Huawei was originally the most powerful competitor of Apple in the smartphone market. With the high-end Kirin chip self-developed by HiSilicon , Huawei once surpassed Apple two years ago. However, due to the suppression of the United States, Kirin chips have no choice but to become a "master singer", and the Huawei's mobile phone business has plummeted, and most of the lost shares have been acquired by Apple.
According to public information, in 2021, Apple alone took away more than 80% of the profits of China's high-end smartphone market, which is several times more than the combined domestic manufacturers. Seeing this dazzling performance report, Cook was very happy and publicly claimed that what he was least worried about about the global business of iPhone mobile phones was the sales volume in the Chinese market.
Compared with Huawei's bitterness now that it is "broken by a broken arm", Apple's "dominant position" obtained by the United States' "assistance" has already made many Chinese people angry. However, what was unexpected is that while Apple makes money in the Chinese market, it is also constantly promoting the "Sinicization" of the industrial chain.
Many netizens expressed their discomfort in this "eating and losing the pot" move. The United States can completely ban Huawei, so why can't we sanction Apple?
The reason is very clear. Apple has been deeply engaged in the Chinese market for many years and has long formed a huge supply chain system, covering more than 5 million jobs. The "fruit chain" controls the fate of many domestic manufacturers. For example, after being suddenly "abandoned" by Apple, its net profit margin plummeted by more than 90% in just one month, almost going bankrupt.
Therefore, the rash ban on Apple will only end up "injuring the enemy ten thousand and losing 8,000" and it is by no means a wise move. What we should do more is to increase R&D, strengthen the domestic supply chain, and create better domestic mobile phones. Relying on hard power, hundreds of millions of "Apple fans consciously take the "domestic camp", so as to fundamentally reverse the passive situation when facing Apple.
As we all know, Apple iPhone has always been a mobile phone with its own traffic in the domestic market, and for the iPhone released this year, it is said that Cook is even more confident. Even though the global smartphone market is in a "cold winter", Apple still set its first stock in the Chinese market at 90 million units, and then decided to add another 20 million units.
It is obvious that in Cook's view, Chinese users' money is too easy to make. But what I never expected was that the slap in the face came so quickly. The release of the iPhone 14 series did not help Apple create glory, but instead pulled down Apple's "fig leaf" in one fell swoop.
According to media reports, Apple recently made a decision to target iPhone 14 Plus's stock volume is planned to cut orders on a large scale by 40%.
You should know that Apple just cut orders for iPhone 14 not long ago. At that time, many industry insiders said that Cook's move was giving iPhone 14 Plus and Pro series pave the way. But from the current -40% growth rate, "cannot sell" seems to be the real situation of Apple.
So the question is, why did the "halo" of iPhone phones that come with their own traffic in the Chinese market suddenly fall? It is undeniable that this is related to the current smartphone market, but there are two more important reasons.
First of all, Apple itself lacks innovation. Compared with the previous generation of iPhone phones, iPhone The so-called upgrade of the 14 series is completely "squeezing toothpaste".
, such as battery life of about 30W, screen-off display, hollow design, Lingdong Island and many other functions, are basically technology that imitates Android and has long been outdated. Even Jobs' daughter Eve publicly mocked on social media, saying that iPhone 14 is not creative.
and the new satellite communication function added by iPhone 14 this time are not available at all. It is only open to other regions such as Europe and the United States. This is obviously "functional discrimination", so how can it be supported?
Secondly, the central media's call has worked.After Apple kicked more than 30 Chinese companies including OFILM out of the supply chain last year, the central media publicly stated that our companies should make diversified layouts to alleviate "Apple dependence".
It is precisely because of this that many domestic suppliers have begun to make changes and no longer focus on the "fruit chain". Instead, while tackling core technologies, they pay more attention to joint research and development and in-depth cooperation with domestic mobile phone manufacturers, which has greatly promoted the continuous rise of domestic supply chains and domestic mobile phones.
Most of the domestic flagships today have reached the top level in terms of performance parameters and other aspects, but the domestic production rate of its core technical accessories has also been greatly improved.
For example, Huawei Mate 50 series, the Hongmeng system is its own, Kunlun Big Glass is owned by Hubble Investment, and the 2K screen was developed together with BOE . Even if it does not have 5G functions, it is favored by domestic users. There are also other competitors such as Xiaomi OV, which have basically achieved domestic replacement in charging chips, imaging chips, etc., and are of high quality and low price. In contrast, the Apple iPhone 14 series seems to be a bit "pale". However, if domestic mobile phones want to break Apple's "dominate" market structure, they still need to continue to work hard. After all, Apple has a closed-loop ecosystem of iOS systems and A-series chips, and its industry influence is still the world's largest.
We do not advocate brainless flattery and slander, but we just hope that domestic manufacturers can insist on independent research and development and master more core technologies. Only in this way can they have a greater chance of winning and effectively alleviate Apple's "constraint" on the domestic market. What do you think about this?
