All I can honestly say is: "Apple, TAKE MY MONEY...if I HAD it!!!!😭😵💫. That is the impression that I believe a LOT of folks are coming away with, and perhaps that makes Zuckerberg nervous, as well it SHOULD.
I think Apple is taking a similar approach with folding phones. Right now, the technology isn’t quite there. I am sure Apple has several iterations in development. And when they finally release an actual product, it will turn the industry upside down. Apple has creativity, integrity, money, and a very loyal following. They can patently explore possibilities and release products when they make sense.
Apple is slowly but surely eroding Zuckerberg's platform. First they took away his advertising revenue. So he changed the company name to Meta. Now they have stolen the limelight with Vision Pro. Soon he will change his company name, again, to Beta.
Apple is slowly but surely eroding Zuckerberg's platform. First they took away his advertising revenue. So he changed the company name to Meta. Now they have stolen the limelight with Vision Pro. Soon he will change his company name, again, to Beta.
Apple has upped the ante on the technological side but not really brought anything new. It's just souped up what was already out there, and along with it, the price, and wrapped it up nicely with some extra touches.
That said, the finesse is appreciable and also desirable because it reduces a lot of pain points. There is a lot to like (pricing aside).
I'm not sure why there was so much sofa sitting footage in the keynote and hope that more options are just as possible.
You can't fight off a Sith sitting on your sofa!
What Zuckerberg has to understand is that my wife was happy with her Quest and itching to upgrade. That got knocked on the head as soon as Meta made a Facebook account a requirement. That was when we abandoned our plans to upgrade. If more people feel the same way we do, Meta has a problem.
Meta has an image problem that goes far deeper than image. Apple has a big head start over them when it comes to trust.
LOL, no he hasn't said a single correct thing. If you think Apple hasn't done anything new you badly need to watch the Keynote.
Enlighten me.
I have seen the entire Vision Pro keynote segment.
Form factor, cameras, Lidar, sensors, gesture and voice control, screens, lenses, materials, specialised chipsets, web and software access...
As a first generation product it soups up all of the above but please don't think that is all 'new'.
Some of it is, for sure, but how much?
I'm not saying Apple hasn't done anything new.
IMO, the real difference is in how it all comes together. Of course at a hefty price but I can understand that. It's pretty compelling all the same.
In fact my favourite feature, which isn't really necessary at all, is the visual representation of the user on the outer screen. A screen showing a representation of the user. It has zero impact on the use of the device but nevertheless serves a purpose for people around the user.
From your original post: “….but not really brought anything new”
None of the technology in the vision pro is actually new. This is all from the isreali company that apple bought that used to partner with Xbox and helped create Face ID im sure. The technology isn’t new, they implementation of how apple has applied the technology to “special computing” is new.
Meh, I'm not sure what else you'd expect him to say.
He could say what Steve Jobs said when the IBM PC came out: "Welcome IBM, Seriously." Because he knew that IBM's entry just validated the personal computer as a legitimate product.
But that's the classy way to go about it, and if there's one thing that Zuckerberg doesn't know how to do, it's to act with class.
Steve Kovach of CNBC has tested Meta’s and Apple’s headsets and he says the difference between them is “night and day.”
I’m not surprised. It is one thing to produce a website: clever HTML, CSS, Javascript and what have you; build a business model around surveillance and advertising, and violá. Product development of the kind that Apple does involves so much more: from the silicon and machine code, to operating systems, and software packages, to hardware, miniaturisation, audio and video — all areas that Apple has vast experience operating at the highest level. It’s no contest.
Apple has upped the ante on the technological side but not really brought anything new. It's just souped up what was already out there, and along with it, the price, and wrapped it up nicely with some extra touches.
That said, the finesse is appreciable and also desirable because it reduces a lot of pain points. There is a lot to like (pricing aside).
I'm not sure why there was so much sofa sitting footage in the keynote and hope that more options are just as possible.
You can't fight off a Sith sitting on your sofa!
What Zuckerberg has to understand is that my wife was happy with her Quest and itching to upgrade. That got knocked on the head as soon as Meta made a Facebook account a requirement. That was when we abandoned our plans to upgrade. If more people feel the same way we do, Meta has a problem.
Meta has an image problem that goes far deeper than image. Apple has a big head start over them when it comes to trust.
LOL, no he hasn't said a single correct thing. If you think Apple hasn't done anything new you badly need to watch the Keynote.
Enlighten me.
I have seen the entire Vision Pro keynote segment.
Form factor, cameras, Lidar, sensors, gesture and voice control, screens, lenses, materials, specialised chipsets, web and software access...
As a first generation product it soups up all of the above but please don't think that is all 'new'.
Some of it is, for sure, but how much?
