I do think though, that Apple (and everyone else) are having to question the assumptions they had made and which were pretty stable for many years. I don’t think you can base future business decisions on what has worked in the past and above all, the basic assumptions that you could foresee likely changes, that risk was manageable and that predictions were rational are no longer true, for lots of reasons.
And there are a lot of people in many advanced economies sharing those changed assumptions: whose incomes are stagnant or falling, whose future income is much more at risk and who are no longer able to make rational predictions. That has to mean a much greater scrutiny on high ticket purchases and whether they are really necessary, even if there are still many people who can pay Apple’s current prices. It’s a classic diversification in the face of uncertainty tactic, as is the development of services, and the two are linked.
It’s a Trojan horse to get people into the brands and to chip away at the low-end business stuff, especially in SMBs. Apple has always had a “it’s too expensive” problem and this helps it. Plus they make a whole bunch of high-margin business on services around iCloud.
Agreed - plus it gets them into the rest of the Apple ecosystem. And likely does it at a young age. That’s a terrific business strategy. And it likely is good competition against Chromebooks, which target a similar demographic.
That remains to be seen. Certainly, it’s definitely not “business as usual” in many advanced economies and there are massively disruptive changes afoot for the near future.
It’s the normal pace of life if you are old enough to have heard this before .
Make a timeline for yourself of major changes in technology and business over the last 50, 100, 500, and 1000 years. Things constantly evolve - it’s the nature of human civilization.
Moreover while the mainstream media loves to whine about the negative impact of technology on job opportunities, they often forget to mention that when one door closes three new doors open. Coal mines may close but then new jobs appear building and maintaining wind turbines. Basic coding jos disappear but inifite new jobs appear for those with the skills to create new AI technology or to review AI-generated code. And on it goes.
It is, BUT change is happening faster than ever. For example there was a time in the last century where someone could have a single professional career over a whole life with minimal retraining, sometimes at a single employer.
I can’t see that this is likely to be the case for anyone born this century. Tech changes so fast that regular retraining will be required to effectively stand still. More people are likely to change professions at least once in their life, if not twice or thrice.
From significant change being a generational thing (e.g. every 20 years) in the mid 20th century, it’s almost constant now.
Can you give an example of such a professional career which remained static over an entire career? What years?
Even those who stay in their professions will find major changes over the years. That’s terrific - it creates opportunity to grow and advance. What’s wrong with that? It’s a terrific thing.
I didn’t say static, I said with minimal retraining, i.e. no significant training.
How much technical progress do you think that there was between the 1930s - 1970s. you’re looking at evolutionary changes in process during that time rather than revolutionary.
Computers from the 70s forward started to make a significant impact across multiple industries and increased the pace of change exponentially to the point where any career can expect massive changes every 5-10 years.
Take any career which needed lots of maths. accounts, engineers, architects, until the 70s it was pencil, paper, slide rules and log tables. in the 1970s, the desktop calculator was a realistic thing, in the 80s Minicomputers started to become available in corporates and much cheaper “pocket” calculators, and then in the 90s PCs especially with Windowed systems. the 2000s saw the internet, 2010s SaaS, and now in the 2020s AI is the next inflexion point.
I didn’t say it was necessarily a bad thing. It’s great for many people, but not for everyone.
One of the reasons many women give for not going into computing disciplines (and this has been true for many years now) is that the amount of change makes it especially hard for them to take maternity leave if they wish to have children or a career break while they bring young kids up. Beyond getting “back up to speed” employers see them as behind the times and many fail to give them the opportunity to get back into the industry when they’re ready.
Any my last point on this is that It’s possible to grieve a job that you loved which has been removed from you without you having any choice in it. More and more people are made redundant or moved into new jobs against their will, and it takes them many years to come to terms with it. Massive corporations overhiring and then making tens of thousands of people redundant to protect their bottom lines affects people mentally as do people cast aside because their skill sets have been superseded.
