I"m not even caring that they have failed to innovate. They can't even keep their current products remotely up to date. 3+ year old MacPro's are unacceptable. The seamless Mac eco-system is being fragmented and destroyed by the cancelation of key products (Monitors, routers). Apple monitors are pure source of advertising for a company. Going into an office and seeing all those lit Apple logo's was fantastic mind share. Now we get to see plastic LG monitors and have no clue whats running them. But hey, Apple will only make a hundred million on monitors instead of a 100 billion, so it needs to be axed.
They have been switching to USB-C for over a year now and yet only 2 models have them. How am I suppose to buy USB-C peripherals for my company when our MacPro's, iMacs... etc can't use them. The "Hello" event should have a been a complete transition day for all of Apple's desktops, laptops, iphones, and iPads over to USB-C. That's how you transition. I guess, Tim and company really have replaced their computers with iPads because they have no clue how their decisions are affecting people in the real world.
You are ignorant of any material reasons for Apple's moves. Example: tell us where Apple would get an extra 3 million or so 27" IGZO-backed LCD screens to supply a new line of Cinema Displays. You can't tell us. Ergo, you are full of . . . hot air.
LOL... I am ignorant because you believe that Apple is not capable of getting 3 million display panels? So they are able to source out hundreds of millions of iPhone displays but Apple doesn't have enough clout or money to contract out 3 million 27" panels. Yah... I'm the ignorant one.
Am I also ignorant on the 3+ year old MacPro's? How will Apple be able to source out the Xeon E5's that have been updated two times and the countless new graphics cards that are out? How will they be able to source out enough USB-C ports for the MacPro. I know its crazy for me to think that they are capable of getting these parts.
Even more ignorant than I thought. IPhone screens are LTPS based, not IGZO. Entirely different technology, different sources.
Wow. give it up dude. You obviously seem to have trouble comprehending dialog. The point was not to compare an iPhone screen to a 27" panel, it was that Apple is big enough to get what ever they need. BTW my ignorance is getting in the way of knowing what kind of panel goes in those 5k iMacs they're currently selling and how in the world were they able to obtain them. Man, there is absolutely no way they can stick those same panels in a iMac frame with out the computer. The sheer demand of these monitors would bring Apple to its knees and then they would have to stop making iPhones because they would have to spend all their time begging manufactures to make 27" panels instead. They also won't be able to update their iMacs in a timely fashion. Oh wait. I finally got it. The desktops can't be updated because Apple must secretly hoard enough 27" IGZO panels for them to release new iMacs. Well, thank God they cancelled the monitor then.
It really takes a big man to go on the internet and make personal attacks on people.
You cavil at Apple out of ignorance, adding to the perceptual problem under discussion, you get a personal atrack from me. You assume that Apple can get all the IGZO monitors they need for monitors and just crank them out. Show us that LG, the only supplier at present, can do so.
It's got nothing to do with phones. It's got to do with LG. Show us. The basic problem is that you guys are trying to say you know how Apple should run its business, and are willing to prognosticate decline and doom on it, and you don't know shit. I and m any others get tired of this constant negative armchair CEO-ing. If you know something about display technology and LG's production, fine. But you don't. Don't assume you know enough to add to Apple's perceived problems.
I have been able to provide you with fact that Apple is able to obtain 27" IGZO panels as they are what they use in their iMacs. Fact 2, Monitors are not a high demand product so in no way would it constrain iMacs at this time especially that they were able to provide iMacs at peak introduction rates. Fact 3, Releasing a TB3 monitor would only allow it to work on two current models at this time further reducing demand. Fact 4, Apple teamed up with LG to sell monitors. So if LG is able to make enough panels for this purpose, that means there are enough panels in existence for this purpose. Fact 5, I've never seen Apple shy away from the problem of too much demand for something. They just make you wait.
So. I've offered you five facts to counter your reason that I'm ignorant because Apple is not able to get enough 27" IGZO panels to make a cinema display yet you have not provided me with anything other than insults. You don't have to agree with my opinion but to start name calling and personal attacks because you disagree just shows off your character. You feel your personal attacks are justified because you are tired of arm-chair CEOing on a public forum with a topic about Apple being mis-managed. All I can say to that is Wow.
It seems very likely to me that LG, which has a practical monopoly on IGZO LCDs, wants to use the surplus left over from their iMac production to make back some of their investment by selling their own branded monitors, and, having Apple over a barrel supply-wise, wants also to gain all the prestige from coming out with the first 5K monitors with Apple's custom onboard processing. Apple has no choice but to say yea, because they ain't getting monitors for their own branding nohow.
See, I can make up a reasonable scenario too, and I don't know the facts either. But I"m not the one trying to character-assassinate Apple with accusations based on my ignorance. And I think my scenario makes more sense: 1) IGZO backplanes at these sizes are said to have very poor yields. 2) Apple started investing in IGZO production development at least as early as 2011 with Sharp, yet where are the Sharp big screens? Very diffucult to mass produce, most likely. 3) Apple gave away how much they may be paying LG for these monitors when they put them on sale till the end of the year in an effort to appease the whiners. I don't see any room for Apple's customary modest (40% gross) margin.
Anyway, let's go back to the article, or to the analyst's memo. Since no one has cared about it, we've dived into many different deeper issues. What the analyst says is very simple: "Apple lacks the courage to lead the next generation of innovation" What is that "next generation of innovation" we'll see. Please note that the analyst is not interested in every innovation, he's very selective, he's just involved with the "next generation of innovation". Which is...
AI, cloud-based services, messaging Now take your time to digest this.
Apple must lead the AI, Apple must lead cloud-based services, Apple must lead messaging. This is what the analyst says. So, Apple must be a services company, not a hardware company. In order to be a leader in a market you must devout all your resources to that market, obviously.
So, stop your urge to discuss Apple's innovation within the context of this article, the article and the title will not reflect what is discussed in this thread.
Sorry man... I disagree with you. If your logic is correct, then Apple can only be good at one thing. It they want to do the best laptop, it means they can't make the best phone. They want to make the best phone then they can't make the best tablet... etc.
They should be striving to be the best at everything they do. Its not like they have one person working there. They have teams assigned to each department and if the head of that department is not striving to be the absolute best in the field, then they shouldn't be there. Its not like they lack the talent or financial resources to do this. Mediocrity is not a formula for success.
Apple is a hardware company and it will remain so. If by "be good at one thing" you mean that, yes it is expected to be good in that one thing only. All other goodnesses (software, services) will serve to that one good.
And Apple has successfully achieved this since many years. Apple is under no obligation to serve or compete in Android or Windows platforms. As Apple users we have iCloud, iMessage, Siri, Apple Music, iTunes. Are they perfect? Maybe not but Apple listens to us and commits to serve us. I don't want Apple serve the customers of competing hardware products and competing operating systems.
So what you are saying is that Apple should only be expected to be the best of class at either software or hardware. I am having a hard time figuring out which one that is? You suggest hardware. Look at the purchase recommendation of their mac products. http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac.
