Recent Comments

  • James Hillhouse on Here's what John Ternus needs to do about Apple ID, says Mark Gurman - 'I never cease to be surprised at Gurman’s ability to express his sense of self-importance. I would counter Gurman with my own (unwanted) view of why the Jobs-Ives era worked. It boils down to Jobs as a sanity check on Ives’ tendency to design the ultimate slab, with Jobs nudging that a product had to actually be useful for people. To this customer, since Ives’ left Apple in 2022, the slate-focused design trend has yielded to something that better balances form and function. Products such as the MB, MBPro, iPhone, and iPad are much better than they were in a very long time, certainly since the mid-2010’s. Now I shall hush.'
  • Joseph Bland on Here's what John Ternus needs to do about Apple ID, says Mark Gurman - 'Hey, opinions are like anal orifices; everybody has one. But some are more like anal orifices than others….'
  • Fred Stein on Here's what John Ternus needs to do about Apple ID, says Mark Gurman - 'For years Gurman has demonstrated that he doesn’t understand Apple at all. Now it seems he doesn’t even know that Ternus has been in charge of the design team since he joined. Apple Watch validates his design chops. The rest of the smart watch field, broadly defined, remains a discordant mess, with basically no 3rd party App ecosystem.'
  • steve dubinsky on Here's what John Ternus needs to do about Apple ID, says Mark Gurman - 'what a blowhard gurman is'
  • Gregg Thurman on Here's what John Ternus needs to do about Apple ID, says Mark Gurman - 'When you hold up an Apple product everybody knows what you have. That isn’t good design, it’s GREAT design. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, comes to mind.'
  • Gregg Thurman on Here's what John Ternus needs to do about Apple ID, says Mark Gurman - 'Still don’t understand why Apple 3.0 continues to print his tripe. My daily life would improve by an order of magnitude (maybe two) if it wasn’t. Especially on the same day that Bart blessed us with his contribution the collective wisdom of Apple 3.0.'
  • Rodney Avilla on Here's what John Ternus needs to do about Apple ID, says Mark Gurman - 'Gurman must subscribe to Tommo’s blog.'
  • John Konopka on Here's what John Ternus needs to do about Apple ID, says Mark Gurman - 'Design seems good now. The software UI and bugs need more attention.'
  • David Emery on This week's Apple trading strategies (6/22-6/26/26) - 'That would follow the pattern of “The Newton was 13 years too early”, right?'
  • David Emery on Here's what John Ternus needs to do about Apple ID, says Mark Gurman - 'My comment to this is partially NSFW: bleep Gurman and the horse’s ass he rode in on. Seriously, I’m not sure how much value to the PED3.0 community repeating Gurman has going forward.'
  • Joseph Bland on This week's Apple trading strategies (6/22-6/26/26) - 'GREAT perception by Horace today on Asymco Plus: Was Siri just thirteen years too early? by Horace Dediu I suggested it should be broadened to “Were computer assistants like Siri thirteen years too early?” That levels the playing field, IMO.'
  • Gregg Thurman on Ice Universe: The difference between Samsung and Apple is profound - 'I’d suggest that Bart stitch all of these together into a single .pdf, and post them all over the internet (especially on Android sites). Special attention should be given to bloggers. Bart, I’d rather enjoy having a .pdf copy I could put into Books for quick access. I’d like being able to quote its passages when debating with Android cheapsters. This work is tremendous. Can it be distributed via Apple Books? At 99 cents per, my guess is that it’ll pay for your next vacation to the Mediterranean. It might even cause the creation of an AI generated “book” section. '
  • Carl Sullivan on Ice Universe: The difference between Samsung and Apple is profound - 'Great stuff Bart. Appreciate you'
  • Robert Stack on Ice Universe: The difference between Samsung and Apple is profound - 'Bart: Thank you (and Gemini) for that series of comments. A real tour de force!'
  • David Emery on Ice Universe: The difference between Samsung and Apple is profound - 'Actually, I’d suggest PED consolidate those posts and create a new PED30 entry from them as a single ‘stream’.'
