> The worlds brain trust is moving away from Apple

Not really, the M1 is a smashing success with most techies. People seem to like the phones too. The watches are doing really well too. Oh, and the tablets are really popular also. Even with techies.

There seems to be a group of people sworn never to be corrupted by the evil Apple and their evil ways. I first saw it on /., and the same group has been ringing out death knells for Apple ever since.

I don't think people are leaving Apple hardware, but I would say they are leaving/no longer entering Apple's software stack. Native Mac dev is plummiting, native iOS dev has probably peaked by now. I see less enthusiasm jumping on new Apple features and protocols that come out every year than I used to.

It feels similar to the end of MS's domiance. They were always profitable and had huge marketshare, but just because everybody was running Windows, that didn't mean they were really embracing the full MS ecosystem. Apple feels that way today.

people have been predicting the end of Apple for 25 years. I've been there the whole time and have heard it all before.

I'm not saying its the end of Apple. There was no end of IBM or MS either, in fact while both companies were losing developer mindshare they were making record profits.

I'm talking about a much more nebulous concept of a company as a thought leader, one that people follow. There was a time when the rumor of MS entering a market would cause competition to shut down. Now nobody blinks an eye when MS ships an actual product that competes with them.

And in that regard, I think we're seeing the end of Apple's role as a technologically interesting company (at least wrt software). For example it used to be pretty much only Apple and a few exclusive MacOS developers who actually cared about design. Now designing thinking has gone mainstream all while Apple seems to be busy ignoring everything from their classic HIG.

I don't know if I live in another world but I rarely see an Apple Watch or an iPad (not anymore). I've seen maybe 5 Apple watches in my life between Europe and Asia.

I live in Europe and it's been the exact opposite. Apple watches used to seem like a novelty, but now like half the people in my social circle have one.

This is also true in developing Asia. I'm in Thailand and although you won't see many Thai people wearing them they all know what they are and almost all of them would like to own one if they weren't considered such an extravagant expense. Apple watch is basically a luxury item and so that means that as these other countries start to become more wealthy it's just more growth for Apple as more people start being able to afford it.

I am not saying they don't want it but I don't see it often. It is of course a luxury item, but while I see that people buy an iPhone for their social status, they probably can't afford both. And it probably comes lower in the list of social status/usage ratio as a golden watch could replace an Apple watch, but not an iPhone.

I live in Sweden, it feels like every third person I see wearing a watch is wearing an Apple watch. It is by far the single most common watch brand I see.

Same with iPads. By far the most common brand of large screen device I see. Outside of office environments I see more iPads than laptops, and even in office environments I'm seeing more iPads today than even just 3 years ago.

Maybe smart watches are not super common in general. Actually, even wristwatches are rare to see. But, among those that do wear smart watches, it's often the Apple products IME.

iPads are doing exceptionally well, I'm surprised you are unaware. They're replacing laptops for a lot of users, especially those that did not grow up around PCs. It's just that you won't often see them in public.

Apple is small potatoes outside of the USA. There is a world beyond the Valley and it's orders of magnitude larger.

I wish I had such "small potatoes" growing in my backyard ...

Apple has a significant presence in Central Europe. Not overwhelming one, American market is obviously a stronger one. It might have something to do with purchasing power parity, which is still not that good behind the former Iron Curtain. But it is a big player here, especially in the richer demographics.

I have never used any Apple products, but I am tempted. People will sing paeans about how their gadgets just work and interact together. I am more of a tinkering-hacking type, so I do not really mind delving deep into my Windows or Linux installation, but Android messes with me sometimes.

One thing about those small potatoes though: They buy software. You can actually get paid for apps on iOS way easier than Android, and it shows.

The Apple watch is the number one selling watch (not even just smart watch).

There's definitely a huge market of people buying it.

Whenever I go out in major cities in the US, Canada or the UK, I'll always see someone with it

I have quite a few apple products but none of them new. My problem with Apple is the price. My opinion is that there is always a less expensive & just as capable alternative to anything Apple has to offer, so for my use case it doesn't make sense to pay more.

The Apple products I do have were either broken and given or sold to me to repair or found at thrift shops and pawn shops for deep discounts, and they are all going up for sale soon to recoup my expenses.

That's the Nintendo problem: how do you create a platform, when your first party solutions are incredibly well-executed?

You need third parties (sort of) for scaling and long tail reasons, but it's always an uneasy relationship.

If you don't expand enough, or the market doesn't generate a solution, your platform has a gap. If you expand too much, third party developers feel burned and desert your platform.

Microsoft solved this by clearly staking its monetized territory ("the office suite"), and not really expanding in other directions (after those weird 90s attempts).

Thats a great example. I love Nintendo. Mario and Zelda is always great, but historically Nintendo has not been a good platform for 3rd party developers (I read somewhere that 30% of wii owners didn't know you could take out wii sports and replace it with another game...). The bets that Nintendo has made that hasn't been smash hits, have been terrible failures, because no one else is there to pick up the slack.

If you buy an X-Box, and the next Halo turns out to suck, you are still going to get your moneys worth of 3rd party titles.

There's a big difference between the two in business model: Sony and MS had to care about attach rates and third party software sales, because they (at least initially) took a loss with each console sold: The only way they could make money was if people bought a bunch of software so they'd get licensing revenues.

The Wii was designed with different assumptions in mind, which led to a lean machine they could sell at a profit. Someone buying and Xbox and Gears of War was a huge problem for Microsoft, if someone bought a Wii and Mario Kart, it was just fine for Nintendo as long as the customer was happy: Every sale was profit, plain and simple.

I don't know about the Wii not being good for 3rd parties either, it's more that the Wii didn't do what the 3rd parties wanted to do (high tech edgelord games). So we got completely moronic things like a Castlevania fighting game, a Soul Calibur that wasn't a fighting game. How about Dead Space, a slow, ponderous horror title? Yeah, the devs turned it into a rail shooter, just about the most anti-horror genre choice imaginable.

In simple terms, they thought the Wii userbase were morons who would lap up anything - after all, they'd bought a motion control toaster to play technically really simplistic titles, and in the devs' world, technically simplistic = bad. So they gave people disrespectful shovelware, which, surprise surprise, bombed.

They had the opportunity to make solid titles - the Wii may have been a toaster, but it was still beefier than the PS2 or Gamecube which had a lot of really good titles and anyone who's played Metroid Prime knows those controls are crack.

I think the big miss with the Wii wasn't how good/bad it was, but communication. What was the philosophy behind the machine, Nintendo communicating that, the devs really trying to understand that.

The Nintendo comparison is missing some nuance as well. Nintendo was a gaming company that got caught in a war between the two giants Sony and MS for total control of the living room. For Sony and MS, gaming was just a single division that they were willing to take losses on or invest heavily then wait years for payback due to the consoles filling multiple strategic objectives. MS and Sony dumped tons of cash into developing their 3rd party game libraries where Nintendo relied on their in-house development to seed their consoles with games and make most of their money.