Apple Rumored To Be Exploring Medical Devices, Electric Cars To Reignite Growth

An anonymous reader writes "The Apple rumor mill is alive and well. This time around the tech giant is rumored to be looking into exploring medical sensor technology related to predicting heart attacks, and might even buy Tesla. 'Taken together, Apple's potential forays into automobiles and medical devices, two industries worlds away from consumer electronics, underscore the company's deep desire to move away from iPhones and iPads and take big risks. "Apple must increasingly rely on new products to reignite growth beyond the vision" of late founder Steve Jobs, said Bill Kreher, an analyst with Edward Jones Investments in St. Louis. "They need the next big thing."'"

Comments

Take medicine away from the wizards

[xtal]

Apple could be in a position to leverage advances in sensing technology to make medicine cheaper and much more accessible.

They're also big enough to beat down the FDA and Wizard lobby (aka Doctors).

THz imaging is another wildcard in the non intrusive sensing market that nobody is talking about. Making this technology small and cheap is something a lot of very smart people are working on.

All this data fed into the cloud in real time and analyzed for problems? What's not to like?

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[i kan reed]

Yeah, medicine and the treatment of illness is a real global conspiracy alright.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[CanHasDIY]

Yeah, medicine and the treatment of illness is a real global conspiracy alright.

Keeping the cost of it high seems to be.

Next time you need a fairly major medical procedure, refuse to pay until you get an itemized bill - you'll be amazed at some of the bullshit they try and charge you for; $50 for the off-brand Sharpie they used to mark your skin, for example.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[ccguy]

Apple could be in a position to leverage advances in sensing technology to make medicine cheaper and much more accessible.

Low prices is Apple's motto all right

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[starless]

I think that;s probably more of a national conspiracy (in the US) than a global conspiracy...

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Anonymous Coward]

They're also big enough to beat down the FDA...

Not a chance. Medical devices are and always will be the most highly regulated industry.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[i kan reed]

I think you don't need a conspiracy to explain the broken conditions in the US. Just an obsession with free market solutions in a field that can never be a free market.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[CanHasDIY]

I think that;s probably more of a national conspiracy (in the US) than a global conspiracy...

I can't speak for places outside the US because I haven't been there, but I'd bet dollars to pesos that Big Pharma has it's claws in a few more governments than just the US'.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[rasmusbr]

All this data fed into the cloud in real time and analyzed for problems? What's not to like?

False positives? Imagine how much money doctors would make off of all those unnecessary visits.

Re: Take medicine away from the wizards

[Anonymous Coward]

pretty sure, that's right. i've seen GE-Ultrasound devices that sell for more than 100.000 â that are nothing more than a pc in a custom case and a sensor containing technology that has been on the market for 30+ years. sure, their software is pretty impressive, but still doesn't warrant that high of a price tag. the profit margins of some medical equipment must be astronomical.

Re: Take medicine away from the wizards

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah fucking licensed doctors and the FDA! Trying to keep people healthy without killing them by untested medical products is so last century!

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Anonymous Coward]

LOLOLOL. Since when has ANY Apple product been cheaper and more accessible?

Apple has always been one step behind in my book. "Playing it safe."

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, look at the current imbroglio regarding pharmaceuticals made in India making it into the US (or even existing). Look how hard they fight generic manufacturers, globally. Look at the pharma CEOs who outright say, "no [fking] way will we sell our cancer drugs in those countries". Or criminalizing US citizens who go to Canada or Mexico (or elsewhere) to get drugs or medical procedures done.

Re: Take medicine away from the wizards

[xtal]

This isn't about products. It's about access to your health data when you can trivially generate good quality long term trends.

A number of people don't think you should be able to access your own blood chemistry reports, DNA, MRI, charts, and other medical data.

Those are inputs into expert systems sometimes that very may reveal trends that could save your life. They are also inputs that can be analyzed offshore at very low cost - in different regulatory environments.

This isn't about snake tonic. This is about data - your data - and who will own it.

I welcome Apple coming to that party.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[jittles]

I think that;s probably more of a national conspiracy (in the US) than a global conspiracy...

I can't speak for places outside the US because I haven't been there, but I'd bet dollars to pesos that Big Pharma has it's claws in a few more governments than just the US'.

I highly doubt that the pen has anything to do with big pharma. They probably are very inexpensive for the surgical center. But they have so many people skip out on bills and insurance companies try and screw doctors over. My doctor wanted me to try a medical device for some pain I was having. He put it through to the insurance where my copay was going to be $500. The doctor sold it to me for his cost - $90. The reason for the discrepancy? He has to charge the insurance big time $$ just to recoup his $90. He doesn't even try and make a profit on storing the medical device. He does plenty of other things that are far more lucrative for him. It's just a huge hassle and drain on him to deal with the insurance.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[interkin3tic]

It is more successful and widespread in the US, yes. Possibly because the cult of the free market is so strong over here that we somehow think that healthcare is or can be a free market. But I'd argue that the conspiracy is indeed global. Pharmecuticals are obviously globalized. The US isn't the only place where drug patents are used to strangle more money out of sick people.

It's not global as in reaches absolutely everywhere to the same degree, but a lot of that is because it's not as cost effective to enact the same conspiracy in countries where they won't make as much of a profit.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[solios]

Apple markup may be the fattest in the industry but if anyone can kick the bottom out of medical device pricing while still making an enormous profit, they're the company to do it.

Re: Take medicine away from the wizards

[Herder Of Code]

Ok, consider that the province of Quebec market in Canada is tiny compared to the US but I had a friend developping software for ultra-sound devices. They were a small tech startup and they were working on real-time 3d viz of ultra sound when it was still an idea. The thing is they managed to sell their software to 15 hospital that's a LOT of hospital for most province in canada so they had good market coverage. Now it's not rocket science to calculate that the cost of 15 employees with a lot of math guy for signal processing, software engineer, etc means that 100 000 is actually CHEAP if they want to turn in any kind of profit. The amount of customer is so tiny and the dev costs are huge in comparison.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Herder Of Code]

I feel like a broken record but its an US thing. In Canada they just fix you up no matter what you have, they never cheap on the treatment because there's no bullshit like a max number of hearth surgeries of type X a year per hospital. If the hospital has to run a deficit to treat everyone they just will. Seriously, even for medicines we have free gov coverage and if you're employed, the employer has to provide a plan with no limit. The best part? Our economy STILL hasn't collapsed or is not in danger because of that. I never IN MY LIFE had to worry about being sick and not being able to get treatment. The only worry you have when you have to see a doc is: "Damn I'm going to have to wait 3-4 hours in a waiting room to see a doc, am I sick enough to want to wait that long.".

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a conspiracy, but probably different than you think. It's a conspiracy to make health care affordable unless you have insurance or government assistance. After you get that itemized bill, take a look at what your insurance pays.

1 - Sharpie (generic) Charged - $50 Allowed - $2.

Now how could any business stay in business when they are getting paid 1/25th of their invoice price? Easy, the invoice price is inflated 50X.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you guys are kind of a special case in this one.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It's not a free market, but not for the reasons you describe. Under the guise of safety, regulations in practice stomp competition. This is why medical tourism to (western-trained) surgeons in other countries can offer much cheaper rates, including travel, and comparable outcomes.

The difference is massive over-regulation that makes true competition difficult.

I'm all against snake oil because that is fraud. That's about 2% of what we're talking about. The rest just uses that and safety to jack up rates.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[newbie_fantod]

Apple could be in a position to leverage advances in sensing technology to make medicine cheaper

I wouldn't be betting on Apple to make anything cheaper.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[CodeBuster]

Keeping the cost of it high seems to be.

That's an uninformed position. There are many factors contributing to the high prices in US health care, but the heart of the matter is third party payer. Whenever you pay someone else to pay the bill for you, especially when the goods or services delivered are opaque as they are in health care, the cost tends to escalate. Combine this with government tax incentives that have historically tied health care to employment, adding another layer of payment indirection between the consumer and the health care providers, and the litigious nature of American society in general and you have a recipe for sky high prices. All of this began as an accident of history with wage controls during WWII and grew from there reinforced by decades worth of bad government policies. Incidentally, this is also why Obamacare will fail to control costs. They did nothing to address the underlying causes of high prices, they just subsidized the escalating prices so that people are even further insulated from the true costs of their care. If you don't believe that government subsidies raise prices then I ask you to explain how the cost of College has increased at several times the rate of inflation since the 1980s. Whenever the government opens the public purse to subsidize or pay for something prices tend to skyrocket. Who wouldn't raise prices if they knew the government would pay for it?

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't do it in the markets they are presently in, but they sure could do it in the medical device market! What a sickeningly saccharine outlook.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Anonymous Coward]

Keeping the cost of it high seems to be.

That's an uninformed position. There are many factors contributing to the high prices in US health care, but the heart of the matter is third party payer. Whenever you pay someone else to pay the bill for you, especially when the goods or services delivered are opaque as they are in health care, the cost tends to escalate. Combine this with government tax incentives that have historically tied health care to employment, adding another layer of payment indirection between the consumer and the health care providers, and the litigious nature of American society in general and you have a recipe for sky high prices. All of this began as an accident of history with wage controls during WWII and grew from there reinforced by decades worth of bad government policies. Incidentally, this is also why Obamacare will fail to control costs. They did nothing to address the underlying causes of high prices, they just subsidized the escalating prices so that people are even further insulated from the true costs of their care. If you don't believe that government subsidies raise prices then I ask you to explain how the cost of College has increased at several times the rate of inflation since the 1980s. Whenever the government opens the public purse to subsidize or pay for something prices tend to skyrocket. Who wouldn't raise prices if they knew the government would pay for it?

So, how does this explain that free public health care systems in Western Europe according to all comparisons get a lot more health care value per dollar spent than the US system?

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[davester666]

Um, there MOST DEFINITELY is a limit to specific surgeries in Canada. Sure, for obvious stuff there isn't, like broken arms or heart attacks, but cataract surgery, or pretty much anything that won't result in your short-term death is rate-limited. And lord help you if your arm doesn't set right, it takes years to see the specialist [and of course, your arm is fully bonded] about getting it fixed.

And then it also really depends on the doctor. I broke my thumb playing volleyball, and I had to repeatedly request that it be x-rayed, because I wasn't screaming in pain when he touched it so he just assumed it was sprained.

It's better than the US by miles, but it ain't magic.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Anonymous Coward]

Keeping the cost of it high seems to be.

That's an uninformed position. There are many factors contributing to the high prices in US health care, but the heart of the matter is third party payer. Whenever you pay someone else to pay the bill for you, especially when the goods or services delivered are opaque as they are in health care, the cost tends to escalate.

But what is the alternative -- if I'm having a hart attack my best course of action is to be a smart shopper, make sure I select the best offer before proceeding with being treated?

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Anonymous Coward]

Their margins may be the fattest of the industries in which they currently compete, but in those same industries their *prices* are inline with their competitors' when you compare like with like.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[CanHasDIY]

Keeping the cost of it high seems to be.

That's an uninformed position.

Says the person who writes an entire paragraph without a single source citation.

the litigious nature of American society in general

Complaining about malpractice suit awards? See, now I know you're full of it.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[the_B0fh]

When the iPad, the biggest surprise was the $499 price tag, no one thought it could be done at that price.

When the iPhone was introduced, the CEO of Blackberry claimed it was faked, it couldn't be done at that price, or any price.

And for years now, you couldn't build a MacBook pro equivalent (same or very similar parts) for less than what Apple sells.

So, Apple doesn't sell cheap stuff, but they do make it price competitive.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[i kan reed]

Please, the fact that a lack of immediate care from the first available source causes you to die is what stifles competition. You can't take your time and shop around when you're bleeding out on the floor. It doesn't work.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Goaway]

When they entered the mobile phone business, they kicked the bottom out of pricing for third party developers.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[CodeBuster]

Malpractice is a side dish, but it's not the meat of the problem. Seriously, Google health care and third party payer and you will receive an education.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[CodeBuster]

There are basically two choices. You can either eliminate all subsidies and allow the insurance market to become a real insurance market, like auto, fire, life or any other type of insurance where risk is priced at market rates OR you can go all the way with single payer and make the government the single buyer of all major medical services. Obamacare does neither of these things. It combines the worst parts of both paths into a disastrous course down the middle. It's frustrating because Obama has probably now blown any chance at reforms that would actually begin to address high costs. Even if more people end up ensured the costs are only being shifted onto the taxpayers. The costs themselves aren't being reduced, merely shifted and hidden beneath more layers of bureaucracy, subsidies and mumbo jumbo about more people being able to afford insurance while the national debt continues to increase like the odometer on the Starship Enterprise.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[CodeBuster]

if I'm having a hart attack my best course of action is to be a smart shopper, make sure I select the best offer before proceeding with being treated?

