Last Active
  • Apple Vision Pro launches in UK, Australia, and more

    Marvin said:
    elijahg said:
    If it was £999 I’d be tempted. But for £3500 there is not a chance. Especially since it’s first generation and much like every other VR device, doesn't really have much of a purpose. Nor does it have many apps. I think Apple is going to struggle to find devs who will write for it because they know the market is minuscule. That said it took a while for the iPhone to take off, but then it was 1/4 of the price.
    Counterpoint: it's the half the price of the original Macintosh (corrected for inflation). Which had extremely limited capabilities and use cases. See how that turned out. Then repeat for iPhone, and iPad, and I can't think of a reason why this would be different. Other than those who just like complaining I guess. 
    The original Mac almost bankrupted Apple, it took 3 years to sell 1m units:

    Steve Jobs left Apple because of this, he wanted to lower the price to help improve sales and they couldn't or they'd make a loss:

    "“Steve went into a deep depression,” Sculley said. As a result, “Steve came to me and he said, ‘I want to drop the price of the Macintosh and I want to move the advertising, shift a large portion of it away from the Apple 2 over to the Mac.”
    “I said, ‘Steve, it’s not going to make any difference. The reason the Mac is not selling has nothing to do with the price or with the advertising. If you do that, we risk throwing the company into a loss.’ And he just totally disagreed with me.”
    “And so I said, “Well, I’m gonna go to the board. And he said, ‘I don’t believe you’ll do it. And I said: Watch me.”"

    The successful Mac was the iMac, which launched at $1299 ($2449 adjusted for inflation), which they got down to $799 ($1500 inflation adjusted) the following year:

    The most successful companies in the world are mostly made up of mass-market businesses - retail (food, clothing, shopping), health, transport, banking, insurance, telecommunication, utilities and personal computing.

    Apple's success doesn't come from luxury but mass-market luxury. The iPhone is a premium product but it starts at $429 and ASP is under $1000. The Mac ASP is around $1300.

    They sell Macs over $3000 but it's easy to see from the revenue that this represents < 5% of their Mac sales and the Mac represents < 10% of their total sales. Sales over $3000 are < 0.5% of their customer base.

    If Apple wants this product to become a platform, it needs a lower entry price and this will happen when the manufacturing costs come down but a more cost-effective design would reach it faster. They build a premium iPad Pro with M4 that sells for $999, they can build a premium headset that sells for under $2000. Apple would be able to sell 5 million+ headsets per year at $1500, when the display manufacturing capacity is there.
    The success of the Mac wasn't the iMac. The heyday of the Mac was probably the iMac. The success would have to be the range of professional software made in most instances by techy people of those professions in a way windows couldn't. Windows software needs engineers and they tend to say our way or no way (to this day.)  This made the Mac a staple outside corporate land business. The same market the Mac or it's successors needs to keep. Craftspeople make their tools or tools for fellow craftspeople. 

    The iPod, iMac, IBook, iPad took that base to new heights and more people no doubt about that. The iPhone took Apple from a very successful to a Rockstar company but without the base they wouldn't have a platform to push from. 

    Yes vision as a platform needs its "iVision" at some point (agree by about 2030) but it doesn't need it today to be called a win for this stage. 
    They have so far:-
    - lots of people talking, planning, dreaming.
    - somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 a million people using the device.
    - A massive pool of developers from AppStore development 
    - A highly accessible set of API and OS systems for crafts people to try something disruptive. 

    Will it succeed who knows but if people want even IPad like sales in the first year is just missing the bigger picture.
  • Apple Vision Pro won't break 500k sales in 2024, even with international expansion

    NYC362 said:
    Oh no... Apple might only sell 300,000 (a guess) AVPs... at roughly $4000 per sale, that's just $1.2billion in revenue for the year. 

    I think Apple should just close up shop on that news. 

    Seriously, some of these stories are just ridiculous.  Did anyone really think that over half a million people were going to shell out over $4000 for a first gen product?  This AVP is in many ways, the prototype.  It provides the platform for future development.  It provides Apple with a ton of feedback on what a second or third generation should be, as well as a lower cost model.  It provides developers with a real platform to produce apps for the spatial environment. 

