thompr

Calamander said:

charlesn said:

Yes, absolutely doomed. It's so sad. No doubt the VR headset will be relegated to the trash bin of history alongside the many other widely predicted failures for Apple: the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, the Watch. It's just one useless product after another that nobody buys. 

A few years ago I agreed with you - I also predicted iPhone 1, iPod 1 (I had the first model) to be massive successes. 

I didn't predict iPhone would wipe the floor with the competition for the next 20 years, OK, but I knew it was a new class and a new paradigm.

Was lukewarm at iPads, and watch. 

The watch is particularly strange - it doesn't really do anything useful for me, but I guess a lot of people love tracking their health and like the looks... I bought one but found it completely useless. But it has a fashion appeal and Apple did extremely well capitalizing on that. Who knew?!

The VR headset to me sounds about as useful as getting hit with a stick. It's the first real post - Jobs product, and the VR hype is already gone. 

Crypto is more interesting; and now AI, is about 1000 times more interesting - because AI does useful stuff, out of the box. It does amazing things, when you realize you no longer need marketing people or programmers - it can do it all. 

VR headset - has no real life usefulness. I get that the gamer market is large but is a VR set so much better at gaming - like 10x better? I don't think so. It is cool, has novelty value, but people have yet to find anything where it's really a 10x revolution in product. 

This one will tank. Mark my words. 

Apple sells about 40 million Apple Watches per year.  Yes, I use mine for tracking health.  And I enjoy the silent notifications and the ability to leave my phone in pocket or wherever.  Perhaps you don't find the Apple Watch useful, but a lot of people do.  It has become a very successful product.

Apple sold 58 million Air Pods last year.  Maybe you don't find them useful either.  But other people apparently love them.

These are both post-Jobs products.  So when you say that the headset will be the first REAL post-Jobs product, it seems like you are making the mistake of extrapolating your value judgments to the rest of the world.  YOU personally don't consider these products useful, therefore why would anyone else?

OK, so maybe you'll be correct this time and the headset will tank.  (I'm not going to act like I know.)  Let's set a number on first year sales that define success/failure/tank and then make a prediction.  We can check back next year, just for fun.  I'll start...

I predict that Apple will move at least ten million units of the headset in the first year.  At $3000 a pop, that's $30 billion in revenue.  I consider that a success for the first year, and the numbers will rise from there.  Sure, that's nowhere near the success of iPhone.  But, if your success bar is set at smartphone numbers (which has become a true NEED), then there won't be any other successful products for a very long time, if ever.

What do you predict in terms of units sold in the first year?

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

Calamander said:

charlesn said:

Yes, absolutely doomed. It's so sad. No doubt the VR headset will be relegated to the trash bin of history alongside the many other widely predicted failures for Apple: the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, the Watch. It's just one useless product after another that nobody buys. 

A few years ago I agreed with you - I also predicted iPhone 1, iPod 1 (I had the first model) to be massive successes. 

I didn't predict iPhone would wipe the floor with the competition for the next 20 years, OK, but I knew it was a new class and a new paradigm.

Was lukewarm at iPads, and watch. 

The watch is particularly strange - it doesn't really do anything useful for me, but I guess a lot of people love tracking their health and like the looks... I bought one but found it completely useless. But it has a fashion appeal and Apple did extremely well capitalizing on that. Who knew?!

The VR headset to me sounds about as useful as getting hit with a stick. It's the first real post - Jobs product, and the VR hype is already gone. 

Crypto is more interesting; and now AI, is about 1000 times more interesting - because AI does useful stuff, out of the box. It does amazing things, when you realize you no longer need marketing people or programmers - it can do it all. 

VR headset - has no real life usefulness. I get that the gamer market is large but is a VR set so much better at gaming - like 10x better? I don't think so. It is cool, has novelty value, but people have yet to find anything where it's really a 10x revolution in product. 

This one will tank. Mark my words. 

The iPhone hasn't wiped the floor with the competition. 

XR isn't VR but even VR as a technology has an enormous range of use cases. 

The problem is that, for wide acceptance, it depends on a series of external factors lining up. ICT infrastructure, content creation and deployment, pricing... 

That hasn't happened yet but we know it will. 

XR just opens up the technology to even more use cases. 

This is nothing like 3D TVs or curved screens and let's not forget that XR is already is use, just not very rooted (yet) in the consumer space.

I see virtually unlimited use cases but just as with modern smartphones and AI, I also see potential problems. 

There is nothing new on that front. We just need to be careful and adapt. 

If it hasn't wiped the floor with the competition, it certainly has stolen most of the competitors lunch money.

More profitable for sure. 

Competitors have made high profits though.

More than enough to cover lunch, LOL, and a plethora of tech advances that only years later would reach iPhones.

Begs the question, where did all those iPhone profits end up? Doing very little in product terms, cough, Paradise Papers, cough! 

So, according to Statista, Apple has 27.58% of the world market, and Android OS has 71.72%.

https://www.statista.com/chart/29925/apples-share-of-the-global-smartphone-market/#:~:text=Thanks%20to%20its%20high%20average,first%20three%20months%20of%202023.

