Marvin

jdw said:

USB-A is still ubiquitous (unlike USB-C) and Apple going to all USB-C on a new Mac Mini won't change that fact in the least.  For better or for worse, USB-A is here to stay, and I suspect it will continue to be used 10 or 15 years hence.

Keeping support for it on computers is what keeps manufacturers making the products with USB-A. This has been played out a number of times with different ports over the years and it's why VGA ports were on PCs long after they were useful.

USB-C is at a point where most products can be supported by changing cables. Logitech keeps shipping USB-A receivers with their mice and they sell an adaptor instead of a native USB-C version but their mice work fine over Bluetooth without the adaptor.

https://www.amazon.com/Logitech-USB-C-to-USB-A-Adaptor/dp/B09JL9RQN5/

All computer manufacturers should start dropping USB-A so there's not a repeat of VGA. USB-C is faster, more compact, easier to plug in (works upside down), can charge an entire laptop supporting 100W of power and more. It's better in every way than USB-A.

For the rare products that have wired USB-A cables, the adaptors like the Logitech one above can be left attached to the cable.

maury markowitz said:

lotones said:

When that comes down everybody will want one. 

I've been reading some form of this statement for 20 years now.

I really don't think people want to strap something to their face until it's the same form factor as a pair of glasses.

This is why I think a visor form factor would help, it takes away the pressure and weight from the face and straps from messing up people's hair and it would remove the need for a fitting procedure so people can buy online and use them out of the box.





It could be a version of Airpods Max like a swivel on the outside of the ear cups that allows the user to push it up on top of the head and use the Airpods for audio only.

People can use the Airpods for music as normal. If they want a relaxing environment, move the visor down and dial in an immersive environment. Similarly with a movie. Then there's no need for Eyesight because you can tilt the display up to talk to someone.

If people don't use the visor much, worst-case they paid $1600-1700 for a pair of Airpods Max instead of $550 but they'll use them regularly.

JohnDenver101 said:

9secondkox2 said:

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

I see "just wait until they are sunglasses" line mentioned all the time for the future of VisionPro. But can someone please tell me how you do immersive VR with a pair of wayfarers?

They can block light out the same as a headset, they just have a smaller form factor:



There are already small VR headsets:



and there are AR glasses:



Somewhere between the last two is a product that can do high quality AR/VR in a comfortable form factor. These have the computing separate from the product.

If the bandwidth and latency can be worked out across the connection, this can potentially bring the cost down considerably. People would connect the $1000 iPhone they already own to the headset that is now at least $1000 less. According to the estimated BOM of the Vision Pro, this would allow for a $1600-1700 product with 40% margin.

yyzguy said:

I had the original iPhone SE, replaced with gen 2 which I’m still using today and looking forward to gen 4.   I’m too frugal to use anything else but SE.   Same goes for the watch.   Whoever came up with the whole SE concept is my favorite apple employee

It's good to have a lower entry price but I find going for a higher up older model offers better value than the SE.
64GB iPhone SE = $429, 128GB iPhone 13 = $599

https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-13

For $170 more, this gives Face ID, larger and better quality display (OLED), more storage, better battery life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZReA297ZXl4

If the SE4 gets Face ID and OLED, this advantage with the older models will be negated.

They could probably just rebrand the iPhone 12/13 as iPhone SE 4, start the entry storage at 64GB and have a $499 entry price point.

mike1 said:

I wouldn't trust the color accuracy of that photo one bit. The lighting for the photo was awful too.

Usually they look different in store from leaked photos. It could easily look more like the top model in the image below, which looks fine: