mattinoz

9secondkox2 said:

mattinoz said:

9secondkox2 said:

Unfortunately, this article is an example of the VP problem. 

If you need miles and miles of text to evangelize the product and “explain” why all the stuff thrown at the wall is somehow collected into a killer app, then none exists. “Oh, the killer app is everything all together!” Nope. Sorry. Doesn’t work like that. 

This has been the problem even in internal testing. Apple’s own staff had concerns. Now, outside of fanboys or developer evangelists,  it’s a big question mark and rightly so. 

Downplaying customer price concerns over a non essential product is also troublesome - especially during inflation. 

The VP HAS POTENTIAL and can become something great - if Apple can figure out why they made it to begin with. 

So far, they’ve simply just built a better headset. Will it be enough to actually become a viable “platform?” We will know in two years, after the initial early adopter phase is over. 

Let's not confuse a pundit known for being overly wordy and who often misses the point even when it is historically recorded, with Apple, who do keep their cards close to their chest even internally. So staff being confused about what the end game isn't a sign that there aren't people in Apple very much with an end game in mind. 

Look around. Those who are in the space of practical training are normally rabid self-promoters, yet for a few months now, I know a couple who have been oddly quiet and would make great demos at the launch event. I think Apple have a good idea where there are markets where the price point represents a saving and an improvement on traditional methods and where there is so much value in those systems that a cheaper system would increase the roll-out of them, soaking up all the units Apple can produce.

Add to that the massive improvements in scanning of 3D environments for all sorts of technical uses, and it is easy to see the 2 coming together in interesting ways to be the "killer app" that would take it mainstream once there is the production to allow that. 

While your points are valid about the article source, it’s an unfortunate convergence where it amplifies the reality that the vision Peo really has no killer app. Even someone known for lengthy deliberations is unable to get a bead on it. 

There have been numerous products in history that have failed due to not really having a reason to be, no matter how good they were at the stuff they did. 

In this case, apple has built a better headset. Nothing less, but also nothing more. Fine for the headset crowd, passable for everyone else. 

In contrast, other products didn’t need any explanation. The Walkman, the Nintendo NES, the iPod, the iPad, the Apple Watch, though the store rollout was pretty idiotic), the Mac, the iPhone, the tv, the radio, etc. all nailed their arenas and needed no explanation. They just did what needed to be done and everyone’s lives were enhanced greatly. 

Meanwhile, the headset phase came along and was predicted to be the next big thing… but wasn’t. Who’d have thought people weren’t crazy about strapping a computer/display to their faces. Now we are telling them to not only do that, but wear a wire and brick too? Ahem…

The VP is a better headset. It’s neat. I imagine it will be fun to use for an amount of time, and does what it does well, per reports. But what it does just isn’t all that. And that’s pretty much the story. 

The iPod was a cultural phenomenon in the tradition of the Sony Walkman, but more so. The iPhone blew the doors off of anything and everything before or since. The watch is the ultimate wearable, allowing its users to take command of their time, communications, and health. Each of these things can be active or passive. They’re actively useful, yet out of the way when not needed. 

The Vision Pro, just doesn’t fit any of that. And it can’t be passive. You actually need to remove it. And to use it, you have to gear up. It’s a bit of a chore. And that’s just not good no matter how you spin it.

Once apple gets with Oakley or something and makes this a pair of shades, it’s a different story. But we aren’t anywhere near there yet.  

They really should have waited however long and done that. Then there would be no need for explanation. No need for evangelizing the product. It would sell itself. 

The key to knowing there was a problem was apple feeling the need to announce the thing a year prior to launch and then do the PR rounds. That’s not  ipod, iphone, etc. those were secrets (though the usual suspects hammered the rumor mill) until launch. Then they went on sale shortly after. 

The only commercial the iPod needed was some dancing sillhouettes and before that, a simple tagline - “1,000 song bags in your pocket.” Miss that level of focus and genius. 