  • Jonny T on Ice Universe: The difference between Samsung and Apple is profound - 'Bart, I am not patient enough to read this opening each post. If you could share a PDF I can add it to my Books app and enjoy reading it all at leisure on my Friday flights to Sicily. Thank you Signore!'
  • Bart Yee on Joanna Stern: 'I spent a week with new Siri' (video) - 'Even Star Trek starship computers of the 2260’s had compute time, sometimes saying “Working!” while using compute cycles. Pre and post Kirk and Next Generation computers of 2360’s still had female voices. Some still required to restate the questions, or provide more information, much like ChatGTP asks today. Hopefully, we gain less latency, and more accuracy.'
  • Bart Yee on Ice Universe: The difference between Samsung and Apple is profound - 'Hope you enjoyed that, nice exercise in using Gemini AI to help suss out details and perspectives based on published articles. I look forward to being able to use Siri AI to do the same thing via Safari or natural language inquires.'
  • Bart Yee on Ice Universe: The difference between Samsung and Apple is profound - '“Does anyone or tech company competitor to Apple (like Samsung, Xiaomi, Huawei) have a similarly successful Services component to their business?” “None of Apple’s direct consumer hardware competitors have replicated the massive, recurring services profit that Apple enjoys. While others boast vast, active user bases, their internet and services divisions act primarily as loss-leaders or low-margin drivers to sell physical hardware. The service strategies for each competitor differ: 1. Xiaomi The Model: Xiaomi uses its massive 754.1 million global Monthly Active Users (MAU) to drive revenue through advertising, pre-installed apps, and fintech. The Scale: While internet service revenues hit a record 37.4 billion yuan, ($5.5B USD) they still only make up roughly 8% of Xiaomi’s total group revenue. The Catch: These services primarily subsidize their budget hardware; they do not represent a premium, subscription-based “ecosystem lock-in” akin to Apple’s. 2. Samsung The Model: Samsung operates the closest analog to Apple’s premium global ecosystem, but it relies almost entirely on the Google Play ecosystem for its Android software and services. The Scale: Services like Samsung Wallet, Galaxy Store, and Samsung Health are massive engagement drivers, but they are not standalone financial profit engines. Samsung does not break out standalone services revenue, as its profit is dominated by hardware and semiconductor chips. 3. Huawei The Model: Following U.S. sanctions, Huawei was cut off from Google Mobile Services. To survive, they built Huawei Mobile Services (HMS) and the HUAWEI AppGallery. The Scale: Huawei offers premium subscriptions for Huawei Cloud, video, and music, alongside developer services. However, their primary focus remains enterprise ICT, telecom infrastructure, and selling physical hardware.” “What about its Mag-7 competitors?” Comparing Apple to its Magnificent Seven (Mag-7) peers changes the entire dynamic. While direct hardware rivals treat services as an afterthought, Apple’s Mag-7 peers are heavily services-dominant platforms. Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta do not just have “similarly successful” services components—their services segments are much larger, structurally distinct, and in several cases, significantly more profitable than Apple’s Services business. Key Financial Overview Alphabet (Google) Search, YouTube Ads, Google Cloud, Play Store~$400+B Very High margins (Driven by advertising scaling) Microsoft Azure Cloud, Office 365, LinkedIn, Xbox~$240+B High Margins (Enterprise to enterprise software) Amazon AWS Cloud, Prime Subscriptions, Ads~$220+B Mixed margins (Low on Prime retail, massive on AWS) Meta Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp Advertising~$150+B Extremely High Margins (Pure digital ad network) Apple App Store cuts, iCloud, Apple Music, Apple Pay~$100B-120B ~74% (Extremely stable & profitable)'
  • Bart Yee on Ice Universe: The difference between Samsung and Apple is profound - 'And finally, “how did Apple services disrupt the tech sector?” Remember, Tim Cook told us to pay attention to Services, that he and Apple would double its revenue over time. Did they pay attention? No, “Apple was and still is a hardware company”, “to be always valued as a hardware company”, and should always be viewed by historical multiples as when it was “just a hardware company”, not the multipronged revenue engine it is today. Per Gemini: “Apple disrupted the tech sector by turning a hardware-reliant sales cycle into a multi-billion dollar recurring revenue engine. By shifting focus from selling devices to monetizing the activity on those devices, Apple transformed how software is distributed, how digital