Is gluttony eating the best of Apple?

Any die-hard Apple fan has a list of reasons why. Forgive my haters, but Apple didn't get where it is by chance. The Golden Circle, which Simon Sinek described very well, explains the logic behind the success that led the company to stay at the top for three consecutive years.

But that's changed. The question is: why? Are Microsoft and NVIDIA better, or is Apple worse? Or is it both?

First, I don't like to evaluate a company by market value because it doesn't tell consumers anything. The best example is Microsoft: it was always well-positioned and always delivered a shameless and outdated operating system built on DOS. At the same time, Apple delivered much more and was worth less.

Let's get straight to the point: what's happening with Apple? To understand, let's look at a list of reasons that built a fan base and that seem to be disappearing.

Flawless operating system - yes, the system is still the best, but it's been over 10 years without any major changes. iOS 26 promises that, and so far, from what I've seen, it's improved a lot. But it's still early days.

Flawless hardware - well, then things start to go wrong. The iPhone, any of them, is beautiful, and the performance is enviable? Yes, but that's evolved very little. Neither the design nor the specifications have changed much, with the exception of memory. In the case of MacBooks, the decline in quality is evident: a reduction in the number of ports was the first. But then came the faulty keyboards, faulty screens, recalls, flex problems... I'm on my second MacBook of the latest generation and my third overall. My first, from 2008, still works today. The second, from 2017, has already been recalled three times to replace the keyboard, screen, flex, and battery. The third, in two years, already has keyboard problems. And I'm not the only one: I have several other cases I know personally.

Visual identity - truth be told, it hasn't changed much, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Apple's identity is well-known and remains a benchmark, but it hasn't introduced anything innovative beyond the colors and different models. MacBooks lost the illuminated apple, which was really cool, iPhones lost the home button, which is understandable, and the new operating system is quite interesting. This is perhaps the biggest news of recent times.

Innovation - that's where it gets tough. After Steve Jobs' death, Apple only released new products: AirPods (an absolute success, an incomparable product), Apple Watch (which was already in the works and is a success), Air Vision (which is really cool but only sold half as much as expected), HomePods (which didn't kill off the competition like the iPod), and AirTags (which is a lesser product). The rest were just updates. And that's where the problem starts to become clear. How much better is the iPhone 16 compared to the 6s? How much more expensive has it become? Where are the foldable screens, the touchscreen notebooks, the Air Power (promised but never released), and the evolution of Siri? And the Apple car?

Today's Apple seems to suffer from Steve Jobs' widow syndrome: it avoids touching too much on what the deceased left behind, for fear of dishonoring his memory. All the boldness that led him to create innovative products and transform Apple from a computer company into an electronics company seems to have died with him. Want an example? Apple is Disney's largest shareholder because it was Pixar's largest shareholder when Pixar became Disney's largest shareholder. What has Apple done with this wealth that includes Pixar, Star Wars, and Marvel, for example? Nothing.

A titanium iPhone case with Iron Man's identity, a sapphire screen protector, an induction charger with the character's atomic heart, and an app that transforms Siri's voice into Jarvis are things only Apple could do and would substantially increase the average customer ticket. For those who think Apple doesn't do this, until recently, Apple Music (when it was iTunes) used the silhouette of U2's Bonovox due to a partnership that included Red products.

Or how about a foldable phone with a Hulk case that changes depending on how the screen unfolds? Apple has cell phone colors (red, green, blue). Or a Sully case from Monsters, Inc. that has an induction charger shaped like a scream tank? Or even evolving Siri into Jarvis, taking advantage of Apple's inability to understand what to do with Artificial Intelligence. These are just a few ideas that would solve the dilemma of increasing revenue and innovating.

And there's more: how about an Artificial Intelligence that converses with the user based on the characters from Inside Out, according to their mood, like a cross between a personal assistant and a counselor?

In Apple's ancient past, when it only made computers, these partnerships didn't make much sense, but for a consumer company, they make perfect sense. Not even Apple, which doesn't license anything to anyone, can afford to ignore a business trend involving other brands that it happens to almost own. Money would be flowing in from all sides, including winning over children, who today only identify with the iPhone and iPad.

The strategy of maximizing profits by raising prices and keeping innovations trickling down is the opposite of what Steve Jobs did. From a management perspective, Apple today hardly buys innovative companies (as it did with Siri, for example), but spends heavily on dividends and share buybacks, things Jobs also opposed.

Due to the price increases and lack of innovation, the iPhone 15 was a failure, the iPhone 16 was too, the Air Vision isn't selling as well as expected, and competitors are filling the gaps. The truth is, Apple is no longer the benchmark for innovation, and if nothing changes, this is the beginning of the end. Innovating isn't difficult, but maintaining leadership in innovation is. Steve Jobs wouldn't rest until he achieved what he wanted, and one of the first things he did upon returning to Apple after being ousted was to eliminate the multiple, meaningless product variations. He reduced the extensive line of computers and accessories, often not even manufactured by Apple (like printers), and focused on four products. What the lack of innovation in his absence did at the time is what every cost-conscious CEO tries: line extension. Change a part and call it by another name, change a color, and that's it. This was the chaos in 1997 and seems to be repeating itself almost 30 years later: any similarity between the iPhone 15, 16, 16E, 16 Max, 16 Pro, and 16 MaxPro with 10 color options is no coincidence. Instead of choosing to innovate, Apple chose to create similar products at different price points to try to fill every niche, but price isn't the only thing that decides this. A cheap cell phone can cost more than a top-of-the-line one with the right accessories. And there's no one who doesn't use these accessories today, whether they're cases, screen protectors, chargers, or any other trinket.

I don't see any measures on the horizon to reverse this situation. In fact, in recent years, the launch of new iPhones, for example, has been a general disappointment. There's no longer any reason to wait in line and be the first to buy, not only because no one will notice you bought one, but also because the time between launch and availability only increases. And, among the big companies, Apple is only fourth in investment in research and innovation.

There are plenty of companies that are hostage to the stock market and rest on their laurels: Kodak, Xerox, GM... They all preferred to focus on making money, avoiding taking risks with new ventures and new technologies. They all thought the market was theirs and would never truly change. They all preferred profits to the risks of a new segment. In 1997, this was the lesson Jobs learned and applied at Apple. And Tim Cook apparently hasn't learned. Questioning whether AI works or not is the job of CEOs of wannabe companies, not of those seen as leaders in innovation.

When the Internet emerged, more than half of companies turned up their noses. Around the same time, Jobs launched the first iMac without a floppy disk drive, forcing people to rely on the Internet. They called him crazy. Just as they had when he bought Pixar, when he launched a smartphone without a keyboard or stylus, when he launched the iPad, and many other times. He didn't question whether the Internet was sufficient for exchanging files, he didn't give up because computer graphics were in their infancy, nor did he bet on an alternative keyboard, for example.

Consistent innovation requires taking risks that can only be assessed, not eliminated. Who can save Apple?

Before I forget: isn't it curious that Disney and Pixar are so dull today, living much more in the past than in the present? This wave of profit at any price has cost a lot over the years, and until that changes, we will have more and more Tim Cooks and fewer Steve Jobs.