Apple Silicon Mac Pro Reportedly Not Coming at WWDC, Mac Studio Refresh Likely Delayed Until M3

[Steve121178]

I really like Mac OS. It's easily Apple's best product... but for some screwed up reason, half the population will gladly get ripped off on the price of iPhone but they will NOT get a Mac computer to go with their phone? WTF. Why aren't Macs more popular?

Because they are too expensive, especially outside the US where prices are ballooning to ludicrous levels. It's why sales of Macs have tanked as people have stopped buying them.

 

[steve123]

It's going to be expensive when the RAM fails if they do keep it in the same package....

(The RAM failed in my last two MacBooks, killing the devices. It's a sore spot for me.)

Did you get saddled with the cost or did Apple replace the logic board for free?

 

[maxoakland]

One of the thoughts was that Apple had decided to use removable cards that has the SoC/Unified memory that was swappable, so that the Mac Pro could be configured easier, or even operate as computer cluster with additional slots used which MacOS could support. Again this is speculation as no details have been given.

Sounds kinda cool though I bet they'd way overcharge for it, which is annoying. Like their memory and SSD prices are outrageous and if you don't have the choice to go third party, that's an issue

Not every creator is rich. Some are poor freelancers like me

 

[maxoakland]

Because they are too expensive, especially outside the US where prices are ballooning to ludicrous levels. It's why sales of Macs have tanked as people have stopped buying them.

This is exactly what they did in the 90s, along with way too many options (they're starting to do that) and languishing software. I wonder if Tim Cook is gonna ruin Apple

 

[DavidSchaub]

This is exactly what they did in the 90s, along with way too many options (they're starting to do that) and languishing software. I wonder if Tim Cook is gonna ruin Apple

The Steve Jobs sales pitch of a four quadrant product line, and limited options... was just a marketing sales pitch that is sometimes bandied about like gospel.

Apple simplified their product line because... they didn't have enough money to do anything else. And what Apple is really good at is: Making a decision for one reason, and then market that decision with entirely different reasons.

What a simplified product line means: less consumer choice, more options for Apple to optimize its profits by limiting choice.

The 90s was Apple being woefully mismanaged, failed to manage its inventory, and was doing a messy OS and cultural shift.

 

[CWallace]

Mac is in a pretty good place, IMO, with the portables well-differentiated on specs between MacBook Air 13/15 and MacBook Pro 14/16.* The desktops are also well-differentiated now between Mac mini, iMac and Mac Studio and hopefully Mac Pro, when it eventually arrives, will offer real differentiation from the Mac Studio, as well.

* - The 13" MacBook Pro exists for the corporate/enterprise market, so I think of it like the old eMacs and don't bother counting it.


The only place in Apple's "main" hardware line-up I feel that is really "too full" right now is iPad, which they have to parse capabilities really finely to justify all the different models (the iPad could very much use some pruning, IMO).

 

[ric22]

AppleCare+ seems a necessity for peace-of-mind with Apple silicon, just remember to keep up-to-date Time Machine backups...?

Apple needs to release a new Time Capsule...

My nicely maintained backups didn't work due to an "error" last time... great peace of mind

 

[ric22]

Did you get saddled with the cost or did Apple replace the logic board for free?

The Apple care had expired, so I ate the cost and also the disappointment of an error causing the Time Machine backups not to work

 

[ric22]

It happened just before moving abroad, so I still maintain some hope of salvaging those backups when I get home... which contain 20 years worth of my photos.

 

[lysingur]

$7/mo * 12 = $84 . At 25M subscribers that is about $2B . At the previous $5/mo charge there were likely issues for a while.

Part of the cost bump though is MLS which is fine given that is yet another additional charge. $79/year. And don't have to subscribe to AppleTV+ to get it ( more money ). No where near same number of people but if the incremental cost increase is covered ... then again not really a problem. (similarly have folded the MLB "Friday Night Baseball" into AppleTV+ subscription. Which may move the AppleTV+ subscriber numbers. )


Likewise Apple's move to put movies in theaters goes where in the financial books?

Apple Reportedly Planning to Release Movies in Theaters and Increase Spend to $1 Billion Per Year

Apple plans to increase its spend on movies for Apple TV+ to $1 billion annually, as well as release them in theaters globally, Bloomberg...

www.macrumors.com

Putting movies in theaters means they get getting money from folks who don't necessarily have a AppleTV + subscription. Spend on movie costs don't typically line up with the revenue generation. Could be 12-18 month gap there. If Apple does have $1+ B tied up in this largely delayed revenue feedback mechanism it really shouldn't be buried in services which are delivered in minutes.

Also a bit unclear how much of the increased spend is for content to make themselves more viable as a streaming service in another worldwide market. (some countries have restrction on minimal amount of local content requirement before can enter market) . Again some of this may be upfront buy-in money to enter new markets and an investement that takes time to pay off



That said... if Apple looses App Store exclusivity and electronics sales take a hit later in 2023 in a recession and borrowing costs go up .... whether the "spend money like drunken sailors " mode will stay turned on in Hollywood.

Even at $6B expenses vs. $2B revenue, it's a $4B pit that Apple can't fill any time soon. If you look at the business model of other streaming services and the sheer quantity of shows they offer, it's doubtful that Apple will ever be able to compete in the near future without continuously burning cash.

You also have to remember that a lot of people subscribe to Apple TV+ as a part of a bundle so the real revenue from subscription is most likely lower than $2B.

It's bordering on amusing to observe the contrast between Tim Cook's approach to movies and games. He has almost a messianic zeal towards Apple TV+ but is more than content to let Apple Arcade rot. Apple's obscene neglect of gaming will come back to bite them in their foray into the AR/VR space. Most people, including Morgan Stanley analysts, are so drunk on Apple's meteoric success with the iPhone that they're overlooking a series of blunders committed by its CEO, from AirPower, Apple Car, and Apple Silicon transition, to the AR headset, just to name a few. We're not even talking about Apple's misjudgement of the potential impact of AI and the colossal disaster that is Siri.

 

[lysingur]

I agree with you that as of the moment at least, we don't know how TV+ is doing financially. That said, pretty much every other video streaming service I know of isn't profitable either. Which is why the future of said product may not be as a standalone service, but an ecosystem feature which props up the rest of the ecosystem.

That said, I do feel that Apple has gotten a lot of things correct with their video streaming service. They prioritise quality over quantity (which should at least help keep costs down), offer a pretty competitive pricing model, are able to bundle it with their other services to offer an even more compelling offering, and their apparent strategy of focusing on Hollywood star power has been pretty effective in garnering attention, it seems.

