So, if the headset appears, surely it will not be intended for sale to the public, but rather a developer model … hence the higher price etc. I think this underlies the price confusion: Yes, the developer edition will be $1-2K, but the public release model a year or so later will be much more affordable, and there will then be a range of 3rd party Apps to make it a more compelling product.
Since when has Apple done that? Apple will set the price at a profitable price and let the buying commence, the key for its success will be the same as everything else Apple has released in the last 25 years, the software and the hardware must be integrated in a way, that makes people want to use it, and say here take my money.
PS if you own Apple shares keep them, if you don’t, you may want to buy a few before the end of the week, of course, there are no guarantees of anything.
Also Apple could have made a cheaper iPhone in the beginning but they used gorilla glass in the design of the iPhone, that might be another reason why the price will be the price, but with Tim Cook, who knows?
Every new Apple platform for Developers has had a dev kit for the hardware or a priority purchase scheme for dev's. No point the general public having something there is no software for.
In recent times two other companies, Google and Meta failed, with a beta glasses/goggles developers kit releases, do you think Apple can have such a release with the software not done and the hardware not quite finished? The Apple Maps release for example, wasn’t good wasn’t finished and someone high up lost their job because they wouldn’t apologize. I think Apple will be held to a far higher standard than Google or Meta. The Apple hardware has to be done, and the software has to be usable and functional out the door. (The Apple is doomed alarm will sound irregardless)
Note: The price will be too high according to the experts, and the financial analysts, no matter what Apple does, so the price might as well be set at, what you plan on selling it at for a profit, ie.. just like the iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and AirPods before.
Why do you say that Meta failed, and imply that their hardware wasn't good and wasn't finished? Their Quest line is a pretty polished product, and the market leader so far.
The Metaverse concept may have been a bit of a damp squib, but that's a separate thing.
Meta-has failed. They are not capable of doing hardware and software (no OS) as one at Apple’s level, if Apple pulls it off Meta, Google, and Microsoft will be left gasping on fumes, crying about the so-called non Apple monopoly, along with the EU, if the Apple device is anywhere close to what is shown in this video.
I vote for: macOS 14: Cuyamaca Jacumba Siskiyou Port Hueneme Cudahy Tuolumne Suisun City Ojai Otay Mesa Tulare El Cajon Jamul Jamacha Olivenhain Poway Rancho Peñasquitos Los Angeles (yes, there are at least 3 ways to pronounce that one...)
La Jolla is too easy, because it's been popular too long.
If Apple uses a rubber strap on a set of goggles, lottal people gonna get mad when it yanks their hair! Sure works that way with the "sport strap" on the Apple Watch, for us Eastern Europeans with hairy arms!
They will need to shave their heads like the people in the 1984 commercial.
"As usual, we're also anticipating Craig Federighi to offer a joke about the "crack team" working on the new name for macOS 14. We have no idea what it could be, except it'll be a location somewhere in California."
I vote for MacOS 14 "Rancho Cucamonga." I bet Jobs would have loved it!
And I bet you can come up with some zingers, too!
Why not Rancho Relaxo?
LOL! Maybe because it's an animal rescue operation in New Jersey, not California?
If they opened naming up to any state, I'd vote for Boner Lake in King County, Washington!
I vote for: macOS 14: Cuyamaca Jacumba Siskiyou Port Hueneme Cudahy Tuolumne Suisun City Ojai Otay Mesa Tulare El Cajon Jamul Jamacha Olivenhain Poway Rancho Peñasquitos Los Angeles (yes, there are at least 3 ways to pronounce that one...)
La Jolla is too easy, because it's been popular too long.
I vote for “Alpine.”
I’ll take it, but I think that Otay Mesa will be said like they’re rhyming with OK.
I’m just not sold on the daily use case for Apple Goggles, this feels like a waste of time & something that gets discontinued in a few years as a pointless money pit. Still I’m certain some high school kid will convince parents to by them. This whole WWDC feels boring to me. It’s basically another S cycle year. No foldable, no larger format iPad, & don’t hold your breath waiting for an M3 processor when thy haven’t even moved all the Mac lines to M2 yet.
I won't buy one. But others have made predictions about emergent tech in the past, and you're in good company!
There's this: “Television won’t be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.” — Darryl Zanuck, executive at 20th Century Fox, 1946
Then there's this: “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
and this: "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” — Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977
and this" “Almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on the Internet’s continuing exponential growth. But I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.” — Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, 1995
and finally this: "Everyone's always asking me when Apple will come out with a cell phone. My answer is, 'Probably never.'" — David Pogue, The New York Times, 2006!
