I believe that at this point Apple is less concerned about the mobile screen, with their existing userbase sufficiently locked-in the priority is probably a UI-language that works (and blends) well on large surfaces (AR-glasses)...
Which is strange given that VR and AR are niche at best. The smartphone took off at the time because it was affordable and unobtrusive, Apple's own AR device is just silly to use in public.
(I'm aware this is partly cultural desensitization, I remember the memes back when of people looking like shrimps staring at their phones etc).
It is less strange when you consider that AR could be the technology to replace the smartphone itself.
So far nothing could replace it (headsets, watches, other wearable) because while different ways of interaction exist, the users always needed a screen for (media) consumption.
An AR device could suddenly tick all boxes, make a user buy such glasses as companion device and slowly transition away from his iPhone. So Apple needs to prepare and expand its ecosystem stickyness to AR.
Apple rescued itself from bankruptcy with the iPod. When mobile phones began to gain storage for MP3s and internet access, Apple saw the writing on the wall for their cash cow. They pushed a multitouch acquisition from room-scale projection to another level for handheld devices, and then married that with its supply chain breakthroughs at the time. Now it sees the writing on the wall for iPhone and the relevancy of all the halo products and services once more ambient on-person computing becomes common.
I'm sorry, but no. Apple was a quite stable company in 2001 before the iPod. It was saved from bankruptcy with the iMac and the early Jobs era of Macs. The iPod helped rocket Apple to the stratosphere, but the company would have been fine without it.
That actually makes a ton of sense and I don't know why you are being downvoted! In AR there's much more space, so padding and rounded corners matter less, and in VR you don't want control surfaces obstructing the view completely. It's useful to be able to see there's "something" behind that navigation icon. Even if you can't distinguish it clearly at least you won't walk into it.
Not saying it's a good bet for Apple or for users, but it seems that's the bet they are making.
That's absolutely obvious. What people are arguing is that this is a terrible move for many reasons. 0.1% of iphone users have a Vision Pro and Apple just degraded the experience for all of us.
They do this because there might soon be a disruptive AR-product (e.g. some nextgen Meta RayBan's) which gets adopted as companion device by the iPhone userbase and then gradually shifts their usage away from the iPhone to that other product.
So Apple needs to expand their ecosystem with all its stickyness to AR, as this ensures that even if competing AR products will be more appealing, they will all be inferior because only Apple's AR-product will allow you to mirror your whole iOS experience with all apps and content.
Ok, preparing for another corporation's takeover of the AR market is indeed a much better strategy (for Apple). Still, is it worth worsening the experience for all your current customers? Apple simply doesn't care about them, just hoarding cattle.
Well...yes, they are cattle. And the cattle doesn't like when someone says that, but Apple's most lucrative asset is that it is gatekeeper to a group of consumers with above-average spending power. Most of what Apple did in the last years was to ensure that their customers cannot be reached without Apple being paid.
