charlesn

john-useless said:

By including many of Apple's mainstream products in this article — iPhone, iPad, Mac mini, iMac, MacBook Pro, Apple Watch, AirPods — it is implied that Apple will announce new versions of all of these at the September 9 event. That would certainly be nice … but it's not likely, is it?

If memory serves, Apple typically uses this event to introduce new iPhone and Apple Watch models … and sometimes new AirPods models — Apple's non-Mac products that we wear or carry with us. Other new models (Macs in particular) are often saved either to be announced during a separate future event (in October or November) or simply via press release.

Your memory is correct! And with iPhone still accounting for roughly half of total Apple revenues, there's no way Apple will force it to share the spotlight with a laundry list of other updated products. Yes to Apple Watch 10, X or whatever they call it and maybe Airpods. I think Apple will want to spend extra time on the iPhone this year because--with no major hardware or design changes to report--it's going to be all about marketing Apple Intelligence as the reason to buy. And that's going to take more explanation than "Titanium!" I'm not sure how much steak there will actually be in this sales pitch, but I have no doubt Apple will "sizzle" the hell out of it. You've gotta hand it to Apple when it comes to marketing--they've already co-opted "A.I." and rebranded it as Apple Intelligence. 

radarthekat said:

I just don’t see Apple going through that exercise unless and until there becomes a very compelling must-have case for foldable displays.  Simply making a phone half the footprint (but at the cost of being twice as thick) when folded doesn’t cut it.  At all.  

Exactly and thank you. If you want to see folding phones in use a lot, check out the new season of Netflix's Emily in Paris series--I guess Samsung must have paid a product placement fee because all the lead characters have them. Two thoughts occur repeatedly: why would anyone want a phone that you have to open each and every time you want to use it, and then close afterward, to no advantage whatsoever? And second, how the thickness of the folded phone would make pocketing it uncomfortable. Folding phones are just the latest and most expensive chapter in the long Android history of using pointless gimmicks as a differentiator in the marketplace. That said, the latest premium non-folding phones from Samsung and Google are very competitive with iPhone Pro, and Apple would do well to remain focused on staying ahead in that form factor and not get distracted by foldability. 

Pema said:

I don't know about that. Meta is smart enough not to build a headset at $3500 US that is total failure. 

Total failure? Facts please. FACTS, not opinions. Even one. I'll wait... 

Pema said:

geekmee said:

Remind me again, what problem does this solve??

It solves a problem that I would describe best as 'vision block'. Apple, since the passing of Jobs and the departure of Jony Ives has no idea what to do next other than milking the iPhone to death. 

You, my friend, are the person with vision block about Apple's accomplishments since Jobs's death:

Apple Watch: Within a few years, it became the biggest selling watch, by far, in the 200+ year history of watches, outselling the entire Swiss watch industry combined. (Which, let's not forget, includes the mass market brand, Swatch.)

Airpods: Nothing to see here. They merely established the whole mass market category of wireless audio and remain the biggest selling wireless earbuds of all time and one of the most successful audio products ever introduced in the entire history of audio equipment. Airpods, along with Apple Watch, formed the completely new category of wearables for Apple that didn't exist under Jobs. But yeah, ho-hum.

Apple Services: A non-existent company division under Jobs, it now generates almost 30% of Apple gross revenue at a mind-boggling 70%+ profit margin. Apple Services alone generates more profits than most entire companies on the S&P 500. But what company would want that? Yeah, silly Tim Cook, he can't do anything other than create the biggest generator of profit and the 2nd largest generator of revenue in Apple's entire lineup. 

Apple Vision Pro: Merely an entirely new kind of computing platform, but don't let that interfere with the false narrative that Apple innovates nothing under Tim Cook. Instead, keep criticizing Vision Pro for not being a mass market product upon release even though its $3500 price tag and seriously constrained production capacity due to manufacturing complexity make clear that it was never intended to be mass market, Apple should have been more like Meta! And nevermind that Meta's mass market Quest headset loses A BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH. 

9secondkox2 said:

No need to follow after something that isn’t quite working in the market. 

The killer app for headsets is entertainment - gaming and media. 

In that sense, meta even has the better product. 

Apple has the far superior hardware, software, and ecosystem. 

But all the hardware and OS polish in the world isn’t going to save a product that the market has rejected time and again - save for a niche subset of gamers. 

The quest is lighter, doesn’t require a tethered battery, and plays decent games. 

While there are some compelling engineering/medical use cases, it’s not a mass market thing. 

Most people just don’t want to be encumbered by a device for their daily needs. 

When it’s indoor/outdoor sunglasses, that may possibly change. 

But headsets just suck. 

One of the best decisions Meta ever made is saying “no” to this. Kinda like Apple used to do.  

Hilarious. While you're singing the praises of Meta's focus on the supposed "killer app" of entertainment and Quest's "better product" for that use, you're clearly blissfully unaware of how your "killer app" and Meta hardware have been doing in the marketplace. Suggest you read a Meta quarterly report, where you'll learn that Reality Labs is and has been losing A BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH. And this doesn't even count however many countless billions Zuckerberg burned through in pursuing his vision of "the Metaverse." Remember when that was "the next big thing?" Fact is, Zuck has been wrong at every turn when it comes to VR (or whatever you want to call it) and Meta investors have had it with this black hole for money. 

As for Vision Pro not being "a mass market thing" -- of course it isn't. The $3500 price tag makes that clear. Being a mass market thing was never a goal for v1 of this device, but this is classic straw man criticism of Apple: criticizing it for not meeting a goal that Apple has never set for itself. And in this case has made clear is NOT a goal VP 1.0, both in terms of its price tag and the production constraints due to manufacturing complexity. 

Try this: the first 42" flat screen TV from Sony/Sharp cost $15,000... that's more than $29,000 in 2024 dollars. Should they have killed the flat screen because it wasn't "mass market?" Heck, it wasn't even "pro market" at that price -- it was only for niche use where price absolutely did not matter. But today you can buy a 40" flat screen TV at Best Buy for $158 and its performance will be superior to the original. That's $29,000 down to $158. 

What's clear to me is that v1.0 of Vision Pro--and very possibly the next couple of versions to follow--are mainly a development lab for VisionOS and apps. That the hardware will get smaller/lighter/cheaper and become "mass market" is as inevitable as what happened with flat screen television and many other technologies. That part is not in doubt. But the success of VP will still be determined by its OS and app ecosystem. The goal of VP right now is to make sure those are fully ready for a more mass market transition when it comes. You and the rest of the VP peanut gallery are out there shouting that neither are fully ready now. No kidding. And so what? The only way to achieve that was to start somewhere and get several hundred thousand units of what is already an extraordinary v1.0 product considering its complexity out there in the wild and get people, especially developers, using it. In case you're unaware, Apple is sitting on a mountain of cash to easily support this kind of endeavor. I can't think of a better use for it.