It's not hard to look at TV+ and see how it, despite being a service, embodies Apple's ideals about the end user experience.

The more interesting question should be why Apple under the direction of Tim Cook is so fixated on making Apple TV+ work while neglecting Apple Arcade, especially given that 1) Apple Silicon currently has a computational edge over its competitors, 2) Apple TV only has to be tweaked slightly to become a video game console, and 3) Metal is nearing maturation as an API. A future VR headset also dovetails nicely with this purported triad of Apple Silicon-Apple TV-Metal. The fact that the team developing the AR headset is even contemplating dumping Siri altogether should tell you how dysfunctional things are getting in Cupertino.

Cook's blunders can't be overstated, especially in gaming and AI. He gets a free pass now because he rode on Jobs' coattail with the success of the iPhone. But just because Apple is raking it in now doesn't mean these mistakes won't come back and bite Apple in the behind. Tim Cook has to go.

 

[DavidSchaub]

The more interesting question should be why Apple under the direction of Tim Cook is so fixated on making Apple TV+ work while neglecting Apple Arcade...

I am very confident that the general disdain Apple has for gaming is way deeper than just Tim Cook and almost any Apple CEO would be doing exactly the same thing. Tim Cook is not really at fault, as much as the all Apple's executive culture.
They appreciate movies and TV in way that they just don't care about games.

 

[Abazigal]

The more interesting question should be why Apple under the direction of Tim Cook is so fixated on making Apple TV+ work while neglecting Apple Arcade, especially given that 1) Apple Silicon currently has a computational edge over its competitors, 2) Apple TV only has to be tweaked slightly to become a video game console, and 3) Metal is nearing maturation as an API. A future VR headset also dovetails nicely with this purported triad of Apple Silicon-Apple TV-Metal. The fact that the team developing the AR headset is even contemplating dumping Siri altogether should tell you how dysfunctional things are getting in Cupertino.

Cook's blunders can't be overstated, especially in gaming and AI. He gets a free pass now because he rode on Jobs' coattail with the success of the iPhone. But just because Apple is raking it in now doesn't mean these mistakes won't come back and bite Apple in the behind. Tim Cook has to go.

I guess I don’t really see it as a blunder.

Apple’s actions and decisions need to be evaluated along the context that they have 1 billion active iPhone users but only a couple of million Apple TV sets (my guess). When it comes to gaming, the bulk of revenue still comes from the iPhone (and well, the deluge of freemium games that Apple gets a 30% cut of).

Gaming on the Apple TV is never going to become huge, because of its low install base, the lack of a bundled game controller, and that games on Apple Arcade will always be optimised and designed to be played on a mobile device over the big screen. iOS has also conditioned customers to not be willing to pay $60 for a game title (but will willingly do so for a 6-year old piece of switch hardware), so the market just isn’t there.

The one notable exception for me was world of demons, I am not sure if the game will ever be finished (it seemed to end on a cliffhanger), and I am bummed that Grimvalor will likely never get a proper tvOS port.

Could Apple making console gaming a success with enough resources pumped in? It’s not impossible, looking at Microsoft with their Xbox. However, the question of opportunity cost then comes into play. We don’t know how profitable Xbox has been for Microsoft since they don’t break down the numbers, and one has to question whether the money and resources sunk into propping it up over the years could have been better spent elsewhere. And it still struggles against the PlayStation.

From the perspective of a consumer who is deeply entrenched in the Apple ecosystem, I guess I find it regrettable that there aren’t more games available on the Apple TV. From the perspective of Apple management however, I feel an argument could be made that Apple was astute to not enter a market they knew they couldn’t win, and throw in good money after bad.

The same can be said for Siri. Yes, it’s bad, but it hasn’t come back to bite Apple in the behind (yet), in part because the majority of smartphone users don’t really use voice assistants all that much.

As for TV+, my best guess is that it’s another way for Apple to remain relevant, in a way that gaming doesn’t. They have had content which have won awards (free marketing through word of mouth), and their shows all seem to involve popular Hollywood artistes. This is an easy way to grab headlines and ensure that the term “Apple” is always on everyone’s lips.

So yeah, the term I would use here is “regrettable”, but nothing close to firing anyone over.

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

 

[lysingur]

I guess I don’t really see it as a blunder.

Apple’s actions and decisions need to be evaluated along the context that they have 1 billion active iPhone users but only a couple of million Apple TV sets (my guess). When it comes to gaming, the bulk of revenue still comes from the iPhone (and well, the deluge of freemium games that Apple gets a 30% cut of).

Gaming on the Apple TV is never going to become huge, because of its low install base, the lack of a bundled game controller, and that games on Apple Arcade will always be optimised and designed to be played on a mobile device over the big screen. iOS has also conditioned customers to not be willing to pay $60 for a game title (but will willingly do so for a 6-year old piece of switch hardware), so the market just isn’t there.

If you know anything about gaming, you'd know that there are ebbs and flows when it comes to the popularity of game systems. Arcade was huge in the 70s and 80s, then it was the console, then PC dominated along with the console until mobile started to take over in the 2010s. People in gaming don't have the "there is no install base so there is no market" mentality. Of course there was no install base for handheld like Game Boy because it wasn't built yet. Apple TV would have been the same story.

Could Apple making console gaming a success with enough resources pumped in? It’s not impossible, looking at Microsoft with their Xbox. However, the question of opportunity cost then comes into play. We don’t know how profitable Xbox has been for Microsoft since they don’t break down the numbers, and one has to question whether the money and resources sunk into propping it up over the years could have been better spent elsewhere. And it still struggles against the PlayStation.

I don't even know what you mean by "struggles". Xbox was never the top dog but its global market share against PlayStation was much better than Mac against Wintel, sitting at around 35%. It even has more market share in the U.S. by a hair, 50.2% vs. 49.8%. (Source: https://bit.ly/3LFPnAm)

From the perspective of a consumer who is deeply entrenched in the Apple ecosystem, I guess I find it regrettable that there aren’t more games available on the Apple TV. From the perspective of Apple management however, I feel an argument could be made that Apple was astute to not enter a market they knew they couldn’t win, and throw in good money after bad.

Apple TV+ isn't winning the streaming market either. In case you don't know, Apple TV+ only has 3% share in the U.S. streaming market. I can hardly imagine Apple TV, if ever becoming a bona fide game console and being thrown a couple of billions like Cook to Apple TV+, could do much worse. Even Peacock is doing better than Apple TV+.

The same can be said for Siri. Yes, it’s bad, but it hasn’t come back to bite Apple in the behind (yet), in part because the majority of smartphone users don’t really use voice assistants all that much.

