mattinoz

miiwtwo said:

correct, $1999 without EyeSight but keeping the M2, $999 for an Axx, Apple has to keep the current design and user's experience or else,

DAalseth said:

retrogusto said:

DAalseth said:

Dropping EyeSignt is more than the screen on the outside. It’s the cameras that looked at the wearers face, and all of the processing overhead to assemble and ‘undistort’ the eyes into the image on the front. This all was more cost and processing overhead that did not adde to the users experience. This is a very good first step. 

I wonder if some of those cameras might be needed for the digital avatar feature, but a lot of people would probably also be willing to give that up too if it meant a lighter and less expensive device. And some of the hardware will probably also just cost less over time, so they may not need to make too many sacrifices to produce a cheaper model. 

As others have said elsewhere, it may not make sense to go to a “less powerful chip”. Now that the M4 is out, the M2 IS the less powerful chip. 

sloaah said:

JamesCude said:

The positive spin at the end of this article is kind of embarrassing. AVP is obviously a huge flop to anyone not immersed in the Kool Aid. Though of course, Apple will be just fine with its many other successful products.

From a sales perspective it’s been pretty much bang on target with strong international demand, contrary to lots of initial negative reports. Latest IDC reports say that Q2 sales have risen by over 11% vs Q1, and should be on target for roughly 400-500k units this year. Prior to launch, supply reports said that production for year one was limited to roughly 400k units due to Sony’s production capacity limits for the displays. 

If anything it’s just a reminder of how crazily accurate Apple is at anticipating consumer response. No other manufacturer can achieve sales within a 10-20% margin of their original estimates when it’s a completely new device. 

Personally, my own view is Vision Pro sadly hasn’t received the developer attention that it needs, but I can’t see how anybody would call it a huge flop on the metrics which actually matter to Apple (sales). 

danvm said:

danox said:

danvm said:

muthuk_vanalingam said:

charlesn said:

Here's a killer product that Apple could make today, but they won't: the MacPad Pro.  Essentially, it's a 13" iPad Pro form factor that can boot into either MacOS or iPadOS, depending on user choice. M chips are perfectly capable of this. Boot into iPadOS, and it behaves like a normal iPad. Boot into MacOS and the screen becomes non-touch, so you connect a Magic Keyboard and operate it like a normal Macbook. Best of both worlds in one device and no need to figure out how to kludge a touch-based OS onto MacOS. 

I agree completely with you on this. I don't understand why few people in this forum criticize this idea as Fridge/Toaster etc. Apple hasn't shown any interest/inclination towards improving iPad OS features for almost half a decade. Begs the question - why not take the easiest approach possible with the already available software. Also, iPhones will reach the capability to run MacOS in another year or two (if not already there) at the hardware level (SoC, Memory, Storage). And all you would need is a dock to connect to a display, keyboard and other accessories. There will be more people demanding this in the upcoming years in my view.

IMO, the iPad Pro became a fridge / toaster as soon as Apple released the Magic Keyboard, same as the Surface Pro. The difference is in the execution, the iPad is better tablet and the Surface Pro is a better laptop / desktop replacement.

The biggest difference is that Apple actually makes a profit on all their iPad sales every one of them. 

It's well-known that Apple generates significant revenue from hardware sales.  But at the same time, Microsoft's makes huge profits from software and cloud services. Each company capitalizes on its strengths in these areas.

The Surface like the Xbox makes none there is nothing Microsoft can teach Apple about hardware/software design, product execution or in fact anything?

If you ask me, Apple could learn a lot from MS. For example, the gaming experience in PC's and Xbox is miles ahead compared to Mac's and Apple TV (that's the only device I think is similar to the Xbox).  Also Apple could learn from Microsoft about productivity suites, cloud services, business / enterprise applications and AI. I suppose there are more examples. We could also say that MS could learn many things from Apple.  I suppose there is no perfect company.