[steveBK123]

Maybe Ternus is the kind of leader who could bring 0->1 innovation back to Apple in some form.

Maybe an Alphabet "other bets" type setup?

Or simply just taking more chances on completely new product lines that may or may not pay off in 5-10 years (like VisionPro). I mean when was the last big new bet previous to VisionPro? Wearables, with the Apple Watch in 2015 is probably it, a decade prior. (AirPods are huge but feel more evolutionary from their wired EarPods + Beats roll-up)

They could & should make new segment bets with genuinely new product lines more than once a decade. They have the capacity.

[pjc50]

For a while people were talking about the "Apple car". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_car_project ; seemingly they gave up on it because they realized that FSD wasn't quite going to work. I'm not sure why they wouldn't just pivot back to making a regular EV, it would still be guaranteed to sell millions of units at a premium price point by being a Tesla without (a) That Guy (b) build quality issues like panel gaps and (c) software promises that weren't delivered.

Perhaps the sticking point was where to make it.

Another entirely missing Apple product line: rackmount servers, with all the proper stuff like ILO management.

[steveBK123]

The other thing that always got me about the car was.. I wondered if the executives at Apple had all become too rich? Apple sells premium hardware but generally sells products in the 10s or 100s of millions of volume, so pretty mass market consumer good.

The car seemed to be solving the "what if we could make a $100k car"?

At some point of wealth people become so disconnected from normal everyday life of normal people that I suspect they lose the ability to identify problems & solutions that 200M consumers have/need.

I thought it was funny/telling that Ive's first product after leaving Apple was a limited edition collaboration project on a.. battery powered LED lamp for sailboats starting at $5k. He said it was inspired by the need for a durable lamp for his sailboat.

Not exactly bicycle for the brain / 1000 albums in your pocket / instant access to the world information kind of vibes.

[sroussey]

The Apple Lisa was the first GUI computer Apple made. Starting price $9995 (or $35,000 in today’s dollars).

Yes, Apple has gone down market these days, but their history is really premium.

Or they start premium and then move down market like they did when they released the Macintosh ($2500 then or $8000 today).

And the Mac didn’t do much more than the Lisa and had no software. (The LaserWriter didn’t come for another year, and with it a use case of desktop publishing).

The iPhone came out around $800 (taking into account the contract with ATT) when most phones were sub 100.

If we had the innovative Apple of yore it would push out crazy new and very expensive products and iterate while bring the price down or forcing competitors to compete on tech and bring their prices up.

Apple today is just too risk adverse.

[dpark]

> If we had the innovative Apple of yore it would push out crazy new and very expensive products and iterate

Vision Pro sells for >3 grand. Their strategy still seems consistent with exactly what you describe.

[sroussey]

Except the iteration on it. And people we aghast at the cost.

But one product. I don't know man, I think they became chicken of anything grand. It is not like it was a $35000 product.

If the Vision Pro was the Lisa, where is the Vision (or Mac version)?

They should have bought Lucid and poured their car tech into that.

They should have a MacPro with four to eight MacStudio blades inside.

Almost all their sales are $800-$4000 items. Where is the $35000 equivalent of what they used to do like when they released the Lisa? Too chickenshit these days. Good reason to be, of course. It is just not in their DNA anymore.

[dpark]

Apple sold more Vision Pros in the first year than it sold Lisas during its entire run.

> Except the iteration on it.

It’s only 2 years old and they’ve released version 2. I’m not sure the Vision Pro has enough market to keep making it, but it was a big new bet.

> And people we aghast at the cost.

Didn’t you say they should be releasing crazy expensive stuff?

> If the Vision Pro was the Lisa, where is the Vision (or Mac version)?

This isn’t really what happened with Lisa and Mac. Mac wasn’t the cheap Lisa. It was a totally different product addressing a different market and initially incompatible. The fact that Mac looked a lot like Lisa was driven by the fact that Jobs was yanked off the Lisa project by the board so he hijacked the Mac project and made it a similar looking system. This was internal politics, not a consistent strategy.

> They should have bought Lucid and poured their car tech into that.

Why? So they could be burning billions in capital on trying to break into a highly competitive, low margin market? This isn’t really Apple’s DNA.

> They should have a MacPro with four to eight MacStudio blades inside.

Again, why? What’s the market for this? This seems like a low value market segment. They don’t even make servers anymore because the market wasn’t profitable.

> Where is the $35000 equivalent of what they used to do like when they released the Lisa?

Lisa was a product of a different time. Computers cost way more in general. (The Macintosh was nearly $8k in today’s dollars.) It was also not commercially successful.

