alandail

The trailer was better than the movie.

tht said:

alandail said:

Why don't they just use Starlink?

They might still use Starlink direct-to-cell services if the price is right, like you can use multiple networks/carriers with your eSIM.

They didn’t use Starlink direct-to-cell services in the first place because it wasn’t available in 2022, nor in 2023. Starlink didn’t launch cellular compatible satellites until this year and it was probably iffy that there was enough to support iPhones this year anyways. 

GlobalStar is the type of partner Apple loves. It looks to be a pretty sweetheart deal, and they are now minority owners. So, they can have tailored services to their liking and design more easily. That has a lot of advantages that a deal with Starlink can’t offer.

Starlink has the advantage no custom hardware is needed inside th3 phone.  SpaceX enabled starlink direct to cell functionality after the recent hurricanes for emergency service., including on phones apples solution won’t work on,

lesterkrimbaugh said:

A better tutorial might be instructions on how to rip 3D BluRay discs into a format that can be streamed to the Apple Vision Pro from a Mac (or other) media server.

Many people have 3D BluRays that aren't on any streaming service. For example: House of Wax [1953]. GOG [1954].

House of Wax was in 3D at launch. Why did they get rid of it? It was on my list of movies to watch sometime.

Another problem they've have is if you got the movie into your library from Movies Anywhere, you don't get the 3D version, even if you got the movies anywhere version from a 3D Blu Ray and you can't buy it again directly to get the 3D version. There is a complicated workaround of gifting it to yourself using an old version if iTunes for windows. I can't believe they have totally ignored this issue. It's so frustrating to see a movie in the list of 3D movies, but have no way to view it in 3D.

One of several examples of Apple dropping the ball driving Vision Pro adoption. Another glaring example is the complete lack of immersive sports other than the one soccer trailer. Live immersive sports would sell Vision Pros.

InspiredCode said:

I wonder if the accessory space was designed to be extra large for possible future motion controllers. They didn't really need extra space for the headband since it is floppy and could fit in a much smaller bag.

I certainly hope so, motion controllers are such an odd omission. I get they didn't want a UI that requires them, but some games/fitness apps either suffer from not having them or are impossible without them. I also get they want to position Vision Pro as more than a VR gaming system. But now I'm in this weird situation where Synth Riders, which is on both, looks far better on Vision Pro, but has better playability on Quest 3.  

Vision Pro I can't hit things as they pass my head, it gets confused when my hands quickly cross each other, and there is no haptic feedback so I can tell when I miss something or hit it with the opposite hand I think I'm hitting it with.  It's good enough to be playable if I'm traveling and only bring the Vision Pro (because it's better at so much else), but not good enough that I choose to play it in Vision Pro when the Quest 3 is sitting right there.

retrogusto said:

To offer support at this point, you’d need to be reasonably confident that 1) a lot of people will buy the $3500 AVP and use it a lot, 2) a decent percentage of those people will want to use your app with it, 3) the app experience would be far superior to what you can offer through a browser, and 4) all of these things will combine to justify the expense of development and ongoing support. It’s a tall order, especially when you can always wait a bit and see how things go. 

it pretty trivial to let the iPad app run on Vision Pro. YouTube, Spotify, Netflix don't allow their iPad apps to be used on the Mac either. 

Buried in the Vision Pro streaming announcements. IMAX app. I can't find anything that says what that is.