They don't use voice assistant all that much because Siri sucks.

Do you honestly not see a pattern in your arguments? There is no install base, so let's not make it. They can't possibly win the gaming market, so let's not enter it. They don't use it all that much so let's not improve it. Pretty defeatist, to be frank. I guess that's the problem. Apple is resting on its laurels and most of its users are happy with the status quo.

As for TV+, my best guess is that it’s another way for Apple to remain relevant, in a way that gaming doesn’t. They have had content which have won awards (free marketing through word of mouth), and their shows all seem to involve popular Hollywood artistes. This is an easy way to grab headlines and ensure that the term “Apple” is always on everyone’s lips.

Are you saying Apple TV+ is actually a publicity campaign? Then I have to say it's got to be one of the most expensive "stay relevant" publicity campaigns in human history. 😂😂😂

 

[lysingur]

I am very confident that the general disdain Apple has for gaming is way deeper than just Tim Cook and almost any Apple CEO would be doing exactly the same thing. Tim Cook is not really at fault, as much as the all Apple's executive culture.
They appreciate movies and TV in way that they just don't care about games.

An irrational aversion to a profitable venture is really a luxury only Apple can afford.

And no, it's really just Tim Cook. He started this whole streaming crusade after Eddy Cue's failed negotiations with television studios. When Jobs started the iTunes Store in 2003, it was really to sell more iPods. You can't make the same argument for Apple TV+ because the development of Apple TV+ wasn't motivated by iPhone and Mac sales.

It's also not accurate to say "Tim Cook is not really at fault." Haven't you heard? A certain CEO in Redmond has succeeded in transforming the corporate culture of a multinational tech company and made it respectable again. Tim Cook can indulge in his pet projects all he wants, but that doesn't mean reality won't catch up with Apple sooner or later. Just like his neglect of AI, particularly Siri, hindered the development of an AR headset that meets Apple's historically high standards, his aversion to gaming took another comparative advantage away from Apple.

 

[Abazigal]

Do you honestly not see a pattern in your arguments? There is no install base, so let's not make it. They can't possibly win the gaming market, so let's not enter it. They don't use it all that much so let's not improve it. Pretty defeatist, to be frank. I guess that's the problem. Apple is resting on its laurels and most of its users are happy with the status quo.

To gain a foothold in the AAA gaming market (which quite a number of you here are obsessed with for some reason), Apple would presumably need to do the very same things that led to Google dropping Stadia in the first place. Apple would need to move into game development (have a few proprietary titles to hook users in), come up with their own controllers, maybe even launch a dedicated gaming platform. Given their cash hoard, it's not impossible for Apple to go toe-to-toe with the other major game developers and console manufacturers, but it would mean going up against them nonetheless. Google realised the hard way they weren't able / willing to commit to such an expensive endeavour.

I don't think it's defeatist to go "I simply don't think the ROI is going to be worth it" and elect to take a step back and instead focus their resources on other areas. You wanting Apple to have a thriving AAA gaming presence for your own reasons doesn't necessarily mean it's in Apple's interests to do it. Apple has the most number of active iPhone users and the last number of Apple TV units. All other things equal, Apple is never going to prioritise developing games for the Apple TV when for the same amount of resources (or lesser), they can reach out to even more iOS users (and the kind of games that would appeal to a console gamer would be very different from a smartphone user). Even Activision is entering the mobile gaming market because they are realising that's really where the money is.

Currently, the App Store brought in an estimated 50 billion in gaming app revenue for 2022, which means that Apple received about $15 billion without needing to do anything.

App Revenue Data (2025)

App Revenue Key StatisticsMobile Ad SpendApp and Game RevenuesiOS App and Game RevenueGoogle Play App and Game RevenueGaming App RevenuesiOS Gaming App RevenueGoogle Play Gaming App RevenueApp RevenuesiOS App RevenueGoogle Play App RevenueApp Revenue by RegionSubscription App RevenueiOS...

www.businessofapps.com

The question then is - would it be worth it? What would be the tactical and strategic advantages to be had from going down such a path?

Microsoft did so because of their "Three Screens" strategy. Smartphone, PC, console. They have since exited the smartphone market, and I really can't find any reports of how profitable their Xbox division is. Only revenue. Nor do I see any synergy with Windows. It's basically two standalone businesses owned by the same company. I am willing to bet that Microsoft would have been even more profitable if they had dropped the Xbox division altogether and simply doubled down on Windows and Office.

But for Apple? I really see no benefit outside of bragging rights, and Apple doesn't do that. They enter markets where they think they have a competitive advantage, are able to use their control over hardware and software to offer a meaningfully-differentiated user experience, and reap supernormal profits along the way.

Are you saying Apple TV+ is actually a publicity campaign? Then I have to say it's got to be one of the most expensive "stay relevant" publicity campaigns in human history. 😂😂😂

And I feel it's one that arguably works.

What Apple did, in the face of competition from Netflix and Disney+ (and yes, I still remember the backlash Apple received when Disney+ was announced, which would go on to age pretty poorly in hindsight), wasn't to burn a hole ordering the most content (precisely the issue with Netflix and Disney+) or acquire an expensive back catalogue (aka Amazon). Apple chose to prioritise quality storytelling over quantity that people enjoy giving their money and time to (which is the exact criticism Netflix is facing currently). This gives them a reason to launch the TV app every now and then, and maybe check out other titles from time to time, and maybe make a purchase (of which Apple earns 30%).

We see Apple doing the same thing with Apple Arcade. They are betting on it as a way of accessing family-friendly content with no ads or IAPs, and the family sharing feature further improves the likelihood that a household will stick with primarily all iOS devices in order to maximise value. It also fits nicely into Apple One, something AAA gaming wouldn't be able to accommodate (how do you enable a buffet-spread of $60 gaming titles for just $5 a month?).

An irrational aversion to a profitable venture is really a luxury only Apple can afford.

I don't think anyone who understands the concept of "opportunity cost" would call this a luxury. Let's concur, for argument's sake, that Apple could eventually have had a profitable AAA gaming platform. I could also argue that for the same amount of resources and manpower, Apple could easily have made even more money entering some other market.

And maybe that's precisely that they did.

It's basically the "Thousand nos for every yes" philosophy that Apple espouses. What sucks here is that Apple has evidently decided to say "No" to something you happen to be passionate about, in favour of "Yessing" something that you might not really care for. But that's just the nature of business, and you don't run a successful business by giving consumers everything they want.

