You think Apple millionaire employees don't have access to the latest and all VR tech on the market? For Tim so say such a thing, it means a lot. I can almost imagine what he's talking about.
You promote what you're going to sell. If they have no plans right now for VR then of course he'll talk up AR and diss whatever is on the market now. I suspect at some future point VR will also be OK with Apple just as "phablets" are now.
That may be true, but do you really think that Apple does not have the chops or the resources to take on VR if they wanted to? And "if they have no plans now" could it be because they don't see much a future in it, at least for now?
I think that VR is just gimmicky nonsense at this point. Except perhaps in some fields like surgery. It has all the style and elan of Google Glass and 3D glasses.
I have no idea what their reasoning is. Perhaps one product at a time and VR will be a different product next year or the year after, perhaps no interest in it at all and you'll never see one, perhaps because there's no current competition in AR if they do it but lots of VR stuff available or in the works already, making AR more attractive as a first dip in the water.. . .
... and by the way Google Glass did not involve VR at all. Just augmented reality along the lines of what Mr. Cook has been promoting.
You think Apple millionaire employees don't have access to the latest and all VR tech on the market? For Tim so say such a thing, it means a lot. I can almost imagine what he's talking about.
You promote what you're going to sell. If they have no plans t the moment for VR then of course he'll talk up AR and diss whatever is on the market now. I suspect at some future point VR will also be OK with Apple just as "phablets" are, another thing they once talked down as silly.
And the usual suspects will diss whatever Apple does because Apple did it. It'll be slammed as too late, not big enough, too thin, too heavy, too square, not OLED enough, not battery enough, too boring, or too USB-C. People with no intention of being Apple customers will worry about Apple's competitiveness and future.
You think Apple millionaire employees don't have access to the latest and all VR tech on the market? For Tim so say such a thing, it means a lot. I can almost imagine what he's talking about.
You promote what you're going to sell. If they have no plans t the moment for VR then of course he'll talk up AR and diss whatever is on the market now. I suspect at some future point VR will also be OK with Apple just as "phablets" are, another thing they once talked down as silly.
And the usual suspects will diss whatever Apple does because Apple did it. It'll be slammed as too late, not big enough, too thin, too heavy, too square, not OLED enough, not battery enough, too boring, or too USB-C. People with no intention of being Apple customers will worry about Apple's competitiveness and future.
Tim Cook is the only person I know that can say paragraph after paragraph of words that give you very little information. It's a waste of my time reading it.
"We have some great products in the pipeline." -- every year
Guess what, that's by design. they don't feel you have an expectation to know what those items are. I don't either.
I completely dislike Tim's statement. In the end, a consumer buys a product, not a technology. SJ was always careful to develop technology that actually solved a problem, not the other way round (there are exceptions, such as iLife). I just feel that TC almost anxiously tries to announce the next disruptive invention front Apple. Before, this was never done. The consumers' wallets decided on this.
That actually isn't true at all. When they did the iPhone it was while researching a tablet device. People didn't know they had a problem with either category. And then there was the HiFi, and iPod Socks.
Also, judging by Apple's record quarter, the consumers have voted -- and they like what Cook and Apple are selling.
One of the reasons why I think augmentation on top of actual reality has far more promise than isolated VR is that it can maintain a connection to the physical, three-dimensional world around us. Plus, theoretically, "augmentation" can be scalable from showing just a few ID tags on top of objects, all the way to full immersion/VR, if you really need it.
The implications of this are far reaching. Everything from warehousing and industrial maintenance, to research, and to way-finding and entertainment could be built on the same basic platform.
While we are probably a ways off from a "retina" resolution AR system, in one example, I can imagine that my desktop monitors give way to "virtual" monitors, that may be "anchored" in place on my physical desk, but can be sized, re-positioned, or multiplied easily. 3D imagery would be a snap. Heck, even that pile of physical papers and other crap could be augmentations that can be searched, shuffled, swept away and restored with a few gestures. Kind of like Minority Report, but without some big, physical projection/display system viewable by anyone else in the room.
I can't imagine that this future office wouldn't still be surrounded by many physical things, like a chair and desk. And I would not want to lose my actual coffee cup with my actual coffee in it! (Hopefully, I won't mistake it for an AR cup and try to sweep it off my desk too).
PS: As the Google Glass episode reminds me, I realize there are social issues that go along with the notion of a population having the capability of walking around in public with AR. Like I say, far reaching implications...both positive and negative.
AR is also more like compositing where VR is full CGI. There aren't any fully CGI movies that look very realistic (and real-time mobile graphics are far from this) but composited effects can look indistinguishable from reality. It should really be possible to do both experiences with both types of device. If you put a camera on the front of a VR product, it can composite elements onto the captured video to give an AR experience. If an AR product can block the entire view with digital images then it can provide a VR experience.
VR isn't doing very well so far for the high-end headsets:
PSVR = 750k units since October 2016, HTC Vive 420k since April 2016, Oculus 250k since March 2016 (250k x $600 = $150m revenue, Facebook paid $2-3b for the company and made the deal over a weekend). Oculus according to the article is only selling a few units per week in stores: 250k units / 600 stores = 416 units per store over 52 weeks = 8 units per week.
The VR addon for the smartphones are much cheaper:
They have apparently sold 4.5m units in 2016. This can be used for 360 degree videos and some poor quality games. Given the low price, these probably worked pretty well as stocking stuffers over Christmas. They don't look very useful:
VR products can only really be used for short periods at a time. Computers/phones can be used for 12 hours a day or more but you'd be lucky to manage an hour in a VR headset. AR products can similarly be used all day.
AR products can replace computer displays, which is handy now that Apple doesn't sell them any more. It offers the ability to have e.g a 50" Retina display on a laptop. The laptop would become a tablet form factor. An issue to overcome is making it comfortable for people to wear glasses all the time. They have to be lightweight, last long on battery, have wireless display capability or a lanyard to plug into a data port, low latency, fast and accurate object tracking and have high quality optics while allowing for people with glasses. There are lots of issues to overcome but it would mean having convenient access to computing wherever you go:
^ swipe left. You'd be able to have a smartwatch as just a band and tap it to control the UI without having to look down at the wrist or hold the wrist up.
It's really the next, maybe final step in making computing conform to people. People originally had to conform to large computers with wired networking by going to where the machine was. Wireless data and portable devices have freed people from this constraint. Large displays are the only remaining tether - the more portable a device is the smaller the display is and the device form factor is mostly determined by the display. AR solves this problem. Like with multi-touch smartphones, it will need a whole new gesture system, which will take years to get right. It has to be designed in a way that it is immediately intuitive to use.
It has the potential to be the best displays ever made without backlight bleeding, full HDR, Retina, fast refresh, no glare, good black levels because it would be right in front of your eyes and very small. It can't be semi-transparent though so they have to figure that issue out.
I completely dislike Tim's statement. In the end, a consumer buys a product, not a technology. SJ was always careful to develop technology that actually solved a problem, not the other way round (there are exceptions, such as iLife). I just feel that TC almost anxiously tries to announce the next disruptive invention front Apple. Before, this was never done. The consumers' wallets decided on this.
That actually isn't true at all. When they did the iPhone it was while researching a tablet device. People didn't know they had a problem with either category. And then there was the HiFi, and iPod Socks.
Also, judging by Apple's record quarter, the consumers have voted -- and they like what Cook and Apple are selling.
I'm not sure I follow. What's "not true at all"? I k ow the story that the phone was found al ist like a side product on they way to (re)invent a tablet.
If you mean that the HiFi, like the G4 cube etc was a commercial failure since they did not pose an answer to a question - I am aware of this and actually I me turned iLife as example which was a "filler" for all that hard disk space at that time. That it became the digital hub was apparently not the result of a long shot strategy, similar to the App Store.
and where did I say consumers don't like what Apple is selling?
The pony I'm trying to make is directed not to Apple's current success. It is geared towards the subjective impression I gained that TC wants to plan the "next big thing". You can't really do that. But he sounds like he can. That's my point.
