stoneyg

StrangeDays said:

9secondkox2 said:

It’s like a refined beta product. Apple just wants to get this out to recoup the massive R&D spending in the hopes of figuring out an actual Apple way of solving this in the future. And that in and of itself is not very Apple. Strange times. 

In a few years, when this becomes a sunglasses form factor, I’ll be interested as will the mass market. Until then, we are looking at a market limited to apple fans with expendable income. It should do better than the microcosm of PC centric VR toys, due to Apple’s fan base, but it won’t approach anywhere near Apple Watch levels of the market. 

Until the until Apple iSight or whatever comes out, looking forward to the advancement of Macs and Apple Silicon to stir things up. 

Yeah no, it's not unusual -- AV is already best in class in many aspects, but of course it will get better. Iterative development is how Apple rolls and it's been that way for decades. The original iPhone lacked copy & paste -- copy & paste! The original Mac had a puny black & white screen. You gotta crawl before you can walk or run. If they held off on these products until they had everything everyone wanted, they'd never get released. 

As for sunglasses form factor -- ain't happening in a few years. Be prepared to wait a long time. 

https://www.macworld.com/article/205387/apple-rolls.html

AR vs. VR/MR are just two completely different use cases IMO. All the uses of AVP are either specific to content creation (similar to a Mac or latest iPads) or fully-immersive content consumption (closer to Apple TV than iPhone). 

A sunglasses form factor will need to be solely AR and be a device for light content consumption - more like iPhone compared to a Mac. You  just can't get the same amount of processing power into the glasses factor, including proper battery life, to package the current functionality of AVP into it. A future AR glasses project will utilize much of the technology of visionOS (pinning content to real world areas with the ability to interact with it) but you can't get the same immersive content experience as you can with AVP completely blocking out external light.

I think there are reasons to always have both products around.

I've heard a lot of talk about how successful Supernatural has been on the Quest for fitness, but that's one area I don't get. Maybe it's the type of exercise that I do, but having a headset strapped to my face doesn't sound ideal.

For music, having concerts recorded in Apple's new proprietary 3D camera technology (mentioned by John Gruber https://daringfireball.net/2023/06/first_impressions_of_vision_pro_and_visionos) would be incredible.

wood1208 said:

Going forward in future if Apple's focus is AppleTV+ App and it's contents and subscribers than who cares if AppleTV box is expensive or cheaper ? Long as Apple's Chip department can create SOC for small cheaper dongle like Chrome Cast or Roku or Amazon fire streaming device that does good job with current AppleTV box interface than ALL GOOD.  Your current ApplTV box is neither good gaming console(like XBOX or PS5) or cheaper streaming device.

I have a number of AppleTVs, but this is my biggest properly with it right now. It's positioned in no-man's-land relative to the rest of the market. It's a better qualify device than most streaming sticks so it can also provide some casual gaming. But it's not a better experience than playing on iPhone, which means we don't use Apple Arcade on AppleTV at all.

I would prefer a slimmed down AppleTV "stick" that focuses solely on streaming. I love the AppleTV interface and the new remote (even though it's ridiculously expensive). Something in the $79-$99 range would be perfect.

Then, I wish Apple would really take gaming seriously and try to get good Nintendo-quality content for a higher-end gaming device. A $349 AppleTV with premium Apple Arcade games would be amazing with my Apple One subscription.

Putting the litigation issue with Oracle to the side, there's nothing preventing Google from developing a new OS from the ground up and then implementing something like what Apple did with Rosetta to allow old apps built on Java to continue to run on this new OS until they can get developers to move over to whatever new language they are using. I would assume they've been working on something like this for years now to address many of the issues DED brings up in this article. If they could do that it seems like it wouldn't take much to continue to dominate the non-Apple mobile device market. I guess the question is would something like that still fall under the scope of the intellectual property lawsuits from Oracle?