mattinoz

twolf2919 said:

Not sure how "knowledge of high-performance, low-latency systems" qualifies you to lead an AI effort where the problem isn't really performance but lack of "I".

9secondkox2 said:

Wesley Hilliard said:

9secondkox2 said:

Difficult to see apple producing snother headset. Maybe if the did a super cheap version. But not just changing a few things. 

Either go all in with glasses for mass market or do the cheap tethered thing, but with great cameras and screens. Otherwise it will just be the same or maybe rvrn worse now that the early adopters are saturated with the expensive version one. 

twolf2919 said:

9secondkox2 said:

Difficult to see apple producing snother headset. Maybe if the did a super cheap version. But not just changing a few things. 

Either go all in with glasses for mass market or do the cheap tethered thing, but with great cameras and screens. Otherwise it will just be the same or maybe rvrn worse now that the early adopters are saturated with the expensive version one. 

Agree - I can't imagine Apple doubling-down on a design they know didn't get enough sales.  They need to face reality: there simply isn't much of a mass market for a device costing multiple thousands of dollars that can only really be used in private, since it's too cumbersome to use on the go - and you look like a  complete tool if you do.

To this day I have no idea why Tim Cook let himself by led into this technological dead end called the Vision Pro.  i remember him clearly stating that Apple's next big thing would be AR glasses.  Somehow he got convinced by someone that these devices must be standalone products rather than an iPhone dependent one like Apple Watch and AirPods.  Unfortunately, that decision meant the future devices needed to cram a lot of CPU power and battery capacity into what needed to be a very light, small device - glasses!  The AVP VR headset became their first stab at it.  But it seems obvious that they will never be able to shrink that down to glasses anyone is willing to wear.

Google produced useful AR glasses TWELVE years ago.  If Apple hadn't gone down the wrong path, I'm sure they could have developed a sleek, much better product given all the miniaturization that's taken place win a decade.

Both of your assumptions are based on the idea that Apple sees Apple Vision Pro as some kind of failure. Only Apple knows what its goals for the device were and if it met them or have been satisfied. Your personal opinions are not part of Apple's calculus here.

Tim Cook shouting its praises well ahead of launch and pushing it as the next big thing only to be met with a teoid response. Cook was reduced to calling it an early adopter product, etc. 

apple most definitely views it the way everyone else does - a flop. Of course apple won’t publicly state that. They still have to sell the thing snd don’t want to be viewed as having made another mistake. 

I know you are personally a customer and a fan. But for most everyone else, it’s…a headset. And headsets just aren’t it. Never have been and aren’t now. Any further investment in headsets is foolish. When it’s a pair of glasses/sunglasses, that would be big. And if apple doesn’t want to innovate to that degree, they can arill do a headset, but tether it to a Mac or iPhone/ipad while reducing features in order to make the niche device priced accordingly. A 499 device would probably find its way in most apple customers’s lives. Continuing along the lines of the current VP will see it continue its downward trajectory. 

Many of us called it back when it was just a rumor. Headsets just aren’t going anywhere meaningful and crazy expensive headsets doubly so. 

A cheap headset would fare better. But glasses /shades would be the ultimate form of the Vision Pro concept. If done right, they could fit in anyone’s lifestyle and would likely be widely adopted. 

charlesn said:

swat671 said:

charlesn said:

Hope springs eternal for these changes but Apple has long been resistant. There was similar hope for iPad OS 18, especially after the debut of the all-new Pro iPad models, but that hope died at WWDC. We'll see this year. If Apple wanted to give the iPad Pros a real sales boost, make them capable of booting into either iPad OS or Mac OS at the user's discretion, which Apple Silicon can do. In iPad OS, it works as usual. In Mac OS, you lose touchscreen capability and it operates just like a Mac, requiring the use of Magic Keyboard with the built-in trackpad. Apple could do this today. No merging of 2 very different OSes required, no need to figure out how to bring touch to the Mac, no blah, blah, blah whatsoever. Boot into whichever OS makes the most sense for your needs at the moment. Macs have been able to boot into Windows for how long? 

Macs could use BootCamp only on the Intel chips, so 2006-2020. 

M-chip Macs can still run Windows using Parallel Desktop--not the same as Boot Camp, but the salient point is that M-chips can boot into either MacOS or iPadOS. 

braytonak said:

charlesn said:

[snip] If Apple wanted to give the iPad Pros a real sales boost, make them capable of booting into either iPad OS or Mac OS at the user's discretion, which Apple Silicon can do. In iPad OS, it works as usual. In Mac OS, you lose touchscreen capability and it operates just like a Mac, requiring the use of Magic Keyboard with the built-in trackpad. Apple could do this today. [snip] 

This is not, as Apple would say, elegant.

Oh, please. Multitasking in iPadOS is the definition of inelegant kluge. And what's not elegant about a tablet that can easily boot into whichever OS suits your needs best at the time? What Apple would say in protest is this: we want to keep selling you two devices, not one.