Every hospital in the United States is required to provide life saving treatment, regardless of whether you have insurance or not. That hasn't changed and it's not the issue here. The "heart attack" example is a liberal canard used to distract attention from the issue of costs and how best to address them.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[cduffy]

Every hospital in the United States is required to provide life saving treatment, regardless of whether you have insurance or not. That hasn't changed and it's not the issue here.

What does the requirement to provide life-saving treatment have to do with anything? It helps people who are so broke that they have no assets, but it doesn't help anyone else.

You have a heart attack, you get treated at a hospital which is required to do so; you're insured but not adequately, and you get a bill for $50,000 more than your insurance covers. Welcome to medical bankruptcy.

Now, how exactly are you supposed to shop around, rather than just taking the first-available treatment? Sure, they're required to provide that treatment whether or not you can pay -- but if you can pay, they're going to do everything in their power to be sure that you will.

In my wife's case, it wasn't a heart attack, but brain surgery -- and while she was in the hospital, her employer went out of business. Her insurance policy disappeared with them, and she was personally on the hook for follow-up care, wiping out years of savings.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[twotommylong]

PING! +1 (no karma to give)

Working for one of the top three Insurance (oops, I mean 'Health Benefits Management'), and one of the 'World Famous' Medical Centers (both in the same state, you can figure it out), and the largest Pharma company in the free world at the time (and having two small town country doctors in the family), I've seen the world from all sides, and it's not pretty.
BR> My quick summation of the problem... every HBM has a different definition of 'good' care, based on 'average' care models, which are highly fragmented and almost require an HBM to make sure the payer (re: for most... your employer) gets the lowest cost for average or better quality, based on nothing but prior outcomes, and use 'Steerage' and 'Preferred Provider' methods to extort health care providers into capitulation, and the term 'quality' really evolves into a Fast Food Metaphor, and the quality/$$ spent actually goes down.

Any payor Model, Gov't or HBM, that allows someone else to get between you and the MD to negotiate a price or what is expected for a symptom... is the problem. There should be no middle men in healthcare. Especially Middlemen paid by someone else with no skin in the game (my employer/pension-manager)

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[twotommylong]

And they are most effective when the consumer determines what 'value' 'quality' is.

And I do think they will just be a simple platform where they charge 30% (or less) to allow other companies that are actually in the healthcare business to use their platform to do their stuff, purely as a common app-platform/payment/identity/secure delivery conduit. If insurance (sigh... see my comments above;-) pays $19.99 for an app to monitor blood glucose from a BT enabled skin patch (or one that is part of a 'rumored iWatch'), then Apple could be in line to make $6 on every diabetic with a smart phone, and have a huge number of diabetics spend $600(phone) + $99(iwatch) on Apple Hardware (and $50+ month in bandwidth) just for the ability to have continuous blood monitoring. If proved viable to regulatory reviewers, this would be a huge win compared to comparable FDA approved standalone solutions much more in price, and much less capability.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[atlasdropperofworlds]

And yet, tablets as capable as the ipad for much cheaper abound. The iPad is still expensive.

And yet, the CEO of BlackBerry didn't exactly understand the cost of things, as the iphone was not the first touch-screen handheld.

And yet, Razer has created something more powerful than the MBP for less than the equivalently specced MBP. Also, Microsoft has released a piece of hardware specced like the Air, but with a high resolution display and a touchscreen, for less than the Air.

So, no.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Bing Tsher E]

Big pharma and the big medical device makers conspire to keep the regulatory overhead high. There is a buddy-buddy relationship between the companies and the FDA. They love being the only ones rich enough to innovate

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[CodeBuster]

Alright, I'm going to walk you through this step by step. I'm not trying to patronize here, but each step follows from and builds upon the previous step so it's important to understand all of the steps from start to finish. So with that in mind here we go:

1. What is the purpose of insurance, any insurance not just health insurance? The concept is simple enough, it's about offsetting risk. Suppose that we want to insurance against the costs of a certain adverse event, whether that be a major medical expense or property loss or whatever, that has low probability but high costs when it does occur. We can say that the probability that the event occurs is P and that the probability that the event does not occur is 1 - P. In theory, we should be willing to pay a premium amount, call it A, which exactly balances the amount of the loss, call it L, should the event occur. So the formula for the balanced equation is:

A * ( 1 - P ) = P * L

A rational person should be willing to pay the premium amount A (or less) that balances the cost of the adverse event should it occur with probability P.

2. Different people have different financial situations coming into the event. Some people might have substantial assets, be they houses or cars or stocks or bonds or maybe even their bodies themselves if they make their livings with their hands or their looks or even just what's in their heads. The point here is that the consequences of a bankruptcy are not the same for all people. A person with fewer assets to protect is not willing (or even able) to pay the same amount of insurance premium that a wealthier person with more to lose in bankruptcy is. In this case I'm viewing bankruptcy strictly as an expedient financial decision, apart from any moral considerations which are necessarily subjective. Companies declare bankruptcy all the time, so an individual should not allow moral compunctions to prevent them from taking advantage of the rights afforded them under the same legal system used by corporations. Which leads into the next point.

3. Each person or household must decided for themselves, based upon their own perceived risk factors, tolerance for risk and the dollar value of any assets how much insurance they need to carry. To use an example from the auto insurance business you can carry the minimum amount required by state law or you can carry extra liability, medical or property damage insurance for a higher premium. Some people choose to carry more insurance than the minimum required because they feel that the benefits of this extra insurance equal or outweigh the additional premium costs.

4. So the point of all this is that insurance is a risk pricing exercise, nothing more and nothing less. People inject emotion into the argument, especially when it comes to health insurance, but that does nothing other than to distract from the essential issue which is cost.

Now, to address some of your points:

What does the requirement to provide life-saving treatment have to do with anything? It helps people who are so broke that they have no assets, but it doesn't help anyone else.

It helps to the extent that your life was saved. I will grant you that debt or bankruptcy are not pleasant, but at least you're still alive (hopefully) after receiving treatment. I would argue that having your life saved counts as being helped, apart from how large or small the bill ends up being.

You have a heart attack, you get treated at a hospital which is required to do so; you're insured but not adequately, and you get a bill for $50,000 more than your insurance covers. Welcome to medical bankruptcy.

So what? If you have assets to protect then be smart and carry enough insurance. If you don't have assets or at least not substantial assets, buy what insurance you think you need or can afford and accept that bankruptcy is a possibility. Why the fear of bankruptcy BTW? In the corporate world bankruptcy is viewed as just another tool in the

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Applehu Akbar]

Apple might be more innovative in the medical device field if they began by marketing in India or China first, where there is less monopoly control of medicine. As soon as Western medical tourists there, who are becoming legion, start getting wind of effective Apple devices they can't get in their own countries, pressure for change will come from the general public.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Applehu Akbar]

In this case, it isn't even a secret conspiracy.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[LDAPMAN]

What are you smoking? The Razer is MORE expensive. NewEgg has the 8GB/256GB model at $2500. It has a smaller screen and a slower SSD.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Applehu Akbar]

Medical markups are so far out in the asteroid belt that the Apple markup is tame by comparison.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Bing Tsher E]

If 'like with like' means a tablet, then no. There is no non-Apple tablet at the store I visited yesterday that was more than half the median price of the iPads also in that store. And there was a good selection of non-Apple tablets.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Bing Tsher E]

You can count on the medical device manufacturers to insure that remains the case. There is a buddy-buddy relationship between the premier Medical Device manufacturers to keep the cost of entry into the market high enough to keep out competition. Small start-ups definitely need not apply.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[mattack2]

They're not "free". The people in Western Europe pay way higher taxes.

As for your actual question, maybe there are stronger government regulations.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[cduffy]

Before continuing this discussion, allow me one question, which I believe should adequately establish whether we have any reasonable chance of being able to reach an agreement on principals, even should we come to agree on facts.

Do you consider it appropriate for a risk pool to contain individuals with varying levels of inherent risk? Consider, for instance, the common case of a risk pool consisting of the set of employees participating in a large enterprise's health plan. Is it appropriate for individuals who are at an inherently high personal risk (on account of genetic predisposition, disability, medical history, or known or predictable factors) to be subsidized by those who are not, or should the pool be stratified into bands by inherent risk level, and thus serving only its traditional role of spreading the costs of unpredictable (and, hopefully, non-clustering) events?

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[the_B0fh]

Haters do not need logic or facts.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[the_B0fh]

And yet, tablets as capable as the ipad for much cheaper abound. The iPad is still expensive.

Sure. There're $49 tablets. So what? They don't have the performance of the A7 chip. When you are talking about comparable performance, the tablets all cost about the same. But iOS has additional advantages. It comes with hardware encryption. Only Samsung S4 and other "SAFE" rated Androids have it. It comes with 2-3 years of updates. Things that have value. Funny how fandroids all just ignore that.

And yet, the CEO of BlackBerry didn't exactly understand the cost of things, as the iphone was not the first touch-screen handheld.

So? Fact is, that was what Blackberries used to sell for. That's what my Palms used to sell for.

And yet, Razer has created something more powerful than the MBP for less than the equivalently specced MBP. Also, Microsoft has released a piece of hardware specced like the Air, but with a high resolution display and a touchscreen, for less than the Air.

So, no.

This thing? http://www.newegg.com/Product/... at 6.58lbs, what are you smoking, to compare it to the MB Air? Hell, it's even heavier than my MacBook Retina.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[torsmo]

In my country, the pharma cos have to bribe the doctors, rather than the govt. to get the sales of their medicines up. It is really convoluted, actually. If they don't pay a particular doctor, he/she will not prescribe that particular manufacturer's medicine to their patients. The doctor, after receiving payments (and this is not a one time, but recurring payment), will shove that particular company's medicines down the throats of his/her patients. After an year or so, it'll be the turn of a competing manufacturer to bribe the doctor, during whose approved period, no other manufacturer's stuff will be prescribed. And the cycle continues. This is true for private practitioners, resident doctors in hospitals and govt. funded clinics. The pharma companies have to bribe the local pharmacies as well, else they won't stock their stuff. Fucking evil, I say.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[CodeBuster]

I think that you and I are coming from different world views. You talk about things being appropriate or inappropriate but those are value judgments that I cannot make for others. I favor freedom of contract for both insurers and insured. The insurers should be free to offer stated policies with enumerated benefits at stated prices and both parties should be free to negotiate, take or leave it as they see fit. The only thing that matters is that two private parties, whether individuals or groups of individuals, came together in a mutually acceptable agreement. The details are neither my business nor my concern. The market would decide what policies are offered at what prices and what the details of those policies would be. Some regulation would still be necessary to ensure that contracts and prices were honored, but by and large it's my opinion that this type of system would serve most people best and that it would be a fair way to price risk.

I understand that you might disagree with this take, but as I've said I believe that the purpose of insurance is to accurately price and thereby mitigate risks, whether they be to health, life or property. Some people would like to see the insurance system used for other purposes, in addition to providing insurance. For example, they may like to see the insurance business molded by government into an alternative form of income redistribution or a parallel system of taxation in addition to providing insurance, but I do not favor such schemes.

If you're really interested in reading a much better explanation of how a market system for health care would work then I suggest the following article:

How to Cure Health Care

Re: Take medicine away from the wizards

[Anonymous Coward]

Compared to development costs, they aren't that astronomical. The market for scanners (you're clearly talking about ultrasound) is orders of magnitude smaller than that for PCs or tablets. So the cost per device includes a non-trivial proportion of R&D expenses. The market for CT and MRI is even smaller, because they need specialist staff and/or facilities.