Change is good and if you can’t cope with some level of change in 2026, you have a problem, but let’s not pretend it’s always good and certainly let’s not make the mistake of calling it easy.
How much technical progress do you think that there was between the 1930s - 1970s. you’re looking at evolutionary changes in process during that time rather than revolutionary.
OK - so what professional career would have required minimal retraining over this timeframe?
One of the reasons many women give for not going into computing disciplines (and this has been true for many years now) is that the amount of change makes it especially hard for them to take maternity leave if they wish to have children or a career break while they bring young kids up.
A programmer can’t take a few years off (or even 10 years) and then get back in? I don’t see any basis for that conclusion.
Any my last point on this is that It’s possible to grieve a job that you loved which has been removed from you without you having any choice in it. More and more people are made redundant or moved into new jobs against their will, and it takes them many years to come to terms with it.
Nonsense. Learn a new skill and turn lemons into lemonade.
These days, it’s not about logic and language as much as it is about APIs and frameworks. Given the chance, a person skilled in the logic of programming can pick up APIs/frameworks/libraries with practice and some initial guidance.
It is like riding a bike. If you were any good at it before, you’ll get back in the saddle fairly quickly. That said, I’ve met some practising programmers who simply did not have the aptitude. I believe it has to be a calling/passion.
My brother-in-law started work for a major retail bank (UK) in about 1974-5 and retired 40 years later, In that time, the only “professional retraining” he had was to learn to use a PC instead of pen and paper. I’m sure he went on some internal training courses (changed processes, impact of legislation), but that’s not retraining or learning new skills.
I know quite a few people whose working life was similar, in different sectors. I don’t;t see there being very many of them in the future
During the timeframe 1974-2014 retail banking changed immensely
Many ledgers moved from manual bookkeeping to mainframe computers
Introduction of ATMs as opposed to tellers
Introduction of electronic payments and ACH
Mainstream adoption of bank credit and debit cards, then later introduction of magnetic stripes and chips
Switch from phone banking to internet banking (including web, mobile app, and 3rd party integrations)
Substantial changes in consumer disclosure laws
Nothing changed? My daughter born in 2014 would be lost if we transported her back to a 1974 bank.
I know quite a few people whose working life was similar, in different sectors. I don’t see there being very many of them in the future
I don’t know of any professional industry which has remained static for 40 years. But let’s suppose we were to find one. Why would that be a good thing - for the economy, for society, or personally?
Would you really want to be involved in a profession for 40 years where neither you nor the profession made substantial progress?
I don’t think the point is that “nothing changed,” but rather that there was a career in a single field, with a single company, spanning 40 years. He got hired by the company. As banking evolved, the company almost certainly provided in-house education so that he could stay up-to-date with what was happening in banking. He didn’t get laid off several times during his career and find himself delivering pizzas while he went to night school to be able to get a different job. It was a reasonable belief that, upon being hired initially, he could be working for the same company 40 years later.
I read somewhere that the average person now can be expected to have between 3 and 7 career shifts during their lifetime. Not 3-7 jobs, 3-7 complete career shifts. People used to have a retirement plan/pension with a single company. I would wager that’s going to be just about unheard of for anybody entering the workforce today.
I don’t believe 3-7 complete career shifts for an “average” person - that’s an outlier situation for sure, or maybe it represents someone who has held only unskilled jobs and not a trade or profession of any sort.
As for 3-7 jobs and not relying on one company for life - that’s wonderful. Why would you want your life savings and entire family security dependent on the solvency of one company? Why would you want one boss or one HR department to have the power to instantly fire you without the confidence that you have the skills and opportunity to turn lemons into lemonade?
I know lots of people who were laid off as a result of an industry transition who wound up moving to something bigger/better which in retrospect was great for both their life and career.
Exactly - those are neither trades nor professions - so very different from what we are discussing.
Except a delivery driver who requires a CDL - that’s a skilled trade for sure and pays a whole lot more than an unskilled delivery driver. Which raises the question why someone would drive for a whole lifetime and not move up to a CDL-based position.