We have only a few months until September which has been officially booked by Apple to launch its iconic products, led by the iPhone lineup. I think if you are even a little bit interested in technology, you must already notice the buzz all over the internet and social media, filled with people’s predictions, guesses, early “confirmations” about Apple plans and leaks, a lot of leaks, from software updates to hardware wireframes. Yes, we love Apple but does it really love us back with such determination?
Okay, the figurative speech aside, there is a big group of people who don’t feel satisfied with what Apple does. Don’t get this wrong, they are still ready to pay more than a thousand dollars for a new iPhone, but the innovation they expect is coming very slowly, at least compared to Samsung, Apple’s biggest rival, which has already introduced its AI capabilities.
It’s important to consider the truth that Apple is not trying to impress with innovations but with safe and intuitive products, which require time to implement and then only pass to the customer. Meanwhile, someone is sitting in front of their Macbook and trying to play the latest game but gets more and more convinced that other PCs may perform way too well, for instance. So, let’s start with this part.
Let’s be real – Apple products excel in many areas, but hardcore gaming performance just isn’t one of their strong suits. I’m an Apple super-fan who loves their signature premium design and intuitive user experiences. But when it comes to running demanding game titles, even Apple’s top-tier hardware gets outpaced by custom gaming PCs.
If you wonder about the difference between Mac Vs. Windows gaming experiences, just look at the experience of playing a graphically intense open-world game like Cyberpunk 2077 on a maxed-out M1 Max MacBook Pro versus a high-end gaming device. While the $3,499 MacBook can handle the game at lower settings around 30 fps, a similarly priced $3,000 PC with an RTX 4090 GPU pumps out over 100 fps at ultra settings with raytracing enabled. You’re talking about the difference between choppy, compromised visuals and a completely immersive experience.
The reason is simple – gaming PCs are purpose-built systems optimized for these 3D workloads. They pack powerful discrete GPUs like Nvidia’s latest 40-series cards with up to 24GB of video memory, liquid cooling setups to sustain peak performance, and ultra-fast M.2 NVMe SSD storage to minimize load times. Apple’s all-in-one designs with integrated graphics simply can’t match that level of raw power.
I’m utterly obsessed with the Apple ecosystem, but there’s no denying Spotify’s streaming service seems to consistently out-innovate the music discovery experience versus Apple Music. While Apple has drastically improved their offering, Spotify’s cutting-edge data science and recommendation engines give them a decided advantage.
Take Spotify’s advanced ‘Audio AI’ features like their AI DJ or the all-new ‘AI Utterance’ voice models. These use machine learning to analyze your listening patterns, demographics, and taste profiles to craft incredibly personalized DJ commentary and seamless playlist transitions tailored just for you. It’s like having a knowledgeable music expert as your private curator.
By comparison, Apple Music’s recommendations still feel more rudimentary and standardized. Their approaches like grouping playlists by moods or genres just doesn’t achieve that hyper-personalized user experience Spotify nails so well.
The user numbers underline Spotify’s dominance too. As of Q3 2023, Spotify boasts over 236 million paying subscribers globally versus Apple Music’s estimated 93 million (as of 2024). That incredible scale means Spotify can ingest vastly more listening data to train their AI models. Industry data indicates Spotify tracks over 79 billion monthly plays across its platform versus Apple’s 35 billion.
So while both are excellent services, for music superfans craving that next-gen AI-curated experience, Spotify’s aggressive emphasis on personalization AI gives them the decided edge – at least for now.
We all saw that splashy Meta keynote video where Mark Zuckerberg threw unmistakable shade at Apple’s upcoming Vision Pro mixed reality headset. Calling the $3,499 device “expensive” while claiming Meta’s $1,499 Quest Pro offers a superior extended reality (XR) experience, Zuck was clearly attempting to get out in front of Apple’s invasion into his virtual territory.
In reality, both the Vision Pro and Quest Pro represent enormously expensive bets on an as-yet-unproven consumer XR market. While Meta enjoys a significant cost advantage thanks to their content-neutral, open ecosystem approach, Apple’s track record for premium industrial design and obsessive hardware optimization could give Vision Pro’s experience a serious edge.
Take the Vision Pro’s novel aluminum and curved glass design, for example. With an internal fan, vents, and over a dozen cameras and sensors, it represents a technical marvel of miniaturization and ergonomics – hallmarks of Apple’s renowned hardware chops. The Pro’s ultra high-res displays also output at a silky 120Hz refresh rate for life-like visual fidelity.
By contrast, Meta’s plastic Quest Pro headset looks comparatively toy-ish and low-rent, with LCD panels that max out at 90Hz and less than half the number of cameras. But as always with Apple products, that seamless user experience comes at a premium cost.