twolf2919

avon b7 said:

…

Apple may have enough users, but what evidence do you or Gurman have to support the view that they could be more profitable with their own search engine than the deal they have with Google?   Creating, enhancing, and maintaining a search engine isn’t free.  Then there’s the fact that Apple prides itself on maintaining privacy of its users, so any advertising they sell won’t be as profitable as Google’s as those ads won’t be as “targeted” as privacy violating as Google can make them.

I think the OP is right - it must be a slow news day.  There’s no way Apple will do their own search engine - unless it was forbidden to sell the integration with one to the highest bidder - currently Google - under some sort of anti-trust decree.

StrangeDays said:

Kuo has absolutely no business insight into Apple strategy, pricing discussion, or decision-making. He only has leaking supply chain contacts. There’s zero way he can know what Apple is thinking strategically years in the future.

Correction: he's got supply chain insights/contacts *and* common sense.  The latter alone enables anyone to forecast dismal sales for a $3500 toy with no mass market use case- no matter how good the experience.  He's, of course, purely guessing with regards to Vision Pro 2 coming out in the 2027 timeframe.  I'd submit that by that timeframe, Apple will have woken up and realized that Apple Glasses will be the only gadget with truly mass market appeal.  It is this product that everybody was hoping for in 2023 instead of the techno-tour-de-force that is Vision Pro.  Coincidentally, after the VP came out, there were rumors that Apple Glass had been pushed back to....2027 or so.

dope_ahmine said:

red oak said:

"EU regulation fosters innovation, without compromising on security and privacy“  

What a f****** joke 

He really has no fkn clue of what he’s talking about.
🃏

Apple is going to be forced, by these id1ots, to allow alternate app stores, wallets, etc.  I hope that every install and every invocation of an app from an alternative app store is preceded  with the warning "This app was not tested by Apple - do you want to proceed?"  Sort of like those super annoying cookie dialog you're forced to click through on every European web site.  But unlike those web sites, Apple users will still have the choice of only downloading/installing apps from the Apple App store.  That alone will keep most people from going to alternatives.

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

You don't speak for 'most of us'.  I'm perfectly happy with the battery life in my phone - even with heavy use it makes it through a whole day.  While I wouldn't commit the same mistake and claim that 'most of us' need better cameras, I certainly know quite a few people who'd want better zoom on theirs.  I do agree that performance *seems* plenty good enough for what most people use their phones for.  But I guess it's sort of like the range on electric cars: most people only go on a long trip where good range is important once or twice a year.  Yet range is exactly why most people haven't switched to EVs yet - they want that 300+mi range, just in case...maybe same with performance: you never know when you might need it, so you want it.

It would be even nicer of Apple if it fixed the weaknesses Pegasus takes advantage of.  Actually, until this article appeared, that's what I assumed Apple had already done, given Pegasus' notoriety.  Unless, of course, those weaknesses require social engineering - not much Apple can do about people's stupidity.