macplusplus

ihatescreennames said:

AppleInsider said:

At WWDC20, Apple outlined futuristic new features coming to ARKit 4. Previous releases of the company's augmented reality platform first enabled basic 3D graphics to appear fixed in place in the video stream from an iOS 11 camera using Visual Inertial Odometry. This let a user explore a virtual object from all sides or play an interactive game fixed via AR onto a table surface. 

Aside from some cool demos and the one that allows people to explore Apple Park I have yet to see anything worthwhile come out of this. Are there a bunch of interactive ARKit games on the App Store that I’m missing? Also, what’s the point? How is playing a game that looks like it’s on my table better than playing that game regularly on my phone? I’d have to try it to find out but haven’t actually seen any games that do it.

Apple had LEGO on stage last year. The demoed some things that actually looked like fun. Has any of that caught on? I have no idea, I don’t live in a LEGO household but it seemed like a good way for a kid to have more interactive play with something that’s already interactive.

I tried that Lamborghini ARKit demo from their website a month or so ago. It was really lame. The car basically looked like poor video game graphics. When my SO walked around it appeared to attempt to use people occlusion so she would be blocking the appropriate parts of the view but it didn’t work well (lots of flashing of the overlay in her area, sometimes the car would block her so it appeared she came out of the hood instead of standing in front of the hood, that sort of thing). It was really bad and NOTHING like the demos. This was on a 2018 iPad Pro so I expected more.

AppleInsider said:

Apple launched ARKit three years ago and immediately became the world's largest AR platform, meaning that developers have a variety of opportunities for building experiences that large numbers of real-world users can experience. The company is still just getting started, and we can expect it to increasingly deploy new technologies that extend ARKit features into new directions, potentially including wearables glasses and vehicle windshields in addition to its current installed base of iOS and iPadOS handheld mobile devices.

So, we’re 3 years into ARKit. Developers have had all that time to give us “experiences that large number of real-world users can experience”, but where are they?

I fully believe Apple is working on glasses and most of these advancements are aimed at that. While true about Apple immediately have the largest AR platform I don’t think, currently, that really means anything. Has there been anyone ever that was excited enough about ARKit that it compelled them to upgrade their phone? I doubt it. However, I personally know several people who have upgraded due to camera enhancements.

elijahg said:

macplusplus said:

elijahg said:

chasm said:

Surprise! Phil wasn't kidding -- I think Apple was 100 percent in the right on the point that he made: an App Store app should not do nothing if the user doesn't already have a subscription.

What about apps are completely non-functional without specific hardware from a vendor? Plenty of those on there.

So what? Should Apple sell the hardware too via in-app purchases? 

Besides, those apps are functional. They just wait for the device to be attached to fulfill the app’s intended use.

What is different about something virtual that entitles Apple to take a cut, to something physical? Apart from the difficulty Apple would have enforcing a "tariff" if you will on physical products that utilise their store of course. Take the Nest app for example. Totally useless without hardware, Apple makes zero money from the sales of Nest products but still has to host the free app. Most of the Nest ecosystem is useless without an app too, so it's not like the app is a bonus, it's required, and yet Apple makes no money from it.

So in fact Hey was functional. It was just waiting for the device subscription to be attached activated to fulfil the app's intended use.

elijahg said:

chasm said:

Surprise! Phil wasn't kidding -- I think Apple was 100 percent in the right on the point that he made: an App Store app should not do nothing if the user doesn't already have a subscription.

What about apps are completely non-functional without specific hardware from a vendor? Plenty of those on there.

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

Planning to get one but one thing concerns me: How long will Apple support this device with future MacOS updates? I would like to use it as a Plex server after I am done using it but if Apple drops OS support after a year, that would suck.

nubus said:

macplusplus said:

nubus said:

macplusplus said:

nubus said:

1. The Mac Pro is PCIe 3.0 - which simply isn't fast enough. Even budget computers from AMD are now running PCIe 4. The Mac Pro 2019 was built using tech that was obsolete on launch. You can get a B550 motherboard with a PCIe 4.0 SSD for 50-100% better performance on storage.

PCIe-4 support depends on Intel, not on Apple. Show us any Xeon that supports PCIe-4 yet. Your point is irrelevant.

Apple could have gone PCIe 4.0 with AMD (which they use exclusively for GPUs) but decided to deliver obsolete technology. Isn't that relevant?

OK, performance and architecture differences put aside, how many Ryzens AMD could deliver matching Apple's specifications? This is a matter of quality and production scale. Even Intel can barely fulfill Apple's demands, if you melt a motherboard every couple of years the speed of your PCIe 4 won't help. Mac Pro is not a DIY home tinkerer's hobby.

Ryzen and EPYC (check the EPYC 7702P) are manufactured side-by-side Apple Silicon by TSMC. Each Mac Pro does come with a GPU made by AMD made on the same 7nm by TSMC. Quality? Scale to production? Not a problem to either Apple or AMD. Apple spent 5 years on doing nothing for the Mac Pro and then in late 2019 they went with a power heavy 14nm CPU and PCIe 3.0. It was obsolete on arrival.