What do you want them to come out with instead?

These are the devices people use all day every day. Iterating on them makes sense.

They are also working on AirPods with vision, released a home hub with display, released AR goggles, releasing GPU heavy servers, creating a framework for AI interfaces, …

Are you hoping for a replicator or transporter?

▲

dozerly 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say we want useful innovation

▲

vulk 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Replicator would be nice but here is a more managable list for start:

- Not solderable components so I can upgrade my machine, ok maybe this is too much I will just take an easy to replace battery. - Longer lasting battery for wearables like watches if the competition can make a battery last 15 days I think Apple can too especially given how efficient the arm chips are in their laptops. - Some hardware design changes Apple watch is literarily the same design since its launch, not to mention that the Apple watch ultra had different shades of orange for the button and the wheel I mean come on. - Software wise I really don't mind the new glass design system but I don't understand why I can't have basic features that an intern can push I literally bought and sold the apple watch like 5 times because I just wanted a simple step counter widget I didn't want a third party app a simple step counter widget and they released it this year 2026 a step counter widget maybe it is harder to do than a replicator who knows.

	▲	gimmeshelter369 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		How often do you replace your battery that a once-every-3-years trip to Apple Store and paying for service AND parts $59-$139 is such an inconvenience? I really want a fridge with easily replaceable condenser, washing machine with easily replaceable bearing, and a Subaru with great access to spark plugs... You still live in era of 2003 phones where battery was accessible via a flap, but at the same time you want a top tier computer in your pocket and waterproofing. You people are ridiculous sometimes.

▲

bigyabai 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I want the Mac Pro back. It was depreciated for no valid reason, and has plenty of technical opportunity to expand Apple's presence in the agent VM and inference hardware stack. If Apple is going to renege their stupid decisions, now is a great time to find a place for Apple Silicon in the trillion-dollar AI buildout.

The Mac itself still hasn't proven that it has a place in the future. It's not any more profitable than the iPad in revenue breakdowns, and doesn't come close to the install base of the iPhone. Compared to Windows PCs and Linux servers, Apple has entrenched the Mac as a second-class citizen for traditional computing. Instead of pushing to make macOS an unavoidable flagship operating system, Apple promotes insular API/SDK usage and seemingly leans towards a less-profitable B2C market segment. Tim Cook's obsession over service revenue caused Apple to forfeit the high performance ARM market, which is a shame, since Apple Silicon is quite competitive in ways that the Vision Pro and HomeView will never be.

▲

npunt 3 hours ago | parent [-]

That's never been Apple's market, B2B is not in their DNA, nor is winning absolute market share. You're asking them to go from being a company that is about something (great consumer experience) to a company that chases profit wherever it can find it.

Once they go down that path, they open themselves up to whatever technology changes and drifts happen in an entirely different market, which right now is going through a tectonic shift with AI. We don't even know what happens in that market in 1-2 years let alone 5 or 10 or more. The business cycles are different, the customers are different, the demands are different. How do you even begin to plan for that?

You're zeroing in on a technical advantage Apple currently has with silicon while ignoring the lack of advantage they have everywhere else in their operation. That'll never happen and it's the antithesis of a half century of company history.

As far as the Mac, it's the truck that does the heavy work so the other platforms like iOS are light [1]. That's been the guiding philosophy, the sandbox it plays within.

[1]: https://youtu.be/ZLEzEL35Iyc?t=2662

▲

bigyabai 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Hence why I conditioned it:

> If Apple is going to renege their stupid decisions, now is a great time to find a place for Apple Silicon

Apple's B2C obsession isn't smart. Their service revenue is quite literally deemed illegal and exploitative in several courts, they cannot rely on the App Store and iCloud-style tie-ins forever. The progress that they've made on the A-series chips goes largely unnoticed to a cohort of users that scrolls TikTok and Polymarket. The progress of the M-series chips has not moved the needle on macOS' market share even with 7 years of sales marked down. Right now, they're lining themselves up for the worst of both worlds; being shackled to low-margin B2C products that aren't legally allowed to ammortize costs with lock-in "ecosystem" services. Apple will be forced to make changes if the status-quo continues to punish their business strategy.

So... why not lean into their strengths? iPhone customers will rarely notice fast single-core performance, but devops and enterprises will. Apple fundamentally supports expansion via PCI on Apple Silicon, and their SOCs demonstrably handle Linux, CUDA and Vulkan without any significant bottlenecks. The Mac Pro was 90% of the complete package for a particularly rich type of customer, and Apple refused to invest in the last 10% to uphold a pointless grudge. This stupid decision is why terrible ARM SOCs like Ampere and Grace have dominated the AI buildout even when Apple Silicon destroys them on-paper. Depreciating the Mac Pro is a solipsistic, insane decision that formally abandons Apple's attempts at dominating anything except the prosumer market. This isn't even an Xserve style slip-up, it's a radical steering decision that prevents customers like Pixar from even considering Apple Silicon for a server farm.

