In a capitalist world, no, but in an ideal world where you don’t have to demonstrate constant growth to shareholders.
Companies like Apple are often criticized for putting out gadgets that are only marginally better than the previous generation just to have something new to sell. I’ve seen similar criticisms of Disney and game makers like those behind FIFA and Pokemon. (The last, by the way, is produced by a privately held company, so shareholders aren’t the sole reason here.)
In all cases, there’s an underlying assumption that these companies have so much brand awareness and money that they could coast on their current offerings for a year or two and not be worse off for it. They could use that time to improve the quality of the products they do release and lessen the stress of those working on it.
Quality of life issues aside, I’ve always wondered if this was true. Could Apple just not release any new products for a year or two, then storm in with a great new line and be as financially successful (or more) than if they’d scheduled something every year like they usually do? Could the Pokémon merchandising machine make do with just the current generation of game for another year or two while they make the next better? To me, it makes visceral sense; they have the cash, and there’s absolutely no danger of them losing brand awareness with the general public. But again, stock concerns aside, would or could it be good business?
Basically, the benefit to the consumer and the benefit to the workers is obvious; I’m just wondering if there’s any possibility of benefit to the company/brand itself.
I think the biggest harm to the company will be if competitors come out with improved products, but the company in question does not. They will lose sales by people buying an equivalent product from a competitor.
Having a monopoly means the company can ignore this downside.
Apple has a monopoly on the iPhone. If Apple takes a break from releasing a new iPhone one year, anybody who wants an iPhone will have to buy the old model, which still comes from Apple. In fact, Apple (who has a monopoly on computers running MacOS), does this with their computer lineup. Every computer in every line does not refresh every year.
Where there is competition, this is going to breakdown, for example with Android phones. If Google skips updating their Pixel phones for a year, then people could just buy the brand new phone with updated technology from Samsung, Motorola, OnePlus, Nothing, Asus, etc.
The other danger is ending up with a saturated market. I could see this with game companies. At some point everyone who wants the game owns it. The only way to make new sales is with added content, new games, etc.
Sure, but it’s exactly the fact that everyone had to that makes me question the applicability to my question. (Though I did bring up video game makers, who have an advantage these days in getting to market out of a WFH type situation.)
Obviously, not all iPhone buyers are locked into the Apple ecosystem. Many of them will switch to Samsung because the features of a Galaxy are improved and the iPhone isn’t.
Planned obsolescence and constant model updates to create demand based on FOMO is part of capitalism. See “1950s cars and tail fins” for an older example.
It should be noted that not all product categories have an imperative to be continually coming up with the next big thing. Consumer electronics is perhaps the one with the biggest such imperative, although it’s probably rivaled by others such as computer games.
But consider other categories that don’t have that imperative, such as men’s underwear or hand tools. Those can go for years with no significant change.
Game consoles work on a 7-10 year cycle with a “mid-season refresh” in there to make minor version changes without calling it a whole new product. Since GPU and CPU tech works faster than that, they probably could do a much tighter cycle but it would negatively impact game development and annoy consumers.
Obviously Sony and Microsoft have a lot of other irons in the fire besides just game consoles (even their games divisions) but then again so does Apple.
That market is weirder than you might suspect. The Android ecosystem routinely has new features well before Apple rolls them out as if they are something new. Nobody is buying Apple for “new” features in that sense. New to Apple, maybe, but not new overall.
The thing is, Apple’s market share is huge in the US, and their lock-in is pretty effective. If you’ve got an iPhone and other Apple devices, it’s extremely difficult to switch to the Android ecosystem (and vice-versa). As a result, lots of people are buying Apple because they’ve bought Apple in the past. In a sense, when you buy an Apple phone, you’re as much buying the “Apple experience” as you’re buying a piece of hardware. Android is a bit different, in that you are buying the “Google Experience”, but it’s substantially the same whether you do it on Samsung, Google, Motorola, or someone else, because they’re all Android phones.
I think Apple could absolutely slow down a little bit and still be profitable. Maybe not as profitable though.
I think it depends on the category. The two examples which the OP gives (Apple and Pokemon) are in categories which can and do evolve fairly quickly, and in which a major new introduction by a competitor can lead to a rapid shift in market share, as consumers quickly adopt the cool new thing, and abandon the old one.
But, if you’re in a category where there isn’t that kind of innovation and new-product introduction, it is likely a very different story. There’s a lot of products on the shelf at your local supermarket (particularly in the “middle of the store” packaged foods) that haven’t materially changed in decades, and they coast along just fine, at least in the near-to-intermediate term.
I suspect the lock-in is more emotional/inertial rather than technical. But all brands and services rely on this to some degree. When’s the last time you changed cell phone providers? Or car insurance?
What I’m getting at is that when I replaced my phone recently, I seriously gave consideration to the Google Pixel phones.
With Apple, there’s… Apple. There are no other vendors. And if you’ve got all your Apple accounts set up, it’s fairly difficult to move all your stuff over to Android (and vice-versa). Plus, I would bet most people who have Apple phones probably also have Apple tablets, Apple laptops, Apple TV, etc… because it’s all integrated. Same thing is true for Android/Google, except that you can have a Google phone, a Samsung tablet, and a HP Chromebook all on the same Google account.
But you’re right, there are a lot of services that rely on a lot of customer inertia. Cable TV, phone providers, power providers (where it’s deregulated), and so forth are things people tend to just pay for and forget about.
If you’re heavily invested in the ecosystem sure. But lots of users aren’t. They’re more tied to apps like Instagram, Tiktok, Snapchat, etc and don’t use all that Apple offers. The real question is what percentage of users fall in which category. I know plenty of folks who switch back and forth.
they only majorly update car lines every few years …wasn’t Ford or GM thinking about making a certain number of brands say something like 30k of GM Mobile x and then only making new ones every 2-3 years or until they sold out?