Now if you want to call "hardware" only the iPhone and exclude everything else, then yes they are best in class. I don't call that a hardware company though, I call that a one trick pony phone company.
I think its important to be best in class or close to it in all areas, especially in new technologies such as AI/VR/AR. You never know when that one thing becomes the tipping point for people to switch to another product no matter how good your hardware is. Everyone switched to the iPhone because touch became the revolution. If another platform all of sudden has the AI that cleans my house and cooks dinner for me, I'm out of here.
There are no new technologies such as AI/VR/AR. All of those are hype to tinker with stock prices.
AI: no one knows what is it. It is just a research project not fully materialized into a concrete product. The most visible product is IBM's Watson, convincingly mature enough to beat humans in Jeopardy. Siri also is a product (in a much smaller scale) since it defines well what it can do and what it cannot.
VR: total hype. A headset tethered to computer is a joke. A guy turning in circles around a water-plumbed computer in a radius permitted by the USB cable's length is rather a scene from comedy films or cartoons. Only Apple has the technology to produce an untethered stand-alone headset, thanks to iOS, A series chips and Metal. But even a standalone headset is not enough. There is no VR unless you introduce your very virtual self into the VR scene. That requires a body kit. Again Apple has already a mature HomeKit that can evolve into a body kit. You cannot do VR with a ridiculous joystick. If it is joystick then I already do that in my 2D flat screen, why should I wear the whole display assembly on my head?
AR: There is already a bird's view version of it called Maps. The problem with AR is that when you leave the bird's view and descend to the street level there is a huge amount of information that needs precise processing for positioning, otherwise all the information labels would show wrong places. Such precision requires a continuous collection of fresh data. Imagine that in a crowded city. We are at least five years away from such a clean data for main cities.
These are my personal views and as such, you can ignore them safely. What you cannot ignore so easily is that Apple is a quality hardware company proven with millions of quality products we encounter everyday everywhere. If you still have a problem in figuring out "which one that is", I suggest you to go back to square one.
Anyway, let's go back to the article, or to the analyst's memo. Since no one has cared about it, we've dived into many different deeper issues. What the analyst says is very simple: "Apple lacks the courage to lead the next generation of innovation" What is that "next generation of innovation" we'll see. Please note that the analyst is not interested in every innovation, he's very selective, he's just involved with the "next generation of innovation". Which is...
AI, cloud-based services, messaging Now take your time to digest this.
Apple must lead the AI, Apple must lead cloud-based services, Apple must lead messaging. This is what the analyst says. So, Apple must be a services company, not a hardware company. In order to be a leader in a market you must devout all your resources to that market, obviously.
So, stop your urge to discuss Apple's innovation within the context of this article, the article and the title will not reflect what is discussed in this thread.
Sorry man... I disagree with you. If your logic is correct, then Apple can only be good at one thing. It they want to do the best laptop, it means they can't make the best phone. They want to make the best phone then they can't make the best tablet... etc.
They should be striving to be the best at everything they do. Its not like they have one person working there. They have teams assigned to each department and if the head of that department is not striving to be the absolute best in the field, then they shouldn't be there. Its not like they lack the talent or financial resources to do this. Mediocrity is not a formula for success.
Apple is a hardware company and it will remain so. If by "be good at one thing" you mean that, yes it is expected to be good in that one thing only. All other goodnesses (software, services) will serve to that one good.
And Apple has successfully achieved this since many years. Apple is under no obligation to serve or compete in Android or Windows platforms. As Apple users we have iCloud, iMessage, Siri, Apple Music, iTunes. Are they perfect? Maybe not but Apple listens to us and commits to serve us. I don't want Apple serve the customers of competing hardware products and competing operating systems.
So what you are saying is that Apple should only be expected to be the best of class at either software or hardware. I am having a hard time figuring out which one that is? You suggest hardware. Look at the purchase recommendation of their mac products. http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac.
Now if you want to call "hardware" only the iPhone and exclude everything else, then yes they are best in class. I don't call that a hardware company though, I call that a one trick pony phone company.
I think its important to be best in class or close to it in all areas, especially in new technologies such as AI/VR/AR. You never know when that one thing becomes the tipping point for people to switch to another product no matter how good your hardware is. Everyone switched to the iPhone because touch became the revolution. If another platform all of sudden has the AI that cleans my house and cooks dinner for me, I'm out of here.
There are no new technologies such as AI/VR/AR. All of those are hype to tinker with stock prices.
AI: no one knows what is it. It is just a research project not fully materialized into a concrete product. The most visible product is IBM's Watson, convincingly mature enough to beat humans in Jeopardy. Siri also is a product (in a much smaller scale) since it defines well what it can do and what it cannot.
VR: total hype. A headset tethered to computer is a joke. A guy turning in circles around a water-plumbed computer in a radius permitted by the USB cable's length is rather a scene from comedy films or cartoons. Only Apple has the technology to produce an untethered stand-alone headset, thanks to iOS, A series chips and Metal. But even a standalone headset is not enough. There is no VR unless you introduce your very virtual self into the VR scene. That requires a body kit. Again Apple has already a mature HomeKit that can evolve into a body kit. You cannot do VR with a ridiculous joystick. If it is joystick then I already do that in my 2D flat screen, why should I wear the whole display assembly on my head?
AR: There is already a bird's view version of it called Maps. The problem with AR is that when you leave the bird's view and descend to the street level there is a huge amount of information that needs precise processing for positioning, otherwise all the information labels would show wrong places. Such precision requires a continuous collection of fresh data. Imagine that in a crowded city. We are at least five years away from such a clean data for main cities.
These are my personal views and as such, you can ignore them safely. What you cannot ignore so easily is that Apple is a quality hardware company proven with millions of quality products we encounter everyday everywhere. If you still have a problem in figuring out "which one that is", I suggest you to go back to square one.
"AI: no one knows what is it. It is just a research project not fully materialized into a concrete product. The most visible product is IBM's Watson, convincingly mature enough to beat humans in Jeopardy."
It is interesting that IBM is opening up Watson to developers -- specifically Swift Developers:
Anyway, let's go back to the article, or to the analyst's memo. Since no one has cared about it, we've dived into many different deeper issues. What the analyst says is very simple: "Apple lacks the courage to lead the next generation of innovation" What is that "next generation of innovation" we'll see. Please note that the analyst is not interested in every innovation, he's very selective, he's just involved with the "next generation of innovation". Which is...
AI, cloud-based services, messaging Now take your time to digest this.
Apple must lead the AI, Apple must lead cloud-based services, Apple must lead messaging. This is what the analyst says. So, Apple must be a services company, not a hardware company. In order to be a leader in a market you must devout all your resources to that market, obviously.
So, stop your urge to discuss Apple's innovation within the context of this article, the article and the title will not reflect what is discussed in this thread.
Sorry man... I disagree with you. If your logic is correct, then Apple can only be good at one thing. It they want to do the best laptop, it means they can't make the best phone. They want to make the best phone then they can't make the best tablet... etc.
