Apple's Eddy Cue: 'You May Not Need an iPhone 10 Years From Now' (theverge.com) 66
Eddy Cue, Apple's senior vice president of services, gave an ominous warning today that the iPhone could go the way of the iPod 10 years from now. From a report: Cue's remarks came during the Google Search antitrust remedies trial today while discussing how AI has the potential to reshape the tech industry and open the door to new entrants. Incumbents have a hard time ... we're not an oil company, we're not toothpaste -- these are things that are going to last forever ... you may not need an iPhone 10 years from now.
Cue went on to say that the best thing Apple did was kill the iPod, a move he said was bold. "Why would you kill the golden goose," he added. That may seem like a silly thing for Apple to say, given that more than half of its revenue is iPhone sales. But Cue calls AI a "huge technological shift," and suggests that such shifts can humble companies that once seemed unassailable.
Cue went on to say that the best thing Apple did was kill the iPod, a move he said was bold. "Why would you kill the golden goose," he added. That may seem like a silly thing for Apple to say, given that more than half of its revenue is iPhone sales. But Cue calls AI a "huge technological shift," and suggests that such shifts can humble companies that once seemed unassailable.
Re: (Score:2)
First Piss!
Nostalgic
Forever (Score:4, Informative)
we're not an oil company, we're not toothpaste -- these are things that are going to last forever
Toothpaste I can understand, but lets hope our dependency on oil ends sooner than later. After all, we already know that oil itself is certainly not going to last forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Forever (Score:5, Interesting)
It is physically possible to replace petroleum based lubricants with synthetic lubricants created from vegetable feedstocks, it's just not economically feasible in any near term time frame. However what is economically feasible depends on circumstances and alternatives. In a world in which we did this, the circumstances would have to be very different from present.
Imagine a hypothetical world powered by thorium fuel cycle nuclear where electricity was so much cheaper than it is now that it eliminated the use of petroleum for fuel. We'd still be extracting oil for lubricants and plastics, but these materials would be more expensive because the costs of extraction and processing are no longer being paid by fuel users. The high price of lubricants would be OK because we're getting a huge break on energy costs, but that high price would make bioplastics and biolubricants more attractive for research and development.
Such a scenario would happen overnight, it would take decades, but over decades things change so much the familiar becomes unrecognizable.
Re: (Score:2)
I still haven't seen any sci-fi mention the required hydrocarbon sources for space travel. So many things need to be flexible and gas/liquid impermeable.
Re: (Score:1)
I still haven't seen any sci-fi mention the required hydrocarbon sources for space travel. So many things need to be flexible and gas/liquid impermeable.
Jules Verne, 1869 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] HTH.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So maybe we should stop burning massive amounts of this limited resource, preserving it instead for all the things you just mentioned that don't have alternatives?
Re: (Score:3)
It's incredibly unlikely we can shift away from oil. For vehicles and power plants? Totally. But oil is used to produce plastics, synthetic rubber, nylon, resins, detergents, cosmetics and lotions, candles, paints, toothpaste, shampoo, asphalt, greases, oil paints, foams, jet fuel, and much more.
Transitioning most vehicles to electric is possible in the near future. But we're likely decades away from dependance on oil for it's countless other uses.
Re: Forever (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Haber-Bosch is not inherently tied to fossil fuels. You can heat other ways, and there are other sources of methane as well.
Re:Forever (Score:5, Insightful)
Oil will last longer than anybody alive will. If all variables remain static, there's fifty years of proven extractable reserves still untapped. But all variables are not static. The rate of extraction will fall. And reserves will grow as extraction tech improves. But there are some things that oil will continue to serve for at least a century. The problem isn't eliminating all of these uses. It's bringing down uses to sustainable levels.
"The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones." A cliche, at this point... but a nuance to that is that we still use stones. And a hundred years from now, we'll still use oil. Just not for "everything" like we do today.
Re: (Score:2)
What a dumb take. (Score:5, Insightful)
The iPod went away because at that point everyone was carrying an identically-sized device that could do the same job and more -- the iPhone. Having music on a separate portable product was redundant.
How would a customer interact with this AI if they do not even have a smartphone? The Humane Pin? Only useful if you like talking out loud for all interactions -- no privacy composing an email in a public place. Many of the things people do on their iPhones are visual in nature and cannot be done with Star Trek-esque "Computer...." commands. Does he really think brain implants are going to come that far, and that most people would be willing to have major surgery to add one?
Re:What a dumb take. (Score:4, Interesting)
I still use the iPod despite having a phone. Granted, I've never been a lover of the all-in-one concept. And the very first time a phone call interrupted a favorite song, I was done with using my phone as a listening device.
