twolf2919

StrangeDays said:

Kuo has absolutely no business insight into Apple strategy, pricing discussion, or decision-making. He only has leaking supply chain contacts. There’s zero way he can know what Apple is thinking strategically years in the future.

Correction: he's got supply chain insights/contacts *and* common sense.  The latter alone enables anyone to forecast dismal sales for a $3500 toy with no mass market use case- no matter how good the experience.  He's, of course, purely guessing with regards to Vision Pro 2 coming out in the 2027 timeframe.  I'd submit that by that timeframe, Apple will have woken up and realized that Apple Glasses will be the only gadget with truly mass market appeal.  It is this product that everybody was hoping for in 2023 instead of the techno-tour-de-force that is Vision Pro.  Coincidentally, after the VP came out, there were rumors that Apple Glass had been pushed back to....2027 or so.

rob53 said:

Could be a great replacement for a large screen TV. No glare. Great for small apartments. 

Seeing the 3D scanning of your face makes me wonder when 3D scanning apps using the front cameras/LiDAR will come out allowing scanning of “things” imported into 3D CAD systems. High quality handheld scanners are expensive. 

Uh, would be interesting to see how you share that 'large screen tv' with others :-)

Apple has been bringing out some amazing AI-based solutions in the last couple years, including object recognition in the Photo app.  But Siri advances continue to be pathetic.  If Siri is an example of Apple's AI prowess, it's definitely behind on the AI curve.  I'm a big Apple fan - have all their devices - and was very enthusiastic when Siri first came out.  But over the years, Siri has moved inches, while competitors have moved miles - I can't believe a company that spends $22b on R&D can't make its voice assistant more useful in people's day-to-day lives.  So disappointing.

eightzero said:

mayfly said:

eightzero said:

OK, I really don't get this. How does GS lose money on a credit card? Are they paying Apple a disproportionate amount of their rake from the cardholders? The article says "credit losses" so somehow more Apple Card holders are welching? 

Or...it is possible GS thinks they just aren't making the billion they planned? Not sure that's a "loss."

Nope. They're losing plenty. Their customer acquisition cost is $350 per account. In addition, the Apple Card attracts a much more affluent demographic who pay their balances every month, depriving GS of interest charges. On top of that, there is the "buy now, pay later" program that allows customers to pay over 4 months without interest charges. That's how they're losing money. I wouldn't cry for GS, though. They made $10.9 billion in the second QUARTER of this year, even with the Apple Card losses.

OK, so I understand: GS pays Apple $350 for each new account, and since those new accounts generally don't pay GS interest (affluent customers) GS can't make back the $350? And who gets the swipe fee from merchants (that I am always asked to reimburse the merchant for)? Is there no swipe fee charged to a merchant on the Apple Card? GS doesn't get a cut of each transaction?

I am sure GS has overhead on these operations. They have to pay staff to provide customer service; and other infrastructure like IT and the like. But a billion in losses to that? Really?

The $350 "customer acquisition cost" is the cost of acquiring the customer - not the amount GS paid Apple.   These costs include advertising, sign-on incentives, etc.

The "swipe fee" consists of three things: a fee paid to the issuing bank (GS), a fee paid to Apple,  and a fee paid to the credit card company (Mastercard) for use of its network.

I suspect GS, which has never really been in consumer banking, has a lot of overhead that hasn't been optimized away yet and, as the original comment to you indicated, the users of Apple Card are more affluent than the average Joe and, likely, more financially savvy - especially with the help Apple Wallet gives them to keep on top of their spending - and, less likely to go into debt.  Add to this the other card benefits - Apple Cash, interest free repay on Apple products, etc. and I can see where a novice bank like GS ends up in the red.

I wish Apple added a lower price iPad.  Right now, the cheapest iPad is $329.   I don’t mind spending lots of money on iPhone.  With those at 6.8” in size, iPads are becoming convenience accessories for the couch.  I still have a 5 year old one (9.7”?) laying around, collecting dust.  I’d upgrade it and maybe even use it again if it was lighter and had a bigger screen - but not for $329.

My dad actually uses his - even older - iPad all the time, but is too cheap to consider a new one at $329 (he got the current one from me - a hand-me-down).

The author didn't really make a case at all.  I still don't know how how the AVP is supposed to be similar to the AW.   In the case of AW, Apple merely changed the "positioning" - i.e. the marketing - of the watch.  But the watch always had a decent price point and a decent set of hardware features that were well integrated with the iPhone.  The AVP needs way more than a change of marketing to succeed.   First and foremost, it needs to cost 1/3 of what it goes for now.  It needs to lose that atrocious battery appendage and chord.  It needs to let its wearer blend into the crowd rather than make them look like complete dorks.  In other words, it needs to become something completely different to become a mass market (and business) success for Apple- the AR glasses Tim Cook originally promised 3-4 years ago!  Or the AVP will always remain a niche product.

