 |
|
|
|||||
For well over a decade now, consumers have been used to new iPhones coming out in the fall, like clockwork. However, according to a series of reports, Apple may be planning to change its iPhone release schedule drastically. The change could significantly impact when you can buy your next preferred model of the iPhone. It could also provide Apple with several key advantages in an increasingly competitive smartphone landscape. A staggered iPhone release Apple released the original iPhone on June 29, 2007. For the following three years, Apple released a new iPhone every June or July. But in 2011, Apple altered its iPhone release window, shifting to a fall launch date for the iPhone 4s. Since that date, Apples new family of latest and greatest iPhones has launched every fall, with the exception of the iPhone SE (which was historically not considered part of the latest iPhone family) and this years iPhone SE replacement, the iPhone 16e. Yet, according to two reports this weekone from The Information and one from respected TF International Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo2025 is the last year that Apple will launch an entirely new iPhone family of entry-level and premium phones in unison in the fall. Instead, beginning in 2026, Apple will move to a biannual iPhone release schedule, which will see the pricier premium iPhone models launch in the fall, and the cheaper entry-level and budget iPhone models in the first half of the following year. You can still expect to see Apple launch the new iPhone 17 family in full this fall: most likely the entry-level iPhone 17 and the premium iPhone 17 Slim/Air (the exact name of the new, thin iPhone is uncertain at this point), iPhone 17 Pro, and iPhone 17 Pro Max. But this will be the last year Apple releases entry-level and premium family members at the same time. (The budget iPhone 17e is expected to debut in Spring 2026 as is usual for the budget model). Starting in 2026, though, things will change. Apple will launch the premium iPhone 18 series models, including the iPhone 18 Pro, iPhone 18 Pro Max, and iPhone 18 Slim/Air, along with a new foldable iPhone 18 in the fall. However, the entry-level iPhone 18 and budget iPhone 18e wont be released until approximately six months later, in the spring of 2027. This new staggered release schedule is sure to irritate some consumers, particularly those who enjoy buying the entry-level new iPhone model every September. However, the change will benefit Apple in several ways. Chinese competition The Information was the first to report on Apples planned release schedule changes, followed a few days later by a report from TF International Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo. Kuo suggested that one of the main reasons Apple was shaking up the iPhone schedule was to give the company an advantage in China, which is Apples second-largest market after the U.S. According to Kuo, Apple is facing intense competition in China, and since many smartphone manufacturers now release phones in China in the first half of the year, this leaves Apple at a disadvantage. Traditionally, when competitors launch their new phones in the first half of the year, Apple is selling a phone that is already six months old. Thats not great optics from a marketing perspective. By moving the iPhones entry-level and budget e versions launch to the first half of the year, Apple can market new phones while its competitors are doing the same. This benefits Apple not only in China but also around the world. Springtime has historically been one of Apple’s slower sales periods because the company does not usually have a major new flagship iPhone product launch at that time. However, by launching the entry-level version of the latest flagship iPhone series in the spring, Apple can boost its sales during this period. Compelling consumers to buy pricier models Having a fresh new flagship phone on the market isnt the only advantage Apple can gain from staggering its newest iPhone family launch across two different points during the year. The strategy may also encourage consumers who desire the latest iPhone to upgrade to the premium model instead of waiting another six months for the entry-level model to be released. For example, someone who really wants a new iPhone 18 in 2026 will need to opt to purchase one of the premium iPhone 18 models, which is expected to include the iPhone 18 Pro, iPhone 18 Pro Max, iPhone 18 Slim/Air, and foldable iPhone 18. They wont have the option to buy the cheaper iPhone 18 or iPhone 18e until around six months later, in 2027. Delaying the less expensive models by six months may compel some consumers to opt for the pricier premium ones instead, ultimately benefiting Apples bottom line. Easing manufacturing bottlenecks Finally, Apple could also benefit from a manufacturing perspective if it shifts to a biannual iPhone release schedule, as The Information pointed out (via MacRumors). Currently, Apples manufacturing partners around the worldbut primarily in Chinamust bring on tens of thousands of workers every summer to assemble iPhones for the fall launch. Bottlenecks can easily occur in the manufacturing chain if enough workers aren’t available. However, if Apple staggers its iPhone rollout throughout the year, Chinese manufacturers may not need to staff up at the levels traditionally required. As a result, it is less likely that labor shortages will impact iPhone launch dates and availability. This may help Apple mitigate some manufacturing risk, which could otherwise delay product launches and thus hurt sales. 2025: The last year for a unified iPhone family launch? Of course, it should be noted that Apple hasnt confirmed plans to transition to a biannual iPhone release schedule in 2026and the company will likely not announce anything until it unveils the new premium models that fall. Still, the move does make a lot of sense for the company from both a marketing and financial perspective. Given that The Information and Kuo both have good track records when it comes to reporting on Apples supply chain plans, the change seems more likely than not. What that means for consumers is that 2025 is probably the last year that Apple will launch the full family of the newest iPhones simultaneously, marking the end of an era of sorts for the iPhone.