I completely dislike Tim's statement. In the end, a consumer buys a product, not a technology. SJ was always careful to develop technology that actually solved a problem, not the other way round (there are exceptions, such as iLife). I just feel that TC almost anxiously tries to announce the next disruptive invention front Apple. Before, this was never done. The consumers' wallets decided on this.
That actually isn't true at all. When they did the iPhone it was while researching a tablet device. People didn't know they had a problem with either category. And then there was the HiFi, and iPod Socks.
Also, judging by Apple's record quarter, the consumers have voted -- and they like what Cook and Apple are selling.
I'm not sure I follow. What's "not true at all"? I k ow the story that the phone was found al ist like a side product on they way to (re)invent a tablet.
If you mean that the HiFi, like the G4 cube etc was a commercial failure since they did not pose an answer to a question - I am aware of this and actually I me turned iLife as example which was a "filler" for all that hard disk space at that time. That it became the digital hub was apparently not the result of a long shot strategy, similar to the App Store.
and where did I say consumers don't like what Apple is selling?
The pony I'm trying to make is directed not to Apple's current success. It is geared towards the subjective impression I gained that TC wants to plan the "next big thing". You can't really do that. But he sounds like he can. That's my point.
My point was to show that it's not the case that Jobs was a tech god who only developed technology that solved known problems. They weren't sure what would come of the touchscreen work and the phone wasn't the end product at the onset. And sometimes his guesses were off, since he released dud products.
You said apple's customers' wallets decide what they're selling, and I'm pointing out that the wallets are voting like they never have before. In any event, with new, unreleased products you can't expect the wallets to decide because new products don't exist yet until after the R&D is done and the products are available.
Cook isn't Jobs, and isn't a product designer, so i'm not sure what the point is in comparing them still. Cook is a more traditional CEO and is doing an above average job at it. Some would say killing it.
You think Apple millionaire employees don't have access to the latest and all VR tech on the market? For Tim so say such a thing, it means a lot. I can almost imagine what he's talking about.
You promote what you're going to sell. If they have no plans right now for VR then of course he'll talk up AR and diss whatever is on the market now. I suspect at some future point VR will also be OK with Apple just as "phablets" are now.
That may be true, but do you really think that Apple does not have the chops or the resources to take on VR if they wanted to? And "if they have no plans now" could it be because they don't see much a future in it, at least for now?
I think that VR is just gimmicky nonsense at this point. Except perhaps in some fields like surgery. It has all the style and elan of Google Glass and 3D glasses.
I have no idea what their reasoning is. Perhaps one product at a time and VR will be a different product next year or the year after, perhaps no interest in it at all and you'll never see one, perhaps because there's no current competition in AR if they do it but lots of VR stuff available or in the works already, making AR more attractive as a first dip in the water.. . .
... and by the way Google Glass did not involve VR at all. Just augmented reality along the lines of what Mr. Cook has been promoting.
Who said Google Glass had anything to do with VR? I implied that it was a terrible looking product, and made you look like a dork. Just like 3D glasses do. And that, by implication, it's unlikely to do well.
More importantly, how can you say that you have no idea what Apple's reasoning is, when your first post attributed a rather precise reasoning on Apple's part -- you said "if [Apple has] no plans for VR they'll talk up AR." In other words, your claim is that that Apple is pursuing AR for the reason that they have no plans for VR.
Tim Cook is the only person I know that can say paragraph after paragraph of words that give you very little information. It's a waste of my time reading it.
"We have some great products in the pipeline." -- every year
Yet he's right. Apple rarely disappoint when you look back over time. As one of those nuts that has Apple gear going back to the 1970's and on odd occasions fires up and uses old gear again just for the hell of it, I can say I am always staggered how far we have come yet barely noticed many of the subtle changes along the way. Yet just trying to use a Mac and OS from a few years back and it is a shock. It never fails to make me realize how much I take for granted from all the 'great products' from that 'pipeline' I currently use.
You think Apple millionaire employees don't have access to the latest and all VR tech on the market? For Tim so say such a thing, it means a lot. I can almost imagine what he's talking about.
You promote what you're going to sell. If they have no plans right now for VR then of course he'll talk up AR and diss whatever is on the market now. I suspect at some future point VR will also be OK with Apple just as "phablets" are now.
That may be true, but do you really think that Apple does not have the chops or the resources to take on VR if they wanted to? And "if they have no plans now" could it be because they don't see much a future in it, at least for now?
I think that VR is just gimmicky nonsense at this point. Except perhaps in some fields like surgery. It has all the style and elan of Google Glass and 3D glasses.
I have no idea what their reasoning is. Perhaps one product at a time and VR will be a different product next year or the year after, perhaps no interest in it at all and you'll never see one, perhaps because there's no current competition in AR if they do it but lots of VR stuff available or in the works already, making AR more attractive as a first dip in the water.. . .
... and by the way Google Glass did not involve VR at all. Just augmented reality along the lines of what Mr. Cook has been promoting.
More importantly, how can you say that you have no idea what Apple's reasoning is, when your first post attributed a rather precise reasoning on Apple's part -- you said "if [Apple has] no plans for VR they'll talk up AR." In other words, your claim is that that Apple is pursuing AR for the reason that they have no plans for VR.
If you're going to quote me do so accurately. "If they have no plans at the moment for VR then of course he'll talk up AR." You knew what I actually said since you had to edit it.
You think Apple millionaire employees don't have access to the latest and all VR tech on the market? For Tim so say such a thing, it means a lot. I can almost imagine what he's talking about.
You promote what you're going to sell. If they have no plans right now for VR then of course he'll talk up AR and diss whatever is on the market now. I suspect at some future point VR will also be OK with Apple just as "phablets" are now.
That may be true, but do you really think that Apple does not have the chops or the resources to take on VR if they wanted to? And "if they have no plans now" could it be because they don't see much a future in it, at least for now?
I think that VR is just gimmicky nonsense at this point. Except perhaps in some fields like surgery. It has all the style and elan of Google Glass and 3D glasses.
I have no idea what their reasoning is. Perhaps one product at a time and VR will be a different product next year or the year after, perhaps no interest in it at all and you'll never see one, perhaps because there's no current competition in AR if they do it but lots of VR stuff available or in the works already, making AR more attractive as a first dip in the water.. . .
... and by the way Google Glass did not involve VR at all. Just augmented reality along the lines of what Mr. Cook has been promoting.
More importantly, how can you say that you have no idea what Apple's reasoning is, when your first post attributed a rather precise reasoning on Apple's part -- you said "if [Apple has] no plans for VR they'll talk up AR." In other words, your claim is that that Apple is pursuing AR for the reason that they have no plans for VR.
If you're going to quote me do so accurately. "If they have no plans at the moment for VR then of course he'll talk up AR." You knew what I actually said since you had to edit it.
That does not change what I said one whit. Indeed, it just increases the precision of the reasoning you attributed to Apple.
You're just trying to walk back a contradiction that I pointed out. No one likes to be caught contradicting themselves (me neither). But just acknowledge it and move on.
You think Apple millionaire employees don't have access to the latest and all VR tech on the market? For Tim so say such a thing, it means a lot. I can almost imagine what he's talking about.
You promote what you're going to sell. If they have no plans right now for VR then of course he'll talk up AR and diss whatever is on the market now. I suspect at some future point VR will also be OK with Apple just as "phablets" are now.
That may be true, but do you really think that Apple does not have the chops or the resources to take on VR if they wanted to? And "if they have no plans now" could it be because they don't see much a future in it, at least for now?
I think that VR is just gimmicky nonsense at this point. Except perhaps in some fields like surgery. It has all the style and elan of Google Glass and 3D glasses.
I have no idea what their reasoning is. Perhaps one product at a time and VR will be a different product next year or the year after, perhaps no interest in it at all and you'll never see one, perhaps because there's no current competition in AR if they do it but lots of VR stuff available or in the works already, making AR more attractive as a first dip in the water.. . .
... and by the way Google Glass did not involve VR at all. Just augmented reality along the lines of what Mr. Cook has been promoting.
More importantly, how can you say that you have no idea what Apple's reasoning is, when your first post attributed a rather precise reasoning on Apple's part -- you said "if [Apple has] no plans for VR they'll talk up AR." In other words, your claim is that that Apple is pursuing AR for the reason that they have no plans for VR.
If you're going to quote me do so accurately. "If they have no plans at the moment for VR then of course he'll talk up AR." You knew what I actually said since you had to edit it.
That does not change what I said one whit. Indeed, it just increases the precision of the reasoning you attributed to Apple.
You're just trying to walk back a contradiction that I pointed out. No one likes to be caught contradicting themselves (me neither). But just acknowledge it and move on.
What the heck does it have to do with Apple's reasoning? Yes it's time to move on... The only thing you, I, or anyone else could infer from Cook's statements is they have no current plans for VR, not that they don't have any interest in it or what the reasoning is behind whatever they are planning. Doesn't even matter does it? They'll build what they think will get the greatest amount of profit, not what anyone might necessarily like for themselves. With luck however it will grab a big chunk'a both. If not it will still be profitable which is all it's about at the end of the day.
Much of the AR tech being pitched now will be "banned from Chipotle" because carrying a camera (or camera-equipped phone) around is one thing, but walking around aiming a (face or wrist) camera at everyone is quite another. Camera bans are certain to happen if such devices are promoted to the mainstream, then those bans (signs, public service warnings/voyeurism convictions on the five o'clock soccer mom news) will lead to banishment (social ostracization) of the tech's users and loss of investor equity. Of course, there is still a lot that can (and no doubt will) be done with the built-in camera on the iPhone though.
You think Apple millionaire employees don't have access to the latest and all VR tech on the market? For Tim so say such a thing, it means a lot. I can almost imagine what he's talking about.
You promote what you're going to sell. If they have no plans right now for VR then of course he'll talk up AR and diss whatever is on the market now. I suspect at some future point VR will also be OK with Apple just as "phablets" are now.
That may be true, but do you really think that Apple does not have the chops or the resources to take on VR if they wanted to? And "if they have no plans now" could it be because they don't see much a future in it, at least for now?
I think that VR is just gimmicky nonsense at this point. Except perhaps in some fields like surgery. It has all the style and elan of Google Glass and 3D glasses.
I have no idea what their reasoning is. Perhaps one product at a time and VR will be a different product next year or the year after, perhaps no interest in it at all and you'll never see one, perhaps because there's no current competition in AR if they do it but lots of VR stuff available or in the works already, making AR more attractive as a first dip in the water.. . .
... and by the way Google Glass did not involve VR at all. Just augmented reality along the lines of what Mr. Cook has been promoting.
More importantly, how can you say that you have no idea what Apple's reasoning is, when your first post attributed a rather precise reasoning on Apple's part -- you said "if [Apple has] no plans for VR they'll talk up AR." In other words, your claim is that that Apple is pursuing AR for the reason that they have no plans for VR.
If you're going to quote me do so accurately. "If they have no plans at the moment for VR then of course he'll talk up AR." You knew what I actually said since you had to edit it.
That does not change what I said one whit. Indeed, it just increases the precision of the reasoning you attributed to Apple.
You're just trying to walk back a contradiction that I pointed out. No one likes to be caught contradicting themselves (me neither). But just acknowledge it and move on.
What the heck does it have to do with Apple's reasoning? Yes it's time to move on... The only thing you, I, or anyone else could infer from Cook's statements is they have no current plans for VR, not that they don't have any interest in it or what the reasoning is behind whatever they are planning. Doesn't even matter does it? They'll build what they think will get the greatest amount of profit, not what anyone might necessarily like for themselves. With luck however it will grab a big chunk'a both. If not it will still be profitable which is all it's about at the end of the day.
So, you think there is no coreleation between these two things? :
"They'll build what they think will get the greatest amount of profit, not what anyone might necessarily like for themselves."
I'd say good luck to any company that doesn't realize that making a profit may actually be related to making things people like!
You really show your true feelings about Apple in that ridiculous comment. It's the old anti-Apple mantra, 'all they care about is profit' spewed relentlessly by Apple haters clinging to their Android junk while coveting Apple products they either can't afford or refuse to buy for some weird self imposed reason ... or perhaps their masters won't allow it.
