Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s new headset meets reality

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 527 posts

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#331

Post by usernew »

white_dragon88 wrote: post #294
usernew wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That’s a whole lot of salt for something that actually exists and wasn’t a load of hot air. AirPod max headphones are brilliant devices. M1 chips have made laptops fast, quiet and cool while maintaining a very impressive speed (there’s nothing gimped about the MacBook). Iphones continue to be market leaders for a reason, they unite classical consumers You can not like it, but you can’t deny it. Maybe part of the reas…

The M1 chip can't run most software w/o virtualizing x86. I can't run about 90% of my work apps on it. It can't run any games kids play. Even the major vendors that run on Apple now had to rewrite their apps. In what world is this any kind of brilliance or win? Here, I built you a car with TVs for bumpers. It's brilliant! No, you're supposed to only drive it on side streets so there's no traffic behind you. You're driving it wrong. If it rains, don't forget to tape an umbrella on your hood. Oh you can't see? You're supposed to see through the camera, not the window.

There are many ARM CPUs out there, Apple made another one with some minor tweaks. For the home, I can get a 64 core Intel with a terabyte of RAM. For work, I get an 8-core xeon laptop w/ 128GB of ECC RAM, that runs cool, quiet, and just as fast as Apple. Difference is, when I want it to run much, much faster than Apple, I can plug in a 200W power brick, spin up the fans to max, and have my script done when I'm back from lunch.

Iphones aren't market leaders, with 20% market share vs Android. They're overpriced toys to which you don't have full access and can't run your apps of your own choosing on. I'm browsing this site by chromecasting my phone screen to my 65" TV, and I've reprogrammed my buttons to pick up calls when the phone is locked if I press power+volDown. When I go to a customer site, I can plug in my phone into an ESX farm, copy a VMDK onto the host, and start the demo VM. All the guys with a terabyte of storage on their expensive iphones are searching for that USB stick in their bag.

AirPod Max? Who cares. It's just a bluetooth headset the price of a laptop, and sounds like garbage compared to my $100 Sennheiser bluetooth.

Apple products are toys.

Android OS? The latest version of which one I'm running on the 12yo phone I'm using to browse this site on my TV, in firefox, which has no trace of google services and is lightning fast?

The 'classical consumer' you're talking about here is my wife. I get her an iphone because if she had something better, she'd screw it up and waste my time. It's the same reason you get your kid a chevy cavalier instead of an audi S8. That doesn't make the chevy the better car. When she dropped it, because the back was slippery glass (brilliant, as you put it), the $1200 phone had to go to the trash. Because you know, let's make things people hold and drop a lot slippery and fragile. Fanboy comment? Why didn't she goop on a screen protector and a thick rubber case? Same reason I don't wrap my car in bubblewrap. Because not having your device destroyed when you drop it 4ft on wood floors is a basic function of the device, and Apple seems to be the only one struggling with basic functionality. Bad reception? You're holding it wrong. Destroyed by tiny falls? You should have wrapped it in bubblewrap. Keyboard breaks from typing? You shouldn't be typing on macs, that's what siri is for.

Part of the reason they did so well, is because Apple products are shiny and cute, and they're dumbed-down forget-it devices for the lowest common denominator. I wouldn't necessarily call 20% market share well, but because they're all margin, Apple makes a lot.

I'm here saying I'm absolutely willing to pay the iPhone price so I don't get bugged by my wife - my time is worth more. But that doesn't make the iPhone any more brilliant than a car that only goes 65 that you buy for your teen.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#332

Post by nr2x »

cubefox wrote: post #138

From the information available so far, the Apple headset will be fairly close to Meta's Oculus Quest in terms of hardware: Portable and with external cameras to allow for orientation and "mixed reality". Maybe Apple is on the right track here, since the Oculus Quest has sold more units than all the other VR headsets combined. But there is one big difference: Apple's headset will be a very expensive premium product (a…

I bought a quest, it made nauseous, it wouldn’t stay on my kids head, and ended up gathering dust until I returned it the last day possible.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#333

Post by asdff »

Gigachad wrote: post #265
dogsgobork wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In retrospect, every invention is obvious. I think it's fair to say that Apple went a bit beyond just slapping bluetooth onto their existing headphones. The instant pairing experience alone makes them stand out against the standard competition.

I remember the release and all of the reddit and HN comments were to the tune of “this is stupid” “you’ll lose them” “they look dumb” “now I have to buy a cable to connect the two” The idea that you could have two, disconnected pods seems to have been quite bold.

I believe samsung had a similar product out ahead of apple at the time. Just like with the watch.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#334

Post by asdff »

d3nj4l wrote: post #213
asdff wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airpods were handed to Cook on a platter, honestly. It doesn't take a market savant to realize apple can make a killing selling the ever popular and sexy earpod in bluetooth form. Once the battery technology was available to resell the same earpod but with bluetooth it would have been made no matter who was CEO.

iPhone was handed to Jobs on a platter, honestly. It doesn't take a market savant to realize apple can make a killing selling the ever popular and sexy iPod in touchscreen form. Once the battery technology was available to resell the same iPod but with cellular it would have been made no matter who was CEO.

