twolf2919

A remarkably wordy article that ultimately doesn't answer the question its title poses.  What is the point, really, in stating that the killer app will use features X, Y, or Z in Vision Pro?  Isn't it obvious that this is the reason Apple put those features into the Vision Pro?

The article does mention use cases such as  the possibility of  immersive attendance to live events.  But isn't the point of attending a live event that you're there 'live' with thousands of fellow attendees?  It's a social thing!  How many people would give up this social aspects of attending an event - and pay $3,500 for the 'privilege'?  It's a pretty dystopian scenario, if you ask me.    The same goes for the argument that the Vision Pro replaces a large-screen TV - it conveniently forgets that watching TV is, for many, a social activity.  No, we don't have watch parties every day, but most couples or families watch the news, TV shows or movies together.  A single $3.5k Vision Pro can't provide the same experience as a $1k large screen TV in that regard.  And I don't think anyone would buy multiple VPs to have everyone in the family sitting isolated on the couch.  Seems even lonelier than today's reality, where people are in the same room, but everyone's absorbed by the content of their smartphones.  But at least with smartphones, it's a simple movement of the head to begin interaction with another human.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a strident believer in the future of AR.   But AR will only become a mass market success when it no longer interferes with human interactions.  Goggles on your head definitely don't do the trick.  I think Apple jumped the shark with this AR "wannabe" VR headset.  I'm not sure why developers - especially small ones - would write software, i.e. potential killer apps, for it when Apple has given no timeline for a device (the vaunted AR glasses) that will have mass market appeal and thus provide a return on their investment.

Interesting article, but the author writes "...However, there are several professional workflows that we highlighted in our Apple Silicon Mac Pro review" - I read the linked article and could not see any references to workflows the M1 Mac Pro could not handle - all the workflows that were benchmarked showed the Mac Pro working stupendously fast compared to the competition.

I'm not saying that 192GB is sufficient for every application, but the author certainly didn't didn't do a good job of pointing to any that need more.  He referenced nebulous "large AI  models" - but I doubt even those require 192GB of RAM - more disk storage than that....maybe.

Honkers said:

Can't imagine many people bought an iPhone because of   Watch.  Other way round more likely.

I imagine both..  I know several people who were interested in better tracking their health and their workouts and  understood AW to be the 'best'.  So they switched from Android to iPhone. 

I think Apple's entire business model depends on products helping each other sell.  The vaunted Apple ease-of-use becomes clearer as one buys more and more Apple products.  Nobody else integrates as many devices and services as Apple, so once a consumer realizes they want a simpler life across more than a couple gadgets, there really is no competition to Apple's offerings.

Honkers said:

mjtomlin said:

do they not understand what carbon neutral means? It means you do something to offset the carbon emissions you produce. You effectively “wipe out” the carbon you put into the atmosphere.

Do you not understand that such "offsets" are very frequently tantamount to meaningless virtue signalling given that they capture very little carbon?  The article talks about it, give it a proper read.

Apple talks a big game about good things that they do, and some of their initiatives genuinely sound great, but if their carbon neutral claims are being majorly bolstered by buying permits to pollute then that's the definition of greenwashing.

Going solely by the article, I don't agree that Apple is guilty of greenwashing or virtue signaling.  Apple is a product company and manufacturing any good has environmental consequences.  If Apple pays for trees to be planted which offset the carbon released by the manufacture and use of its products, that's a good thing and people should be buying its products instead of competitors' if those competitors do not take this positive step.  Whether those carbon offsets are 'high quality' is a separate issue.  If Apple has those trees planted on land it owns and then goes ahead and cuts those trees for pulp production, I'd say Apple is guilty of greenwashing.  But if Apple pays a third party to plant those trees on their land with a promise that those trees will not be cut down - and then the third party does anyway, is that really Apple's fault?  I'd say  no.  Apple bought those credits in good faith.   The story doesn't give enough detail to form an informed opinion.

kelemor said:

Have had zero problems with the card. Only card I use and I pay it off monthly. Allow all my cash to roll over into savings and have a little bit squirrel away. 

All the billing is done electronically so how is hard to send it at the same time. Computers should be doing everything. 

They didn't say that sending billing at the same time is hard - they said having the customer support calls come in all at once is the problem.