They should be striving to be the best at everything they do. Its not like they have one person working there. They have teams assigned to each department and if the head of that department is not striving to be the absolute best in the field, then they shouldn't be there. Its not like they lack the talent or financial resources to do this. Mediocrity is not a formula for success.
Apple is a hardware company and it will remain so. If by "be good at one thing" you mean that, yes it is expected to be good in that one thing only. All other goodnesses (software, services) will serve to that one good.
And Apple has successfully achieved this since many years. Apple is under no obligation to serve or compete in Android or Windows platforms. As Apple users we have iCloud, iMessage, Siri, Apple Music, iTunes. Are they perfect? Maybe not but Apple listens to us and commits to serve us. I don't want Apple serve the customers of competing hardware products and competing operating systems.
So what you are saying is that Apple should only be expected to be the best of class at either software or hardware. I am having a hard time figuring out which one that is? You suggest hardware. Look at the purchase recommendation of their mac products. http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac.
Now if you want to call "hardware" only the iPhone and exclude everything else, then yes they are best in class. I don't call that a hardware company though, I call that a one trick pony phone company.
I think its important to be best in class or close to it in all areas, especially in new technologies such as AI/VR/AR. You never know when that one thing becomes the tipping point for people to switch to another product no matter how good your hardware is. Everyone switched to the iPhone because touch became the revolution. If another platform all of sudden has the AI that cleans my house and cooks dinner for me, I'm out of here.
There are no new technologies such as AI/VR/AR. All of those are hype to tinker with stock prices.
AI: no one knows what is it. It is just a research project not fully materialized into a concrete product. The most visible product is IBM's Watson, convincingly mature enough to beat humans in Jeopardy. Siri also is a product (in a much smaller scale) since it defines well what it can do and what it cannot.
VR: total hype. A headset tethered to computer is a joke. A guy turning in circles around a water-plumbed computer in a radius permitted by the USB cable's length is rather a scene from comedy films or cartoons. Only Apple has the technology to produce an untethered stand-alone headset, thanks to iOS, A series chips and Metal. But even a standalone headset is not enough. There is no VR unless you introduce your very virtual self into the VR scene. That requires a body kit. Again Apple has already a mature HomeKit that can evolve into a body kit. You cannot do VR with a ridiculous joystick. If it is joystick then I already do that in my 2D flat screen, why should I wear the whole display assembly on my head?
AR: There is already a bird's view version of it called Maps. The problem with AR is that when you leave the bird's view and descend to the street level there is a huge amount of information that needs precise processing for positioning, otherwise all the information labels would show wrong places. Such precision requires a continuous collection of fresh data. Imagine that in a crowded city. We are at least five years away from such a clean data for main cities.
These are my personal views and as such, you can ignore them safely. What you cannot ignore so easily is that Apple is a quality hardware company proven with millions of quality products we encounter everyday everywhere. If you still have a problem in figuring out "which one that is", I suggest you to go back to square one.
"AI: no one knows what is it. It is just a research project not fully materialized into a concrete product. The most visible product is IBM's Watson, convincingly mature enough to beat humans in Jeopardy."
It is interesting that IBM is opening up Watson to developers -- specifically Swift Developers:
That is very interesting. If you arrive at a view to what it means, what the implications are, please let us know. In other words, I don't know what to make of it.
Anyway, let's go back to the article, or to the analyst's memo. Since no one has cared about it, we've dived into many different deeper issues. What the analyst says is very simple: "Apple lacks the courage to lead the next generation of innovation" What is that "next generation of innovation" we'll see. Please note that the analyst is not interested in every innovation, he's very selective, he's just involved with the "next generation of innovation". Which is...
AI, cloud-based services, messaging Now take your time to digest this.
Apple must lead the AI, Apple must lead cloud-based services, Apple must lead messaging. This is what the analyst says. So, Apple must be a services company, not a hardware company. In order to be a leader in a market you must devout all your resources to that market, obviously.
So, stop your urge to discuss Apple's innovation within the context of this article, the article and the title will not reflect what is discussed in this thread.
Sorry man... I disagree with you. If your logic is correct, then Apple can only be good at one thing. It they want to do the best laptop, it means they can't make the best phone. They want to make the best phone then they can't make the best tablet... etc.
They should be striving to be the best at everything they do. Its not like they have one person working there. They have teams assigned to each department and if the head of that department is not striving to be the absolute best in the field, then they shouldn't be there. Its not like they lack the talent or financial resources to do this. Mediocrity is not a formula for success.
Apple is a hardware company and it will remain so. If by "be good at one thing" you mean that, yes it is expected to be good in that one thing only. All other goodnesses (software, services) will serve to that one good.
And Apple has successfully achieved this since many years. Apple is under no obligation to serve or compete in Android or Windows platforms. As Apple users we have iCloud, iMessage, Siri, Apple Music, iTunes. Are they perfect? Maybe not but Apple listens to us and commits to serve us. I don't want Apple serve the customers of competing hardware products and competing operating systems.
So what you are saying is that Apple should only be expected to be the best of class at either software or hardware. I am having a hard time figuring out which one that is? You suggest hardware. Look at the purchase recommendation of their mac products. http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac.
Now if you want to call "hardware" only the iPhone and exclude everything else, then yes they are best in class. I don't call that a hardware company though, I call that a one trick pony phone company.
I think its important to be best in class or close to it in all areas, especially in new technologies such as AI/VR/AR. You never know when that one thing becomes the tipping point for people to switch to another product no matter how good your hardware is. Everyone switched to the iPhone because touch became the revolution. If another platform all of sudden has the AI that cleans my house and cooks dinner for me, I'm out of here.
There are no new technologies such as AI/VR/AR. All of those are hype to tinker with stock prices.
AI: no one knows what is it. It is just a research project not fully materialized into a concrete product. The most visible product is IBM's Watson, convincingly mature enough to beat humans in Jeopardy. Siri also is a product (in a much smaller scale) since it defines well what it can do and what it cannot.
VR: total hype. A headset tethered to computer is a joke. A guy turning in circles around a water-plumbed computer in a radius permitted by the USB cable's length is rather a scene from comedy films or cartoons. Only Apple has the technology to produce an untethered stand-alone headset, thanks to iOS, A series chips and Metal. But even a standalone headset is not enough. There is no VR unless you introduce your very virtual self into the VR scene. That requires a body kit. Again Apple has already a mature HomeKit that can evolve into a body kit. You cannot do VR with a ridiculous joystick. If it is joystick then I already do that in my 2D flat screen, why should I wear the whole display assembly on my head?
AR: There is already a bird's view version of it called Maps. The problem with AR is that when you leave the bird's view and descend to the street level there is a huge amount of information that needs precise processing for positioning, otherwise all the information labels would show wrong places. Such precision requires a continuous collection of fresh data. Imagine that in a crowded city. We are at least five years away from such a clean data for main cities.