Category:
E-Commerce
Andrew Hoffman is a professor at the University of Michigans Ross School of Business. He has been writing and teaching about business and environmental issues for almost 30 years, having published 18 books and over 100 articles. His work has been covered by the New York Times, Scientific American, Time, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and NPR. Whats the big idea? We need to rethink business education. If we keep producing business graduates who care only about making their wallets fatter and exploiting a broken system, then were doomed. Its urgent that we reshape how we teach business in higher education so that we create a different kind of business leader. We can alter business for the better and fix the market by changing the graduates we produce that go on to run those businesses. Below, Andrew shares five key insights from his new book, Business School and the Noble Purpose of the Market: Correcting the Systemic Failures of Shareholder Capitalism. Listen to the audio versionread by Andrew himselfin the Next Big Idea App. 1. Shareholder capitalism is broken Todays version of capitalism is shareholder capitalism. It doesnt work anymore for the purposes for which it was designed. Im not saying we need to throw it out, but we must amend it. We need to fix it. There are many key concerns in the market, but two stand out in particular: climate change and income inequality. The market, as presently structured, is unable to address them. If we dont change course, we will not solve them. While some people conveniently call these problems externalities or unintended consequences, theyre actually products of the system. In its current design, the market creates these problems, and the consequences could be catastrophic. We already see the cost of climate change and rising home insurance rates nationwide. We watched in horror as the Los Angeles fires raged, and they have now led to insurance issues. The total cost of climate change could reach as high as $22 trillion by 2100 if we do not do something soon. Its best to think of climate change not as an environmental issue, but as a systems breakdown. To fix a systems breakdown, you must fix the system that caused it. That system is todays variant of capitalism. 2. Shareholder capitalism is failing business education Todays business schools were designed for a world that no longer exists: a world fixated on 50-year-old notions of shareholder primacy and a greed is good mentality. Outdated ideas and models about the world and society have been ossified into the standard curriculum. We need to change how we teach business. Simply adding an elective on climate change or income inequality while the curriculum remains focused on models that worsen these problems wont work. We must change the entire pedagogy, the entire curriculum. 3. Its time to rethink capitalism, business, and the market Surveys show that young people, Gen Z, and millennials are becoming increasingly disenfranchised with capitalism. Its not hard to understand why, considering the debt load they carry and the difficulty they have in getting financially on their feet. They worked hard to get their degrees, and now theyre struggling. But when I ask my business school students, What is capitalism? they either dont know or take it as given. We need to help students understand that capitalism is a set of human-made institutions. If it doesnt work, we need to amend it to serve the needs of present-day humans. We need to teach students how to be stewards of capitalism so that they recognize their role in making sure that the domain in which they practice their craft works properly. Shareholder capitalism is starting to groan, creak, and collapse under its own weight. Students are blown away when they learn about Nordic capitalism, which offers a massive social safety net. Unfortunately, all business students and almost all business faculty today are only familiar with one type of capitalism: todays shareholder capitalism, which arose in the 1970s and 1980s. They dont understand the capitalism that came before, in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. Back then, it was managerial capitalism. Business education must help graduates find their voice to become part of a conversation about which capitalism will replace shareholder capitalism. We can teach people that there are multiple variants of capitalism around the world. I do this in one of my classes. Students are blown away when they learn about Nordic capitalism, which offers a massive social safety net. American capitalismshareholder capitalismis just one variant. Its very different from Nordic capitalism. Its very different from Chinese capitalism. Its important to understand what makes capitalism work. What is its essence? How do we keep that and improve it? What is the purpose of firms? I could walk up to any American and ask them to finish this sentence: The purpose of corporations is to? And their answer will be make money for the shareholder. Economically, that is true. Economists have clung to the idea that companies are there to make money for shareholders, but legally. this stands on shaky ground. If you want to sue a corporate executive because they didnt make shareholders more money, you will have to go through the Good Business