The 11” MBAir was a perfect size for the ever getting smaller airline fold down table in Economy. First Class seems to have supported the 16” world okay.
I travel on airlines now with a 1TB M1 11” iPad with modem with the Bridge keyboard. Since iPadOS supports printers, I can function on short trips w/o my 14” MBPro Max.
The Apple product line up seems to have an answer for every question except for how to pay for the latest and greatest. The minor incremental upgrade worm does not entice me to bite every time a new upgrade comes out.
Apple supports prior devices for many years with software updates so that could make the rationale for annual new hardware less compelling.
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.
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.
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.
I bet Steve Balmer winces every time he reads his quote saying the iphone had no chance of gaining significant market share.
He’s not alone, “ Palm CEO Ed Colligan "We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,'' he said. "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.''
I bet Steve Balmer winces every time he reads his quote saying the iphone had no chance of gaining significant market share.
It didn't, when it was priced at $500, with only one expensive plan available. Ballmer was entirely right at the time. The thing is, Apple changed its strategy; it slashed the price, altered how it worked with carriers, and iterated with hardware and software relentlessly. It took the iPhone 3G for it to really start to blow up.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this new product gets a muted reception. But it's likely to be what Apple does after that which will make or break it.
What made it blow up was the introduction of the App Store.
I bet Steve Balmer winces every time he reads his quote saying the iphone had no chance of gaining significant market share.
It didn't, when it was priced at $500, with only one expensive plan available. Ballmer was entirely right at the time. The thing is, Apple changed its strategy; it slashed the price, altered how it worked with carriers, and iterated with hardware and software relentlessly. It took the iPhone 3G for it to really start to blow up.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this new product gets a muted reception. But it's likely to be what Apple does after that which will make or break it.
I bet Steve Balmer winces every time he reads his quote saying the iphone had no chance of gaining significant market share.
He’s not alone, “ Palm CEO Ed Colligan "We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,'' he said. "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.''
I'm quite certain sure neither Colligan or Ballmer care. These guys were never tech guys. Collegian got a degree in political science and became CEO of Palm via working in the marketing department. Ballmer never got his MBA and it was nepotism that got him into CEO of MS. Ballmer is also the 8th richest person in the world with about $90 Billion, according to Wikipedia. They've never cared about tech, and would say whatever they could to turn a profit, which includes lambasting how expensive it is in an interview when he'd rather try pushing Windows Mobile as positive soundbites.
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.
The decider will be the hardware and software integration, and the quality of the programs designed to use the capabilities of the device, if Apple has those things nailed down, then the device will succeed, however no matter what price Apple sets, it will be too much and the complaining will go on and on because many people will want it, but will not be able to afford it.
Even to this day, there are still many financial analysts who think Apple should drop their prices on all products to pick up more marketshare, which, if you know anything about Apple, you know that isn’t their way of doing business.
Yeah, well, remember when all the analysts said that Apple is Doomed™ if they don't release a netbook?
IMO, the lack of a true netbook was a huge miss. As was the original iMac with only USB1. As was, ironically, the delay in getting USB2 onto Macs. As was not buying Netflix. As was not opening up firewire. As was fiasco on 5G/QC...
Let's not forget the whole concept of NetBoot and where that could have gone for business and education.
The question should not be if Apple was doomed because of those 'errors' but how much more they could have achieved by following through with some moves.
How did that work out for netbook makers? Fizzled out before they ever achieved any decent profits.
Even Apple dropped their 11” MBA because it wasn’t popular enough at that size.
Now there's an ARM version of Windows and SoCs are considerably more powerful and power efficient, but you don't see netbooks making a comeback. Perhaps that's because it was never a great idea.
The product category evolved. Just like the iPod.
There was enough business to go around for many companies to sell their products for years before tablets caught on and phones became more versatile. And of course regular laptops are going for very low prices nowadays.
Tablets of course required a physical keyboard to get close to what a netbook could do and were way behind when it came to could be presented through a browser.
But the error here for Apple wasn't simply competing in that space but using the product as a hook to catch users. And then the possibility of following through on the NetBoot promise via OSX Server.
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.
The decider will be the hardware and software integration, and the quality of the programs designed to use the capabilities of the device, if Apple has those things nailed down, then the device will succeed, however no matter what price Apple sets, it will be too much and the complaining will go on and on because many people will want it, but will not be able to afford it.
Even to this day, there are still many financial analysts who think Apple should drop their prices on all products to pick up more marketshare, which, if you know anything about Apple, you know that isn’t their way of doing business.
Yeah, well, remember when all the analysts said that Apple is Doomed™ if they don't release a netbook?
