Marvin

hexclock said:

foregoneconclusion said:

hexclock said:

mark fearing said:

darbus69 said:

anyone who kisses the orange monsters ring is not doing the world any good, no matter what, period.

I would rather pay more for my all my creepy capitalistic goods than bow down to him.

I agree but the industrial entities always cave to fascists first. Germany, Italy, they fall in line.

What hyperbolic nonsense. Get over it, you lost. Try again in 4 years. 

FYI...Trump still doesn't believe he lost the 2020 election.

https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/12/to-work-in-the-trump-administration-you-must-correctly-answer-these-3-questions.html

So Biden got more votes than Obama, yet all those extra voters just stayed home this time? Something doesn’t add up. 

The total numbers after the counting was done are close between 2020 and 2024.

2020 was 81.2m (blue) vs 74.2m, (red) = 155m
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president

2024 was 74.8m (blue) vs 77.1m (red) = 152m
https://eu.usatoday.com/elections/results/2024-11-05/

Some of the difference is due to other candidates than the main two:
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2024
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020

Total turnout was noted as 158m in 2020 vs 154m in 2024, very small difference.

But both significantly higher than 2016 at 136m (explained below):
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2016

foregoneconclusion said:

hexclock said:

mark fearing said:

darbus69 said:

anyone who kisses the orange monsters ring is not doing the world any good, no matter what, period.

I would rather pay more for my all my creepy capitalistic goods than bow down to him.

I agree but the industrial entities always cave to fascists first. Germany, Italy, they fall in line.

What hyperbolic nonsense. Get over it, you lost. Try again in 4 years. 

FYI...Trump still doesn't believe he lost the 2020 election.

https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/12/to-work-in-the-trump-administration-you-must-correctly-answer-these-3-questions.html

There's something psychological that stops narcissists associating anything negative with themselves like losing. These types commonly refer to other people as losers. You can see his uncomfortable reaction when saying the words that he lost:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Beg9NUOhZTE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCbfTN-caFI&t=947s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJvQHVlkpPI

Someone said he was muttering "I won, I won" after losing because he couldn't handle it:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/election-results-trump-king-george-b1763487.html

There's another part to this, which is covered in the second video above, which is the excuse used and it comes back to immigration. Millions of people (>20m) migrated to the US between 1990-2015:

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time
https://www.facingsouth.org/2020/12/first-time-voters-played-decisive-role-2020-elections

Many of them only become eligible to vote years later and it changes the voting demographics that some people view as not legitimate as they aren't born citizens, hence their desire for a purge, a wall and changes to voter eligibility to prevent it happening again.

badmonk said:

GrannySmith99 said:

So the UK isn't in Europe any more? News to me!

Not since Brexit.

Europe is a continent, the UK left the EU, not Europe, same situation as Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Monaco, Montenegro etc.

https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/european-countries-that-are-outside-the-european-union

9secondkox2 said:

Cook gets it. Recognize a competent leader and team up. 

It’s great to see Apple have friends in high places again. 

Cook is one of the best business leaders today and it shows with his willingness for diplomacy.

When it comes to competency, I find it strange that almost every job below the highest job in democratic countries is decided by competency and review but the highest job is decided by a popularity contest, which is clearly no protection against corruption. It's also the same structure regardless of scale.

Tim Cook might not win a popularity contest but he's one of the most competent leaders, people like him should be running countries. At least by being close to the elected leadership, he can have a part in how it's run.

tht said:

To actually make a profit and to do R&D on the next gen product, they need to sell at about $1300. 1/3:1/3:1/3 for product BOM, cost of doing business, and gross margin. 