These are my personal views and as such, you can ignore them safely. What you cannot ignore so easily is that Apple is a quality hardware company proven with millions of quality products we encounter everyday everywhere. If you still have a problem in figuring out "which one that is", I suggest you to go back to square one.
"AI: no one knows what is it. It is just a research project not fully materialized into a concrete product. The most visible product is IBM's Watson, convincingly mature enough to beat humans in Jeopardy."
It is interesting that IBM is opening up Watson to developers -- specifically Swift Developers:
That is very interesting. If you arrive at a view to what it means, what the implications are, please let us know. In other words, I don't know what to make of it.
Writing applications that use Watson's capabilities. There are already Watson-capable health applications in the AppStore.
I"m not even caring that they have failed to innovate. They can't even keep their current products remotely up to date. 3+ year old MacPro's are unacceptable. The seamless Mac eco-system is being fragmented and destroyed by the cancelation of key products (Monitors, routers). Apple monitors are pure source of advertising for a company. Going into an office and seeing all those lit Apple logo's was fantastic mind share. Now we get to see plastic LG monitors and have no clue whats running them. But hey, Apple will only make a hundred million on monitors instead of a 100 billion, so it needs to be axed.
They have been switching to USB-C for over a year now and yet only 2 models have them. How am I suppose to buy USB-C peripherals for my company when our MacPro's, iMacs... etc can't use them. The "Hello" event should have a been a complete transition day for all of Apple's desktops, laptops, iphones, and iPads over to USB-C. That's how you transition. I guess, Tim and company really have replaced their computers with iPads because they have no clue how their decisions are affecting people in the real world.
You are ignorant of any material reasons for Apple's moves. Example: tell us where Apple would get an extra 3 million or so 27" IGZO-backed LCD screens to supply a new line of Cinema Displays. You can't tell us. Ergo, you are full of . . . hot air.
LOL... I am ignorant because you believe that Apple is not capable of getting 3 million display panels? So they are able to source out hundreds of millions of iPhone displays but Apple doesn't have enough clout or money to contract out 3 million 27" panels. Yah... I'm the ignorant one.
Am I also ignorant on the 3+ year old MacPro's? How will Apple be able to source out the Xeon E5's that have been updated two times and the countless new graphics cards that are out? How will they be able to source out enough USB-C ports for the MacPro. I know its crazy for me to think that they are capable of getting these parts.
Even more ignorant than I thought. IPhone screens are LTPS based, not IGZO. Entirely different technology, different sources.
Wow. give it up dude. You obviously seem to have trouble comprehending dialog. The point was not to compare an iPhone screen to a 27" panel, it was that Apple is big enough to get what ever they need. BTW my ignorance is getting in the way of knowing what kind of panel goes in those 5k iMacs they're currently selling and how in the world were they able to obtain them. Man, there is absolutely no way they can stick those same panels in a iMac frame with out the computer. The sheer demand of these monitors would bring Apple to its knees and then they would have to stop making iPhones because they would have to spend all their time begging manufactures to make 27" panels instead. They also won't be able to update their iMacs in a timely fashion. Oh wait. I finally got it. The desktops can't be updated because Apple must secretly hoard enough 27" IGZO panels for them to release new iMacs. Well, thank God they cancelled the monitor then.
It really takes a big man to go on the internet and make personal attacks on people.
You cavil at Apple out of ignorance, adding to the perceptual problem under discussion, you get a personal atrack from me. You assume that Apple can get all the IGZO monitors they need for monitors and just crank them out. Show us that LG, the only supplier at present, can do so.
It's got nothing to do with phones. It's got to do with LG. Show us. The basic problem is that you guys are trying to say you know how Apple should run its business, and are willing to prognosticate decline and doom on it, and you don't know shit. I and m any others get tired of this constant negative armchair CEO-ing. If you know something about display technology and LG's production, fine. But you don't. Don't assume you know enough to add to Apple's perceived problems.
I have been able to provide you with fact that Apple is able to obtain 27" IGZO panels as they are what they use in their iMacs. Fact 2, Monitors are not a high demand product so in no way would it constrain iMacs at this time especially that they were able to provide iMacs at peak introduction rates. Fact 3, Releasing a TB3 monitor would only allow it to work on two current models at this time further reducing demand. Fact 4, Apple teamed up with LG to sell monitors. So if LG is able to make enough panels for this purpose, that means there are enough panels in existence for this purpose. Fact 5, I've never seen Apple shy away from the problem of too much demand for something. They just make you wait.
So. I've offered you five facts to counter your reason that I'm ignorant because Apple is not able to get enough 27" IGZO panels to make a cinema display yet you have not provided me with anything other than insults. You don't have to agree with my opinion but to start name calling and personal attacks because you disagree just shows off your character. You feel your personal attacks are justified because you are tired of arm-chair CEOing on a public forum with a topic about Apple being mis-managed. All I can say to that is Wow.
It seems very likely to me that LG, which has a practical monopoly on IGZO LCDs, wants to use the surplus left over from their iMac production to make back some of their investment by selling their own branded monitors, and, having Apple over a barrel supply-wise, wants also to gain all the prestige from coming out with the first 5K monitors with Apple's custom onboard processing. Apple has no choice but to say yea, because they ain't getting monitors for their own branding nohow.
See, I can make up a reasonable scenario too, and I don't know the facts either. But I"m not the one trying to character-assassinate Apple with accusations based on my ignorance. And I think my scenario makes more sense: 1) IGZO backplanes at these sizes are said to have very poor yields. 2) Apple started investing in IGZO production development at least as early as 2011 with Sharp, yet where are the Sharp big screens? Very diffucult to mass produce, most likely. 3) Apple gave away how much they may be paying LG for these monitors when they put them on sale till the end of the year in an effort to appease the whiners. I don't see any room for Apple's customary modest (40% gross) margin.
ahhh. I see the problem. You don't know the difference between facts and made up storey to suit your agenda.
At least come up with a better storey than that though. So you are saying LG bullied Apple then. Ives invited LG over to see the new 5K cinema display he designed and told them "look how great this looks in alloooooominium. We are going to stick the panels that we already buy from you in there" and LG said "oh no you're not. Do you even know how hard it is for us to make these. I know we make it look easy by supplying you with your iMac demand but we just can't make any more. We don't need your money nor do we want to keep you as a happy client. Even though we would make a sale when you make a sale, we want the standalone 5k monitor market all to ourselves simply because we think we can make it look better than you can. (A blanket gets unveiled) Look at what we have done, its called "premium plastic" and Ives went "Wow, you're right, that looks amazing. Sorry for wasting your time we will scrap what we've been working on for four years and then Ives went to cry in the corner" Yah... okay....that's what happened.
I'm not sure which machine you use to do your design and publishing, but if its a MacPro and you need to replace it because your MacPro dies tomorrow, you will quickly learn that a new one is severely over priced and 3+ years out of date compared to what the competition is selling.
Two things:
it is about the numbers. I have an iMac 5k, a MBP, the first retina model, and a 2006 Mac Pro which I have upgraded to 1TB SSD, new faster Xeons and maxed out the RAM to 32GB, new video card, running Yosemite, all less than $600, All are functioning perfectly well.