Rule, which says that they acted in good faith with loyalty and due care. The American Law Institute says the company can be designed for any purpose. Even Sam Alito, a conservative Supreme Court justice in the Hobby Lobby decision, said the same thing. Companies can be designed to do other things besides making money for shareholders. If a company fixates on shareholder value, it forces them to fixate on short-term thinking. Look at what Boeing is going through right now. They used to be a company that made the finest quality airplanes in the world, but after their merger with McDonnell Douglas, they started focusing on quarterly returns instead of their craft. What if we go back to what Peter Drucker said in the mid-1900s? That the purpose of the corporation is to identify and serve a market. How much money it makes is a measure of how well it does so. That changes the order of things and makes for much healthier companies. 4. The relationship between business and government The question of governments relationship to the market today has boiled down to simplistic dualities: conservative versus liberal, socialism versus capitalism, more versus less. We need to start thinking about what the right level of government in the market is. Thats particularly true today as we see our country moving more and more into the land of industrial policy. In the Biden administration, we had the Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS, which are very much the government trying to steer the market in a certain direction. Already in the Trump administration, we have a heavy relince on tariffs, which is also a form of industrial policy as it is an attempt to protect domestic industries. Too many of my students think that all lobbying is corrupt. We can also start thinking about the role of business in policymaking. Too many of my students think that all lobbying is corrupt, when in fact, business has a strong role to play in making good policy. Few business schools have a course on lobbying, and fewer still have a course on constructive lobbying, meaning lobbying for public good rather than individual gamesmanship. 5. The need for a new kind of business school We need to fundamentally rethink business school and what it teaches. We must stop teaching outdated models and ideas, such as that the firms purpose is to make money for shareholders. We must think about government less as an intrusion on the free market and more as an arbiter of it properly functioning. We must stop promoting the unrealistic idea that unlimited economic growth is possible. We must stop teaching that the environment is an unlimited source of materials and an unlimited sink for waste. We must stop teaching that efficiency is always good. I have a colleague who says that we worship at the altar of efficiency if it lowers costs. For example, we have auto plants here in Michigan and it may be efficient to move them to another country, but what about the people left behind? Why dont we factor that into equations as well? Classic business school teaches that people are inherently selfish. We teach that technology can solve all our problems. Just make a new product or widget, and well get rich, solve the climate crisis, and live happily ever after. It is not that simple. We must be much more imaginative to change our society beyond techno-solutions. Once we remove and replace outmoded ideas, we need to refill the curriculum with more attention to the whole student. We must be much more imaginative to change our society beyond techno-solutions. Research has shown that people who apply to business school typically score higher on the traits of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Research also shows that a business school education amplifies these traits. Graduates tend to be more selfish and self-monitoring than when they enrolled. I see that every spring when graduation time is coming near, and people are looking at salary offers. They measure their worth by how much money they make as compared to everybody else. Its an awful way to imprint students, but there is also evidence that todays students are starting to ask questions. Theyre starting to push back on the curriculum and challenge the idea that business school is merely there to help them make more money, irrespective of who they are as a person. The challenge for business school is trying to take that mentality, cultivate it, and guide students to consider management as a calling. We need to move people away from the idea of their career as simply a pursuit for private personal gain and toward the vocation that is based on a higher professional and moral purpose. Then we can have an economy that serves everybody. Its a challenge to bring the entire student to the education process and teach not just the heads, but their hearts. To teach not just the how of business, but also why they are doing this. This involves cultivating the virtues of wisdom, character, and purpose. The market is the most powerful institution on Earth. Business is the most powerful entity within it. Business creates the buildings that we live and work in, the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the forms of mobility we enjoy, and the healthcare system that keeps us alive. All these things come from the market. The market has done wonderful things but it is starting to stutter. To adjust it, theres an urgent need to nurture a new breed of business leaders who view business not only as a means for profitability, but also as a vehicle to serve society. This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
