Of course, you can only call it mediocre when comparing to the standout product lines. On it's own it's still a successful product. People have such high expectations for every one of their lines that some merely succeeding quietly is questioned. Says a lot about their success as a business.

> Let's not get crazy on "mediocre" sales

If I've got a product whose sales were falling 5 out of the past 6 years, and whose current sales are 30%+ down from a peak of 6 years ago, I'm pretty worried about it.

Is growth required for success?

I expect the iPad, lacking any new revolutionary functionality, to reach a steady state of (new customer + replacement rate) sales that is some percentage of its peak, pre-saturation sales. If replacement rate is every 4-5 years, this may be below 30% of peak.

This won't mean it isn't successful, just recognizing that existing users don't need to upgrade every year.

Thank you. We need to stop thinking of growth as a reasonable metric for wellbeing or relevance of products. When a new product is introduced, certainly, looking how the market reacts is interesting. But many years down the line, things should stabilise. Does your (metaphorical) baker round the corner grow yoy? And yet, somehow their bread is still good, and they have no problem surviving, except when a company with far too much capital just bulldozes in, for example by selling under local market prices.

/rant over

Growth is what the shareholders care about, and capital always rules, even at the expense of anything else.