This is possible only in collusion between them, while there are antimonopoly services that monitor this very tightly, because this is money in the pocket of the state, especially when the Chinese began to overtake Apple in capitalization, very quickly the greatest democracy on planet Earth imposed sanctions on them and forced almost all technology companies to stop working with them.
Apple and Samsung are constantly in patent courts against each other with mixed success. With modern progress it is not profitable to keep technical innovations in stock for a long time, otherwise you can very quickly lose leadership, for example Motorola and Nokia. So, most likely, new items quickly reach the consumer.
This is partly true. Only usually we are talking about prototypes, concepts and technologies. Sometimes such can be at the level of documentation. So, do not think that there are ready-made smartphones on the shelves of companies, which you just need to take from there and "replicate"))
But here you need to understand that the industry works quite unpredictably. Therefore, not all developments are used. The vector of development or popularity of certain devices may change, as a result of which "promising" concepts are not in demand, and then the company focuses on something new that was not in the "bins".
Therefore, here it’s not so much about some fixed stock, which is given out to people in portions, but about trying to insure yourself (the company) from a technological point of view, by working ahead of the curve. And this is possible when a company is simultaneously working on current products and in the short term, and on "future" products, rolling around certain new technologies that have not yet seen the light of day.
I doubt that now there is something like that, given the many times increased competition and manufacturers' departure from their own standards. Earlier, when manufacturers had their own connectors, their shells, their own chips, etc. they, with less regard for competitors and component manufacturers, could calculate a further plan for the development of technologies, production and calculate the line for several years ahead. As it was rightly said above, it is important for a company to have a plan for the long term. Of course, in connection with the announcements of competitors or third-party companies, new technologies, modern models, the manufacturer could change the concept, add new models, change the planned ones and get rid of those that have lost their relevance, so there is no conspiracy here, just business planning.
Now it is especially dangerous to make such plans for the company, due to the development of industrial espionage, when a competitor or an unscrupulous employee can get the leaked data and release a response device in time or start developing a similar technology that will negatively affect the company's sales.
How can I be sure that such business planning has been applied? In the distant years, I was lucky to see the corporate catalog of Nokia in which there were not yet announced models, as well as those that never came out. No special specifics, or maybe I've already completely lost my mind, so you don't need to believe me, look for proofs)
It's hard to say for sure. Even if there are technologies and they are invented, they are not curbed. The fact is that each new technology in development requires a lot of money, what the exhaust will be is unknown. Therefore, every year we get models a little better, a little more powerful. It is impossible to squeeze everything out of something at once, it is not cost-effective, i.e. not enough money.
It depends on what is meant by the word "development". IT development never stops, and if we take into account the development and those tools that are still far from being put into production, then certainly yes, they have developments for at least a couple of years. This is not due to the fact that they are specifically concealing, although this is not excluded, but with the fact that a significant period of time can pass between the stage of implementation of the development and the actual development itself (in Russia it can be 15-20 years).
You shouldn't have minus the pensioner Edmunt Groisman, because he is right.
I don't know why "development strategy" = "development" for you. Of course, no one has ready-made solutions for 10 years ahead, because technologies develop and change. What has been done now, in 10 years there will be almost nothing.
But every company has development strategies - in order not to waste time, companies monitor the process of technology development, predict what and how will happen in the near future and in Based on this analysis, they plan to make this or that feature in their products. Well, and accordingly, the more information about the technology, the more clearly the companies understand how and where to use it for their own purposes. Therefore, when the technology becomes available, the company only has to buy it and insert it into the blanks.
This would be very stupid for at least two reasons.
In a few years, new technologies, new trends in design and web design may appear. The one who makes the most modern product has the advantage. Think back to recent trends. Flat design. Surround screen. An exploding phone, etc. Those who do not keep up with the trends are left out of competition (especially when it comes to young companies that do not have a name to keep them afloat).
High risk of information leakage. Take at least the iPhone 8. Its design has already been revealed, although there are several months before the release. If it had been developed two years ago, the leak would have occurred earlier. Then it would not be interesting to anyone.
In general, no. The reason is simple - competition. Its effect is easy to see if you dig very little into the story.
Some 15 years ago there were completely different giants on the mobile device market: Nokia, BlackBerry, Motorola, Sony-Ericsson. Motorola, by the way, was the first to launch a commercial line of mobile phones back in the 80s. Apple was not in this market, they had just released the iPod, and in the 90s they were helped by Microsoft in order to avoid antitrust sanctions itself.
But in 2007, Apple introduced the iPhone, and the market changed rapidly. The former giants are left with pathetic scraps in the form of research departments (Nokia, however, has relaunched the classic series of phones, but this is a minuscule market for the nostalgic). This is only because they did not find their bearings in time. Nokia and Motorola made classic mobile phones too good. BlackBerry has stayed true to the keyboard for too long. And only Samsung has sensed the wind of change, remaining one of the leading players.
But there was nothing fundamentally new in terms of technology in the iPhone. Palm handhelds have long been on sale, and users have long wanted them to be able to make calls. There has long been wap, a sector of the Internet accessible via mobile phones. And cameras have already been built into phones. Putting everything together - this, however, requires some work, for example, a more optimal assembler - we add the App idea - first of all, an idea, not a technology - and the market changes radically in a matter of years.
Another thing is that a device like a smartphone - IBM Simon - appeared back in 1994. But for it there was no infrastructure in the form of the widely used Internet. The Internet began to really spread across the United States only in the mid-90s, along with America Online / AOL (also, by the way, already sunk into oblivion). The same story happened with the "cloud", which tried to launch General Magic back in the early 90s, and which then failed for the same reason as Simon.
Finally answering your question. Progress is going too fast, and once you gape, you can lose the market once and for all, losing it to some company, which consisted of two geeks in a garage the day before yesterday. Of course, it also happens that a company invests in some bright idea, but it turns out that its time has not yet come, because other technologies and infrastructure have not yet arrived. Then the firm runs the risk of incurring losses, including bankruptcy. But practice shows that it is better to do and regret than not to do and regret. Therefore, here and there, this technology will be introduced over and over again until it either goes off or becomes obsolete. But no one will keep it hidden and give out in small doses - in a normal market economy, this is tantamount to suicide.
PS: Personally, I was a witness and an accomplice of how companies tried to launch the imperfect and insufficiently well-provided technology of mobile 3d cameras, and the sad consequences for a largenumber of players, many firms have simply disappeared. But they implemented it as soon as there were at least some hints that it could “shoot.”
PPS: As for 6, 6s, 7, 7s and so on, it’s more of a marketing ploy. The models differ much less from each other than they seem. Especially as Moore's law of doubling the number of transistors on a chip is being retired. The manufacturer tries to increase its profits by selling "new" models every year. Moreover, if he does not do this, competitors will do it and survive him from the market.
And this is sad. Because, even with the service of an electronic device for three years, the amount of energy spent on its production can exceed the energy consumption of the device itself by 4 times. Plus rare chemical elements that are difficult to mine and dispose of. The environmental impact is serious.
It would be strange if it were different.
Development strategy should be present in any business.
Especially when the cost of fixed assets is high.