raoulduke42

canukstorm said:

Rajka said:

I'm sorry, but I cannot justify the iMac as a prosumer Mac. I want my Mac to be readily repairable, upgradable and expandable. You know, like they were under Steve Jobs. I don't mind paying a small premium for that as long as the build quality is there, but double retail? Uh, no.

It was under Steve Jobs that the un-upgradeable, un-repairable, and un-expandable iMac was conceived.  It was the first consumer product released under his leadership when he returned to Apple in the late 90's.

Not to mention the original Mac. El Jobso loved controlling the whole widget... which for most consumer products is right I’d say. Mac Pro is a different beast of course. 

Agreed. I can see a Watch face where it's basically just a bunch (or well, a couple) of faders for whatever smart lights you want to control. Swipe over from your main (actual time focused) face to that controller face for way faster access to such features.

Also, you may want to take another pass at this sentence: "They're just all of them designed by Apple."

as long as you're fine with it, I'm fine with it for you.  

Indeed! I like to think I’ve a sound argument!

...I'd add, that yes- wireless headphones on their own aren't AR devices, but pair them with a phone that can feed directions to you and now it's AR, never mind the Watch stuff. I can imagine a game that's not too dissimilar from that Pokemon AR game that was the thing for a minute only you have to wander about seeking... whatever based on auditory cues. One could do some really fun stuff with stereo imaging to give audio clues to the user. Find "ghosts" or something and the whole tone of the audio only (perhaps with Watch feedback too) game could be a kind of spooky fun. I'm not sure about the author's larger point of Apple getting more involved with game controllers and such, but it's also not completely implausible.

CloudTalkin said:

raoulduke42 said:

CloudTalkin said:
What the heck does that even mean?  Audio AR?  

In my case "augmented reality" with AirPods= walking around or driving in an older car that lack CarPlay or even bluetooth and still hearing directions in my ear. Combined with the subtle haptic cues and graphics on my Watch, it makes for getting around pretty easy without having to stare at my iPhone. Super exciting AR use case? No. Useful? Yes.

In your case, respectfully, you aren't dealing with augmented reality.  Look, we can't just go around co-opting terminology to justify a position on an issue.  I mean, we can, but it seems a bit intellectually dishonest to do so. The AirPods have nothing to do with AR.  Trying to combine it with features of the AW doesn't make any more legitimate.  AirPods are wireless headphones.  Wireless headphones aren't AR devices.

Why can't AR refer to non-visual tech? Wikipedia seems to think it can-- "Augmented reality is an interactive experience of a real-world environment where the objects that reside in the real-world are enhanced by computer-generated perceptual information, sometimes across multiple sensory modalities, including visual, auditory, haptic, somatosensory and olfactory." I'll admit that the Websters and New Oxford dictionaries do agree with your visual-only definition of the tech, but I dunno, felt pretty futuristic to me when I was doing it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