Get a Switch if the lack of gaming access bothers you so much. I bought 2 of them, in fact, and I realised I don't really care that much for it (heck, I am still struggling to finish the Streets of Rage 4 title that I purchased during the Pandemic).

 

[lysingur]

To gain a foothold in the AAA gaming market (which quite a number of you here are obsessed with for some reason), Apple would presumably need to do the very same things that led to Google dropping Stadia in the first place. Apple would need to move into game development (have a few proprietary titles to hook users in), come up with their own controllers, maybe even launch a dedicated gaming platform. Given their cash hoard, it's not impossible for Apple to go toe-to-toe with the other major game developers and console manufacturers, but it would mean going up against them nonetheless. Google realised the hard way they weren't able / willing to commit to such an expensive endeavour.

I don't think it's defeatist to go "I simply don't think the ROI is going to be worth it" and elect to take a step back and instead focus their resources on other areas. You wanting Apple to have a thriving AAA gaming presence for your own reasons doesn't necessarily mean it's in Apple's interests to do it. Apple has the most number of active iPhone users and the last number of Apple TV units. All other things equal, Apple is never going to prioritise developing games for the Apple TV when for the same amount of resources (or lesser), they can reach out to even more iOS users (and the kind of games that would appeal to a console gamer would be very different from a smartphone user). Even Activision is entering the mobile gaming market because they are realising that's really where the money is.

So when it suits you, X is a great publicity campaign and when it doesn't, X is a bad ROI. You're utterly hilarious (or delirious?) Your entire argument rests on the core belief that Apple knows what it's doing and it can do no wrong. Your past posts bear this out too.

I seem to remember going back and forth with you on this in another thread. You crack me up thinking the whole point of this discussion is my wanting Apple to have a "thriving AAA gaming presence" for my own enjoyment. I'm merely making an analysis of why Tim Cook is a mediocre CEO. I don't have a dog in the fight if you get my drift.

Currently, the App Store brought in an estimated 50 billion in gaming app revenue for 2022, which means that Apple received about $15 billion without needing to do anything.

App Revenue Data (2025)

App Revenue Key StatisticsMobile Ad SpendApp and Game RevenuesiOS App and Game RevenueGoogle Play App and Game RevenueGaming App RevenuesiOS Gaming App RevenueGoogle Play Gaming App RevenueApp RevenuesiOS App RevenueGoogle Play App RevenueApp Revenue by RegionSubscription App RevenueiOS...

www.businessofapps.com

The question then is - would it be worth it? What would be the tactical and strategic advantages to be had from going down such a path?

Microsoft did so because of their "Three Screens" strategy. Smartphone, PC, console. They have since exited the smartphone market, and I really can't find any reports of how profitable their Xbox division is. Only revenue. Nor do I see any synergy with Windows. It's basically two standalone businesses owned by the same company. I am willing to bet that Microsoft would have been even more profitable if they had dropped the Xbox division altogether and simply doubled down on Windows and Office.

You don't see synergy because you're most likely not a gamer. Have you used Windows? You do know Xbox is integrated into Windows 10 and 11, right? Knowing so much about games, surely it didn't escape you that PC ports come a lot faster for Xbox titles and vice versa, right?

How can Microsoft "double down" on Windows and Office? What does that look like in reality? Windows and Office aren't even the top revenue generator for Microsoft. Do some homework and come back and tell us what it is. Hint: Microsoft's top revenue generator also happens to have the largest room for growth. The fact that you think Windows and Office drive Microsoft's growth tells me you're just pulling stuff out of your a** at this point.

But for Apple? I really see no benefit outside of bragging rights, and Apple doesn't do that. They enter markets where they think they have a competitive advantage, are able to use their control over hardware and software to offer a meaningfully-differentiated user experience, and reap supernormal profits along the way.


And I feel it's one that arguably works.

What Apple did, in the face of competition from Netflix and Disney+ (and yes, I still remember the backlash Apple received when Disney+ was announced, which would go on to age pretty poorly in hindsight), wasn't to burn a hole ordering the most content (precisely the issue with Netflix and Disney+) or acquire an expensive back catalogue (aka Amazon). Apple chose to prioritise quality storytelling over quantity that people enjoy giving their money and time to (which is the exact criticism Netflix is facing currently). This gives them a reason to launch the TV app every now and then, and maybe check out other titles from time to time, and maybe make a purchase (of which Apple earns 30%).

Why can't Apple prioritize quality over quantity in gaming? Everything you said to justify Apple's burning $6B on Apple TV+ can be applied verbatim to Apple Arcade. And if you really need me to spell it out for you—because I suspect you won't get it if I don't—Apple TV is an ideal device for Apple to make a foray into gaming because hardware-wise it requires only a few additions and tweaks, and marketing-wise it can still be marketed mainly as a digital media player and a microconsole. It's cost-effective and low-risk.

We see Apple doing the same thing with Apple Arcade. They are betting on it as a way of accessing family-friendly content with no ads or IAPs, and the family sharing feature further improves the likelihood that a household will stick with primarily all iOS devices in order to maximise value. It also fits nicely into Apple One, something AAA gaming wouldn't be able to accommodate (how do you enable a buffet-spread of $60 gaming titles for just $5 a month?).

Gaming isn't just about AAA games. We've already established that you know little about gaming so it's pointless to argue this further. You seem to have this image of yourself as that guy at the party who has the most common sense. But news flash, reality doesn't really bear your common sense out. Apple isn't betting anything on Apple Arcade. Apple Arcade is in the state it is in today because Apple isn't willing to budge in negotiating with game developers. It's the organic result of them not being willing to budge, not the intentional outcome that you think it is. They tried to get AAA games, but couldn't because the economics just doesn't make sense for game developers.

I don't think anyone who understands the concept of "opportunity cost" would call this a luxury. Let's concur, for argument's sake, that Apple could eventually have had a profitable AAA gaming platform. I could also argue that for the same amount of resources and manpower, Apple could easily have made even more money entering some other market.

And maybe that's precisely that they did.

It's basically the "Thousand nos for every yes" philosophy that Apple espouses. What sucks here is that Apple has evidently decided to say "No" to something you happen to be passionate about, in favour of "Yessing" something that you might not really care for. But that's just the nature of business, and you don't run a successful business by giving consumers everything they want.

Get a Switch if the lack of gaming access bothers you so much. I bought 2 of them, in fact, and I realised I don't really care that much for it (heck, I am still struggling to finish the Streets of Rage 4 title that I purchased during the Pandemic).