Cost of doing business comes out of gross margin, manufacturing cost is built into component costs for BOM, all that's left is assembly. Apple's gross margin is 40-45%:

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/gross-margin

Net margin is 20-25%:

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/net-profit-margin

Cost of doing business is the difference. The ratio is more like 60:20:20 for BOM:cost of business:net margin. If Apple was building the Xreal glasses with the same parts, they'd only need to sell them at $699 to have healthy margins ($200 more than Xreal sells them at). I don't know why Xreal doesn't sell them higher, I think they'd get away with a $699 price point, maybe they will raise the price once they are more established. Maybe Meta is making it difficult for them by pricing their products so low. If their product was $699 and Meta Quest is $499, they'd lose sales.

tht said:

Meta is most definitely selling Quest headsets at a rather large loss. They would actually advertise a positive gross margin in financial reports if Quest headsets had one as that would be a very positive sign for the division. Instead, Meta reports losses at about 6x to 8x their revenue.

Meta losses were reported to come from mismanagement of product development and they have 17,000 employees in this division. That's easily $2b+/year in payroll.

They are investing in neural interface R&D and AR products that haven't come to market. It would be interesting to see a detailed breakdown of where the money is going because it's a lot of money being spent.

40% of the Reality Labs cost is for VR but this isn't being lost on direct hardware costs, it's through mismanagement of their business, cancelled products, hiring and firing large teams with no return on the investment.

Xreal is very small by comparison with ~500 employees ($50m payroll).

BOM = $400 x 350k = $140m, payroll = $50m, marketing = $50m.
Company operating costs + COGS = $240m.
Revenue = $175m.
To have 25% net margin like Apple, they need revenue to be $300m, which they can get by selling Xreal at roughly $799. Instead they rely on investor funding to make up the difference.

tht said:

Marvin said:

tht said:

Marvin said:

There are already low priced AR sunglasses:



These latest ones offer 1080p OLED with built-in motion tracking, plug into a device and it mirrors the screen and this is priced at $500 at a profit:

https://us.shop.xreal.com/products/xreal-one

These glasses leak light in the sides so it's best to have blockers. Apple could have something that is a level above this. Given that 4K displays are too expensive just now, maybe they have variable resolution screens or tiled screens where the resolution is higher in the middle so the yields are better. Then work with this form factor and build it out into a visor that is secure on the head. It can use an A18 chip to bring costs down and will cut power draw in half vs M2.

If a small company can sell a product like this at a profit for $500, Apple with its huge resources can build a much better implementation of this and sell it at $1499-1999.

Is there any proof that XREAL has made any profits? I don't think they have.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/xreal-announces-usd-60m-strategic-fundraising-round-ahead-air-wvjfc
"Beijing, China, Jan. 29, 2024 -- XREAL today reinforced its mission to bring spatial computing to global consumer markets, announcing that is has secured an additional USD $60 million in funding in a new strategic round. This brings XREAL's life-to-date fundraising to USD $300 million. ... Earlier in January, XREAL announced it had shipped an industry leading 350,000 AR glasses to date."

Assuming an ASP of $500, that's $175m in revenue, while they have raised $300m. I have not seen how much cash in hand they have, but needing to continue to raise money implies they are underwater, need further funding rounds, and need another 5x to 10x in sales to be able to self-fund from those sales.

AR glasses that have a pair of microOLEDS, lens/waveguides, and a custom chip probably has a BOM of $400 to $500. Hard to believe it would be in the low hundreds. My basic rule of thumb for a profitable product is BOM x 3. If the BOM is $500, they need to sell for $1500. 33:33:33. A third for the BOM. A third for the cost of selling and supporting. A third is the gross margin. So, XREALs ASPs likely have to double while driving down BOM, or other ratio to get an actual profit margin.

A new company has to raise capital to build the products. If it's $400 BOM for a $500 product, they can only make gross profit of 350k units x $100 = $35m but to manufacture this many units, they need 350k x $400 = $140m plus staff costs, marketing etc.