When you look at the ROI I'm so far ahead it really doesn't matter if something fails, which is not very likely anyway. I'm making lots of profit from my Macs.
I have no issues with my choice to use Macs over any other platform even though Adobe CC runs on Windows too. I'm all Mac. Always have been, always will be.
Anyway, let's go back to the article, or to the analyst's memo. Since no one has cared about it, we've dived into many different deeper issues. What the analyst says is very simple: "Apple lacks the courage to lead the next generation of innovation" What is that "next generation of innovation" we'll see. Please note that the analyst is not interested in every innovation, he's very selective, he's just involved with the "next generation of innovation". Which is...
AI, cloud-based services, messaging Now take your time to digest this.
Apple must lead the AI, Apple must lead cloud-based services, Apple must lead messaging. This is what the analyst says. So, Apple must be a services company, not a hardware company. In order to be a leader in a market you must devout all your resources to that market, obviously.
So, stop your urge to discuss Apple's innovation within the context of this article, the article and the title will not reflect what is discussed in this thread.
Sorry man... I disagree with you. If your logic is correct, then Apple can only be good at one thing. It they want to do the best laptop, it means they can't make the best phone. They want to make the best phone then they can't make the best tablet... etc.
They should be striving to be the best at everything they do. Its not like they have one person working there. They have teams assigned to each department and if the head of that department is not striving to be the absolute best in the field, then they shouldn't be there. Its not like they lack the talent or financial resources to do this. Mediocrity is not a formula for success.
Apple is a hardware company and it will remain so. If by "be good at one thing" you mean that, yes it is expected to be good in that one thing only. All other goodnesses (software, services) will serve to that one good.
And Apple has successfully achieved this since many years. Apple is under no obligation to serve or compete in Android or Windows platforms. As Apple users we have iCloud, iMessage, Siri, Apple Music, iTunes. Are they perfect? Maybe not but Apple listens to us and commits to serve us. I don't want Apple serve the customers of competing hardware products and competing operating systems.
So what you are saying is that Apple should only be expected to be the best of class at either software or hardware. I am having a hard time figuring out which one that is? You suggest hardware. Look at the purchase recommendation of their mac products. http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac.
Now if you want to call "hardware" only the iPhone and exclude everything else, then yes they are best in class. I don't call that a hardware company though, I call that a one trick pony phone company.
I think its important to be best in class or close to it in all areas, especially in new technologies such as AI/VR/AR. You never know when that one thing becomes the tipping point for people to switch to another product no matter how good your hardware is. Everyone switched to the iPhone because touch became the revolution. If another platform all of sudden has the AI that cleans my house and cooks dinner for me, I'm out of here.
There are no new technologies such as AI/VR/AR. All of those are hype to tinker with stock prices.
AI: no one knows what is it. It is just a research project not fully materialized into a concrete product. The most visible product is IBM's Watson, convincingly mature enough to beat humans in Jeopardy. Siri also is a product (in a much smaller scale) since it defines well what it can do and what it cannot.
VR: total hype. A headset tethered to computer is a joke. A guy turning in circles around a water-plumbed computer in a radius permitted by the USB cable's length is rather a scene from comedy films or cartoons. Only Apple has the technology to produce an untethered stand-alone headset, thanks to iOS, A series chips and Metal. But even a standalone headset is not enough. There is no VR unless you introduce your very virtual self into the VR scene. That requires a body kit. Again Apple has already a mature HomeKit that can evolve into a body kit. You cannot do VR with a ridiculous joystick. If it is joystick then I already do that in my 2D flat screen, why should I wear the whole display assembly on my head?
AR: There is already a bird's view version of it called Maps. The problem with AR is that when you leave the bird's view and descend to the street level there is a huge amount of information that needs precise processing for positioning, otherwise all the information labels would show wrong places. Such precision requires a continuous collection of fresh data. Imagine that in a crowded city. We are at least five years away from such a clean data for main cities.
These are my personal views and as such, you can ignore them safely. What you cannot ignore so easily is that Apple is a quality hardware company proven with millions of quality products we encounter everyday everywhere. If you still have a problem in figuring out "which one that is", I suggest you to go back to square one.
"AI: no one knows what is it. It is just a research project not fully materialized into a concrete product. The most visible product is IBM's Watson, convincingly mature enough to beat humans in Jeopardy."
It is interesting that IBM is opening up Watson to developers -- specifically Swift Developers:
Swift... Let me define as vague as possible: The most important innovation in computer programming since the demise of Java. But you cannot explain that to an analyst...
The biggest tech advancements in the last 10 years have been 1. smartphones 2. social media. 3. will be delivering services based on data already gathered with AI. Apple nailed #1, missed #2 and google/amazon are fixing to take #3. Apple's avoidance of cataloging personal data and preferences is going to end up biting them. Siri just isn't good enough to catch up. I think 10 yrs ago at the beginning of the smartphone era, avoiding data collection was a selling point for iphone, but now it'll be a liability. Hell, they should pay iphone users to give up some of their data. They have more than enough money to do so.
nothing special because 90% of retailers don't use it.
what good is a product if you can't use it most of the time?
And don't say that isn't Apple's fault. Its more than just having a smart idea, it needs to work and be practical.
AT this point ApplePay is a gimmick because so few places accept it.
I think apple pay utilization would go up 100x if people could just pay other iphone users with it a la venmo/square cash. Why haven't they done this? Then who would care about retailer acceptance......
I"m not even caring that they have failed to innovate. They can't even keep their current products remotely up to date. 3+ year old MacPro's are unacceptable. The seamless Mac eco-system is being fragmented and destroyed by the cancelation of key products (Monitors, routers). Apple monitors are pure source of advertising for a company. Going into an office and seeing all those lit Apple logo's was fantastic mind share. Now we get to see plastic LG monitors and have no clue whats running them. But hey, Apple will only make a hundred million on monitors instead of a 100 billion, so it needs to be axed.
They have been switching to USB-C for over a year now and yet only 2 models have them. How am I suppose to buy USB-C peripherals for my company when our MacPro's, iMacs... etc can't use them. The "Hello" event should have a been a complete transition day for all of Apple's desktops, laptops, iphones, and iPads over to USB-C. That's how you transition. I guess, Tim and company really have replaced their computers with iPads because they have no clue how their decisions are affecting people in the real world.
You are ignorant of any material reasons for Apple's moves. Example: tell us where Apple would get an extra 3 million or so 27" IGZO-backed LCD screens to supply a new line of Cinema Displays. You can't tell us. Ergo, you are full of . . . hot air.
LOL... I am ignorant because you believe that Apple is not capable of getting 3 million display panels? So they are able to source out hundreds of millions of iPhone displays but Apple doesn't have enough clout or money to contract out 3 million 27" panels. Yah... I'm the ignorant one.
