PauloSeraa

avon b7 said:

Now, the waiting game to see if the EU thinks it really complies. 

Personally, I don't think it does. We'll see. 

So you actually think Apple is going to spend all of those man hours while in direct communication with the EU throughout the entire process, to result in something that doesn't comply? Of course it complies. And, there is no waiting game. No one is investigating anything. 

It amazes me the lengths these guys will go to build a fantasy around something in hopes that people believe they are committed to it. In truth Apple will drop Vision Pro entirely if it doesn't sell well enough. Presale data isn't good, and Tim's continued experiment to see how much he can convince people to pay for something is starting to unravel. Apple simply does not do low volume products. They either cancel them entirely, or they let them die on the vine for ages while the 8 customers who bought into the idea are left hanging in the wind. Given the general feeling toward VR headsets on the market, the presale numbers most likely reflect a huge chunk of the people even interested in buying a Vision Pro, leaving day to day sales from here out to be scarce. If Apple can't even sell half a million units in the first year, their interest in the category will quickly diminish. Everyone assumes that version 2 is a given, but that's a bad assumption. Apple does not throw good money after bad, and they've already spent exorbitant amounts of money on the development of something that has amounted to an iPad for your face that costs $3,500, and requires wearing an objectionable piece hardware that is heavy, uncomfortable for any length time, nausea-inducing for most people, tethered to the wall, and completely world-isolating. What other Apple product even comes close to having that many negative tradeoffs? There is almost nothing good that you can say about this product that isn't outweighed but its downsides.

Apple has said that AR is the future, and I agree. So they go and build a VR headset, something no one anywhere thinks is the future, and try to do AR with it.

AR is all about the view finder. We already have the ability in software to do amazing things with AR, but they're nothing more than a tech demo until we get the view finder right. And a VR headset is not it. No more closer than holding an iPhone up to your face and looking through the lens of the camera. Apple knows this, and knows that glasses are the wearable of the future, and that everyday glasses that can be powered by iPhone to project AR into your world are a game changer. They also know that the technology to do this well is still several years away, and Tim Cook knows he won't be CEO by the time that comes around. He wanted spatial computing to be part of his legacy so badly that he pushed a product onto market years before it was ready, bolstered by his successes with overcharging customers in the last several years. Things like raising the price of products every time a new feature is added is a Tim Cook invention that customers have rewarded him for, and it has led to some poor decisions...Vision Pro's release being the pinnacle.

chasm said:

mikethemartian said:

So Apple claims that it doesn’t trade on user’s privacy but they push you towards a company that does and Apple takes a 36% cut.

To be fair, Apple can only control what Apple does, and Google is in truth probably the best search engine — but at a very high cost to users.

If Apple had made a deal with MS to have Bing be the default, they probably would have demanded a similar commission rate — they’d just be earning a lot less.

It is the users who choose Google, not Apple, who should be making these commissions. If you’re selling your most private and personal data to Google, why aren’t YOU getting any money for that?

If you assume Apple has 100 million US Safari users between the its mobile and computer products, and lets say 80 million of them use the default search in Safari, I reckon that $26 billion would work out to about $325 per user per year.

Still not enough for me to switch from DuckDuckGo, but at least those who are actually giving their data away for no reward at all now would be getting SOME compensation …

1. What is this imaginary "high cost" to the users? Self-righteous people on the internet love to doom about "collecting your data" but amazingly they can never point out any real-world harm that comes from it. That's largely because: there is none. You may have an argument somewhere in there about them profiting off of data and not sharing that profit with you, but then again, they could just charge you $325 a year to use Google instead...which absolutely no one would choose, except virtue-signaling internet personalities.

2. Apple has way more Safari users than that.

3. DuckDuckGo is cute, but completely inadequate and unusable for anything other than casual searches.

Is any of this really about "Alternative App Stores"? Does anyone actually care about alternative app stores?

This is more about distributing Apps without needing Apple's approval. This is about distributing Apps that are not blocked because of business reasons...Apple's business reasons. This is about being able to distribute an app, free or not, right on your own website, directly to your users.

If Apple had been more flexible and less unrealistic with their control, no one would have ever asked for this.

jellybelly said:

1.)  I don’t think anyone has predicted that 24” iMacs might be upgraded not only with M2 but also with M2 Pro and M2 Max SOC as “scary fast” options.  I’d expect the M2 Max will be faster than the base M3.

For the iMac 24”, that could be a “scary” fast option of interest for many—including folks with a Studio Display they already have or would get so they’d have a two monitor system with power in the tank. 

There could be an introduction of a 27” or 30” or 32” iMac with the M2 Pro or M2 Max.   That would make sense. It would fill a long time stretch of no upgrades on that product. The M2 Pro & M2 Max are already in production and this would avoid the supply crunch on the M3 SOC. 

2.)  Another thought is—why would Apple schedule a reveal and compete for audience just when game 3 of the World Series starts?

Maybe the reveal will followed by (or be in) a series of ads during the World Series game, with a bigger ad just before the game start of 5:03pm PDT, and a repeat or second ad during 7th inning stretch.  And short 20 second or less ads during the game hi-lighting gaming on iPhone and the new iMacs as reinforcement teasers. It would be a rather larger audience and during a sporting event, in which they might also reveal expanded MLB showings beyond the Friday night deal. 

If Apple planned M2 spec bumps for the 24" iMac, which are already way overdue, that would hardly be event worthy. If they're going to update this stale product at all, they might as well do it with an M3 so it can remain relevant while it languishes for a few more years. And at this stage, there is zero evidence of an imminent launch of any other iMac model. And if MacBook Pros are indeed on the table, then M3 Pro and M3 Max are the next chips in line. And if Apple is showing off M3 Pro and M3 Max, it stands to reason that they would show the base M3 first. Logically, what makes sense is a M3 iMac followed by an M3 Pro and M3 Max MBP.

The timing is thought to coincide with Japanese business hours, because there is some sort of gaming announcement that involves a Japanese game company.