tmay

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

davidw said:

avon b7 said:

ssfe11 said:

A social media company competing with Apple on hardware/software is just silly.

In this case, isn't it the other way around? 

Meta is the established and dominant player and Apple is the one stepping in. 

Once again you have miss understood the nuance of what ssfe11 was saying about competition. He is commenting on how Meta (a social media company) is now trying to compete with Apple (a hardware/software company) by trying to create better hardware/software integration for their VR glasses. Which they seem to only be able to do by having others create Meta VR glasses with better hardware/software integration, for them. While Apple can do that all in-house and have a long successful history of creating devices with strong hardware/software integration that consumers wants to use and are willing to pay extra for.

That doesn't mean that Meta can't still compete with Apple on price. Selling low cost devices that makes little profit or at a loss, just to gain market share, is not one of Apple's strong points when it comes to competing. Just like how creating devices with strong hardware/software integration is not one of Meta strong points.

The OP is commenting on this article and, independently of what Meta may be classified as in terms of type of company, in this case, Apple is moving into Meta territory.

On price, which is irrelevant in this context, yes Meta is cheaper but not 'low cost' but the point is it remains the dominant player. 

It's also worth mentioning that Facebook was basically never just a software company. It has had massive backend self developed hardware that the public is often unaware of. The same applies to Microsoft, Google and Amazon.

Even way back in 2016 it completed what was then one of the most advanced undersea cables linking the US to Europe. It was a three way effort between Microsoft, Facebook and Telxius. That project (Marea) involved hardware from all three companies. 

Meta doesn't "own" any territory; Zuckerberg just put up a "sign" to that effect because he thought that he and Meta are special.

Now he finds that he and Meta;

1) aren't special, and;

2) won't find any friends

But sure, telegraphing to the world that you are in deep trouble is a great move...

"own"? 

The facts remain the same. 

Apple is moving into Meta territory. 

Meta is the dominant player. 

As for the value of the move to 'opening up', only time will tell. 

• Sales of VR headsets and AR glasses in the U.S. have plummeted nearly 40% in 2023, as of Nov. 25, according to data shared with CNBC by research firm Circana.
• Meta has continued to burn through billions of dollars a quarter developing the metaverse, which CEO Mark Zuckerberg says is the future for his company.
• The debut in October of Meta’s Quest 3 headset helped lift the VR market over the holiday period but wasn’t enough to make up for the rest of 2023.

Mark Zuckerberg is on a mission to make the metaverse happen. In the last three months ending Dec. 31, Meta’s Reality Labs division hit $1 billion for the first time — while also recording $4.65 billion in losses. To be sure, the VR headsets still make up a sliver of Meta’s overall revenue, which continues to be driven by the company’s ad business.

“It was a good quarter,” Zuckerberg said on a conference call with analysts and investors. “We’ve made a lot of progress on our vision for advancing AI and the metaverse.” Meta’s stock is up 14.92% in after-hours trading.

avon b7 said:

davidw said:

avon b7 said:

ssfe11 said:

A social media company competing with Apple on hardware/software is just silly.

In this case, isn't it the other way around? 

Meta is the established and dominant player and Apple is the one stepping in. 

Once again you have miss understood the nuance of what ssfe11 was saying about competition. He is commenting on how Meta (a social media company) is now trying to compete with Apple (a hardware/software company) by trying to create better hardware/software integration for their VR glasses. Which they seem to only be able to do by having others create Meta VR glasses with better hardware/software integration, for them. While Apple can do that all in-house and have a long successful history of creating devices with strong hardware/software integration that consumers wants to use and are willing to pay extra for.

That doesn't mean that Meta can't still compete with Apple on price. Selling low cost devices that makes little profit or at a loss, just to gain market share, is not one of Apple's strong points when it comes to competing. Just like how creating devices with strong hardware/software integration is not one of Meta strong points.

The OP is commenting on this article and, independently of what Meta may be classified as in terms of type of company, in this case, Apple is moving into Meta territory.

On price, which is irrelevant in this context, yes Meta is cheaper but not 'low cost' but the point is it remains the dominant player. 

It's also worth mentioning that Facebook was basically never just a software company. It has had massive backend self developed hardware that the public is often unaware of. The same applies to Microsoft, Google and Amazon.

Even way back in 2016 it completed what was then one of the most advanced undersea cables linking the US to Europe. It was a three way effort between Microsoft, Facebook and Telxius. That project (Marea) involved hardware from all three companies. 

y2an said:

Strange how this article spends no thought on the GPU design yet this is where the real computational horsepower and efficiency has shifted. Nothing runs as hot as an NVIDIA graphics card yet the M series GPUs sip power. Apple abandoned their own GPU design and went back to Imagination Technologies. So why no mention here?

VictorMortimer said:

tenthousandthings said:

blastdoor said:

I recently bought a refurbished m2pro Mac mini because I gave up on an m3 mini being released. I also would not be surprised if the studio skips m3 too. 

With regard to the Mini and the iMac refresh cadences, whatever. It’s fine. But if Apple skips the M3 Ultra, they need to explain what they are doing with the silicon. It raises a lot of questions, not all of which are (how shall I put it?) strategic.

It’s not enough to just say it’s all product-driven, and they only build the silicon their products need. Everyone understands why Apple doesn’t talk about unreleased products. But expectations need to be managed.

Marketing and management needs to wake up and realize the architects and engineers need to be allowed to explain more than what is currently being explained.

My understanding is that the M3 is based on a dead end as far as process tech goes.

Apple's failure to release roadmaps has been a huge problem for years.  It's why we're forced to rely on rumors sites like this one for planning purposes.