FileMakerFeller

AppleZulu said:

Appleish said:

The killer was able to transport the legally purchased gun from Hawaii to New York (where it was illegal), with the help of a law change that the NRA championed in the 60s. Today, mass shootings in schools and other public spaces are direct results of their lobbying in the decades since. The Senate found that the NRA acted as a 'foreign asset' to Russia before the 2016 election. The NRA is an anti-American terrorist group.

For the gun enthusiasts thinking about replying with some version of “It’s not the guns. If Chapman didn’t have a gun, he could’ve murdered Lennon with a knife or a car or a big stick,” just remember you’re also making a great argument for getting rid of guns altogether. If it really isn’t the guns, then everyone can fulfill their Second Amendment rights for hunting or self-defense or guarding against gubmint tyranny with a knife or a car or a big stick. There can be no infringement if it’s solely the user’s intent that defines any object equivalently as a weapon. 

Heck, we could also save billions from the Pentagon budget by getting rid of expensive guns and bullets and issuing a tactical spork to each service member. 

If you find that to be ridiculous, you’ll have to find some other reasoning that takes into account the fact that guns are among the most effective and efficient tools for killing people, and should thus be regulated with that fact always in mind. 

Or, as the great Jim Jeffries put it: "the only way to defeat a bad guy with a chainsaw is to have a good guy with a chainsaw"

So... hackers are evolving software tools that are known to work? Sounds like any other business.

Coming soon: a robotic necktie - guaranteed to never strangle the wearer by accident!

For comparison, Microsoft's HoloLens apparently sold 50k units in the first two years (https://hololens.reality.news/news/we-may-finally-know-many-hololens-devices-microsoft-sold-its-revealing-peek-future-ar-0184481/) and ~300k units from initial release (in 2016) to the end of Q4 2022 (https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/275228/microsoft-hololens-300000-units-sold). The release version was US$3000 and version 2 (released in 2019) was US$3500 - these are base model prices only; more expensive versions are available.

The US military ordered a bunch of v2 devices; it's unclear whether those are included in the sales numbers above. Reportedly several users suffer from nausea when using the devices, which has probably affected demand.

We won't know for sure until the AVP is widely available, but nausea does not appear to be a problem. I think Apple will sell as many of these things as it can make, regardless of the initial price being widely viewed as "too high" for widespread adoption.

miiwtwo said:

do you really think that vision pro is different comparing its competitors and will go to re invent the computer, i think this kind of article only try to convince to buy it and justify the price 'cause isnt novelty, is good but too expensive, in few months google and friends gonna sell the same concept for "less",

You don't appear to understand the article.

I think the HoloLens shows that there is a market for this type of device, but as usual Apple has come out with a much more refined version of the concept. They've invested more than a decade in AVP, and clearly they have devoted a lot of that effort into how it works, how it will be used and how it will improve over time. Other headsets have been rushed to market and designed to be as cheap to assemble as possible, with probably only one use case considered (gaming for Oculus, technical work for HoloLens).

I think Apple have chosen to ignore Oculus et al. and have instead opted for a device with a much broader set of capabilities. The value proposition is much higher than that of the HoloLens (which is also US$3500); I believe it is also higher than that of the cheaper headsets but it will face the objections of the price being roughly an order of magnitude higher. Those that can afford it will be very happy; those who will struggle to afford it may settle for the cheaper options and (like the fox and the grapes) try to convince themselves that what they can't have is not better enough to justify the price.

Price is what you pay, value is what you get.