Pema

Let's face it. Google not Apple is in the pole position. Admittedly Apple has some one billion devices out there using search at some point the reality if Google stopped paying Apple billions of dollars to be the default search engine, what would Apple do: 

1. Create its own. Not always an easy proposition. Apple has created an excellent Music streaming services. But it still lags behind Spotify by a wide margin six years on. To start amassing the massive amount of data starting today, 2024, to build up a credible search engine would take Apple till 2030 at the earliest to build up credible momentum. Look what's happening with the Apple Car. It's coming, it's coming, it's coming. It should be called the Apple Mirage. 
2. It could have purchased Bing. But the latter is very weak product. About as bad as Spotlight on the Mac. 

There is nowhere for Apple to go for Search except offer Google. The alternatives are not really viable. Not Bing, Duck Limp Duck, or any other search engine. Google invests most likely 60%-70% of its budget on maintaining and developing its search engine. If Google refused to pay Apple the billions of dollars to be the exclusive search engine on all Apple products, Apple has not got a viable alternative. 

IMHO Apple ought to also purchase a top-notch streaming platform and combine it with Apple TV+ Yes, there are good shows on Apple TV+ but the bulk of the content is scraps from other platforms. 

And perhaps the best thing to do, is buy out Spotify. The latter keeps whinging and whinging and whinging. Just buy them out and shut them up. 

That's a really good point. What question does the Vision Pro answer? Every device that we currently use has been developed and evolved for a purpose: notebooks, iPads, iPhones, Apple Watch, AirPods, AirTags. They all serve a purpose that we need at some point. Some more perpetual than others. The notebook which most of us use on a daily basis, everyday. Same for the iPhone. The others more specific: the watch, earphones, tablets. 

But I must confess that I have never woken up thinking, gee, it would be of additional benefit to my work or life to experience the world through AR or VR. 

I am an author. Oftentimes I have to transport myself via my imagination to locations that I have limited or no personal experience in having been there. Perhaps the VP is such a product that can transport me virtually to complement my imagination. 

We all seem to be streaming more than actually going to the movies. And perhaps VP can enhance that experience. There was a failed attempt some years ago to extend the cinematic experience by creating movies with the aid of VR glasses, but that attempt fell flat. 3D I believe it was called. Producers had to spend a huge amount of money to create the movie experience and unless the movie merited that additional experience - sci-fi comes to mind - no one seemed all that interested. 

But having a set of VP goggles - at a reasonable price point, $1500 - will in fact enhance the home experience of streaming beyond what the QLED telly currently provides. 

Certainly many professions can and will benefit from the VP. 

But I would suggest that widespread adoption of the VP depends largely on an affordable price point to merit the benefit. If any company can ride out that wave, Apple has the time and money to do so. Until then I am watching and waiting. 

All you ever read about the Applecar is it's coming. Then senior staff leaving to work at other companies. 

Now we have a new update: Applecar will pick me, take me home and play music. Well, I have all that right now. My spouse picks me up, takes me home and instead of playing music I get a todo list. 

For all the fanfare about the Applecar I would want to have a whole band sitting on the roof while I am being driven home. 

The other very salient point, in case Apple hasn't noticed is that the Chinese are flooding the market with EVs - which is what I presume the the Applecar will be - the result of which prices have been forced down, down, down. Just ask Elon Musk - he has had to reduce prices 6 times since the car was launched. 

If you bought at the launch your car would be worth next to nothing. 

StrangeDays said:

CiaranF said:

Maybe people are getting pissed off with your prices eh? Your actions on the market then drive up the prices of other smartphone manufacturers cos then they get greedy too. I remember buying my first iPhone 3GS for £299 or £349 back in 2009 or so. Now the same equivalent for me in a Pro Max model is circa £1400. That’s greed too, not inflation. 

You’re price comparing to the top of the line model. You should compare to the base iPhone. 

Why don't you buy a feature phone from Nokia. They still make them for £35. I don't believe a prestigious, high-quality iPhone 15 Pro is for you. Maybe you ought to give it to your kids, they may appreciate it. You should stick with what you can manage: a feature phone. 

I wouldn't worry too much about Goldman Sachs. 
A mere four years ago they cost taxpayers billions of dollars with their dodgy investments in toxic assets and then dodged their responsibility by refusing to take ownership of the problem. 
I would suggest that a great many taxpayers wanted out the sub prime mortgage crap and couldn't just exit the arrangement while Goldman Sachs sailed off into the sunset.