Re: Take medicine away from the wizards

[Anonymous Coward]

Another point that anyone who's had post-Jobs reunions with Apple's excellent (cough) post sales customer service ("we've had your money now f... off" pretty much covers it) might want to consider. Do you really want tech with such a support ethos in your healthcare?

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[cduffy]

I care more about equitable outcomes than about freedom of contract. As such, I do not expect our positions to be reconcilable.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Anonymous Coward]

With AAA, you negotiate the price of a tow truck BEFORE your car breaks down. Even if you didn't, enough companies care about their reputation to not want to engage in too much gouging.

I pay double for plumbers AFTER HOURS that specialize in fire-supression sprinkler repair. But that cost is minor compared to whatever disruption/emergency that is in process.

Anyway, the destruction of the market in medical care was accomplished via the AMA and over 200 years of work. Abortion was a big bugaboo because midwives and moon-tea peddlers competed for their delivery services. They suffered and black medical colleges were largely driven to extinction.

Anyway, I doubt you "kan reed" let alone research the issues to realize there hasn't been a free market in medicine in the lifetime of anyone alive regardless of whether or you not you find it desirable

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[lsatenstein]

Um, there MOST DEFINITELY is a limit to specific surgeries in Canada. Sure, for obvious stuff there isn't, like broken arms or heart attacks, but cataract surgery, or pretty much anything that won't result in your short-term death is rate-limited. And lord help you if your arm doesn't set right, it takes years to see the specialist [and of course, your arm is fully bonded] about getting it fixed.

And then it also really depends on the doctor. I broke my thumb playing volleyball, and I had to repeatedly request that it be x-rayed, because I wasn't screaming in pain when he touched it so he just assumed it was sprained.

It's better than the US by miles, but it ain't magic.

===
When you go to the hospital emergency clinic, they do a triage. If it looks like you could come back in a week, you are in queue 3. If it looks like you are going to die on them, you are admitted. If you have fever, or similar problem, like a broken arm, you are in queue 1 or queue2. Queue1 people get in and looked at on a fifo basis in around 15 minutes per person. Queue2 is also fifo, but broken arms take longer to fixup, so your wait may be longer. And of course, there is queue jumping.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[CodeBuster]

How can there be equitable outcomes in a world without enforceable promises?

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[cduffy]

A world in which not all promises are enforceable is not a world without enforceable promises.

Neither history or the world we live in presently has any shortage of examples of power or information imbalances resulting in individuals being unable, on a large scale, to effectively represent their own best interests.

But then -- we're continuing a conversation I expect we both know will be ultimately unproductive. Surely we can find a better use of our time. :)

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Plumpaquatsch]

If 'like with like' means a tablet, then no. There is no non-Apple tablet at the store I visited yesterday that was more than half the median price of the iPads also in that store. And there was a good selection of non-Apple tablets.

Yeah, there's a lot of Chinese made Android tablets at the ten cent store.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[cduffy]

Well. I really shouldn't be letting myself getting sucked into this, but.

A world in which freedom of contract is unhindered is a world in which Shelley v. Kramer would have been differently decided. I prefer not to live in that world.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Plumpaquatsch]

And yet, the CEO of BlackBerry didn't exactly understand the cost of things, as the iphone was not the first touch-screen handheld.

If you want to bring up the LG Prada (that was actually presented after the iPhone): that one cost 50% more than the iPhone.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Plumpaquatsch]

And yet, Razer has created something more powerful than the MBP for less than the equivalently specced MBP. Also, Microsoft has released a piece of hardware specced like the Air, but with a high resolution display and a touchscreen, for less than the Air.

So, no.

This thing? http://www.newegg.com/Product/... at 6.58lbs, what are you smoking, to compare it to the MB Air? Hell, it's even heavier than my MacBook Retina.

Well, it weighs almost exactly what the last 17" MacBook Pro weighed, has has similar specs too, but is 1/10th of an inch thinner - and has no optical drive. Yeah for a lame copy of an Apple product Apple stopped selling almost two years ago.

Re:Take medicine away from the wizards

[Plumpaquatsch]

LOLOLOL. Since when has ANY Apple product been cheaper and more accessible?

Since 1976.

Apple buys tesla??

[ganjadude]

please dont do that apple, I really like Tesla. I dont want apple to be able to remote kill my car if i dont accept their EULA

Re:Apple buys tesla??

[Anonymous Coward]

yes. Lets all log into I tunes to update our tesla so we can drive. If we drive somewhere apple does not like, say google headquarters, it will just shut down

Re:Apple buys tesla??

[LongearedBat]

+1 Agree!

Re:Apple buys tesla??

[StripedCow]

Finally a car-analogy that isn't!

Re:Apple buys tesla??

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry! Your car won't shut down in the middle of the road. Only when you try to start it will it check with Apple if you're approved to drive. (And don't worry! The week long approval process will seem so painless!)

(I'm referring to Apple blocking the Blockchain app and the week long developer approval process before any changes to apps can be made. Even if its a critical bug fix.)

Re:Apple buys tesla??

[Rozzin]

please dont do that apple, I really like Tesla. I dont want apple to be able to remote kill my car if i dont accept their EULA

This sort of thing already made its way into the car industry years ago with OnStar; VW just introduced something similar called "Car-Net"; I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla's cars already include something similar, too.

Re:Apple buys tesla??

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to worry about the remote kill switch. Electric car batteries die quickly and you won't be able to replace it.

Re:Apple buys tesla??

[Twinbee]

Don't worry, there's not a chance of that happening, at least not until Elon Musk gets the cheaper next gen cars out en masse, and probably not for a long time after that.

I keep up with the Tesla news very closely, and that guy is on a mission, and its primary goal is not money. He REALLY wants to rid the world of CO2 emissions as much as possible, and he'll do anything to see that goal is met.

Re:Apple buys tesla??

[atlasdropperofworlds]

Don't forget the $100/year license paid to Apple to drive your Apple car.

Re:Apple buys tesla??

[Bing Tsher E]

I keep up with the Tesla news very closely, and that guy is on a mission, and its primary goal is not money. He REALLY wants to rid the world of CO2 emissions as much as possible, and he'll do anything to see that goal is met.

So here in Indiana, if I owned a Tesla I would somehow be prevented from charging my Tesla with coal-derived electricity? There isn't much non-coal electricity around here, sadly.

Re:Apple buys tesla??

[Anonymous Coward]

please dont do that apple, I really like Tesla. I dont want apple to be able to remote kill my car if i dont accept their EULA

Shit man, you're worried about your car? What about if you don't accept the EULA for their pacemaker!!!

Re:Apple buys tesla??

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO Tesla is basically the Apple of the car industry. They are putting a high quality product with an interesting feature that is still a few years away from the mass market for a premium price on their own stores/dealerships while also creating as much proprietary tech as possible to lock down costumers in the future when they lose their tech advantage. Musk probably understands Jobs better than all Apple executives together.

Re:Apple buys tesla??

[Anonymous Coward]

How many phones has Apple killed remotely? Now, how many has Google?

Keep ignoring facts like the good little troll you are.

Re:Apple buys tesla??

[badkarmadayaccount]

Coal plant + electric car is still more efficient, so still a win.

I can't wait

[marcello_dl]

- "Yes honey, I've seen the new 2019 iPad but I think that Microsoft stuff has gotten way better after being acquired by Lenovo, I think I'll buy the Officepad 10 HHHHHHHHHNNGGGGGGGGGGGG!"

Not a good sign

[Akratist]

It always seems that when companies start trying to branch out into wildly dissimilar industries, it's a sign of trouble within the organization. Do what you do well, figure out how to do it better if things aren't going how you'd like them. Don't try making sushi if you've always sold donuts.

Re:Not a good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

But they look so tasty!

Re:Not a good sign

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It would appear that success can lead you into error in either direction:

You've got the companies that ossify, refusing to do anything even slightly disruptive to their cash cows, which they contentedly milk until the world changes around them. Then you've got the companies that (whether because of internal hubris and megalomania, or because Wall Street Demands It) decide that merely making tons of money isn't good enough, and anything less than 'malignant tumor' growth rates are utterly unacceptable, which swiftly forces them into all kinds of ill-advised ventures(especially likely to be ill-advised if they are trying for hyper-growth and feuding with an internal ossified faction that refuses to let any novel project that threatens the old ways go forward, shackling all the ill-advised tie-ins to really ill-advised requirements).

Neither path tends to end well. The ossified end up being fossilized, in the sense that requires you to be dead first, sooner or later, and the metastatic end up, at best, as holding companies that happen to own a bunch of unrelated businesses, and, at worst, lost in a morass of increasingly unfocused and risible ventures, and pockmarked with money-sink departments.

Re:Not a good sign

[jo7hs2]

Oh God, what have you done! You just inadvertently gave Dunkin Donuts their next disgusting product idea. As if donut shop tater tots and donut sandwiches were not disgusting enough. They make pretty good donuts (for a chain joint) and need to stick to that, but folks just gotta keep giving them bad ideas,

Re:Not a good sign

[The Grim Reefer]

It always seems that when companies start trying to branch out into wildly dissimilar industries, it's a sign of trouble within the organization. Do what you do well, figure out how to do it better if things aren't going how you'd like them. Don't try making sushi if you've always sold donuts.

Yes, but it doesn't always work out so well when they simply stick to what they know. Look at Microsoft. Yes, most of their attempts to branch out recently have been costly mistakes. But their core OS business is slowly eroding away due to them being too short-sighted regarding phones and tablets. Their biggest money maker is Office, which was something they branched out into early on.

Look at oil companies. At one time they vented natural gas when they drilled a well. Now it's valuable. Some are investing in solar tech too. It big oil were to stick to just oil, they will eventually be out of business.

Re:Not a good sign

[maccodemonkey]

It always seems that when companies start trying to branch out into wildly dissimilar industries, it's a sign of trouble within the organization. Do what you do well, figure out how to do it better if things aren't going how you'd like them. Don't try making sushi if you've always sold donuts.

Google's in a similar boat. Self driving cars, robots, barges in the San Francisco bay...

If Apple bought Tesla, they should just buy a controlling stake to keep Google away from purchasing Tesla, and then let Tesla keep doing it's thing. Make Apple's tremendous software design resources available for Tesla, but don't try and micro manage.

But as I said, everyone is doing the same branching out. I agree it's not a good sign, but at this point, we've run out of innovation steam on mobile and most of PC, so companies are just playing games to try to build monopolies instead of winning customers through new products.

At least Apple has the iWatch and a few other rumored products to shake things up a bit.

Re: Not a good sign

[Subratik]

I don't believe that for a moment. It's foolish to think an opportunity to grow in a different area is a sign of warning. They have tons of cash and are preemptively trying to find new markets before the stockholders bleed the company's profits dry because they aren't consistently beating estimates by huge factors anymore. Apple has almost 50% of their revenue coming from iPhone, that is a huge amount of risk for a company to have in an ever increasing market. It was only a matter of time.

A great example is google. Google is in tons of different industries and started in 1 major one. Do they look like they're failing anytime soon?

I think at this point you might argue that all of their products and services are similar or at least align with one goal. To which id say, cars are the next thing to be bombarded with tech that's now affordable for even the cheapest models. Gone to a car show lately? Every damn car has a damn back up cam and some form of a HUD. I think it only makes sense that they buy a successful company who already put up most the risk by starting a new company in a market place dominated by old hats. Tesla is now reasonably successful. Why not buy a car company and spread the brand to the auto industry, god knows apple would rather have huge margins and an extended brand rather than selling their software to gm for pennies on the dollar.

Re: Not a good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

A great example is google. Google is in tons of different industries and started in 1 major one. Do they look like they're failing anytime soon?

Yes do they do look like they are failing. In 10 years I wouldn't be surprised to find them out of business.

Re: Not a good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you're right. I hate those privacy killing fuckers.

Re:Not a good sign

[sycodon]

Apple is at the mercy of the bean counters and the MBAs now. All that matters is to meet the next quarter's numbers. Vision, excellence, etc. are no where in the picture.

Re:Not a good sign

[jellomizer]

Also some companies greatest growth happens when they buy into a dissimilar industry. It is a risk, sometime you win, where your brand name somehow complements the product and sometimes it fails miserably.
Also there are a lot of products owned by other companies that you have no idea who the real company behind it is.