media is consumed, and how companies calculate customer lifetime value. The Services division —spanning the App Store, Apple Music, iCloud, Apple Pay, and Apple TV+ — drives nearly $31 billion per quarter at staggering 75% gross margins. This strategic pivot fundamentally reshaped the tech industry in four primary ways: 1. Invented the Modern App Economy Before the App Store launched in 2008, software was bought on physical discs or fragmented mobile storefronts. Apple consolidated mobile software distribution into a single, secure gateway. The 30% Tax Standard: Apple established a 30% commission baseline for digital goods. This sparked industry-wide emulation (e.g., Google Play) and triggered massive antitrust battles with developers like Epic Games. Disrupting Trillion-Dollar Verticals: By streamlining secure in-app payments, the App Store acted as the foundational launchpad for entirely new mobile industries, including ride-sharing (Uber), mobile gaming, and streaming video. 2. Formulated the “Hardware-as-a-Gateway” Model Historically, consumer electronics companies suffered when hardware markets matured and device replacement cycles lengthened. Apple inverted this vulnerability. The Post-Purchase Monetization Engine: Apple proved that a flat or slightly declining hardware market could be offset by highly profitable subscriptions. High-Margin Subsidies: Because Apple Services operate at 75.3% gross margins (compared to ~36% for hardware), the service ecosystem effectively decoupled Apple’s profitability from raw device shipment numbers, forcing competitors like Samsung and Sony to aggressively build their own software layers. 3. Weaponized Bundling to Choke Point-Solution Competitors Apple disrupted standalone service providers (like Spotify, Netflix, or Dropbox) by introducing Apple One, which bundles storage, music, gaming, and video into a single subscription. Zero Marginal Cost Integration: Apple uses its multi-device ecosystem to eliminate decision friction. Users buying an iPhone are instantly prompted to upgrade iCloud storage or join Apple Music. Customer Retention (The “Golden Handcuffs”): By weaving services directly into the operating system, Apple helped push customer loyalty and device retention rates above 90%. Leaving the Apple ecosystem means losing curated music playlists, cloud backups, and shared family subscriptions, making switching to Android financially and socially friction-heavy. 4. Reshaped Global Fintech (Apple Pay & Apple Card)Apple disrupted the banking and credit sectors without actually operating as a regulated bank. The Ultimate Digital Wallet: By leveraging the biometric security of iPhones (FaceID/TouchID), Apple Pay forced traditional credit card issuers and point-of-sale vendors to re-engineer their entire infrastructure around contactless NFC technology. Interchange Fee Extraction: Apple acts as a powerful intermediary, taking a slice of transaction fees from banks simply for facilitating a secure tokenized transaction, permanently altering the economics of retail banking.'
  • Bart Yee on Ice Universe: The difference between Samsung and Apple is profound - 'Continuing from Gemini: “2. Empowering the Local AI Ecosystem As cloud-based AI API costs balloon and data privacy concerns rise, there is a major market pivot toward local, on-device execution. Apple has capitalized on this by creating specialized optimization paths. The MLX Framework: Apple introduced MLX, an open-source machine learning framework designed specifically for Apple Silicon. It treats unified memory as a primary constraint, allowing local models to achieve blisteringly fast generation throughput speeds. The “Personal AI Agent” Boom: Hardware like the redesigned Mac mini has become a breakout success for AI enthusiasts. Consumers and developers are leveraging always-on Apple Silicon boxes as local, sandboxed servers to run secure personal AI agents (such as OpenClaw and Hermes Agent) 24/7 without recurring subscription fees. 3. Normalizing the “Edge AI” Baseline Apple has integrated high-performance Neural Engines across its entire silicon lineup, spanning from entry-level iPhones to Max-tier chips. By baked-in AI acceleration into consumer chips, Apple has forced software developers to rethink their deployment strategies. Top AI startups and companies are increasingly prioritizing desktop versions of their software for macOS first, relying on the guarantee that the underlying Apple hardware can smoothly handle heavy edge-computing workloads natively.” (The future for Apple Silicon looks very good, now only constrained by foundry capacity and competing availability and supply of memory. At some point, the AI enterprise boom may slow, but Apple may already have the upper hand, for now, in the consumer AI market, at least from the desktop/notebook side.)'
