Angmoh

I had an "Apple Newton Original", first generation, given to us by Apple Australia complete with the full software development kit. For me the achilles heel was the software development kit. This software development environment was not only complex but also very expensive. It was so different than anything else and the learning curve was steep. Data was stored in "soups" and there was other weird stuff. It was just too big a step. At the same time, there was little training material, no reference code and very little other support (keep in mind, the internet was only available at select universities and from home through a 9600 baud dial-up-modem with document and code downloads still a concept - support went through eWorld and that was only more than a year after the Newton came out). We tried so develop some applications, but it took much more time than we had available and had to drop it because we just did not have the time to figure out how to do something useful with it. It was also way before wifi came along, because that together with TCP/UDF packets would have made the device easy to connect/transfer data with a desktop and would have been the difference between a useable device and a brick. Today, with Xcode everyone can put apps together while with the Newton you needed both a degree in computer science and a degree in philosophy at the same time.

At that time a lot of weird stuff was happening with Apple Development Tools and concept Operating Systems and the most disastrous was their collaboration with IBM on Pink and Taligent. That was such an incredible mess. If Jobs had not come back and killed all this chaos, the Apple would not have made it till 2000.

9secondkox2 said:

The screens don’t compete with daylight in a closed environment if the daylight is managed via cameras piping in an AR feed from the outer portion of the headset. 

But this makes great sense if it’s using a glasses/sunglasses form factor. 

What he was saying that the high nits are needed to prevent artefacts and blurring in normal VR and that is because the display is only on for 10% of the time. To if you have 100 frames per second, each frame is 10ms. Of the 10ms, the first 1ms the image is on at 5000 nits. The remaining 9ms the image is off. It will not go black immediately, but by the time the next frame comes, it will be fully off (it had 9ms to decay to black) and therefore there are no artefacts and blurring in the next image. The eye will see that as an image of 500 nits. If you have a brighter image (e.g. 10,000 nits), you can have only 5% duty cycle and still see this as a 500 nits image. 
This will have a positive impact on battery life: a 5000 nits display continuously on will take less than 10 times the energy of a 500 nits display continuously on. So if this factor is 2x, then a 5000 nits image displayed at 10% on duration will take on 20% of the energy of a 500 nits image displayed at 100% of the duration.

MplsP said:

Xed said:

cg27 said:

So prior to the cuts Peleton has over 10,000 employees?  If that’s the case they’re beyond bloated.  There are successful EV startups that have fewer employees than that.  This is just a dumb bike with some app and personal trainers, not exactly rocket science.

Even if the article means to say 2800 remain that’s still a ton of overhead, for what??

That's a lot of odd statements. Because there are successful EV startups with fewer employees anyone who has more than the lowest has too many? are you aware that startups have few employees than established companies? Are you aware that Peloton does more than "dumb bikes"? How many employees did Amazon and Google have when they were just an online store and just a search engine?

Agreed, but I also think they were likely overstaffed. 

10,000 employees and 4B turnover? That is a very much overstaffed. They are having $400k turnover per employee. Benchmark is $1-2M per employee. Compare with Google: 156,000 employees and $257B turnover for $1.6M per employee. Apple: 154,000 employees and $365B turnover for $2.4M per employee.

brockgs said:

I just finished exhaustively testing everything from some old 1080p monitors up to my 4k and 5k norming every day monitors, culminating in my Samsung Oddysey G9 monitor (49" UltraWide 5120x1440) and can't say I've seen the problem except when using "older" cables from a couple years ago. For example, initially when connecting my 16" M1 Max MBP to the monitors, using HDMI cables, yes, there were definitely fewer resolution options and fewer refresh rate options. When I purchased a $30 USB-C to DisplayPort cable off of Amazon, suddenly I saw and had access to every resolution my PC testing workstation saw and I was able to run that monster 49" screen at max resolution, 120Hz without a hitch. I won't claim to have an amazing database to reference for this, but I can say with 100% certainty that ensuring you are buying new, HIGH QUALITY, cables, and using either direct USB-C, Thunderbolt, or DisplayPort connections on monitors will always give you the same and often far greater options and quality. :-)

Here's a link to a little graphic I created over a Flight Sim forum a couple weeks back where I was starting to help people understand the performance of the M1 and M1 Max and monitor resolutions...etc https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/256791-chart-screen-resolution-and-fov-v1/

I have seen the same with a 2021 MBP 16" M1Pro. I had huge problems connecting to a relatively new mid-range 1080p monitor. The built-in HDMI did not work, 3 separate USB-C/Thunderbolt to HDMI converters did not work. In the end changing the HDMI cable fixed the problem.