The Vision Pro? Needs a year of constant evangelism, communications, and hype. Be interesting to see how this plays out

It isn't hard to distil the Vision Pro offer down to two words. 
"Experience Timeshifted"*

The killer apps will be capturing experience in a way that "digital window computing" hasn't been able to date, or at least hasn't been well serviced by similar offers. 

Apple use the word Experience 31 times on the page describing the product. It is both a highly emotive and productive word it is bound to be in the tagline somehow. 

9secondkox2 said:

Unfortunately, this article is an example of the VP problem. 

If you need miles and miles of text to evangelize the product and “explain” why all the stuff thrown at the wall is somehow collected into a killer app, then none exists. “Oh, the killer app is everything all together!” Nope. Sorry. Doesn’t work like that. 

This has been the problem even in internal testing. Apple’s own staff had concerns. Now, outside of fanboys or developer evangelists,  it’s a big question mark and rightly so. 

Downplaying customer price concerns over a non essential product is also troublesome - especially during inflation. 

The VP HAS POTENTIAL and can become something great - if Apple can figure out why they made it to begin with. 

So far, they’ve simply just built a better headset. Will it be enough to actually become a viable “platform?” We will know in two years, after the initial early adopter phase is over. 

Let's not confuse a pundit known for being overly wordy and who often misses the point even when it is historically recorded, with Apple, who do keep their cards close to their chest even internally. So staff being confused about what the end game isn't a sign that there aren't people in Apple very much with an end game in mind. 

Look around. Those who are in the space of practical training are normally rabid self-promoters, yet for a few months now, I know a couple who have been oddly quiet and would make great demos at the launch event. I think Apple have a good idea where there are markets where the price point represents a saving and an improvement on traditional methods and where there is so much value in those systems that a cheaper system would increase the roll-out of them, soaking up all the units Apple can produce.

Add to that the massive improvements in scanning of 3D environments for all sorts of technical uses, and it is easy to see the 2 coming together in interesting ways to be the "killer app" that would take it mainstream once there is the production to allow that. 

Xed said:

hydrogen said:

"Uncompromised insanely great" culture against "good enough" culture . Who wins ?

Good enough has the history of success. Look at the failure of Amiga and success of Windows.

Hasn't worked so great for the hardware makes.

mikethemartian said:

Radio Shack will probably make a 5G modem before Apple does.

nVidia are offering software modems before Apple can make one.

tenthousandthings said:

mattinoz said:

AppleInsider said:

24-inch iMac M3 review - A welcome change, for Intel Mac users

The 24-inch iMac does have a wide opening available for one market: Intel Mac owners who have yet to make the jump to Apple Silicon. Intel owners, that noise you're hearing isn't your Mac's fan, it's the sound of inevitability. Apple will discontinue Intel Mac support in macOS sooner rather than later, and we're already seeing signs of that, with Apple Silicon-only features.

Despite the headline, there is no clear evidence to back this statement suggesting Apple's support of Intel machines in OS will be less or sooner than the standard legacy policy Apple has applied to date.

Mike can speak for himself, but I don’t think he is suggesting that. Standard legacy policy means 2018 machines (including the 2018 Intel Mini) won’t be supported beyond macOS 14 Sonoma.

macOS 15 will be the last for all 2019 machines except the Mac Pro (and possibly the old iMac Pro). macOS 16 will be the last to support Intel. This is “inevitably” happening.

I would go a bit further than Mike, and say the M3 Retina 4.5K iMac is a thank you to average Retina 4K and 5K iMac users. Making the iMac the flagship for M3 sends a good message to them.

Note: I’m not talking about myself, someone who spent north of $4000 on my last Retina 5K iMac, all told. My thank you was the Mac Studio, and I hope, next year, some newfangled displays to choose from.

That means support for intel isn't going away sooner, more to the point there is nothing about the M3 iMac that shows any sign either way. The suggestion there is pure clickbait. 

If anything we may see some M1 Models go legacy in the same release as the last of the Intel models.