131–140 of 356 posts
It's still crazy to me that they put an M5 chip in this thing, but to run Mac apps you need a Mac. Just let the face computer be a computer!
Mac apps will expect a full set of Mac hardware (not just the CPU), so you’d probably need to run a full virtual Mac for compatibility. Not impossible, but I expect it’s not a priority either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speaking of which, Apple could probably support Mac apps on modern iPhones if you plug it into an external monitor. I assume they aren't doing it because it would cannibalize their laptop market.
They could theoretically, but the thing is the Mac, despite what you read on here, has a ton of legacy libraries that are not used on iOS.
It's still crazy to me that they put an M5 chip in this thing, but to run Mac apps you need a Mac. Just let the face computer be a computer!
Speaking of which, Apple could probably support Mac apps on modern iPhones if you plug it into an external monitor. I assume they aren't doing it because it would cannibalize their laptop market.
I'm very excited for stuff like smart glasses ever single Glass, meta's new stuff is awesome in terms of slimming things down but the real excitement is the wristband for input. Looks like we'll be solving the display/input problems soon enough.
They seemed resistant to the idea of a compute puck but I honestly think that's fine. I'd rather have a phone in my pocket that can be used for compute than bulkier glasses, though it is nice if future glasses can do very basic tasks unaided.
I hope that pretty soon I won't even need a laptop for out of hours tasks (but would still use one for the standard work day most likely).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could theoretically, but the thing is the Mac, despite what you read on here, has a ton of legacy libraries that are not used on iOS.
So what? Compatibility means a big install? The kernel is too stripped down to patch? In what way could "it needs libraries" be a real blocker?
Apple is already offering apps that work on all devices on their stores. Look at every single Apple Arcade release as an example. That's their vision; every device has a specific UI, but apps can run on all of them separately.
I was super interested in the Vision Pro when it was first released. Then I found out they went with an app model and the device could only display a single MacOS window. There went my dream of surrounding myself with a bunch of vim windows and terminals. If they'd focused on maximizing the device's usefulness instead of its revenue stream, maybe things would have worked out better.
Apple is not in the business of selling productivity software. Even their desktops/MacOS segment is an insignificant historical afterthought by now. To a first approximation, Apple is a manufacturer of locked-down handheld entertainment appliances whose primary function is to psychologically condition children into siphoning off money from their inattentive parents. There's no reason to suspect their vision for the A…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but just for browsing, checking some e-mails, a bit of YouTube or other media consumption, you know what 90% of people use their macbook for 99% of the time, it would be fine. Nobody is saying you should be able to render some 3d models on an iPhone..
Is that really true. Do non-serious computer users still buy laptops? What I see is that non-serious users who only communicate and consume content use phones and tablets. Laptops and desktops are for work, non-trivial content creation, and serious gaming with high memory and GPU requirements. You’re not running “cargo build” or a VM with Docker or Cyberpunk 2077 on a phone. Higher end phones almost have enough CPU b…
But that's mostly email, SaaS, web meetings, and spreadsheets. Most people have never in their lives run "cargo build" or launched Cyberpunk 2077. The actual market for sustained high local CPU/GPU compute is pretty small compared to the market for minimal load with the occasional small burst, and the latter works pretty well with poor cooling solutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Re: "VR for working on a plane" - you could look into XR glasses like the ones from XReal or Viture. I've been considering a pair for myself after hearing good feedback from some friends, and seeing some good reviews online. The latest versions have head tracking so the virtual screen remains "pinned" in your view. They're also much smaller and easier to carry compared to a full VR headset, and they can plug into alm…
I’ve been tempted, but a lot of the forum feedback (ie not the breathless YouTube “reviews”), suggest that optically they are pretty bad, especially near the edges.
Don't get me wrong, they work as a monitor in a pinch on a plane when you need privacy it's just not going to ever replace a real monitor for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean? This problem has already been solved and is just a case of miniturisation which history has shown the industry can do very quickly. 5 Years and there will not be a 'headset' on sale anymore. It will all be normal sized glasses.
> miniturisation which history has shown the industry can do very quickly. 5 Years... Sadly I think you are vastly overestimating the rate of progress here. Quest 2 came out 5 years ago - in those 5 years we've shrunk headset volume by about half (mostly due to pancake lenses). We'll need to find another fundamental improvement in lens technology to shrink the next 50%
I'd say the biggest unsolved issue is the focus/depth of field issue...how to provide variable per pixel depth so that virtual objects can appear in a scene and be focussed on naturally (apparently called vergence–accommodation conflict) since most if not all displays have a fixed focus distance atm.
I was super interested in the Vision Pro when it was first released. Then I found out they went with an app model and the device could only display a single MacOS window. There went my dream of surrounding myself with a bunch of vim windows and terminals. If they'd focused on maximizing the device's usefulness instead of its revenue stream, maybe things would have worked out better.
Apple is not in the business of selling productivity software. Even their desktops/MacOS segment is an insignificant historical afterthought by now. To a first approximation, Apple is a manufacturer of locked-down handheld entertainment appliances whose primary function is to psychologically condition children into siphoning off money from their inattentive parents. There's no reason to suspect their vision for the A…
By what measure? As I understand it, more Macs sell now than in any other point in history.