Maybe you can't see it, but the use of "computer" in the given context is very different from the current context. You may try to argue that computers means computers, but, hell, even the movie Hidden Figures reintroduced us to the use of "computers" to refer to humans who literally compute data. What is missing from the context—which may or may not have been implied or even stated—is that none of those quotes about "computers" are referring to anything that could be achieved after a major change to the paradigm. I bet if someone asked Watson if he would think there could be more than 5 computers if the cost and size could be substantially lower while the speed and capabilities were increased, he's probably say that would allow for a larger market.
Olsen's comment gets him in trouble because of the absolute of claiming there is "no reason" as opposed to saying something like "there are very few reasons..." or "there aren't many people who...", but from his PoV there was effectively no market for DEC to make a huge investment into home computing in the mid 70s when there were other, more lucrative fruit to be picked. Can he be accused of not seeing the future? Sure, but so can nearly everyone else. "Talent hits the target no one else can hit, Genius hits the target no one can see." — Arthur Schopenhauer
As for Pogue's comment, he qualified his comment with "My answer" to show it was an opinion, and clause "probably" which is very different from flat out claiming that Apple will never make a smartphone, kinda like you already claiming outright "I won't buy one" as opposed to "I probably won't buy one," which is closer to how I'd respond on this day, but to be more accurate and clear, my statement if asked today would be, "I don't see myself buying one, but my scope of utility for VR/AR/XR is currently very limited to what others have predicted so I'll wait until there's a demo before I make up my mind."
Metcalfe is more interesting because it did have a catastrophic collapse (at least in terms of the market) just a few years later. Like the housing market a decade later and several people predicting its inevitable collapse years earlier, it was probably held up longer than it should've been by sleazy people in finance, but even without that the first part of his statement indemnifies him from anything other than the specific year because it's qualified by the statement "almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on...".
Metcalfe is more interesting because the Internet did have a catastrophic collapse (at least in terms of the market) just a few years later. Like the housing market a decade later and several people predicting its inevitable collapse years earlier, it was probably held up longer than it should've been by sleazy people in finance, but even without that the first part of his statement indemnifies him from anything other than the specific year because it's qualified by the statement "almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on...".
The worst prognostications in that list is from Zanuck, I'd say. I wonder if Zanuck was just lying as marketing tactic when he thought movies were at risk, but he also could've been that blinded by his own Kool-Aid of working for a movie studio and wearing blinkers as to not see the potential for a movie studio to produce television content and for movies to eventually be on TVs. In the first episode of The Honeymooners, Ralph's wife, Alice, wants them to get a TV after Ed and Trixie buy one, but Ralph says he's holding out for a 3D TV. I bet when that was written it was comical to think of 3D televisions and yet the first 3D feature film debuted in 1922, over 3 decades earlier, and the firs stereoscopic 3D television was demonstrated in 1928. Now it's only been about 12 years since decent 3D televisions become a market fad with it fizzling out in about half a decade.
I wonder if the AR/VR headset will have its own battery that is connected via MagSafe, or can be recharged via a charging case, similar to AirPods. Being cordless would a great point of difference
I wonder if the AR/VR headset will have its own battery that is connected via MagSafe, or can be recharged via a charging case, similar to AirPods. Being cordless would a great point of difference
Perhaps both? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The notion of it charging with an Apple Watch inductive charging puck sounds interesting. I have to assume Apple tested that out and then either went forward with it if it wasn't too bulky, if it charged fast enough (remember the iPhone MagSafe is larger), wasn't too bulky, didn't get in the away, fall off too easily when charging while in use, etc. Apple has the benefit of spending many years creating countless prototypes to find the best design possible whereas we only have our imagination and trying to shoehorn current Apple ideas into new ones without the excessive product testing. We saw during the Samsung trial many years ago that Apple had a huge number of iPhone concepts to choose from. I don't expect this to be any different.
Will be interesting to see if the senior guys (VPs, Senior Directors, Directors) are back presenting for Platforms SOTU this year -- Andreas Wendker, Sebastian Marineau-Mes, Matthew Firlik, Eric Seymour -- as they have had some quite junior presenters the past two years. Diversity over experience, it seems.
Will be interesting to see if the senior guys (VPs, Senior Directors, Directors) are back presenting for Platforms SOTU this year -- Andreas Wendker, Sebastian Marineau-Mes, Matthew Firlik, Eric Seymour -- as they have had some quite junior presenters the past two years. Diversity over experience, it seems.
Diversity over experience or testing the next gen to see who can pull off the presentation and build the legacy. Seem to make sense given the COVID restrictions to go all in on next gen staff as presenters give them all and equal footing to make a mark.
I suspect this year will be the same faces as last year mostly to build that presents. Then they can have 3 generations the year after with the familiar, the fresh and the new a formula they can then use for years to come as the fresh faces become familiar. As Apple becomes a company not fixed on a particular person.