Category:
E-Commerce
Uber is facing internal staff unrest as it attempts to implement a three-day-per-week return to office (RTO) mandate and stricter sabbatical eligibility. An all-hands meeting late last month descended into acrimony as staff flooded the online meeting chat with queries about why the mandate was being enacted. How is five years of service not a tenured employee? Especially when burnout is rampant in the org, read one message that was reviewed by CNBC. Following the meeting, Nikki Krishnamurthy, Ubers chief people officer, issued a memo saying staff had crossed an acceptable line during the call. Its unclear if there has been any disciplinary action to date. But the dissatisfaction displayed during the call wasnt a one-off; the general demeanor of the companys 31,100-person staff has dropped in recent months, says one Uber employee who was on the contentious call. (The staffer was granted anonymity to speak freely about the organization’s morale.) I felt it from the performance review/promo cycle, the staffer says. I heard a lot of complaints about unfair evaluations. I’ve been a top performer since I joined, and I got a similar evaluation. So it wasn’t personal to me. But I had senior and staff friends leaving. That general malaise and unhappiness came to a head during the heated all-hands meeting last month. The return to office was discussed on the call, and received badly by Uber staff. The messages were flowing crazily fast, the anonymous staffer told Fast Company. The general discontent was crystal clear, they added, but the scale and speed at which comments were being typed made it difficult to keep track. I even tried to download the chat logs, but they are not available to download, the employee explained. On the call, a recording of which was obtained by CNBC, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said: We recognize some of these changes are going to be unpopular with folks. Krishnamurthy deemed some of the employees responses unprofessional and disrespectful. Of those the staffer could see, the queries were mostly fair questions about the reason [for the RTO] and not disrespectful, as Uber’s chief people officer claimed, in their opinion. The queries centered around how RTO benefits were being cut for staff while total compensation for the executive team was being tabled at the same time. A spokesperson for Uber said in an emailed statement: Its hardly a surprise that not everyone was thrilled about changes to remote work and sabbatical policies. But the job of leadership is to do whats in the best interest of our customers and shareholders. Being in person more frequently is better for collaboration, innovation, and company culture. Uber instituted anchor days in 2022, with employees expected to work in the office on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Starting in June, theyll be required to be in the office Tuesdays through Thursdays. After the COVID-19 pandemic created the norm of working from home, companies are starting to increasingly ask employees to return to the office as they adjust to a competitive artificial intelligence-fueled world and economic concerns. Folks want some autonomy, some control over their life, says Cary Cooper, an organizational behavior professor at the University of Manchester in England. Employers that are mandating to have to return to the office all the time are just going to lose talent. Simple as that. Cooper adds that companies that foist a return-to-office mandate on their staff are signaling their lack of faith in employees. They’re communicating: We don’t trust you, he says. We think your working from home means youre going to go out, play around, dick off, and come back and work for a couple hours. It communicates, We dont value you, and dont trust you. In last month’s meeting, the employee says, there were also a lot of questions about transparency and asking whether Dara was following the do the right thing and one Uber values, referencing the company’s explicit commitment to act properly and prioritize the well-being of the team, respectively. The general tenor of the online meeting chat was that executive-level staffers didn’t understand the level of unhappiness, the employee says. Instead, Khosrowshahi was laser-focused on broader goals for the company. Dara was introducing a prioritization and strategy framework we should all follow, the staffer says. During his presentation, many messages in the chat were saying that that was the wrong moment to talk about that, because we all wanted answers about the recent changes. For its part, Uber has managed to grab strong demand despite concerns that customers are shying away from rides and food deliveries. The company said this week that it had $11.5 billion in revenue in its most recent quarter. It also predicted that bookings for its current quarter would increase more than Wall Street expected. Still, shares had fallen as much as 5% in after-hours trading on that report.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||