CarmB

Could it be that Apple overestimated the initial interest in the iPhone 16 based on the addition of Apple Intelligence in the coming months? If so, shorter lead times does not automatically mean the iPhone 16 is not selling well. They may have set up for higher demand and are now seeing shorter lead times as a result. It's certainly reasonable to posit that we will not see a lot of demand for the new models as a result of AI at this time on account of the AI features are not yet available. It's also the case that those features, to be of interest, consumers have to feel there is a meaningful upgrade in the user experience. With few users in the wild having access to Apple Intelligence, how is that supposed to happen exactly.  Apple plays a long game, one that has proven effective yet isn't for those looking for dramatic instantaneous results. Take the Apple Watch as an example. Initially it didn't seem like it was all that big a deal but today many - myself included - regard the device as indispensable. Over time, Apple has enhanced the value of the product and afforded upgrades to products several years old. My fourth-generation watch only now is ineligible for any future upgrades but I've had it for several years and it still does what it does. I'll probably upgrade to a new one in the next year or so. AI will be like that. Start off modestly but evolve into an indispensable must-have that will motivate current long-time iPhone owners to upgrade. It's just not going to happen all at once. 

nmemac said:

I realise I am probably an outlier on this, but I stopped watching much broadcast TV over a decade ago because I got tired of series being cancelled with no conclusion to a story at the end of a season, often ending with a cliffhanger for the next series that never came. I often waited for the end of a series to buy dvd complete series boxsets if they reached a satisfying conclusion.

Streaming has possibly made this even worse, with many shows cancelled across different platforms before they reached a natural ending in the storytelling. Streaming services are under pressure to see a return, but I think some patience is required and viewing figures cannot be judged on a single season - the advantage of streaming that should not be thrown away is that people can come to watch a series in its entirety years after it first started, with many people binge-watching an entire series from start to finish in one go. Evan now I rarely watch an Apple show unless it gets go ahead for at least a second series, or more... i'm not going to waste hours of my life each year on shows that get cancelled with no conclusion. Whilst growing rapidly, Apple's offering is still too thin to be judged properly, and with uncertainty still surrounding shows like Foundation.

Maybe try to address why they're not successfully reaching a wider audience before cutting their legs off below the knee...

At the least, if you end a season with a cliffhanger, put out one or two more episode to allow for the story to be completed properly. By not completing the story arc, it's as if Apple is comfortable with releasing an incomplete product. Very amateurish and lacking regard for the consumers. Even if the numbers are not what is desired, there are still thousands of consumers who choose to check out a show. Others might check in long after a show was first presented. They deserve better. It would be another matter if shows were more episodic along the lines of how shows were structured decades ago but if you have an ongoing story and you tease something more to come, it's unprofessional to simply not follow through. 

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 . . . 

ApplePoor said:

To keep just the three parts of the Apple One bundle I actually use would cost more with their individual prices than the complete bundle.

Guess it depends on which three items one is interested in. In my case, it’s Apple TV+ ($129 a year), FItness+ ($99.99 a year) and News+ ($16.99 a month). That works out to $432.87 annually. Apple One costs $44.95 a month in Canada which comes to $539.40. What I found is that I get more bang for my buck by forgoing Apple News+ and instead going with a digital subscription to a Toronto daily that was about $40 for the first year and this year is costing just shy of $126 annually. So going the route I did, it’s costing me about $355 rather than the $539.40 I’d be paying for Apple One. The news package is not as extensive, certainly, but roughly $184 a year is well worth saving. The additional news content is just not enough to justify paying so much more every month. I could save a heck of a lot more by only carrying Fitness+ and Apple TV+ for half the year, that sort of thing. What I can’t justify is paying in excess of $500 a year in part for a bunch of services I really don’t need. Apple doesn’t offer the bundle I’d like to have, namely TV/Fitness/News, which, I suspect, many others would flock to if offered. The very combo I want is the one Apple doesn’t put on the table. Kind of reminds me of the packaging cable providers were notorious for back in the day. 

While I agree that 4K should be included in every tier, the truth is that even at 720p the picture looks decent on a good 4k TV. The set upconverts and as long as it’s a good quality set, that upconversion yields very good results. At least that’s my experience on my Sony 4k sets. The ads are not really all that much of a pain, either. As long as one is fine with a single feed, the ad-supported tier is a great deal.