Will be interesting to see if the senior guys (VPs, Senior Directors, Directors) are back presenting for Platforms SOTU this year -- Andreas Wendker, Sebastian Marineau-Mes, Matthew Firlik, Eric Seymour -- as they have had some quite junior presenters the past two years. Diversity over experience, it seems.
Diversity over experience or testing the next gen to see who can pull off the presentation and build the legacy. Seem to make sense given the COVID restrictions to go all in on next gen staff as presenters give them all and equal footing to make a mark.
I suspect this year will be the same faces as last year mostly to build that presents. Then they can have 3 generations the year after with the familiar, the fresh and the new a formula they can then use for years to come as the fresh faces become familiar. As Apple becomes a company not fixed on a particular person.
Definitely key to test the next gen as presenters, but there's a big gap between doing a 5 min pre-recorded stint and presenting for 10-20+ mins live (with demo) in front of 5K in the audience. Seemed a bit pandering to have so many mid-to-late 20-something female presenters the past 2 years. But BigTech, and Apple in particular, absolutely needs to move past having all white, mid-40s or older male presenters at these events. Some non-Yank accents would be nice, too -- Wendker is the only one I can recall in recent years -- given Apple is supposed to be a global company.
Definitely important to build the next gen talent, though, agreed, and to give them a shot at profile building and to make opportunities for them. Many of these guys who have been with the company since the mid-90s will be retiring soon. (Cue "Succession: Cupertino"!)
Comments
Apple's unannounced device may well be amazing, but something maybe being amazing in the future doesn't mean that Meta has failed.
Olsen's comment gets him in trouble because of the absolute of claiming there is "no reason" as opposed to saying something like "there are very few reasons..." or "there aren't many people who...", but from his PoV there was effectively no market for DEC to make a huge investment into home computing in the mid 70s when there were other, more lucrative fruit to be picked. Can he be accused of not seeing the future? Sure, but so can nearly everyone else. "Talent hits the target no one else can hit, Genius hits the target no one can see." — Arthur Schopenhauer
As for Pogue's comment, he qualified his comment with "My answer" to show it was an opinion, and clause "probably" which is very different from flat out claiming that Apple will never make a smartphone, kinda like you already claiming outright "I won't buy one" as opposed to "I probably won't buy one," which is closer to how I'd respond on this day, but to be more accurate and clear, my statement if asked today would be, "I don't see myself buying one, but my scope of utility for VR/AR/XR is currently very limited to what others have predicted so I'll wait until there's a demo before I make up my mind."
Metcalfe is more interesting because it did have a catastrophic collapse (at least in terms of the market) just a few years later. Like the housing market a decade later and several people predicting its inevitable collapse years earlier, it was probably held up longer than it should've been by sleazy people in finance, but even without that the first part of his statement indemnifies him from anything other than the specific year because it's qualified by the statement "almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on...".
Metcalfe is more interesting because the Internet did have a catastrophic collapse (at least in terms of the market) just a few years later. Like the housing market a decade later and several people predicting its inevitable collapse years earlier, it was probably held up longer than it should've been by sleazy people in finance, but even without that the first part of his statement indemnifies him from anything other than the specific year because it's qualified by the statement "almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on...".
The worst prognostications in that list is from Zanuck, I'd say. I wonder if Zanuck was just lying as marketing tactic when he thought movies were at risk, but he also could've been that blinded by his own Kool-Aid of working for a movie studio and wearing blinkers as to not see the potential for a movie studio to produce television content and for movies to eventually be on TVs. In the first episode of The Honeymooners, Ralph's wife, Alice, wants them to get a TV after Ed and Trixie buy one, but Ralph says he's holding out for a 3D TV. I bet when that was written it was comical to think of 3D televisions and yet the first 3D feature film debuted in 1922, over 3 decades earlier, and the firs stereoscopic 3D television was demonstrated in 1928. Now it's only been about 12 years since decent 3D televisions become a market fad with it fizzling out in about half a decade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_television
The notion of it charging with an Apple Watch inductive charging puck sounds interesting. I have to assume Apple tested that out and then either went forward with it if it wasn't too bulky, if it charged fast enough (remember the iPhone MagSafe is larger), wasn't too bulky, didn't get in the away, fall off too easily when charging while in use, etc. Apple has the benefit of spending many years creating countless prototypes to find the best design possible whereas we only have our imagination and trying to shoehorn current Apple ideas into new ones without the excessive product testing. We saw during the Samsung trial many years ago that Apple had a huge number of iPhone concepts to choose from. I don't expect this to be any different.
Seem to make sense given the COVID restrictions to go all in on next gen staff as presenters give them all and equal footing to make a mark.
I suspect this year will be the same faces as last year mostly to build that presents. Then they can have 3 generations the year after with the familiar, the fresh and the new a formula they can then use for years to come as the fresh faces become familiar. As Apple becomes a company not fixed on a particular person.