Apple has plans to enter much more competitive markets where they have no expertise, e.g., EV, so...what are you even saying? Gaming makes much more sense for Apple than cars. The only infrastructure Apple has in place for Apple Car is the software, e.g., CarPlay, whereas, for gaming, they have the hardware, software, and platform.

I don't even know if you see how ridiculous your arguments are. Your quality-over-quantity argument applies to Apple Arcade and the gaming market just as much as Apple TV+. Your opportunity-cost argument falls flat on its face considering Project Titan started in 2015 and has burnt cash in the billions too, with absolutely nothing to show for it. This is not to mention that the gaming market is more important than ever with the imminent announcement of Apple's AR headset. I guess they it "blindspot" for a reason, don't they? Because you just can't see it.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Stadia

Forcing you to rebuy games and having games that paided for being locked to it is an big part of why it failed.
Other cloud gameing system let you use games that you own.

 

[CWallace]

The more interesting question should be why Apple under the direction of Tim Cook is so fixated on making Apple TV+ work while neglecting Apple Arcade, especially given that 1) Apple Silicon currently has a computational edge over its competitors, 2) Apple TV only has to be tweaked slightly to become a video game console, and 3) Metal is nearing maturation as an API.

As noted by Abazigal, Apple is already making billions via App Store sales thanks to all the gacha micro-transactions, which I believe are explicitly not allowed under Apple Arcade.

One could argue Apple Arcade is a lifeline to "traditional" game companies that sell a complete game up front with no micro-transactions because those games do not do well because mobile gamers don't believe they should pay for a game up front.

Cook's blunders can't be overstated, especially in gaming and AI. He gets a free pass now because he rode on Jobs' coattail with the success of the iPhone. But just because Apple is raking it in now doesn't mean these mistakes won't come back and bite Apple in the behind. Tim Cook has to go.

So who do we replace him with? (CEO of XBOX) Phil Spencer to push gaming to the front? Mark Zuckerberg to do the same for VR?

I mean nobody else in Apple's leadership team appears to arguing to go all-in on gaming and VR so they would be no better than Cook.

Apple TV+ isn't winning the streaming market either. In case you don't know, Apple TV+ only has 3% share in the U.S. streaming market. Even Peacock is doing better than Apple TV+.

Peacock has the entire NBC back catalog, which helps.

I am impressed that 3% of the US market is willing to pay for Apple TV+ (either directly or as part of a bundle) solely on the strength of it's first-party catalog of shows and movies. Once these people have burned through the relative "handful" of shows and movies available, they keep paying even though there is not hundreds or thousands of "old" shows cluttering up the search function.

I would be surprised if similar numbers of household subscribe to the other services just for their first-party stuff. They need their large back-catalogs of content to keep people engaged with them and continuing to subscribe.

To gain a foothold in the AAA gaming market (which quite a number of you here are obsessed with for some reason), Apple would presumably need to do the very same things that led to Google dropping Stadia in the first place. Apple would need to move into game development (have a few proprietary titles to hook users in), come up with their own controllers, maybe even launch a dedicated gaming platform. Given their cash hoard, it's not impossible for Apple to go toe-to-toe with the other major game developers and console manufacturers, but it would mean going up against them nonetheless. Google realised the hard way they weren't able / willing to commit to such an expensive endeavour.

Apple would need to buy a major game studio and take their catalog private to Apple hardware. With the UK possibly scuttling the Microsoft acquisition of Activision-Blizzard, Apple buying them and porting their games to Metal and then removing them from PC and XBOX/Playstation/Switch might work since if anything is going to get a PC or console gamer buying a Mac, it would be Call of Duty.

 

[Boil]

Apple would need to buy a major game studio and take their catalog private to Apple hardware. With the UK possibly scuttling the Microsoft acquisition of Activision-Blizzard, Apple buying them and porting their games to Metal and then removing them from PC and XBOX/Playstation/Switch might work since if anything is going to get a PC or console gamer buying a Mac, it would be Call of Duty.

Apple should buy Rockstar, make GTA6 a macOS (ASi hardware) exclusive...

 

[deconstruct60]

Even at $6B expenses vs. $2B revenue, it's a $4B pit that Apple can't fill any time soon. If you look at the business model of other streaming services and the sheer quantity of shows they offer, it's doubtful that Apple will ever be able to compete in the near future without continuously burning cash.

Since your characterization of the revenue sources wasn't particularly careful , perhaps want to go back and look at where this $6B is coming from.



I think it is from the stories that broke out several years ago like.



"..

Apple has committed to spend more than $6 billion on original TV shows and movies for its forthcoming Apple TV+ service, according to a Financial Times report on Monday.

..."



https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/19/apple-spending-6-billion-on-shows-trying-to-beat-disney-ft.html



'Committed' isn't the same thing as a quarterly or yearly balance sheet. If Apple commits to two years of a series like Morning Show the show producers are not handed 100% of two years of production up front. Similar with Apple's deal for MLB



"...

The new streaming deal between Major League Baseball and Apple is worth $85 million annually over seven years, according to several sources familiar with the agreement who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the terms.




Under the new pact, Apple will pay a $55 million rights fee and $30 million worth of advertising. Apple gets the exclusive rights to telecast two Friday Night Baseball games each week ...

MLB Deals With Apple And NBC Sports Are Worth A Combined $115 Million Annually

MLB's deals with Apple and NBC Sports are about streaming.

www.forbes.com

$30M in ads , but how much of those ads are on Apple's ad network? If chunked up into the whole 7 years that could be spun as Apple committed to $595M .. "oh gosh how do that get that back in a year". Well, they don't have to in a single year.



And the MLS deal



"... Ten years at $2.5 billion comes out to $250 million per year, but that is considered a minimum payment. Under the terms of the agreement, once MLS streaming service subscriptions crosses a certain undisclosed threshold, Apple will share an undisclosed cut of the revenue with MLS .."



The 'commitment' is to $2.5B but the annual cost is around $250M.











Indeed in 2022 ...



" ... Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi estimates Apple generates between $1 billion and $2 billion per year in subscription revenue, but it's spending $3 billion per year on content. ..."

https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/07/04/will-apple-tv-ever-become-profitable/



Yes '3' > '1.5' , but '3' is also not even remotely close to being '6'.



[ I think one of the major keys to whether AppleTV + gets to breakeven or not lies in adoption outside the USA. If Apple plows too much money into 'Hollywood' only then it probably won't work long term. At some point the pot of money available to hand out gets bigger than the good talent pool and things start to go to crony , friend, and 'fame' relationships with not quite as great ideas.... that long term don't pay off as well. ]

Apple has been relatively very aggressive at tacking on season 2 , 3 renewals. It is risky , but 'money pit' is the wrong characterization. As long is Apple is carefully selecting shows there is a more than decent chance it will pay off. That strategy could backfire if try to do too much in a single region and/or try to shift to much higher volume of shows.

