Foldables make sense for Apple to explore because even if it's ~5% likely to be able to be productized, the return is measured in the tens of billions.
Smart speakers were comparatively cheap and are probably profitable, so even if they're not a huge market they made sense.
AR/VR remains to be seen. Meta's still learning how to build hardware and operating systems and still learning how to sell actual products, so they're probably not the right ones to test concept risk when they already have so much execution risk. They also don't have the leverage or insertion point that Apple does if e.g. AR/VR turns into an alternative to computers & iPhones instead of an alternative to consoles. It may also be that Vision Pro is just a prelude to AR that ship in ~2035 but lays so much groundwork that nobody stands a chance at competing by the time the tech is ready, letting Apple secure the next trillion dollar product.
Cars were expensive and cancelled, that's the one that required Apple to stretch the most in terms of both brand and execution.
In your Google example, remember they invented transformers and yet did nothing with them. Any failure in Google's robotics efforts are likely due to Google having an absolutely horrible record of shipping and standing behind products. I wouldn't trust a Google robot because I wouldn't trust a Google product.
While Apple can do this, it isn't their typical mode of operation. For instance, they tend to accuhire companies specifically around getting an execution-oriented team for particular product areas, like developer tools (TestFlight) or weather (Dark Sky) or assistants (Siri).
This does mean building compelling product demos can determine how long a feature-under development can get extended.
> Foldables make sense for Apple to explore because even if it's ~5% likely to be able to be productized, the return is measured in the tens of billions.
Foldables make sense for Apple to explore also because even if foldable phones are a bad idea (and I kinda suspect they are), they make tons of other devices in different form factors which may have an entirely different set of trade-offs for flexible/foldable displays.
Yeah small M&A is great for advancing/derisking R&D for a given part or tech. They also embed / work closely with manufacturing partners. Nevertheless they're also doing a lot on their own R&D work; a bunch of Vision Pro stuff is homegrown and there's always new potential techs we never see that show up in patent applications showing their R&D is moving along at a healthy clip, e.g. this radar based tracking system from two days ago [1].
I think folks like Google and Meta talk a lot more about their R&D where Apple is very tight lipped, since part of Apple's magic is the part of R&D that's figuring out how to take janky half-working parts, polish them relentlessly, and combine the right ones together into something that makes sense as a product.
[1] https://www.patentlyapple.com/2024/04/apple-wins-patent-for-...
They can but do they? For all their flightiness on products, the company that actually does this is Google. They've poured money into very long term, questionable return projects at a rate Apple doesn't seem willing to do
> They can but do they?
Yes, they do.
Edit: someone below said laundry folding robot. I'd see that as useful.
I want a bot that can do laundry (load washer, load dryer, fold, put away), do the dishes (rinse, put in dishwasher, put clean dishes away, wash pots & pans), vacuum floors, dust, clean up messes, empty garbage bins, take out the trash, mow my lawn, trim bushes, clean tables, mop floors, make meals, cleans toilets and sinks and bathrooms.
Currently myself and my wife split these duties, and kids help a bit. But it's still a ton of work for us. I would love to offload all that and more to a robot.
As it happens, I turned sixty-seven today. While I am in good shape now, it's reasonable to assume that I might need personal care at some point in the not too distant future. A humanoid robot assistant that could handle many of those tasks would be great.
I have no idea when or whether that will become possible, though.
hold and carry things you give it (without spilling), and carry then set them down where you ask.
or pick things up from the ground for you.
Then that would probably be a great help for lots of older people.
I'm not that old myself, but I've seen lots of older people who are otherwise self-sufficient struggle with some of these things as mobility starts to suffer.
If it could also talk to you and give sass back, then that would also be a bonus.
You don't hire a maid service to clean up after you, you do it because they do a better job at all the stuff you really don't want to.
Why invent a dishwasher? You can have someone do it! Why have automated elevators? You can have someone do it! Why have automated farming systems? You can hire cheap Mexicans to do it!
We like to invent technologies to help make people's lives easier.
A robot that does it for me that I can buy for $15k and last a decade? Id be all over it.
No one is building a robot to dust your antique china collection anytime soon.
Of course, these are very hard problems to take on -- much harder than a "smart" light switch -- but the market is absolutely there.
> Everyone that doesn't enjoy cleaning, cooking, doing laundry, mowing the lawn, or taking out the trash would LOVE a home robot that really works.
- Dishes: dishwashers already do the majority of the labor intensive part.
- Laundry: the washer already does the labor intensive part.
- Mowing: if you don't trust robot cars, you shouldn't trust a moving robot with blades attached.
