canukstorm

CheeseFreeze said:

I have the Vision Pro dev kit, basically the same hardware but with an extra USBC port and a bunch of accessories, but otherwise close to the product you’ll get from Apple today.

The device was both released too late and too soon. 

Too late because Meta pushed an entire ecosystem for years - at a huge loss, albeit with a different positioning.
if Apple didn’t have Meta as competitor I bet their current positioning would have been different. They just couldn’t enter the market so late with a “Samsung let’s copy” approach. So it became a “spatial computer” instead that no one wants.

Too soon because they weren’t ready by a long shot. Most of the apps are iPad apps projected on a flat plane in a 3D space. The only way they can sell that odd reality is because of their “spatial computer” positioning: these are windows on your spatial desktop! Sure, whatever. The end result is that most of the UX isn’t truly spatial. It’s just flat stuff in a 3D space. The spatial nature isn’t leveraged. 

The “you can have 10 monitors” argument is also nonsensical. Nobody needs it. And you can buy pretty decent monitors for $500-$700 if that’s what you need. 

 

The truth is, you’re not really productive with a VR device. Especially one that feels way too heavy on your face and puts two monitors right in front of you. 

AVP it’s a terrible device for gaming. Meta was smart enough to go for a dual approach where you can switch between hands and controllers based on your use-case. 

So at least with the Meta Quest, you can consume spatial videos and many fun games for $550 or so. On AVP, you can’t really do much.

tht said:

canukstorm said:

tht said:

Sounds like she is on the retirement transition plan, too?

This might be her last big project. 

If she's as good as this article states, maybe she should considered for Federighi's replacement.

She has 37 years at Apple. That's definitely retirement age. If she wanted the job, the time should have been when Forstall was fired. She was likely loyal to Forstall and taking his position was unsavory for her, or that such management position was what she wanted. Just me guessing.

tht said:

Sounds like she is on the retirement transition plan, too?

This might be her last big project. 

avon b7 said:

kkqd1337 said:

From the noises car manufacturers have been making I don't think many (if any) of them will ever allow their cars to becomes dependant on Apple (or any other) software.

I don't really understand why? It must cost them a lot of money to develop their own systems, and do they make money from it? does anyone actually ever subscribe to their SatNav updates?! do they generate an income some other way?

Regardless, for me the current CarPlay implementation is excellent and I expect will be the best we have for the foreseeable future. 

CarPlay is at a crossroads in some ways. 

As mentioned in the article, it's possible that part of the goal was for the new version to steer Apple into the age of smart cars. Now that that idea seems to have been written off, it could still have a use for iPhone users but just without an Apple Car. Apple CarPlay Plus. An upgrade but nothing really drastic. 

I can understand why the 'old school' manufacturers are reluctant to let Apple dig even further into their cars, especially as their cars basically need to be truly 'smart' going forward and that smartness will gain more weight over time. It's already happening in China. 

Apple would love for manufacturers to become dependent in its offerings and sit between them and their customers.

That looks very unlikely unless there is some easy way to switch between suppliers easily (and capable suppliers may be few and far between). 

Then there is the question of who needs who more? 

Can Apple really offer what carmakers want? Or is Apple willing to pay to get CarPlay into vehicles? 

The Google/Apple default search engine deal springs to mind here. 

Another option would be for Apple to play a far bigger role in the development and sale of the car, effectively making Apple a manufacturing and sales partner (using Apple Retail Stores as showrooms. 

In that scenario there are definitely many areas where a technology focused company could play a vital role.

The problem is that Apple doesn't have any of those levers to pull. 

It is not offering, powertrains, LiDAR or GOD networks, batteries or charging infrastructure, self driving solutions, AR-HUDs, audio solutions, mini-data centers, 5G and V2X communications or a plethora of other NEV essentials.

While most 'Western' users may be happy envisioning what their future cars may be able to do, it all pales when compared to many Chinese solutions, and many western automakers are already rumoured to be actively seeking Chinese collaboration for the cars they want to sell in that market and perhaps in other markets too.

In that sense I can't see Apple even beginning to be a challenger in China. Especially seeing as back in 2021 it was already way behind the Chinese domestic brands. They've moved on to far more advanced solutions while Apple hasn't budged. 

The development phase of new cars in China is also very short. 

There is a silver, if limited, lining here though. Chinese brands (in the sense of smart connected solutions) are going to be banned in the US. That leaves the door open to Apple if, and it's a big if, large US domestic players are open to collaboration. The problem there is that we know some major players are moving away from Apple as an option for deep integration. 

The big unknown for me is Tesla. I have no idea how well their solution stacks up against the Chinese offerings. 

mpantone said:

Apple's greatest innovation in the 21st century is the iPhone. Anyone who thinks otherwise is still living in 2005-2010.

Steve introduced the iPhone in 2007 as "the computer for the rest of us" then went on to remove Computer from the name of his own company. Today the revenue from the iPhone, iPad, and wearables dwarfs the Mac business unit.

Pretty much every single consumer-facing technology we have today has been driven by smartphones because they are the primary computing modality of today's consumers and have been for 10+ years. We've gone over this before, things like NFC contactless payment systems (which actually started on Japanese featurephones a few years before smartphones), biometric identification systems, computational photography, touchscreen displays, et cetera ad nauseam. Not all of these originated on the smartphone but mainstream popularity was pushed by smartphones.

Even today, you have macOS trailing iOS in features (this is particularly notable in biometric ID, Apple Intelligence feature rollout). Apple even debuted the M4 SoC on a handheld device (iPad Pro) rather than sticking it in first in a MacBook. The Retina Display showed up first on an iPhone. There are countless examples of where the iPhone leads the Mac, where iPhoneOS/iOS leads OS X/macOS.

Like clockwork Apple releases new iPhones every fall and lets the high-end Mac Pro fester years and years (where one might expect PC innovation to occur). What has Apple done on the Mac side in recent years? Let's see, they've removed the Touchbar, released a jumbo Mac mini called the Studio, and finally released a long-overdue Mac mini in a smaller form factor thirteen years after they discontinued their last model with a built-in 5.25" optical drive (which was the main reason for the old size).

Meanwhile, Apple spends far more time, effort, and resources on iOS than macOS. This is completely obvious if you pay attention to WWDC.

iPhone/iOS is where to see where Mac/macOS is going.

Some tech journalists and pundits hold on tightly to their "personal computers are king" mentality but those days are long gone. Staying in the past just ends up being less relevant as time goes by. I'm a longtime Apple computer user (i.e., pre-1984) and I still own a Mac. But I don't look at my Mac as where the innovation is happening.

Time to stick a fork in this petrified paradigm because the rest of the (sane) world already did a decade ago. This article might have sounded less nutty in 2010. Today it's like an SNL parody of a tech article.