[steveBK123]

The car always made the least sense to me in that its the polar opposite of what Apple had evolved to. High-capex in-house manufacturing onshore in a highly regulated space vs capital-light outsourced contract manufacturing offshore of discretionary purchase consumer goods.

There are no successful car makers that outsource production, and even foreign car makers generally make cars onshore in US for tariff/political/regulatory reasons.

[twoodfin]

If Apple had gotten to the point of making a real product with “Titan”, all the signs were they would be engaging with a manufacturing partner in the US. Hyundai, most likely.

As for why they did it: Apple makes computers. If what you’re interacting with benefits from being a general purpose computer (under the covers or otherwise) Apple thinks they can deliver a superior experience and the margins that come with it.

I think they realized that the only computer in the car they cared about was the smartphone.

[steveBK123]

Maybe, but Hyundai would be antithesis of the Apple experience. Cars, even EVs.. and especially new products from new brands require a lot of after care.

Recalls, warranty items, maintenance, accident repairs, etc.

Hyundai still can't sort out a decent experience for their in-house luxury brand Genesis all these years later.

[121789]

> Apple makes computers

there's quite a bit loaded in your term of "computer" that doesn't really work. if a watch or headphones can eventually be called a computer, then a software-based car running on a battery can certainly fit under that definition.

[twoodfin]

Right, but clearly the tech & regulatory environment was such that the use of a general purpose computer beyond the infotainment screens wasn’t going to add enough value.

If self-driving had worked, and a fully vertically integrated tech stack could have controlled your “mobile experience” end-to-end, maybe a different story.

“Siri, take me to pick up Grandma from her flight. Let me know when she lands and send her an iMessage when we’re five minutes away.”

[121789]

I feel like your original comment was phrased as "Apple wouldn't build this", when in reality I think (we might mostly agree) is that they would build it ideally, but it might be too early or it might not be a good strategic business to be in.

Outside of the premium brand/build quality, I think Tesla was actually a successful proof of concept of what they could have done or could do. Computer/software-powered, battery-charged, integrated hardware/software, principled product tradeoffs, new retail model, advances in charging technology. Big parallels to the first iPhone. You even heard the same complaints from consumers when the first iphone came out ("I want my buttons/physical controls back", "The battery/range dies too quickly"). Apple may not want to be in the car business, but I think Tesla showed that cars could just be computers now

[greedo]

The way Apple funded hardware purchases for their "OEM" manufacturers makes it hard to really say they were "capital-light."

[hattmall]

An Apple car would be crazy expensive to develop and not really a guaranteed sell at all. There's millions of people that are very loyal to Apple of iPhone and wearable but going to an Apple car is a HUGE jump.

[SecretDreams]

They could probably do full development from scratch for under $10 bil if they were frugal and patient, or more if they want to go fast, and farm first product out to a manufacturing house like magna. This is their MO already (they don't want to own a plant).

In the current era, it's probably cheaper to develop a car then to build out sufficient AI datacenters - which is also a negative ROI segment today for AI companies.

[pjc50]

> In the current era, it's probably cheaper to develop a car then to build out sufficient AI datacenters

You're almost certainly right, and this is a good way to show just how remarkably big the AI buildout is.

[ghaff]

Quantum leap CarPlay/Siri could be a big win but, even as an Apple fan in general, have no particular interest in an Apple Car absent things like self-driving that blow everyone else out of the water--which seems a pretty big ask.

[dgellow]

Also, what would the margin be?

[MisterTea]

> Another entirely missing Apple product line: rackmount servers, with all the proper stuff like ILO management.

They tried. But the irony is MS is more deeply ingrained. I worked a short stint in a shop that no joke ran Windows server to manage a whole floor of Macs using Active Directory. The only other Windows PC was a machine hooked to a large format printer. I spoke to the admin (dyed in the wool Apple user) who stated that as much as he loves MacOS, it can not match the features offered by Active Directory like AD controller replication.

[pjc50]

> as much as he loves MacOS, it can not match the features offered by Active Directory like AD controller replication.

Sure, but that's a choice by Apple to not even attempt to offer such features, or integration with AD, or a comparable feature stack. That all comes under my "proper management features" handwave.

Even managing a few Mac Minis for CI is a massive pain. There's popups that can only be resolved by logging in on the desktop directly, which is completely unsuitable for proper "server" use.