You also have to remember that a lot of people subscribe to Apple TV+ as a part of a bundle so the real revenue from subscription is most likely lower than $2B.

Bundles tend to make the subscribers a bit more 'sticky' also. So it is a trade-off. Less money and longer term still pays off over time. Missing the 'forest for a single tree' if manically focused on making all of $3 or $6B back in only one year. Subscriptions (at least good ones) mean regular revenue. If it takes 3-4 years to pay it off then years 5-8 generate 'loss free' revenue. Renting out something that basically paid for ( so just have electronic distribution costs .... which again regular, bundled , bulk customer base can put a solid foundation under those distribution costs. )

It's bordering on amusing to observe the contrast between Tim Cook's approach to movies and games. He has almost a messianic zeal towards Apple TV+ but is more than content to let Apple Arcade rot.

Apple has more control over Apple TV+ 'shows' / content than they do over games. Second, Apple TV+ content is relatively completely independent of Apple hardware. Arcade is extremely bound to Apple hardware.

Apple's obscene neglect of gaming

eglect? A large chunk of the iPhone apps revenue comes out of gaming. Similarly quite high for iPadOS.

Apple didn't force that subsegment to grow , but they haven't really hindered it much either. They have made very steady progress both increasing iPhone/iPad graphics hardware foundation and incrementally improving the GPU library stack on top.

On the mac ( and perhaps AppleTV ) side it is more bottom up enablement. That isn't necessarily a quick path to top end games , but it is a better foundation than where that same class of Macs were 4-5 years ago.


I suspect some folks though that Arcade was some mechanism where Apple was going to push gaming as a top tier revenue generator for macOS and tvOS. I really don't think Apple was ever drinking that kind of kool-aid internally.



Arcade was about broadening the base of developers doing quality games on Apple platforms with Apple tuned games. It wasn't to do a small handful of very expensive ( "AAA") blockbuster games. Nor is it primarily looking to channel as much money as possible into non Apple development tool chain. ( Y





Arcade is also a bit of a hedge against Apple loosing App store exclusivity.

will come back to bite them in their foray into the AR/VR space.

the hype train that VR == gaming so far doesn't have much cash flow positive backing to it for system vendors.
In augmented reality, it is even more dubious premise.

No foveated rendering then missing the boat on VR. Completely. And gaming myopia has suppressed the solutions to that problem coming about far more than helped it.

they're overlooking a series of blunders committed by its CEO, from AirPower, Apple Car, and Apple Silicon transition, to the AR headset, just to name a few.

Chuckle ... so now Apple Car is a blunder. Having make billions less than Apple Silicon or Apple TV ecosystem.



Apple Silicon a blunder? Quantitate evidence where? Apple mac sales relative to pre-pandemic are up. Apple is charging basically about the same when using Intel CPU packages. ( all that Intel profit is kept by Apple and used to cover AS development. )

Intel still has nothing that could do a Mini Pro (in same enclosure) or MPB 14" Max (same enclosure). AMD ( Strix Halo ) and Intel ( Arrow Lake) have 2024/2025 processor still trying to get to where the M1/M2 over a year later.

Is Apple Silicon coming out with iPhone on a strict yearly cadence? No. Is that a blunder? Absolutely not. ( Moore's Law is fading. Even Moore's Law wasn't on a 12 month cadence ( ~18 months). As that creeps out to 24 -36 months the whole yearly new silicon doing what gets more questionable. The iPhone is in a pit that increasing going to start to have problems. Apple has split the iPhone Pro from the Phone. Regular iPhone is no getting 'hand me down' SoCs also.

Did the Mac Pro transition "on time" ? No. Is that a crushing blow to the entire transition? Nope. It is a non strategic systems in the line up that is a "nice to have" but not "critical to have".

The upper end of the M-series line up very likely won't be anywhere near yearly. To try to force those technology arbitrary constraints on it would likely kill it than help it.

We're not even talking about Apple's misjudgement of the potential impact of AI and the colossal disaster that is Siri.

Misjudgement of AI? Really? Apple has been putting NPUs hardware into Apple silicon solutions since the A11 ( 2017). It is been 5+ years. Apple has been pursuing AI inference for more than several years.



Can hand wave at them not as aggressively chasing training and so therefore missed the boat. Usage matters more .. the is where the value add is long term.

The subset of AI that is increasingly drifting into bigger and bigger piles of gigantic data piled up is data vacuuming centralized sites ... has lots of hype behind it , great a fiction writing ... may not be so great at telling the truth. As much as Apple has a toe in the fiction business with AppleTV + , Apple as a whole core competence really is not in the fiction business. ( and the fiction composing aspect is mostly outsourced. Apple is more in the logistics , process improvement , and fiscal controls aspect of the business. )


Siri has as many problems because it is purely a cost center and deeply detached from any revenue generation...as it has due to the "AI" strategy that Apple runs. They don't have the same kind of joint long term product development going on there as the Apple Silicon team has with the iPhone or Macs. There are code development issues also.

 

[deconstruct60]

Apple TV+ isn't winning the streaming market either. In case you don't know, Apple TV+ only has 3% share in the U.S. streaming market.

Apple has just 10% of the PC market and seems to be reasonably profitable.

The USA streaming market isn't the point. If Apple has 3% of the worldwide market in 5-6 years that is actually tractable. Things are going to be far more balkanized similar to how from a system supplier vendor perspective the PC far more split up than the USA streaming market is now.

I can hardly imagine Apple TV, if ever becoming a bona fide game console and being thrown a couple of billions like Cook to Apple TV+, could do much worse. Even Peacock is doing better than Apple TV+.

As long as a significant number of game console buyers have an expectation of there being an optical disk drive, Apple isn't going there. Apple has been moving opposite direction . For a while used to use the iPad Pro SoC for Apple TV. That made sense when there was no alternative place for iPad Pro SoCS to go to besides the iPad Pro. At this point iPad Pro is sharing the pool of SoC with an order of magnitude bigger set of systems in the Apple product ecosystem. And not surprisingly AppleTV switched over to be yet another "hand me down" target for iPhone SoCs.