- Taking out the trash: I don't see buying a multi-thousand dollar robot to save me the 20 seconds it takes to walk the garbage out.
Even robot vacuums are kinda terrible.
Sure I'd like a personal robot butler to walk the dog and a dozen other annoying tasks, but apple isn't going to figure that out short of AGI or a quantum leap forward in more traditional approaches. What we're going to get is something like the Roomba, which was already useless in my tight house. I can't imagine too many things that would be relatively achievable that I would care about.
I guess I wasn't very clear above lol.
There are multiple companies that already sell automatic lawn mowers in the $1000+ range. Some you bury a boundary wire around the target area, others figure it out with cameras.
Breakthrough technology.
Because they're not; the exact opposite in fact. That Spot missing the shoe on the first grab, being loud, and taking up more space than a German Shepard (without the floofy companionship) is case in point how far away we are.
There are already products for infants that will prep baby food. It’s harder to do something more complicated than that. Meal kit type meals that take grocery store ingredients as an input would likely do well with the well to do 30+ crowd that is in the middle of having kids and home remodels and is upset at how much delivery restaurant food they eat.
I’m definitely not projecting ;).
I think there’s likely a market for just the iBabyFood maker let along coming closer to an automated chef that’s “smarter” than buying a meal kit.
My experience with smart vacuums is that the more “AI” they add to them the worse they get. I’ve switched brands a few times and have always preferred the dumber models. I’m sure old iPhone tech and some computer vision know how would make a “Roomba killer” possible but I don’t know how many people are going to by the Beats by Dre Vacuum. Maybe a lot?
As things become more solarized a cross “platform” energy management system would be useful. Load controllers exist but often they’re tied to solar batteries or EVSEs. In my case I could avoid the cost of a panel update if there was a good system for load control that also wouldn’t upset my family. I.e. if they need to handle a transfer switch they will not be happy. More like, “if I’m running the jacuzzi and it’s winter, gate the AC but not the heat pump. If it’s summer gate the heat pump Aux heat but not the heat pump itself”
Most load controllers are focused on making a generator or battery run critical loads and don’t really work for larger more electrified homes on 200A panels.
Well, there's always the all-in-one washer/dryer combo which also does auto-foldi...
>Edit: someone below said laundry folding robot. I'd see that as useful.
I mean there is the automated chef kitchen machine the size of a large fridge which cooks dozens of meals which all intersect with the unit-prepared ingredients. Essentially a compact home version of what you'll all soon be seeing at fast food joints all over.
I myself am flipping out about Flippy™!
But from a business perspective it seems unlikely to be successful. Apple could "easily" sell a luxury car and TVs and print many billions of dollars right away. They wouldn't need unproven tech -- they could just use their design skills along with vertical integration to have very nice products that people would want to buy. Apple should eschew some of Silicon Valley's obsessions, like self-driving cars, which most people do not care about at all, and instead focus on their strengths.
Apple is WAY different internally. For all its dreariness and corpo atmosphere (not allowed to talk to each other, teams siloed and laser focused on shipping a specific product) they have much clearer vision of what will sell and what not, usual company missteps (AR glasses) notwithstanding.
Spatial Computing/iVision is, for example, a claim in vr. It gives them some exposure to the market, some ability to extend & integrate their existing application/computing ecosystem into this medium. Ditto for all the other pieces; they're all integrative. Smart speakers work with airplay. iWatch works with iPhone works with iOS. The close integration lets them rebuff innovation in any other field: no one small can come along and build the next VR headset or the best watch to compete with Apple in any of these sectors, because no one can integrate like Apple. No one else has all the products. You have to have complete over the horizon horizontal control to keep your intense market power, and Apple is invested above all in there never being a chink in that armor, in making sure they can completely dictate the shape of all products by producing & owning all the products themselves. This is Apple.
Hence, Apple has to dabble everywhere. It maintains the most, it prevents real competition from forming, and it earns them a couple % revenue here and there to boot.
Expressing an entirely different brand of cynicism, I'd also ask: where else could Apple look to expand into? None of these sectors has been a runaway success. But it's not like Apple's missing the boat on some massive new tech that a huge new Total Addressable Market. It's been absent from Crypto and AI but generally it's just expanding wherever there's any opportunity, and why not when you have the cash & when any sector could become huge?
Apple is uniquely situated (cash surplus, deep tech + manufacturing expertise, consumer product + marketing expertise) to take on such multi-year product-oriented R&D. Even if one out of N (serious) attempts pays off, the scale of success will justify the amortized ROI.