k2kw

hmurchison said:

el_capitan_morgan said:

 Certainly a lot more expensive than most top of the line BT speakers, but I guess the integration with existing Sonos products comes with extra costs. I’d be more interested if I could bring it to a fellow Sonos user’s deck or yard party and tie into their system easier than existing Sonos products that require a factory reset, and adding to their account. Can’t see myself lugging a $500 CAD speaker to the beach, or travel with it being 6lbs.

It's too big.    Bose has the idea size with the Resolve line and their new  Wifi/Bluetooth/Batter speaker coming.  

The Port is disappointing as a pre-amp.   Functionally it's behind the $199 Echo Link which has Line I/O, Sub Out,  Coax Digital out, Optical I/O and Ethernet.  

If you're a Sonos fan then you shell out the 2x for the quality improvements after your sphincter loosens up but if you're just wanting to pipe audio through your in-ceiling speakers or whatnot then $400 is not fun.  

Metriacanthosaurus said:

corrections said:

GeorgeBMac said:

AppleInsider said:

Better features at a similar price

Apple has been getting free advice for years that the secret to selling more devices is to drive selling prices down into loss-leader territory. Analysts began demanding consumers have access to $300 iPhones straight from Apple and not used many years ago, and have repeated the same refrain for iPads, HomePod, and of course, Apple TV.

Yet, Apple has since proven that it is far more valuable to sell fewer units in the premium tier in phones, tablets, PCs and elsewhere. That indicates that the idea of it selling a super-cheap Apple TV model is very unlikely to ever happen.

Ok.... MY "free advice":   Bull!
I have not seen any evidence that "Apple has since proven that it is far more valuable to sell fewer units in the premium tier "
Further, why does it have to be either / or?  Either very cheap or very expensive.   That's kind of black and white argument is the sign of a weak argument.

You haven't seen any evidence that Apple is doing far better than everyone else in the phone or tablet or PC markets?

Samsung sells +300M phones a year compared to Apple's +200M, but Apple earns far more and its profits are far higher and more resilient. When iPhone sales dipped due to the economic downturn in China, Apple maintained things pretty well. Meanwhile Samsung's volumes stayed about the same but its product mix dropped precipitously, and the result was a devastating blow to revenues and profitability. So Samsung is being forced to back out of the high end, hurting things further. 

The same thing is playing out in every category Apple does business in. 

There is no "black and white argument" going on, it's just black and white facts. And it's obviously true regardless of whether you "see any evidence" or not.

While admittedly, Apple transitioning to cheap products ($300 iPhones) would have multiple negative effects, that does not mean that they have to or even should rely only on premium products.   Apple has both the ability to produce moderately priced products (the Xr is an excellent example) as well as the customer base to support it.   Plus, selling last year's products at reduced prices leverages their fixed investments into the development and manufacture of those devices -- which is a win-win for everybody.

Again, the situation is that Apple was selling iPhones around $650 and pundits where demanding a $300 iPhone. This occured from 2010-2016. 

Apple responded by making a more expensive Plus in 2014, higher capacity tiers at a premium, and iPhone X at $999. Apple raised its ASP to nearly $800. And that came despite also offering increasingly cheap iPhone options like the SE and older models offered at a discount. 

You're holding up the $750 XR as an example of "mid priced" but it's higher that any new iPhone Apple was selling during the period of analysts demanding $300 phones. What do you mean by that? The XR is a massively premium priced high end phone, Apple just also offers even more expensive models. 

Also, Apple has been "selling last year's products at reduced prices" for over a decade now, so what does that even mean? 

What the article is saying is that Apple's forward strategy involves introducing new models at premium prices with features to match. 

Samsung tried to do this and failed. Nows it's focused on new $300 Galaxy A models. Every other Android maker is similarly dumping out mostly $250 models, even if they hope or would like to sell some of their iPhone-priced devices, or even much more expensive Fold or diamond bedazzled versions. 

That said, the current AppleTV seems locked into a no-man's land:  it is moderately to high priced but offers little more functionality than far cheaper competitor's products.   Apple and its customers could benefit by producing a "pro" model AppleTV -- while leaving lower priced model for those who do just fine watching the evening news of Sunday game on their AppleTV.

That's just not true. As the article points out, the cheap./free things people might want to do with a low priced dongle are now available: you can AirPlay and stream iTunes from many devices now. Apple doesn't need to introduce one and try to sell it at a loss just to have a low end product category. Same with HomePod. Apple doesn't have to make a $30 Siri Dot just because that's what Amazon and Google are doing. They're making zero money and just hoping to create an installed base among affluent users.

Apple already has that.  

Apple doesn’t “already have that”. When everyone in my house and my parents house and the house of everyone I know has all Apple products except HomePod, and has dozens of Alexa devices or Sonos/Alexa devices between us...Apple done f’d up. They absolutely should have ensured their place there, and failed. Their arrogance is why they didn’t. And also because Siri is a pathetically inferior product to Alexa, so they couldn’t compete even if they wanted to.

seanismorris said:

I read all that, and came away with Catayst isn’t receiving updates (frequently) to improve the experience of converting iOS Apps to MacOS Apps.  That’s a bit worrisome...

It seems obvious that “just checking a box” is B.S. for most developers, if they want to give their users a quality experience.

For many devs it might be better to develop web apps that work anywhere....

dewme said:

Product naming, and naming in general, is too often (imho) an arbitrary and tricky thing that seems to defy logic and reason. I thought that iPhone X naming thing was kind of hideous but marginally justified by the product being a "special" 10th anniversary edition that senior executives wanted to label with a Roman numeral because - who knows why, maybe Romans were considered universally special along with their crazy numerals. Roman numerals didn't save the Romans from an ultimate demise of their society, which should probably serve as a warning to product and event organizers of today.

Apple using the "X" with iPhone was crass but at least it would soon pass when the 10th anniversary celebration faded into obscurity. But it didn't, and we were blessed with excess, maximum excess, and best of all, pirate excess. So here's hoping that some degree of naming normalcy returns with the next yearly iteration of iPhones and the Roman numerals get burned down and out. Once was enough, and that chip was cashed in with OS X.

Do we need "Pro" puffery? Not really, but people in charge of naming are uncontrollably compelled to commit these kind naming atrocities all the time. They just cannot help themselves. It's really rare to find a product line or series of "things" that have a well defined and consistently enforced naming scheme that adheres to some sort of defined taxonomy that always withstands the swirling whims and emotional pressures of those who were put in charge of naming. I believe the reason lies with the fact that people place a great deal of importance on the names of things just as the do with the names of people. Once the naming of a thing takes on such importance and conveys the aspirational goals of what the namers want the thing to be, rather than simply what it is, all logic and reason and rationale for the sake of convenience, categorization, ontological relationships, etc., fly out the window. The namers really think people want to drive a car named after a horse, and if it has a Roman numeral and a "Pro" or "GT" or "S" tacked on the end of name for embellishment, all the better. It's really just a joke we play on ourselves, but it's not a big deal.

CloudTalkin said:

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but can someone please give me an idea why JDI keeps being propped up?  If the schedule for their OLED is accurate, they're going to be in the same predicament they were in when Apple transitioned to OLED after bailing out their LCD concern.  By the time JDI gets their OLED up to volume production, Apple will probably be ready to transition to microLED.  Hopefully the consortium has JDI on a two-prong development strategy.  OLED and microLED simultaneously.  That would be expensive as all get out so... probably not happening.  So I'm back to asking why?