If you have a case that Tim Cook in particular made the unilateral call on the airpod and not market pressure from samsung and others in this product segment, then lets hear it out.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#335

Post by dwaite »

judge2020 wrote: post #196
tough wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would it even be possible for apple to do so

Apple's total comprehensive income was $24B in Q2. Their total assets were $332B, and total liabilities $270B. Assuming all product sales dropped to 0, they could make the best effort to liquidate assets, after which they'd only have $62B - which would last them a little over a year at $13.6B in quarterly operating expenses. https://s2.q4cdn.com/470004039/files/doc_financials/2023/q2/...

A fair portion of that quarterly operating expense results in $20 billion a quarter in services revenue. I don't think those numbers intuitively reveal a plausible scenario where they are under in five years.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#336

Post by dev_tty01 »

cubefox wrote: post #202
criddell wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think consumers just don’t want to spend a lot of money on VR And I don’t think Apple wants those people as customers, at least not initially. $3000 for a headset from a company that sells $1000 monitor stands for $5000 monitors and $500 wheels for the computers doesn’t seem about right to me. In a year or two, the next generation of VR headset will be much better and still $3000 and you will be able to buy this…

All the expensive VR headsets sold terribly, except for the cheap Oculus Quest. The lesson seems clear: When it comes to VR, people strongly favor price over quality. Which in turn suggests the Apple headset will fail. VR is perhaps like the original Game Boy: Not very powerful, no color screen, but low price and long battery life. It sold a lot, unlike the competition.

Have people ever really had a quality vs. price choice? With all the computing power being discussed, the quality may be well beyond what has been available in any previous headset. Much lower latency with much higher resolution graphics. If that is the case, there is no existing applicable lesson concerning price vs. quality. You may still be right, but my point is that if the quality is pushed enough, the price/quality tradeoff may be much different.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#337

Post by intrasight »

trefoiled wrote: post #266
zmmmmm wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quest Pro is probably the leading example yes. If you're calling that garbage, then I think you're (a) setting impossibly high standards and (b) out of sync with most people's perception, as most people perceive these has having "edge to edge clarity".

It’s interesting to dismiss this criticism as “impossibly high standards” when VR as a market is clearly a disaster. The person you replied to is of the same opinion as the vast majority of consumers, who have either not purchased a headset or did, but now leave it in a closet gathering dust. VR clearly will not be viable on a massive scale until it takes a major leap forward.

When those major leaps occur, Apple should be well-positioned. Remember they play the long game. My office mate had Apple's first tablet 30 years ago - the Newton. And even further back - 40 years ago - Jobs said he didn't want the Mac to have a keyboard and mouse. He rightfully considered those to be a very artificial means of human-machine interface. His engineers made him understand that current tech didn't yet fulfill his dream. But that dream was eventually realized.

Those major leaps will occur. Apple has the wherewithal the stay the course. I'll look at the first generation VR headset the way I looked at their first tablet 30 years ago. Or their first computer 40 years ago.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#338

Post by Gigachad »

eviks wrote: post #327
Gigachad wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the release and all of the reddit and HN comments were to the tune of “this is stupid” “you’ll lose them” “they look dumb” “now I have to buy a cable to connect the two” The idea that you could have two, disconnected pods seems to have been quite bold.

You can also find a group of comments holding any opinion The obvious idea of wireless is anything but bold

These weren't fringe ideas, they were all of the top level, highly upvoted comments.

While the Airpods seem completely obvious now, they were pretty radical and controversial when first announced.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#339

Post by [deleted] »

smoldesu wrote: post #222
yayr wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's see. Unreal Engine can build for Apple Silicon. So any game dev can make his choice himself. Unity and others are also there as good frameworks. More importantly, Apple did not ruin relationsships with Media companies. I'd love to see some more VR concerts or other events. Meta totally failed at scaling this.

The most important thing is frameworks. No joke, nothing is currently stopping Apple from making a headset that ships with support for Half Life: Alyx. If they support DXVK at a protocol level and ship a Wine runtime like the Steam Deck does, they could support Beat Saber, Tabletop Sim and VRChat without their developers even knowing. But they won't. As-is, Apple's insistence on iron-fisting their ecosystem is hurtin…

[deleted]

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#340

Post by Too »

hamandcheese wrote: post #264
krsdcbl wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AirPods where and are loathed by some, but ultimately they present a well designed product that made the underlying product category more seamless and consumer friendly and accessible. Their winning traits may seem banal, but in everyday carry objects small utility improvements play a huge role. Not having to deal with cables and increased range of movement are enough - what elevated AirPods though is that a visible,…

> Not having to deal with cables and increased range of movement are enough I don't think that's enough. AirPods "just work" in a way that no prior Bluetooth headset ever did. Everything else was a kludge, particularly when it came to switching between multiple devices.

Not only does it “just work”. The sound and noise canceling quality is fantastic. On par or even beating many larger over-ear headsets in same price range. (Talking about the gen 2 pro)

I haven’t heard anything in-ear that comes close, disclaimer though I honestly haven’t tried many other in-ears in that price category.

Post reply on HN