Apple: Ten Years Forward
mondaynote.com
mondaynote.com
The under-30s increasingly care about climate change and other more immediate threats. Unless they have Type 1 diabetes, blood glucose is not an issue for them.
Apple under Jobs did a solid job of making cool lifestyle accessories for all ages and genders.
Apple under Cook has drifted towards a kind of white picket Disneyfied techtopia, where the sun always shines, people always smile, everyone is very creative and colourful but also professional, fit, and focused. And it's somehow very sterile and boring.
As a result Apple missed out on the user-generated content wave, which was owned by YouTube and then TikTok. Apple already had some of the basic infrastructure in place with podcasting, but a middle aged outlook meant it missed the (mildly but interestingly) anarchic possibilities.
And that's going to be a problem for the future. Jobs was anarchic enough to want to shake things up but stable enough to make the shaking work (mostly).
Cook is small-c conservative, safe, and suburban in outlook. And now Apple is too.
Asking what The Next Big Consumer Thing will be is already missing the point because it assumes a model where there is a Next Big Consumer Thing and it's important enough to matter.
Ten years from now that's going to look like a weird and dated assumption. There will be much more chaos and uncertainty, and I suspect Big Consumer Things will be less important to everyone than they are now, and the people who are in their 10s-20s-30s now will be looking for something entirely different.
Apple is doing a fantastic job right now and I believe they're going to do great in the next 10 years because of one really simple fact:
Apple makes great products that just work and look great. No other company has been able to do that. I was just gifted a Fitbit and it failed about 5 times to pair to my phone. I restarted both the device (5x) and phone and it finally worked. How easy do you think it was for my girlfriend to setup her Apple watch? That's when I was reminded why Apple is #1.
I think Apple should continue what they're doing, create great products that just work and look great. It doesn't matter what the next 10 years looks like if they can continue doing that and I really think they can.
Didn’t OP’s question clear it up that this was not an option/intention? Or did you assume OP didn’t know the watch could be charged at night?
There are a bunch of options in the dev options including what enabling the Gabeldorsche stack.
I wonder why Bluetooth is still somewhat fragile.
Phones aren't cool anymore, and neither is the iPhone. If you think the iPhone is cool, let me introduce you to my incredibly cool 70+ year old parents who love anything that is bland.
Some things remain cool because they are fringe or have uniqueness and character. Somehow cars have managed to remain cool, but your average family sedan or SUV isn't cool, and that's where the iPhone is.
So are there cool android phones, no. Probably not. Are airpods cool, getting to be not so cool very quickly. iPads definitely aren't cool.
Having said all that, it doesn't mean that Apple needs to make the next cool thing to continue to be successful. Microsoft hasn't been cool for ages, and arguably never was, but Satya has found incredible growth opportunities.
Tesla is cool now, but it won't be in 20 years, but Musk will have an incredible business.
I guess part of the problem for Apple is that they always marketed themselves as "cool", but in my personal experience, none of the cool kids are Apple fanboys anymore, it's the ones who want to be seen as cool who are.
And no, cool kids do not always go to college.
And no I am not conflating the two.
I am saying that rich cool kids buy Apple. And 18-21 year olds are the tastemakers for all the kids younger then themselves and also, sometimes, for adults older then them too.
Please note: I am not saying that you have to think 18-21 are cool, I don’t, but they are by popular definition.
And no, they have no competitor across their product categories. They have competitors for specific products, but no one really goes head to head with them across even half of their products and for most of their products they are #1 by a huge margin:
Luxury Phones Headphones Tablets Music Service Computers Smart Watches
They are a leader or top competitor in all of those spaces. Who else can say that?
One of the things that distinguishes Apple is its focus.
It’s added services like Apple Music and TV but it absolutely doesn’t need to compete with TikTok etc.
As this is a US-centric forum conducted in English I think it’s safe to use PJs research here.
I don't disagree with your take on Apple's perception. However, I don't think UGC is the end-all be-all. UGC is only useful for companies in the sense that it drives advertising. By changing its Privacy policies, Apple has managed to triple its advertising revenue in the last six months, now at $5B, with expectations of reaching $20B in three years.[1]
UGC is nice, but so is having the hardware and OS that the UGC runs on.
1: https://www.ft.com/content/074b881f-a931-4986-888e-2ac53e286... ($)
... is the new "by leveraging its monopoly power" ...
How do you install applications on iOS without involving Apple?
How do you transfer your iOS apps over to non-iPhones?
Until there is a compelling answer to all three of those then Apple is still a monopolist (when it comes to phones, but similar lists apply to their other product segments).
The problem is that your questions are arbitrary and at best approximate the ideas of what you think a monopolist is rather than what is established in law. Merely moving the goal post doesn’t make a monopolist.
Furthermore your questions have no bearing on the company in question: a company building its own devices and ecosystem has no responsibility to facilitate onboarding of the technology of others: things which they do not know about, could never plan for and have nothing to do with their operations.
Yes. This is a discussion about Apple, but they are certainly not alone. I don't see how that exonerates anyone involved?
> The problem is that your questions are arbitrary and at best approximate the ideas of what you think a monopolist is rather than what is established in law. Merely moving the goal post doesn’t make a monopolist.
Can we agree that someone is a monopolist if they hold disproportionate control over a market?
So the remaining question is whether Apple does that. To me, the answers to those questions mean that iOS devices must be seen as their own market, rather than as part of a wider smartphone market (as Apple and their fans are so happy to claim). And considering that Apple has set themselves up to have 100% control I don't see any other viable conclusion.
> and at best approximate the ideas of what you think a monopolist is rather than what is established in law
If the law as is can't keep up then the law ought to be fixed.
> Furthermore your questions have no bearing on the company in question: a company building its own devices and ecosystem has no responsibility to facilitate onboarding of the technology of others: things which they do not know about, could never plan for and have nothing to do with their operations.
And contrary to what it may sound like: I’m all in favour of these things going through the process.
My nitpicking is with people that spew b/s on the internet and pretend their wishful thinking is fact.
Ultimately, it's not really about Apple's ever-more anodyne first-party positioning; it's about the entertainment elite and the influencers that continue to carry iPhones.
I have never seen anyone suggest that another phone camera touches the iPhone in terms of video quality. In fact in these days of casual user content creation, this wave you say apple missed, video remains a minor element of camera write ups and I can’t help but think it’s because “if you care about shooting video with your phone at all and have the money, get an iPhone” is all that can be said on the matter.
Phone camera tech isn’t stagnant. It’s one of the(just the?) most important factors people value in their phones. Apple is making an intentional choice to prioritise video quality. I hardly think that’s them missing user generated content. They’re just cashing in at the device purchase level rather than diving in to the algorithm driven ad feed engagement game.
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/10/05/apple-now-most-popular-...
There are plenty of ways to be cool. And people young and old understand that trying to be cool is not cool, and they don’t buy Apple to be cool. They buy Apple stuff for other reasons.
If I was trying super hard (not cool) to be cool, I would use a flip phone or some oddball Android phone with an innovative shape and look from China. And a nice looking watch, not a square of glass.
People use Apple for the convenience (just works), quality, and privacy. People interested primarily in coolness over these factors use other products.
Apple has stores for music, for books, for video and also nice recently includes subscriptions for periodicals, news and podcasts. Go ahead and add "apps" to that if you like, although people tend to not think of software as "generated content".
Apple doesn't really have it in their DNA to be a social network and provide free hosting in exchange for monetizing people's content with ads. Podcasts existed before Tim Cook; Apple jumped on the chance to promote it but always considered it more a way to people get further use out of their Apple hardware.
This has changed recently with the focus on services, which means Apple is competing for people's attention and free time. Making it easy for people to pay for premium content (and providing Apple's own premium content through subscription costs) is pretty much a necessity.
However, they are still continents away from say the algorithm-driven video maelstrom of TikTok. And even if they made hosting user content easier at the same tier as professional content, I would suspect they would sooner do revenue sharing of a monthly subscription than they would leverage advertising for monetization.
While I have some criticisms of Apple, impugning them for doing the best possible thing for an ecosystem seems like an odd thing to attack. Sure, Spotify, Stitcher and others have "innovated" with dynamic ad insertion and they occasionally dump massive bags of money on a few individual podcasts like Joe Rogan, but I don't view their profiteering as an improvement.
Apple relies on trust, and tries to cultivate (though not always successfully) coolness through innovation.
Show me a trustworthy mainstream alternative and I might agree with you.
Agreed. Apple had the ENTIRE digital hub strategy nailed, with fantastic tools.
Top that with Apple’s pathological need to remain a walled garden - Tim Cook starting a TikTok - “iTok runs your iPad and iPhones”. They never stood a chance when it comes to content; and they never will in their current shape and form.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/08/tim-cook-teases-new-apple-se...
As others have pointed out, "real" AR, if nothing else, would give you virtual displays. That's more than just not needing a monitor for your laptop. It also means not needing a display for your phone. The typical, turn your wrist, and a display shows up
And, at the point that everyone is using real full AR there's no need for TVs anymore. In the same way much of the society is going cashless and practically requiring a smartphone (1), an AR world with as much penetration as smartphones today would easily get rid of lots of things. Why cover a room in physical nicknacks and art when it can all be virtual.
The anime, Psycho Pass, showed some ideas on the topics. People changing the style of their bedrooms from modern to antique. Their actual furniture was generic but via AR (or Holograms) they'd select what they wanted the everything to appear like. Same with clothing. Monuments and statues in the city were also just projections.
(1) many restaurants now only have QR codes for menus. Don't have a phone, can't read the menu. I've been to one that you couldn't order unless you had a phone. Told them I didn't want to do that. They said I'd have to sit at the bar instead of a table if I wanted to order+pay not via the phone. Yea, I hate it but I'm fighting the tide.
⸻⸻⸻
1. As someone with profound hearing loss, I don't expect the predicted relaxation of hearing aid rules to have much impact on me. As it is, I still need a doctor's approval to buy my hearing aids at Costco which isn't necessary under current rules for most people who need hearing aids. That said, it would be wonderful to be able to replace my hearing aids for less than the cost of a good laptop (and it's worth noting that insurance will pay for a hearing exam sometimes but pretty much never pays anything for hearing aids).
The precursor for the AirPods by a few years was actually a MFi (Made for iPhone) hearing aid protocol, doing audio streaming from the phone over Bluetooth LE. This is in many hearing aids on the market today.
The medical market is not something Apple is really suited for, something they hit when they rolled out the EKG watch capability a few years ago (which is _still_ trickling out in markets due to slow regulatory approval).
Apple also typically sells high volumes of premium products and has durable differentiators (say software experience) to justify good margins. Hearing aids unfortunately would be too low volume to justify a product - typically when something is deemed to be lower volume they work with third parties to ship it. Hence, MFi hearing aids.
Because of the lower volume and high quality focus, I suspect you wouldn't save much from an Apple Hearing Aid.
The variability of people's needs typically means people need at least a test by an audiologist and many need custom fittings and support. Medical offices with ongoing support add a lot of cost, which is one reason why Costco can undercut third parties so severely.
It is a shame, because the hearing aid industry would be totally transformed by Apple's design and miniaturization talent.
And now what if Apple comes in and it doesn't anymore? Tesla appears to have 30% or so margins on cars [1]. Why couldn't Apple make that higher, or increase margin by bundling different types of subscriptions or integrations with other Apple products?
Enjoyed the article though.
[1] https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-gross-margin-wiggle-room-ev-...
That said I still dont think Apple should make a car. But it seems all is too late.
Those low margins reflect commoditisation of large majority of cars. In the era when cars are computers on wheels it should be easier to avoid this.
In particular Apple can distinguish itself from others through high degree of integration with other Apple products.
EVs are much cheaper and simpler to manufacture and last basically forever.
That's not what I heard about their batteries, which need replacing way more often than a regular ICE setup (i.e. every small-single-digit years vs every 15 years or so).
Also, it's true that electric engines see less stress, but a lot of the rest of the car is still a car.
https://electrek.co/2021/08/12/tesla-claims-battery-packs-lo...
Healthcare fits the brief of a “painful, expensive problem where technology can help”. That’s the fundamental criteria for any software development, and in this case requires good integration with hardware. That kind of problem plays to Apple’s strengths.
Coupled with their long-standing and (apparent) sincere interest in customer’s health and well-being and this seems a safe bet.
Apple's best bet is to double-down on TSMC and Foxconn, work with them to set up manufacturing elsewhere and lobby for the US to continue to protect Taiwan. I think that if they continue to ship updates to their existing products on schedule while they make the transition, that will be a tremendous accomplishment and a huge market advantage. They may find themselves competing with Samsung and... um, maybe just Samsung? I don't know the Android ecosystem well enough to guess.
If Apple were to sell a car they'd need a whole network of authorized repair centers and part distribution. Even if they do a slow rollout starting in the US, that's a whole lot of country to cover. They could start by selling it in just a few cities... but they can't limit where people will drive to, and people stranded with a bricked car, many hundreds of miles away from a service center would be a bad look.
Also, with iPhones and Macs a lot of their ability to provide worldwide repairs is based on entirely replacing whole parts (screen, logic board, battery) which I don't imagine is as easy with a car for multiple reasons.
When Apple created the Apple stores it was a mean feat of entering a new space (retail)... but they already designed and built the product, and did repair and distribution... so entering retail was just reaching vertically a bit more. An Apple car is a whole new "stack" where they only have a minimal part (software / user experience)... so risks / unknowns are much much bigger.
... All of this would not be the case if Apple were to partner with a car manufacturer that already has a network for sales, parts and repairs, and they just add their "UX magic". But I understand they tried and failed at this... maybe because car companies either don't want the rug being pulled from beneath their feet, operate at low margins, or think they can do user experience better than Apple.
I love cars and driving but the mobility today is a smelly nightmare. 55 million Germans have insufficient public transport available [1] - they are dependent on cars. 64 million Germans live in cities. So even in cities, public transport is bad for quite a few million people. It's often not profitable to provide these services in certain areas, sparking discussions about privatization of public transport.
At the same time, roads and infrastructure are increasingly incapable of supporting all the individual cars. Congestion, traffic jams and just overall shitty "UX" hamper people's lives and by extension the economy. The denser the area, the more true this becomes.
Munich and Berlin both have major issues with their public transport. Munich grew really fast in the last 20 years and it's system is measurably worse than Vienna, for example.
I use car sharing a lot but it is only useful to an extent and doesn't seem to have the promised effect of reducing cars on the road (or rather standing around parking 95% of the time).
[1] https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/innenpolitik... (Disclaimer: this study was done by a mobility startup BUT I honestly believe it to be accurate from experience)
In theory, self-driving cars will mean fewer cars, not more. Instead of owning your own car, you just summon one from a pool to take you where you need to go. When you get there, it becomes available for someone else to summon. It's like Uber, but without any people.
That's the one vision of self-driving cars that I like.
The emergence of a faster, more convenient and in many cases cleaner alternative to BART/Caltrain created demand. To top it all off, the cost was comparable in many cases for a while.
In the past, one of my 32 minute Uber rides was a > 2.5 hour trip on mass transit around the Bay Area on the weekend. I'm all for supporting mass transit, but that is a fool's bet.
Self-driving cars seem ideal for last mile transit.
Last mile is always a challenge for public transit because the economies of scale don’t kick in at the necessary scale.
Self-driving car share is basically like having hundreds of four-person bus routes. Except they run on-demand.
From what I understand they already invested a lot of money in research for their car. It seems strange to just let go of that, but of course it is possible
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/james-dyson-his-...
... Or maybe they're really doing 100% a car.
... Just that in their history they never jumped so completely into a wholly new kind of product with such complex logistics... so I find it hard to see it as a sure thing.
Would love to hear from boots on the ground if this aligns with the actual experience.
It is the reason why Apple had lots of new promotion in their past 3 years. I think the exec knows.
At the same time I think the regulation and challenges are something Tim Cook doesn't want to leave it behind for his successor.
I like to think of this as Steve checking in with Tim's mother about how much he works -- i.e. Tim will arrive at the most 'correct' answer, but at a long term cost... these financial buy backs are technically brilliant, but how much organizational fatigue is created focusing on these initiatives?
[Edit] To finish the thought: these buybacks create an organization that makes Apple+ and services their primary initiatives, rather than focusing on documentation, and focusing on the circle of life of their current offerings (killing some products in favor of focus in others, moving the personal computing industry into the next great creation generation).
Stock buybacks are a stupid idea for airlines (high fixed costs, heavily economy-dependent cash flow), but a fantastic idea for Apple.
Share buybacks aren’t a stupid idea for Airlines either. If they have too much cash on the balance sheet better to return cash to shareholders as a one off in a tax efficient way rather than pay a regular dividend that they have to cut when the economy turns down.
That's what they thought, and what they did, and then they needed a bailout. Companies that don't save for a rainy day deserve to be wiped out.
If actually argue they are brilliant by Tim Cook - if all that cash was still on the balance sheet they would end up using it on bad M&A etc. This way they stay focused.
Dividends vs. Buybacks are two totally different types of financial engineering.
The first accretes in a well-understood, and manageable way, while the second nebulously meddles in a multi-factor way, one by creating a float constraint (these shares are usually treasuried on the company balance sheet), and two a demand inflator through the company coffers entering the market chatter. Both dividends and buybacks are monsters that require regular feeding to keep tame; however, the buyback monster is arguably way more frightening if it becomes angry in the current hedge (option) everything world, compounded by reducing float.
That's just the first decision. The second decision to fund (and accelerate) the buyback process through debt is again financially brilliant, but at the levels Apple used to finance the buybacks (and has continued the process) - is confusing to a long term strategy.
What's the plan? How does hitting the debt-buyback wheel affect one's demeanor? Just keep securizsiting on the cash cows? When picking New Product A with 2 year useful life, one time revenue injection vs. a monthly fee service that is probably already tackled by our users (developers) quite well, which do we bias towards? What about finally loving up on PWAs?
What happens when people look at our 2.5trn market cap, fueled in a large way by these buybacks, and think why not spread that wealth around? It invites every armchair quarterback (hello, mirror) to tell you how to run the company's very visible success... it's operationally brilliant, but not all that aware of the next generation of customers and leaders.
If this sounds interesting, I'll fully flesh out a longer form explanation at some point. Tying this back to the point, the anti-trust cases are the most important decision we will make as a species for the next 100 years. To my novice mind, these are simply avoided (and corrected) by understanding the current motivations of Apple and what should really change... i.e. 'why do we really need to do these buybacks? Is this really the best stewardship to our long term business success (helping people make the best stuff, period.)?' The upcoming regulatory challenges will directly tell the solution makers, most of us on HN, how and where to participate, and if we must reinvent the wheel because the first one lost its way a bit and became too golden, that's a sad loss.
Craig has struck me in the past as a highly technical person who knows a surprising amount of details about the technologies behind Apple products. He has struck me as someone who is simply passionate about the software Apple builds rather than a salesman or someone with operational experience.
While I absolutely think he could be a great CEO, he wouldn't be playing to all his strengths.
Obviously never going to happen as its way to niche but, you know, would be nice.
Why would a company take on such a huge undertaking then link it so intrinsically to just Apple platforms.
The next major CAD software will run in your browser, after seeing how Figma played out it's hard to imagine any design tooling targeting native anymore. Today Figma, tomorrow the software that dethrones Photoshop, eventually... 3D and CAD.
For construction, until you can be absolutely certain of getting satellite based full 5G reception everywhere, browser based CAD is a no-go. I have 3 building sites where there is either no phone reception at all or intermittent GPRS.
This one in itself would be a tremendous undertaking.
Without getting into the debate about the true environmental impact of cryptocurrency, we can all agree that cryptocurrency has an external appearance of being environmentally bad. Maybe that's unfair, maybe it's not. But if Apple announces meaningful cryptocurrency integration, it is going to expose them to that debate in a way that superficially will seem to cut against their values.
As a result, I do not expect them to do so. That's not to say they'll block cryptocurrency efforts by third parties, just that I do not think they're ever going to do anything themselves or trumpet those kinds of connections.
Small disclosure note: I worked in an academic lab where coworkers, one of whom later a coauthor of mine in an unrelated product, were hired by Apple to do some work on conflict minerals, mineral sourcing in their supply chain, and Dodd-Frank's conflict mineral oversight provisions. I was not involved in the project personally and it ended several years ago, but obviously it gave me a bit of exposure to Apple's efforts that no doubt shapes my perception here.
But ARE all cryptocurrencies environmentally bad? Do you have evidence for both claims?
If one day Ethereum moves to proof of stake, that might change, but as of today there isn't a single one that's even remotely popular which doesn't do serious environmental damage.
However, The claim that 'every single cryptocurrency' is bad for the environment regardless of popularity is still unsubstantiated.
I am only asking for relevant sources rather than attempts to avoid giving out any relevant sources by answering a question with another question.
Or is it that you don't have any evidence to your own assumptions and on top of the second claim I mentioned?
An Index of Cryptocurrency Environmental Attention (ICEA), (Yizhi Wang, Brian M. Lucey, Samuel Vigne, Larisa Yarovaya)
It has the benefit of being fairly technical, so I guess the sort of person who make an 'argument' by lazily and pedantically demanding sources for common sense statements won't actually want to put in the work of reading it.
So one thinks it is safe to blanket label 'cryptocurrencies' meaning 'all of them' being harmful to the environment due to a basic and very lazy 'observation'. Unfortunately that was left unsubstantiated.
> However, out of annoyance I went and found a source that you can use if you'd like.
I see. So it is 'annoying' to substantiate your own comments? I don't want to repeat the same line that mentions this in the HN guidelines and it doesn't matter if it is informal or not.
My only request was for a source to this. The commenter knew that the burden of proof was on them to substantiate their assumption and they knew could not provide one or answer the other question.
I accept the source given here which answers the 'observation' claim, it doesn't however, answer if it is the case for every single cryptocurrency since the paper focuses on only two specific ones instead of the rest of them.
> ...we can all agree that cryptocurrency has an external appearance of being environmentally bad.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Do you have evidence to your own assumption that cryptocurrencies have the perception or appearance of being bad for the environment? On top of that, where is the evidence that support the case that ALL cryptocurrencies are bad for the environment?
The fact that you are actively dodging these questions leads me to think that you have no evidence in general to support your entire sentence in [0] given that it has ZERO sources which means it is absolutely baseless.
An Index of Cryptocurrency Environmental Attention (ICEA), (Yizhi Wang, Brian M. Lucey, Samuel Vigne, Larisa Yarovaya).
It is pretty dense, but here's the first paragraph of their conclusion:
"We have developed a new measure of attention to sustainability concerns of cryptocurrency markets’ growth. An Index of Cryptocurrency Environmental Attention (ICEA) has been constructed using 778.2 million news stories from the Lexis Nexis database. The index demonstrates significant increases in attention to cryptocurrency environmental impacts displayed via both traditional and social media channels from 2014 to 2021. Our findings suggest that the public is growing more concerned with energy consumption of these innovative asset."
So the HN guidelines [0] for keeping the discussion substantive is somewhat 'unreasonable' when talking about something controversial like cryptocurrencies which even the commenter knew their long reply was unfounded? [1]
I am simply keeping the discussion substantiative.
As for the source you provided, it's now substantiates the observation claim I am asking for. It answers the first request for evidence but not the second one and this paper primarily focuses on only two PoW cryptocurrencies but doesn't target 'all' of the others in general which would which make case if every single cryptocurrency have the same energy inefficiencies as the two cryptocurrencies mentioned in the article, which is what I am also looking for.
One commenter gave an alternative cryptocurrency [2] that wasn't mentioned in the paper which aims to be energy efficient and addresses the other commenter's response even when they failed to answer my question by replying with another question. [3].
Given that one mention of the existence of an energy efficient cryptocurrency, what evidence exists that 'all of them' are harmful to the environment?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29065284
[2] https://assets.website-files.com/5d80307810123f5ffbb34d6e/60...
The paper described the terms they performed analysis on:
("cryptocurrency" or "bitcoin" or "ethereum") and atl1("energy" or “energy consumption” or “energy footprint” or “climate change” or “carbon footprint” or "environment" or "environmental" or “environmental impact” or “carbon footprint” )
So, while they didn't list every niche cryptocurrency, they did include the catch-all phrase. This should capture some of the sentiment about those niche cryptocurrencies (to the extent that people care about them).
It is still relevant given that the grounds of whether if this is true or not needs to be substantiated, as soon as they said:
> Maybe that's unfair, maybe it's not.
The claimant couldn't help dangerously blanket labelling all cryptocurrencies as the problem (and knew it was unfair) and left it up for discussion. They should have just given sources in the first place, informal or not.
> So, while they didn't list every niche cryptocurrency, they did include the catch-all phrase. This should capture some of the sentiment about those niche cryptocurrencies
Given that paper also explored the truth of PoW-cryptocurrencies being bad for the environment (with evidence) and the claimant blanket labelling 'every single cryptocurrency' as being perceived as environmentally bad (without evidence), the truth of whether it this is the case for 'every single cryptocurrency' can be explored in this thread very quickly with evidence.
It isn't that hard. One user in this thread has already defeated your description of a 'hypothetical existence of a non-harmful' cryptocurrency given that it already exists.
https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/william-hill-sports-betting/id... https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/bet365-sports-betting/id519684...
Two of the largest bookmakers in the UK.
And this one is a lottery app so directly one of the things you've said is not allowed
https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/the-national-lottery-official/...
5.3.4 makes it perfectly clear that gambling apps are allowed, if they are "free", properly licensed/authorized to operate, and geo-restricted to only be available where they are authorized to operate.
A much better thing is to expand the range of products produced by Apple into new and exciting categories. An average Apple customer doesn't spend more than $1500 a year on Apple products (an average between changing their iPhone, iPad and Macbook every 2-3 years). But Apple customers have a ton of discretionary income (compared to others), so there's much more potential, and it's only held back by what Apple is putting on display.
So the Apple Watch came in and pushed that up a bit, I expect an Apple glasses to take this even further. What about a 80" Apple screen for the living room, instead of half assed solutions like Apple TV or smart TVs from other manufacturers which force ads on you? The market is ripe, if they can innovate.
Between their investment into fundamental technologies (silicon), unparalleled vertical integration, strong leadership and mastery of supply chain even at times like this, I'm very bullish on the company in the long run.
There's talk of an Apple Car, all electric of course. Possibly in partnership with Toyota. I would buy one.
Etc...
There’s very limited evidence that providing a Type 2 diabetic with more information about their blood glucose level does anything at all.
A full-scale change in approach to food, exercise, etc. is what is needed, not easier access to a number on a smart watch.
A blood glucose monitor on the watch would likely not just print a number, it would be integrated with the existing exercise programs. Adding an option to track food would not be hard.
In other words the headline would likely not be “Apple adds glucose sensor,” it would be “Apple launches comprehensive diabetes management service” likely in partnership with some academic or healthcare name you’ve heard of.
Imagine if people could buy an Apple Watch and online service with their health insurance, or Medicare.
This would actually be very hard to do accurately!
> online service
An online service isn’t what is needed for the vast majority of people who live with diabetes to improve their management of the disease. It’s either: access to more affordable medication or the desire to manage the disease more effectively.
Yes, Apple entering the space would help the subset of people who are motivated to manage their diabetes (I am one of them, albeit a Type 1). But it would do very little for the overall population of people with diabetes.
There are probably ways to increase that number. Making it more convenient, more social, and applying game theory (the same thing fitness trackers can do for excercise) can get more people to care
Apple Watch providing human beings with more information about how much physical activity they're getting each day may not actually substantively impact exercise, on the long run, for most users. I don't have the data to prove this, but I'd believe it. Its a tool which people who are already active love, and it probably fools inactive people into closing their rings for a few weeks after buying it, but then everyone regresses to the norm; it always takes more effort than just spending a few hundred bucks to positively change your life.
That doesn't mean people don't buy it for the Hope. I'll never forget a tagline Apple used to sell a previous version of the Apple Watch, one of their best yet: Anything You Can Do, You Can Do Better.
The biggest advantage to non-invasive glucose monitoring isn't the glucose monitoring part; its the non-invasive part. Diabetics stab themselves every day to draw blood and get these numbers. Noninvasive monitoring is a big win. It doesn't really help diabetics improve their lot in life, from a disease management angle; what it does do is immediately improve their day-to-day life.
This is a useful thing to grok: https://mobile.twitter.com/GregMadison/status/14539110109144...
I have a scale that tells me my weight and body fat percentage, and it is able to sync directly into Apple Health. And yet, the scale isn't able to read any of my health data, including my weight! They have done a great job with Apple Health, making your data accessible and yet easy to set permissions so it's in your control.
The author mentions blood glucose monitoring, and I'm sure Apple will attempt to do that at some point. But there are so many more things they could potentially do.
How about a chest strap for workouts? I'm fascinated by how my watch measures my V̇O₂ max for me, but it seems like it would be far more accurate with more inputs.
What if Apple Watch, or some other device, could detect heart attacks? It can already detect some heartbeat irregularities.
I'm sure Apple could make an even better scale than the one I already have. My understanding is the body composition readings aren't too accurate on those things.
Imagine an Apple weight loss program: guaranteed to lose 10lbs in 2 months if you follow the instructions your watch gives you!
Here would be the real killer for me: what if Apple made glasses which could detect all the food you eat and log the calories and nutrients? I've done a fair amount of manual meal logging into apps that integrate with Apple Health, and it can be really helpful for monitoring your diet. But typing every meal into your phone isn't scalable -- I inevitably give up after a couple weeks.
One more thing: how can hospitals and doctors get access to this data? I've done some searching for a primary care physician that has the ability to integrate with Apple Health, and I haven't found any. Can Apple create a paid service that empowers service providers with more data?
I think Apple is the company that can 1) build the best, most high-tech consumer health products, and 2) sell the value of those products to the public.
Cars and AR are cool, too, but, as the author points out, consumers aren't really seeing the value in those. If Apple can make its health products even more life-changing than they already are, then someday we will live in a world where it's weird to not be monitoring your health, like it would be weird to not have a smartphone these days.
This would require years, maybe even decades of study. Apple can't just flip a switch and do this. Medical diagnostics is heavily regulated for a reason. It's entirely possible that Apple is working on this, or something like it. But you won't see it for a very very long time.
how can hospitals and doctors get access to this data? I've done some searching for a primary care physician that has the ability to integrate with Apple Health, and I haven't found any.
This exists. Until recently I lived in a city where this was possible, but my GP wasn't on the list. You can see a list in the Health app. But there are hundreds of thousands of practices just in the United States, many on incompatible systems. It will take a very long time for it to be available nationwide.
Point taken, but I think that's why I phrased it as a "what if?" Because if they could, it would be one of the most sought-after health products on the market.
> This exists. Until recently I lived in a city where this was possible, but my GP wasn't on the list. You can see a list in the Health app.
Yes, the list seems to be mostly hospitals and labs. The next time I get lab work I'll certainly try to synchronize it.
What I really want is for my GP to have a high-level view of some of my habits. Why is my GP asking me, "are you exercising regularly?" What is regularly? I want him to tell me "I see you're doing lots of strength training but not very much cardio, you may want to work that in to your routine." The data is there, and my doctor could probably pull better insights from it than I could give him verbally.
So if Apple could solve this for many incompatible systems, I think it would be very popular both for doctor's offices and their patients.
Not to detract from your overall point, but just about any Bluetooth heart rate strap will work with the Apple Watch. Wahoo has one that folks report works. Personally, I have a Polar H10 that does both Bluetooth for Apple Watch, and ANT+ for my Garmin watch.
So you can safely pitch it to a bunch of nodding dogs, pursue yet another 5 year windmill tilting exercise and bank $500k a year in your salary while you do it. Meanwhile the other execs all wonder what you are doing, but don't have the energy to stop you.
Their brand is so much better than possible competitors and their stance on privacy (flawed though it may be in respects) and use of personal data gives them a huge advantage versus say a Google or Facebook.
The crazy thing about this is that as an opportunity it probably doesn’t require a huge investment from them for it to become a big part of their business. The pieces are all there already.
Amazon is already making moves in the health space so shouldn't be ignored.
Him at the helm of a Meta that includes Facebook and Instagram means that it will be 10x harder to differentiate past/ongoing/future abuses in their advertising-driven content products, even if they took a stance that the rest of Meta should try to be based on product/marketplace monetization.
Outside of Apple as a foundational company - current valuations, would anyone buy and hold?
Likewise, look at the valuation per customer; it is around $1500, which is attractive, too.
But dividends are taxable when paid. Share buybacks aren't, it's just capital appreciation that's taxed when sold. So nobody's in it for the dividends to begin with.
Assuming yes (I'm not sure what else you would be referring to that is a 'recent example'), can you explain to me how you consider a port that can connect to practically any peripheral you can imagine at speeds unmatched by any contemporary alternatives, not to be "functional", while you also consider a single-use video port, and a single-use card reader port, both using versions from close to a decade ago, to be "functional"?
To be clear, its your choice of wording that I'm questioning here.
If you'd said convenient, or more accurately convenient for some/many, I'd still disagree that the benefit of the convenience is worth the cost of losing flexibility, but I'd agree that the port(s) do offer more convenience for some people/workflows.
But you didn't say that, you said "functional".
I currently use all four TB3 ports on either a 2018 Mac Mini or 2018 MBP15, (without using one dedicated to power); I already run two 4K displays from a single TB3 port (either via the eGPU on the mini, or via a DualDP adapter on the MBP). Only one TB3 device I use is daisy-chainable (i.e. has a downstream TB3 port), and it is already daisy-chained to something else.
So if I were to update my portable/spare machine to a 'current' model, yes I'd get a nice CPU/GPU perf boost, and the option for a lot more memory, which is great. But I literally don't have enough ports any more, and suddenly I have two ports that are not usable, for me.
I wouldn't quite call them "non functional" because they do function, I just dont have a use for that function, and because they're single-use ports (and OLD single use ports at that) they're not adaptable to anything I do need to use.
Magsafe was a big deal when I had to use my computer tethered to power all the time. With the m1, it's just not as critical as it was. It's nice, but better would have been to incorporate the latest PD spec for faster charging.
Is the sdcard even 'pro' anymore? Where's cfexpress? Pros already have a bunch of sdcard readers that are likely faster than what's in the machine.
HDMI is probably the most useful here, but are there still places where people present that haven't permanently attached a usbc connector (same places still using dvi hah)? I haven't needed HDMI in years at this point.
Don't get me wrong, ports are fine. But, I'd like them to use the latest versions and not lose one of the tb4 ports.
I generally like Apple products, but this feels like a step back towards limiting 'solutions' when the industry is finally catching up with proprietary 'enhancements'.
USB-C magnetic break-away cables are absolutely a thing that exist. Zero question Apple could have shipped a solution using this, if they wanted.
Fast Charge over USB-PD was probably never going to make it in a 2021 product (PD 3.1 was only 'released' in May or something), but "we just added the most efficient processor in years" seems like a weird time to also say "oh and also you can charge it up real quick".
I am not a photographer, by any means, but my impression is that a lot of weekend-warrior/"prosumer" types use cameras with SD cards still. Whether because the camera only supports SD or because SD is cheaper than the 'high end' cards.. most online discussions I see about this will routinely have people who do claim to be professional photographers, stating that SD cards are generally not used - they're on high end cameras as a backup, and that they just use a fast external card reader anyway.
I can see an argument that HDMI is more convenient if you're going into a meeting room... but in that scenario (a) you're just assuming they have HDMI, and not any of the other various video ports a projector might have, and (b) wouldn't the MacBook Air be a better choice then? I struggle to see the overlap between "Needs the absolute fastest CPU, GPU and most memory" and "needs a laptop ideally suited for meeting rooms".
As for the SD cards, I have mirrorless and dslrs that use sd cards, and don't really care about sd in the machine or not. I think many people who are clamoring for an sdcard want to use it as quasi permanent extra storage. /shrug
So 4 TB4 ports would mean 16 PCIe3 lanes (I can't find if the M1 derivatives are v3 or v4 - if they're v4 I believe they'd require half the lanes per port as the lanes are double the speed), which maybe is more than they wanted to allocate.
The only way I can see this makes sense in anyway, that isn't just "Apple cheaped out on the bandwidth" is that they were caught off guard by Intel's TB4 (which sets the minimum bandwidth requirement) announcement last January, just 6 months before they announced they were transitioning off Intel. They no doubt had the CPU designs at least somewhat done already, so maybe they'd been planning for TB3 ports - but even in that scenario, it's a cop out if their brand spanking new CPU designed in 2021 can't support more external I/O than it's predecessor from half a decade earlier.
I've seen people saying the SD card is "a great option for a storage upgrade".. I guess it's an option but I wouldn't call it great, given the speed difference compared to a modern NVMe (either the built in drive or an external one).
For a full day I'd probably leave it plugged in.
I agree, I haven't used a SD card in over a decade and my HDMI cable is permanently attached to a dongle I can use on any side of my macbook. I really would love it if they had the ports as optional.
The original M1 Macs (laptops + mini) have 2 Thunderbolt3/USB4 ports.
The M1 iMac also has two Thunderbolt3/USB4 ports, but also some models have an additional two USB3.x USB-C ports.
The M1Pro/Max MBP's just released have three Thunderbolt 4/USB4 ports.
I'm not sure if my post is what confused you, but when I said "removed TB port" I was referring to the drop from four TB3 ports for the last five years, to three TB4 ports on the new models.
The extra ports and slots I personally would likely never use (if I were to get the new MBP), but then I rarely if ever used all four USB-C ports either.
Most TB3 monitors, docks, drive bays, eGPUs etc provide power to the laptop. So while some people maybe don't make use of that capability, it's completely inaccurate to say "there's no port loss". I'd wager that those of us using all four ports already are predominantly using all four for data or video in some way, with one also providing power, rather than one dedicated to power and only three for data/video.
In the 4-5 years I've been using this laptop in many offices I've yet to encounter a single monitor that delivers on this promise and I think the entire team in my company apart from my uses janky USB-C to HDMI dongles. I've used USB-C to display port in the hopes of reducing jankiness.
The USB-C one cable for monitor/power (that works consistently) dream never materialized, let it go Apple has.
I expect to be able to use one cable for display, power and peripherals these days.
What are you talking about "never materialised", or "Apple has let it go"? Apple has been selling a one-cable solution in their own display (XDR) for 2 years, and in third party displays (LG UltraFine) for as long as they've sold computers with Thunderbolt3 ports.
On top of that, there are numerous other brands that make USB-C (either plain USB-C or Thunderbolt) connected displays as well.
Does that mean every display you can possibly buy will have USB-C input, and that it will use USB-PD to charge/run a laptop? No of course not. There will always be less featured items in the market.
But just like the companies still shipping PCs with PS2 ports, or displays with nothing but DSUB VGA ports - a few outliers not including modern ports doesn't mean the industry in general is not moving forwards.
In professional use, however, there are always devices that require ports not provided by the laptop, unless that laptop is heavy and thick as a brick. Thus, unless you enjoy punishing yourself with dongles, you will be using a USB-C TB3/4 dock. And that dock will power your Mac. That’s just how it is.
I'd say this is the minority, for sure. You seem to think the other way around (everyone using a power delivery dock), but that's fine.
I finally gave up and bought a Thunderbolt dock that actually delivers enough power while also providing expanded port capabilities.
Isn't Apple already into "Consumer Healthcare" with iWatch, ECG and other monitoring stuff built into iPhones (headphone volume, logging mindful minutes, etc.)?
They're slowly building Health and their devices into a very capable yet understated health tracking and improving devices.
One take on that is at https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-health-employees-backl... (possibly paywalled)
* Car; not happening.
* Connected home; this is a crowded space, but it also represents a class of products that people are willing to invest in, then keep for years; Apple is great at this. The most obvious product would be a thermostat, then extending into cameras, sensors, and door locks (imagine a camera which uses the FaceID laser array tech to build a 3d representation of some interior space, for more powerful object detection). The reason why I think this is an "obvious" next play is because it very naturally leads to a new billable service; right now, iCloud storage plans include some amount of homekit secure video storage, but its easy to imagine a new "Apple Home+" plan which includes that, plus other stuff like 24/7 on-call security and advanced object alerting.
* AR; positioned primarily as a value addition to the iPhone like Airpods. I think this will be less popular among older adults, more among younger people. I'm only slightly interested, and I'm late-20s; people younger than me will be far more interested, and that does matter. For me: if they look enough like normal glasses, have some kind of health angle to them (idk, EDA sensor by the ear? read my brain waves?), and "built-in Airpods" via bone conduction tech, I'll likely pick them up; I already wear glasses, why not make them smart.
* Watch; continue to grow sales by investing in health-focused monitoring and services. Noninvasive blood glucose would be the biggest possible thing they could do here, and would massively drive sales, even if it were isolated to a (even) more expensive "Apple Watch Pro"; anything below $1000 would be an instant buy for many diabetics, of which there are... so fucking many.
* General health; continuing to invest in preemptive detection technology. This class of tech, mostly algorithms and new sensors, is the biggest, safest, craziest moat Apple will ever build for itself. Its definitely a bit of a FUD marketing angle ("Apple Watch can detect if you may be developing parkinsons", ok i never had that before but now I need it). Very curious to see whether Apple starts locking more advanced detection/trends algorithms behind a subscription service (Health+, or another), similar to what Fitbit does; could see it go either way.
* Mac; there is so much potential in converting Windows users, between the value statement of M1 and the lukewarm response to Windows 11 (its still ~10/90 split!). Gaming needs to be the short-term focus here. It just Makes Sense. A proton-like compatibility layer seems easily within the capabilities of Apple's engineering team. Additionally, Apple should work with just a couple major developers to bring support to a few keystone titles. Combined with a large marketing push (its what Apple does best) and the continued graphics card shortage (no end in sight yet), this would be a relatively small investment to grow Mac marketshare by single or even double digit percentages. The value statement for developers is way too good, they just need a push; release on Mac, gain near-zero-configuration access to iOS, iPadOS, and Apple TV devices if it makes sense for your game.
* Fintech: An Apple checking account is inevitable I think (imagine Apple Cash, with a debit card and direct deposit, that's all it takes, even a competitive interest rate isn't necessary anymore). This will be an obscene source of liquidity for the company, as an entire generation of affluent young customers eschew traditional antiquated banking services. I don't believe we'll see them touch cryptocurrency in the next ten years; as another said in this thread, Apple is the Disney of computing. Crypto is still too "weird" for them, even looking beyond the environmental implications.
* VR; I'm much less certain Apple will ever get into VR, but I think the argument is stronger than many people admit. The technology is here already, unlike AR which still feels like people don't know what it is. They have an extremely powerful SoC which can fit inside a Quest-like AIO (this is the current challenge Valve is facing competing with Oculus, but they'll get there). Most critically: the only people who believe "VR is for gaming" don't have a VR headset; VR's strongest use-case, bar none, is exercise-gaming (this is why Oculus recently acquired Supernatural and Beat Games). That's why I think it makes sense for Apple; its a nexus of two domains they're very strong in today, and have expressed desire for growth.
In short, I don't believe there will be a "next killer product" for Apple, or any company. The low hanging fruit has been picked, and the next phase of computing (more accurately, the one we're in right now) is the "last 10% is 90% of the effort" work in making everything we already have do more, better.
In the absence of another device for people to buy, Apple will likely continue to fill in their ecosystem with things like services. Hosting people's photos makes the services revenue very sticky.
I think Apple is being flexible about what does or does not come from Car research. Considering the longest time they go without sunsetting support on products is 7 years, I don't see car sales being viable.
Connected home is likely to get really big soon with Matter consolidating the ecosystems, but part of Apple buying into Matter is them giving up on licensing revenue. I don't see them being able to provide strong enough differentiation on a thermostat or smoke detector to be worth going into that business.
AR is likely limited to a wearable accessory for the iPhone like the Watch; an upgraded experience for those who want it. Glasses just aren't as easy an accessory to pull off, and people tend to like a broad variety of frames and the like. If they figure out how to do VR and AR in a compact frame via a connection to a phone, I think it would create a much larger market.
I’m skeptical about the long-term value here. By virtue of the fact that phones are much more locked down, customer support issues are relatively straightforward.
Mac users have vastly more ways to shoot themselves in the foot, so the more Mac users Apple has, the more support infrastructure they require. Genius Bars are already (or, at least, were pre-pandemic) overwhelmed.
My immediate sarcastic response was “What, that boomers can rule forever?”. More seriously, when thinking about the next 10 years at Apple or anywhere, I really wonder about the viability of our aging leadership class as they grow continually further from the way technology and the youth are interacting to form future norms. It’s especially ironic that human life extension is happening right as the exponential growth curve of tech innovation is rounding upward and making tech life spans increasingly shorter.
I’m going against collective wisdom on this, but I don’t see them launching a user facing search engine. The only way to monetise that is ads, and that puts them directly at odds with their privacy focus.
The way things are now Apple gets mucho $billions from Google to make their search the default, they get to mess with Google over privacy, and Google gets all the heat. Win, win, win.