mattinoz

mikethemartian said:

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.

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

nubus said:

AppleInsider said:

If true, this report would see the entire chassis of the Apple Watch SE changed -- making the device less environmentally friendly.

The nylon material might be 100% recycled but product durability and lifetime are likely to be severely affected. Apple already did a "eco-friendly" plastic product: FineWoven. It was penny-pinching mixed with greenwashing in a product without durability.

Any review of Watch SE 3rd should remember what Apple did to 1st gen. End-of-sale in 2022, last OS upgrade in 2023. With iPhone SE it was 3 years and XR is receiving 4 years and counting of full upgrades after end-of-sale. Apple has yet to deliver that kind of value in a Watch SE. Taking the path of FineWoven is not going to help.

blastdoor said:

anonymouse 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.