charlesn

According to Gurman, who is usually more accurate than not, the Siri improvements are also delayed until 2025. Overall, the delays suggest that Apple was indeed caught as flat-footed on the AI front as many suspected, and is now lagging behind on delivering its "Apple Intelligence" promises at WWDC. That said, Apple will be far better served by delivering these features when they "just work," even if late--the last thing it needs is for Apple Intelligence to work as poorly as Siri. Look at the situation Microsoft has on its hands with its new Co-Pilot-equipped PCs being unusable for gamers because the chip will not play the most popular games. Oof! 

I will be curious to see how Apple handles Apple Intelligence features at tomorrow's Glow Up event. Will it still headline them in pre-recorded video pieces with a "coming later" asterisk at the end? That could be confusing for consumers if those features are then headlined by press coverage of the new phones because they'll discover that their brand new iPhone doesn't have those features now, and will not have all of them for at least six months and possibly longer. 

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: kudos to Apple's crack marketing team for very simply managing to brand "AI" as something that's uniquely Apple. (Which of course, it's not!) 

grandact73 said:

This is horrible news for Apple, especially since newer phones these days last longer. This means people are more willing to hold onto their old phones and not buy the new ones.

It would be horrible IF this were news. Or facts. It is neither. Think of it as an advertisement for CIRP, which makes its money by getting other companies to pay for its "expert" research. How do you define your company as an expert? One way is to feed studies like this one for free to the industry press, get your company name quoted a lot, and then, voilà! You're an expert!

Notice that there is no scientifically accepted statistical variance attached to the validity of these numbers, i.e., plus or minus X percent. We don't know how the questions in this poll were asked and, most importantly, we know nothing about how well the small sample group polled truly represents all iPhone buyers. And the validity of ANY poll rests completely on how well the small sample group polled represents the overall whole. 

Ask yourself this question: if the iPhone 16 lineup were an exact duplicate of the iPhone 15 lineup with no changes other than the name, do you think sales would only fall by 18%? Because according to CIRP, that's all they should fall, since only 18% are buying for new features--so no new features shouldn't be a problem for the rest of the buyers, right? And If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. 

Hey, it's not a problem to read a survey like this for fun, sort of the way you'd read your daily horoscope or your fortune inside a cookie. Just don't take it seriously. 

lewchenko said:

The lack of rumours for the Apple Watch is worrying. Series 9 was a woeful release , as was the 8. Barely any improvement over the S7. 

Honestly not sure what else would be useful/wanted ? A stress level indicator ? 

More colours ? Longer lasting battery (obviously). 
 

This is funny. After criticizing the watch team for lack of innovation in the last couple of releases, you admit to not being sure what else would be useful. Exactly. That IS the question. What else would be useful? Fact is, we know that answer and what the next killer watch apps will be: blood glucose and blood pressure monitoring with real and accurate readings. Unfortunately, there are technological hurdles Apple has yet to clear. (What we may get sooner than later is a simple indication of how blood pressure is trending, be it up or down... but no actual readings. I believe Samsung may have this already. But such simplified and limited information is not all that useful.) 

Well, with rumors all over the map, it seems Apple has done a good job of keeping its plans for Apple Watch X under wraps. Apple, itself, probably starts some of these bogus rumors just to identify the places where its supply chain is leaking information. I always thought the supposed move to 45mm as the "small" watch size made absolutely no sense. I think we'll likely see some very modest tweaks to the design--a tiny bit thinner, perhaps a display that's a tiny bit larger--but nothing radical. The newest rumor about a titanium option for the regular Apple Watch seems very possible, although I'm not sure about it replacing SS. The highly polished SS models in black and silver give the watch a dressier, more upscale look, while brushed Ti is going to look pretty darn close to the brushed silver aluminum watch. Maybe they'll go with polished Ti for the regular watch and keep the brushed finish for Ultra, where it makes more sense. 

It doesn't sound like any new major health functionality is ready to be included. The rumored blood pressure functionality is so bare bones at present as to be not very useful at all: no actual readings will be possible, just an indication as to whether your BP is trending up or down. 

With its M-series chips that can easily boot into iPadOS or MacOS, there's no reason to try to ham-fist "touch" into an OS that was never designed for it when Apple could (but never will) release a tablet capable of booting into either OS, selectable by the user at startup. Boot into iPadOS and the tablet behaves like a regular iPad. Boot into MacOS and the tablet turns off touch screen capability and you essentially have a Macbook when the tablet is paired with a Magic Keyboard. 

The only reason we will never get such a device is because Apple wants to continue selling us two devices, not one.