How do you honestly believe that?
Market is not a feel. Companies with multi-billion dollar revenues invest gazillions into researching the market. They can't afford to come up with a product based on "honestly believing". Then they apply resources to tackle a potential need. As much as I would like that my feelings could overlap with the markets, I'm aware that I'm a niche, and I don't think that judging market choices through the lens of what I'd like can lead to anything but a skewed personal view of a market problem.
The SE was far from a failure not because of the size, but because for the first time it let people into the iPhone realm at a much lower price (without being just an old phone with a lower price). It had the "new" tag on it, although it was basically a product that Apple could generate by mixing up a couple of production lines with much lower assembly costs. By any measurement, the iPhone SE is an old and technically lacking phone with a superior and hyper-sticky software ecosystem. It was also the workhorse of carriers who could sell expensive plans with a lower device subsidization fee.
Apple's marketing is best in class when it comes to framing the complexity of market tactics and vendor-carrier relationships within a simple and clear narrative. The underlying mechanism are still as intricated as they can be.
Yet companies do precisely that all the time, in many markets and niches. They lead rather than respond to the market. Such is the nature of companies that get large enough to be multinationals. Customers count for not that much, so take it or leave it.
Almost no one wanted headphone sockets actually removed because anyone who actually wanted bluetooth already had the capability, and countless surveys reveal a wish to keep them. Most recently Oneplus finding 80%+ of their customers wanted to keep it, so their next phone removed it. Almost every company has now followed suit, so it's damn clear they are not researching the market, unless it's to ascertain the extent of what they can get away with.
Same with Google+, almost no one wanted it, yet for several years there was insistence one would have it.
So I maintain the presence or absence of a product or service is often little or nothing to do with market sales. Or one can believe in perfect markets and perfect filling of opportunities.
Of course sales matter. What doesn't matter is people pissing and moaning (e.g. over headphone jack) if they end up buying your product anyway. Apple has always been in the forefront of removing legacy features before the market was really ready for them to be removed.
The SE was far from a failure not because of the size, but because for the first time it let people into the iPhone realm at a much lower price (without being just an old phone with a lower price). It had the "new" tag on it, although it was basically a product that Apple could generate by mixing up a couple of production lines with much lower assembly costs. By any measurement, the iPhone SE is an old and technically lacking phone with a superior and hyper-sticky software ecosystem. It was also the workhorse of carriers who could sell expensive plans with a lower device subsidization fee.
Apple's marketing is best in class when it comes to framing the complexity of market tactics and vendor-carrier relationships within a simple and clear narrative. The underlying mechanism are still as intricated as they can be.