    First gen products are always super expensive and often don't sell very well.  How many people spent $15,000 (it was somewhere in that neighborhood) on the first gen 42" flat panel televisions about 30 years ago?  ($15k in 1997 is oner $28k today).  

    We're just six months into Apple Vision Pro... let's talk in about two or three years to see how it's doing. 
    That isn’t a great deal of money for a company the size of Apple.
    Apple knew before launch how many they could make, they knew with actual returns and "f'n YouTubers" buying for content and returns. that they can only sell say maybe only 75% of that stock in the year.  

    Apple decided that launching was the right thing to do for longer-term aims.

    Might not be enough to keep whiny shareholders happy but let face it whiny shareholders are playing short game and need bad news to be created or enhanced for their short game wins. 
  • M4 MacBook Pro upgrade could arrive by end of 2024

    Flappo said:
    I just pulled the trigger on a 16 m3max , oh well thats life

    Then again i’m totally anti oled so tbh not that bothered
    So next Tuesday is now locked in

  • EU hits back at Apple withholding Apple Intelligence from the region

    blastdoor said:
    blastdoor said:
    Every time I read one of these EU stories I try to think about what Apple should do to deal with this situation. It’s tempting to say Apple should just leave, but it doesn’t make sense to leave money on the table.

    They won't be leaving money on the table by pulling out of the EU. First, the EU is just a fraction of what Apple classifies as "Europe" (which includes the Middle East and at least parts, if not all, of Africa), and obviously doesn't include European countries not in the EU, such as the UK and Switzerland. The fines the EU is threatening far eclipse the value of the EU as a market. Second, if EU rules force Apple to cripple, compromise or otherwise dumb down their products, that makes them less competitive in the rest of the world. There is at this point almost no upside for Apple to release anything in the EU and plenty of downside, not to mention all the resources wasted "negotiating" with EU bureaucrats who are not acting in good faith and are making up the rules as the go and changing them retroactively.

    So, what exactly is the downside for Apple to simply pull out of the EU until there is a more favorable business climate there? I can't see any upside to staying at this point.
    I’ve read that the EU represents about 7% of Apple’s revenues. That’s almost $30 billion a year. I see no reason to walk away from that if you don’t have to. 

    Note that my suggestion to create a subsidiary is meant to create EU-specific (lobotomized) versions of apple products to meet the needs of Eurocrats. 

    The question is — can Apple make money selling lobotomized products? Since everyone else also has to sell lobotomized products in the EU, it’s possible that they can. But if it turns out they can’t, then sure — leave. But I think it makes sense to try first. 

    Companies that don’t try to do hard things end up like IBM — slowly leaving every market that seems too hard to fight for.
    Do the products have to altered if the user imports them from a un-regulated market?
    Euro being a world hub might not work out so well. Every tourist can fly in with a phone fly home without. 
  • Apple is expecting big iPhone 16 sales, based on chip orders

    mike1 said:
    For the last few iPhone generations, Apple incorporated new chip features into its Pro product line. The standard iPhone tier instead had the same chips one year later.

    This is demonstrated in the iPhone 15 family of devices. While the iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max used the A17 Pro, the iPhone 15 and Plus used the A16.

    If I'm not mistaken, the 15 models were the only series that followed this path. Don't think it was the case with the 14 series. That would make last year the outlier.
    It started when the A15 Bionic was used in the iPhone 13, then reused for the iPhone 14, while the iPhone 14 Pro got the A16 Bionic.

    But yes, it’s just these last two generations.

    It’s interesting (if accurate) that the A17 Pro architecture will be reused on N3E for A18. I think we might be able to draw some conclusions from that. It could mean that the A17 Pro was rearchitected (in preparation for the transition to N3E) at a late stage, while the M3 family was not changed. That would explain the INT8 support in the A17 Pro’s Neural Engine, while M3 (apparently) doesn’t have it.
    If yields on the new process are in the improving stage then are they really 2designs or is A18 the binned A18pro. 

    If Apple want to make a splash then ordering more and bringing the A18 and A18pro to more devices would also be a solid plan. Like AppleTv and iPad mini would seem to be good targets even do a base and pro versions of each.