Apple to make announcement ‘bigger and better’ than a new product

Apple is set to make an announcement that is “bigger and better” than a new product, according to a CBS’ Gayle King who interviewed chief executive Tim Cook.

Apple Park in Cupertino, California
Apple Park in Cupertino, California

Andrew Griffin for Yahoo Finance:

CBS’ Gayle King spoke to the Apple boss in the wake of the company’s ban on Parler… But at the end of the segment, Ms King said the full interview would be aired the following day, on Wednesday morning. The interview was actually organised to facilitate another announcement, she said.

What’s more, that announcement was not a new product but something “bigger and better than that”, she told her co-hosts.

Most likely the announcement relates to the ongoing fight against COVID-19, analysts said. It could be that the company is preparing to announce that its stores – many of which are closed around the world – will be used to help deliver the vaccine, for instance.

Analyst Neil Cybart noted that such an announcement “makes sense” since the interview was conducted virtually but with Ms King sat in an Apple Store, vaccines “are certainly more important than new products”, and the company has offered to help with the pandemic in the past.

MacDailyNews Take: It certainly makes excellent business sense that Apple would volunteer their huge network of retail stores to as sites to dispense the COVID-19 vaccines as it would engender tremendous goodwill. People would always remember their local Apple Store as the place they began to put COVID-19 behind them. It’d be a great move for Apple to make!

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Arline M.” for the heads up.]

29 Comments

    1. Weiner Cook as predicted on the Far Left, a term you never hear in the media, you just hear or read Far Right, is yet another example of extreme media bias. He said nothing substantial, and probably good for him to do so. Revoke Section 230 so cowards like Cook cannot hide behind the law protecting them.

      Cook Apologist TxRacist in 3…2…1…

      1. IMHO: Revoking Section 230 would make Big Tech even more aggressive at removing and moderating content, because of the increased liability and responsibility to monitor it. I don’t see why everyone outraged with the Parler stuff is also pushing for it to be revoked since it would just push it further that direction.

  1. I, for one, am not hetting a vacine for a virus that has a 99.5 survival rate. The virus has only been here since Feb 2020. That’s 10 months. We don’t know enough about this vacine to just shoot it into our bodies. Seriously, 10 months ago the virus hit, now we have a vacine? No thanks. Just be smart, safe and clean to a reasonable extent.

    1. You could ask my brother-in-law about all the factual inaccuracies in your post. He religiously practiced social distancing in almost total isolation for nine months until one of his kids came over for Christmas dinner. Tested positive last Monday and died on Saturday, so I guess you can’t ask him.

        1. It shows that the coronavirus is real and is killing real people. Telling people like my brother-in-law’s kids that it is no big deal encourages them not to take precautions, and that is killing people. Lying about the comparative risks of the virus and the vaccine is discouraging the widespread uptake of the vaccine, which will kill people. If you cannot see that, you are stupid, heartless, or both.

          1. TxUser, sorry to hear about your BIL; losing family is always rough and its emotionally worse when it felt preventable. I have a friend in CA who’s fighting it; their fever hit 103.1F last night.

            Now for those like BigZ who are paranoid about a vaccine, that’s their prerogative, except for spreading false information. My attitude of late is that I’m going to respect their personal reluctance because it means that I move up earlier in the line to get vaccinated.

            And yes, sure, they’re probably also hurting those who listen to them, but that’s probably more of BigZ’s family and friends than totally ignorant bystanders: I’ll provide some information to educated, but ultimately, I just don’t mind taking over their spot in line either.

            Now regarding that ‘some information’ for “we don’t know enough” BigZ:

            his claim is wrong, because if he had done much research at all, he would have learned at least two things:

            First, mRNA tech has been undergoing human subject research trials since the 1990s; its not a profound alternation to plug in the code of a different receptor … its just been expensive, so its use has mostly been just in those breakthrough immunotherapy cancer treatments.

            Second, the Phase II/III trials for these CoVid19 vaccines were roughly 10x larger than historical studies – – that’s because there was big money to bankroll having big sample sizes (eg, 40,000) so that they could deliver results in only months instead of years. In doing so, they’re also now developing better resolution on the statistical risks of side effects – – all of which means that the objective data is significantly better for this vaccine than ones in the past.

