Could Branding Solve Apple’s Plateau Issue?

Low-End Corporate/ Institutional 

While many think of institutional users as relatively high-end, that could not be further from the truth.  Most corporate and education laptops I have used have been relatively old and low-end.  There’s a reason i3 Chromebooks and Windows laptops have been selling:  They’re dirt cheap and can do the menial jobs they’re assigned. But, Apple doesn’t have a low-end chip, do they?  If you look at benchmarks, the A17 Pro from the iPhone 15 Pro performs very similarly to late model Intel Core i3s, but should have a huge advantage in battery life.  There’s also an economy of scale advantage with the chip also being used in laptops and presumably iPads and other devices at some point.  
But why would Apple do this, wouldn’t it hurt their premium image?  Apple sells the iPhone SE at $429 and the iPad 9th Generation for $329.  Do either of those stop people from spending $1400 on an iPhone 15 Pro Max or 12.9” iPad Pro?  It sure doesn’t.  It just makes those more accessible for a variety of users. This, likewise, would make the Mac more accessible.  
There’s also another reason Apple would want to sell more Macs in corporate and educational markets: conversion.  I use Apple Macs because I used an education model in grade school in the 90s.  Apple’s old model of selling lower-end models to your work life so you can sell higher-end, higher-margin models to workers and students as a consumer works.  Having the iPhone and iPad work seamlessly with the Mac adds to that.

Gaming

Apple has done a lot of good things when it comes to gaming.  Metal has mostly caught up with DX12, gaming peripheral support is excellent, the A17 Pro/ M3 Generation has added hardware ray tracing support, and Apple has made ports a lot easier with Game Porting ToolKit.  The fact that you can buy a game and use it on iPhone, iPad, Mac, and presumably Apple TV should be a major selling point.  They’re finally starting to listen and that’s a huge step forward from where they are.  That said, there’s still a lot of room for improvement.

Gaming developer relations leave a lot to be desired.  Games are treated like any other app instead of a primary storytelling medium like they are for Millennials and Generation Z.  Cupertino’s head is still too big and quite frankly, stuck in a Gen X mindset.  They should be actively courting major devs like EA and striking a deal with Valve to bring the Steam game store to all Apple Platforms.  Instead, we have a focus solely on Apple’s own stores, and, as evidenced by a mostly complete Counter Strike 2 port never bothering to launch on the Mac, there’s absolutely zero evidence of Apple and Valve talking.

The EU may be helping Apple in this regard according to a report from 9to5 Mac that Microsoft is launching its own app store for Apple platforms offering its Xbox, Blizzard, and Activision Titles. The fact that a company that has been traditionally known as Apple’s chief rival is interested in offering games to Apple showcases the untapped potential of the iPhone and iPad as a gaming platform.

Apple might actually want to follow Redmond’s lead and turn Apple Arcade into its own full-fledged game store independent from the App Store team and with its own rules.  This is double so if Apple were to make the smart move to follow their Apple TV+ strategy and publish first-party content.  They could either acquire an independent studio like Telltale or go big and acquire someone with significant IP like EA.

Apple has no representation in Esports despite a preference for these gaming leagues over physical sports favored by elder Millennials and prior generations.  Just look at Twitch and YouTube, it's huge.  Apple has been quite frankly squandering the huge mindshare advantage the iPhone could bring by ignoring gaming as long as they did.

There’s also another issue with gaming, Dell has Alienware, HP has Omen, Lenovo has Legion, and Asus has Republic of Gamers sub-brands for a reason: gaming has its own unique style.  Customizable RGBs and either the blackest blacks or whitest whites are in with gamers.  Rather than try to establish its own gaming sub-brand Apple would be better off buying an existing gaming brand.  I have suggested Razer in the past and I still think this could be the best option.  They have their own identity with a large following but also have a similar philosophy of elegance to Apple.  Razer or a similar brand would also allow Apple to experiment in ways they can’t with traditional iPhones, iPads, and Macs.  They could also use the brand to launch a game console and possibly a ITX-sized motherboard to allow users to put the power of Apple silicon on their own customized case.  Apple could also launch first-party gaming accessories with customized silicon to allow features like fast switching with controllers.

Sports and Music

Apple has two subsidiaries already: Claris and Beats.  Beats have a huge following in the sports and music worlds.  Why not use this and expand the brand?  In the past, I have suggested using the brand for health and fitness accessories and perhaps a ruggedized iOS device.  Like with a gaming brand, this could allow Apple to experiment and bring over Android holdouts who might want something different than what Apple offers in the iPhone line.  The brand’s history of collaborating with celebrities could make Beats hardware a hit.

Beats could also do something else for Apple: high-end consumer audio products with more traditional styling,  Image a soundbar, possibly a hybrid running tvOS, traditionally styled smart speakers, or a Siri adapter for your powered and unpowered speakers.  That’s something the Apple brand couldn’t do, but Beats could.  In fact, Apple promised Beats AirPlay 2 products when the multi-room standard was first announced, but never delivered.  It should also be noted that while Beats’s speaker offerings under Apple have been limited, speakers have been part of the brand’s past.

Last Word

I understand this article could prove controversial.  Apple is an extremely profitable company, even with limited growth.  But why limit that growth?  Why limit the platform?  With the overwhelming success of the iPhone, Apple users aren’t the select group of elites that we used to be.  Apple is a mainstream company now.  Would an organizational-focused low-end MacBook or Mac mini threaten MacBook Pro sales?  I bought when over the Air, but it could threaten Dell or HP sales.  Would a Razer Blade running macOS hurt the MacBook Pro?  Nope, different user bases.  They’re running Windows gaming machines right now.  Would Steam threaten the App Store?  No, but it could help sell more Macs.  

Allowing Apple’s platforms to grow with additional user bases will only help us and Apple.  I would rather not have to think about things I may also need a Windows thing for than be elite.