I'm not saying Apple hasn't done anything new.
IMO, the real difference is in how it all comes together. Of course at a hefty price but I can understand that. It's pretty compelling all the same.
In fact my favourite feature, which isn't really necessary at all, is the visual representation of the user on the outer screen. A screen showing a representation of the user. It has zero impact on the use of the device but nevertheless serves a purpose for people around the user.
From your original post: “….but not really brought anything new”
You very much said Apple didn’t do anything new.
"basically", "notreally"
What do those words mean to you?
They are there specifically to take the absolute edge off of 'anything'.
And in my other post, 'anything' is in italics precisely to drive that point home.
He is basically right. That means, 'perhaps not in every way'. Can you see that?
Apple has upped the ante on the technological side but not really brought anything new. It's just souped up what was already out there, and along with it, the price, and wrapped it up nicely with some extra touches.
That said, the finesse is appreciable and also desirable because it reduces a lot of pain points. There is a lot to like (pricing aside).
I'm not sure why there was so much sofa sitting footage in the keynote and hope that more options are just as possible.
You can't fight off a Sith sitting on your sofa!
What Zuckerberg has to understand is that my wife was happy with her Quest and itching to upgrade. That got knocked on the head as soon as Meta made a Facebook account a requirement. That was when we abandoned our plans to upgrade. If more people feel the same way we do, Meta has a problem.
Meta has an image problem that goes far deeper than image. Apple has a big head start over them when it comes to trust.
LOL, no he hasn't said a single correct thing. If you think Apple hasn't done anything new you badly need to watch the Keynote.
Enlighten me.
I have seen the entire Vision Pro keynote segment.
Form factor, cameras, Lidar, sensors, gesture and voice control, screens, lenses, materials, specialised chipsets, web and software access...
As a first generation product it soups up all of the above but please don't think that is all 'new'.
Some of it is, for sure, but how much?
I'm not saying Apple hasn't done anything new.
IMO, the real difference is in how it all comes together. Of course at a hefty price but I can understand that. It's pretty compelling all the same.
In fact my favourite feature, which isn't really necessary at all, is the visual representation of the user on the outer screen. A screen showing a representation of the user. It has zero impact on the use of the device but nevertheless serves a purpose for people around the user.
"IMO, the real difference is in how it all comes together".
Pretty much defines the advantage that Apple has had in so many successful products.
In the beginning, there was just "Mac" and "iPod" and "iPhone". Later came the "mini", "nano", "Pro" and other variants. With the super-sophisticated headset, Apple needed to start somewhere, and they started with the "Pro" variant out of the gate. Later will come the cheaper variants once the technology and manufacturing has been refined.
Apple has upped the ante on the technological side but not really brought anything new. It's just souped up what was already out there, and along with it, the price, and wrapped it up nicely with some extra touches.
That said, the finesse is appreciable and also desirable because it reduces a lot of pain points. There is a lot to like (pricing aside).
I'm not sure why there was so much sofa sitting footage in the keynote and hope that more options are just as possible.
You can't fight off a Sith sitting on your sofa!
What Zuckerberg has to understand is that my wife was happy with her Quest and itching to upgrade. That got knocked on the head as soon as Meta made a Facebook account a requirement. That was when we abandoned our plans to upgrade. If more people feel the same way we do, Meta has a problem.
Meta has an image problem that goes far deeper than image. Apple has a big head start over them when it comes to trust.
LOL, no he hasn't said a single correct thing. If you think Apple hasn't done anything new you badly need to watch the Keynote.
Enlighten me.
I have seen the entire Vision Pro keynote segment.
Form factor, cameras, Lidar, sensors, gesture and voice control, screens, lenses, materials, specialised chipsets, web and software access...
As a first generation product it soups up all of the above but please don't think that is all 'new'.
Some of it is, for sure, but how much?
I'm not saying Apple hasn't done anything new.
IMO, the real difference is in how it all comes together. Of course at a hefty price but I can understand that. It's pretty compelling all the same.
In fact my favourite feature, which isn't really necessary at all, is the visual representation of the user on the outer screen. A screen showing a representation of the user. It has zero impact on the use of the device but nevertheless serves a purpose for people around the user.
"IMO, the real difference is in how it all comes together".
Pretty much defines the advantage that Apple has had in so many successful products.
Essentially, Apple gets the high end market, yet again, and will get 80% to 90% of the profits.
We'll see.
There is too much that is not known about the device and all the people given hands on access were not allowed to use much of the key announced features.
That is a bit worrying. If those features are announced so far ahead of release they should be usable in the hands on.
This isn't the same as a hands on for a release device where a final software update is a week or two away.
Also, how are false positives handled (and how well) for gestures?
As things stand, this is in no way comparble to iPhone in terms of industry profit. It won't have the volume for that. It's going to be much smaller scale.
