Blizzard

About

Username
Blizzard
Joined
Visits
18
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
231
Badges
0
Posts
54

Reactions

56Like5Dislike36Informative

  • Apple didn't need AI -- but it did need China -- to beat analysts' doom and gloom

    BlizzardBlizzard
    nubus said:
    blastdoor said:
    This earnings report in NO WAY proves that people worried about Apple's ability to capitalize on AI are wrong. 
    This report absolutely proves that the analysts who cried about this quarter because of Apple Intelligence were wrong.
    The report does indeed prove that analysts were wrong about the quarter. Currency tailwinds (likely 2%), tariff scare moving sales forward (1%), access to $42 billion in government incentives from China (MSRP of iPhone 16 Pro dropped 30%!), strong F1 opening, limited negative impact of tariffs, and boost in services.The analysts didn't see all of that.

    But @blastdoor is right in the sense that AI is holding Apple back. While Apple delivered 24% growth in services then MS hit 34%. Microsoft is also less exposed to tariffs. The series of strategic blunders and product misfires from Apple caused this, and the quarter just expanded it to nearly a trillion gap.

    And Apple might be heading towards another strategic miscalculation. Apple is trying to keep AI on-device. It will increase the cost of devices and expose them to tariffs while the quality of AI on-device remains limited by storage, battery, memory, and processing power. MS is mostly doing AI as services delivering tariff free recurring income with constantly updated models.

    Apple is betting on on-device to the point where we have a datacenter gap (thanks Dr. Strangelove). The Environmental Progress Report from Apple is showing 6.7% growth in data centers from 2023 to 2024. Microsoft is growing 33% per year (both numbers based on energy consumption). This gap can define what Apple is capable of doing when looking ahead.
    This!  This!  This!

    I would love to see Mike Wuerthele's response to this.  

    This is exactly the issue Analysts have!
    williamlondon

  • Apple didn't need AI -- but it did need China -- to beat analysts' doom and gloom

    BlizzardBlizzard
    paulmacintosh said:
    Right now, AI is a gimmick. Until it’s actually useful, it won’t make much impact. As I once read online, on a comment thread: people don’t want AI to do art and poetry so they can do their washing (laundry), they want AI to do their washing/laundry so they can do art and poetry. The Microsofts, Googles and Samsungs of the tech industry are falling over each other to go headfirst in the wrong direction. Let them; Napoleon would. Slow and steady wins the race. As in the nursery rhyme; and the parable: it was the tortoise, not the hare, which won the race; and the guy who took the low road got to Scotland before the guy who took the (glitzy/gimmicky) high road.
    You do realize that the major Tech companies are already using AI to write their software for their applications, right?  You do know that right?  Microsoft, Google, Meta, are using AI to improve the productivity of software engineers.  You understand how expensive Software Engineers are, right?  Generative AI matters when it comes to major motion pictures because it significantly reduces production timelines and costs, Netflix, Sony, Tyler Perry, etc. are already massively starting to invest in AI for making their future movies and TV shows.
    blastdoorwilliamlondon

  • Apple didn't need AI -- but it did need China -- to beat analysts' doom and gloom

    BlizzardBlizzard
    Mike Wuerthele said:
    blastdoor said:
    This earnings report in NO WAY proves that people worried about Apple's ability to capitalize on AI are wrong. 

    The concerns about AI are not about earnings next quarter or even next year. It's about 18 months and further out. 

    One thing I'm very confident of -- Apple leadership is not as myopic as the fanboy base. They've known for a while now that they've got a problem, they just haven't solved it yet. One way or another, I'm pretty confident the problem will be solved. But it won't be solved by pretending it doesn't exist. 
    This report absolutely proves that the analysts who cried about this quarter because of Apple Intelligence were wrong.

    Apple will do what it very nearly always does, which is what the analysts in question always, always fail to see -- Iterate until they have something that they like. No visibility as to what Apple is doing does not mean that Apple is not working on it. 

    At this point in the AI lack of maturity, not having a product that really utilizes generative AI is not really an issue. If Apple doesn't do anything in a year or two, then maybe it's an issue.
    Can't say that I agree, the analysts are primarily concerned about 18 months and further out.  AI would fit under the Services category when it comes to generating revenue, if Apple stumbles on it, they could let Microsoft, Google, and Meta all run away with a potential multi trillion-dollar market in 10 years from now.  Did analysts have concern that Apple's AI implementation as of late could be starting to impact sales and were looking to this quarter to see it?  Yes, but their primary concern is what AI is going to be 10 years from now and it doesn't look like Apple is going to be able to keep pace.

    Apple missed out on the cloud, they missed out on the internet search, Microsoft missed out on internet search and its ads, and it missed out on mobile devices, however it hasn't missed out on the cloud, and it isn't missing out on AI and it is paying dividends for them.


    blastdoorwilliamlondon

  • Apple's 'F1' movie tops box office, expects to earn over $300 million

    BlizzardBlizzard

    charlesn said:
    100%. This is a bonkers decision that makes absolutely no sense. F1 would be the greatest and most effective marketing tool EVER to drive interest and sign-ups for the Apple TV+ service--

    ROFL!!!!!!  You actually think F1 is that much more popular than Lionel Messi?  GTFO!!!!  Lionel Messi is the greatest and most effective marketing tool that could ever be had.  The only thing that could be higher is if Apple TV+ was the exclusive way to watch every single NFL game.
    williamlondon

  • How Steve Jobs saved Apple with the iMac 27 years ago

    BlizzardBlizzard
    Nice list, but I will note that the statement you quoted didn't state that the Mac was the only "computer" being sold with the same branding 25 years later.
    And I will note that the statement being quoted is implying that the iMac is a rarity, not just in computer branding but in electronic branding for being actively sold after 25 years.  My point with my list is that it isn't a rarity at all, in fact it is quite common, not just in computers also in other electronics, such as as the sony walkman.


    Also, while I'm perfectly fine with modern portable music players and video game consoles being included as they are very specialized computing devices* I do think the original statement is referring to personal computers in the traditional sense.

    Read the original quote again, you see the part where it says "any other device", what do you think that means?  It means any electronic device that is not a computer.


    williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingamVictorMortimerdanoxDynamiteDonald