[HN Gopher] Apple: Ten Years Forward
___________________________________________________________________
Apple: Ten Years Forward
Author : rcarmo
Score : 98 points
Date : 2021-11-01 08:03 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mondaynote.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (mondaynote.com)
| apeace wrote:
| I wholly agree with the analysis here, mostly because I've been
| blown away by how much my Apple Watch has benefited my health.
| Apple's implementation of a consumer health experience is _really
| good_ so far.
|
| 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 VO2 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.
| mikestew wrote:
| _How about a chest strap for workouts?_
|
| 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.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _What if Apple Watch, or some other device, could detect heart
| attacks? It can already detect some heartbeat irregularities._
|
| 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.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| It's unfortunate that warning people about potential issues
| is regulated like giving people an official diagnosis.
| penjelly wrote:
| From what ive heard from doctor youtubers and doctors ive
| spoken to myself, they get far more false positives due to
| heart rate fluctuations and users panicking then they do get
| benefits from the watches right now. I do agree that in the
| future this will be very useful data. But as it stands right
| now i believe doctors default to not trusting anything that
| isnt a professional tool for monitoring heart rate
| apeace wrote:
| > This would require years, maybe even decades of study.
| Apple can't just flip a switch and do this.
|
| 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.
| qaq wrote:
| Apple Cloud could be nice
| jensensbutton wrote:
| Please no. Would be the most nickel and diming cloud in
| existence.
| qaq wrote:
| You just made AWS managers very sad :) I can't say Apple
| services nickel and dime you though. They are priced fairly
| reasonably.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Apple is on the way to having the same problem as Facebook -
| becoming an uncool brand for older people.
|
| 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.
| cm277 wrote:
| Erm... 30% of US teens own an Apple Watch [1]. The AW may be
| the most underestimated gadget of all time...
|
| [1] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/10/05/apple-now-most-
| popular-...
| lostmsu wrote:
| This article is extremely bad, you shouldn't believe any
| claims in it.
| klelatti wrote:
| Sorry don't see any evidence here that young people aren't
| buying Apple devices.
|
| 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.
| The-Bus wrote:
| > As a result Apple missed out on the user-generated content
| wave, which was owned by YouTube and then TikTok.
|
| 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 $20B in three years.[1]
|
| UGC is nice, but so is having the hardware and OS that the UGC
| runs on.
|
| 1:
| https://www.ft.com/content/074b881f-a931-4986-888e-2ac53e286...
| ($)
| toyg wrote:
| _> By changing its Privacy policies_
|
| ... is the new "by leveraging its monopoly power" ...
| r00fus wrote:
| Apple is not a monopoly in any way, shape or form.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| How do you install not-iOS on an iPhone?
|
| 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).
| kingcharles wrote:
| 24x7 blood-glucose monitoring could actually help people
| understand better what they are eating and perhaps help to
| reduce the obesity epidemic.
| r00fus wrote:
| Coolness is one factor that attracts people to brands. Another
| is trust.
|
| 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.
| rcconf wrote:
| I don't agree. Apple is definitely a cool brand because what is
| the alternatives in the phone space for being cool? I can
| guarantee you that no one thinks Android devices are "cool"
| amongst the younger generation.
|
| 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.
| n3dm wrote:
| Apple is the farthest from cool and actually is a borderline
| embarrassment if you own their products for the majority of
| my friends. I know we are the minority though.
| jbc1 wrote:
| What phone are the cool kids using these days?
| WaltPurvis wrote:
| I have a Fitbit Versa 3 that's gone and bricked itself in
| less than seven months. But my Apple Watch's battery life is
| <18 hours, so, for example, it's essentially impossible to
| wear it during the day _and_ use it for sleep tracking
| overnight. I 'd love it if Apple would come up with a fitness
| tracker that ties in with the rest of the Apple ecosystem
| and-- most importantly--has a multi-day battery life like
| Fitbit's smart watches.
| malyk wrote:
| I charge mine for ~45 minutes or so between 9-10pm and it's
| been great.
| penjelly wrote:
| im sure youre looking for a full on smart watch, but an
| alternative that works for me are garmin runner watches. i
| get notifications, can control music, start/end runs, time,
| heart rate, VO2 max and an app that aggregates this stuff.
| i dont really need much more then that.
| randomluck040 wrote:
| Apple maybe made great products that just worked but honestly
| it isn't that simple anymore. With the Apple Watch, multiple
| kinds of phones, iPads and Macs they definitely fragmented
| their lineup to a point where they seem to have trouble to
| maintain quality software-wise. I had so many issues with iOS
| and iPadOS and always thought I'd be the only idiot who
| doesn't know how to use a phone. Until I've started googling.
| I don't even say Apple is not cool or whatever but don't give
| me the ,,it just werks" because it simply isn't true.
| ricardobayes wrote:
| Apple is only king because people are lazy/stupid.
| hipshaker wrote:
| Ironically a lazy/stupid comment.
| uuddlrlr wrote:
| Do you have an Android phone? The bluetooth stack on Android
| is a an atrocity.
| hungryforcodes wrote:
| It works as well or better than my iPhone 6's.
| kd913 wrote:
| AFAIK Android's bluetooth stack was rewritten from scratch
| in rust for Android 11.
|
| There are a bunch of options in the dev options including
| what enabling the Gabeldorsche stack.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Good point, updating to Android 11 took my Bluetooth
| connection from "spotty at best" to "nearly too
| aggressive". If you have multi-point Bluetooth
| accessories, Android 11+ devices will almost _always_ try
| to steal your connection if Bluetooth is enabled. I can
| 't tell if it's a feature or an issue, but it's certainly
| better than the way it used to be.
| pedalpete wrote:
| > what is the alternatives in the phone space for being cool?
|
| 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.
| peruvian wrote:
| Kids still buy or want iPhones and see blue bubbles as
| desirable. As long as hardware sales are strong (and they are),
| Apple can miss out on the next cool app or have services that
| perform just okay.
| tl wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| mortenjorck wrote:
| Millennials left Facebook for Snapchat and Zoomers for TikTok,
| but where are either going to go if they leave Apple? Your
| "white-picket Disneyfied techtopia" may be right on the mark,
| but when Apple's mobile computing ecosystem is competing for
| it-factor with the likes of _Samsung,_ there 's still no
| competition.
|
| 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.
| hungryforcodes wrote:
| This exactly.
| natch wrote:
| I agree with pretty much all you said except I don't think
| coolness is that much of a driving factor for Apple purchases.
| Maybe Apple marketing layers on the cool hipster videos to make
| it look that way, but that's just a surface level understanding
| of what's going on. I often hear this as a misunderstanding
| about why people use Apple products.
|
| 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.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Luxury and/or quality does not have to be cool.
| rangoon626 wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Agreed. Apple had the ENTIRE digital hub strategy nailed, with
| fantastic tools.
| jbc1 wrote:
| For years every years flagship phone camera comparison reviews
| have varied largely by reviewer preference over whose post
| processing they prefer, which they often even note. Favourites
| varying from brand to brand year to year. For photos.
|
| 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.
| michaelje wrote:
| Apple has a significant role - UGC is facilitated hugely by the
| iPhone.
| klelatti wrote:
| There are other factors that favour Apple in this market
| (health).
|
| 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.
| matwood wrote:
| Assuming all the companies have flaws, I think consumer brand
| trust probably falls in this order - Apple, Amazon, Google and
| Facebook. There is a big gap between first and second and a
| larger gap between second and third, and finally a huge gap
| between third and forth.
|
| Amazon is already making moves in the health space so shouldn't
| be ignored.
| klelatti wrote:
| Yes. Clearly Zuck wants to distance his wider business from
| the damaged Facebook brand - this intrusive hardware isn't
| from FB it's from Meta!
| earljwagner wrote:
| "I believe, if you zoom out into the future, and you look back,
| and you ask the question, 'What was Apple's greatest contribution
| to mankind?' it will be about health," Cook told [Mad Money's
| Jim] Cramer." Jan 2019
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/08/tim-cook-teases-new-apple-se...
| fartcannon wrote:
| I realise he can't actually say what their greatest
| contribution is so I'll do it for him: walled gardens and
| e-waste.
| dhosek wrote:
| The thing that I would love Apple to make would be an Apple
| hearing aid. I currently have the Resound Bluetooth hearing aids
| and they're ok, but I miss the ease of use of the Beats
| headphones I had before these (I've never been able to pair the
| Resounds with anything but my phone). I'm imagining something
| with the easy pairing of the Airpods with built-in find my
| integration. Given that the Resounds sell for $2000+ per pair,1 I
| have to imagine that this could be a great high-margin business
| for Apple to get into.
|
| [?][?][?]
|
| 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).
| concinds wrote:
| I think (and hope) that Apple's strategy is seemlessly
| integrating health as a feature in their current products, not
| in additional products. AirPods 9th gen, now with a built in
| hearing aids feature for $179. Apple Watch, now with FDA-
| approved blood glucose monitor for whatever that thing costs.
| VR headset with Siri and VoiceOver to describe everything in
| front of you and help the blind live better. And I'm creeped
| out by the trans humanist stuff, but Apple VR contact lenses
| that somehow connect to your brain and literally give you
| sight. Or at least Apple Contacts with built-in automatic
| eyesight correction if you're myopic, that can be setup in
| minutes and doesn't require a doctor's visit. Better Siri and
| Shortcuts for seamless and productive voice interaction for
| blind people or those without arms. This stuff would be so
| cool.
| dhosek wrote:
| The thing is, that the current Airpods form factor would not
| be socially acceptable as a hearing aid and vice versa. Right
| now, one of the things that Airpods do, in addition to play
| music is provide a visible signal to those around you that
| you're listening to music. Change that to maybe they're
| listening to music, maybe they're hard of hearing and it
| becomes a big social problem.
| dhosek wrote:
| I'd add, that the fact that there's no visible indication
| that I'm listening to music with my hearing aids is a
| social negative in my relationship with my wife (although I
| can see it being very helpful in the future when I'm back
| in the office and have to be visibly present at boring
| meetings--I'll be able to just turn off the external sounds
| and settle in for an hour of podcasts or audio books or
| music).
| SamuelAdams wrote:
| Please no. I am also half deaf and wear hearing aids full time.
| If the tech companies make hearing aids they will inevitably
| find an excuse to make "always connected" required and somehow
| siphon data from it. I'll keep my 6k offline only hearing aids
| for as long as they'll last.
| cwp wrote:
| One of Apple's major projects for the next decade will have to be
| getting out of China. The antipathy between the US and China
| isn't too bad now, but it's only going to rise as time goes on,
| and China may have internal issues as well. Giving up the Chinese
| market would be a hit to Apple's sales numbers, but disruption of
| their manufacturing would be catastrophic.
|
| 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.
| thenthenthen wrote:
| Well they just built a datacenter in Gui An new area (Guiyang,
| Guizhou), just like microsoft, ibm etc. But production might
| move indeed, but only because the wages in China are
| increasing.
| concinds wrote:
| Manufacturing decentralisation is happening anyway, in every
| industry, because of rising Chinese wages compared to other
| Asian countries, I don't think that'll be a competitive
| advantage except against poorly run companies that don't read
| Stratfor.
| 015a wrote:
| If I were Tim, the next ten years would primarily be:
|
| * 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.
| [deleted]
| macintux wrote:
| > Mac; there is so much potential in converting Windows users
|
| 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.
| boringg wrote:
| So who would buy apple stock at current prices and hold for the
| next ten years?
|
| Outside of Apple as a foundational company - current valuations,
| would anyone buy and hold?
| lindig wrote:
| The valuation of Apple on a P/E basis is attractive and
| constant stock buybacks make it a safe bet. At the current
| scale you can't expect startup-level growth but it is still
| attractive as a stock.
|
| Likewise, look at the valuation per customer; it is around
| $1500, which is attractive, too.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Anyone in it for dividends
| mikestew wrote:
| With a dividend yield of 0.59%, one would be better off
| buying bonds. AAPL's dividend, much like MSFT's before it,
| was to shut up those shareholders whining about how much cash
| the company holds. "You want a dividend? Fine, here's 22
| cents/share on a $150 stock; don't spend it all in one
| place."
|
| 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.
| albatrosstrophy wrote:
| If Apple keeps producing devices that dominate others (long
| battery life and actually functional ports in MacBook are two
| recent examples) then they're good in the near future. But in the
| long run, is Apple going into healthcare or am I reading too much
| into the piece?
| stephenr wrote:
| Can you define what you mean by "actually functional ports"?
| Are you referring to the removal of a Thunderbolt port, and the
| addition of a HDMI 2.0 port and SDXC slot?
|
| 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.
| strogonoff wrote:
| Am I reading it correctly that USB-C ports on new M1 Macs are
| not TB? That comes as a big surprise to me.
| stephenr wrote:
| .. for the _most part_ they are still Thunderbolt.
|
| 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.
| strogonoff wrote:
| Ah, I might have not read carefully.
|
| 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.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| They've added a separate power input through magsafe
| though. So if like most users the device is plugged in
| essentially permanently, there's no port lost because
| only 3 were ever available anyway.
| stephenr wrote:
| I have to assume the people who make this comment have
| never used TB3 devices.
|
| 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.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| Point taken but ignorant first line.
|
| 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.
| stephenr wrote:
| No, not necessarily a PD 'dock'. A goodly number of TB3
| devices provide power. If it's got it's own AC power it
| generally also provides power back to the host machine.
| itsananderson wrote:
| I used power delivery from my Dell monitor for the last
| year, but occasionally under heavy workloads it couldn't
| keep up and my battery would slowly drain. I may have had
| something misconfigured, but if so I never figured out
| what it was. Between Yubikey, Ethernet, and two external
| monitors, I didn't have much choice.
|
| I finally gave up and bought a Thunderbolt dock that
| actually delivers enough power while also providing
| expanded port capabilities.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| >Most TB3 monitors .... provide power to the laptop
|
| 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.
| SahAssar wrote:
| I'm suprised to hear this since that's how I've been
| using my laptop (XPS running linux) with multiple
| monitors for the past 3ish years. I had issues with one
| monitor though, but I strongly suspect that is just a
| lemon since the same cable/computer combo works fine with
| other monitors of the same model and manufacturing year.
|
| I expect to be able to use one cable for display, power
| and peripherals these days.
| wingerlang wrote:
| > convenient for some/many
|
| 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.
| matwood wrote:
| You're saying unpopular things here, but I agree! If they
| added the other ports in addition to keeping 4 tb4 ports,
| then fine. But we lost a super flexible port for old versions
| of single use ports.
|
| 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.
| stephenr wrote:
| Yup.
|
| 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".
| matwood wrote:
| The cynic in me says that Apple couldn't figure out how
| to get 4 tb4 ports on an M1 so threw some single use
| ports in as a stop gap. I just feel like if they had
| really sat down and designed the computer around adding
| these ports back, the latest version of HDMI would have
| been used.
|
| 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
| stephenr wrote:
| I tend to agree with you that the HDMI port is actually a
| 'stop gap' - TB4 mandates 32Gbit - so every _port_
| requires the equivalent of a 4x PCIe3 link, (this is what
| the previous models used to drive _two_ ports).
|
| 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).
| easton wrote:
| The Verge handed the new 16" MBPs (the to-the-gills one) to
| one of their editors for her workflow, and she said she got
| about 4 hours on a charge. They believed it was a
| combination of Rosetta apps (Adobe still isn't done
| transitioning) and the gigantic GPU in the M1 Max.
|
| For a full day I'd probably leave it plugged in.
| bayindirh wrote:
| > Apple going into healthcare or am I reading too much into the
| piece?
|
| 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.
| zanethomas wrote:
| It might be the case, given first the gradual lockdown of the
| operating system and now proprietary processors, that Apple's
| real growth will come from forcing users of their computers to
| obtain _all_ software from the app store.
| gfodor wrote:
| Not one comment mentioning the thing Apple has an army working
| on: VR.
| IOT_Apprentice wrote:
| Probably because VR in its current implementation sucks. Just
| as 3D for movies sucks. We'll have to see if Apple can solve
| that or if they are looking more at immersive AR.
| gfodor wrote:
| Same thing. It will be passthrough AR like Facebook's new
| headset next year.
|
| This is a useful thing to grok: https://mobile.twitter.com/Gr
| egMadison/status/14539110109144...
| ericmay wrote:
| " _Apple is a high margin company and the car business yields low
| margins._ "
|
| 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-...
| SirHound wrote:
| Yep if you looked at the android smartphone market you'd draw
| the same conclusion
| ksec wrote:
| Yes and that is why I was never bought the low margin
| argument for Apple not doing TV. Especially when Android
| Smartphone for a period of time were _negative_ margin.
|
| That said I still dont think Apple should make a car. But it
| seems all is too late.
| klelatti wrote:
| Yes.
|
| 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.
| Factorium wrote:
| Last-generation automakers sold expensive, complex ICE vehicles
| and made money back on parts and servicing.
|
| EVs are much cheaper and simpler to manufacture and last
| basically forever.
| toyg wrote:
| _> EVs [...] 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.
| Factorium wrote:
| Tesla batteries are only losing 10% of capacity after
| 200,000 miles:
|
| https://electrek.co/2021/08/12/tesla-claims-battery-packs-
| lo...
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| From the outside looking in, the one who appears to have the
| ability to reach across organization and be the natural CEO looks
| like Craig Federighi.
|
| Would love to hear from boots on the ground if this aligns with
| the actual experience.
| fbanon wrote:
| Apple needs a female CEO.
| [deleted]
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Why does a particular gender matter?
| flenserboy wrote:
| Why? And focus on the _needs_ part -- what _need_ does _a_ ,
| and specifically _this_ company, meet by choosing someone
| based on something other than talent and /or demonstrated
| competence?
| ksec wrote:
| I mean I dont see how it is anyone else. Not because I support
| or like Craig, ( I wish Scott Forstall was still at Apple ) but
| no one in the Apple leadership page fits the bill with age and
| experience. Eddy Cue, Luca Maestri, Jeff Williams, Greg
| Joswiak, are all 58. And somehow Phill Schiller "promoted" to
| Apple Fellow when he was 60. The average Fortune 500 CEO age is
| 57.
|
| 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.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| Honestly the regulation and legal challenges are cakewalks
| for the 'Apple Apple' -- however, for the Apple that
| generates cashflows to service stock buyback debt, you're
| correct, quite challenging.
|
| 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).
| klelatti wrote:
| Not sure I fully understand what you're saying here but the
| buybacks are simple to execute.
|
| 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.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| concinds wrote:
| Apple buys their own shares back because they believe
| they're undervalued, fundamentally. So it's a bargain.
| There's also only so many profitable R&D projects they can
| invest in, and the rest of the money can be better
| allocated by the market. This is all finance 101 that Tim
| Cook is familiar with.
|
| Stock buybacks are a stupid idea for airlines (high fixed
| costs, heavily economy-dependent cash flow), but a
| fantastic idea for Apple.
| klelatti wrote:
| That's not quite right - they don't have to believe that
| they're undervalued rather that they are at least fairly
| valued.
|
| 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.
| xvector wrote:
| Craig is charismatic but I don't know if he has the skills
| needed for CEO. It definitely looks like Apple is positioning
| him as the next one though.
| iamgopal wrote:
| How Apple going to leverage their hardware dominance is the key,
| I think they are going to start search engine, social network,
| online store, health care and insurance products etc. All things
| that are going to touch end users.
| amelius wrote:
| You forgot Apple Car.
| iamgopal wrote:
| All of these thing will not be as a current form, like apple
| car will be build, maintained and service by BMW with google
| paying them tons of bucks to use their self driving
| technology etc. Apple just want front face, not the tech
| itself.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| I imagine they'd prefer to avoid the realm of uncurated user
| content - too much risk and hassle, and doesn't really suit
| their monitization strategy.
| simonh wrote:
| They tried a social network a few times and got nowhere, they
| might try again but I'd grant a low chance of success. iMessage
| is close enough.
|
| 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.
| SirHound wrote:
| If it was good, I'd pay for a quality search engine. iCloud+?
| zimbatm wrote:
| Siri is already competing with Google search. Tackling it like
| that is much better than just re-inventing the same thing.
| mbjdesign wrote:
| There's obviously no certainties - and I'm not a betting man -
| but I think this author is on to something.
|
| 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.
| camillomiller wrote:
| Just to clarify, "this author" is Jean-Louis Gassee of Be and
| BeOS fame.
| rvz wrote:
| and your point is?
| breakfastduck wrote:
| That this article is written by someone with serious
| credentials and not just some random tech journalist?
| simongray wrote:
| And Apple fame in the 1980s. He had quite a prominent role.
| boldslogan wrote:
| a prior example is how iphone built in the flashlight app...now
| the apple watch built in a period female tracker (which have
| multiple apps built by companies worth a couple hundred M all
| together)...I can't see how this fails since theyve released
| oxygen monitor in the last watch and better heart rate
| monitoring...
| paulcole wrote:
| There's a problem with non-invasive glucose monitoring and Type 2
| diabetes.
|
| 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.
|
| https://www.aafp.org/afp/2020/0601/p646.html
| 015a wrote:
| Bluntly; it doesn't matter.
|
| 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.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Apple has already launched apps and services to improve
| exercise using their watch (complete your circles etc).
|
| 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.
| paulcole wrote:
| > Adding an option to track food would not be hard.
|
| 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.
| jonfw wrote:
| Is the subset of people who are motivated to manage their
| diabetes static?
|
| 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
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Quite a large proportion of people with type 2 diabetes don't
| know they have it. Just giving an advanced warning could make a
| huge difference.
| flyinglizard wrote:
| Apple is only capped by its product offering, not consumer spend.
| Apple customers want to pay more for Apple products. Heck _I_
| want to spend more on Apple products because they are fun to me
| and I 'm excited about the things they do. So one way to go at it
| is taking more money per product, like more expensive iPhones,
| but that has some practical limits.
|
| 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.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| There were rumours about a HomePod/TV hybrid replacement in a
| soundbar form factor. I would buy one.
|
| There's talk of an Apple Car, all electric of course. Possibly
| in partnership with Toyota. I would buy one.
|
| Etc...
| greggman3 wrote:
| Their comments on AR seem pretty far off. "REALLY AR" has plenty
| of uses that every day people would love IMO. This to me is the
| same as no one getting PDAs from Newton->Palm-Pilot->Windows
| CE->iPhone. Once it became truly usable everyone finally caught
| up with the geeks that got it from the beginning.
|
| 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.
| thom wrote:
| I'd be surprised if Apple didn't move further into fintech than
| Apple Pay and Apple Card. Buy one of the online banks, one of the
| instalment payment providers etc, offer finance solutions that
| ever so slightly shorten upgrade cycles on the hardware side.
| rvz wrote:
| I can imagine them partnering with a cryptocurrency exchange to
| provide cryptocurrency wallet support in Apple Wallet.
| notafraudster wrote:
| I'm not saying it's impossible, but Apple is a company that
| cares a great deal about the environmental valence of their
| products. Obviously CSR is a bit of a shell game no matter
| who does it, but Apple seems to take it seriously, and they
| seem to have made pretty real strides in reducing both
| operations and manufacturing footprint. Moreover, as compared
| to many electronic manufacturers, they seem more willing in
| general to actually impose environmental responsibilities on
| suppliers, and subcontractors, and further downstream. One
| example of this is that they build or buy huge amounts of
| renewable power, and they work with suppliers who don't use
| renewable power to switch.
|
| 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.
| rvz wrote:
| > we can all agree that cryptocurrency has an external
| appearance of being environmentally bad.
|
| But ARE _all cryptocurrencies_ environmentally bad? Do you
| have evidence for both claims?
| notafraudster wrote:
| I had hoped that putting a part in my post saying that I
| was talking about optics -- not the underlying truth --
| would have dissuaded people from trying to engage me on
| the truth of the claim. I apologize only for my naivety
| in that respect.
| rvz wrote:
| I have already acknowledged that but additionally
| requested on your side for such evidence to support your
| claim even if assumptions are involved. It still requires
| sources regardless, otherwise it is baseless.
|
| Or is it that you don't have any evidence to your own
| assumptions and on top of the second claim I mentioned?
| whynaut wrote:
| It doesn't seem like you're acknowledging the fact that
| the claim you're challenging was never actually made
| notafraudster wrote:
| I honestly can't follow what you're asking for here. I
| literally don't understand what it is you think I said,
| or what you're asking me to support or provide evidence
| for.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think you are disingenuously being asked to provide a
| source for an observation that you made informally (that
| cryptocurrency's environmental impact is becoming a well
| known problem). However, out of annoyance I went and
| found a source that you can use if you'd like.
|
| 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.
| rvz wrote:
| > I think you are disingenuously being asked to provide a
| source for an observation that you made informally
|
| 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.
| rvz wrote:
| This is you from [0]: > ...we can all
| agree that cryptocurrency has an external appearance of
| being environmentally bad.
|
| From: [1] Comments should get more
| thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets
| more divisive.
|
| Maybe I assumed you read this guideline, but clearly it
| seems that you did not read it, given that your own
| assumption lacks substance. Which is why I ask again:
|
| 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.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29065284
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think your request for sources is quite unreasonable --
| clearly the original comment was based on general
| informal observations and the fact that the environmental
| impact frequently shows up in news articles. However, I
| did find a paper you can look up:
|
| 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."
| rvz wrote:
| > I think your request for sources is quite unreasonable
|
| 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...
|
| [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29065963
| sofixa wrote:
| Can you name any one that isn't? Even "different" ones
| like Chia that don't use proof of work have bad
| externalities ( it eats hard drives).
|
| 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.
| gfodor wrote:
| Avalanche
| rvz wrote:
| Normally, the burden of proof is on whoever made the
| original claim [0] to substantiate it with credible links
| or evidence; you can do it for them if you want.
|
| 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.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29065284
| fbanon wrote:
| Lol, no. Apple will never associate with something as sketchy
| as crypto. The same reason they won't ever allow porn or
| gambling on the AppStore. Apple is about happy families,
| pastel colors and round shapes.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| Apple don't allow gambling apps on the App Store? That's
| not true.
| fbanon wrote:
| 5.3.3 Apps may not use in-app purchase to purchase credit
| or currency for use in conjunction with real money gaming
| of any kind, and may not enable people to purchase
| lottery or raffle tickets or initiate fund transfers in
| the app.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| Irrelevant what this says, they DO allow gambling apps.
|
| 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/...
| jsmith45 wrote:
| That rule is about about the IAP feature. Gambling apps
| are not required to use IAP, since they don't fall into
| the definition of what must use IAP. See for example,
| apps that let you purchase insurance being listed as an
| example of IAP exempt apps in 3.2.1(v). 5.3.3 forbids
| using IAP for these purposes, as under some jurisdictions
| it would put Apple under the gambling regulations. (Apple
| could be viewed as collecting bet money from betters on
| behalf of the bookmaker).
|
| 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.
| The-Bus wrote:
| Apple has FanDuel, DraftKings, MGM Sportsbook, etc. So it
| may follow the 5.3.3. rule, but it's certainly gambling
| in spirit if not in practice.
| thom wrote:
| They also allow real gambling anyway, in the UK at least.
| [deleted]
| willyt wrote:
| Can I have a 27" ipad running macos and a new 3D CAD software
| with an open source kernel and apple UI design, scriptable in
| swift. A bit like a Parasolid sketchup designed for interaction
| with pencil and touch. Logic Audio for 3D modelling. Apple could
| get the ui metaphors, interaction UX and the plugin API right.
| Industries could provide thier own customisations as plugins. Or
| go and build thier own products arounds the open source kernel
| and file format. Apple's advantage could be that customisations
| to thier UI are as easy to build and distribute as an iphone app.
| High quality open source kernel and file format so it becomes the
| de-facto way to exchange 3d model information and we dont need to
| import and export data between systems like now.
|
| Obviously never going to happen as its way to niche but, you
| know, would be nice.
| jb1991 wrote:
| They are apparently working on much larger iPads, probably to
| compete with those huge wacom touch monitors popular in the
| graphic design industry.
| bitwize wrote:
| Microsoft already has one, the Surface Studio or whatever.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| >a new 3D CAD software with an open source kernel and apple UI
| design, scriptable in swift
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| fbanon wrote:
| >CAD software with an open source kernel
|
| This one in itself would be a tremendous undertaking.
| klelatti wrote:
| iCloud is interesting to me. It feels like Apple is so close to
| having a single trusted secure place on the cloud for all your
| data. With a few more features I'd be prepare to pay a lot more
| to escape the clutches of Google.
| r00fus wrote:
| As someone not firmly entrenched in the Google ecosystem - what
| disadvantages are there to be tied to Google?
| klelatti wrote:
| Customer service. I live in dread of being locked out of my
| account. Lots and lots of horror stories.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| I think Apple and the rest of tech will eventually back away from
| healthcare. Americans are simultaneously becoming relatively
| poorer and absolutely more obese. As healthcare devolves to
| "managing" obesity (diabetes, mobility solutions etc), it will
| become a depressing bottom-feeding industry that has terrible
| optics
| sgt101 wrote:
| All ways always "they should get into healthcare". This is the
| standard c-suite/pundit new business idea because there's big
| money at play and NO ONE APART FROM THE HEALTHCARE PEOPLE
| UNDERSTANDS IT.
|
| 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.
| nextstep wrote:
| Pretty weak conclusion to this post. Yes, the US spends way more
| on healthcare (as share of GDP) than any other industrialized
| nation, but cheaper blood glucose monitoring is not going to put
| a dent into that price tag. Basically every other nation in the
| world negotiates prices of medicines and services and has some
| form of a simpler, single provider model. The US healthcare
| system is a massive business and there are too many players
| involved that all siphon profit off at some level, worsening
| outcomes and inflating prices.
| elondaits wrote:
| I'm personally very skeptical about an Apple Car appearing any
| time soon, although people like Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway
| treat it as a certainty.
|
| 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.
| neuronic wrote:
| Maybe the wide swaths of US country side are different, but for
| the (Western) European countries we need less cars and not
| more.
|
| 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)
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Maybe the wide swaths of US country side are different, but
| for the (Western) European countries we need less cars and
| not more._
|
| 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.
| Zababa wrote:
| That sounds like a worse version of public transportation.
| mulmen wrote:
| Why can't it supplement public transport? I have to walk
| 15 minutes to take a 20 minute bus to a transit station.
| I could drive there in 10 minutes.
|
| Self-driving cars seem ideal for last mile transit.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Uber and Lyft have been known to add more cars to SF than
| before. Public transit fits many more people per vehicle
| than a car does.
| sharikous wrote:
| If Tesla made it, Apple can too.
|
| 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
| penjelly wrote:
| sunk cost fallacy, just because money was spent doesnt mean
| more money spent is justifiable
| dkonofalski wrote:
| Sometimes, you do a lot of research just to tell you that you
| shouldn't do something too... -\\_(tsu)_/-
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Yes, Dyson invested a ton of money just to discover they
| couldn't compete with their EV.
|
| https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/james-dyson-
| his-...
| elondaits wrote:
| That could be money spent building fully functioning
| prototype cars to attract a partner and/or experimenting with
| AI, Lidar, etc. to see what kind of breakthroughs they could
| offer... Or even seeing if they can design a car that can be
| serviced as easily as an iPhone by replacing large parts.
|
| ... 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-01 23:02 UTC)