You think Apple millionaire employees don't have access to the latest and all VR tech on the market? For Tim so say such a thing, it means a lot. I can almost imagine what he's talking about.
You promote what you're going to sell. If they have no plans right now for VR then of course he'll talk up AR and diss whatever is on the market now. I suspect at some future point VR will also be OK with Apple just as "phablets" are now.
That may be true, but do you really think that Apple does not have the chops or the resources to take on VR if they wanted to? And "if they have no plans now" could it be because they don't see much a future in it, at least for now?
I think that VR is just gimmicky nonsense at this point. Except perhaps in some fields like surgery. It has all the style and elan of Google Glass and 3D glasses.
I have no idea what their reasoning is. Perhaps one product at a time and VR will be a different product next year or the year after, perhaps no interest in it at all and you'll never see one, perhaps because there's no current competition in AR if they do it but lots of VR stuff available or in the works already, making AR more attractive as a first dip in the water.. . .
... and by the way Google Glass did not involve VR at all. Just augmented reality along the lines of what Mr. Cook has been promoting.
More importantly, how can you say that you have no idea what Apple's reasoning is, when your first post attributed a rather precise reasoning on Apple's part -- you said "if [Apple has] no plans for VR they'll talk up AR." In other words, your claim is that that Apple is pursuing AR for the reason that they have no plans for VR.
If you're going to quote me do so accurately. "If they have no plans at the moment for VR then of course he'll talk up AR." You knew what I actually said since you had to edit it.
That does not change what I said one whit. Indeed, it just increases the precision of the reasoning you attributed to Apple.
You're just trying to walk back a contradiction that I pointed out. No one likes to be caught contradicting themselves (me neither). But just acknowledge it and move on.
What the heck does it have to do with Apple's reasoning? Yes it's time to move on... The only thing you, I, or anyone else could infer from Cook's statements is they have no current plans for VR, not that they don't have any interest in it or what the reasoning is behind whatever they are planning. Doesn't even matter does it? They'll build what they think will get the greatest amount of profit, not what anyone might necessarily like for themselves. With luck however it will grab a big chunk'a both. If not it will still be profitable which is all it's about at the end of the day.
So, you think there is no coreleation between these two things? :
"They'll build what they think will get the greatest amount of profit, not what anyone might necessarily like for themselves."
I'd say good luck to any company that doesn't realize that making a profit may actually be related to making things people like!
You really show your true feelings about Apple in that ridiculous comment. It's the old anti-Apple mantra, 'all they care about is profit' spewed relentlessly by Apple haters clinging to their Android junk while coveting Apple products they either can't afford or refuse to buy for some weird self imposed reason ... or perhaps their masters won't allow it.
ALL they care about is profit? Very obviously not since the "Apple experience" is what drives the product sales.
But is profit the primary motivation for everything they choose to build? Yes it absolutely is. That's not something that's evil, it's business, no matter how much you'd like to spin it as an attack on Apple from a "hater". If a product doesn't create sufficient profit they aren't going to build it no matter how much it might contribute to the betterment of humanity. That's not their business model.
You think Apple millionaire employees don't have access to the latest and all VR tech on the market? For Tim so say such a thing, it means a lot. I can almost imagine what he's talking about.
You promote what you're going to sell. If they have no plans right now for VR then of course he'll talk up AR and diss whatever is on the market now. I suspect at some future point VR will also be OK with Apple just as "phablets" are now.
That may be true, but do you really think that Apple does not have the chops or the resources to take on VR if they wanted to? And "if they have no plans now" could it be because they don't see much a future in it, at least for now?
I think that VR is just gimmicky nonsense at this point. Except perhaps in some fields like surgery. It has all the style and elan of Google Glass and 3D glasses.
I have no idea what their reasoning is. Perhaps one product at a time and VR will be a different product next year or the year after, perhaps no interest in it at all and you'll never see one, perhaps because there's no current competition in AR if they do it but lots of VR stuff available or in the works already, making AR more attractive as a first dip in the water.. . .
