> Arpeggio used their own technology to do drug discovery, and sold it as “consulting” to build credibility with investors and trust with a few initial clients.
This sounds like a great example of them focusing on one thing and doing it well. It must have been a tightrope walk not to give too much information away about their IP and get crushed by competitors.
Content purchases like podcasts with high loyalty and high NPS are smart buys. Anything to make the average consumer look favourably upon their brand and add yet another factor for lock-in. With such cheap capital it will be interesting to see how large these content purchases get.
> I am a skeptic and I'm very far from trusting experts.
As you've said this I hardly think anything I'm going to show you will change your mind. However you have asked for some evidence so here is some.
> Sea levels
From about 3,000 years ago to about 100 years ago, sea levels naturally rose and declined slightly, with little change in the overall trend. Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993)
From the IPCC 2014:
Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.
If you really want to learn I cannot recommend the IPCC's reports enough, whether you 'trust experts' or not, they lay out the problems we face as a species. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, caused in large part by human activity.
> From about 3,000 years ago to about 100 years ago, sea levels naturally rose and declined slightly, with little change in the overall trend. Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993)
This is hearsay. You were not there 3000 years ago, or even 100 years. You have been told a story and are re-telling it to me. Why should I believe it? I know how people can mislead into lying with statistics, for their work, etc to prepare information that is not accurate. I just don't have any faith in science. (I love the scientific method, but that's a different story, that pales into insignificance when funding is involved.)
> In 2018, the all-species index in the UK, based on the aggregated population trends of 130 breeding species, was 11% below its 1970 value.
We have had industrial farming methods take off at that time, and we do throw some awful stuff on the soil - I'm prepared to believe that this is probably fair data. However, how can I know this is really true?
Can someone explain to a layman like me the how severe the risks are here? The article doesn't go on to say more than it's effecting wild birds and authorities are trying to stop it infecting livestock.
The article doesn't say there has been a jump in species. Is the discovery of new viruses in wild birds not a regular occurrence?
You some good points and I agree that their move to services could be better but I think saying they are "failing" is a bit strong. I'd argue their bundle is just getting started.
---
To address your points:
> Apple have taken their absolute dominance in selling music and moved to middle of the pack in music streaming squeezed between Spotify and Youtube.
This is your point I agree with most, Apple music just isn't as good and its shocking they lost so much ground.
> Apple's Siri is distinctly second tier, losing them both for Apple Music, but also potential shopping via smart assistant.
Siri just isn't good but honestly how many people use voice assistants for more than changing songs or checking the weather?
> Cloud comes across as Apple nickle and dime-ing their customers, insisting you need to back up your phone but providing laughable amounts of storage for free - and then becoming nagware
Agreed it is laughable but I would argue people concerned with backing up all their devices are in the minority of Apple customers. It wouldn't be why most people pay $15 a month.
> Finally you've got the Appstore. Apple is getting absolutely hammered on their 30% fee. At this point it looks almost certain that they'll either change their fee structure or face regulatory action.
I don't really see how this is relevant to the mediocre services Apple offers except it is an unfair advantage they have on other SaaS competitors. I suspect it may be one of the reasons they haven't already decided to swallow SaaS competitors like Spotify, so they can say the app store is competitive and not disturb the golden goose that is the 30% fee.
> If Apple is a services company why isn't FaceTime adding $100Bn of market cap to Apple's value as a competitor to Zoom?
I don't think market caps, especially with the past years stock market, tell us much about the effectiveness of services. However, Apple's current market cap is 2 trillion, 20 times the cap of Zoom. To add to this, Zooms P/E ratio is 530 compared to Apples P/E of 36 which indicates Zoom is wildly overvalued. Even if it was a useful comparison Apple is in a different league.
---
I think Apple's biggest problem is the lack of one killer service to offer as part of their bundle. If they offered mediocre Apple music, Apple fitness and Apple arcade but Apple TV was on par with Netflix most people would use the mediocre services to save on the gaining number of other SaaS products modern consumers pay for.
Apple has the money and talent to create one killer service, they just haven't been running a lot of their services long enough to be killers - (with the exception of music). I think it's just a matter of time until Apple create a killer service and people getting sick of paying for multiple SaaS products.
It really feels like Facebook is making a mistake here. Most people who are into VR are relatively tech savvy and probably not that keen on being forced to tether to Facebook as a company. I don't think you'll be alone in your decision to look at other VR solutions.
It's a shame because I wanted to get into VR at the beginning of lockdown and everything I've read about Oculus seemed positive except the facebook account.
One of the most frustrating things about mega corps like Facebook is that it’s really easy for them to make dumb decisions and just keep going. They’re too large for anything but the biggest mistakes to bring market pressure to bear.
The literal worst case here for FB is that a few people don’t buy a Quest II, which isn’t even core to their business success.
Well, it ostensibly hurts the entire Oculus line, not just the Quest 2.
And, while it's not core to their current business success, it was intended as a strategic decision, to have a path into VR social networks, I suspect. But I can easily see short term business decisions and priorities dominating that consideration, yes. Businesses are not know known for their long term planning skills.
This sounds like a great example of them focusing on one thing and doing it well. It must have been a tightrope walk not to give too much information away about their IP and get crushed by competitors.