[cmiles74]

I setup an XServe for a mid-sized office, Open Directory was Apple's solution at the time. It worked but my recollection was that they did it by emulating a lot of Active Directory by layering code over OpenLDAP. When it worked it was nice, when it didn't work it was a headache to figure out where the problem might be. The management tools really couldn't compete with Active Directory, it was a mix of incomplete UI and command line tools.

[simonh]

Nobody "uses" rack mount servers as artefacts, the way people use other Apple hardware products. Not in the same sense, so I don't think Apple can really bring much of the kind of value they usually do. In practice Apple data centres are Linux facilities, and that's fine. Maybe if they could come up with a really compelling reason to put Apple silicon in a data centre, but we can do that now with racked Minis or Studios.

https://www.sonnettech.com/product/rackmac-studio/overview.h...

[geerlingguy]

Apple's Private Cloud Compute is hundreds (probably thousands) of M3+ Ultra rack mount servers; they highlighted them in the Texas manufacturing plant video.

Just wish they'd sell those to end users, like the Xserves (which had ILO/IMPI in the end).

[pjc50]

The Apple silicon is really good! That would be the #1 reason to put it in a data centre, if it wasn't such a pain to manage a rack full of Minis.

[davedx]

Making cars is just a low margin business with a huge manufacturing footprint. They'd have been competing directly with Chinese EV makers. Dodged a bullet IMO

[dkga]

Yeah the car always seemed (to humble me) to be so… un-Apple. As in, the iphone was a success because of its aesthetics but also it solved a real problem, while creating a whole new market. But in the case of cars, cars are the problem.

[arcatech]

You're asking why they wouldn't pivot to making a regular EV, but I think the Apple way is to ask why they SHOULD make a regular EV.

They could do a lot of things that would make money. The hard part is figure out which ones to say no to.

[SecretDreams]

Apple public transit?

[prewett]

A car is a terrible idea for Apple. Apple doesn't make mechanical things, and it's a business with high capital costs and low margins.

[heroicmailman]

I'm honestly shocked they haven't done more with HomeKit and in-home devices. Give me a low-power, always-on, iPad-mini style display on my nightstand, on my fridge, on my kitchen countertop, as a desk companion... there are so many things they could do with that form factor.

They could even just offer me a dock or a mount as an accessory in most cases and it'd probably juice iPad sales, but they don't even do that. I'm surprised they haven't made more inroads into being a more serious Nest competitor because Apple could do it with relative ease.

[steveBK123]

I'd personally be a buyer for some home stuff, but the average normie consumer just doesn't care very much about home automation. IoT turned out to be sort of a nothing. I say this as an early adopter and continued user.. it just never broke into mainstream and it's been 15+ years.

You make a good point re: Nest. I am kind of a doomer on home automation market in that I have been an early adopter and it's been around 15 years, but most people just don't care about the space.

The home automation stuff people are interested in and Apple could attack is the doorbell/camera/alarm systems because what is out there is still genuinely a minefield of awful products. An Apple it-just-works premium offering would sell. And they have the physical store footprint to demo them.

[alistairSH]

I don't know, the majority of people I know (mostly upper-middle class white collar) have at least a HomePod/Alexa/Google smart speaker. And many have a smart thermostat and/or smart doorbell/camera. Part of the problem with IoT/home automation is a lack of consistency across devices - they all want their own apps. HomeKit is so close to making that easy - you shouldn't have to spin up HomeAssistant with a bunch of plug-ins to make this stuff easy for the end-user, but that's where we are (and that's decades after the first gen stuff rolled out). I'd think it was an easy sell to have lights, doorbell, security cameras, and smart speakers all connected easily.

Anyway, feels like Apple could throw some weight into this market, with Apple-branded devices, and "win" the market. At least for households that are already heavily invested in iDevices. Right now, I have to poke around and find a smattering of off-brand stuff and only about half of it is natively HomeKit, so I have to run HomeAssistant with a HomeKit bridge, etc.

[steveBK123]

What I mean by average normie doesn't care is that - no one is actually excited about the space.

There's also an argument the sales are limited. Instead of selling $1.5k worth of phone/tablet/headphone/watch per person every 3 years.. you sell maybe $$1k of home devices into a home that don't replace for 10 years. So $100/year per household vs $1500/year (3 person household).

I have had since the early days of IoT/homekit, various security cameras, doorbell, HomePod, thermostats, lights, switches, all that stuff. Honestly setting it up and maintaining it is more of a chore than an excitement. I upgrade when something breaks, begrudgingly. I do not breathlessly follow new releases ready to pre-order the new iteration. No one in the house really uses it except me, unless I happen to get up late / go to bed early and the lights need to be told to turn on/off.

