adamc

dysamoria said:

I’ve been wondering about the added complexity of putting the GPU externally to the machine, and wondering if an eGPU could be the workaround for the pathetic thermals of these tiny Apple computers and the desire to do gaming on them (obviously with Windows)...

... and indeed, it all seems like a PITA. It seems that these little boxes are still not the right choice for heavy GPU usage. If you want a full-size computer from Apple, you now get to fork over twice the cost of the already too expensive 2013 Mac Pro. What’s that? If we can’t afford a workhorse Apple computer, that computer isn’t for us? Fine. Show me another Mac that is appropriate. Needs an eGPU... which is currently hackish and unreliable, because Apple seem not to be testing OS features before releasing their latest OS to the public... again.

This is progress at Apple? If they’re going to go this route (using an eGPU add-on as a justification for their anorexic machines being the only semi-affordable offerings), they really must get this eGPU stuff to be simple and reliable. It needs to just work.

Apple has had a glaring disinterest in gaming, and now they want people to pay for a game subscription service. Wait. What? Is there anything in that subscription that even remotely compares to PC gaming? I assume not (?), but I haven’t looked (I have ZERO interest in subscription services). Heavy GPU gaming demands more than what Apple’s anorexic machines can offer, and these eGPUs don’t seem to be a simple solution. I can only assume the games on offer will never be up to par with the offerings on PC. Is that a sustainable model for a gaming subscription? 

ScottNY71 said:

Doesn’t anyone else see what’s really happening here? Apple isn’t worried about a free trial cost, nor are they worried about what analysts will think of the free trial cost. That’s brilliant marketing and tying together of a product that needs as much attention as it can get to be successful In an ever growing but already crowded market.

What they’re worried about is how they plan on accounting for that on their quarterly financials. They think it’ll be confusing and that most of the analysts and media will get it wrong or will misunderstand it and that it’ll look bad on their hardware numbers to the people who don’t get it. It’s similar to what they did with the original iPhone, recognizing revenues over a 2 year period because of the value of (and probably internal cost of) ongoing free software updates. Analysts didn’t get it and it was only when Apple changed it mostly back to normal years later that people saw the true value of the iPhone to the company. So there’s a precedent.

So what did they do today? They had their Apple Card partner make a powerful statement about this and get a lot of attention, even having the analyst focus on the very specific details and providing an extremely specific example, and then Apple publicly acknowledged and refuted that statement, something they only very rarely do.

They bought themselves free pre-publicity about this to soften the potential blow when they announce their next earnings in about 6 weeks. This gets people thinking about this now, with the analysts and media seeing the accounting method in action via a detailed explanation and example from another analyst who not just gets it, but gets it so much that he can cite the ins and outs at that level of detail. And then Apple says it won’t have any material effect. So there will be some kind of impact at some level, just not one that matters or will change anything. Unless someone misunderstands what it means, of course. Someone who publicly tells other people what to think of it. 

Then look at what they wrote: "we do not expect the introduction of Apple TV+, including the accounting treatment for the service, to have a material impact on our financial results."

That callout could be taken as an admission that the accounting treatment will be something that’s not exactly normal, giving credence to and making analysts pay more attention to what the Goldman analyst said, which will make them understand it more before they’re forced to digest it and come out with an opinion on it within a day or two when Apple announces. And the media have even less time because they have to report on it immediately.

What Goldman did, which I think was in partnership with Apple, was a brilliant PR maneuver.