741–750 of 1001 posts
The tech is amazing, but also ridiculous. Think about how much time and cost went into developing these features: - Creepy Eyes fake transparency (a work around for the fact that you look dumb wearing ski goggles on your face) - The realistic 3d facetime avatar (a work around for the fact that you look dumb wearing ski goggles on your face, creepy eyes isn't a good enough work around for facetime, and you need an ext…
It would very obviously be useful for work if you can actually get high res, effectively unlimited monitor space. Maybe not for everyone, but people already spend $3500+ on monitor setups somewhat regularly (and employers definitely do this). Apple themselves sell a single monitor that costs $2300 when fully spec'd out (5k, but the point is that they know what people spend on monitors). I can't figure out why that wa…
IMO what makes Apple different and more likely to succeed than Meta is that they are pursuing more concrete scenarios like viewing content in a more immersive environment or spinning up a large viewing surface where you may have none . Meta's problem is this focus around social interactions which just isn't taking hold apart from a niche audience of enthusiasts. Having tried the Quest Pro, if Meta pursued the remote…
There will be some stunning experiences on both, absolutely (Disney/Marvel has entered the chat) but they'll be narrow niches. Neither company WI be anywhere near creating a more platform where experiences across systems work well.
Or maybe possibly one can. Apple only added widgets a couple years ago, & they're doing a great job across their platforms with widget like things (stacks on watch). The new iOS always-on Standby mode is starting to really leverage this, in a way Google is nowhere near doing (widgets on Android are so often ill maintained afterthoughts).
Metaverse requires a couple interesting features. Prepackaged monoliths just won't cut it, aren't dynamic enough. The space has to be a host not just to users but to a sea of mini experiences, sharing the space together, that users can seamlessly move across & interwork. Neither company has the genetics here to actually tackle these computing challenges: both are authoritarian in nature & unlikely to plant the right seeds for success.
Really Apple?
Is anyone left in that company leadership who is not a bad Jobs cosplayer?
no, why do they always reinvent terms and claim they are the first for things they clearly where not the first
I really wonder how much that "creepy eyes" tech adds to the cost. It would be great if they had a model without that, because for my use case its completely unnecessary and probably adds ~$500 to the price tag, plus additional weight and battery usage.
They could just call this feature the "Noncustodial Parent" feature, because absolutely no one is going to wear Apple Ski Goggles TM while interacting with their children, unless they are extremely desperate to draw out a few special moments into a year's worth of memories.
The weird price fixation and doomerism here is weird. People said the AirPods were overpriced; half my uni has one. People said the AirPods Max were overpriced, and I see it all the time in co-work spaces and libraries. People said the M1 Pros were overpriced; they're literally everywhere, used by almost all of the professionals I know. People said the Pro Display XDR is excessively overpriced; more than a few consum…
The optics will make or break this, but I came in extremely skeptical, but it's clear they've put a lot of thought into the possibilities landscape, the interaction modes, and the human aspects of it. It looks a whole lot more interesting than I was expecting - it's the best shot I've seen at AR so far. It's also clearly the "First" in the line - similar to the first iPhone and iPad, it's expensive and a bit unwieldy…
I guess they had to call it a "spatial computer" in an attempt to overcome the shock that they want $3,500 for a VR headset when the competition is selling their newest generation for $500.