rare comment

This is weird.  Some speculation:

- airplay 2 is harder to execute than expected (seems unlikely as it largely replicates what is available when streaming from the Mac to airplay speakers)
- there were unannounced surprise features (only think this as the announced features did not seem so groundbreaking)
- don't want to crowd out watch purchases for holiday (again, unlikely, as Apple seems fine with displacing its own products)

You'll note that I don't put much weight on any of my own speculations on the reason for the delay.  I am super disappointed as Google Home is the worst (we bought one to see how it compared to Echo).

dedgecko said:

suddenly newton said:

Trying AirPods at the Apple store convinced me they were Bluetooth done right.

Agreed, but I’m still hesitant to purchase them considering how much I sweat when working out. I’ve burned through three LG Tones, my Jlab Epic 1 didn’t last three months, and it’s replacment, Jlab Epic 2 has issues immediately outside of the one year warranty. That’s $250 in wireless headsets over a couple years.  I’m hoping version two of the AirPods ships with the Qi-compliant charging case in the near future. 

The charging case won't help you if you are worried about the AirPods being adversely affected by sweat.  The AirPods are the same, it's just that the case no longer needs the lightning cable.  So if the current AirPods are susceptible to damage by sweat, the Qi compatible case won't make a difference.

charlesatlas said:

Is there ever going to be an iPod Touch+? The iPhone has had the larger screen for years now. With the death of the iPad mini, there's no other small device without phone connectivity.

I don't think the iPad mini is dead (yet).  https://www.apple.com/ipad-mini-4/

But agree it seems to be on its way out for reasons I don't understand (it is the perfect size for a lot of use cases).

I think that the anti-fragility advantage lasts only as long as Apple is able to remain unique in its focus on customer satisfaction at profitable pricing (versus, for example, unit sales or advertising revenue). This advantage does NOT mean that Apple will permanently enjoy industry leading absolute profits but it does mean that it will be difficult for Apple to disappear (a la RIM or Nokia). A perfect example is iPad. So long as iPad users are happy and continue high engagement with their purchase, the business is fine. Of course it would be preferable if unit sales and revenues were increasing but, someday, those historic units will wear out or be insufficiently useful and, so long as those customers were happy for long enough, their next tablet purchase decision will be Apple's to lose. Again, given Apple's additional constraint of profitability, Apple may lose some of these customers because of pricing but that (including the related loss of overall profit) is tolerable given the advantages of a satisfied customer base. And marginal per unit profits are a worthwhile goal for a company that wants to survive (but not necessarily a great basis for investment where profits per share are really more relevant). On the comments noting that Apple is not a monopolist. The point is that Apple's level of profitability (especially relative to its nominal competitors) is reminiscent of the profitability of monopolists. And, although not a monopolist (in the sense of having some sort of external lever of control making it the only choice for customers), because of the high levels of satisfaction, Apple enjoys a customer set that likely does not even contemplate buying a non-iOS phone and thus Apple faces little true competition for its customers' interest. It's certainly a circular argument (Apple is a monopolist in iPhones) but I think the real point here is that iPhones and app-capable phones are not quite the same market.

I think "preview" should be "portrait"? "iOS additionally asks that shooters be within 8 feet of a subject for previews"