  • Bart Yee on Ice Universe: The difference between Samsung and Apple is profound - 'Apple Silicon for Macs Apple Silicon dominated the ARM-based PC market almost immediately, capturing nearly 90% of its revenue by 2021 (just over a year after the M1 launch). It took about 2 to 3 years for the Mac lineup to completely leave Intel behind, establishing a new industry benchmark for performance-per-watt that forced rivals to radically shift strategies. The timeline unfolded in a few key stages: The Initial Drop (Fall 2020): The first M1 Macs (MacBook Air, 13-inch MacBook Pro, and Mac mini) were released in November 2020. They immediately outperformed competitor chips in both power and battery life, shocking the industry. The Revenue Takeover (2021): By 2021, Apple seized almost 90% of all revenue generated by ARM-based PCs, leaving competitors like Qualcomm far behind in processing speed. The Broad Market Capture (2022–Present): By the time Apple completely phased out Intel with the Mac Pro in June 2023, it held a massive lead in laptop hardware, growing past rival companies like AMD in overall laptop market share. Vs the broader PC market: Apple Silicon impacted the PC market almost immediately upon launching in November 2020. The release of the M1 chip forced the entire industry to pivot toward ARM-based computing, with immediate effects breaking down as follows: Instant Performance Shock (0–6 Months): The M1 offered unprecedented battery life and thermal efficiency while outperforming most x86 competitors, instantly establishing a new baseline for laptop processors. Shifting Market Share (1–3 Years): Apple’s Mac sales surged as consumers flocked to the new architecture. By forcing a shift in consumer expectations, Apple’s laptop market share grew significantly, eventually approaching rival AMD’s sector share within five years. The Windows Pivot (3+ Years): The industry was forced to respond, leading to Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X Elite chips. However, creating a viable competitor required years of ecosystem and hardware alignment, cementing Apple’s head start.” And did Apple have an inkling of Apple Silicon and AI? “Apple Silicon influences the AI market by establishing Macs as the premier consumer hardware for local AI inference and decentralized development. Rather than trying to compete directly with Nvidia in the massive AI cloud data center market, Apple has fundamentally disrupted the economics of running Large Language Models (LLMs) on individual devices. Apple’s influence is driven by unique architectural choices and shifting market demands: 1. The Unified Memory Disruption Traditional PCs separate processing memory (RAM) from graphics memory (VRAM), creating a severe bottleneck when loading massive AI models over a slow PCIe bus. Apple Silicon uses a Unified Memory Architecture (UMA) where the CPU, GPU, and Neural Engine share a single, high-bandwidth pool of pool of memory.The Cost-to-VRAM Advantage: To load a large 70-billion or 200-billion parameter model on a standard PC, developers usually require multiple enterprise-grade Nvidia GPUs. A top-tier Mac Studio or Mac mini configured with up to 128GB or 192GB of unified memory allows developers to fit massive models entirely in memory at a fraction of the hardware cost. Zero-Copy Performance: Because the data is shared natively across all components of the system-on-chip (SoC), Apple Silicon eliminates the “copy to VRAM” performance penalty entirely. Continued'
  • Bart Yee on Ice Universe: The difference between Samsung and Apple is profound - 'How well did it do? “Apple’s wireless earbuds dominated the market in just 1 to 3 years, effectively creating a new product category from scratch and maintaining massive market leads over competitors like Samsung and Xiaomi. The explosive timeline highlights how rapidly the devices took over: 1 Year (2017): Within 12 months of the original AirPods launch in September 2016, Apple captured nearly 85% of the “totally wireless headphone” segment by dollar sales in the US. 3 Years (2019): By 2019, Apple cemented total industry control, boasting over 50% of the global market share in both unit sales and revenue. Sales skyrocketed to roughly 60 million units in a single year. The “Pro” Acceleration (2019–2022): The introduction of the first AirPods Pro in late 2019 with active noise cancellation drove monumental growth, pushing earwear sales to new heights and helping Apple secure upwards of 30% of global shipments even as total market competition grew.” Not bad for something critics claimed were ugly, Q-tips sticking out of your ears, battery life needed to be better, not repairable, and Early adopters were often stereotyped as pretentious or ostentatious, leading to a wave of “AirPods flex” memes that poked fun at the high price tag relative to their appearance. But eventually, AirPods and especially AirPods Pro have won people over. With expanded Hearing Aid capability, there’s even more to like.'
