Funny you should mention social media in the context of Apple, because they seem to have been attempting that with iTunes Ping[1] and then Apple Music.
iTunes Ping was a Jobs-era attempt to create a social network for music. It seems that they were trying to rely on integrating with Facebook, who pulled out of the collaboration in the last minute before Ping's release.
Apple hasn't seem to have given up on social networks for music. Apple Music presents a nascent networking feature where users can see what their friends are listening to.[2] It seems that Apple has learned their lesson from Ping and does not rely on a third-party for a social graph, which is instead powered by iOS contacts.
While social media is not Apple's bread and butter, they have maintained their interest in having presence in this market. I would assume that this stems from Apple's overall desire to maintain influence over on-the-top services that define the iOS experience. If they let third parties flourish even further, thirds parties gain leverage that they can use during negotiations with Apple. If third parties successfully negotiate for more features that creates parity with apps on non-Apple devices, Apple loses its differentiation on the device markets, thereby losing revenue.
(I think Stratechery wrote about Apple's service strategy that was motivated by its past relationships with Adobe and Spotify. Couldn't find the link.)
> We’re not asking them to come up with a better social media, or a better Notion or a better Netflix.
You're right that we haven't asked them for better on-the-top services. But it seems to be in Apple's interest to compete with third party services providers and make sure they do not supersede Apple in terms of their influence over on-the-top experiences.
I think this is an interesting application of computer vision for healthcare purposes.
I've noticed that the app tends to use 15% of my CPU constantly. I wonder if there is room to improve efficiency so that the app does not hog resources.
Apple seems to have been shifting from the i-prefix since Apple TV. The i-prefix trademark is very easy for competitors to mimic; there's no trademark protection.
"Apple X" scheme is better suited to capitalize on and enhance the Apple brand. No competitor can mimic that, as "Apple" name is a monopoly under trademark protection.
> It feels like they wanted to start super high to really test the market
Reminds me of how Steve Jobs announced a price reduction by $200 in two months after the release of the first iPhone. Apple can likewise reduce the price of Apple Vision, but save face this time by releasing a non-Pro version.
> If they ever exit the space
I'm not sure if Apple would exit the space that easily. While markets for auxiliary products like homepods were easier to exit, Apple announced Apple Vision announced with too much fanfare to exit quickly.
Apple will probably commit to Apple Vision for a while, just like the Apple Watch. While the first Apple Watch did not take off massively, Apple persisted by pivoting it from a luxury item to a more practical device for fitness and Apple Pay.
The iPhone's "aha" seemed to come from making existing workflows so much easier with touch gestures (e.g. scrolling through texts and contacts). It addressed and improved upon a pain point that we all knew from using cellphones.
> Once you played enough VR, you kind of get over it.
This, very much. It's one thing to invent in a new device category, it's another to turn it into a habit. The iPhone targeted existing habits, such as checking emails and watching videos, that made it very sticky. I'm not sure if Apple Vision has a sticky application, especially with the obstacle of (1) wearing a headset (2) plugging the battery chord (3) enduring the weight.