CarmB

melgross said:

CarmB said:

That's a problem mainly because the speed of existing processors is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the vast majority of users. Really fast upgraded to faster still, in real-world use, adds up to no discernible upgrade. Asking consumers who already are facing substantial price increases to pay more for essentially nothing doesn't appear to be a good grasp of what will best serve consumers. In the end, the key to success does lie in making your customers happy. Charging more with nothing to show for it is not how you do that. As the price of acquiring the latest and greatest goes up, it motivates consumers to think hard about upgrading from a working iPhone. So if Apple goes to a higher price point with its iPhone line, it will not end well for Apple. The only way this would work would be if there was compelling functionality added to the iPhone experience as a result of a processor upgrade. Current processors are so capable that it seems unlikely this will happen. 

I can’t really agree with that. With many, if not most phone users playing games that need more and more performance, every boost is a good thing. Additionally, for image processing and other performance intensive apps, better chips are always going to be needed.

There’s no point in saying that things are good enough, because they never are. I remember when it was said that the new IBM 286 computer, with that chip, was all that business needed. Then later, that the single core, because that was what everything was back then, 486 was as fast and anyone needed. We hear people saying this over and again, and they’re always wrong. It’s wrong here as well.

There was a time when advancements in processor power really mattered. We are no longer living in that time. The advancements impacted just about everybody who used a computer. Now, not so much. There are uses that can take advantage of even incremental performance enhancements but these days they represent a niche element. For the vast majority of the tasks that we use our iPhones, Macs, and iPads to perform, processor performance is more than adequate. Weighing that against increasing the price tag and clearly the price hike is far more consequential from the perspective of the typical consumer. 

9secondkox2 said:

JonG said:

jesusfreak said:

Perfectly safe in jolly ol England.  No one is allowed to have firearms there.

Oh yeah, car thieves are so well known for obeying the law.

One reason why banning guns never works. It ensures only the criminals have them. 

Unfortunately, people who are not criminals in the sense that they do not regularly engage in criminal activity have been known to kill others with guns. You can be free of any criminal activity, hence not be regarded as a criminal, and yet proceed to break the law.

What would be helpful is if Apple offered to bundle let's say any three services of the user's choice at a discount. There would be many takers. Maybe tier it, as in, one price for a three-service bundle, a bit more for a four-service bundle and so on. If you could get what you wanted at a discount, what's not to like. Instead we are faced with paying for services we might not need in order to receive a discount on ones we want. If I could bundle Apple TV+, Apple Music, Apple News, and Apple Fitness, I would give that consideration. 

danox said:

A M2 MacBook Pro plus a R1 SOC, Lidar sensor plus 6 other sensors, 13 cameras, 2 Micro‑OLED screens no the Vision Pro is not going to be less 2 thousand dollars anytime soon… Most have unrealistic expectations that also applies to expecting AI to be Robbie the robot (permanently tied to Google’s super computers back home undercover except Google won’t be forth with with that fact)….

https://www.apple.com/apple-vision-pro/specs/ Note: the next generation probably will have a Apple C1 or C2 modem too.

There is a way to lower cost and weight. Develop a version that is tethered to an Apple device like a MacBook or desktop Mac, of which there are millions in use. Put this less expensive version out not to replace the untethered Vision Pro but to provide a more affordable compliment. For one thing, Apple has decided to call the current version the Apple Vision Pro and not the Apple Vision. So the next Vision Pro continues at a high niche price point and Apple launches a tethered Vision, minus the Pro, for the masses. To continue on the basis of a standalone device requires substantial compromises in order to check in at more palatable price. As such requiring an external Apple device for such a product makes more sense. 

That's a problem mainly because the speed of existing processors is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the vast majority of users. Really fast upgraded to faster still, in real-world use, adds up to no discernible upgrade. Asking consumers who already are facing substantial price increases to pay more for essentially nothing doesn't appear to be a good grasp of what will best serve consumers. In the end, the key to success does lie in making your customers happy. Charging more with nothing to show for it is not how you do that. As the price of acquiring the latest and greatest goes up, it motivates consumers to think hard about upgrading from a working iPhone. So if Apple goes to a higher price point with its iPhone line, it will not end well for Apple. The only way this would work would be if there was compelling functionality added to the iPhone experience as a result of a processor upgrade. Current processors are so capable that it seems unlikely this will happen.