Am I also ignorant on the 3+ year old MacPro's? How will Apple be able to source out the Xeon E5's that have been updated two times and the countless new graphics cards that are out? How will they be able to source out enough USB-C ports for the MacPro. I know its crazy for me to think that they are capable of getting these parts.
Even more ignorant than I thought. IPhone screens are LTPS based, not IGZO. Entirely different technology, different sources.
Wow. give it up dude. You obviously seem to have trouble comprehending dialog. The point was not to compare an iPhone screen to a 27" panel, it was that Apple is big enough to get what ever they need. BTW my ignorance is getting in the way of knowing what kind of panel goes in those 5k iMacs they're currently selling and how in the world were they able to obtain them. Man, there is absolutely no way they can stick those same panels in a iMac frame with out the computer. The sheer demand of these monitors would bring Apple to its knees and then they would have to stop making iPhones because they would have to spend all their time begging manufactures to make 27" panels instead. They also won't be able to update their iMacs in a timely fashion. Oh wait. I finally got it. The desktops can't be updated because Apple must secretly hoard enough 27" IGZO panels for them to release new iMacs. Well, thank God they cancelled the monitor then.
It really takes a big man to go on the internet and make personal attacks on people.
You cavil at Apple out of ignorance, adding to the perceptual problem under discussion, you get a personal atrack from me. You assume that Apple can get all the IGZO monitors they need for monitors and just crank them out. Show us that LG, the only supplier at present, can do so.
It's got nothing to do with phones. It's got to do with LG. Show us. The basic problem is that you guys are trying to say you know how Apple should run its business, and are willing to prognosticate decline and doom on it, and you don't know shit. I and m any others get tired of this constant negative armchair CEO-ing. If you know something about display technology and LG's production, fine. But you don't. Don't assume you know enough to add to Apple's perceived problems.
I have been able to provide you with fact that Apple is able to obtain 27" IGZO panels as they are what they use in their iMacs. Fact 2, Monitors are not a high demand product so in no way would it constrain iMacs at this time especially that they were able to provide iMacs at peak introduction rates. Fact 3, Releasing a TB3 monitor would only allow it to work on two current models at this time further reducing demand. Fact 4, Apple teamed up with LG to sell monitors. So if LG is able to make enough panels for this purpose, that means there are enough panels in existence for this purpose. Fact 5, I've never seen Apple shy away from the problem of too much demand for something. They just make you wait.
So. I've offered you five facts to counter your reason that I'm ignorant because Apple is not able to get enough 27" IGZO panels to make a cinema display yet you have not provided me with anything other than insults. You don't have to agree with my opinion but to start name calling and personal attacks because you disagree just shows off your character. You feel your personal attacks are justified because you are tired of arm-chair CEOing on a public forum with a topic about Apple being mis-managed. All I can say to that is Wow.
It seems very likely to me that LG, which has a practical monopoly on IGZO LCDs, wants to use the surplus left over from their iMac production to make back some of their investment by selling their own branded monitors, and, having Apple over a barrel supply-wise, wants also to gain all the prestige from coming out with the first 5K monitors with Apple's custom onboard processing. Apple has no choice but to say yea, because they ain't getting monitors for their own branding nohow.
See, I can make up a reasonable scenario too, and I don't know the facts either. But I"m not the one trying to character-assassinate Apple with accusations based on my ignorance. And I think my scenario makes more sense: 1) IGZO backplanes at these sizes are said to have very poor yields. 2) Apple started investing in IGZO production development at least as early as 2011 with Sharp, yet where are the Sharp big screens? Very diffucult to mass produce, most likely. 3) Apple gave away how much they may be paying LG for these monitors when they put them on sale till the end of the year in an effort to appease the whiners. I don't see any room for Apple's customary modest (40% gross) margin.
ahhh. I see the problem. You don't know the difference between facts and made up storey to suit your agenda.
At least come up with a better storey than that though. So you are saying LG bullied Apple then. Ives invited LG over to see the new 5K cinema display he designed and told them "look how great this looks in alloooooominium. We are going to stick the panels that we already buy from you in there" and LG said "oh no you're not. Do you even know how hard it is for us to make these. I know we make it look easy by supplying you with your iMac demand but we just can't make any more. We don't need your money nor do we want to keep you as a happy client. Even though we would make a sale when you make a sale, we want the standalone 5k monitor market all to ourselves simply because we think we can make it look better than you can. (A blanket gets unveiled) Look at what we have done, its called "premium plastic" and Ives went "Wow, you're right, that looks amazing. Sorry for wasting your time we will scrap what we've been working on for four years and then Ives went to cry in the corner" Yah... okay....that's what happened.
Nice try. Lotta work on your part. Who's Ives?
An afterthought: display technology has been and still may be determining Apple's release priorities. Large-screen iPhones were delayed by a year or two by production constraints of LTPS displays. The reason that the new MacBook Pros took an extra year or so to appear may well have been LG's ability to supply the oxide screens that the new form factor is designed around.
Finally, we've seen several stories, one here on AI today, that OLED supply for Apple is going to be problematical for the industry, including Apple, for the next few years. The reason we don't connect the production cause and effect dots on this topic — display technology — is that few journalists or bloggers are interested or well-versed on the physical details. Who knows even what an oxide backplane is, for example? Who developed it? Why is it 30% more efficient energy-wise? Etc.
Anyway, let's go back to the article, or to the analyst's memo. Since no one has cared about it, we've dived into many different deeper issues. What the analyst says is very simple: "Apple lacks the courage to lead the next generation of innovation" What is that "next generation of innovation" we'll see. Please note that the analyst is not interested in every innovation, he's very selective, he's just involved with the "next generation of innovation". Which is...
AI, cloud-based services, messaging Now take your time to digest this.
Apple must lead the AI, Apple must lead cloud-based services, Apple must lead messaging. This is what the analyst says. So, Apple must be a services company, not a hardware company. In order to be a leader in a market you must devout all your resources to that market, obviously.
So, stop your urge to discuss Apple's innovation within the context of this article, the article and the title will not reflect what is discussed in this thread.
Sorry man... I disagree with you. If your logic is correct, then Apple can only be good at one thing. It they want to do the best laptop, it means they can't make the best phone. They want to make the best phone then they can't make the best tablet... etc.
They should be striving to be the best at everything they do. Its not like they have one person working there. They have teams assigned to each department and if the head of that department is not striving to be the absolute best in the field, then they shouldn't be there. Its not like they lack the talent or financial resources to do this. Mediocrity is not a formula for success.
Apple is a hardware company and it will remain so. If by "be good at one thing" you mean that, yes it is expected to be good in that one thing only. All other goodnesses (software, services) will serve to that one good.
And Apple has successfully achieved this since many years. Apple is under no obligation to serve or compete in Android or Windows platforms. As Apple users we have iCloud, iMessage, Siri, Apple Music, iTunes. Are they perfect? Maybe not but Apple listens to us and commits to serve us. I don't want Apple serve the customers of competing hardware products and competing operating systems.
