ihatescreennames

MplsP said:

if i ask her to turn on an alarm, she makes a new one rather then activating one I already have so I have to manually go delete all the extra alarms later. When I ask her to add a reminder to a list I never know which list it will end up on. 

gatorguy said:

The entire Guardian article is worth reading as it has far more to say than "a new device might be coming in 2021".  In fact that was more an afterthought mentioned in the last paragraphs and not the focus or even a leading reason the Guardian reported the story. 

elijahg said:

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.

There used to be a "funny things Siri says" blog, when it said funny or weird things. There needs to be a "stupid things Siri says" alternative. I sometimes try to ask HomePod Siri a question in front of friends, and it's embarrassing how wrong it is most of the time. I just don't bother on the AppleTV, its so limited and error-prone it's just not worth it.

GeorgeBMac said:

For myself I guard against robo calls by keeping a landline.   I give that number out to all but a very few, select people and businesses  Then, unless I'm home and recognize the caller, I just let it go to voicemail.  So far, knock on wood, it seems to be working.

But, regardless, I welcome this new screening tool.
I would also welcome an iOS enhancement that differentiates calls from a number in my contact list from those that aren't -- with an option to either silence the call, give it a different ring tone, forward the call to my landline, or send it to voice mail.    That doesn't seem like it would be hard to do.

A new setting protects users from unknown and spam callers. When the setting is turned on, iOS uses Siri intelligence to allow calls to ring your phone from numbers in Contacts, Mail, and Messages. All other calls are automatically sent to voicemail.”

zroger73 said:

mikethemartian said:

rob bonner said:

Not trying to be negative on this, really asking.  Why would anyone want this card?  The rate is pretty high, the integrations are interesting but don't really add that much value IMO, and I can use Apple Pay with my existing card.  What is the draw?

I don’t understand why people are wild for credit cards in general.

Um. Because not using one at every opportunity and paying the balance in full each month is throwing away money?

I crave most things Apple, but my existing bank credit card pays 2% cash back on all purchases. The Apple Card only pays 2% when using Apple Pay.

The Apple Card pays 3% on purchases made from Apple, but Apple charges me 8.25% sales tax. I buy most of my gear from Apple Authorized Resellers that don't charge me sales tax and often sell for less than Apple.