If it turns out there is no place for laptop Mn Max SoCs to go and an "AppleTV Pro" might be an option for where 'older' Mn Max's go to semi-retirement. Seems doubtful though. The game console market isn't growing at a rate that can support 4 large players. Also Apple has priced the Max so that it won't limbo down to "game console" price points. Finally, Apple is deeply unlikely to sell a "Apple game console" as a loss leader device. that isn't their standard practice to sell products ( not services , but complete products ) at a loss hoping to get some back end recover for the product out of something else. The primary business practice of the gaming console market is repulsive to Apple standard approach.


AppleTV+ is available built into so many TV systems that there is lots more pressure to keep AppleTV costs down.. not hundreds higher.


AppleTV is more tightly coupled to whether Apple can "turn around" HomeKit ... not mutating into a gaming console.

 

[lysingur]

As noted by Abazigal, Apple is already making billions via App Store sales thanks to all the gacha micro-transactions, which I believe are explicitly not allowed under Apple Arcade.

One could argue Apple Arcade is a lifeline to "traditional" game companies that sell a complete game up front with no micro-transactions because those games do not do well because mobile gamers don't believe they should pay for a game up front.

Exactly. And who set up the rules for Apple Arcade? Who allows them to continue?

So who do we replace him with? (CEO of XBOX) Phil Spencer to push gaming to the front? Mark Zuckerberg to do the same for VR?

I mean nobody else in Apple's leadership team appears to arguing to go all-in on gaming and VR so they would be no better than Cook.

Because none of them is allowed to contradict Tim Cook. Surprised you don't know.

Peacock has the entire NBC back catalog, which helps.

I am impressed that 3% of the US market is willing to pay for Apple TV+ (either directly or as part of a bundle) solely on the strength of it's first-party catalog of shows and movies. Once these people have burned through the relative "handful" of shows and movies available, they keep paying even though there is not hundreds or thousands of "old" shows cluttering up the search function.

I would be surprised if similar numbers of household subscribe to the other services just for their first-party stuff. They need their large back-catalogs of content to keep people engaged with them and continuing to subscribe.

Your personal sentiment towards Apple TV+'s market share has not an iota of bearing on the fact that it's losing money and has been losing money.

Moreover, it's not like Apple TV+ is purely first-party. Surprised you don't know this either.

Apple would need to buy a major game studio and take their catalog private to Apple hardware. With the UK possibly scuttling the Microsoft acquisition of Activision-Blizzard, Apple buying them and porting their games to Metal and then removing them from PC and XBOX/Playstation/Switch might work since if anything is going to get a PC or console gamer buying a Mac, it would be Call of Duty.

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves.

 

[lysingur]

Since your characterization of the revenue sources wasn't particularly careful , perhaps want to go back and look at where this $6B is coming from.



I think it is from the stories that broke out several years ago like.



"..

Apple has committed to spend more than $6 billion on original TV shows and movies for its forthcoming Apple TV+ service, according to a Financial Times report on Monday.

..."



https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/19/apple-spending-6-billion-on-shows-trying-to-beat-disney-ft.html



'Committed' isn't the same thing as a quarterly or yearly balance sheet. If Apple commits to two years of a series like Morning Show the show producers are not handed 100% of two years of production up front. Similar with Apple's deal for MLB



"...

The new streaming deal between Major League Baseball and Apple is worth $85 million annually over seven years, according to several sources familiar with the agreement who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the terms.




Under the new pact, Apple will pay a $55 million rights fee and $30 million worth of advertising. Apple gets the exclusive rights to telecast two Friday Night Baseball games each week ...

MLB Deals With Apple And NBC Sports Are Worth A Combined $115 Million Annually

MLB's deals with Apple and NBC Sports are about streaming.

www.forbes.com

$30M in ads , but how much of those ads are on Apple's ad network? If chunked up into the whole 7 years that could be spun as Apple committed to $595M .. "oh gosh how do that get that back in a year". Well, they don't have to in a single year.



And the MLS deal



"... Ten years at $2.5 billion comes out to $250 million per year, but that is considered a minimum payment. Under the terms of the agreement, once MLS streaming service subscriptions crosses a certain undisclosed threshold, Apple will share an undisclosed cut of the revenue with MLS .."



The 'commitment' is to $2.5B but the annual cost is around $250M.











Indeed in 2022 ...



" ... Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi estimates Apple generates between $1 billion and $2 billion per year in subscription revenue, but it's spending $3 billion per year on content. ..."

https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/07/04/will-apple-tv-ever-become-profitable/



Yes '3' > '1.5' , but '3' is also not even remotely close to being '6'.



[ I think one of the major keys to whether AppleTV + gets to breakeven or not lies in adoption outside the USA. If Apple plows too much money into 'Hollywood' only then it probably won't work long term. At some point the pot of money available to hand out gets bigger than the good talent pool and things start to go to crony , friend, and 'fame' relationships with not quite as great ideas.... that long term don't pay off as well. ]

Apple has been relatively very aggressive at tacking on season 2 , 3 renewals. It is risky , but 'money pit' is the wrong characterization. As long is Apple is carefully selecting shows there is a more than decent chance it will pay off. That strategy could backfire if try to do too much in a single region and/or try to shift to much higher volume of shows.

We discussed this already. You might want to review the thread before rehashing what's already discussed. As for whether Season 2 or 3 will bring decent returns, it's really just your conjecture. I'm talking about the fact that Apple TV+ is losing money right now.

Bundles tend to make the subscribers a bit more 'sticky' also. So it is a trade-off. Less money and longer term still pays off over time. Missing the 'forest for a single tree' if manically focused on making all of $3 or $6B back in only one year. Subscriptions (at least good ones) mean regular revenue. If it takes 3-4 years to pay it off then years 5-8 generate 'loss free' revenue. Renting out something that basically paid for ( so just have electronic distribution costs .... which again regular, bundled , bulk customer base can put a solid foundation under those distribution costs. )





Apple has more control over Apple TV+ 'shows' / content than they do over games. Second, Apple TV+ content is relatively completely independent of Apple hardware. Arcade is extremely bound to Apple hardware.

Again, deconstruct60, this argument falls flat on its face considering Project Titan started in 2015. Apple Car isn't hardware independent as far as I know. 😂

eglect? A large chunk of the iPhone apps revenue comes out of gaming. Similarly quite high for iPadOS.

You're confused. Just because Apple sells music doesn't mean it's in the music business per se. Just because Costco sells ovens doesn't mean it's in the appliance business. The same logic applies to the games in App Store.

Apple didn't force that subsegment to grow , but they haven't really hindered it much either. They have made very steady progress both increasing iPhone/iPad graphics hardware foundation and incrementally improving the GPU library stack on top.

You're confused again. Making improvements to the graphics performance of its devices doesn't equate to caring about gaming.