  • Bart Yee on Ice Universe: The difference between Samsung and Apple is profound - 'AirPods & AirPods Pro (Can you remember what it was like using an iPhone 5/5S/6/6S and headphone jack?) per Gemini: “Before AirPods (released in late 2016), the mobile earbud market was dominated by wired 3.5mm headphones and clunky neckband-style wireless Bluetooth sets. Truly wireless earbuds were a niche, expensive, and frustrating category plagued by poor battery life, connectivity dropouts, and bulky designs. The pre-AirPods audio landscape was defined by distinct traits: Wired Dominance: Most consumers used the included wired earbuds in the box (like Apple’s EarPods or cheap third-party options) because they required no charging and had zero audio latency. The “Neckband” Era: Wireless options primarily consisted of two earbuds connected by a wire that draped around the back of the neck, which housed the battery and Bluetooth controls. Niche “True Wireless” Pioneers: Fully wireless options did exist, but they struggled in the mainstream market. Early pioneers included the Bragi Dash and Samsung Gear IconX. These were expensive (often over $200), suffered from severe audio synchronization issues, and generally only managed 2 to 3 hours of battery life. The Headphone Jack Standard: Smartphones still retained dedicated 3.5mm headphone jacks, meaning consumers had an easy, zero-latency physical connection without needing a digital-to-analog dongle. The modern “true wireless” boom truly ignited when Apple bundled the original AirPods alongside the headphone-jack-less iPhone 7. They offered unprecedented features at the time: the seamless W1 chip for instant pairing with iOS devices and a magnetic charging case that provided on-the-go battery top-ups.” “Apple’s AirPods and AirPods Pro came to dominate the wireless earphone market by leveraging the massive iPhone user base, delivering frictionless pairing via custom chips (like the W1 and H1), and capitalizing on the removal of the traditional headphone jack. They quickly transformed from simple tech accessories into cultural status symbols. Their unprecedented market leadership was built on several key factors: Flawless Ecosystem Integration: Apple engineered a closed ecosystem that competitors struggled to match. Opening the AirPods case prompts an instant, automatic pairing with an iPhone. Furthermore, the earbuds seamlessly switch audio between MacBooks, iPads, and Apple Watches (and Apple TV’s). A Catalyzed Shift to Wireless: The release of the original AirPods in 2016 coincided with the iPhone 7, which notably removed the standard headphone jack. This forced consumers to transition to wireless or use dongles, positioning AirPods as the default, intended solution. Proprietary Hearable Tech: When introducing the AirPods Pro, Apple established a new premium standard. By packing industry-leading Active Noise Cancellation (ANC), Transparency mode, and spatial audio into a sleek package, they successfully appealed to both casual listeners and audiophiles. Status Symbol Appeal: The iconic, sleek white stem design stood out in a sea of clunky, black Bluetooth earpieces. They rapidly became an internet meme and a pop-culture fashion staple, worn by celebrities and influencers, which provided massive organic marketing. Superior Connectivity and Battery Life: Competitors initially struggled with dropped connections and audio syncing between the left and right earbuds. Apple’s custom chips allowed for synchronized sound, low power consumption, and reliable battery life housed right inside the charging case.” (There’s that custom Apple Silicon again)'
  • Charles A. on Joanna Stern: 'I spent a week with new Siri' (video) - 'The best spam blocker, ever…is SpamSieve! I purchased it ONCE, about 10 years ago, and have been getting FREE upgrades, several times a year, ever since! The app blocks an estimated 98% of ALL spam coming into my inbox, on every one of my devices! I don’t understand why Apple doesn’t just aquihire this small, apparently one-person company — Michael Tsai is the developer’s name — responsible for this phenomenal app!'