Re:Not a good sign

[unimacs]

I have no idea this is what Apple is really doing or not but branching into other industries makes complete sense IF you can provide something that's not already being provided.

The mp3 player was not an industry that Apple was involved in but they saw a way that they could leverage their expertise and connections to provide a better user experience than the existing companies in that market did.

Same with the iPhone. Are you suggesting that it was foolish for Apple to go into those markets?

The brick and mortar Apple Stores were also something that industry experts were skeptical that Apple could pull off given the failure of other attempts computer manufactures had with their own retail stores. But it's been a huge success.

My point is that they have a decent track record in doing this sort of thing and I think they correctly realize that the smartphone market is maturing to the point that it's going to be much harder to differentiate themselves there.

Re:Not a good sign

[StripedCow]

Like Google buying Nest.

Re:Not a good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's worked for IBM over the years. OK, maybe not IBM employees, but investors/speculators and executives.

IBM is not a tech company anymore. It's a business services (money extraction) company that happens to occasionally provide working technology solutions for its customers.

Re:Not a good sign

[cheesybagel]

One thing is to look at the next paradigm shift in your own industry. i.e. products that will replace your product at its target market application. Another wholly different thing is getting into a market which has *nothing* to do with your market. Then again this is Apple. Their current CEO is not a guy with any sort of college education or background into actually working in computer hardware or software products. He may actually try a dumbass ITT move like that.

Re:Not a good sign

[cheesybagel]

IMO that works well when your strength is in manufacturing products. This is why Lenovo's aquisition of IBM worked. They are a vertically integrated company which can have much lower costs of manufacturing than IBM ever could all they needed was a brand to sell their own products. Apple is the complete opposite of that. For me it seems like utter nonsense to enter a different market like that.

Re:Not a good sign

[cheesybagel]

The difference is Apple did that with internal resources and minor acquisitions. Plus the products themselves were not that different from what they were used to building its still consumer electronics. To call a car a consumer electronics product is nonsensical.

Re:Not a good sign

[ArcadeMan]

I'm still wondering which we're going to see first: a donut with pizza fillings* from Dunkin Donuts or a custard-filled stuffed crust from Pizza Hut.

* a Hot Pocket isn't a donut.

Re: Not a good sign

[Immerman]

If Google intends to sell cars that would probably be a good idea, but I've seen no evidence that they have any intention of doing so, and it would probably be pretty foolish to move into something so far outside their core expertise. They're a data-processing company, I think it's far more likely that they end up licensing "cyber-chauffeur" technology to car companies who haven't been able to come up with their own viable solution.

Now Apple on the other hand, they're primarily an industrial design and interface company. I could see them taking a stab at the automotive market, especially as electrical vehicles open the door to eliminating most of the mechanical engineering headaches. Medical devices too - the technology is mostly mature, but the interface tends to be terrible. Plus there's the whole currently mostly nonexistent "medical tricorder" market that is being explored by various tiny groups of researchers and humanitarians, often using the standardized iPhone platform as the basis.

Re:Not a good sign

[Arker]

"It always seems that when companies start trying to branch out into wildly dissimilar industries, it's a sign of trouble within the organization. Do what you do well, figure out how to do it better if things aren't going how you'd like them. Don't try making sushi if you've always sold donuts."

The same thing is true of computer programs - the good ones have a clear job they do well, and when they start with the featuritis is when they go bad.

Re:Not a good sign

[sootman]

Well, good news -- the only "not a good sign" you're seeing is from these idiot analysts who, collectively, are wrong about 90% of the time when it comes to Apple. If you care to hear what Apple themselves have to say...

WSJ: Apple has never made a billion-dollar acquisition. Google is snapping up everyone including your old friends at Nest. Does this alter how you think about bigger deals?

Cook: We've looked at big companies. We don't have a predisposition not to buy big companies. The money is also not burning a hole in our pocket where we say let's make a list of 10 and pick the best one. We're not doing that. We have no problem spending ten figures for the right company that's the right and that's in the best interest of Apple in the long-term. None. Zero.

But we're not going to go out and buy something for the purposes of just being big. Something that makes more fantastic products, something that's very strategic -- all these things are of interest and we're always looking regardless of size.

WSJ interview with Tim Cook, 2/14/2014

If you've been paying attention to Apple for the last 15 years, you know they aren't usually stupid, panicky, or reactionary. Remember when everyone was saying the *had* to make a netbook? And then they didn't, and then that market segment dissolved? And instead they made the iPad and took over the world? Good times.

Or how about RIGHT NOW, when everyone is saying they *have* to make a bigger and/or cheaper phone, and they aren't, and they're STILL taking 87% of the market's profits -- almost THREEE TIMES as much as their next-closest competitor? (Samsung, 32%)

Believe it or not, there are some smart people still in that place. The brains and vision didn't disappear with Jobs. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to get pageviews or sell you something. I'm not saying they'll be the leader forever, but they're not going away anytime soon.

Re:Not a good sign

[Rhywden]

Nokia did that just fine (for a pretty while at least). So, branching out doesn't have to spell doom.

Re:Not a good sign

[Grishnakh]

Branching out from OS software to office software isn't that big a move. Branching out from oil drilling to capturing natural gas (which is produced from oil drilling anyway) is very natural, and branching out into other energy sources isn't such a huge leap either.

But WTF do mobile devices and cars have to do with each other? Not much. Sure, modern cars (esp. the Tesla) do have computers integrated to provide information to the driver, but there's a lot more to a car than just the driver-facing computer, including a lot of parts that are heavily regulated as they're safety-critical. Apple doesn't even manufacture anything last I checked (they outsource it all); how can they hope to run car factories?

Re: Not a good sign

[Grishnakh]

I'd like to see both Apple and MS out of business, and Google severely downsized back to a search engine and not too much more.

Re:Not a good sign

[unimacs]

Remember that these are rumors. The Tesla thing would be a reach for Apple but there some interesting parallels between the two companies. Electronics and computers are increasingly central to the operation of modern vehicles.

Anyway, I'm talking more about the medical device rumor. And my guess is that they aren't initially going to be medical devices in the traditional sense. They'll be fitness/wellness enhancing devices along the lines of what Fitbit/Polar and to a certain extent Garmin produce.

Re:Not a good sign

[UnknowingFool]

Well given Apple's track record, their purchases have not really been that far from they normally do. Sometimes why they purchase a company isn't clear until much later. For example, FingerWorks was a primarily a peripherals company when Apple purchased them. Through patent filings later, it was clear that Apple was after their patents which was the basis of their multi-touch technology. When Apple bought PA Semi and later Intrinsity there was speculation about whether Apple would go into the ARM market. Yes and no. Apple wanted to design their ARM processors for their own products and not necessarily sell them to others. Also with Apple it seems like they do not spend a lot of money relative to Microsoft or Google. Their largest acquisition since Jobs came back was NeXT at $404M. Considering this was the basis of OS X, it doesn't seem like an extravagant purchase. Contrast that to Google who just paid $3.2B for Nest and MS who paid $6.3B for aQuantive.

Re:Not a good sign

[UnknowingFool]

Yeah, but the more sensible thing I read was that Apple met with Elon Musk to discuss some sort of project that they wanted either his input or help. Maybe even a joint venture. That seems more plausible to me that they are talking to Musk, not Tesla.

Re:Not a good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

A car is a mobile device, afterall. In fact, it is largest mobile device commonly purchased by consumers.

Re:Not a good sign

[jellomizer]

Apple does have have a strong strength in manufacturing.
A lot of their product designs are actually rather hard to manufacture Those curved metal that are near seamless, glass cut to nice curves. To have the product sold at nearly the same cost of its competitor who have products that are much simpler to make (molded plastic). Apple cannot create and sell a product that will take a craftsman days to make they need to be mass produced.

Re:Not a good sign

[Grishnakh]

Maybe, but there's a lot more to a car than the electronics. A mobile phone or laptop or tablet has nothing but electronics (unless you count the battery or the hard drives (laptop only)). Cars have a big electric motor which needs its own control system and cooling system, wheels, hydraulic brakes, suspension, steering, air conditioning, a chassis designed to be survivable in crashes, airbags, seats, and lots of other mechanical bits and pieces. Yes, there's a lot of electronics in a modern car, but there's lots of mechanical stuff too, and that stuff is all life-critical. This isn't the case in a tablet computer. The electronics in a car have to work in all weather conditions, at all times, with no rebooting. If your tablet craps out and has to be rebooted, it's not a big deal. Trusting a trendy, form-over-function consumer software company to make mission-critical systems and software and worse yet survivable chassis structures is a disaster waiting to happen.

Re:Not a good sign

[Bing Tsher E]

Apple can't even design a robust compartment for a removable battery in small devices. They skirt around it with the iDevices by not having a removable battery; the battery compartment for the Newton was an absolute disaster. Case design for battery compartments is really challenging. When I worked for a medical device company and our main product used a generic 9V 'transistor' battery, battery contact issues were one of the main return issues.

 

Re: Not a good sign

[Bing Tsher E]

And Android completely opened and available to the Open Source community.

Re: Not a good sign

[Bing Tsher E]

I could definitely see Apple selling dashboards for cars. That would be about it, though.

And the dashboards would kinda suck, and only be available for medium-expensive cars (not really expensive cars, nor the affordable cars made 'for the rest of us.')

If you had to place Apple in an 'automotive' brand bracket, they're about Buick class.

Re: Not a good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes do they do look like they are failing. In 10 years I wouldn't be surprised to find them out of business.

There's a significantly better chance of you expiring and being eaten by maggots than this ever happening. I would get your things together.

Re:Not a good sign

[Bing Tsher E]

Apple's designs are sort of like the Pentium Pro processor. It was hellaciously overpriced by Intel, so they said 'what the hell' and put about $60 worth of gold (at today's prices) into the case, for no real reason.

PPro processors are high grade gold ore today. Old Apple mobile stuff won't be worth anything when a decade old, of course. It could be crushed and used as pavement filler, I suppose.

Re:Not a good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like you know jack shit about IBM. Their hardware and software divisions still account for the majority of the revenue.

Re:Not a good sign

[drinkypoo]

Google's in a similar boat. Self driving cars, robots, barges in the San Francisco bay...

I found your comment by searching for self driving cars, because that's precisely what Apple should get into. They should build a network of electric self-driving cars. What would be really slick is if they could carry batteries for other cars, and perform swaps autonomously in a parking lot somewhere so no one had to watch them hump. Apple is great at the one-button interface, so a car you can't drive is ideal for them to get involved with.

Re:Not a good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

Always fun to visit Slashdot and see what's going on in the echo chamber... It's like visiting some parallel universe where Linux took over PCs in 2002, Apple is currently almost out of business, and everyone types all their documents in LaTeX.

Not saying that Apple's stock won't drop in the future (there is a lot of potential of regression-to-the-mean), but the statement below:

when companies start trying to branch out into wildly dissimilar industries, it's a sign of trouble within the organization

as it applies to Apple is entirely unsupported and without merit. Apple is still doing very well in the industries they are in (still high margins, products continue to be highly rated and sell well), and has tons of spare cash to cast a few lines into other areas. If anything, the correct complaint about Apple's performance as a company has been that they haven't branched out enough! Hence the push for stock buybacks, constant articles about iWatch, iTV, blah blah blah...

But anyway, Apple has always kept its cards close to its chest, so it's possible that nothing will ever come of either of the things mentioned in the article.

Re:Not a good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

It always seems that when companies start trying to branch out into wildly dissimilar industries, it's a sign of trouble within the organization.

Are you talking about Apple - the computer, music distribution, and cell phone company? ... ?

Re:Not a good sign

[Paradise Pete]

Yeah, but the more sensible thing I read was that Apple met with Elon Musk to discuss some sort of project that they wanted either his input or help

Maybe so, but the guy he met with is Apple's acquisition guy.

Re:Not a good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the skin complexion of the average Pizza Hut worker, custard crust can refer to something completely different.

Re:Not a good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

So Apple should become an advertising agency helping other companies sell junk to idiots?

captcha: righter

Re:Not a good sign

[Plumpaquatsch]

Google's in a similar boat. Self driving cars, robots, barges in the San Francisco bay...

If Apple bought Tesla, they should just buy a controlling stake to keep Google away from purchasing Tesla, and then let Tesla keep doing it's thing.