... and by the way Google Glass did not involve VR at all. Just augmented reality along the lines of what Mr. Cook has been promoting.
More importantly, how can you say that you have no idea what Apple's reasoning is, when your first post attributed a rather precise reasoning on Apple's part -- you said "if [Apple has] no plans for VR they'll talk up AR." In other words, your claim is that that Apple is pursuing AR for the reason that they have no plans for VR.
If you're going to quote me do so accurately. "If they have no plans at the moment for VR then of course he'll talk up AR." You knew what I actually said since you had to edit it.
That does not change what I said one whit. Indeed, it just increases the precision of the reasoning you attributed to Apple.
You're just trying to walk back a contradiction that I pointed out. No one likes to be caught contradicting themselves (me neither). But just acknowledge it and move on.
What the heck does it have to do with Apple's reasoning? Yes it's time to move on... The only thing you, I, or anyone else could infer from Cook's statements is they have no current plans for VR, not that they don't have any interest in it or what the reasoning is behind whatever they are planning. Doesn't even matter does it? They'll build what they think will get the greatest amount of profit, not what anyone might necessarily like for themselves. With luck however it will grab a big chunk'a both. If not it will still be profitable which is all it's about at the end of the day.
So, you think there is no coreleation between these two things? :
"They'll build what they think will get the greatest amount of profit, not what anyone might necessarily like for themselves."
I'd say good luck to any company that doesn't realize that making a profit may actually be related to making things people like!
You really show your true feelings about Apple in that ridiculous comment. It's the old anti-Apple mantra, 'all they care about is profit' spewed relentlessly by Apple haters clinging to their Android junk while coveting Apple products they either can't afford or refuse to buy for some weird self imposed reason ... or perhaps their masters won't allow it.
ALL they care about is profit? Very obviously not since the "Apple experience" is what drives the product sales.
But is profit the primary motivation for everything they choose to build? Yes it absolutely is. That's not something that's evil, it's business, no matter how much you'd like to spin it as an attack on Apple from a "hater". If a product doesn't create sufficient profit they aren't going to build it no matter how much it might contribute to the betterment of humanity. That's not their business model.
You selectivly quoted yourself there. To remind you, you said "They'll build what they think will get the greatest amount of profit, not what anyone might necessarily like for themselves." There is a deliberate inference in what you said that Apple placed profit above what people might want. I never said you inferred it was evil by the way. Of course Apple want to make a profit (as I surely want them to too) and as I stated, making what people want and 'love' is the key to that profit. A skill set seemingly absent amongst the smart phone makers sharing the dregs of the world wide profits. The point I made and repeat is that inference you slipped into there either by accident or deliberately, I know not which, is the clarion call of the anti-Apple trolls.
Comments
... and by the way Google Glass did not involve VR at all. Just augmented reality along the lines of what Mr. Cook has been promoting.
That actually isn't true at all. When they did the iPhone it was while researching a tablet device. People didn't know they had a problem with either category. And then there was the HiFi, and iPod Socks.
Also, judging by Apple's record quarter, the consumers have voted -- and they like what Cook and Apple are selling.
VR isn't doing very well so far for the high-end headsets:
http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/8/14550488/best-buy-oculus-rift-vr-demo-station-closure
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2017/01/16/is-sonys-psvr-doomed-heading-into-2017/
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/samsung-vr-outships-psvr-htc-vive-and-oculus
PSVR = 750k units since October 2016, HTC Vive 420k since April 2016, Oculus 250k since March 2016 (250k x $600 = $150m revenue, Facebook paid $2-3b for the company and made the deal over a weekend). Oculus according to the article is only selling a few units per week in stores: 250k units / 600 stores = 416 units per store over 52 weeks = 8 units per week.
The VR addon for the smartphones are much cheaper:
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Gear-VR-Virtual-Warranty/dp/B016OFYGXQ
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-SM-R323NBKAXAR-Virtual-International-Warranty/dp/B01M0YDS2A
They have apparently sold 4.5m units in 2016. This can be used for 360 degree videos and some poor quality games. Given the low price, these probably worked pretty well as stocking stuffers over Christmas. They don't look very useful:
VR products can only really be used for short periods at a time. Computers/phones can be used for 12 hours a day or more but you'd be lucky to manage an hour in a VR headset. AR products can similarly be used all day.
