What I think Apple lacks at the moment, is any new just-mature technology on which to base its 'next big thing'. That's not to say Steve Jobs didn't have a huge roll in making all their previous products a big hit, just that there is nothing new on the scene at the moment with which to craft a break through tech hit.

So, they've thought it through and decided now is not the time... why? Why not get in there while Playstation is getting in there. I guess they aren't really a games company, yet the iPhone and iPad are both great for casual games. So maybe that's not the reason. Could be that there is something better in the pipeline (hololens) or that VR isn't consumer ready yet.

From Tim Cook's statement it seems pretty clear that they're going to wait until they can do AR glasses, which also fits their anti-nerd brand strategy. AR is more social, more human.

Although when the standalone Google/Oculus headsets hit next year I suspect people will be surprised how well they sell. The mobile VR app ecosystem should hit puberty around then. Assuming Oculus/Google can hit a $600 price point I think we'll see an iPod-like growth curve in that category, which would lure Apple into the market for sure.

and that means VR will have a larger market ?

If the car looks just as clunky as the Apple watch, I think people will not be very excited.

It looks like they are still working out the compelling solution to electric vehicles and so there's no reason to talk about it before they have a product ready.

So what you're really saying is that Apple is waiting for other technology companies to come up with something new so that they can take that idea, put their spin on it, paint it white and announce their next big thing.

It's not over yet, but they need a cultural shift back toward the light.

After the candy imacs i think much of their tech is bought.

Best i recall at least the iPod firmware, iTunes, the iPhone multitouch tech, and even Siri was startups Apple bought and internalized.

I'm also not sure in what way they continue to regress. Back when Jobs was alive, the only Apple product I liked enough to buy was a MacBook Pro. I greatly preferred Android phones back at that time; the early iPads weren't that great; the original MacBook Air was incredibly expensive for the hardware you got; I could never even take the old colorful iMacs seriously.

Now with Cook at the helm, in addition to the MacBook I also have an iPhone 7 Plus, Apple Watch, Apple TV (4th gen.), I subscribe to Apple Music, I use and love a 5K iMac at work, and I'll probably be getting the new MBP whenever it's finally available. To me, Apple's product line is far stronger than it's ever been before.

For a long period no other laptop manufacturer could top Apple when it came to build quality and durability. The MacBook Pros have definitely fallen behind in the past 4 years. I'm really looking forward to the rumored refresh at the end of the month.

What the people expect is rather a magic new product. The watch is merely a gadget. The iPod was a revolution. The Macbooks still are unreproduced on the market. The iPhone changed humanity (or at least it was the first to do so). Each wasn't an incremental improvement but a complete new line of products. Each didn't eclipse the previous line (the iPad didn't replace the Macbooks) but multiplied Apple's publicity.

At the level of Apple, innovation could be a VR tool that encompasses our life, a car, a teaching tool, or they might go to services and launch a global platform for press, privacy, work or start-ups. But the only reason I watch each keynote is that I don't want to miss the next time they innovate.

It seems a but off-topic, but I have to say it. I have a problem with this.

I know iPhone's changed the industry.

But seriously, it was only a phone. A few years ahead of its time.

You know what did change humanity?

Internet.

Cell Phones.

Not iPhones..

Apple's major contribution is making consumer-grade technology look at once both cool and friendly, such as by putting an icon of a smiling, happy computer on the boot screen of a Macintosh. Their greatest strength is in making objects that might otherwise seem intimidating or ostentatious into something hip and approachable.

That isn't to say they don't innovate. They clearly do. But that is not where their profits come from. Those clearly derive from brand image and network effects.

The technology learning curve is less steep with an Apple product, but the capabilities of the device eventually hit a wall, unless you are willing to undertake the additional effort of learning to jailbreak. Competing devices have a steeper learning curve, but they go all the way up to the hardware ceiling without such a big discontinuity. Rooting or re-flashing an Android device is still a leap, but it is much less of a shock to someone who has gone to that point. In comparing Apple and Android devices, I'd say that stock Android is more capable, but Apple is more user-friendly. Carrier-crippled Android devices reduce the functionality to that of an Apple device or less, without the mitigating factor of the superior user experience.

It turns out that doing all your user hand-holding with soft, warm hands has significant market value.

The problem with this line of thinking is it ignores the needs of the vast vast majority of current consumers. Most don't ever hit that wall you insist is inevitable. The ability to hit the hardware ceiling, via the investment of a steep learning curve is not attractive or necessary for most people. You are not a model consumer.

That seems like a relatively simple and common thing to do for an Internet-connected device. Is the hardware capable of doing that? Is the software capable of doing that? Does Apple corporate policy allow customers to do that on the devices they own?

Ok, granted, the average mobile user does not block ads. But how about moving photos off the device, or loading existing music files onto it. Can I plug in a standard USB cable and mount even a portion of the local storage of the phone as removable storage on the desktop computer?

But none of that functionality is as important and effective as phone calls. And almost all of that is based on the foundation of The Internet.

Wait, what? Making phone calls is almost always the least efficient last resort.

> And almost all of that is based on the foundation of The Internet.

Absolutely, but the Internet is dramatically more useful when it's always on, and always with you, and tied into sensors that help decide what you need.

BlackBerry gave us smart pagers. Microsoft gave us a microscopic desktop with all the charm and utility that implies. Neither were successful with the mass market because neither were particularly relevant to consumers.

The problem with saying iPhone was a few years ahead of its time is that iPhone defined the future. Without it we might still be divided between 10-20% of the user base with stylii and physical keyboards and WAP web browsers and the rest of us with feature phones.

Right. The nuances of a voice conversation is less efficient than what? A text message with some emoji? A Facebook poke? Tagging someone? If you're going to tell me that all these apps are the communication method of choice...

"The problem with saying iPhone was a few years ahead of its time is that iPhone defined the future. Without it we might still be divided between 10-20% of the user base with stylii and physical keyboards and WAP web browsers and the rest of us with feature phones."

Eh, my phone had a HTML web browser before the iPhone was a twinkle in the eye.

I can't remember the last time I used my phone to actually make a call. In fact, in 2012 making a call was only the fifth most-used feature of the average smartphone, following after internet, social media, music, and games. I'm guessing that in 2016, with the plethora of messaging apps and the huge push by Facebook and others to drive adoption of those apps, making calls is even less of a priority for people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/9365085/...

>Eh, my phone had a HTML web browser before the iPhone was a twinkle in the eye.

I bet it was a total piece of shit though.

The smartphone would have come to us eventually, but the iphone hastened it's arrival by more than a few years.

I've been a user of Android since Eclair. It wasn't good the. So I went back to iOS. I have many friends who are android only or iOS only. I prefer to use whatever is best at the time.

I'm currently typing this from a 6S+. I was looking forward to the Pixel but I'm not impressed. So I'll see what happens after the Pixel.

I really wanted the Note 7 but you know the story...

My point is that familiarity need not breed love.

However, given the amount of money on the bank they still have lots of time available still, so I still look forward to whatever they might think of doing next.

Their aluminum build is utter Chinese trash, built to the lowest common denominator of pennies per square inch. Yes, the iPhone 4 was smaller and a heavy clunker; but it was a sturdy device compared to their pathetically fragile materials as of late. And it's done to save maybe $10-20 on what could have been a quality build. Apple used to be about good hardware, but they've fallen into the same unapologetic Chinese manufacturing bullshit as everyone else.