I'm guessing the phone will evolve into an always on implant in the near future. Hell, Elon's trying to get our brains hooked up. Can't wait for that to become the fashion accessory du jour. I think I'll officially go full luddite when that happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What Eddy is saying is that Apple chose to release the iPhone, which killed the iPod, their golden goose at the time. And what's he goes on to say is that something other than the iPhone will likely replace it and be AI-powered.
It's a very likely progression.
Good (Score:2)
and be AI-powered
Re:What a dumb take. (Score:5, Interesting)
But that's a weird take. The iPhone was basically an iPod with a cellular modem. That's not risking the golden goose, that's just feeding the goose more.
It's just some hollow word without a concept to back up what they imagine a fundamentally distinct product would be to suggest they are going to be there for whatever the tech has.
He's harping on AI, though no sign of AI changing the form factor (the pin even if it worked well was a plainly dumb concept, obviously if it does work well for now the handheld computer remains the most likely physical realization of the benefits.
They did give VR a... shot.. AR glasses would be the biggest candidate I could imagine for cracking the fundamental form factor debate. Apple managed to get a whole bunch of people to wear earbuds 24/7, so I wouldn't be *shocked* if they managed to pull that with AR glasses one day.
Re: (Score:2)
The iPhone was basically an iPod with a cellular modem.
And a better UI. And an extensive app ecosystem. The iPod Touch was released just after the iPhone. The previous iPods used a circular pad and a much smaller screen.
Re: (Score:2)
At launch, the iPhone had no app ecosystem
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I did this with my Newton 2000: had wireless card, a browser, storage for mp3s and a player.
Still, once the iPod came out, I got one of those.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's done this before, saying if anyone's going to displace one of their products, it should not come from outside the company.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd think any company would want that to be the case. Don't want your competitor beating you out but it's not so bad if you're replacing one product with another, especially when that replacement is even more successful.
Re: (Score:2)
I get the feeling Apple tends to squash intra-project fighting more than other companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Implants?
Dean Ing had that in a story. The assassins were always online. Hopefully the civilian version will omit the small explosive charge that cures disloyalty.
(Fat chance).
the iPhone is no iPod. (Score:1)
The iPhone never worked as well or sounded as good as the iPod. No one will convince me otherwise.
I love the iPhone but it kinda stinks as a music player and it isn't a great phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The iPod went away because at that point everyone was carrying an identically-sized device that could do the same job and more -- the iPhone. Having music on a separate portable product was redundant.
There's still a market for portable music players. For example, people who don't want to take their phone with them while they exercise, and kids who are too young to have a phone. Apple just couldn't remain competitive in that market while still making their preferred level of profit margins. The iPod was certainly better than a no-name $15 MP3 player [fivebelow.com], but at the prices Apple charged it became a game of very diminishing returns.
Re: (Score:2)
How would a customer interact with this AI if they do not even have a smartphone?
Remember Apple made the iPod Touch for a long time because some people did not have smart phones. It was basically an iPhone without the phone part. Children at that time did not have phones. These days everyone seems to have a phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, still got my kid's iPod touch (bought used) from their elementary school days.
By middle school, they got dad's hand-me-down iphone. At 24, are still ok with trailing edge tech: they use my 11 while I have a 15 now.
Re: (Score:2)
Before everyone went to the iPhone, Apple was selling the iPod Touch.
The iPod never went away. It just evolved a bit and changed names.
Re: (Score:2)
Before everyone went to the iPhone, Apple was selling the iPod Touch.
Sorry, you're wrong. The iPhone came first. [archive.org]
- The original iPhone: first released June 29, 2007
- First gen iPod Touch: September 5, 2007
The everything machine (Score:4, Insightful)
I am so far ahead of you (Score:4, Funny)
I already didn't need one 10 years ago. Well, some are meant to lead others are meant to follow...
what is he talking about? brave move? (Score:2)
Was anyone buying ipods in the latter years when they were just idevices without the phone and they just started making the smaller version of ipad anyway then.
Re: (Score:3)
Agree, they only discontinued the iPod after it was *clearly* just an iPhone without a cellular modem, and as the iPhone and iPod touch prices came together, why bother with the lesser product?
iPod 'Classic' was highly compromised on screen real estate, the Nano's niche was pretty much filled by the Watch, the Shuffle never really made a whole lot of sense since it couldn't be differentiated from all sorts of other music playing devices..
