Last Active
  • Editorial: Apple's next hardware play could be in game controllers

    The best game controllers for VR are your own hands. AI perception is advancing at an astonishing rate and could accurately determine where your hands are and the position of each of your fingers and thumbs. VR headsets can already determine the position of controllers relative to the headset using LED lights on the controllers and cameras in the headset. With higher resolution camera sensors and faster AI processors, they could do the same for your hands without additional hardware.
    But what would the latency be like? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that latency is a massive pain point that is often overlooked.
  • Editorial: Apple's next hardware play could be in game controllers

    Conversely, while HTC Vive, Samsung Gear VR, Facebook Oculus, Google Glass and Cardboard, and Microsoft Hololens all attempted to deliver the far-off future of VR headsets, Apple instead focused on what was really deliverable, focusing its efforts on AirPods to deliver always-there audio AR instead. This far more practical approach has turned into a multi-billion dollar business for Apple while the rest of the industry diddled way billions to deliver something nobody could use or afford, and for which there wasn't any compelling content.
    What the heck does that even mean?  Audio AR?  The entire section is literal nonsense.  The comparisons being made here are confounding.  Similar to the comparisons from the linked article comparing Samsung VR to the Apple Watch.  Drawing conclusions based on the sales of such disparate tech is...  there's no logic.  The way the tech is lumped together makes even less sense for the comparison being made. It's almost as if you don't know what each tech is or you don't care because your narrative is more important than making sense.  You've got VR tech: Vive, Gear VR, Oculus, and Cardboard.  AR tech with Glass.  Mixed Reality (MR) tech with Hololens all jumbled together as VR.  It's like you just crammed a bunch of stuff in a sentence, regardless of whether or not it belonged, just to get all of the usual suspect brand names lined up.   Instead of comparing them to VR -ya know, like for like even though the aren't alike at all- you compared them to a term -Audio AR- you pulled from thin air.  A term you used to describe a product -AirPods- that has no connection to VR, AR, or MR... creatively made up fictional terminology notwithstanding.  

    Wow. Saving this one for claim chowder.
  • Samsung launches Galaxy Fold with new materials, tweaked design

    In a clear case of user error, some reviewers attempted to remove a protective screen layer thinking it was a screen protector, causing the sensitive flexible panel below to malfunction
    My. Left. Foot.

    This was a design error, not user error. You don't make an integral part of the device look like something disposable or removable.
  • Editorial: Why iPhone drives the future of mobile silicon and Google's Pixel doesn't

    gatorguy said:

    avon b7 said:

    avon b7 said:
    Why is Pixel in the title and largely irrelevant in the text?

    Why even mention Google Pixel when they are not primarily a consumer hardware company?

    This article lost itself and is so full of holes, it sinks fast.
    Three months ago you came around to comment on my Pixel 3a article that "There is a huge potential market for them" and stated "They now have better carrier support, a cheaper (lower risk for consumers) phone and over a thousand HTC engineering workers onboard for future projects."

    Now suddenly Pixel is "not primarily a consumer hardware company"?

    And the point is that Google's claim that its custom silicon would be put to use at Google and by third parties simply didn't work out. This is why. 
    Calling the Pixel line a failure when you know perfectly well it wasn't even designed to compete in terms of sales?
    Ah yes, the "But Google didn't intend it to sell well!" fallacy (also presented as "But it was just a reference design!"). It's so painfully obvious some of you have never been in business before. Nobody, not even Google, kicks of massive product line projects in order for them to not sell well.
    Nexus models which were simply an outgrowth of Google needing thousands of reference devices for OS testing and not intended to be highly profitable market successes in their own right. 
    Again, the "But it wasn't intended to sell well!" fallacy. New products are expensive to kickoff and ramp up with the hope of selling well, recouping costs, and generating profit. No consumer goods that I know of undergo this expensive product lifecycle with the intention of failing. 

    Do you have some published interviews from Google management where they explain their intention for the Nexus to fail? Otherwise this just sounds like more of the same bullshit.
    Strange as it may seem, companies will at times invest more money in a particular activity than they can recoup from that same activity. The term "loss leader" springs to mind.

    Sacrificing short-term profits for the sake of strategic improvement is, if anything, a more rational approach to achieving goals (whether at the individual or corporate level).

    I suppose we can take issue with the phrasing used by both parties to this debate, but at the end of the day, Google embarked on this course of action as a strategic move where profitability of the endeavour was far less important than losing developer mindshare to Microsoft or Apple.

    This editorial is arguing that Apple's consumer focus is more influential on the design of silicon for phones than Google's general computing focus, and that Google trying to counter that influence with custom silicon of its own has not worked out well. Will Google's strategy of building more server capabilities become dominant at some time? Maybe. For now, I'm enjoying the spectacle.
  • New smartphone sales legislation may hurt iPhone sales in Japan

    Manufacturers, except Apple, will plan their devices' early obsolescence/discontinuance in order to get around these laws.

    Apple could also skirt these laws by discontinuing a certain configuration every 3 months. Maybe by increasing the amount of memory, for example. 

    Under the new law, which bureaucrat in Japan is going to decide when a new model is too similar to an older discontinued model to determine if the old model can be priced more cheaply?

    This is where Apple's suggestion of discounting based on the date of first unveiling makes the most sense.