Dan_Dilger

frantisek said:

There is no mention of Apple TV in leaked document you posted today so it it happens it will be in November earlier.

The document was detailing the version of iOS that would be delivered on new iPhones. So there's no reason to think it would list out all new hardware, including Apple TV units that do not ship with any version of iOS 13.

hammeroftruth said:

IMHO, one of the reasons why Apple events are not as impactful as before is the supply chain is longer than it used to be. That makes for a greater availability of new products, but also creates a larger risk of that product being prematurely shown, or plans stolen to have another factory make knock off or counterfeit parts. 

Apple has realized that the iPhone is not its cash cow anymore and has been diversifying its resources into updating neglected products like iPads and Macs. 

Apple now has to deal with apathy from the general consumer who refuses to spend 1k on a smartphone and potential tariffs that can eat away profits on a device that needs to make back the money spent on R&D. 

Apple's events "not as impactful," what does this mean to you? Apple's impact is not any lower than at any time previously. What does have less impact are events by Google, Samsung, Microsoft and others who have rolled out all sorts of things the media took seriously, then never really materialized. So reality is the opposite of what you stated. Apple's impact on health, society, consumer tech, finance, etc is higher than it ever has been. 

The "supply chain is longer," what does this mean? That there are more suppliers to the suppliers Apple uses? That there are more products in production? Security is higher than it has been. Occasional leaks of case designs offer a glimpse of broad details, but these are not new or recent. iPhone shapes have been leaked since the 4, probably earlier. The amount people care keeps going up, and there is more money financing spoilers, but Apple continues to throw out surprises nobody leaked out. 

"Apple has realized that the iPhone is not its cash cow anymore" this makes no sense whatsoever. iPhone remains the biggest cash cow to ever exist. That hasn't changed. It's by far the biggest contributor to Apple's revenues and profits. "diversifying its resources into updating neglected products like iPads and Macs" what? Apple has become larger and able to do more. That's not a matter of giving up iPhone to focus on other things. There's more effort going into more new iPhone models that ever before in history. 

"the general consumer who refuses to spend 1k on a smartphone" what? The majority of Apple's customers are buying expensive phones, and many tens of millions of people are buying phones that cost more than $1000, virtually all of them are iPhone buyers. The ASP nearly hit $800. Meanwhile "premium" is defined as +$400 elsewhere. 

"potential tariffs that can eat away profits on a device" Trump's proposed tax on Americans will cost them 10-20% more. Apple's profit margins are larger than that, but will probably not have to cover the full amount. Trump can't tax worldwide sales of iPhones. He's only the president of the USA.

Throw away your user name, you've abused it to the point of insanity.  

avon b7 said:

Why is Pixel in the title and largely irrelevant in the text?

Why even mention Google Pixel when they are not primarily a consumer hardware company?

This article lost itself and is so full of holes, it sinks fast.

Three months ago you came around to comment on my Pixel 3a article that "There is a huge potential market for them" and stated "They now have better carrier support, a cheaper (lower risk for consumers) phone and over a thousand HTC engineering workers onboard for future projects."

Now suddenly Pixel is "not primarily a consumer hardware company"?

gatorguy said:

Pixel? PIXEL? Of course it doesn't drive "the future of mobile silicon"

That's not what Android fan sites and Google's blog were saying. In fact, they parroted off the same ideas you did: that Tensor acceleration gave Google some lead, that Pixel photography was better than an iPhone (that is not true, and continues to be false).

Silicon is extremely expensive to develop. Apple is subsidizing this with 200M units of high end phones + iPad and other devices. 

Google was selling 3-4 million units per year at best. 

knowitall said:

Interesting, I would love to see Apples processing power and sensors in a full fledged camera body  (I think Phil Schiller would love that) with a set of superior Apple lenses.
Question: is depth sensing per pixel?

There is not a high volume market for "full fledge camera body" cameras. Apple doesn't even make its own lenses. And no depth is captured at a lower resolution than the photo image.