Wesley_Hilliard
About
- Username
- Wesley_Hilliard
- Joined
- Visits
- 124
- Last Active
- Roles
- member, administrator, moderator, editor
- Points
- 3,861
- Badges
- 3
- Posts
- 646
Reactions
-
Next Apple Vision headset may use titanium to cut weight
1 million always seemed like a moonshot given reports that Sony could only produce enough displays for half that number. Again, Financial Times doesn't know what Apple's goals were. Supply chain data gives some hints, if it is accurate, but again, it still doesn't reveal Apple's true internal goals. It has numbers based on how many it made and shipped, the price, and the rollout globally. Only Apple knows if it met those expectations or not, and continued work on the future models and executives willing to even acknowledge the Vision Pro exists are positive signs.twolf2919 said:
Your statement that "Only Apple knows what its goals were" is not really true. There were plenty of supply-chain based projections made that indicated Apple wanted to initially make 1m units the first year (e.g. read Financial Times article https://www.ft.com/content/b6f06bde-17b0-4886-b465-b561212c96a9?ref=spyglass.org ) and had to cut that back due to both manufacturing and demand issues. They ended up making just around 400k units. Apple stating, after the fact, that they were happy with the demand and they never had mass market goals was just to save face.Wesley Hilliard said:9secondkox2 said:Difficult to see apple producing snother headset. Maybe if the did a super cheap version. But not just changing a few things.Either go all in with glasses for mass market or do the cheap tethered thing, but with great cameras and screens. Otherwise it will just be the same or maybe rvrn worse now that the early adopters are saturated with the expensive version one.
Both of your assumptions are based on the idea that Apple sees Apple Vision Pro as some kind of failure. Only Apple knows what its goals for the device were and if it met them or have been satisfied. Your personal opinions are not part of Apple's calculus here.twolf2919 said:
Agree - I can't imagine Apple doubling-down on a design they know didn't get enough sales. They need to face reality: there simply isn't much of a mass market for a device costing multiple thousands of dollars that can only really be used in private, since it's too cumbersome to use on the go - and you look like a complete tool if you do.9secondkox2 said:Difficult to see apple producing snother headset. Maybe if the did a super cheap version. But not just changing a few things.Either go all in with glasses for mass market or do the cheap tethered thing, but with great cameras and screens. Otherwise it will just be the same or maybe rvrn worse now that the early adopters are saturated with the expensive version one.
To this day I have no idea why Tim Cook let himself by led into this technological dead end called the Vision Pro. i remember him clearly stating that Apple's next big thing would be AR glasses. Somehow he got convinced by someone that these devices must be standalone products rather than an iPhone dependent one like Apple Watch and AirPods. Unfortunately, that decision meant the future devices needed to cram a lot of CPU power and battery capacity into what needed to be a very light, small device - glasses! The AVP VR headset became their first stab at it. But it seems obvious that they will never be able to shrink that down to glasses anyone is willing to wear.
Google produced useful AR glasses TWELVE years ago. If Apple hadn't gone down the wrong path, I'm sure they could have developed a sleek, much better product given all the miniaturization that's taken place win a decade.
A report from the Financial Times isn't part of Apple's calculus here. Something I've noticed is that people tend to declare something a failure simply because it is a product they aren't going to buy, or have bought and regret.There's a solid chance that Apple's internal goals were actually exceeded since this first generation model likely only exists to get a larger sample of users to help discover use cases and bugs that can't be found by a few hundred employees. The next models will make or break the product line, sales wise.
-
Next Apple Vision headset may use titanium to cut weight
9secondkox2 said:Difficult to see apple producing snother headset. Maybe if the did a super cheap version. But not just changing a few things.Either go all in with glasses for mass market or do the cheap tethered thing, but with great cameras and screens. Otherwise it will just be the same or maybe rvrn worse now that the early adopters are saturated with the expensive version one.
Both of your assumptions are based on the idea that Apple sees Apple Vision Pro as some kind of failure. Only Apple knows what its goals for the device were and if it met them or have been satisfied. Your personal opinions are not part of Apple's calculus here.twolf2919 said:
Agree - I can't imagine Apple doubling-down on a design they know didn't get enough sales. They need to face reality: there simply isn't much of a mass market for a device costing multiple thousands of dollars that can only really be used in private, since it's too cumbersome to use on the go - and you look like a complete tool if you do.9secondkox2 said:Difficult to see apple producing snother headset. Maybe if the did a super cheap version. But not just changing a few things.Either go all in with glasses for mass market or do the cheap tethered thing, but with great cameras and screens. Otherwise it will just be the same or maybe rvrn worse now that the early adopters are saturated with the expensive version one.
To this day I have no idea why Tim Cook let himself by led into this technological dead end called the Vision Pro. i remember him clearly stating that Apple's next big thing would be AR glasses. Somehow he got convinced by someone that these devices must be standalone products rather than an iPhone dependent one like Apple Watch and AirPods. Unfortunately, that decision meant the future devices needed to cram a lot of CPU power and battery capacity into what needed to be a very light, small device - glasses! The AVP VR headset became their first stab at it. But it seems obvious that they will never be able to shrink that down to glasses anyone is willing to wear.
Google produced useful AR glasses TWELVE years ago. If Apple hadn't gone down the wrong path, I'm sure they could have developed a sleek, much better product given all the miniaturization that's taken place win a decade.
-
On-device Apple Intelligence training seems to be based on controversial technology
idk if you missed it, but on-device and iCloud CSAM detection using these tools were deemed highly controversial.mattinoz said:Wait so every subsystem used to get CSAM working is controversial now?
even if it is used in a dozen other places in the system that aren’t considered controversial and adds nothing specific to the controversy?
-
China calls Trump's trade war a joke, jumps tariffs on U.S. goods to 125%
To all the people saying we don't need China, where are we supposed to get all of our rare metals from? Do you not remember all of the stuff you couldn't buy during COVID because of China's massive decrease in exports and yields? Are your memories really that short?
Ya'll are funny.
-
iPhone 17 Pro predicted to cost over $2000 because of Trump tariffs
It seems you are the one that doesn't understand how tariffs work. The tariffs enacted by the Trump administration were calculated using the trade deficit divided by the exports. That's not how you determine what China's tariffs are on US goods.slickdealer said:The most likely scenario remains that China lowers tariffs on US goods and our reciprocal tariffs automatically adjust.Why all of these articles fail to mention how reciprocal tariffs work baffles me.
China's original rate was less than 5%, but now they've got no choice but to respond to the US tariffs. The only way prices go down on imported goods is if the US lowers tariffs, not China.All tariffs are a tax on the country that imposes the tariffs. It is basic economics. The US government tried to impose tariffs in the 1930s to save the economy, but spoiler! It failed and led to the great depression.
