zlacker

It's happening at Apple right now. The hand picked successor to Steve was the one who could keep the ship running smoothly, not the one who pushed back with new radical product directions.

>>dluan+(OP)
I don't disagree with you, but I'd argue the Apple Vision is (was) in that vein (and predictably unsuccessful). I'm also glad they're not charging ahead with AI at the rate everyone else seems to be.

I'll also say one of the best things Apple did in recent years was in-house their CPUs.

>>dluan+(OP)
Maybe there's no revolutionary hardware left to invent except the next smartphone that will actually be a chip in your brain.

>>conrad+QH
The iPhone was essentially enabled by (a) broadly deployed cellular networks, (b) touchscreens, (c) power efficient mobile chips, (d) battery technology.

The iWatch or iPad are probably better examples, as their technological prerequisites existed for quite a while before Apple packed them.

And I’d point out that they’re all fundamentally different physical interfacing methods.

Apple’s last non-physical major products were iTunes (more of a legal / licensing product than a technical one) and the App Store (basically driven by iPhone deployment and lock-in).

Has Apple ever released a groundbreaking non-physical/interface product? MacOS? Final Cut Pro?

>>ethbr1+PD1
Better glass as well. The old plastic touchscreen looked abysmal compared to the smooth glass screen.