They should probably increase prices if they want to be able to self-fund their operation but having investors cover costs initially is a standard way to go. Amazon made losses for over 15 years and had investors cover the costs and it worked out eventually.

https://www.ibtimes.com/amazon-nearly-20-years-business-it-still-doesnt-make-money-investors-dont-seem-care-1513368

XREAL isn't a service or ad company. I was questioning your statement that XREAL was making a profit off their $500 AR glasses. That's really doubtful. They use microOLEDs and lens/waveguides. The BOM for those 4 things alone may be $500. If they were making a profit, the necessity for another funding round in 2024 becomes much less needed, and to me that is evidence there gross margins are currently negative.

Sony's PSVR2 is $550, and it is probably breakeven to making single digit profit margins (after a million units?), but it uses OLEDs with about a quarter of the AVP resolution, Fresnel lens rather than pancake lens, has a lower sensor count, and doesn't have the equivalent of a MBP14 with M2 Pro in it. It does have hand controllers as part of that $550 though. Probably $20 to $30 BOM for each controller.

Just seems impossible that any company can make a competent AR or VR headset for a profit at $500, and they all need to be $1000, minimum.

There's a BOM estimate for the Quest 3 and AVP here from a supply chain researcher:

https://www.uploadvr.com/meta-quest-3-apple-vision-pro-production-cost-estimate/

This is component and assembly cost that doesn't include R&D, software etc. Quest 3 production cost is estimated at $430, AVP is $1700.

Meta Quest 3 is sold close to break-even or at a loss. It has more advanced components than the Xreal product.

The same point about low profits could be made about any low priced product. How does Apple sell an iPad at a profit at $349:

https://www.apple.com/ipad-10.9/

This would imply a production cost under $220. But they've managed to pull it off.

This isn't enough profit per unit for a small company to build the next product iteration. They need $140m+ of operating capital. But they don't need to sell an AR product at $1000 minimum to be profitable, same way iPads, smartwatches, iPhones don't need to be $1000 minimum.

Similarly, Apple's AVP build costs can come way down to make a profitable device under $2k.

lordjohnwhorfin said:

The image quality, immersion, complete lack of any sort of lag, are just completely incredible. Immersive videos are mind boggling. But that’s only the beginning. I honestly don’t understand why game studios havent taken over the platform. It has absolutely everything and more to make it the best gaming platform ever.

Games take around 3 years to make and $50m+ (plus almost the same on marketing). They can typically only target a portion of a platform userbase, say 30%. If you assume best-case 500k AVP units, potential game sales would be 150k units. Even if those people could be convinced to spend $60 per game, that's $9m revenue ($6m after 30% store fee) vs $50m+ costs.

For now, games are best being streamed from a host device using something like ALVR:

https://github.com/alvr-org/alvr





The costs for those VR games have been recouped on platforms with more users. Sony's Horizon Call of the Mountain VR game is estimated to have sold over 2m copies (~$120m revenue) and that's developed internally for their own hardware.

https://www.psfanatic.com/the-horizon-series-has-sold-a-staggering-32-7-million-units/

If Apple commissions a native port of something like Skyrim VR or No Man's Sky VR, that could start up some games interest but 3rd parties can't invest in new titles until the unit volume is high enough to make a profit. AVP userbase needs to be minimum 6 million units and willing to spend $40 per title and they need well-supported controllers.

danox said:

As someone posted earlier said if Apple sold 500,000 units so far that means before the end of the year Apple has sold $1.75 billion dollars worth of product, a product that cost about $3500 dollars, a product that is priced to sell at a profit and not a loss that is a win…. in order to stay in the game you have to make a profit doesn’t matter how many units you sell. Let Google, Microsoft and Meta play the marketshare loss leader sell a a lost game.

That’s one thing Steve Jobs learned upon his return to Apple. It’s being able to make and sell new product that sells at a profit, after all that is what the original iMac did it sold at a profit, which in turn allowed Apple to continue on as a company, being as big as Microsoft or Intel at that time was not the point the point was being able to create a new product that made a profit for each unit sold.

The Apple Vision is but a new software/hardware ecosystem a new branch on the Apple tree a branch that their competitors cannot match not at a profit.

