abolish

What's crazy about this rumor is the camera power requirements. Unlike predecessors like Google Glass, AR glasses will require a camera that's on during use and transmitting a live feed to the phone the whole time. Immediately there's a challenge with latency and connection quality. But moreover running a camera and high-bandwidth transmitter requires a relatively high amount of power. How big of a battery can they fit into glasses which keeping it thin and lightweight?

What is a “6K3K” display?

Her statement giving credit to "federal research" was demonstrably wrong, though.

How is it demonstrably wrong? No evidence is cited to support this claim. The linked article does not actually dispute it. DARPA and related federal agencies have in fact created much of the core technology that Silicon Valley commercializes.

Did you know Siri is named after SRI International, a DARPA-funded research agency? Did you know autonomous vehicles were nurtured for years by the "DARPA Grand Challenge"? The list goes on and on.

 This is not to take anything away from the difficult work that goes into commercializing a technology. That's what Pelosi's clarification was about. But there are a lot of people in SV that get offended by the mere mention that much of what they do would not be possible without billions of taxpayer funding over the 10-20 years that it takes to develop a technology from its origin to where it's viable commercially.

seankill said:

abolish said:

AppleInsider said:

An iPhone X can hit 50 percent charge in as little as 30 minutes, but only when using Apple's Lightning to USB-C cable and an adapter with USB-C Power Delivery. That typically means buying a new cable and a MacBook adapter, the cheapest Apple option for the latter being a $49 30-watt unit.

I'm so sick of hearing this $49 figure. Every discussion of iPhone charging should mention the 12W charger. That's really the right default recommendation. Let's change the narrative on this.

The $19 12W charger hits 40 percent in 30 minutes, only slightly behind the USB-C options -- and double the speed of the bundled 5W charger.

That really should be the default recommendation when purchasing an iPhone. Spend more if you want but $19 for 2X the charging speed is an extremely good value.

Why is it so difficult for Apple to provide a 12W charger by default with the $650+ iPhones? Especially the X-series? $1,100 and I get a garbage charger? Anything to save a buck. 

Apple provides a 12W charger by default with a $329 iPad, so excluding it from a $1,100 iPhone is clearly not to "save a buck".

Clearly Apple is defaulting to the 5W charger because of size. The average iPhone customer values small size and pocket/purse portability over maximum charge speed. If Apple can one day make a fast *and* small charger, no doubt they'll include that.

It's like, do people even think for two seconds about this? Apple's accessories revenue is a pittance of what they make from selling devices. They are aligned with including whatever sells the most iPhones and makes people happiest, not pissing people off. I'm just saying the 12W charger is a great, affordable add-on if you value maximum charge speed. Let's talk about that more, not the $49 option.

AppleInsider said:

An iPhone X can hit 50 percent charge in as little as 30 minutes, but only when using Apple's Lightning to USB-C cable and an adapter with USB-C Power Delivery. That typically means buying a new cable and a MacBook adapter, the cheapest Apple option for the latter being a $49 30-watt unit.

I'm so sick of hearing this $49 figure. Every discussion of iPhone charging should mention the 12W charger. That's really the right default recommendation. Let's change the narrative on this.

The $19 12W charger hits 40 percent in 30 minutes, only slightly behind the USB-C options -- and double the speed of the bundled 5W charger.

That really should be the default recommendation when purchasing an iPhone. Spend more if you want but $19 for 2X the charging speed is an extremely good value.