On the mac ( and perhaps AppleTV ) side it is more bottom up enablement. That isn't necessarily a quick path to top end games , but it is a better foundation than where that same class of Macs were 4-5 years ago.


I suspect some folks though that Arcade was some mechanism where Apple was going to push gaming as a top tier revenue generator for macOS and tvOS. I really don't think Apple was ever drinking that kind of kool-aid internally.



Arcade was about broadening the base of developers doing quality games on Apple platforms with Apple tuned games. It wasn't to do a small handful of very expensive ( "AAA") blockbuster games. Nor is it primarily looking to channel as much money as possible into non Apple development tool chain. ( Y

What you suspect really has no bearing on what we're talking about. We're talking about what Apple under the direction of Tim Cook did and why they're the wrong moves. Not what you think the motivations are behind each move.

Arcade is also a bit of a hedge against Apple loosing App store exclusivity.

I think you got it backwards, my man.

the hype train that VR == gaming so far doesn't have much cash flow positive backing to it for system vendors.
In augmented reality, it is even more dubious premise.

Cash flow can only happen when you ship a product. WTF are you even talking about? You're arguing in hypotheticals now?

No foveated rendering then missing the boat on VR. Completely. And gaming myopia has suppressed the solutions to that problem coming about far more than helped it.





Chuckle ... so now Apple Car is a blunder. Having make billions less than Apple Silicon or Apple TV ecosystem.



Apple Silicon a blunder? Quantitate evidence where? Apple mac sales relative to pre-pandemic are up. Apple is charging basically about the same when using Intel CPU packages. ( all that Intel profit is kept by Apple and used to cover AS development. )

Apple Silicon transition. Nice try though.

Intel still has nothing that could do a Mini Pro (in same enclosure) or MPB 14" Max (same enclosure). AMD ( Strix Halo ) and Intel ( Arrow Lake) have 2024/2025 processor still trying to get to where the M1/M2 over a year later.

Is Apple Silicon coming out with iPhone on a strict yearly cadence? No. Is that a blunder? Absolutely not. ( Moore's Law is fading. Even Moore's Law wasn't on a 12 month cadence ( ~18 months). As that creeps out to 24 -36 months the whole yearly new silicon doing what gets more questionable. The iPhone is in a pit that increasing going to start to have problems. Apple has split the iPhone Pro from the Phone. Regular iPhone is no getting 'hand me down' SoCs also.

Did the Mac Pro transition "on time" ? No. Is that a crushing blow to the entire transition? Nope. It is a non strategic systems in the line up that is a "nice to have" but not "critical to have".

You don't have to put on time in quotes. They missed it by a wide margin. I failed to see how it is not a blunder when a corporation missed a self-imposed deadline and doesn't care to tell consumers the reason. This is all before you start to delve deeper into the reasons behind the delay.

The upper end of the M-series line up very likely won't be anywhere near yearly. To try to force those technology arbitrary constraints on it would likely kill it than help it.





Misjudgement of AI? Really? Apple has been putting NPUs hardware into Apple silicon solutions since the A11 ( 2017). It is been 5+ years. Apple has been pursuing AI inference for more than several years.

I guess you are not only an astute business analyst and a gaming industry insider, but also an AI expert. Talk to anybody in AI and ask them about Apple and come back and tell us their reaction. Apple has been a laggard in investment in AI until recently. They only started playing catchup after ChatGPT gained popularity. Surprised you don't know.

Can hand wave at them not as aggressively chasing training and so therefore missed the boat. Usage matters more .. the is where the value add is long term.

The subset of AI that is increasingly drifting into bigger and bigger piles of gigantic data piled up is data vacuuming centralized sites ... has lots of hype behind it , great a fiction writing ... may not be so great at telling the truth. As much as Apple has a toe in the fiction business with AppleTV + , Apple as a whole core competence really is not in the fiction business. ( and the fiction composing aspect is mostly outsourced. Apple is more in the logistics , process improvement , and fiscal controls aspect of the business. )

It's really pointless to talk about which "business" Apple is in. They're making movies and shows and they're trying to make an EV, and they're moving in on the financial sector with Apple Pay. The fact that you even care to say which "business" Apple is in just goes to show how clueless you are.

Siri has as many problems because it is purely a cost center and deeply detached from any revenue generation...as it has due to the "AI" strategy that Apple runs. They don't have the same kind of joint long term product development going on there as the Apple Silicon team has with the iPhone or Macs. There are code development issues also.

😂😂😂
So when it suits you, X doesn't make any money, Apple doesn't need to care about it, but when it doesn't, X is a worthwhile venture, Apple needs to keep burning cash to make it work.

When competitors come out with a voice assistant powered by AI that can essentially program your smart home with simple voice commands and divine your music taste based on your playlist and play music based on your moods, etc., it will have a real financial impact on Apple. Making excuses for Apple doesn't really change reality one bit. Let's just hope that day never comes.

 

[lysingur]

Apple has just 10% of the PC market and seems to be reasonably profitable.

The USA streaming market isn't the point. If Apple has 3% of the worldwide market in 5-6 years that is actually tractable. Things are going to be far more balkanized similar to how from a system supplier vendor perspective the PC far more split up than the USA streaming market is now.

Again, conjecture. I guess you just can't help yourself.

As long as a significant number of game console buyers have an expectation of there being an optical disk drive, Apple isn't going there. Apple has been moving opposite direction . For a while used to use the iPad Pro SoC for Apple TV. That made sense when there was no alternative place for iPad Pro SoCS to go to besides the iPad Pro. At this point iPad Pro is sharing the pool of SoC with an order of magnitude bigger set of systems in the Apple product ecosystem. And not surprisingly AppleTV switched over to be yet another "hand me down" target for iPhone SoCs.


If it turns out there is no place for laptop Mn Max SoCs to go and an "AppleTV Pro" might be an option for where 'older' Mn Max's go to semi-retirement. Seems doubtful though. The game console market isn't growing at a rate that can support 4 large players. Also Apple has priced the Max so that it won't limbo down to "game console" price points. Finally, Apple is deeply unlikely to sell a "Apple game console" as a loss leader device. that isn't their standard practice to sell products ( not services , but complete products ) at a loss hoping to get some back end recover for the product out of something else. The primary business practice of the gaming console market is repulsive to Apple standard approach.


AppleTV+ is available built into so many TV systems that there is lots more pressure to keep AppleTV costs down.. not hundreds higher.


AppleTV is more tightly coupled to whether Apple can "turn around" HomeKit ... not mutating into a gaming console.

You okay? What does this soliloquy have anything to do with anything?