Apple has 50% of revenues WW and more than 80% of profits, so if competitors "have made high profits though" those profits aren't anywhere close to Apple's.

I should mention that the "plethora of tech advances that only years later would reach iPhones" doesn't really seem to tip the sales balance in Android favor, so maybe those "advances' don't actually add much value at the time of sale.

As for the profits, most of that ends up with the stockholders, as dividends, but of course, you must be aware of that.

More is going to buybacks than to dividends, but yes, your point remains.  The majority of Apple's profits are going back to the shareholders.  The leftover amount going to product development and smart longterm component deals may be small by comparison but they are still very large in absolute terms. Cook knows how to run a business.

twolf2919 said:

Price is THE decider on whether this headset will be a success.  This author - and others who’ve made the same point that Apple has had supposed failures many times before turn into successes - doesn’t seem to realize this.  When has Apple *ever* introduced a completely new product category at an initial price point of $3k?  Maybe the original Apple 2 (adjusted for inflation) - but nothing since then.   Sure, there are several niche “pro” products in THS range and beyond, but nothing with hoped for mass market appeal.  And  Apple clearly wants this to eventually become the next iPhone.  And I think the AR glasses originally promised for this timeframe had/has this potential - but not some dorky headset costing as much as a used car.

If we define "mass market appeal" and "success" such that Apple needs to sell a hundred million units per year right out of the gate, then no doubt you are correct.  But I believe there might be a market for ten million units, even at $3000, if the device is compelling enough. Here's my reasoning...

There is a VERY large set of people that eat/drink/sleep everything Apple.  There is a large set of people with enough disposable income such that $3000 is not a big deal.  There is a smaller set of people that are technophiles who desire everything that's perceived as cool and cutting-edge.  Assuming the device is cool enough to interest those technophiles, then I think the initial wave of buyers will belong to the intersection of these 3 sets.  My hunch is that there are enough people in the intersection that Apple's main problem will be supply at first.  The units will sell out and remain sold out until that set of people is satisfied.  If the rumored challenges with manufacture are true, then there might be unmet demand for quite some time.

From the business perspective, having unmet demand is problematic.  But it's a good problem to have relative to the reverse.  You have a great chance of solving it by throwing money and time at it (unless there are intractable manufacturing challenges).

You probably agree with me so far, but you might be asking the important question, "yeah, but what about AFTER the initial wave of buyers is satisfied?".  Good question , sir!

To me, the question of whether this headset experiences CONTINUED success (i.e. after the initial wave) is whether the device is actually compelling enough to reach beyond the technophiles.  The worldwide intersection of the first two sets above is large indeed, so if you can reach past the technophiles, then success will come even at the rumored $3000 asking price.  I know this because I, myself, am in the first two sets but not the 3rd.  I will be watching very closely on Monday, and if I see something that's clearly better than what we've seen before (from Meta, et. al.) then there's a decent chance I'll preorder one whenever possible.  And I don't think I'm unique in terms of Apple-love and disposable income.  There are tens of millions of "me"s around the world.  Maybe a hundred million.

Since Apple has been working on this thing for the better part of a decade, and since the ARKit for developers has been available for many years too, I'm not going to bet against Apple releasing a product that reaches beyond technophiles.  If they can, then I think they will have a product that can move 10 M units yearly.  That's $30 billion in revenue.  

That's a success in my book.

PERockwell said:

For a company that values things like consumer safety and privacy, I'm a bit appalled that Apple is using TikTok for their marketing. The inane TikTok "challenges" have caused physical harm. A rash of school cancellations in my area last month were a direct result of a TikTok challenge that threatened violence in the schools.  And TikTok seems blissfully unaware that they have any responsibility in promoting them.

No thanks.

So because some TikTok challenges promote violence, you are "appalled" by any and all TikTok challenges?

gatorguy said:

...and then Apple failed at that task, with none of that decided in this court case even tho that was a supposed goal and focus. Settled before it ever began. It all came down to money. That's actually a real issue with real effects. "Android the big loser because Apple and QC are back in a bromance" is a made-up one.  

You do not know whether Apple failed or not.  The settlement the two companies reached may have addressed all of those issues, both in terms of the one-time payment (from disputes over past royalties & promises) as well as their future chip deals (potentially no double-dipping, etc).  I don't know either.  But given the fierceness Apple has always shown in its negotiations (some deals have been revealed after the fact)... if I were forced to place a bet regarding whether Apple took a chunk out of what Qualcomm was hoping for, I would bet "yes".

OK, so you might say that even if my bet were correct, then Apple was only successful with regard to cash but not with regard to "being the hero" for the community against Qualcomm's licensing practices.  You don't know that either.  There are still several court cases brought by multiple governments against Qualcomm.  I also don't know, but my hunch is that by now there is little else Apple could reveal in those cases that they haven't already revealed.  So Apple has played its "hero card" about as far as it could go from that standpoint.

The bottom line is that I believe Apple probably came out of this settlement with much nicer terms going forward (and potentially reduced payment for what occurred before) and that Qualcomm's licensing practices with many of their customers are still under the microscope and will possibly have to be revisited going forward.