A remarkably wordy article that ultimately doesn't answer the question its title poses.  What is the point, really, in stating that the killer app will use features X, Y, or Z in Vision Pro?  Isn't it obvious that this is the reason Apple put those features into the Vision Pro?

The article does mention use cases such as  the possibility of  immersive attendance to live events.  But isn't the point of attending a live event that you're there 'live' with thousands of fellow attendees?  It's a social thing!  How many people would give up this social aspects of attending an event - and pay $3,500 for the 'privilege'?  It's a pretty dystopian scenario, if you ask me.    The same goes for the argument that the Vision Pro replaces a large-screen TV - it conveniently forgets that watching TV is, for many, a social activity.  No, we don't have watch parties every day, but most couples or families watch the news, TV shows or movies together.  A single $3.5k Vision Pro can't provide the same experience as a $1k large screen TV in that regard.  And I don't think anyone would buy multiple VPs to have everyone in the family sitting isolated on the couch.  Seems even lonelier than today's reality, where people are in the same room, but everyone's absorbed by the content of their smartphones.  But at least with smartphones, it's a simple movement of the head to begin interaction with another human.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a strident believer in the future of AR.   But AR will only become a mass market success when it no longer interferes with human interactions.  Goggles on your head definitely don't do the trick.  I think Apple jumped the shark with this AR "wannabe" VR headset.  I'm not sure why developers - especially small ones - would write software, i.e. potential killer apps, for it when Apple has given no timeline for a device (the vaunted AR glasses) that will have mass market appeal and thus provide a return on their investment.

mikethemartian said:

Have you ever researched all the regulation that AT&T and IBM had to endure?

I don't know about IBM, but in the case of AT&T those regulations were in place because AT&T (aka "Ma Bell" before it was broken up) actually was a monopoly and had taken advantage of it.   Unlike Apple.

I have yet to see a cogent explanation of what sort of monopoly(yes) Apple enjoys.  The most frequent target is the App Store.  But just because it's the sole means by which Apple allows apps to be bought and distributed to iPhones doesn't make it monopoly.  It's simply how Apple chose to design app distribution. for iPhones - and that's clearly a private company's prerogative.   This design worked well for both developers (they had a much cheaper way of distributing software than the traditional store model) and customers (they had a convenient AND trusted source from which to buy applications) - so iPhone sales soared.  But now, developers of the most successful applications  balk at the 15-30% fee they have to pay to Apple - and claim that without the government's help in breaking Apple's "monopoly", customers are paying too much for apps.  Never mind that customers never complained.  The only ones who really have a beef with Apple's model are the corporate/successful app developer and wanna-be-Apple customers who are really jealous of the integrated Apple ecosystem but are philosophically or financially opposed to Apple's closed garden.

Small correction: 'There are clear frontrunners for the biggest job in tech" - isn't that the Microsoft CEO position?  Apple's market cap is $2.6T and Microsoft's is $2.9T.  Apple lost the crown a few weeks back.

Well written analysis.

Anti-trust laws clearly demand the government show the defendant to be a 'monopoly'.    US AG Merrit Garland himself defines monopoly as "the ability to set prices and exclude competition."    But clearly, before you can decide whether a company has these abilities, you have to define the market in which it supposedly has that ability - and that's where Garland is all over the map trying to obfuscate that in the only real market - that of smartphones - Apple clearly does NOT have a monopoly: worldwide it has only 20% of the market.  In the US, it's a bit over 50%.  And whether it's in the US or the rest of the world, Apple clearly doesn't have the ability to dictate prices - there are devices from $100 to $2000+ available in the market of smartphones.  And there are lots of companies selling them, so clearly Apple hasn't been able to exclude competitors!

What the DOJ is  really objecting to is Apple's ability to design its hardware and software and its ability to dictate to  companies that it lets onto its devices how much access they get to the underlying capabilities.  But in a capitalist society, it should not be the government's business to make business or technology decisions.  Apple has been very successful  with its decision to sell their products as simple-to-use, secure, elegant, and performant devices that integrate seamlessly.  As its success indicates, Apple customers have wholeheartedly bought into this combination - why is the government siding with the supposed "competitors" - which are actually just software and accessory companies Apple allowed onto their platform in the first place?

I am not suggesting Apple is perfect.  For instance, Apple did create an "app" market on its platform.  Its built-in apps should not get more access to the underlying platform than other apps attempting to provide the same features!  E.g. Apple's own Safari browser currently has access to Apple Pay, but I don't think Chrome or other browsers do (although I didn't actually check that).  The problem with the DOJ suing Apple on these grounds, is that it quickly becomes murky whether something is an "app" or a built-in operating system feature.   Using the same example of "Apple Pay", is that itself an app or a payment feature built into iOS?

I agree with the author that the DoJ doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. The only thing the DOJ has going for it is the fact that judges - especially on the Supreme Court - are elderly folks (just like the politicians in Washington) with not a flimsy grip on the technologies they need to adjudicate over.