Why should Apple keep Google from spending billions upon billions to buy company after company that doesn't make them any money?

Re:Not a good sign

[Plumpaquatsch]

Their largest acquisition since Jobs came back was NeXT at $404M. Considering this was the basis of OS X, it doesn't seem like an extravagant purchase. Contrast that to Google who just paid $3.2B for Nest and MS who paid $6.3B for aQuantive.

Actually, their biggest purchase was $14 billion for a minority share in -beat- Apple.

iHeart u too!

[BlazingATrail]

Coming soon, iHeart ! Apple fanboys can line up every year to get their latest iHeart, non user repairable, not upgradeable except from Apple. Sorry, Flash no heart for you!

Re:iHeart u too!

[Anonymous Coward]

We're in 2014, who still cares of Flash anymore?

Re:iHeart u too!

[ArcadeMan]

Yeah, these days it's all about X-Men and The Avengers.

Re:iHeart u too!

[Bing Tsher E]

I sort of ignore Flash. It's nice that it's there on my Galaxy Tab and my cellphone, for the occasional times when needed for a website, but it's easy to ignore for the most part.

There are still a lot of shitty little web games that use Flash, but mostly that stuff is being replaced now with game apps on tablets.

Just image the iCar problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Customer: The car broke down and wont start.

Apple: your driving it wrong!

Bullshit

[Bogtha]

the company's deep desire to move away from iPhones and iPads

iPhones and iPads make Apple an obscene amount of money and they are in a controlling position in the market. It should go without saying that they don't have "a deep desire to move away" from them. Add new product categories? Sure. Move away from iPhones and iPads? Nope.

"Apple must increasingly rely on new products to reignite growth beyond the vision" of late founder Steve Jobs, said Bill Kreher, an analyst with Edward Jones Investments in St. Louis. "They need the next big thing."'"

Growth is a bullshit metric. A company with one customer can grow their user base 1000% by getting to ten customers. A company with hundreds of millions of customers can't grow like that. Growth naturally slows as a company gets larger. Only bullshit artists looking to get page views or prop up a stock price blather on about how Apple need the next big thing to continue growing. They don't need to continue growing. They are raking money in faster than just about any other company. Trying to grow at the same rate as they have done in previous years is not only a ludicrously unachievable expectation to place on them, it's probably bad for business if they were stupid enough to try. Apple's core strength has always been a small, focused product family.

Re:Bullshit

[Xest]

Right, what you say is spot on, but unfortunately it doesn't map to the reality of what the stock market deems a "successful" company - one that grows and hence expands it's share price. Too many investors are of the buy low, sell high variety, rather than the dividends variety, so if you don't want to cater to that mindset you should probably just go private else you can only expect to carry on hearing people tell you you're a "failure" because you only pulled in $20bn last quarter instead of $22bn.

Yes it's silly, yes it's stupid, but it's unfortunately the reality There are actually many barely known but absolutely massive companies that stay private for precisely the reasons described here though.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, business no longer works on the principle that "making money is success." It works on the principle that "meeting arbitrary investor expectations is success."

This is a large reason why the U.S. no longer has an economy that works for mutual benefit of society, but rather has become a process of those with wealth sucking money out of the populace as quickly and efficiently as, literally, they can imagine.

Re:Bullshit

[tlhIngan]

iPhones and iPads make Apple an obscene amount of money and they are in a controlling position in the market. It should go without saying that they don't have "a deep desire to move away" from them. Add new product categories? Sure. Move away from iPhones and iPads? Nope.

No, but they realize that while the cash cow is iStuff, it won't be that way forever. Because just a little over 5 years ago, the cash cow was... iPods. Now iPods sell even less than Macs.

Oh yeah, 5 years before THAT, the hot cash cow was Macs.

The impetus is on Apple to find a new cash cow because it's obvious that iPhones and iPads aren't going to be generating the profits they used to.

The smartphone market is maturing, and the writing's on the wall - the money is still there, but it's diminishing. It's why everyone is trying everything to see what would stick. Like smart watches.

Apple knows the money from iPads and iPhones is drying up. They're looking for the next big thing because it's corporate suicide to keep relying on the old.

And one thing Apple does know - if the next big thing ends up hurting the iPad and iPhone sales, so be it - cannibalization will happen, sooner or later. better to embrace it than suffer from competitors eating you. (This happened with iPads - the low end Mac sales have deteriorated as people realized iPads suit them better than a low end Mac. Likewise, iPhones have pretty much killed the iPod).

Re:Bullshit

[cheesybagel]

Actually they need a new product. Their profits in the mp3 player market have basically evaporated and the smartphone market is getting commoditized as would be expected to happen in any mature market. They may grow for a couple of years more as they finally get contracts with telecoms operators in China and India but then its gonna go down. Especially when the competition can manufacture a superior products that costs less. I expect them to shrink to 10% of the market just like happened to them with PCs. The problem with a company with a leader like Steve Jobs is that when the leader dies it isn't easy to replace. There are just some things you can't teach someone to do. You have to BE someone. Their current CEO is a bean counter.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not only the people looking for a quick buck, but pretty much every reporter or writer covering the financial industry -- who in turn convince the naive casual investors to go with "exciting" stocks rather than solid investments. If your company has been doing well for years, paying out a (relatively) high dividend but without the story of possible lottery ticket-like growth, only people who spend a lot of time or money on research will ever hear about you.

Re:Bullshit

[Bogtha]

Because just a little over 5 years ago, the cash cow was... iPods. Now iPods sell even less than Macs.

Because everybody who used to buy iPods now buys iPhones instead, which does everything an iPod does and more. They didn't lose sales, they moved their customers over to a more expensive product.

Are you saying that Apple have a product waiting in the wings that's an entire replacement for an iPhone but earns them more money? If not, what's your explanation for the idea that they want to move away from iPhones and iPads?

Oh yeah, 5 years before THAT, the hot cash cow was Macs.

It still is. Their Mac business is growing, and it's growing even better than investor predictions - they just had one of their best quarters ever for Macs. They sold 4.1m Macs Q1 2013, investors predicted 4.6m for Q1 2014, and they sold 4.8m. The fact that their iOS business eclipses their Mac business is simply due to the sheer magnitude of their iOS business. It doesn't mean that their Mac business is hurting.

The impetus is on Apple to find a new cash cow because it's obvious that iPhones and iPads aren't going to be generating the profits they used to.

Apple's profits are growing and this is mostly fuelled by iOS devices. Apple sold more iOS devices in the past quarter than in any previous quarter. People have been saying that the iOS business is drying up for many years. iOS device profits continue to rise regardless. If the fact that they've just set a new record for number of iOS devices sold in a single quarter isn't enough to convince you that that the iPhones and iPad business isn't "drying up", what would?

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's ethos has long been that if you don't cannibalize your sales, someone else will. They are looking to make sure that whatever DOES start eating into laptop/ios sales is something they produce, not someone else. Why is this a bad thing? Didn't we all poo-poo Intel for resting on their laurels with P4/netburst and letting AMD wreck their world for several years?

Re:Bullshit

[Kartu]

iPhones are like 15% market share worldwide, iPads quickly heading into that direction.
They might have sweetest part of the pie, but it's still strange to hear about "controlling position".
If anyone is in such position in that market, it's google.

Re:Bullshit

[scarboni888]

The 'cash cow' was Steve Jobs.

You look at every single time Apple came back from the dead:

- Turning the business loser Lisa into the succesful Macintosh phenomenon
- Coming back from Next and bringing what would eventually become iOS and the iThingy phenomenon

That was Steve Jobs.

There ain't no bringing him back this time and Apple's never been anything than a flash in the pan that was fueled by Steve Jobs business savvy.

Granted it will take some time but they will fade into the obscurity they were headed toward everytime Steve Jobs bailed that ship out.

It's a fanboy club. Nobody who does any serious office work has any of their servers running on their backbone. It's Windows, *NIX, or mainframes. Apple's a joke.

Re:Bullshit

[Bing Tsher E]

"Apple must increasingly rely on new products to reignite growth beyond the vision" of late founder Steve Jobs,

Also: Steve Jobs' vision? Medical devices? Wouldn't he just say eat lots of fruit and meditate?

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall this same argument being made for Microsoft when windows 7 was out and why they weren't growing as fast as apple was when apple had the much smaller mac market share, despite them keeping their 90% of the pc market.

Re:Bullshit

[Plumpaquatsch]

iPhones are like 15% market share worldwide, iPads quickly heading into that direction. They might have sweetest part of the pie, but it's still strange to hear about "controlling position". If anyone is in such position in that market, it's google.

Yeah - if only Google had any control over the Android forks that make up most of the growth.

Apple Car Troubles

[Manfre]

Any issues with the car will probably be blamed on the driver. "Your car doesn't accelerate properly because you're holding the steering wheel incorrectly."

Re:Apple Car Troubles

[Anonymous Coward]

Any issues with the car will probably be blamed on the driver.

Just like tesla.

Re:Apple Car Troubles

[Anonymous Coward]

Testing is already underway. Here we have some footage of the first iCar Genius Bar visit. Looks like it didn't go well.

Re:Apple Car Troubles

[CanHasDIY]

changelog for CiOS 3 9/21/16 update:

- iPhone-based ignition system bugfixes - now requires latest iOS build to start
- iTunes integration update - hitting the horn button no longer plays random track from Library
- Emergency braking converted to premium service, requires new EULA agreement

Re:Apple Car Troubles

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure. Are you objecting to using facts to dismember a dishonest article? It sounds like you are, but objecting to the facts doesn't make any sense.

Re:Apple Car Troubles

[Anonymous Coward]

The facts are that tesla and all electric cars are pieces of shit. tesla just blamed their piece of shit car on the driver.

Re:Apple Car Troubles

[Anonymous Coward]

Any issues with the car will probably be blamed on the driver. "Your car doesn't accelerate properly because you're holding the steering wheel incorrectly."

This is different than what Tesla does now?

Re:Apple Car Troubles

[Plumpaquatsch]

Any issues with the car will probably be blamed on the driver.

Yeah, unlike with Google's driverless cars (TM) - there it's the owners fault.

pace makers the next big thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

surely you want then to be small

and dont call me shirely

"And Rather Than Invent It"

[Anonymous Coward]

"We'll acquire it."
The default strategy for organizations with more cash than brains...

I want my iImplant

[coolmanxx]

iHeart, iLungs, iKidney, iPancreas --- OS upgrades will never be the same!

Re:I want my iImplant

[Immerman]

Don't worry, fewer than 1% of users suffer "blue screams of death" as a result of any given non-optional automatic update. And such users can usually be rebooted after installing an iBrain and any other iSelf modules not already purchased. WARNING: behavioral changes may occur, and any proclivity to destroy other electronics to gnaw on their microprocessor "brains" should be reported immediately.

Re:I want my iImplant

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the most obvious one? iEye?

Re:I want my iImplant

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the most obvious one? iEye?

Captain, is that you!?!

Apple Cars

[time_lords_almanac]

Since Apple likes to believe they should have control over what software we are allowed our mobile devices, does that mean If they made cars, they would belIeve they should have control over what roads we can and can't drive on?

Re:Apple Cars

[the computer guy nex]

"Since Apple likes to believe they should have control over what software we are allowed our mobile devices, does that mean If they made cars, they would belIeve they should have control over what roads we can and can't drive on?"

no

Re:Apple Cars

[ArcadeMan]

I'd rather trust Apple to have up-to-date software for their cars than any other company out there. Remember cars with Windows CE?

Re:Apple Cars

[unimacs]

Who controls the firmware that's on your car today?

Not so stupid as it many people here seem to think

[vikingpower]

Remember that HP once was almost only known as a producer of measurement equipment. Then they went into the computing hardware business big time. They, too, needed the "next big thing". As much as I may despise Apple, from a corporate-strategical point of view such a move sounds like making a lot of sense for Apple.

Buy samsung instead

[goombah99]

Samsung's market cap is $184B. Apple has $150B mostly in foreign cash reserves. They should buy samsung. Then they would be able to integrate all the samsung products down to washing machines. Samsung makes mostly high quality products that have large market shares but lack their own style--mostly their style is a copycat of some other brand like Braun or Apple. So combine the modern bauhaus, apple, with a price leading high quality manufacturer. No need to look for the next big thing when you could fix so many other things just like apple did with 1) computers, 2) must players 3) printers, 4) phones 5) cameras.