  • Bart Yee on Ice Universe: The difference between Samsung and Apple is profound - 'Worldwide Reach: While Apple Pay comfortably leads in the U.S., Google Pay possesses a broader global reach due to the sheer volume of Android devices in markets like India and Southeast Asia.” How much did Google Pay process in 2025? “While Alphabet does not publicly break down the exact global dollar amount for Google Pay’s annual transaction volume, financial industry data indicates that Google Pay has processed over $5 trillion in cumulative lifetime transactions globally. In 2025 alone, its transaction processing was heavily anchored by two vastly different regional markets: 1. India (The Primary Driver) The overwhelming majority of Google Pay’s processing volume happens through India’s Unified Payments Interface (UPI) app ecosystem. Monthly Volume: By mid-to-late 2025, Google Pay consistently processed between 6.5 billion and 7.5 billion transactions per month. Monthly Value: These monthly transactions regularly equated to roughly ₹8.85 lakh crore to ₹10 lakh crore (equivalent to roughly $105 billion to $120 billion USD per month). Annualized Estimate: In India alone, Google Pay processed an estimated $1.2 trillion to $1.4 trillion USD over the course of 2025. 2. United States & Western Markets In Western economies, where Google Pay functions as an NFC/tap-to-pay “Google Wallet” rather than a peer-to-peer network, its footprint is much smaller compared to Apple Pay. User Base: Google Wallet crossed a major milestone in 2025, surpassing 50 million active users in the United States for the first time. Transaction Value: Industry reports from firms like Chargeflow estimate that Google Wallet’s tap-to-pay feature accounts for a 3% to 5% global mobile wallet share, translating to roughly $270 billion to $450 billion in annualized transactions outside of its unique app-based networks.“ Continued'
  • Bart Yee on Ice Universe: The difference between Samsung and Apple is profound - 'Apple Pay Per Gemini: “Before Apple Pay launched in 2014, the mobile payment market was highly fragmented and struggled with mainstream adoption. The technology existed, but a lack of infrastructure, carrier interference, and consumer confusion kept mobile wallets in a “chicken-and-egg” loop. Key characteristics of the pre-Apple Pay market included: Google Wallet’s Early Struggles: Launched in 2011, Google Wallet pioneered NFC tap-to-pay on Android, but was heavily restricted. It required specific devices, was limited to certain carriers like Sprint, and was bogged down by a lack of contactless (NFC) merchant terminals. The “Carrier Blockade”: Major wireless carriers—including Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile—viewed mobile payments as a lucrative revenue stream and initially blocked Google Wallet. They launched their own consortium, Softcard (originally Isis), which ultimately failed to gain market share. Walled Gardens and Closed-Loop Apps: Without a unified platform, early innovators relied on proprietary QR codes or barcodes. For example, the Starbucks app gained massive popularity by allowing users to scan a barcode from their screen, but this only worked within the Starbucks ecosystem. Retailer Pushback: Groups of major merchants, including Walmart, formed the Merchant Customer Exchange (MCX) to build a rival, retailer-controlled payment system called CurrentC. They deliberately disabled or avoided NFC readers to bypass credit card processing fees. Peer-to-Peer Pioneers: While point-of-sale (POS) payments struggled, the digital transfer space saw early successes with platforms like PayPal and the introduction of Venmo, which focused on social and online transactions rather than in-store purchases. Apple Pay changed the landscape by utilizing its massive in-house device market share, enforcing strict security (like TouchID and FaceID tokenization), and striking direct deals with major banks and credit card networks, forcing retailers to upgrade their terminals (to NFC capable and EMV chip compliant).” After Apple Pay? “It took Apple Pay roughly 8 to 10 years from its 2014 launch to achieve mainstream dominance in the contactless mobile payment market. While it quickly became a major player among tech-savvy users, widespread retail adoption and broad consumer habit changes required a longer, steady build: The First Few Years (2014–2017): Adoption was slower than expected due to a lack of merchant infrastructure. In 2014, only about 7% of U.S. payment terminals accepted contactless payments. The Infrastructure Shift (2018): Growth accelerated as EMV (chip and tap) mandates pushed the availability of contactless-ready terminals to over 70%. The Tipping Point (2020–2022): The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed a massive shift toward contactless payments. By the time