Bart Y

Sadly, I thought this was going to be the case.  Power, cell services, and emergency response were the first major issues once the fires reached those services and impaired or destroyed them.  Satellite SOS and remaining outlying or relaying services must have been contacted.

Having visited Lahaina and Maui in the past, I’m in tears for those lost, those whose lives and property have been upended, and the entire island for its cultural, historical, business, and personal losses.  This will be a decades long rebuilding process.

blastdoor said:

I wonder if apple’s interest in 3nm is driven more by future products like Vision Pro than by iPhone. The iPhone could probably rest on its 5nm laurels for a couple of years. But without the volume of iPhone sales, 3nm couldn’t get off the ground. So iPhone sales fund 3nm development, but it will be Vision Pro that really benefits most

It’s not just Vision Pro.  iPhone A series processors retain performance and power efficiency leads over competing chips but will not unless Apple and TSMC keep pushing Process Node boundaries.  M3 and future M series chips will be / are being  built on TSMC 3nm processes.  If this process gives the performance boosts Apple wants, it’s not hard to see transitions for Watch S-chips, U UltraWideBand chips, H series for AirPods, Headphones and potentially hearing aids, and practically any future chips like modems, GPUs, and other chips Apple wants to create or produce.

the Apple-TSMC development and production partnership is one huge advantage that Apple can effectively manage.

sidrictheviking said:

I hate to be one to bring this up…but… will this include Hijack? Genuinely not sure if inflight entertainment should include films/shows about hijackings, etc. Have airlines in the past shown Flightplan, Snakes on a plane, Executive Decision, etc?

I’ll bet Air Force One and DieHard were probably shown.  I would have watched Airplane! in an airplane too but probably the whole plane would have been loudly laughing.

JP234 said:

There should be, somewhere out there, a market analysis to determine the point of diminishing returns comparing markup/volume ratios.

IMO, there already has been plenty of market analysis by Apple and others to determine “diminishing returns” and what the market will pay, willingly pay, and “take my money!” pay for a product or service.  

Some people have a problem with what THEY would pay, partly because of limited vision (pun intended) of the possibilities and because THEY believe the price MUST be lower to garner volume.  They want “minimized risk” so that if the price is low enough, they won’t feel they’ve lost much if it turns out less than amazing.  That’s a “you” problem.  

Others know they can and will pay because they see the value and possibilities of said technology.   They wish to try it for themselves, get the experience, and expand their ideas of what is possible.  And they are willing, most all times capable, and able to afford the technology or experience.  Of course, when you have sufficient discretionary income or assets, much more of the world’s options become available and doable.

Apple introduced the Mac at elevated prices to the cookie cutter PC industry.  It’s survived and in some respects flourished.  Apple introduced the costly iPod yet overtook the entire mobile MP3 player market for 10 years.  

Apple introduced the $500 iPhone, roundly criticized for cost and design, and it now has dominated the upper end smartphone market since 2015’s iPhone 6 and 6S.  

In 2017, Apple introduced the first $1000 iPhone X, breaching a price threshold some thought impossible for a mobile smartphone.  Everyone decried its price - everyone who felt they couldn’t or wouldn’t afford it.  It was a you/them problem.  Yet somehow, in some manner and ways, hundreds of millions of people worldwide, that year and since, believe these products worthy enough to pay these prices, all at once or over time.  Apple’s superior resale or trade-in value (even to competitors) many times makes this easier too.  

Rinse and repeat for the Apple Watch, Apple Watch Bands, Apple AirPods and AirPods Pro (remember how people said THOSE looked goofy, no one would want to be seen wearing them, where’s my beloved headphone Jack and tangled wire cheap or expensive earbuds and headphones!!), iMac, Mac Studio, Mac Pro, iPad Air, iPad Pro, heck even iPhone SE and base iPad?  

There’s always someone complaining about Apple’s prices, claiming Apple should price lower so THEY can afford it or they can get almost the same for a lot cheaper and in the same breath claim that Apple would benefit from selling more volume at cheaper prices.  And it’s always been so.  Yet Apple has backed their “prices” or rather customer value with high technology, superior and widely copied design, generally superior support, highly refined USER EXPERIENCE at all levels, from marketing, packaging, buying experience, user experience, after sales OS support, resale value, and integrated ecosystem management.  For all of this, Apple asks a premium cost, and in exchange, generally delivers a premium value which apparently, over 1.4 billions active users and over 2 billion active device install base attests to.  Apparently Apple is doing something right.  

Contrast this to competitors like Android makers, especially Samsung, Chinese makers, etc. who have diminishing and shrinking high end premium sales even as they try like crazy to penetrate that level and and sell “upper end” models like Foldables, Ultras, etc.  They sell some, make some bucks, but ALWAYS, ALWAYS, their revenues and profits severely lag behind Apple’s, both individually and collectively.  Why?  Because they dilute their brands with mid level and inexpensive (read cheap) products, undermine and undercut ANY pricing power they have by starting to discount even their flagship models within 2 months of introduction, sometimes earlier because of flagging sales, and all those bundles, BOGOs, promotional discounts eat directly into margins, revenues, and profits.  If they built their premium products to a price point with a reasonably healthy margin, why do they undermine themselves?  Because the dirty little secret is Apple’s competitors’ buying demographic is just not able or interested in spending more outside of first adopters.  “Wait for the sale”, “I’ll switch to a different maker”, and “oh, it’s no better than what I have” dominates their thinking and mantras.  And in tougher macroeconomic times like the last 3 years, buyers pulled back and it’s reflected in the overall smartphone and electronics marketplace shrinkage that’s hit Samsung and all of Apple’s competitors hard.  Apple, by contrast, has fallen much less than everyone else, and in a few cases and quarters, has done better, sometimes far better YOY and compared to their competitors.

And so we have the Vision Pro and an extraordinary price ask, presumably set to preserve Apple’s 35-40% hardware gross margin, in this case likely 27-32% gross margin on a first generation product like this.  That will make it exclusive, definitely lower volume, and very high powered and loaded with a cutting edge amount of well integrated technology, to be highly desired by some.  Some, not all.  Even maybe a select few (hundred thousand).  I’m sure Apple gauged the interest, ran the numbers, and decided a new technology, concept, and execution done in an (ultra) premium manner, with premium solutions and support, needed to have an (ultra) premium price.  Decide for yourself if Apple will be right over the short and long run.

But IMO, I wouldn’t be betting against Apple.  People have been telling Apple for a long, long, long time about how Apple “should” be running their business, how Apple is pricing themselves  out of sales, and how Apple could do things better if they just listened to all of the criticisms and business model conventions.  And those people will continue to be wrong, continue to scratch their heads, and wonder how could a company doing so many things wrong be making annually almost $400 billion revenue, sell 225+ million iPhones, capture 50-60% of ALL smartphone revenues, 85% of all smartphone profits (without any Foldable models), have $100B in free cash flow, and again, have a $3 TRILLION market cap?

if Apple is so “wrong”, I don’t want to be the complainer’s “right”.