Re:Buy samsung instead

[msauve]

...because in 2006, Samsung clearly copied the design of Apple's 2010 iPad. Maybe Apple should buy them just for their time travel technology.

Re: Buy samsung instead

[Anonymous Coward]

way too much products for a "focused" apple.
it would make sense somehow - i recently advised my parents to buy a series 6 samsung tv and have been hating the cumbersome, ridiculous, slow and generally badly designed user-interface ever since. it's good hardware, but the software is one of the worst i've seen in a consumer product for years.

Re:Buy samsung instead

[Immerman]

>you could fix so many other things just like apple did with...

They've certainly spearheaded great refinements, now if only they'd stop insisting on incorporating their own brand of intentional breakage into them I'd consider actually buying their products.

Re:Buy samsung instead

[ganjadude]

OR, samsung simple added tablet parts to their existing digital photo frame? the photo frame was out prior to the ipad

Re: Buy samsung instead

[Anonymous Coward]

yup, their products become outdated by software products after 4-5 years. but it has to be said, that the hardware is usually still wirking after that - which isn't true for a lot of other gadget manufacturers (my iphone 4 is still going strong, despite it sometimes becoming pretty slow since i did the ios7 update - on the other hand, my brother's galaxy s, which came out shortly after the iphone 4, is a constantly crashing & malfunctioning piece of ragged plastic that hasn't seen an official software update in years)

Re:Buy samsung instead

[ArcadeMan]

And 2001: A Space Odyssey was made decades before digital photo frames.

Re:Buy samsung instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it looks like a TV for that matter. But no one would mistake a tablet functionality for a picture frame. thank you for playing. But You said it with such conviction you made everyone think you actually believe the opposite, perhaps you should go into acting.

Re:Buy samsung instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange how Apple's "largely derivative" enclosure design looks like nothing else on the market when it is first released. Stranger still that it stays distinctive until *after* their competitors have had the opportunity to see said enclosures and release new products.

Re:Buy samsung instead

[psycho12345]

You do realize, by the way Korean conglomerates are structured, that it is completely impossible for anyone to buy Samsung? You would have to buy out the entire Samsung Chaebol, which includes a large bank, large ship building company, large insurance company, and the electronics company, which combined represents like 1/5th of Korean GDP

Re:Buy samsung instead

[Bing Tsher E]

It would be fun to see Apple try. Samsung would be farting out apple fumes for weeks afterward.

Re:Buy samsung instead

[Plumpaquatsch]

And 2001: A Space Odyssey was made decades before digital photo frames.

And the TV device shown in it looks exactly unlike an iPad in almost every possible way.

Apple has never been a growth-first company

[the computer guy nex]

If Apple cared about selling more widgets, they would have created lower-priced versions of all of their products years ago.

Analysts want Apple to run the company their way, and Apple is refusing to do it. Good for them in my opinion.

Re:Apple has never been a growth-first company

[timeOday]

The problem for Apple management is, how to justify sitting on a vast hoard of cash instead of returning it to shareholders. There is simply no defensible way to spend $160BN developing the next generation of iDevices. Apple is currently getting rid of some of it through dividends and stock repurchases. But most major investors don't really want dividends nor to sell back their shares; they already have capital they don't know what to do with and just want it to grow as fast as possible. I am largely agreeing with your comment, except "don't do anything with the money" isn't really an option, let alone the best option. Personally I think it's endemic to our economy - wealth has become so concentrated that those who have it can't figure out any useful way to spend it, and those who would spend it don't have it, resulting in economic slowdown.

Re:Apple has never been a growth-first company

[the computer guy nex]

"The problem for Apple management is, how to justify sitting on a vast hoard of cash instead of returning it to shareholders. There is simply no defensible way to spend $160BN developing the next generation of iDevices."

What is wrong with returning it to shareholders? They own the company. Apple started up a decent dividend and the largest share buyback in history. This is the right move.

"wealth has become so concentrated that those who have it can't figure out any useful way to spend it, and those who would spend it don't have it, resulting in economic slowdown"

The Job Participation rate is in freefall, causing the economic slowdown. We need to find ways to encourage businesses to open new facilities (and hire workers) here in the US. Allowing a company like Apple to bring profits back to the US without being double-taxed would be a great start. Right now Apple has $200b in cash and needs to take new loans to give money back to shareholders. Why? Their money is stuck overseas.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries...

Re:Apple has never been a growth-first company

[Plumpaquatsch]

Keeping some cash to survive an actual slump sounds like a sound business idea - imagine if Apple made Amazon like "profits" with the cash reserves of Amazon. Only morons would stand for that.

17 Macbook Pro

[TzTerri]

I would be happy if Apple just started selling a 17" Macbook Pro again. Would be even happier if they started selling screens with matt displays again.

Re:17 Macbook Pro

[Anonymous Coward]

The new retina screens are pretty damn close to matte. I went from a 2005 iBook (matte) to a 2008 Aluminum Macbook (glossy), then to a 2013 Macbook Pro (retina). The difference in glare is incredible. The retina isn't quite as glare-free as the iBook was, but given how much brighter the screen is, it is unquestionably the easiest-to-read computer I have ever used in bright light conditions. There is a large window behind my desk and I haven't had any problems at all on the retina screen.

Re:17 Macbook Pro

[TzTerri]

I agree, the new anti glare scenes are a huge improvement or the glossy screens. I still prefer my Apple 30" monitor for doing color critical work though. Mostly I'm just upset about Apple dropping a 17" model. I finally had to upgrade from my 2007 17" Macbook Pro and ended up buying a used 2011 17" Macbook Pro rather than downgrade to a 15" screen.

BS

[Anonymous Coward]

"apple is exploring...." - bs. it has been pretty obvious, at least for the last year, that the killer app/selling point of the rumored iwatch will be medical sensors - apple has been hiring engineers with expertise in that for months now. there's no exploring, that product should be pretty far right now.

regarding tesla: cook has had a meeting with musk about ten months ago - maybe about integrating ios in the car, maybe about battery technologies, maybe about something else - nobody knows for sure. hat's it, just another sensationalist apple story.

(and, no, they don't need "the next big thing". sales are still growing and they are sitting on a huge mountain of cash they have to get rid of anyway)

Re:BS

[Bing Tsher E]

The way I read it is that Apple is scrambling to find a reason for anybody to want an iWatch. So they're looking at medical applications as a possible reason people would buy one.

The problem is, 'killer apps' aren't usually designed in by hardware vendors. They happen more serendipitously. Maybe Apple will get luck. But this venture looks like an act of grasping for something, anything, to get a market for some next-gen product.

Reports of Apple relevance are greatly exaggerated

[erroneus]

With the passing of Jobs, I'm pretty sure everyone must realize that Apple's relevance is simply fading away. I know this sounds like a troll and perhaps in some ways it is.

Despite the fact that I disliked Jobs and all that, there's no denying he was extremely effective. Despite the fact that I think he help the company from overtaking the business marketplace, he probably did it for extremely good reasons. He probably kept the company from making huge mistakes and from being hugely liable for all sorts of problems which Microsoft lives with daily. Legacy code support, business and government needs and all that. While there is no doubt Apple has that problem, Jobs managed to keep those things in check and their liabilities limited.

And anyone familiar with Apple's history will recall what Apple did when they canned Jobs. They almost died because they did everything the normal business way. It didn't work. They weren't tooled to make it work. And Jobs is definitely not coming back (though I have no doubt some are still holding out hope) this time. Will there be a next great cult leader of Apple? Doesn't seem to be. So what's ahead besides the public getting tired of incremental advancements which seem to follow other products which have been successful with incremental advancements? Don't know, but I suspect anything to do with anti-privacy and personal identification research will bite Apple in the ass in today's political climate. The whole planet is still pretty angry at the US and US companies. Pushing that stuff forward now seems like it will not go over very well. But what do I know? I'm just a guy on Slashdot.

Apple doesn't have a magic-man any longer. True? Apple pushes a non-Microsoft way to the masses. True? This has always been a disadvantaged position in business and often even in personal computing. True? Apple's fandom kept it going for a while but was floundering until Jobs brought it all back but it wasn't about computers any longer. True? Now Apple is essentially "consumer electronics with a legacy of personal computer stuff." True? The mobile market, the one which Apple unquestionably played a highly visible and major role in its present-day and contemporary form, has MATURED. True? (Apple seems to think so or else it wouldn't be looking to watches and other things which, IMHO are doomed to impractical failure.) A matured market has had many players and competitors but the main players are decreasing in numbers. I just don't see where Apple will continue to fit in.

Suggestions for Apple? Get into more personal data storage and computing. Don't just let things connect together in limited, specified ways. Get into personal storage environments -- personal clouds. Create a wireless standard for storage so that users can keep their data secure and available (a tricky balance which almost seems mutually exclusive) and synchronized.

I think personal computing needs to be UI adaptable while providing access to most or all apps and data the user wants. But there is no universal wireless universal storage scheme yet. (You know, like a wireless server in your pocket or backpack or whatever?) Put R&D money there. This isn't only what people want, it's what they need. Apple has momentum and is capable of doing it. But will their own corporate greed prevent them from trying to keep control of user data the way everyone else is? Or will they get pushed aside when someone else steps up and says "you now control your own data and you can have it any way you want." I know lots of people want all of their pictures, all of their videos, all of their music available to them all of the time and at the same time, they don't want someone else controlling or containing it for them. Especially now.

Cars?

[bluegutang]

Remember when Apple was the company that came out with revolutionary new products and the rest of the industry followed them?

Apparently, now it's Google.

(Oh, and who would trust Steve Jobs' company to make their medical devices? Yes I am speaking both to his general approach to ethics, and the circumstances of his death.)

Re:Cars?

[jittles]

Remember when Apple was the company that came out with revolutionary new products and the rest of the industry followed them?

Apparently, now it's Google.

(Oh, and who would trust Steve Jobs' company to make their medical devices? Yes I am speaking both to his general approach to ethics, and the circumstances of his death.)

Hmmm... I thought Creative made the first portable MP3 player. And I know that Apple didn't invent the PC.

Re:Cars?

[tgd]

Remember when Apple was the company that came out with revolutionary new products and the rest of the industry followed them?

Apparently, now it's Google.

(Oh, and who would trust Steve Jobs' company to make their medical devices? Yes I am speaking both to his general approach to ethics, and the circumstances of his death.)

Apple:
- Not the first smartphone
- Not the first touch phone
- Not the first MP3 player
- Not the first GUI
- Not the first All-In-One
- Not the first platform for media production
- Not the first selling media

Apple's strength was, under Jobs, an impeccable sense of timing to enter the market, and marketing. They were great at making people think they were innovating, and made hundreds of billions doing it. There's nothing wrong with that except that they fundamentally weren't innovating, and they're not so good at the timing or marketing sans Jobs.

Google, on the other hand, is a train wreck of a company in desperate need of Ritalin. They throw large sums of money at ideas, other companies, and markets and pretty much nothing sticks except the things that drive more ad revenue. Things wither and die on the vine, and eventually are shed when the next shift in upper-management power comes along.

Re:Cars?

[the computer guy nex]

"(Oh, and who would trust Steve Jobs' company to make their medical devices? Yes I am speaking both to his general approach to ethics, and the circumstances of his death.)"

Tim Cook, by all accounts, is a health/fitness nut and doesn't believe in the 'eastern medicine' philosophy that did in Jobs. Not sure if you have noticed, but Tim runs the company now.

Why not?

[The Grim Reefer]

Apple has a ridiculous amount of money at their disposal. It makes sense they try to do something with it.

This is also the approach that Samsung has been taking for the last few years. They've started making MRI scanners even.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung is following all the Japanese zaibatsus and US equivalents (GE), because Samsung, LG and Hyundai are the Korean equivalents.

Apple is NOT a zaibatsu. It may try to become one, but it will fail. However, nothing precluding AT&T (nee SBC) from buying Apple, and changing its corporate name then to "Apple" (hopefully with the quotes around it this time).