the service had been out for 8 years, approximately 90% of U.S. stores accepted it, and roughly three-quarters of iPhones had a payment card linked to the wallet. Current Standing: While mobile wallets have fundamentally changed how people pay, and Apple Pay dominates the mobile wallet space, physical cards still process the majority of overall retail spending.” “Apple Pay thoroughly dominates the U.S. mobile wallet market, capturing the lion’s share of digital transactions and in-store mobile wallet payments. However, when looking at total retail spending, physical cards remain the primary choice. U.S. Market Statistics Mobile Wallet Share: Apple Pay accounts for roughly 53.7% to 92% of all in-store mobile wallet transactions in the United States, depending on the specific payment networks (e.g., debit networks). Overall Retail: Despite massive growth, in-store mobile wallet transactions still represent only a portion of all retail volume. Apple Pay accounts for about $450 billion in sales volume and roughly 6% to 10% of eligible in-store retail purchases. Rivalry: Competitors like PayPal, Cash App, and Google Pay are gaining ground in user adoption, but Apple Pay remains the undisputed leader in transaction volume among NFC tap-to-pay services. Global Perspective User Base & Volume: Globally, Apple Pay is utilized by over 785 million people, processing an estimated $8.5 trillion in payments. Continued'
  • Bart Yee on Ice Universe: The difference between Samsung and Apple is profound - 'Apple Watch: various types of digital smart watches existed along with analog watches BUT: “Before the Apple Watch’s release in 2015, the smartwatch market was a fragmented, niche space characterized by bulky designs, limited app ecosystems, and a heavy reliance on host smartphones. Devices largely served as basic notification mirrors rather than standalone health and lifestyle computers. The pre-Apple Watch landscape was defined by three distinct hardware approaches: Pioneer of Modern Smartwatches (Pebble): Originating via a massive 2012 Kickstarter campaign, Pebble proved there was consumer demand. It used low-power e-paper displays and physical buttons to achieve multi-day battery life, serving primarily as a notification hub. Smartphone Companions (Samsung Galaxy Gear, Sony): Tech giants released early iterations that were frequently tied exclusively to their proprietary smartphone lines. These models were highly experimental, occasionally featuring strange gimmicks like built-in wrist cameras. Dedicated Fitness Bands (Fitbit, Garmin): Instead of smartwatches, simpler, screen-less rubber bands were the dominant form of wrist-wear. These were used exclusively for step counting and basic sleep tracking. Overall, the early market was largely geared toward tech enthusiasts rather than mainstream consumers. Watches often suffered from clunky software interfaces and poor battery life, failing to capture global adoption until the Apple Watch combined fashion, health-tracking, and seamless phone integration.” After Apple Watch: It took two to five years for the Apple Watch to cement its dominance. While it debuted in April 2015, the trajectory of its market takeover unfolded in distinct phases: Immediate Market Share (2015): Despite entering a market already saturated with competitors like Pebble and Samsung, Apple captured roughly 75% of the smartwatch market in its first quarter of sales. Wearables Category Leadership (2017): Within just two years, Apple officially became the biggest shipper of all wearable devices, commanding over 20% of the broader global market. Industry Domination (2019-2020): In 2019, just four years post-launch, Apple sold an estimated 31 million units, surpassing the sales of the entire Swiss watchmaking industry. By 2021, the installed user base officially crossed the 100 million mark. Current Standing: The Apple Watch continues to lead the global smartwatch space, capturing roughly 23% of all shipments in a growing market.” (Today, Apple Watch and Watch Ultra dominates the premium Watch landscape, with focused on health, safety, emergency communications, and future health and safety initiatives. Despite the fact “it doesn’t look like a Watch.” Powered by Apple Silicon, as are MacBook, iPad, iPhone.) Continued'
  • Gregg Thurman on Ice Universe: The difference between Samsung and Apple is profound - '” Continued” I’m waiting (not very patiently).'
  • Ben Gepp on Saturday Apple video: Apple’s Secret iPhone launch team - 'extraordinary, really. will we see another moment like that? Apple will continue to make great and amazing products but nothing will come close to the profound impact of the iPhone launch until there is a unicorn moment where all the impossibly precise conditions for a product like iPhone to emerge align and extraordinary effort is expended.'