george kaplan

canukstorm said:

lkrupp said:

Is this the same Ming-Chi Kuo who has been predicting an Apple branded HDTV forever?

That was Gene Munster.

That is correct, it was Gene Munster. Ming-Chi Kuo has been astonishingly correct more often than not. 

With sales strong across all four models of iPhone 12, it is clear to the competition that omitting the charging brick doesn’t cause a problem with customers (who may gripe, but still lay down their cash for the new phone). Ultimately, enough people have realized they have more charging bricks in their dwelling than devices to connect them to. They may not have a surplus of 15w—30w chargers, but the point is still made. All these abandoned and forgotten bricks will be a problem in some landfill, somewhere. Apple did the right thing, and after mocking the effort, it is still nice to see Samsung and Xiaomi also doing the right thing.

I know Ring/Echo/Alexa has a lead over Siri/HK because there was a significant advantage to the development time for Alexa. 

I’ve been a skeptic about Apple building a car for sale instead of simply supplying a brain to existing manufacturers.

But with the discussion about Apple migrating to subscription services as a form of stable, recurring revenue (since the next iPhone-like phenomenon may never again happen), what if...

Apple built a fleet of subscription cars. There would be no individual ownership (hence, no cost of ownership for the subscriber), which is an important concept to younger people whose lives are more fluid and have less liquidity to own/house a vehicle. Your iPhone/Apple Watch is the key to unlock and operate the vehicle you are using for the day. Your personal needs (playlist, calendar, address book, etc) upload into the brain of the car, and by using your calendar it can route you from destination to destination.

This means Apple is not assuming the sales aspect of the business, which is profit-sapping (dealerships, inventory, salespeople, etc). Some strategically located spots to house the cars (adjacent to rapid transit so those without cars could get to and from the car with relative ease) would be required. But this would dovetail perfectly with both subscription revenue and driving sales of iPhones, since this would not be an Android-capable vehicle.

This doesn’t play in more rural areas due to lack of charging infrastructure, but there is plenty of business to be found in major urban markets, and larger suburban markets as well.

Popular media wants to build this up as Tesla vs Apple, but I see Apple building essentially a VW bug (but nicer, electric-powered, and advanced) instead of multiple models within the line. Apple would be chasing a different client. One skateboard chassis, one body style, and they’re done. And, I suppose, colors of white, space gray, and rose gold...

Consider: A monthly lease payment for a good ICE vehicle may be $400+ monthly. Would urbanites pay $150/month for access to one of a fleet of identical Apple cars on demand, with no maintenance or long-term parking costs? Maybe some of this comes from the budget the customer allocates to Uber/Lyft rides under certain circumstances. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, and certainly none of the facts, but I can see this as a possible scenario which makes sense for the company.

llama said:

If they can keep the quality of season 1 in seasons 2 and 3 I will be more than satisfied.  I didn't expect to like Ted Lasso, but man am I glad that I gave it a watch.

Season 1 was a gift. I don’t want to be greedy, so 3 would be perfect.