Re:Reports of Apple relevance are greatly exaggera

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG great ideas! We'll get on that right away. Signed, Tim Cook

lookinf forward to samsung "exploring" medical dev

[unami]

and releasing a half-baked galaxy gear mark II with pulse and oximetry measuring.

Pace Makers and Cochlear Implants

[mcspoo]

Ask yourself this... do you trust Apple with your pace maker? Your cochlear implant?

Would you trust MICROSOFT with your pace maker (holy hellzapoppin' no)

I can just see it... " Your cochlear implant has reached it's maximum amount of words amplified for the day. In order to hear more today, you need to upgrade to MICROSOFT COCHLEAR PROFESSIONAL 8.1" or even worse "Oh shit. I'm sorry, I can't do anything else today. I'm only using PaceMaker XP and if my heart beats more than 86,400 times today, my pace maker will throw a very literal blue screen of death."

With Apple, it's be a shiny pace maker, with a lot of features that may or may not be compatible with any other implants... like if you have an MS Cochlear, you can't have an Apple Pace Maker..

Re:Pace Makers and Cochlear Implants

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has a lot of medical and military tech. You already trust them. Those products aren't perfect, but they're a lot better than the consumer side versions.

Re:Pace Makers and Cochlear Implants

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would a computer company want to make a telephone? Imagine how ridiculous that would be! A phone that takes 4 minutes to turn on, requires a flippin' hard drive, needs to be plugged into the wall...oh noes!

In other words, companies can (and often successfully do) expand into new markets. They do this (successfully) by combining their prior knowledge about some things with new knowledge about other things (often in the form of years of research or significant hirings/acquisitions).

Enough with the commas - it's ambiguous, out-dated

[wonkey_monkey]

Apple Rumored To Be Exploring Medical Devices[, ]Electric Cars To Reignite Growth

The word you're looking for is "and."

Re: Reports of Apple relevance are greatly exagger

[Anonymous Coward]

in which world is the public getting tired of "incemental advancements" of apple products? this has been their strategy (interrupted by the occasional new product) ever since - and the ever increasing sales numbers speak for themselves. i'd rather buy a incremental advanced product of a tried and true category/company three tech-generations down the road (now it's a substantial advancement) than some newfangled crap, that's new for just the sake of newness.

The Next Big Thing is Bitcoin. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . and other decentralized digital currencies. Apple seems determined to pretend otherwise.

How about just greater openness on their devices?

[swb]

It seems to me the lightning connector, for all of its mechanical advantages over the 30 pin, also came with a lot of new restrictions and complications, all designed to keep Apple in control.

It seems to me that they're stifling innovative uses via third party accessories which seems to encourage people to find other platforms which could ultimately shrink their user base.

It's just one example, but in a lot of ways I would think they would want to encourage the iPhone/iPad as more general purpose devices with other interesting connectivity and expansion options.

Save us Apple. You're our only hope!

[sjbe]

Apple could be in a position to leverage advances in sensing technology to make medicine cheaper and much more accessible.

Right... because Apple is really known for driving prices down.

They're also big enough to beat down the FDA and Wizard lobby (aka Doctors).

Damn right, 'cause the FDA and doctors are just evil. Those criminals try to make sure our drugs are safe and that our illnesses get treated. We should rely on the magic of market forces for that. Apple should invent a device that replaces them. [/sarcasm]

All this data fed into the cloud in real time and analyzed for problems? What's not to like?

Lets see... Maybe the fact that there is no actual product and even if there were there are all sorts of likely privacy, security and data interpretation problems.

Incompetence does not require conspiracy

[sjbe]

Keeping the cost of it high seems to be.

That is a matter of incompetence and bad policy. Lot's of people in the US love to insist that we have the best healthcare system in the world and that nothing is broken despite the fact that we pay the most (by a wide margin) and do not get even close to the best outcomes by most measures.

Re:Incompetence does not require conspiracy

[CanHasDIY]

Keeping the cost of it high seems to be.

That is a matter of incompetence and bad policy.

Bad policy I can't disagree with (since good policy would probably fix a lot of these issues), but I've always been a believer in the concept that you should never attribute to incompetence that which can be explained by greed and avarice.

Re:Incompetence does not require conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always been a believer in the concept that you should never attribute to incompetence that which can be explained by greed and avarice.

You sound paranoid. I would say exactly the opposite applies to >90% of the population - it's almost always incompetence rather than greed-fueled "evil genius" plans. Probably >99%. It's only those top few in power - bankers, politicians, major CEOs, etc - who act deliberately to harm the rest of us for their gain.

In the case of medical costs, I would say it's 90% incompetence (terrible insurance system that hides the costs from all actors) and 10% greed (mostly big pharma).

Re:Incompetence does not require conspiracy

[CanHasDIY]

I've always been a believer in the concept that you should never attribute to incompetence that which can be explained by greed and avarice.

You sound paranoid.

I am. But that's not to say my paranoia isn't justified; not sure why you say it like it's some kind of flaw.

I would say exactly the opposite applies to >90% of the population

>90% of the population doesn't have the power to manipulate health care costs; >90% aren't running this sideshow. I don't really care about their motivations, because it's not affecting me; the ones I do care about are the 10% who are in charge, and are very much greedy, avaricious fucks.

Re:Enough with the commas - it's ambiguous, out-da

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, I'm updating the Javascript spec right now!

The following code:

var x = [1, 2, 3];

is to be replaced by:

var x = [1 and 2 and 3];

Re:Reports of Apple relevance are greatly exaggera

[erroneus]

The Apple tech itself is great. It's what they "allow you to do with it" that angers me. It's really as simple as that. They make cool things and then they restrict, limit and lock them down. Case-in-point? Copy-Paste was a feature of second generation iPhone and newer releases of iOS. They didn't omit it because it never occurred to them. It was a limitation they put in there by design and ended up going back on because people were pretty upset about it. And saving attachments in email? Is that still disallowed?

Re: Reports of Apple relevance are greatly exagger

[erroneus]

You saw it first when Microsoft users were refusing to upgrade. The same is beginning to be true of Apple stuff.

Re:How about just greater openness on their device

[erroneus]

I wish I had thought to mention that myself, but my rant was already pretty long.

Yes. Apple loves to restrict and limit. And they don't care what it costs the end user. "No, you cannot replace the battery. If we let you do that, other companies would make compatible batteries and extended life batteries and all that mess. Also, we want to make sure we can find you and your phone. It must be on at all times even if you think it's off."

I'm starting to rethink who the good guys and who the bad guys were on Get Smart. I am starting to prefer KAOS over CONTROL.

Bad idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

The future is never physical. Thats why cars dont fly. On the other hand, the future seems to be about information. Thats why Google self driving Car makes more sense. It manages data.

And

[The Cat]

Apple tips over the edge and begins the downward slide.

All the future failures will simply make the accomplishments of early 21st century Apple shine that much brighter. We were all very fortunate to have been a part of it.

*sigh*

[sootman]

"The Apple rumor mill is alive and well."

And, you can stop reading right there. Analysts are idiots, and rumors usually turn out to be wrong.

As for growth... "Last year, we grew (revenue) by $14 billion to $15 billion. Yes, those percentages are smaller compared to a year earlier and two years earlier and so forth. But that doesn't mean that you're not a growth company. We were in hyper-growth, or whatever is above growth. We went from $65 billion to over $100 billion to $150 billion to $170 billion. These are historic, unprecedented numbers. I don't know any companies adding growth at that level. So when you say $14 billion to $15 billion compared to those numbers, it's clearly smaller and a smaller percentage, but, to put it in some context, that's like adding three Fortune 500 companies in a year. [emphasis mine] I think that's hard to say that's not a growth company."

--Tim Cook to the WSJ Feb 7, 2014

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

Rumors usually turn out to be wrong? Care to cite a source or are you just making up bullshit? Seems to me that most of the rumors that get reported are factual in at least the larger details.

Stock prices v. dividends

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop focusing on stock prices to make investors want your stock. That way lies ruin because they're jus looking for a short term fix and your business plans will eventually reflect that. Provide dividends from a stable but diverse business platform (iTunes, iPhones, Macs). Don't waste money trying to keep growing. Eventually you will become too big and fall apart under your own weight.

sounds familiar

[slashmydots]

Anyone see that movie Repo Men? Yeah, that's basically this.

Re:sounds familiar

[Joe_Dragon]

Let's see them try that in TX and then I will call them and say You can pick the bodys of the next guys who show up.

Re:Reports of Apple relevance are greatly exaggera

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple went from $1 billion revenue to $10 billion when Sculley saved Apple. Then after canning Sculley they wasted so much money on OSes that did not work that it was almost better to shut the company sell all the assets and hand the money back to shareholders.
The time between the canning of Jobs and the company almost going out of business was 13 years so Jobs ousting was not a factor.

Re:Not so stupid as it many people here seem to th

[mjr167]

HP? They're still around?

Yes please

[benjfowler]

I would DEARLY love to see Apple give all the rent-seeking parasites in the medical industry a few black eyes.

Better yet, I'd love to see some real disruption come from the emerging economies. There is no reason why medical equipment should cost what it does, when most of it is decades old, and operates according to very well-known principles.

At worst, I'd rather see Apple profiteer, than to see this evil gerontocracy prevail.

Yeah. Right.

[Chas]

Apple may do most of the pioneering work. But they'll never stay in those areas.

Quite simply, they don't want the hassle of having to deal with industries.

Deep down, Apple wants (and needs) to be the artsy-fartsy choice for computers and media consumption devices.

They simply don't have the mindset to fix problems for people who don't give a flying fuck about the Apple/Mac "aesthetic", and simply want their business equipment to work without having to dick around with it too much.

They don't want to have to deal with a douchebag in an Apple-branded polo shirt mumbling incoherently about something and then being told to wait while they exchange it for a new one.

They just don't work (or think) that way.

Re:How about just greater openness on their device

[swb]

I'm less concerned with stuff like the battery or other kinds of hardware engineering questions.

When it was new, the idea of a non-replaceable battery seemed dumb, but having owned 4 iPhones since and two iPads, it doesn't really seem to matter and frankly it's just as easy/convenient to carry a spare generic USB charging battery as it would be a phone battery if I'm doing the kind of traveling where I will be away from power and worried about depleting my battery. Every other use case seems to be covered by access to power of some kind -- in the car, at a computer, wall jack etc.

My interest is in the broader usability of the iPhone or iPad for other tasks.

1) I/O through lightning port -- why is this so controlled or limited? Apple should encourage all kinds of connectivity solutions, including USB peripherals.

2) Bluetooth mouse pairing -- why is this deliberately excluded, especially from the iPad? I guess maybe I can see apple not wanting to allow it or not want to program mouse movements or mouse-only widgets in their general UI, but maybe consider allowing the device to be paired so its usable in other apps like games or a remote desktop application? I could get miles more out of my iPad as an RDP client with a mouse.

There's just all kinds of little things like that the Apple seems to block for reasons that don't make sense.

Re:Enough with the commas - it's ambiguous, out-da

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple Rumored To Be Exploring Medical Devices[, ]Electric Cars To Reignite Growth

The word you're looking for is "and."

Nope. A semi-colon is what is required to link those two clause fragments. People don't know how to use those anymore and so they default to commas. A "dash" would work also but I lament the apparent passing of the semi-colon.

doctors don't see those charges

[swschrad]

and when my first cardiologist looked through my itemized bill, he was agahst. "$50 for THAT?!?" $40 for this? $32 for aspirin???" they are not taught in medical school the overhead costs of having this shot of morphine and that bag of D5W right at hand in the operating room, and not in some deadbeat's arm in a linen closet.

Re:doctors don't see those charges

[CanHasDIY]

Note: the word "doctors" does not appear anywhere in my post.

Musk becomes new Jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think an Apple/Tesla merger might be interesting if only because Elon Musk has more in common with Steve Jobs than Tim Cook does. He might be able to keep up the interesting new products Apple made a name with.

Re:Yeah. Right.

[the computer guy nex]

"Apple may do most of the pioneering work. But they'll never stay in those areas."

I don't understand this comment. Apple will build a medical device/wearable, then sell it off? The number of scientific hires they have made recently is simply astounding. I doubt very much they are creating a product to abandon shortly after.

Re:Double Standard

[Kartu]

I hope you were sarcastic.