            But there’s no reason for BigZ to listen to me … at least not until after I’ve taken his place in line.

            1. BigZ didn’t make a “not real” claim, but instead attempted to trivialize its harm potential with the “99.5% Survival Rate” routine.

              Of course, makes one wonder what BigZ’s age is, for what risk group they’re in, for the “99.5% live” basically only applies to those under age 50, concurrently with zero comorbidity factors (and over 40% of the US population has 1+ comorbidity factors).

              Likewise, the fear over medicine can also be an interesting one…I expect that we’ll soon hear false claims that there’s “mercury” (thimerosal) in them too. In the meantime, these “I won’t contaminate my body” types can still be found out chowing down on furthest-thing-possible-from-organic mystery meat hot dogs while slugging back cans of 5 Hr Energy. /S

      1. Once again the MASTER OF DEFLECTION cannot come to grips and directly address BigZ post that “virus that has a 99.5 survival rate” actually is shy the survival rate is more. But TxLiar will not recognize or give credit to reality. Instead, he posts a sob story and because he is a proven LIAR I don’t believe it and regardless, it does not properly address the points on the post…

        1. Well, to directly address…

          Its impossible for the survival rate to ever be any higher than 99.78%, because already 0.12% of Americans have died from CoVid (380K divided by 331M total population)

          To model what the likely survival rate is, there’s two simple options.

          First one is to use the CFR (Case Fatality Rate). Its 1.7% (inverse = 98.3%)

          Second is to take known mortality & divide not by total population, but the estimate of total population who’s been exposed & infected. The current estimate is still just 20% or so, so this one is (380K/(331M*20%) = 0.57% … which is 99.4% survival.

          But the mortality rate isn’t the sole issue, because there’s also survival without a full recovery.

          The September 11 issue of “JAMA Cardiology” reported on a college athletics screening study – – they found

          “…evidence of myocarditis in 15 percent, while a further 30 percent had cellular damage or swelling that could not be linked definitively to the condition.”

          FYi, roughly half of myocarditis cases become chronic, so you’re looking at ~5% of the US population being PERMANTLY affected.

          Here’s a citation link, of MDN permits:

          https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/college-athletes-experienced-heart-damage-after-covid-19-study-67929

      1. Run along and get your all new mRNA vaccine- Bill Gates says you will be fine. Don’t ask silly questions about why mRNA vaccines for COVID (going all the way back to SARS) have failed to come to market when being properly tested. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the crazy long term side effects they found in animal testing like sterilization. I’m sure they simply haven’t brought them to market because you know they already make enough money and don’t want to appear greedy or some other virtuous reason. 🤪liberalism is a straight up mental disease.

    2. When you are doing the survival arithmetic 1) 99.5% survival means 0.5% chance that you will slowly smother and die. To repeat: one chance in 200 that your lungs will slowly fail, starving you for air, until you are dead. To me this thought is terrifying. 2) You will transmit COVID to others and some of them will die. 3) There is no vaccine approved for kids so you can transmit COVID to any child you encounter. 4) Some survivors never fully recover. They are handicapped for the rest of they lives! I believe in doing independent thinking, like you are doing. But imagine yourself slowly smothering as your lungs fail. Are you still sure that you don’t want the vaccine — when it eventually becomes available to you? For what it is worth, I respect whatever choice you make. Please protect loved-ones around you.

    3. 99.5%?

      Well, the CFR is still running ~1.7%, so that metric is more like 98.3% – – but it happens to exclude those who survive, but with degraded health.

      Case in point, would a 5% risk of a permanent heart condition (Myocarditis) change your opinion?

      And that’s only one of the known chronic conditions. There’s also those who have a stroke (and survive), those who still have no sense of smell, etc….

      Its probably going to take another year until we really figure out what percentage of people will survive but do so with permanent disabilities….

      But we already know it isn’t going to be zero. FYI, the above 5% figure comes from a college athletics survey who tested everyone in their program (symptoms or not), so it can’t be an over-estimate.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.