machine learning and the European Union are revealed what it's like to be an Apple enthusiast this decade. Of course it's a different time with a whole different feeling, but I imagine people will be looking back on these years with similar reflective questions.

 

[majesticfeminine]

Apple’s software and questionable overall security practices have become completely unreliable and unmanageable, both by the user and the corporation itself. As a hardware and software engineer familiar with security issues, it has become clear that Apple software engineering quality and quality control has deteriorated dramatically the last 5 years.

Their hardware is still relatively good, but that also is being compromised by policy issues and software decisions impacting their software reliability, simplicity and performance; dramatically. They have adopted such a paranoid stance on security rather than move toward good software development practices (with hardware instantiation) that software performance has deteriorated. This is resulting in an unsustainable environment that will eventually collapse under its own weight.

To make matters worse, they no longer respect or listen to their user base. They have lost touch. A very arrogant posture. Having had invested thousands on their infrastructure and products; having had touted them as industry leaders, I am knowingly and confidently now moving away from all their hardware and software.

So, yes, the tide has actually turned. Unless Apple changes directions rapidly, the company is destined to fail in the next ten years. Of this, I have no doubt, regretably.

 

[I7guy]

Apple’s software and questionable overall security practices have become completely unreliable and unmanageable, both by the user and the corporation itself. As a hardware and software engineer familiar with security issues, it has become clear that Apple software engineering quality and quality control has deteriorated dramatically the last 5 years.

Their hardware is still relatively good, but that also is being compromised by policy issues and software decisions impacting their software reliability, simplicity and performance; dramatically. They have adopted such a paranoid stance on security rather than move toward good software development practices (with hardware instantiation) that software performance has deteriorated. This is resulting in an unsustainable environment that will eventually collapse under its own weight.

To make matters worse, they no longer respect or listen to their user base.

How can you possibly know apple doesn’t listen to its user base? That would imply you know what its user base wants and what apple doesn’t listen to. All one billion + users.

They have lost touch. A very arrogant posture.

I do not think that is the case.

Having had invested thousands on their infrastructure and products; having had touted them as industry leaders, I am knowingly and confidently now moving away from all their hardware and software.

That’s the problem with being a non-paid advocate. Im not sure the depths of windows and android are any better, but sure give it a shot and let us know how its better.

So, yes, the tide has actually turned. Unless Apple changes directions rapidly, the company is destined to fail in the next ten years.

People said that in 2011 and yet - here we are in 2024 going into 2025.

Of this, I have no doubt, regretably.

People undoubtably smarter than me have fallen flat on the “apple is doomed” scenario. Of course it’s a possibility and it’s another possibility apple could hit 4.5T in ten years.