This comment hits hard as I tried to buy a Mac Mini this morning and could not find one anywhere in Calgary

As a company, this is a great problem to have. Way better than the opposite.

Doesn't this prove that they are hardware independent? Even having products not in stock was a Steve Jobs thing and this is possibly a temporary effect of supply chains changing.

I always wonder if this is a possibility. They've worked so closely with TSMC that they've many times over the decade bankrolled R&D and equipment that TSMC uses. I would be super interested to know if that relationship has left them enough know-how of the fab process to someday control their destiny there, that would actually be pretty insane.

Perhaps something that Ternus can add to his legacy-building exercise, given that he led hardware.

Especially outside of Taiwan.

I imagine you're saying the capital return program is a mistake because they should reinvest the money in R&D etc.

I think the issue is there's diminishing returns to spending, and in some cases it can be outright negative. For example, one major thing you can do with money is hire more people. Hiring more people than you can handle is a great way to grind everything to a halt. You're basically making a bet when you hire that the additional capacity outweighs the danger of coordination failure.

Perhaps you could invest more money in fabs or something like that. I don't know, I'm a software person. But I did work at apple on software for 15 years, and I do not think throwing more money at software is particularly effective. The biggest teams at apple are often the least functional.

That is absurd. Nobody is arguing that Apple should deplete its war chest. Steve Jobs's infantile stance against dividends has fortunately been replaced by a proper return to the company's OWNERS.

And "Harmony OS" is going to threaten their ecosystem of hardware, software, services, and developers?

Always remember that most of their “services” revenue is the App Store 30% tax on casino games for children, and the commissions for Safari default search engine coming from Google. These two are Apple’s twin licenses to print money, and both of them grow without Apple needing to innovate or really do anything.

App Store grows as the addictive game publishers improve their manipulation skills, and Google’s check grows as browser usage increases. Every time someone types, say, “Citibank” into the search box and doesn’t add .com, Apple earns a tiny payment from Google.

I’m sure they als make a decent chunk of money from iCloud as users who buy base models are almost certainly forced to make use of iCloud Photo Library to free up enough space on the device to even function; but I suspect it’s orders of magnitude less than that.

They really should have built a car.

It'd make them leaders in batteries.

It'd keep America at the forefront of EVs.

Huge disappointment.

In fairness to all concerned, the MacOS to MacOS X transition was brilliantly executed. These days we take VMs for granted, but back then it was a novel idea to run MacOS 8 as a process inside of MacOS X (the "blue box"). For most users it was seamless.

It's right there in the developer APIs. All of those NS_ prefixes in the MacOS and iOS SDKs stand for NeXTSTEP.

They pretty much still only have a "Good -> Better -> Best" ladder for the majority of their products, with a handful of "niche" offerings sprinkled in. Complexity hasn't increased much from those days, they added one extra column and row

iPhone: iPhone 17e -> iPhone 17 -> iPhone 17 Pro (Niche: iPhone Air)

iPad: iPad -> iPad Air - > iPad Pro (Niche: iPad Mini)

Mac Laptop: Macbook Neo -> Macbook Air -> Macbook Pro

Mac Desktop: Mac Mini -> iMac -> Mac Studio

They have product with different screen sizes, but those are really just configuration options on the base product in that tier, now. Compare that to offerings from Samsung or Dell and you can see it could be much, much more complicated.

That was a different era of consumer behavior. Consumers are hyper targeted with personalized organic and paid messages. The algorithmic media ecosystem mitigates or counters complex product offerings. For example, my YouTube feed displays Apple Pro devices reviews over other lines like iPad basic. Also, purchase power acts as a natural filter.

There is a difference between 5 B revenue and 400 B revenue.

Also the price point shifted from primarily a 2K machine, to all price ranges, with the original iPhone being a few hundred bucks. More sales smaller units so the number of products being sold is more than it appears based on the revenue comparison.

Maybe the price per unit is available somewhere for people to trend how it changed over 2-3 decades.

I couldn’t find information about discontinuation in the article - did I miss it or is there another source?

Edit, I found this: https://www.macrumors.com/2026/04/29/apple-vision-pro-m5-flo... - seems like rumors; but perhaps as close to an announcement as we’ll ever get.

"in a couple of generations there was a solid chance that it would be easy sell for me and/or other people who don't VR/AR game but probably would use it for media/productivity."

Why in a couple of generations? You've put your finger on why the product failed: Apple's fear of connectivity. Apple zealously cripples the I/O on all of its mobile products, rendering them unusable for so many things.

All the Vision Pro needed was a video input. Gamers, 3-D modelers, drone pilots, filmmakers, engineers, travelers... all would have been a ready market for an excellent head-mounted video device. But nope... Apple can't have people doing anything with its products that it didn't think of.

There's been nothing but rumors about that. I don't think it's getting canned.

>I am personally saddest to hear about the discontinuation of the Vision Pro

I'm more sad they cancelled their EV project. We need more healthy competition there than public spying VR ski goggles.

More likely they would buy the assets of AI companies for pennies on the dollar. There could be a lot of H100s floating around at fire sale prices. Or they would acquire these companies for talent.

Google did this for several years in the early 2000s – snapping up talent and data center capacity from the casualties of the dotcom bust.

For the same reason that Yahoo should have bought Google after the dot-com bust. AI is useful and will eventually change the world. Many companies won't be able to provide sufficient returns, but will still have useful assets that Apple could buy at a discount.