So what you are saying is that Apple should only be expected to be the best of class at either software or hardware. I am having a hard time figuring out which one that is? You suggest hardware. Look at the purchase recommendation of their mac products. http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac.
Now if you want to call "hardware" only the iPhone and exclude everything else, then yes they are best in class. I don't call that a hardware company though, I call that a one trick pony phone company.
I think its important to be best in class or close to it in all areas, especially in new technologies such as AI/VR/AR. You never know when that one thing becomes the tipping point for people to switch to another product no matter how good your hardware is. Everyone switched to the iPhone because touch became the revolution. If another platform all of sudden has the AI that cleans my house and cooks dinner for me, I'm out of here.
There are no new technologies such as AI/VR/AR. All of those are hype to tinker with stock prices.
AI: no one knows what is it. It is just a research project not fully materialized into a concrete product. The most visible product is IBM's Watson, convincingly mature enough to beat humans in Jeopardy. Siri also is a product (in a much smaller scale) since it defines well what it can do and what it cannot.
VR: total hype. A headset tethered to computer is a joke. A guy turning in circles around a water-plumbed computer in a radius permitted by the USB cable's length is rather a scene from comedy films or cartoons. Only Apple has the technology to produce an untethered stand-alone headset, thanks to iOS, A series chips and Metal. But even a standalone headset is not enough. There is no VR unless you introduce your very virtual self into the VR scene. That requires a body kit. Again Apple has already a mature HomeKit that can evolve into a body kit. You cannot do VR with a ridiculous joystick. If it is joystick then I already do that in my 2D flat screen, why should I wear the whole display assembly on my head?
AR: There is already a bird's view version of it called Maps. The problem with AR is that when you leave the bird's view and descend to the street level there is a huge amount of information that needs precise processing for positioning, otherwise all the information labels would show wrong places. Such precision requires a continuous collection of fresh data. Imagine that in a crowded city. We are at least five years away from such a clean data for main cities.
These are my personal views and as such, you can ignore them safely. What you cannot ignore so easily is that Apple is a quality hardware company proven with millions of quality products we encounter everyday everywhere. If you still have a problem in figuring out "which one that is", I suggest you to go back to square one.
"AI: no one knows what is it. It is just a research project not fully materialized into a concrete product. The most visible product is IBM's Watson, convincingly mature enough to beat humans in Jeopardy."
It is interesting that IBM is opening up Watson to developers -- specifically Swift Developers:
That is very interesting. If you arrive at a view to what it means, what the implications are, please let us know. In other words, I don't know what to make of it.
Writing applications that use Watson's capabilities. There are already Watson-capable health applications in the AppStore.
I think Apple is doing plenty of innovation. However, the issue for me is whether it's in the current management's (and Board's) DNA to do something really bold, something that can move the needle given its behemoth size. I have no clue what that would be, but I could certainly see the car, education, (still) the living room, and India as serious possibilities. I am not so sure about health, since it's an incredibly complicated, messy business. 'Social', music accessories (e.g., Airpods, Beats) and music subscriptions are definitely not 'it' for me.
Also, I also feel like some really interesting acquisition possibilities -- e.g., Harman Kardon -- have been left on the table or lost to competitors. Even a McLaren (or a Ferrari, now that it's a publicly traded company) would send a tremendous signal.
One thing I'm not a fan of is the creation of products to get you to buy something more expensive or to fill a certain price point. For instance what exactly is the purpose of the 13" rMBP without touchbar other than a product specifically created to upsell you to the more expensive model or to fill a certain price point? On John Gruber's latest podcast neither he nor Joanna Stern could recommend that machine to anyone nor understand the point of its existence.
Well if two bloggers don't understand it, it must be a mistake! /s
Sorry but they're price points. They don't exist to upsell you, or they'd be a big waste of engineering and manufacturing. No. They serve price points for different consumers. Some people are constrained by price and multiple levels serves them.
They are inconvenient, get lost, and are ugly. No one wants to lug around an adapter everywhere they go. Funny the people defending these adapters are the same people who tease Android users for lugging around SD cards and spare batteries.
People don't want adapters? Everyone I know already carries a charger and cable. How is a slightly different adapter cable that worrisome? The headphone port went because of water proofing not just because it was "too big". It was a gaping hole. There are so many BT options already for headphones and earbuds. If you really want wired and you complain that you have to have an extra 3" cord at the end of your already corded headphones I'd say there's something wrong with your perspective.
Other vendors have sold phones that are waterproof AND have an audio jack.
Heck, the lighting port is also a "hole" in the exterior of the phone, but they kept that.
So no -- it is not necessary to remove the audio jack in order to make the phone waterproof.
Yet that is not to say that there aren't tradeoffs. Retaining the audio jack while adding water proofing would mean that something else would have to go. One option would be a smaller battery. Another option would be to make the phone a little thicker.
If W1-based wireless earphones were a proven and popular technology, with a range of products meeting the needs of a lot of people, then removing the audio jack might have made sense. But that was not the case. Maybe it will be next year -- I certainly hope so.
God i can't believe we're still debating this -- every device is different. In the iphone design, they needed the room in order to add better cameras, water seals, and bigger battery. VP of engineering said so, specificaly.
It really doesn't matter what other phones with different components and constraints did or didn't do.
The biggest tech advancements in the last 10 years have been 1. smartphones 2. social media. 3. will be delivering services based on data already gathered with AI. Apple nailed #1, missed #2 and google/amazon are fixing to take #3. Apple's avoidance of cataloging personal data and preferences is going to end up biting them. Siri just isn't good enough to catch up. I think 10 yrs ago at the beginning of the smartphone era, avoiding data collection was a selling point for iphone, but now it'll be a liability. Hell, they should pay iphone users to give up some of their data. They have more than enough money to do so.
No way Apple will try to come out with a Echo/Google home competitor - Siri is so bad most of the time that it would be embarrassing.
I'm wondering if Amazon will take another stab at a phone. An Alexa phone now that Google has their Google Home and Pixal products.
Anyway, let's go back to the article, or to the analyst's memo. Since no one has cared about it, we've dived into many different deeper issues. What the analyst says is very simple: "Apple lacks the courage to lead the next generation of innovation" What is that "next generation of innovation" we'll see. Please note that the analyst is not interested in every innovation, he's very selective, he's just involved with the "next generation of innovation". Which is...
AI, cloud-based services, messaging Now take your time to digest this.
Apple must lead the AI, Apple must lead cloud-based services, Apple must lead messaging. This is what the analyst says. So, Apple must be a services company, not a hardware company. In order to be a leader in a market you must devout all your resources to that market, obviously.
So, stop your urge to discuss Apple's innovation within the context of this article, the article and the title will not reflect what is discussed in this thread.
Sorry man... I disagree with you. If your logic is correct, then Apple can only be good at one thing. It they want to do the best laptop, it means they can't make the best phone. They want to make the best phone then they can't make the best tablet... etc.
They should be striving to be the best at everything they do. Its not like they have one person working there. They have teams assigned to each department and if the head of that department is not striving to be the absolute best in the field, then they shouldn't be there. Its not like they lack the talent or financial resources to do this. Mediocrity is not a formula for success.