The industry has been moving in the direction that it has for years.
Apple is simply jumping on the same train.
In that sense Apple is not really bringing anything new to the table. It's important not to forget the core functionality here. That is what Zuckerberg is getting at.
If services are going to be a driving factor (enhanced video scenarios etc) then volume will be key.
It's possible that a 'lite' version could be released (minus the bells and whistles) and it would do the same job but that would put it somewhere the Quest et al will be over the next two years so I can see why they wouldn't want to speak about that option at the announcement.
Features trickle down the line but right now there is nowhere for them to trickle down to so there will be no real volume to unit sales when compared even to iPad.
It's clear that competitors will now have to play their cards and try to leverage interest but everything I've seen at industry level on full XR is aimed at ICT usage. It's about having XR everywhere under open formats.
It's not dissimilar to the situation with autonomous cars. They will depend on the infrastructure around them and being able to communicate with it.
That is still being sorted out.
It's the same with XR.
Meta does have a huge amount of research and technology under it's belt. So do other players.
It's going to be a fight for hearts and minds for the next two years and products will have to deliver on what they promise. The proof will be in the pudding.
Apple has upped the ante on the technological side but not really brought anything new. It's just souped up what was already out there, and along with it, the price, and wrapped it up nicely with some extra touches.
That said, the finesse is appreciable and also desirable because it reduces a lot of pain points. There is a lot to like (pricing aside).
I'm not sure why there was so much sofa sitting footage in the keynote and hope that more options are just as possible.
You can't fight off a Sith sitting on your sofa!
What Zuckerberg has to understand is that my wife was happy with her Quest and itching to upgrade. That got knocked on the head as soon as Meta made a Facebook account a requirement. That was when we abandoned our plans to upgrade. If more people feel the same way we do, Meta has a problem.
Meta has an image problem that goes far deeper than image. Apple has a big head start over them when it comes to trust.
Wholly missing the point.
Intellectual property, in particular Patents, is all about advancing the Useful Arts. Few if any ever invents anything new -- one is granted patents improving on what has come before.
Relegating the advancement of the Useful Arts to "It's just souped up what was already out there" is just silly.
Comments
But that's the classy way to go about it, and if there's one thing that Zuckerberg doesn't know how to do, it's to act with class.
What do those words mean to you?
They are there specifically to take the absolute edge off of 'anything'.
And in my other post, 'anything' is in italics precisely to drive that point home.
He is basically right. That means, 'perhaps not in every way'. Can you see that?
Pretty much defines the advantage that Apple has had in so many successful products.
https://twitter.com/BenBajarin/status/1666885629945479168
"Apple always takes premium"
Essentially, Apple gets the high end market, yet again, and will get 80% to 90% of the profits.
https://twitter.com/BenBajarin/status/1666867628072402944
'What Apple has is the base level experience to get an average consumer into the category".
"This is the ante just to be in this market".
There is too much that is not known about the device and all the people given hands on access were not allowed to use much of the key announced features.
That is a bit worrying. If those features are announced so far ahead of release they should be usable in the hands on.
This isn't the same as a hands on for a release device where a final software update is a week or two away.
Also, how are false positives handled (and how well) for gestures?
As things stand, this is in no way comparble to iPhone in terms of industry profit. It won't have the volume for that. It's going to be much smaller scale.
The industry has been moving in the direction that it has for years.
Apple is simply jumping on the same train.
In that sense Apple is not really bringing anything new to the table. It's important not to forget the core functionality here. That is what Zuckerberg is getting at.
If services are going to be a driving factor (enhanced video scenarios etc) then volume will be key.
It's possible that a 'lite' version could be released (minus the bells and whistles) and it would do the same job but that would put it somewhere the Quest et al will be over the next two years so I can see why they wouldn't want to speak about that option at the announcement.
Features trickle down the line but right now there is nowhere for them to trickle down to so there will be no real volume to unit sales when compared even to iPad.
It's clear that competitors will now have to play their cards and try to leverage interest but everything I've seen at industry level on full XR is aimed at ICT usage. It's about having XR everywhere under open formats.
It's not dissimilar to the situation with autonomous cars. They will depend on the infrastructure around them and being able to communicate with it.
That is still being sorted out.
It's the same with XR.
Meta does have a huge amount of research and technology under it's belt. So do other players.
It's going to be a fight for hearts and minds for the next two years and products will have to deliver on what they promise. The proof will be in the pudding.
As I said, we'll see.
Intellectual property, in particular Patents, is all about advancing the Useful Arts. Few if any ever invents anything new -- one is granted patents improving on what has come before.
Relegating the advancement of the Useful Arts to "It's just souped up what was already out there" is just silly.