In some ways it's not even that new technology wise. My dad had various light control panel via X10 and similar protocols going back to the early 90s if not sooner. Similarly was a sort of set-it-and-forget-it situation

[ghaff]

Yeah, I have a couple Alexas. One dating back to when it was a special thing for Prime customers. If they were to vanish tomorrow I wouldn't care. I had X10 as well. Once I got house properly rewired I didn't need them and last electrical rework I just told electrician no smart anything which he was perfectly cool with.

[JustExAWS]

It’s not hard to look at sales volumes of any of those to know that they don’t have mass market appeal - except maybe the Amazon devices and even Amazon cut jobs in that department and the managers there had to fuzz the numbers to get downstream revenue attributed to them.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hey-alexa-why-costing-amazon-...

I can’t find a publicly attributable source now.

[hibikir]

And yet the divisions that built those smart speakers have been reduced to almost nothing, because the monetization capabilities were minimal, as their common use cases are rather low value. The devices were priced quite low to try to gain marketshare, but it was a share to a market with minimal value.

The value of IoT that has been unlocked is, at best, minimal convenience. It's not unlike the metaverse: Large investment has been made, but there's no killer apps. I cannot even begin to imagine anything I'd consider high value all that home automation could do for me. The best case is like power windows in cars: Better than having to turn the handle like back in the days, and nowadays cheap enough to have 100% of the market, but, at best, a commodity, as nobody cares about which power window mechanism is being used.

Given how low the ceiling is, and how annoying an IoT's ecosystem's technical problems are, Apple shouldn't touch the market with a ten foot pole.

[toast0]

> I say this as an early adopter and continued user.. it just never broke into mainstream and it's been 15+ years.

I'm not an Apple fan beyond the Apple II era. But Apple has a way of taking early adopter markets and breaking into mainstream. x10 is from 1975, so there were probably people running home automation on Apple IIs, but...

The iPod was kind of early for portable mp3 players, but it wasn't the first. It made portable mp3 players mainstream.

The iPad wasn't the first tablet; Microsoft had been kicking around tablets that didn't sell for ages. But it's the only tablet with mainstream adoption.

Apple didn't invent HiDPI screens, but they brought them back to the mainstream.

Apple does have HomeKit to address home automation, but something more concrete could be nice.

[troupo]

> IoT turned out to be sort of a nothing.

Mostly because it's fragmented and Apple was nowhere to be found with their initially quite good and promising but then completely abandoned HomeKit.

In 2026 I still can't have my always-on supercomputer in the form of AppleTV to do anything with any of the devices at home. And Home app is extremely stupid, extremely limited, and requires a PhD in rocket science to figure out how to do anything with it (espceially since they just bolted on Shortcuts totally on the side).

[daotoad]

I think the home automation market is waiting on things that most people really want and a lower barrier to entry.

Alfred North Whitehead famously noted that "Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them."

What has household automation really given us so far? Dimmable lights? Whatever. If I cared, I'd already have rheostats on all my light switches. Thermostat? My digital thermostat is already good enough.

The thing that would sell like crazy is a robot valet.

In other words, the ability to navigate carelessly through your home, dropping items when you are no longer interested in them and have them "magically" return to their proper homes.

Such a thing would need to be able to roam around your home and pick things up and store them, and then retrieve them when appropriate (when asked or based on schedules and other automations). Maybe even do a little light dusting.

If you can make it take out the trash, fold laundry, and empty the dishwasher, you're looking at a ridiculously popular system. Even if it costs thousands of dollars.

Thing is, the tech isn't really ready to give us a household robot that can pick your jacket up off the couch and put it away. When we can do that, it will be huge.

Once we are there, we've grown so used to the idea of an adversarial relationship with the businesses that provide our services, that we are being spied on and our data sold, would we even trust the systems that would be needed to enable such products?

[mingus88]

Your points are why Apple isn’t entering that market.

Mounts, cases, smart locks, thermostats, bulbs…where is the “iPhone moment” for this sector? It’s all small beans now. Why would Apple want to compete here?

Personally I think any big moves in this area would be predicated on a next-level Siri companion. Stop futzing around with scenes, buttons, switches and pairing devices and just tell your house how it should work.

[steveBK123]

I often think the problem is Apple thinks too big. They are so big that for a product to move the needle it needs to be huge. Even the "failed" VisionPro was probably $2B of revenue. The "Home, Wearables and accessories" line is $40B of revenue.