Perhaps Apple should focus on writing great softwa

[Anonymous Coward]

As the crap they have put out since Steve's death does not bode well for them. Steve albeit a toxic individual to have to deal with in a meeting, made great products. I suppose all those bad ideas he didnt let get into apples products are like sh!t and now surfacing to the top..

A Good Sign

[Anonymous Coward]

It always seems that when companies start trying to branch out into wildly dissimilar industries, it's a sign of trouble within the organization. Do what you do well, figure out how to do it better if things aren't going how you'd like them. Don't try making sushi if you've always sold donuts.

Yeah, Steve Jobs, don't try or phones or music players if you've always sold computers. Actually, don't even starting making computers if you've always made Atari games. Actually, maybe you've got the whole thing backwards...

A Good Sign

[neoshroom]

It always seems that when companies start trying to branch out into wildly dissimilar industries, it's a sign of trouble within the organization. Do what you do well, figure out how to do it better if things aren't going how you'd like them. Don't try making sushi if you've always sold donuts.

Yeah, Steve Jobs, don't try making phones or music players if you've always sold computers. Actually, don't even starting making computers if you've always made Atari games. Actually, maybe you've got the whole thing backwards...

Great -

[Anonymous Coward]

Even more overpriced, underperforming, fragile, and compatible with fuck-all devices that look like suppositories. I swear that Apple got its entire design aesthetic from a dildo factory. At least those are cheaper, and arguably more useful.

Apple Stock Likely Hit Tomorrow

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Apple High Command are really going after bullshit spending like this then their stock price deserves a valuation of 1 cent in year-2114 dollar valuation.

Glad I sold Apple years ago.

hoverboards 2015 b2tf 2

[Anonymous Coward]

remember that ihoverboards don't work on water, unless you got power

Re:Save us Apple. You're our only hope!

[twotommylong]

"Right... because Apple is really known for driving prices down."

Look at the original iPad.

The Doctors aren't evil... they just practice medicine the old fashioned way. Most learned their diagnostic skills when rotary phones were the standard. Would you consider a rotary phone today adequate technology to place a call today... If you want to be treated in methods that are
As for the FDA... They're not that bad.... just usually very blinder focused. I really don't see them having an issue with this in terms of data collection. (I don't see apple supporting a portable pacemaker BlueToothed into an iPhone to get it's operational controls from some data center in lower elbonia).

and you'll be surprised that most of your medical procedure data is already in the cloud, if you used insurance or put your SSN on any form (The bad news about HIPAA is that it's 'portable'... often to the highest bidder ). The problem is most of the diagnostic information is in islands that the MDs don't even have good access to.

As for privacy/security issues...Noted. Data Interpretation... that's well outside of Apple's purview... I can't see Apple doing anything other than providing a secure end to end pipe. The back end, whether it be Johns Hopkins, or Joe's Appliance, and Blood Pressure monitoring will likely have to prove their system, including interpretation someplace. But raw data, in standard HLxx code, has to stand on it's own against the diagnostic standard in the HIPAA world. Non Issue (assuming the regulatory people validate it's to the HLxx standard).

Keep the wizards.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least Gandalf isn't hawking OLORIN'S PATENT RENAMED MAGIC FRUIT. It rectifies the humours; cures the strong fives; assists in weight loss and keeps the Nazgul at bay!

Seriously, there are no wizards in medicine; it's just that your average American is dumb as a fucking post and willing to believe unhealthy lifestyles and/or terminal diseases can be magicked away.

Re:Save us Apple. You're our only hope!

[atlasdropperofworlds]

The original iPad was (and still is) fabulously overpriced for what it is.

Re:Reports of Apple relevance are greatly exaggera

[scarboni888]

All true. They're going down. When the Lisa was their flagship loser Jobs went psycho and made the macintosh a winner.

They kicked him out and started going downhill. He got what was eventually to become iOS developed at NeXt before bringing it back to an Apple that needed resuscitation once again and the iThingy revolution saved their asses.

Then he decides to get all hippy dippy refusing conventional medicine which most likely would have saved his life and as a result kicked the bucket earlier than was necessary.

And now Apple will fade into the obscurity it was always destined for without Steve Jobs there to implement his uncanny business savvy.

I too am not a fan of the man and probably wouldn't be able to stand his presence on a personal level. But he was the business success of Apple (with the Woz being mostly responsible for the technical success in early days) and this time, he aint' coming back.

Re:Double Standard

[Bing Tsher E]

Apple Haters? You sound like a cultist on the level of Scientology. Here's a clue: even Apple themselves are embarrassed by people like you.

Re:Double Standard

[SuperKendall]

How is it a "cult" simply to point out there are people with a deep hatred for Apple? Even a child can see that is so from the Deep Trolls that inhabit whatever story on Apple that may be found.

I just like using some of their products. But I really, really hate Haters of all forms, not just Apple Haters. They are the bane of the internet whoever found because they love to spread lies and misinformation, the poison that befouls the internet.

If you like misinformation by all mean support the haters of the world.

Apple's Search Engine

[justcauseisjustthat]

I wonder if Apple will go into the Search Engine space? Imagine all iOS and Mac OS defaulting to Apple's own Search Engine, would that cause a ripple in the search market?

Re:Not so stupid as it many people here seem to th

[Bing Tsher E]

The first computer I ever programmed on, in High School, was a Hewlett Packard minicomputer. We never got within miles of it, of course, all we could touch were the ASR-33 teletypes we dialed into it with.

Later on, they went into the 'computing hardware' business small-time, with PCs.

Thank goodness the Instruments division got away from HP before the company went to total shit.

Re: Reports of Apple relevance are greatly exagger

[Bing Tsher E]

You're confusing 'the public' with a cult-like following of people who love waiting in line at the Apple store for each new version. It's like a social reunion for them. All their friends are in the line with them, etc.

This could be very interesting

[Camembert]

I am less sceptical than the average slahdot reaction regarding these rumores

Medical devices: an area that could use good innovation. I can imagine Apple being well placed to combine lots of non-invasive sensors into a userfriendly (watch?) deivce) to monitor health. It is not an unrealistic expectation.
They also bought a home automation company some time ago, I can see them defining a standard that will be as popular as Airplay is these days. I can imagine using an idevice/watch to quickly dim the light in the living room for example.
Tesla, now that is really interesting. Indeed a different industry but that does not need to spell failure. Both companies have an innovative attitude, both companies have experience with high quality manufacturing. I can imagine the skills and experience to be nicely complementary. Currently these cars are a the top end of the market, and issues remain, but I bet it is a growth area.

Re:Double Standard

[Anonymous Coward]

The Apple Haters all like to say a round rectangle is an obvious shape.

Well if that's true why is it not surprising there would be some products that looked coincidentally like an iPad before the iPad?

You are using that as prior art, but it's not tablet - just a photo frame. I wonder what photo frames traditionally look like - why, it's a black matte around an image.

What is true is that with tablets Apple carrying the IPad look right down into the icons. They were found guilty in court, there was even a giant document listing the ways to copy Apple. So why do you have a problem believing the obvious?

Up until Apple started marketing the first iPhone product line, they were on a "kick" where all their devices used a variety of pastel color schemes and had "ergonomic" shapes which includes bulges and bubble-looking bits. It was their "signature look". The more "Spartan" style, using simple blacks and greys, cutting out the extra little "ergonomic" bits, was what companies like Sony and Samsung were doing, along with the less-known "generic" brands.

So my objections to Apple in the whole "look and feel" wars is that they went from a Unique style to copying the style everyone else had already started using, and then attempted to kick everyone else out in order to still claim to be "Unique".

Note that I'm not a Samsung fanboy or an Apple hater, in fact I have an iPhone and don't particularly care for Samsung's products. But there's nothing about the current style of Apple smartphones which has ever said "Apple" to me, it's just another unremarkable piece of black electronic hardware. And unremarkable is what I like, at least when it comes to how it looks.

Re:Save us Apple. You're our only hope!

[sjbe]

Look at the original iPad.

What about it? It was expensive and it remains expensive.

The Doctors aren't evil... they just practice medicine the old fashioned way. Most learned their diagnostic skills when rotary phones were the standard.

That's a nice bit of data you made up. Twenty seconds on google would have shown that you are wrong. The average age of a physician in the US is 51 years old. That means the average doctor was in medical school between the late 80s and mid 90s and half have trained more recently than that. Sure there are some old farts out there but they are the exception at this point. You seem to have some notion that diagnosis and treatment of disease has undergone some radical change in the last 20 years that makes the skills of older physicians obsolete. This view is entirely incorrect and worse it wrongly presumes that doctors stop learning when they finish their residency.

Furthermore I'm married to a doctor so I know personally that your notions about how "out of date" their skills are is quite incorrect. Most are actually fairly up to date in the area of their specialty. You also have a very false notion about how they practice medicine. Most are eager to use the best techniques available PROVIDED that they can be shown to be an improvement. Doctor's as a rule have a very sensible "show me the data" attitude but they aren't at all averse to new tech, quite the opposite in fact.

As for the FDA... They're not that bad.... just usually very blinder focused.

That statement is so vague as to be meaningless.

and you'll be surprised that most of your medical procedure data is already in the cloud, if you used insurance or put your SSN on any form

I'm well aware of what is out there. My wife's practice uses a medical records system that stores data through a company in another state as does basically any big insurance company. Apple isn't really set up to deal with the regulatory burden that comes with that. Not to say they couldn't be in theory but I doubt they will in any big way. Apple is a consumer products company, not a medical device company. In my day job I work with medical device companies (we make wire harnesses for them) and it is a very different industry with very different cost structures and very different regulatory requirements. Producing a heart rate monitor or fancy pedometer is one thing. Producing a device that is going to actually communicate with your doctor about serious medical conditions is a whole different kettle of fish.

The problem is most of the diagnostic information is in islands that the MDs don't even have good access to.

Wrong. They do have access to all sorts of information and can usually get what they need. The problem is that the access too often isn't efficient (slow and expensive) and that the data is complicated. It is HARD to make a database that efficiently captures all relevant medical information. It is much harder still to make a database that can communicate with all the other databases out there is an useful and efficient manner for an economically sensible price. This has nothing to do with the doctors directly. This has to do with the technical difficulty and economic problems of creating a networked and efficient medical records system. Doctors don't write software, IT people do and not the sort that tends to work at Apple.

Here's hoping

[azav]

That if they do grab Tesla, that Ive and his garish design team keep their pixels far away from any UI that Tesla might have.

Apple & Medical Sensor Technology...

[kwolf22]

Sound like apple is trying to take one big leap OVER wearable computing and get INSIDE us! Actually this sounds like a pretty cool idea... Just think about it. With Apple inside of us, instead of just a walled garden, we could have a garden of pure ideology. We could be one people with one will, one resolve, one cause. This unification of thoughts could change the world; it would be a more powerful weapon than any fleet or army on earth! Our enemies shall talk themselves to death while we bury them with their own confusion!

Re:Not so stupid as it many people here seem to th

[volmtech]

Apple was known for making computers. Then they started making idevices. You don't think anyone would buy an iCar?

Re:Double Standard

[Plumpaquatsch]

Apple Haters? You sound like a cultist on the level of Scientology.

Funny, so do you. Just that you are talking from the "My cult is bigger than your cult, so I must be right" soapbox.

Re:Double Standard

[Plumpaquatsch]

Up until Apple started marketing the first iPhone product line, they were on a "kick" where all their devices used a variety of pastel color schemes and had "ergonomic" shapes which includes bulges and bubble-looking bits. It was their "signature look".

So the iPhone came out, what, 2004? That was the year the eMac, the last Apple product that wasn't a "rectangle with rounded corners" sold. And that was a hold-out of the CRT era for edu markets. And already was plain white.

Re: Reports of Apple relevance are greatly exagger

[Plumpaquatsch]

You're confusing 'the public' with a cult-like following of people who love waiting in line at the Apple store for each new version.

You are confusing several dozen million people who buy Apple products each quarter with a few thousand people. Because you are the cult member.

accuracy of concern trolling greatly exaggurated

[Uberbah]

So what's ahead besides the public getting tired of incremental advancements which seem to follow other products which have been successful with incremental advancements?

Because Android isn't making incremental advancements or because other companies haven't followed Apple's lead? Ever?