AR products can replace computer displays, which is handy now that Apple doesn't sell them any more. It offers the ability to have e.g a 50" Retina display on a laptop. The laptop would become a tablet form factor. An issue to overcome is making it comfortable for people to wear glasses all the time. They have to be lightweight, last long on battery, have wireless display capability or a lanyard to plug into a data port, low latency, fast and accurate object tracking and have high quality optics while allowing for people with glasses. There are lots of issues to overcome but it would mean having convenient access to computing wherever you go:
^ swipe left. You'd be able to have a smartwatch as just a band and tap it to control the UI without having to look down at the wrist or hold the wrist up.
It's really the next, maybe final step in making computing conform to people. People originally had to conform to large computers with wired networking by going to where the machine was. Wireless data and portable devices have freed people from this constraint. Large displays are the only remaining tether - the more portable a device is the smaller the display is and the device form factor is mostly determined by the display. AR solves this problem. Like with multi-touch smartphones, it will need a whole new gesture system, which will take years to get right. It has to be designed in a way that it is immediately intuitive to use.
It has the potential to be the best displays ever made without backlight bleeding, full HDR, Retina, fast refresh, no glare, good black levels because it would be right in front of your eyes and very small. It can't be semi-transparent though so they have to figure that issue out.
If you mean that the HiFi, like the G4 cube etc was a commercial failure since they did not pose an answer to a question - I am aware of this and actually I me turned iLife as example which was a "filler" for all that hard disk space at that time. That it became the digital hub was apparently not the result of a long shot strategy, similar to the App Store.
and where did I say consumers don't like what Apple is selling?
The pony I'm trying to make is directed not to Apple's current success. It is geared towards the subjective impression I gained that TC wants to plan the "next big thing". You can't really do that. But he sounds like he can. That's my point.
You said apple's customers' wallets decide what they're selling, and I'm pointing out that the wallets are voting like they never have before. In any event, with new, unreleased products you can't expect the wallets to decide because new products don't exist yet until after the R&D is done and the products are available.
Cook isn't Jobs, and isn't a product designer, so i'm not sure what the point is in comparing them still. Cook is a more traditional CEO and is doing an above average job at it. Some would say killing it.
More importantly, how can you say that you have no idea what Apple's reasoning is, when your first post attributed a rather precise reasoning on Apple's part -- you said "if [Apple has] no plans for VR they'll talk up AR." In other words, your claim is that that Apple is pursuing AR for the reason that they have no plans for VR.
"If they have no plans at the moment for VR then of course he'll talk up AR."
You knew what I actually said since you had to edit it.
You're just trying to walk back a contradiction that I pointed out. No one likes to be caught contradicting themselves (me neither). But just acknowledge it and move on.
The only thing you, I, or anyone else could infer from Cook's statements is they have no current plans for VR, not that they don't have any interest in it or what the reasoning is behind whatever they are planning. Doesn't even matter does it? They'll build what they think will get the greatest amount of profit, not what anyone might necessarily like for themselves. With luck however it will grab a big chunk'a both. If not it will still be profitable which is all it's about at the end of the day.
"They'll build what they think will get the greatest amount of profit, not what anyone might necessarily like for themselves."
I'd say good luck to any company that doesn't realize that making a profit may actually be related to making things people like!
You really show your true feelings about Apple in that ridiculous comment. It's the old anti-Apple mantra, 'all they care about is profit' spewed relentlessly by Apple haters clinging to their Android junk while coveting Apple products they either can't afford or refuse to buy for some weird self imposed reason ... or perhaps their masters won't allow it.
But is profit the primary motivation for everything they choose to build? Yes it absolutely is. That's not something that's evil, it's business, no matter how much you'd like to spin it as an attack on Apple from a "hater". If a product doesn't create sufficient profit they aren't going to build it no matter how much it might contribute to the betterment of humanity. That's not their business model.