Re: (Score:2)
the Shuffle never really made a whole lot of sense since it couldn't be differentiated from all sorts of other music playing devices..
For me, it was the perfect workout/running device. It was relatively cheap and even the smallest 512MB held like 8 hours of music. Not having a screen was not a big deal for uses like mine which did not require a screen. Some people I know used them to listen to podcasts on commutes as Apple that year incorporated support for podcasts.
What made for the success of the iPods was the fault of the record companies. They made it so that consumers had to stay with Apple devices if they bought any music from Apple
Re: (Score:2)
I still take my 512MB Shuffle for day hikes and working out. Lil' Dude just keeps on playing, although battery life is declining. Seems like I'm carrying around a mini-Voyager probe. I need rig up a solar charger that rides on my backpack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the size of the original iPod Nano compared to the current phones I see plenty of use for a new iPod. I still use my sixth generation iPod even though the tiny touchscreen just plain sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Was anyone buying ipods in the latter years when they were just idevices without the phone and they just started making the smaller version of ipad anyway then.
There was still a market back then especially for people like young teenagers who didn't have phones. These days everyone has phones.
fact free conjecture (Score:2)
I'll make a conjecture. 10 years from now we will still buy and use what is recognizably a cell phone. People like the form factor. AI pins and such are just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Voice toys like Alexa don't work well. The cell phone offers good usability and one hand use for a wide swath of the population.
Re: (Score:2)
Like it or not, he's saying that the iPhone as we know it today is ephemeral. Something will replace it.
My observation is that Apple will want to lead that parade.
Will they be intelligent earpods that can connect with satellites? Will the form factor be different? Will some other factor pull the market into another ubiquitous tech device?
Apple cannibalized iPod sales for the success of the iPhone. He''s not ruling out cannibalizing iPhone sales for a successor product. Will be that product be underpinned b
Re: (Score:2)
A gold badge accessed through finger swipes and taps?
[flipping it is the best part]
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, my Android does everything I need and then some more.
another plus... (Score:2)
Another plus would be the death of the Epic App store...
So, a communicator. (Score:2)
Of course the communicator will cost twice as much as an iPhone even though it's just a main board and a battery; the add-on screen will cost just as much as the communicator and use a proprietary protocol so third party options will be locked out.
and subscriptions will be needed for anything to power on.
Re: (Score:1)
Tiny and voice controlled, but still has a wireless connection to a (blue tooth?) screen for those 'rare' times you need to see
I need to "see something" every time I use my phone. So...uh, yeah...fuck that.
Re: (Score:2)
I need to "see something" every time I use my phone. So...uh, yeah...fuck that.
Yeah, doing everything through a voice interface would still be a miserable experience even if it worked correctly 100% of the time. Today, it doesn't always understand you, and then you're sitting there listening to it drone on about something that is completely not what you were wanting.
Voice communication is fine when you're dealing with other humans. When it comes to machines though, interacting directly with a UI is always going to be more efficient.
Re: (Score:1)
Even if a voice interface worked perfectly every time, it means that:
1). You will annoy everyone around you with the incessant talking to, or listening to the phone.
2). You have to use headphones nearly everywhere, all of the time.
3). Some combination of outcomes 1 and 2.
So, it STILL sucks.
Not to mention that some tasks are inherently visual for a lot of people. For example, for me (and I can't imagine I am unique), the process of composing writing involves me looking at what I composed and revising it, usu
Music player (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why would I do this?
Apple Music is already on my phone. I don't have to put out any effort at all to use it.
I don't listen to much music anyway. Certainly not enough to put out the effort to download something else and create an account, etc. etc.
I guess if I was getting PAID TO DO THAT, maybe I would. But even then, I doubt the amount paid would be worth the effort.
Re: So, a communicator. (Score:1)
need (Score:1)
>"You May Not Need an iPhone 10 Years From Now'"
I didn't need one 15 years ago, nor now, nor will need one 10 years from now. There are plenty of other non-iPhone devices that much better meet my needs.
>"the best thing Apple did was kill the iPod"
I didn't need an iPod 20 years ago through now. Again, there were plenty of other devices. And once smartphones had the functionality and storage of an "MP3 player", their use became mostly redundant and unnecessary. For a long time I still used one, bec
Punctuation problem (Score:2)
Does he mean:
... not need an iPhone 10, years from now.
... not need an iPhone, 10 years from now.
or
Most English-speakers will assume the latter interpretation. But the poor punctuation allows different meanings.
Re: (Score:2)
Without punctuation most will figure it out anyway but will an AI understand it correctly? It's a context situation without punctuation.