jellybelly
About
- Username
- jellybelly
- Joined
- Visits
- 81
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 508
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 159
Reactions
-
Apple could be just a year away from being worth $4 trillion
I’ve been invested in the market, especially Apple/AAPL, for over 20 years.Over that time I have read analysts’ comments on AAPL. Almost all consistently under-rated AAPL.Along came Daniel Ives, and he has been consistently good on his analysis and seeing where Apple was headed in product, demand and AAPL pricing. On three occasions of large market correction or the recession of 2008–2009, he was only a little behind me in seeing that Apple had developed into a port-in-the-storm, recovering well ahead of other stocks. I pondered the $4-trillion mark in November with some back-of-the-envelope calculations plus seeing hints of positive variance in upgrade cycles, subscription/service expansions and product pipelines along with function expansion of existing products. Then in December he posed the $4-trillion target. I’ll be happy.
-
No M3 13-inch MacBook Pro at 'Scary Fast' event, says Gurman
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.
-
Apple is asking iPhone suppliers for screens without any bezel
I’ve heard the glass covering the display on the iPhone referred to as ‘lens’ in the past. It might be ‘engineer-speak’ or a British term. In the US, we think a lens is on the camera or in glasses, a microscope or telescope. A lens is glass ( or clear plastic) we look through that transmits light and bends the light to form an image that is enlarged, reduced or otherwise distorted. Yet we have sunglasses the have no distortion, just a filtering of light. So, yes, I can see the display glass referred to as a lens.commentzilla said:
Hint... the "lens" is not made of glass.mayfly said:There is a phrase in this article that understates what I'd think is a much bigger issue:"increased vulnerability to external shocks"
With no metal bezel surrounding a glass lens, seems like it would be way more likely to break due to accidents that current phones survive intact. They're going to have to explore a radically different glass technology to prevent that. Or they could just use current glass tech, and make more money on repairs, I suppose.Where we in the US refer to a ‘hood’ on the front of a car, the Brits say ‘bonnet’. What we call a ‘windshield’ is referred to as a ‘windscreen’ by Brits. I can see calling the face of the iPhone a lens that we look through to see the image displayed on or under film layers.Gorilla glass that Apple uses has had many iterations over the years. It approaches the hardness and scratch resistance of some metals. Tougher than nails.I’d think that’s the protection that does the job, unless the display film comes all the way to the edge of the glass—and can be harmed by just the edge being hit.My concern could be reliable touch rejection from gripping the iPhone with fingers encroaching on the edges of the display. I’d take a guess that Apple thought of that a long time ago and it won’t be a problem. I guess I’m not really concerned about that after all.
-
Apple's headset drastically changed over time & top execs are skeptical
Think of it as a hobby for Apple in the short term similar to the Apple TV box.Sometimes Apple has to have an evolving product in the market.The key will be content and how it’s shown—and that’s where Apple will excel. Not just entertaining content, but massive real world content. They may be able to improve Street View information overlays and a better 3D experience, starting with just a couple of cities and building on that.Crowd sourcing content might also contribute to an expanding hardware and content ecosystem. You might be able to contribute environment data using the device’s onboard cameras and GPS and other sensors adding in machine learning, combining multiple user’s data to create an ever increasing detailed view of the world around us.I expect the first year to be mostly developer sales with a high price tag or subscription that is partially returnable upon exchange of unit for version two. This will be a slowly gaining set of assets that will accelerate in the second and third year.It will still have some wow factor on release. In addition to developers, well heeled Apple enthusiasts will also afford the risk of version one.Another thought is leasing or subscription of the devices, and getting credit against the lease or towards early payoff by credit points scored in a game of collecting the real world data. That would be gaming motivation and financial motivation.There’s also great curiosity in why so many iPad Apps are easily adaptable or already ok to use on the device. What’s that about?????I can’t wait to see the introduction but I will wait. It’s only weeks away.
-
Apple's long-rumored all-glass tactile keyboard may be real sooner rather than later
Most of the comments seem like you may be young and missed out on some of the major developments in computing and interfaces.
In the 1970s, you might’ve said “ you mean to tell me that someday we will be able to rub on really thin glass and it won’t break? Oh, come on now, you say that there will be an image under this very thin glass that’s lit, and by rubbing the glass you can move this page of information around? What did you say? I think I heard you say that I will be able to push elements that are on that page and rearrange them around like they stuck to my finger? You must be on LSD. Oh no, you didn’t just say that you could use two fingers to pinch a photo to make it smaller that’s behind this glass? You’re beyond LSD, your mental. I just can’t see myself using this. It sounds like you’d have to go to college to learn how to use it”
You might’ve said this stuff in the 1990s, maybe even in 2006, prior to the preview for the iPhone. There were many cynics even after the iPhone was previewed. Many indeed.
I prefer the perspective that this research on new technology, makes me curious. Dismissing it at this early stage seems to lock it out of possibility in our minds. After all, with one of the most respected technical universities, Carnegie Mellon, and the largest tech company in the world—that has been known for innovation—have both been working on it for years, maybe there’s some sliver of hope that this will be useful. Sure it’s possible this may not work, and it might be a high probability that this might not work, but how can we know that at this point.
Again I say: dismissing it offhand at this early stage locks it out of our mind for possibilities for the future.
Stay curious—a good suggestion by Steve Jobs. Stay in a permanent state of curiosity, wonderment, gratitude, and awe. It’s a wonderful way to live your life.
