I replied to you you elsewhere in this thread, but they never claimed to be getting 28% CTR. They only claimed that this format performs 28% better than alternatives.
If a different ad format was getting 1% CTR, then a 28% improvement is still only a total 1.28% CTR.
Careful, they didn't claim to be getting 28% engagement from users... Just that this ad format performs 28% better than other ad types. We have no idea (from this article, at least) what the comparison actually means in real world usage.
I think a key difference is that Apple had a very clear target demographic for the iPad in mind (lightweight laptop / heavy phone users), and then were prepared to see how it evolved on top of that premise.
With the Vision Pro, they haven't been able to articulate their target userbase at all, and are pretty much relying on the early adopters to help define it for them.
Which isn't to say it can't find its place and be successful. But I don't think it's anything like Apple's other product releases at all...
While it would be nice to imagine this, the reality is that anyone who is part of the Apple walled-garden isn't going to suddenly abandon it because of hypothetical functionality they never had previously anyway. And anyone who has resisted Apple this long... Well, there were probably other reasons driving that long before this.
I can't imagine this having any material impact on marketshare or profit. It will take harsher regulatory action for anything to happen.
In defence of the author, there is absolutely nothing about the term "AI" that just means "LLM" in an informed context (which is what Wired portends to be). And then the words "machine learning" are literally front and centre in the subtitle.
I don't see how anyone could misunderstand this unless it was a deliberate misreading... Or else just not attempting to read it at all...
(That said, yes, I do hate the fact that product managers now love to talk about how every single feature is "AI" regardless of what it actually is/does)