tjwolf
About
- Banned
- Username
- tjwolf
- Joined
- Visits
- 99
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 1,032
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 424
Reactions
-
Apple Watch growth, physician access to data likely to become major Apple healthcare reven...
I wouldn't take anything Munster says seriously - the guy is an analyst-wannabe. Just that one statement "take all the data it [Apple] is collecting from the Watch" shows how little he understands reality. Apple isn't collecting that information! A customer's *phone* is collecting that information from he Watch. Apple doesn't have access to it!tshapi said:
Not selling persay, you have a watch. With all that valuable data and you want to share it with your doctor . If would cost your doctor $10 to directly obtain that data from Apple. Or your doctor would pay $10 to Apple and request you provide that info to him to maintain your health. Thats how I perceive it would happen. Apple is too big a company to just sell its data. If would set up a patient approval process.johnbroussard said:I'm really skeptical of Apple selling health data.I can't see what you're suggesting happening. Apple has actively promoted that you'll, eventually, be able to share your health records with your healthcare provider as you see fit. No cost to anyone involved in that sharing. But I can see Apple selling the doctors and/or hospitals the software (perhaps on a subscription basis) to facilitate this sharing.
-
Here's why your AirPods battery life is getting worse, and what you can do about it
What is "previous" about this? You're not required to buy AirPods - iPhones still come with your beloved wired headphones. AirPods aren't about "need" - they're about convenience. Until you've used them, you can't appreciate the freedom from wires, tangles, dropped phones (because you've pulled them off the table because you were still connected) they afford you. Other than the iPhone, AirPods are Apple's greatest product - ever.spice-boy said:Thank you for the correction however the previous ear plugs worked on the fly, did not a require a separate charging accessory and were included with the price of a new iPhone.
-
Apple's smart glasses can change the game in a niche augmented & virtual reality market
Force Touch didn’t require much embracing - it’s just a shortcut for existing functionality. The reason it didn’t take off is Apple’s uncharacteristically bad/incomplete user interface. Users simply couldn’t tell what was and wasn’t force-touchable.flydog said:Given the lack of enthusiasm in the developer community to embrace and incorporate Force Touch, AR, Files, multitasking, Apple Watch, etc into their apps, I don't see this gaining much traction. The problem is Apple generally dumps this stuff out there in hopes that developers will find a use case.
Not sure why you’re bringing up AR as having lack of enthusiasm - it’s way too early to tell! ARKit was a “seeding” so that when AR glasses come, there will be some apps already. Currently ARKit apps don’t get much use because nobody wants to hold up their phone go prolonged periods of time!
Files is an Apple app and pretty popular. Don’t know why you think it needs developer enthusiasm.
Multitasking? Should be obvious why it has limited developer interest - it’s of limited use on a smartphone.
Apple Watch - I assume you mean apps. I agree somewhat - Apple was probably hoping for a larger app ecosystem on the watch. But realistically, there are limited use cases for apps on a tiny screen held up by a wrist. And Apple’s many built-in apps already fulfill many of the ones there are.
-
Apple's AR glasses arriving in 2020, iPhone will do most of the work
wigby said:
Apple chose to use the phone as the platform and display because the alternative was Google Glass and HoloLens. One was a commercial failure and the other is way out everyone's price range except for enterprise. In these past few years, Apple has learned a lot about AR precisely because they went with the iPhone and iPad as platforms. Using hands freely for gesturing and other things was always their mission but the technology just wasn't there a few years ago and it arguably still isn't based on Magic Leap reviews I've seen.Sanctum1972 said:And if ( a big IF ) the AR Goggles has a sensor to scan in hands to interact with the 3D AR objects, then this is what Apple should have released in the very first place! Apple's idea of using an iOS device to hold up for AR use is asinine and I have never, I mean, NEVER seen anyone locally hold up an iPhone or iPad just for that. The only exception would be the Ingress game in my experience which is AR, a bit older than Pokemon Go and doesn't require holding up a phone in front of an object or location.
Another concern I have is that the AR Goggles will most likely need to be recharged which makes it the 5th device with a rechargeable battery ( iPhone, iPad, Watch, AirPods and now this one ) running on Bluetooth.
I suspect the AR Goggles will probably go for close to $300-400 alone when and IF they release it in 2020, depending on the market situation.
Recharging any any discreet device is just something we have all come to accept and deal with. It is much better than the alternative of a physical tether and besides, taking off your glasses and putting them on an AirPower charging pad sounds like a simple way to deal with the charging issues and make a lot of extra money for Apple.
$300-$400 is Apple Watch pricing. This is a new category with much more going on in the way of sensors, battery tech, wireless connectivity, cameras and display. It will not be sold for less than $699. It might not be great 1st or 2nd gen hardware or software but will sell millions and temporarily push Apple into the forefront of AR. The only question is will the developers and general consumers embrace Apple's AR in the same way that they have done so for iPhone, iPad and Apple Watch?
Agree with everything you've said, except pricing. I think it'll price in the same range as the Apple Watch. Besides the argument that people probably won't accept an "accessory" costing nearly as much as their phone, I'd add that I don't necessarily buy the argument that it has a lot more going on - parts wise - than the Apple Watch. Yes, it needs sensors similar to those on the iPhone themselves (camera, possibly depth sensors). But the watch has a display, wireless connectivity, battery tech. In addition, the watch has GPS, option for cellular, an ECG, heart beat monitor, a processor powerful enough to run apps, a speaker, a microphone, and enough memory for quite a few songs. So, actually, the glasses will likely have a lot less going on than the watch in terms of pure functionality.
-
Apple's AR glasses arriving in 2020, iPhone will do most of the work
I think "the most basic AR" is exactly what Apple is aiming for - and, if done right, it'll sell like hotcakes IMHO. I'm not saying interaction with AR objects isn't desirable - or eventually achievable - but I think there's plenty of usefulness for AR glasses that look like real glasses, whose battery lasts all day, and which lets you view notifications, emails, texts, and - very importantly - run ARKit enabled applications. I don't know about ARKit, but if ARKit also allows for interaction with AR objects, then Apple will probably provide equivalents for that as well.crowley said:
If it's really augmenting reality then it's not just video, it'll be real time depth mapping. And possibly interaction with the augmentation as well, which could be simple, or could be complicated.tjwolf said:
You must be thinking of VR, not AR. Why do you think it's a "hell of a lot of data"? The only thing that needs to be transmitted is the augmentation. In other words, the display is already in front of you - it's reality. The glasses just have to show whatever augmentation the iPhone decides on based on what the glass' camera sees. What the camera sees can be transmitted to the iPhone easily - Apple has been using AirPlay to transmit video for years.crowley said:That seems like a hell of a lot of data that you're shunting over a wireless connection, and in a situation where any lag will destroy the experience. Colour me sceptical, firstly of the report and then of the system.
I think I'm winding back, maybe it's not so much data, but I'm still suspicious that processing off-device may end up introducing more lag than is acceptable in this kind of device if Apple are trying to do anything in excess of the most basic AR.Once Apple has established the market, it will go about adding functionality while making sure battery life and looks don't suffer. Think about it - that's how they've grown all their devices - e.g. the initial watch didn't have cellular, no GPS, wasn't water proof, didn't have an ECG. But the initial version had enough features to be an unmitigated success (despite what some media sources tried to paint it as).