IMO, the lack of a true netbook was a huge miss. As was the original iMac with only USB1. As was, ironically, the delay in getting USB2 onto Macs. As was not buying Netflix. As was not opening up firewire. As was fiasco on 5G/QC...
Let's not forget the whole concept of NetBoot and where that could have gone for business and education.
The question should not be if Apple was doomed because of those 'errors' but how much more they could have achieved by following through with some moves.
How did that work out for netbook makers? Fizzled out before they ever achieved any decent profits.
Even Apple dropped their 11” MBA because it wasn’t popular enough at that size.
Now there's an ARM version of Windows and SoCs are considerably more powerful and power efficient, but you don't see netbooks making a comeback. Perhaps that's because it was never a great idea.
The product category evolved. Just like the iPod.
There was enough business to go around for many companies to sell their products for years before tablets caught on and phones became more versatile. And of course regular laptops are going for very low prices nowadays.
Tablets of course required a physical keyboard to get close to what a netbook could do and were way behind when it came to could be presented through a browser.
But the error here for Apple wasn't simply competing in that space but using the product as a hook to catch users. And then the possibility of following through on the NetBoot promise via OSX Server.
That was a lost opportunity.
And none of those are netbooks. Netbooks failed miserably. End of story.
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.
The decider will be the hardware and software integration, and the quality of the programs designed to use the capabilities of the device, if Apple has those things nailed down, then the device will succeed, however no matter what price Apple sets, it will be too much and the complaining will go on and on because many people will want it, but will not be able to afford it.
Even to this day, there are still many financial analysts who think Apple should drop their prices on all products to pick up more marketshare, which, if you know anything about Apple, you know that isn’t their way of doing business.
Yeah, well, remember when all the analysts said that Apple is Doomed™ if they don't release a netbook?
IMO, the lack of a true netbook was a huge miss. As was the original iMac with only USB1. As was, ironically, the delay in getting USB2 onto Macs. As was not buying Netflix. As was not opening up firewire. As was fiasco on 5G/QC...
Let's not forget the whole concept of NetBoot and where that could have gone for business and education.
The question should not be if Apple was doomed because of those 'errors' but how much more they could have achieved by following through with some moves.
How did that work out for netbook makers? Fizzled out before they ever achieved any decent profits.
Even Apple dropped their 11” MBA because it wasn’t popular enough at that size.
Now there's an ARM version of Windows and SoCs are considerably more powerful and power efficient, but you don't see netbooks making a comeback. Perhaps that's because it was never a great idea.
The product category evolved. Just like the iPod.
There was enough business to go around for many companies to sell their products for years before tablets caught on and phones became more versatile. And of course regular laptops are going for very low prices nowadays.
Tablets of course required a physical keyboard to get close to what a netbook could do and were way behind when it came to could be presented through a browser.
But the error here for Apple wasn't simply competing in that space but using the product as a hook to catch users. And then the possibility of following through on the NetBoot promise via OSX Server.
That was a lost opportunity.
And none of those are netbooks. Netbooks failed miserably. End of story.
It's evolution and netbooks were a huge success and had huge demand in there hey day. 2008/9 saw global sales triple, hitting a high of around 35 million. There was a time when all you basically saw were netbooks.
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.
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!
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.
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%.
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.
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%.
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.
I bet Steve Balmer winces every time he reads his quote saying the iphone had no chance of gaining significant market share.
It didn't, when it was priced at $500, with only one expensive plan available. Ballmer was entirely right at the time. The thing is, Apple changed its strategy; it slashed the price, altered how it worked with carriers, and iterated with hardware and software relentlessly. It took the iPhone 3G for it to really start to blow up.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this new product gets a muted reception. But it's likely to be what Apple does after that which will make or break it.
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.
Ok. But enlighten us what “this one” is. You’re absolutely certain of its fate, so you must have an inside line on the details of what the doomed device is. Describe it in detail, please, before they announce it publicly. Apple never releases a new product that’s just an Apple-branded version of the same thing everyone else is already making, so to be so assured it will tank, you first have to know what’s different about their device, and will thus be able to explain why the thing they’re actually going to make still won’t find an audience. If all you’ve got is “it’s a VR headset and those don’t really sell that well,” then we can all appreciate your boldness in discussing things you don’t know much about.
The netbook discussion, while an interesting sidebar, isn't really relevant to the gist of this article and the sentiment behind it.
The relevant point of this discussion comes down to a simple question: Are you betting on Apple to win or to lose in their (predicted) entry into what is for them a "new" product category? I'm quoting the "new" part because if this new product turns out to be exactly what many people expect it will be, there are several things that Apple has done over the past several years that have primed the pump in some subtle and not-so-subtle ways to help get Apple's entry into this new product category off the ground.
My answer to the question is clearly "yes, " Apple will win.