Apple is a hardware company and it will remain so. If by "be good at one thing" you mean that, yes it is expected to be good in that one thing only. All other goodnesses (software, services) will serve to that one good.
And Apple has successfully achieved this since many years. Apple is under no obligation to serve or compete in Android or Windows platforms. As Apple users we have iCloud, iMessage, Siri, Apple Music, iTunes. Are they perfect? Maybe not but Apple listens to us and commits to serve us. I don't want Apple serve the customers of competing hardware products and competing operating systems.
So what you are saying is that Apple should only be expected to be the best of class at either software or hardware. I am having a hard time figuring out which one that is? You suggest hardware. Look at the purchase recommendation of their mac products. http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac.
Now if you want to call "hardware" only the iPhone and exclude everything else, then yes they are best in class. I don't call that a hardware company though, I call that a one trick pony phone company.
I think its important to be best in class or close to it in all areas, especially in new technologies such as AI/VR/AR. You never know when that one thing becomes the tipping point for people to switch to another product no matter how good your hardware is. Everyone switched to the iPhone because touch became the revolution. If another platform all of sudden has the AI that cleans my house and cooks dinner for me, I'm out of here.
VR is a fad. So your plan is throw resources at everything like the shotgun approach.
No way Apple will try to come out with a Echo/Google home competitor - Siri is so bad most of the time that it would be embarrassing.
I'm wondering if Amazon will take another stab at a phone. An Alexa phone now that Google has their Google Home and Pixal products.
I agree. Apple's AI dev needs to markedly improve before anything could be released. I'm not even sure Apple needs to release more hardware in another segment. They just need to improve in software and their current portfolio. I don't think the next several years are going to be heavy on hardware. VR I don't think is going to make a huge wave in near term.
The biggest tech advancements in the last 10 years have been 1. smartphones 2. social media. 3. will be delivering services based on data already gathered with AI. Apple nailed #1, missed #2 and google/amazon are fixing to take #3. Apple's avoidance of cataloging personal data and preferences is going to end up biting them. Siri just isn't good enough to catch up. I think 10 yrs ago at the beginning of the smartphone era, avoiding data collection was a selling point for iphone, but now it'll be a liability. Hell, they should pay iphone users to give up some of their data. They have more than enough money to do so.
Comments
See, I can make up a reasonable scenario too, and I don't know the facts either. But I"m not the one trying to character-assassinate Apple with accusations based on my ignorance. And I think my scenario makes more sense: 1) IGZO backplanes at these sizes are said to have very poor yields. 2) Apple started investing in IGZO production development at least as early as 2011 with Sharp, yet where are the Sharp big screens? Very diffucult to mass produce, most likely. 3) Apple gave away how much they may be paying LG for these monitors when they put them on sale till the end of the year in an effort to appease the whiners. I don't see any room for Apple's customary modest (40% gross) margin.
AI: no one knows what is it. It is just a research project not fully materialized into a concrete product. The most visible product is IBM's Watson, convincingly mature enough to beat humans in Jeopardy. Siri also is a product (in a much smaller scale) since it defines well what it can do and what it cannot.
VR: total hype. A headset tethered to computer is a joke. A guy turning in circles around a water-plumbed computer in a radius permitted by the USB cable's length is rather a scene from comedy films or cartoons. Only Apple has the technology to produce an untethered stand-alone headset, thanks to iOS, A series chips and Metal. But even a standalone headset is not enough. There is no VR unless you introduce your very virtual self into the VR scene. That requires a body kit. Again Apple has already a mature HomeKit that can evolve into a body kit. You cannot do VR with a ridiculous joystick. If it is joystick then I already do that in my 2D flat screen, why should I wear the whole display assembly on my head?
AR: There is already a bird's view version of it called Maps. The problem with AR is that when you leave the bird's view and descend to the street level there is a huge amount of information that needs precise processing for positioning, otherwise all the information labels would show wrong places. Such precision requires a continuous collection of fresh data. Imagine that in a crowded city. We are at least five years away from such a clean data for main cities.
These are my personal views and as such, you can ignore them safely. What you cannot ignore so easily is that Apple is a quality hardware company proven with millions of quality products we encounter everyday everywhere. If you still have a problem in figuring out "which one that is", I suggest you to go back to square one.
"AI: no one knows what is it. It is just a research project not fully materialized into a concrete product. The most visible product is IBM's Watson, convincingly mature enough to beat humans in Jeopardy."
It is interesting that IBM is opening up Watson to developers -- specifically Swift Developers:
At least come up with a better storey than that though. So you are saying LG bullied Apple then. Ives invited LG over to see the new 5K cinema display he designed and told them "look how great this looks in alloooooominium. We are going to stick the panels that we already buy from you in there" and LG said "oh no you're not. Do you even know how hard it is for us to make these. I know we make it look easy by supplying you with your iMac demand but we just can't make any more. We don't need your money nor do we want to keep you as a happy client. Even though we would make a sale when you make a sale, we want the standalone 5k monitor market all to ourselves simply because we think we can make it look better than you can. (A blanket gets unveiled) Look at what we have done, its called "premium plastic" and Ives went "Wow, you're right, that looks amazing. Sorry for wasting your time we will scrap what we've been working on for four years and then Ives went to cry in the corner" Yah... okay....that's what happened.
it is about the numbers. I have an iMac 5k, a MBP, the first retina model, and a 2006 Mac Pro which I have upgraded to 1TB SSD, new faster Xeons and maxed out the RAM to 32GB, new video card, running Yosemite, all less than $600, All are functioning perfectly well.
When you look at the ROI I'm so far ahead it really doesn't matter if something fails, which is not very likely anyway. I'm making lots of profit from my Macs.
I have no issues with my choice to use Macs over any other platform even though Adobe CC runs on Windows too. I'm all Mac. Always have been, always will be.
An afterthought: display technology has been and still may be determining Apple's release priorities. Large-screen iPhones were delayed by a year or two by production constraints of LTPS displays. The reason that the new MacBook Pros took an extra year or so to appear may well have been LG's ability to supply the oxide screens that the new form factor is designed around.
Finally, we've seen several stories, one here on AI today, that OLED supply for Apple is going to be problematical for the industry, including Apple, for the next few years. The reason we don't connect the production cause and effect dots on this topic — display technology — is that few journalists or bloggers are interested or well-versed on the physical details. Who knows even what an oxide backplane is, for example? Who developed it? Why is it 30% more efficient energy-wise? Etc.
Thanks.
Sorry but they're price points. They don't exist to upsell you, or they'd be a big waste of engineering and manufacturing. No. They serve price points for different consumers. Some people are constrained by price and multiple levels serves them.
It really doesn't matter what other phones with different components and constraints did or didn't do.
I'm wondering if Amazon will take another stab at a phone. An Alexa phone now that Google has their Google Home and Pixal products.
How's it going to bite them in the ass?