HoloLens most likely sold at a profit at $3500+ but has been discontinued. Profit has to be combined with a sufficient unit volume to justify marketing, store inventory, support and 3rd party interest.

The Mac today wouldn't exist if its entry price was $3500+. The majority of Mac sales are below $2000. The majority of iPhone sales are below $1000.

None of these products are sold at a loss or built with cheap parts. The Mac mini is $500 and is a high quality product.

BOM of AVP is estimated around $1700 for a $3500 retail price. $700 just for the displays. Let's say they start with 1080p displays ($50 each), take a single 4K display and slice it into 4 tiles ($350 / 4 = $88). Cut out the middle of the 1080p display and put a 1/4 4K tile in the middle. Then you get a $50 + $88 display = $138. It's like a hardware foveated display, 4K when looking forward into the middle 50% of the display, 1080p when looking sideways (not turning head) and cuts $400 off the cost.

Then drop from M-series chips to iPhone chips where A18 will be roughly the same performance as M2 but half the power and $100 less, maybe fanless.

Cut out the EyeSight feature to save another $100 and drops the weight and size.

Then the BOM is $1700 - $400 - $100 - $100 = $1100, retail price is $2200.

Squeeze some margins a little, adjust other costs like cameras and they can hit $1999. Then they sell 3m units ($6b) with gross profit of around 40% like all their other products.

Still highly profitable but now it's a platform that 3rd parties can invest in.

tht said:

Marvin said:

There are already low priced AR sunglasses:



These latest ones offer 1080p OLED with built-in motion tracking, plug into a device and it mirrors the screen and this is priced at $500 at a profit:

https://us.shop.xreal.com/products/xreal-one

These glasses leak light in the sides so it's best to have blockers. Apple could have something that is a level above this. Given that 4K displays are too expensive just now, maybe they have variable resolution screens or tiled screens where the resolution is higher in the middle so the yields are better. Then work with this form factor and build it out into a visor that is secure on the head. It can use an A18 chip to bring costs down and will cut power draw in half vs M2.

If a small company can sell a product like this at a profit for $500, Apple with its huge resources can build a much better implementation of this and sell it at $1499-1999.

Is there any proof that XREAL has made any profits? I don't think they have.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/xreal-announces-usd-60m-strategic-fundraising-round-ahead-air-wvjfc
"Beijing, China, Jan. 29, 2024 -- XREAL today reinforced its mission to bring spatial computing to global consumer markets, announcing that is has secured an additional USD $60 million in funding in a new strategic round. This brings XREAL's life-to-date fundraising to USD $300 million. ... Earlier in January, XREAL announced it had shipped an industry leading 350,000 AR glasses to date."

Assuming an ASP of $500, that's $175m in revenue, while they have raised $300m. I have not seen how much cash in hand they have, but needing to continue to raise money implies they are underwater, need further funding rounds, and need another 5x to 10x in sales to be able to self-fund from those sales.

AR glasses that have a pair of microOLEDS, lens/waveguides, and a custom chip probably has a BOM of $400 to $500. Hard to believe it would be in the low hundreds. My basic rule of thumb for a profitable product is BOM x 3. If the BOM is $500, they need to sell for $1500. 33:33:33. A third for the BOM. A third for the cost of selling and supporting. A third is the gross margin. So, XREALs ASPs likely have to double while driving down BOM, or other ratio to get an actual profit margin.

A new company has to raise capital to build the products. If it's $400 BOM for a $500 product, they can only make gross profit of 350k units x $100 = $35m but to manufacture this many units, they need 350k x $400 = $140m plus staff costs, marketing etc.

They should probably increase prices if they want to be able to self-fund their operation but having investors cover costs initially is a standard way to go. Amazon made losses for over 15 years and had investors cover the costs and it worked out eventually.

https://www.ibtimes.com/amazon-nearly-20-years-business-it-still-doesnt-make-money-investors-dont-seem-care-1513368