CarmB

Apple tends to play a long game. When Apple launched a smart watch I wondered what the point was. Now I have an Apple Watch (Gen. 4) that I regard as indispensable. The launch Vision Pro is absolutely not a viable consumer product. It does a lot of things well enough but the price is utterly unworkable for the vast majority of consumers. Here's the thing though. Apple, I imagine, is aware that the current Vision Pro is too expensive and not as refined as it needs to be to become a meaningful source of revenue. So why launch an expensive, not fully evolved Vision Pro? Well, get units into the hands of willing consumers in real-world scenarios and what you gain is feedback. Internal testing can only take you so far. It may take four, five, maybe six  years for the Vision Pro to become like the watch is today but no doubt Apple is focusing on that four- to six-year window during which the Vision Pro approaches its potential. Apple has the resources to work through that multi-year strategy. Few other companies could pull this off. 

By future-proofing products, what Apple has secured is brand loyalty. If I buy a smart phone today and get more than four years of service out of it, I'm quite happy to buy another one. Apple has a massive collection of consumers out there who can participate in using their new AI tools on Day 1. To an extent Apple is monetizing that installed base by offering content to that base via Apple Music, Apple TV+ and so on. In addition, Apple is not, if you will, a one-trick pony. It sells smart phones, tablets, laptops, desktop computers, smart speakers, smart watches, and so on. When a customer buys one of those devices, odds are a good experience will lead to buying others as well. That's especially the case since Apple works hard to integrate all its products into a seamless system, one that extends to automotive electronics. So no, we don't have a lot of consumers out there replacing their smart phones on an annual basis but in many ways that's a good thing. If Apple can continue to bring in millions despite not selling new iPhones to the same customers annually, what it is providing is quality product that in the long run justifies the high cost of initial purchase. If Apple is focused on enhancing the lives of its customers, that's a good thing and very much in keeping with the goals of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. One more thing. If you have a product that can last a long time, you can justify a high initial purchase price. In today's inflation-tinged  environment, looking to sell an expensive smart phone that customers are expected to replace annually is a losing proposition. 

If the plan is to offer a lower-cost Apple TV+ with ads and the current offering at the current price, this I’m fine with. If Apple copies Prime and starts charging extra to take out ads, shame on Apple. When I hear complaints from those who don’t want ads, my thought is, if the person who doesn’t want ads has a service to pick up and continues to have that option, why would said consumer be upset over an alternative being added for those who would rather pay less and put up with the ads. Adding an ad tier is about broadening appeal not taking anything away from current subscribers. 

Even if prestige titles do not generate much of a profit, if you can recoup a lot of your cost and gain the prestige of being associated with a first-rate effort like Killers of the Flower Moon, that’s a big win. It makes sense to recover as much of the cost as possible and it’s crucial to give A List talent like Martin Scorsese access to as broad an audience as possible. I doubt Scorsese would be satisfied if only subscribers to Apple TV+ were accessing his work. Give a film a theatrical run and then make it available either to rent or buy. This way the film is accessible to whomever wants to see it, regardless of if they are Apple TV+ customers. That it also generates revenue, perhaps even enough to cover production costs, is a winning scenario. Fact is, in the long run, it might be less expensive for Apple to back a film that can draw revenue in a variety of ways than to produce something strictly to add content to Apple TV+. You need to do both but making high-profile movies is not a bad way to go, all things considered.

It surprises me that since the battery was put into a separate unit more of the electronics involved hasn’t been incorporated into the external supplemental unit. Doing so would, I would imagine, result in a lighter headset and that would improve the comfort in long-term use.

Of course, I’m no engineer, so maybe I’m way off base here, but it sure seems to me that the less electronics a user is expected to put on one’s head, the better the experience all around. 

Just saying . . .