Is Apple willing to trade-off some of the steady reliability of their earnings stream for product lines that may be real contributors 5-10+ years out is the question? I think under Cook the answer to that was no.

I think staying on this path will eventually lead diminishing returns and endanger them long term.

[losvedir]

Well Siri can't do all the cool home automation stuff if the "small beans" aren't already there.

[mingus88]

Siri first needs to fulfill the promise from the Apple Intelligence keynote. In this context, the small beans are things like setting timers and playing music reliably. AI was pitched as a true assistant who understood your whole digital life.

Nobody is going to hand control of their home to a system that was the dumbest smart assistant 14 years ago and is still behind everyone else.

It’s amazing to me that Apple announced vaporware that they didn’t know how to build yet. Nobody did, but Apple usually bides their time making it work before the reveal.

[hattmall]

Yeah IOT / connected home seems like the most reasonable area but they are probably waiting for the market to mature a bit.

[ricardobayes]

Yes, let's hope. And also let's hope that innovation will be more "iPhone" and less "Apple Vision Pro".

[ZiiS]

It isn't innovation if you don't get 99 Vision Pro's per iPhone.

[steveBK123]

Exactly - Apple needs to be making MORE bets, not LESS.

Apple VisionPro may turn out to be an iPod HiFi, iTunes Ping, eMate, Pippin, Newton, Macintosh Portable, Lisa.. etc.

Or it may turn out in 5-10 years to be a contributor like AppleTV, Watches, etc.

I don't even care which it turns out to be, I want to see them taking bets like this every year or two, not once per decade.

The fact that the list of "Failed Apple Products" returns a lot more stuff from 80s/90s/00s and very little from 10s/20s tells you how little they make bets anymore.

Most of the post-2010 "failures" are accessories/parts/iterations rather than completely new product categories.

[esafak]

I don't. That's how you get Google's graveyard. I want them to make a bet and nurture it, like they already do.

[ricardobayes]

The current mature tech company scene doesn't nurture this. If you're worried about performance reviews, layoffs and a 5k mortgage bill each month, that doesn't exactly put you in an innovative mood.

To get that 90s, early 2000's innovation, Apple needs to somehow think like a small company (this is near impossible) or actually be multiple smaller companies.

If the new CEO is smart, he could start in-house startups with Apple funding and infrastructure.

[steveBK123]

Having worked at companies with 200 to 100,000 employees.. I agree some of it must be organizational big-co thinking/kpis/perf/politics.

Creating some sort of internal incubator that encourages experimentation enough to innovate but with enough accountability to not be a purely academic R&D lab is difficult I'm sure.

This is why I mentioned elsewhere in thread - Maybe an Alphabet "other bets" type setup?

Not sure if people with closer experience has an opinion on if that model actually works our not. I suppose we have gotten some real world output from it right?

[trimbo]

You can choose not to ship the 99.

[steveBK123]

Shipping is part of the process.

Stated preferences vs revealed preferences.

Polling / focus groups vs sales.

You never really know what works until it works.

[pdpi]

You choose not to ship maybe 90 of those 99, because it's obvious before shipping that they won't work. The rest you have to ship before it becomes obvious they're not that last blessed one.

[momojo]

I'm all aboard the "Apple is simply waiting for the models to get dense enough to run on their hardware" hype train.

They're poised to consume the market for the "I want AI, but I don't want to sell my soul" demographic that is ever growing. Sure, the AI gluttony continues, and the vibes tell me people are only more and more willing to shovel their lives into the maw, but my thesis is people only value fire insurance after they've bought the house.

Put my down as bullish. Apple hardware is currently the worst it'll ever be, and gemma4 and qwen3.6 are the least intelligence-dense they'll ever be. Buy up taalas or spin up your own hardware. I'm confident Ive only scratched the surface of Ternus' 5-year plan.

[raw_anon_1111]

I would hope that Apple doesn’t follow Google’s lead. Google has the attention span of a crack addled flea and struggles to make great products

[mring33621]

Gemini is a great product

[raw_anon_1111]

I have used Gemini, I have a personal subscription to ChatGPT and a corporate $5000/month allowance to Claude.

How is it better than either? How is it doing as a revenue making product?

[butlike]

I don't like the name. Makes it sound two faced.

Yes, I get it's a marrying of DeepMind and Google Brain teams or whatever. Still think it sounds duplicitous.

[kristofferR]

Eh, depends on what aspect of it. It's a very bad harness and is comically bad at tool calling, but as a Siri alternative and Youtube summarizer it's pretty good.

As a chatbot it's unusable due to its broken web interface.