M68000

williamlondon said:

DAalseth said:

StrangeDays said:

DAalseth said:

libertymatters said:

There is simply no trust for smart home devices.  No thanks.

I agree. I have no interest in relying on my phone to work door locks, outside lights, thermostats, or curtains. I just don’t see the upside.

My thermostat also can be managed via my iPad in addition to my phone. 

That’s one of those use cases that I really wonder why you would do that. I bought a programmable thermostat ~10 years ago. I programmed it when it was first installed and other than changing batteries every couple of years I have never had to do anything to it. People keep talking about how great it is to be able to adjust the temp from their phone, especially when they aren’t home. I simply don’t ever need to do that. My thermostat takes care of itself. 

Do you understand what you're saying, "because *I* can't see utility in this, it's useless." Maybe put the mirror down.

DAalseth said:

libertymatters said:

There is simply no trust for smart home devices.  No thanks.

I agree. I have no interest in relying on my phone to work door locks, outside lights, thermostats, or curtains. I just don’t see the upside.

lotones said:

9secondkox2 said:

No need to follow after something that isn’t quite working in the market. 

The killer app for headsets is entertainment - gaming and media. 

In that sense, meta even has the better product. 

Apple has the far superior hardware, software, and ecosystem. 

But all the hardware and OS polish in the world isn’t going to save a product that the market has rejected time and again - save for a niche subset of gamers. 

The quest is lighter, doesn’t require a tethered battery, and plays decent games. 

While there are some compelling engineering/medical use cases, it’s not a mass market thing. 

Most people just don’t want to be encumbered by a device for their daily needs. 

When it’s indoor/outdoor sunglasses, that may possibly change. 

But headsets just suck. 

One of the best decisions Meta ever made is saying “no” to this. Kinda like Apple used to do.  

Or... Meta realized they can't just slap together something in 6 months to compete with something that has almost 10 years of development behind it. The  only thing holding back the Vision Pro from becoming a blockbuster success is its price. When that comes down everybody will want one. Remember, the iPod was based on only one kind of media. When people start seeing their friends with one and they have a chance to try it out for themselves, Apple Vision For-The-Rest-of-Us will be huge.

tlinn said:

Six thoughts on this post and Apple's approach to their cameras:

1. As an iPhone Pro (non-Max) user, it is frustrating that Apple is going to dick around for six years before all three cameras employ 48 MP sensors.

2. It is disappointing that the rumored sensor upgrade to the main camera does not appear to be happening. Or maybe the author is just assuming that if the resolution remains at 48 MP, the sensor is the same. Hopefully, the latter.

3. The author writes "The ultra wide lens will be upgraded to 48MP". They mean the sensor. Lenses don't have megapixels. I'm not making this point to be pedantic. There are rumors that the lens itself will also be upgraded. Hopefully this remains the case. 

4. I'm really hoping that the rumored anti-flare coating on the camera lenses is still happening despite the fact that this isn't mentioned here.

5. Optical quality is a meaningless term. When the author says the main camera can take "2x optical-quality" images, what they should be saying is that the camera can be configured to crop in-phone to simulate a 2x (48mm) focal length. In other words, Apple is taking 12 MP from the center of the sensor and throwing away the rest of them. Anyone can do this from any image taken by any camera using their camera app's crop tool or post-processing software. The same thing is happening when users set the primary camera to 28mm or 35mm. This is a crop setting.

6. As a photographer, the above illustrates my main grip with phone cameras in general: On the iPhone 15 Pro Max—and presumably both of the 16 Pros—the full frame equivalent focal lengths of the three cameras are 13mm, 24mm, and 120mm. The most commonly used focal lengths for non-phone photography, between 24 and 70mm, are totally missing. The 3X telephoto lens is 77mm, close to 70mm. The 5X lens moves farther away from this range. The iPhone is great for taking selfies. It's not bad for close up work either. But for traditional photography, it is regrettably limited. (To be clear, I'm not arguing that Apple is making the wrong choices based on consumer demand.) 

anonymouse said:

M68000 said:

22july2013 said:

The only thing that would make me consider buying a ring is whether it allows my devices to track me in my own house and automatically turn lights on and off as I move through the house. Right now I'm doing that with motion sensors, but it's messy, complex and inaccurate. If Apple can improve on this with a ring, preferably including people who visit my house with their own ring, then I would consider buying it.

I typically walk around the house with my phone.  Do you?  If so, why not have the phone do that?

Because the phone doesn't have legs?