> As far as the Mac, it's the truck that does the heavy work

For now. Apple has laid the groundwork for what comes after, though: https://developer.apple.com/xcode-cloud/

▲

npunt 38 minutes ago | parent [-]

Ok I see where you're going. I think we'd both agree that the PC market is mature and unlikely to grow further, their services revenues aren't looking sustainable long term, and that AI demand is high. Good food for thought!

Some facts to consider tho since I think you're underestimating the apple silicon change:

MacOS market share went from 7.5% (2020) -> 9% (2025)

Mac gross margins are harder to estimate but suggest a change from 24% (2016) [1] -> 41% (2025) [2] if you divide profits from revenues. These exclude services.

PC market profit share is >60%, as in Apple get most of the money made in the PC market.

So the idea that apple silicon didn't really move the needle isn't supported. Apple also cares about profit share far far more than market share. Market share can be a liability because of antitrust and supporting less desirable users and use cases. A few decades ago they chose not to get into the Netbook fad when everyone else was because of this philosophy, so its not new.

Apple is certainly ramping up their server hardware as it seems to be angling to run models on their own silicon, and Xcode cloud is a natural extension of that activity. I'm not sure that suggests selling servers or server capacity though. The end result is the same biz model: the people using this server capacity are still primarily individual customers.

The main question about the AI buildout right now is a ton of money is being invested and the returns on that capital are highly speculative. Everyone is investing, sure, but there's a lot of economic headwinds and its unclear where the value will ultimately accrue. If Apple jumps into something, they tend to do it with a decade-long perspective. What you're arguing for is that Apple should have jumped in early, which regardless of B2B v B2C, is not Apple's style.

If apple were to get into that and leverage their silicon advantage, they'd need to significantly increase their supply of silicon. They're already pretty much at capacity serving B2C, and they typically do big capital investments with places like TSMC to build out the capacity they need for nextgen process. Same with ram, probably even more of a limited resource right now. If they were to jump into enterprise in a big way, it wouldn't just be 'make more chips' it would be drastically increasing their capex to expand capacity, and that takes years of lead time to do. The AI buildout is very new, its really all just in the last 2-3 years. I just don't think they could have delivered on this idea right now, based on what they knew in ~2024 and the capacity they have available. If anything their strategy, whether intentional or not, is looking rather prudent. But another month or two passes and maybe that will change too. Things are changing very fast right now.

[1]: https://asymco.com/2016/11/02/wherefore-art-thou-macintosh/

[2]: https://asymco.com/2026/03/18/the-biggest-surprise-of-the-ma...

	▲	bigyabai 17 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It just doesn't feel very "skate to where the puck is headed" to me. Apple is holding on for dear life to a business model that has very little momentum. Apple was ready for the AI buildout, which is what upsets me. The rackmount Mac Pro is the perfect product for Apple to sell datacenter customers, all they need to support are CUDA drivers (which are already ARM/BSD-ready) and some sort of PCIe interconnect. There was no "pivot" that was required, outside of their software policy. Maybe AI was a bubble, but missing out on that capital is a bigger problem than suffering from success a-la Nvidia. When AI hype dies down, there's going to be new markets that Apple has to be ready to capitalize on. AI and GPGPU compute have been good exercises for testing Apple's flexibility, but a lot of those advances are flushed down the toilet on hardware like the Mac Studio, which forces customers into non-scalable Thunderbolt RDMA clusters. I'd argue the supply chain is a non-issue, too. Apple's chips are a high/low mix, and most of them go to TSMC when they really shouldn't. Apple's A-series SOCs could be manufactured by Intel or Samsung without setting them back too far on fab nodes. Mac chips could remain TSMC products, and Apple could pivot their high-memory SKUs to the Mac Pro form factor instead of forcing it into a non-scalable Studio chassis. That would give them a product that the industry could start to buy again, and they could even offer it as a consumer product if they wanted to thumb up their nose at Nvidia. The current Studio is a sad flagship to sell, reminiscent of the Trash Can form factor with even fewer hardware features. It's Ternus' choice, and he seems to be open to new ideas. Apple isn't immune to bad decisionmaking though, and I bet that future generations will be confused why the ARM datacenter was dominated by non-entities like Ampere and Nvidia selling low-performance licensed cores.