I am betting on Apple to be successful and chalk up another big win. A simple reason for my vote is Apple's proven track record when doing big new things. Like any company Apple does occasionally fail, but they tend to fail small, not fail big. For example, for all of Apple's much celebrated design wizardry they've never really designed a mouse that wasn't seriously flawed in its design. The latest rechargeable Magic Mouse with a charging port on the bottom of the mouse is a classic case of the designers painting themselves into a corner with an overall design profile that couldn't accommodate a topside charging port. They ended up resorting to an ugly and embarrassing hack-around to get the thing juiced up and eliminating the ability to use the device while it's charging. Total barf fest. The AirPower charger never even got off the runway before it was declared none-and-done. The Trash Can Mac Pro, cough cough.
In any case, Apple can and does occasionally drop a stinker. However, none of these small failures have changed the trajectory of Apple in a significant way. If you're playing the odds you have to lean very heavily towards picking Apple for the win. Not simply a win either, but a win that redefines the market. To add additional credence to that vote, the next big thing from Apple will probably define Tim Cook's legacy at Apple. Tim Cook may not be Steve Jobs, nobody ever will be, but Tim Cook knows what it takes to win and has helped elevate Apple to unprecedented level of success during his tenure.
Whether "the internet" agrees with me doesn't sway my opinion one iota. I'm going with Apple's track record and proven ability to win big with a winning coach and winning team when it really matters. Nothing Apple has done in the last couple of decades would lead me to believe otherwise. Lastly, whomever "the internet" is has nothing on the line. Apple has a hell of a lot more on the line. The company itself is by no means on the line, but anything less than a win will hurt Apple in very real and tangible ways. Losing is not an option.
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?
Comments
I travel on airlines now with a 1TB M1 11” iPad with modem with the Bridge keyboard. Since iPadOS supports printers, I can function on short trips w/o my 14” MBPro Max.
The Apple product line up seems to have an answer for every question except for how to pay for the latest and greatest. The minor incremental upgrade worm does not entice me to bite every time a new upgrade comes out.
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.
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.
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/24o2wd/techcrunch_predicted_the_iphone_will_fail/
There was enough business to go around for many companies to sell their products for years before tablets caught on and phones became more versatile. And of course regular laptops are going for very low prices nowadays.
Tablets of course required a physical keyboard to get close to what a netbook could do and were way behind when it came to could be presented through a browser.
But the error here for Apple wasn't simply competing in that space but using the product as a hook to catch users. And then the possibility of following through on the NetBoot promise via OSX Server.
That was a lost opportunity.
It's obvious why, too.
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!
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.
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.
The relevant point of this discussion comes down to a simple question: Are you betting on Apple to win or to lose in their (predicted) entry into what is for them a "new" product category? I'm quoting the "new" part because if this new product turns out to be exactly what many people expect it will be, there are several things that Apple has done over the past several years that have primed the pump in some subtle and not-so-subtle ways to help get Apple's entry into this new product category off the ground.
My answer to the question is clearly "yes, " Apple will win.
I am betting on Apple to be successful and chalk up another big win. A simple reason for my vote is Apple's proven track record when doing big new things. Like any company Apple does occasionally fail, but they tend to fail small, not fail big. For example, for all of Apple's much celebrated design wizardry they've never really designed a mouse that wasn't seriously flawed in its design. The latest rechargeable Magic Mouse with a charging port on the bottom of the mouse is a classic case of the designers painting themselves into a corner with an overall design profile that couldn't accommodate a topside charging port. They ended up resorting to an ugly and embarrassing hack-around to get the thing juiced up and eliminating the ability to use the device while it's charging. Total barf fest. The AirPower charger never even got off the runway before it was declared none-and-done. The Trash Can Mac Pro, cough cough.
In any case, Apple can and does occasionally drop a stinker. However, none of these small failures have changed the trajectory of Apple in a significant way. If you're playing the odds you have to lean very heavily towards picking Apple for the win. Not simply a win either, but a win that redefines the market. To add additional credence to that vote, the next big thing from Apple will probably define Tim Cook's legacy at Apple. Tim Cook may not be Steve Jobs, nobody ever will be, but Tim Cook knows what it takes to win and has helped elevate Apple to unprecedented level of success during his tenure.
Whether "the internet" agrees with me doesn't sway my opinion one iota. I'm going with Apple's track record and proven ability to win big with a winning coach and winning team when it really matters. Nothing Apple has done in the last couple of decades would lead me to believe otherwise. Lastly, whomever "the internet" is has nothing on the line. Apple has a hell of a lot more on the line. The company itself is by no means on the line, but anything less than a win will hurt Apple in very real and tangible ways. Losing is not an option.
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?